of 3 cents per pound on plumbago would increase the price of the crucible steel ingots $3 per ton or more. Since a very large proportion of this tonnage has to be remelted, and allowing for a proportional increase in profits, it will not be far out of the way to say that the finished steel would cost $6 per ton more as the result of levying such a tax. An equally large or larger burden would follow from the increase in the crucible cost of copper, brass, bronze, and other alloys now almost exclusively manufactured in plumbago crucibles. Now, as to the relative amount of the American flake graphite as used in crucibles, as compared with the amount of Ceylon graphite as used in crucibles, we would say that not more than 200 tons of American graphite could have been used in the manufacture of crucibles in the year of 1907, as compared with more than 12,000 tons of Ceylon graphite, or less than 2 per cent. It is probable that much less than this amount was actually used, at least in the United States. The above statement is based on the fact that of the 5,000,000 pounds product, only about 2,500,000 pounds are of flakes of sufficient size to be available for use in crucibles. Of this amount our own production was 1,600,000 pounds, not one of which was used in the manufacture of crucibles. Our knowledge of market conditions in this country and abroad indicate clearly to us that 200 tons is a high estimate to place upon the amount of American flake graphite used in crucibles in this country. We would state that for your further information that for a number of years we have regularly exported our flake graphite to Great Britain and the Continent, as well as to the oriental countries. Furthermore, we are informed by our agents abroad that flake graphite other than manufactured by us appear continually in competition with our products, and at prices below that of Ceylon graphite of equal purity. We have no knowledge of the production of flake graphite except in America, so that the inference is plain. It doesn't seem to us that under these circumstances such a burden should be laid upon the industries of our country as would result from a duty on Ceylon plumbago, and furthermore, it doesn't appear to us that such a duty is necessary. Yours, very truly, JOSEPH DIXON CRUCIBLE Co., HON. JOHN H. ROTHERMEL, M. C., FILES LETTER OF THE TURN- Hon. JOHN H. ROTHERMEL, M. C., 1206 PENNSYLVANIA BUILDING, Philadelphia, January 12, 1909. Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I understand that the United States Government is in need of funds and likely to be so for the next few years. Now, I am interested to a certain extent in the production of graphite or plumbago in this country, but the industry here has been languish ing for the lack of protection, and Ceylon sends its graphite dust here, which contains about 65 per cent of pure carbon, while the large flake contains about 97 to 98 per cent of pure carbon. The former sold here in this country at 14 cents per pound and the latter brings from $200 to $400 per ton. In the face of these facts, the mining of graphite in this country is an impossibility, and many of the people who have gone into it have lost their investments. There is hardly a graphite mine in the country that is working to-day for this reason. Now, if 1 or 12 cents or even as high as 2 cents per pound could be imposed upon foreign graphites, it would enable the miners in this country to get to work and at the same time be a revenue to the Government. If you can do anything with the Ways and Means Committee in this matter, and if you will kindly advise me to that effect or otherwise, I shall, if necessary, go down to Washington and see you regarding the matter. Thanking you in advance for your reply, I am, Yours, most respectfully, FREDK. TURNBULL, Turnbull Construction Company, Contracting Engineers. EDWARD OWINGS TOWNE, NEW YORK CITY, THINKS THE GRAPHITE INDUSTRY SHOULD BE PROTECTED BY DUTY. Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE, NEW YORK, November 24, 1908. Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C'. DEAR SIR: I desire to call your attention to the fact that an important infant industry in this country has no protection whatsoever in competition with the product of foreign countries where labor is 6 to 12 cents a day. The graphite industry of this country is in its infancy. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been lost in attempts to profitably mine and refine the product. Graphite is an important metal and is daily growing in importance in this country and throughout the world. There are three deposits of graphite of importance that have been developed in this country-the Ticonderoga district in New York, the Chester County district in Pennsylvania, and the northern Alabama district. There are more than 36,000 tons of graphite used in this country annually. Less than 3,000 tons are mined here. If any infant industry is to be protected, it should be the graphite industry. We would not advocate a high tariff, only enough to even up things a little. The chief producer of graphite in the world is the island of Ceylon. Labor there is to be obtained for a few cents per day. If the American mines are to be successful and to compete with the foreign mines, they should be protected by a tariff equal to the difference between the cost of labor in Ceylon and the cost of labor in the United States. The graphite men of this country only want a square deal. That there should be a heavy protective tariff upon steel and oil, that are no longer infant industries, but have whiskers and wear boots, while a real infant like the graphite industry, still in swaddling clothes and unable to stand alone, is kicked around without any protection, is deemed unjust and inequitable. Please let me know if it is necessary to appear personally before your committee to have this matter brought up and considered at the next meeting of Congress. Sincerely and faithfully, yours, EDWARD OWINGS TOWNE. SANDSTONE. [Paragraph 118.] L. L. BOONE, SAN DIEGO, CAL., WISHES DUTY REMOVED FROM SANDSTONE WHICH IS LOCATED WITHIN FIFTEEN MILES OF THE UNITED STATES. Hon. J. C. NEEDHAM, M. C., DEAR SIR: * SAN DIEGO, CAL., November 24, 1908. Washington, D. C. We have off from this harbor about 15 miles some islands which belong to the Republic of Mexico, and contain sandstone of a very good quality; at least good enough to be used by the Government in building a jetty at the entrance of this harbor. The tariff rating for this stone is 12 cents per cubic foot, in the rough. Some years ago some government contractors were building a jetty, and procured from the department a ruling that this stone was unclassified, and could be brought in at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem. However, this ruling of the department has since been reversed, and the rule is now 12 cents per cubic foot. This, of course, is prohibitory. The stone has absolutely no market value in Mexico, and not having any such value, the appraisers at this port appraised the same at 50 cents a ton, which was the cost of quarrying and transporting to this harbor for the government jetty. Upon that basis they were able to take the contract at a very low figure, comparatively speaking. The only persons who are interested on the other side of the proposition are not the public, but railroads who have their profit on transportation, which would not amount to very much. As the schedule is at present it is impossible to make any importations whatever for any purpose. The matter is only of local importance, and so far as the Government is concerned would perhaps affect only the jetty work being done here and at San Pedro. But the work could be done greatly cheaper if this stone could be admitted free of duty than otherwise. I think that nobody would be harmed by putting this stone upon the free list, and to that end I would suggest the following amendment to No. 117 of Schedule B of the tariff act of 1897 (30 Stat., 151), namely: "Provided, however, that sandstone imported from islands distant not more than 15 miles from the coast of the United States shall be admitted free of duty." I have been reading with great interest the proceedings before your committee. Mr. Carnegie's remarks are certainly a revelation. I am curious about the opinions of other manufacturers and producers of steel. If what Mr. Carnegie says is true, and doubtless it is, it is not a very difficult matter to see why these great institutions should further receive protection, at least to a much less degree than they have heretofore received. DEAR SIR: We earnestly protest against any reduction in the tariff on roofing slate. The profit in manufacturing is small, and foreign competition-more than already exists-would greatly injure the slate business. Yours, truly, J. CLARK, Manager American Sea Green Slate Company. |