more advanced, probably, are the methods of extraction of the marble, which enjoy the benefit, economically important as a reducing factor of cost, of a wider application of machinery. The use of labor-saving mechanism is one reason why the American quarries can be operated at a profit with less cost for the marble excavated than in the case of the foreign marble, thus securing to American marble a natural protection. It is also a fact that the use of steam and electric driven machinery for cutting and working marble supersedes in the Vermont quarries, where most of the blocks are secured by channeling entirely with power tools, the extensive use of hand drills, and free employ of explosives in getting out the material, still obtaining at Carrara, and which are the causes of greater waste and higher cost of excavation.

Domestic marble is not only of much cheaper primary cost than the imported, but entirely of a different grade. It has not the hardness, transparency, and whiteness required for high-grade statuary, and is also less resistant to atmospheric influences and less easily workable than the Carrara marble. It costs only about one-half the price of foreign marble, which it replaces in cheaper lines of work.

The primary cost of the most ordinary grade of Vermont or Tennessee marble at the quarry is 50 to 60 cents per cubic foot, while the most ordinary grade of Italian marble costs to excavate at the quarry $1.15 per cubic foot.

The expense of hauling the marble from the quarry to New York is about the same in the case of domestic as in that of imported marble, viz, around 70 cents per cubic foot.

It will be seen, therefore, that the most ordinary grade of foreign marble can not be laid down in New York for less than $1.85 per cubic foot, actual cost, not including profit, against $1.20 to $1.30 actual cost for domestic marble.

Irrespective of duty, domestic marble enjoys a natural protection of 55 to 65 cents per cubic foot in the lesser cost. The natural protection appears in a greater measure when comparisons are made between higher grades both of domestic and foreign marble.

Under such conditions the present duty on imported marble in block appears excessive, as it corresponds in the case of the most ordinary kind to a fiscal protection of 50 to 55 per cent, a protection entirely superfluous, as domestic marble already enjoys a natural protection in the lesser cost of about 45 to 55 per cent.

The excessive rate of duty charged on this raw material is all the more apparent in the case of marble of very high grade, such as the colored varieties, which are not produced in this country, save a few exceptions, and which are besides under the disadvantage of limitations in their use arising from the difficulty of matching the veins in order to obtain the desired artistic effect, essential to their usefulness. The increased cost, caused by the present high duty, and the difficulties inherent to their utilization, explain why they are not used to a greater extent than they would certainly be if a lower rate of duty were assessed on marble in block. At present, for every ten blocks of white marble imported, there is only one of the colored.

By maintaining such high duty on foreign marble in block, which is a raw material necessary to American labor and not in competition with the domestic product, its use is not encouraged, and this works to the detriment of a very remunerative line of American labor.

Out of $687,953 that the Government derived in the fiscal year 1907 from the duties on marble, $459,939 were contributed by marble in block, which represents about 67 per cent of the total revenue. Dutiable marble was imported for home consumption during the same fiscal year to the amount of $1,540,721, in which marble in block figured at $1,083,188. Of the total importation of marble for the same year, Italy contributed to the amount of $1,240,650, thus showing only a slight increase over the importation in 1903 of $1,220,086. The quantity imported has been stationary, while the use of marble has certainly increased with the wide application that this material has received in the new buildings constructed of late years, which shows that the duty on block marble is too discriminative and does not permit the imported article to profit by the increase of consumption.

Hence, this chamber recommends that the duty on marble in block be reduced to the rate of 35 cents per cubic foot, as it was before the present tariff came into operation.

MOSAIC CUBES OF MARBLE.

Under paragraph 114 of the present tariff mosaic cubes not exceeding 2 cubic inches in size, if loose, are dutiable at 1 cent per pound and 20 per cent ad valorem.

These rates represent an increase over primary cost of 110 to 120 per cent, for which there is no necessity, as no such article is produced in the United States, and no protection is therefore needed. Vermont marble can not be used in flooring, being too soft. This article can not be produced expressly, because it would come too expensive owing to labor. Even in Italy it is obtained only as a byproduct in the grinding of the slabs, and with no other labor than the cutting. The present rates of 1 per cent per pound, equal to $22 per ton, plus 20 per cent ad valorem, equal to $6 per ton, total $28, are for a product of such nature exorbitant.

Owing to the increase of mosaic work in modern building and the unsuitableness of domestic marble for flooring, if the duty on such article was less exorbitant its importation, which amounted in the fiscal year 1907 to 3,644,597 pounds, valued at $49,405, and yielding a revenue of but $46,326, would be so encouraged as to become, by reason of the increased amount, a far better source of revenue than at the present prohibitive rates. This chamber, therefore, recommends, for reasons of both equity and revenue, that the duty of 1 cent per pound on mosaic marble cubes be removed, and only the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem maintained.

MARBLE WASTE (GRANITO OR TERRAZZO).

Marble waste, technically called "granito or terrazzo," by a decision rendered by the United States circuit court for the southern district of Cincinnati, under date of August 21, 1908, in the United States v. Graser-Rothe, was made dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem under the provision in section 6 for "all articles manufactured, in whole or part, not provided for in the tariff act of 1897."

This article is not produced in the United States, and therefore does not enter competition with any domestic product. It consists of the

75941-H. Doc. 1505, 60-2-vol 2-16

waste from marble quarries, crushed in a machine and sifted or sorted into various sizes, which does not, however, change its aspect and its nature of waste or by-product, or increase materially its value. It used to be on the free list, where it is the opinion of this chamber that it should again be placed. It is only worth at its origin $20 per ton, and affords the means of livelihood to the many poor peasants who gather it. The importation into this country ought to be facilitated in order to encourage on a wider scale its use in flooring, and thus benefit American labor.

The duty levied on this article has been the cause of much controversy between importers and collectors of customs. Under the reasonable assumption that it would be free of duty, or rated at most at 10 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 463 as a waste product, it was imported, only to find that duty was assessed at the rate of 20 per cent

ad valorem.

A firm in Cincinnati, who later imported the same article, was assessed duty at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem, but upon protest to the Board of General Appraisers that it should be classified under paragraph 614 as "minerals, crude, or not advanced in value or condition by refining or grinding, or by other process of manufacture," the protest was sustained by a decision of said board, rendered in July, 1907, making the entry of such article free. A month later the Treasury Department appealed for a review of the decision of the Board of General Appraisers, and upon the case being tried in the United States circuit court in Cincinnati, and not vigorously defended by the importers, a decision was rendered on August 21, 1908, in favor of the Government, making said article dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem, under the provision of section 6 of the present tariff law, for "all articles manufactured in whole or in part, not provided for in the act."

Said decision, in considering this a manufactured article, and not a waste product, as it actually is, because the crushing by machine does not change its aspect or character, or add to its value, places a construction upon the law which is further than the intention of the legislator. As there are indications that further controversy will take place regarding the classification of this article, and as the uncertainty in the assessment of duty on it acts as a deterrent to importation, this chamber recommends that this article be placed on the free list, where it was before the present tariff. Respectfully submitted.

C. MARIANI, Vice-President,

For the Italian Chamber of Commerce in New York.

HON. CHARLES N. FOWLER, M. C., SUBMITS STATEMENT RELATIVE TO RETAINING THE PRESENT DUTY ON MARBLE.

WASHINGTON, D. C., December 21, 1908.

Hon. HENRY S. BOUTELL, M. C.,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR Mr. BOUTELL: Although there was a public hearing given on marble, I want to make two or three points as a large producer and manufacturer of this commodity.

I have been engaged in this business for several years, and was insistent upon an increase of the duty on blocks, while the importers were demanding a decrease. The result was a compromise upon the present duties.

It is practically a question between Italian labor blasting marble from the sides of the mountain and trimming down blocks by hand on the one hand, and cutting marble out of our quarries with expensive machinery, operated at the cost of coal and high-class labor, on the other.

All imported marble, generally speaking, is a luxury; and an examination of the importations proves this conclusively, as per exhibit attached.

The importation of Istrian, Hauteville, Botticino, and other fancy stones by misinterpretation of the statute is to-day admitted at 12 rents per cubic foot, but come into direct competition with us in all interior work; therefore the rate should be raised to 65 cents on all these stones.

The effect of lowering the rate will be to increase importation without increasing the revenue, and to that extent will be an injury to labor and capital. Since all imported marble is a luxury, this should not be done.

Very truly, yours,

CHARLES N. FOWLER.

EXHIBIT A.

The total value of marble and manufactures of marble and the duty collected thereon since 1880 are as follows:

Marble imported into this country is chiefly in blocks. Most of the balance is manufactures. For the year ending June 30, 1908, 69 per cent in value was blocks and 22 per cent manufactures.

In the tariff existing prior to 1883 the rate of duty on some grades of marble blocks was $1 per cubic foot and 25 per cent ad valorem additional, and on other grades 50 cents per cubic foot and 25 per cent ad valorem additional, and on manufactures 50 per cent ad valorem.

The act of March 3, 1883, fixed the rate at 65 cents per cubic foot on all kinds of blocks and left the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem on manufactures. The act of October 1, 1890, made no change. The act of August 27, 1894, reduced the rate on blocks to 50 cents per cubic foot and on manufactures to 45 per cent ad valorem. The act of

July 24, 1897, restored the rate of 65 cents per cubic foot and 50 per cent ad valorem on manufactures.

From the above table it appears that the importation of marble was increasing up to the year ending June 30, 1883; and then, under the new act materially reducing the rate, importations fell off and continued falling until 1886. Nor was it until 1890 that they were again as large as in 1883. The importations for the year ending June 30, 1893, were the largest that had ever been, and then under the general depression in business that year they fell off the next year 37 per cent. In 1895 and 1896, under a reduced tariff, they increased slightly, but not to equal 1893. The figures for 1897 were not available when this table was made.

There was some falling off in 1898 under the act of 1897 which restored the rates existing prior to 1894, but from 1898 to 1907 it increased from $600,000 to about $1,500,000. Then, under the business depression beginning November, 1907, although it only affected a part of the year, the importation fell off from $1,540.722 to $1,195,471.

From the foregoing it is apparent that variations in general conditions of prosperity chiefly affect the amount of marble imported rather than changes in the rate.

After the duty was lowered in 1883 marble never again produced as much revenue until 1891. Again, when the rate was lowered in 1894, marble did not again produce as much revenue until in 1899, when the marble rates had been restored.

The amount of marble imported has kept pace with the increased use of marble generally, and the figures show that the duty has not restricted trade. On the other hand, they demonstrate that the revenue from the duty on marble will not be increased materially, if at all, by reducing the rate. The result of that would only be to injure American producers.

THE WESTERN MARBLE COMPANY, SEATTLE, WASH., PROTESTS AGAINST REDUCTION OF DUTY ON MARBLE.

SEATTLE, WASH., December 24, 1908.

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

House of Representatives.

We have had sent to us a copy of a memorial dated November 23, 1908, signed by the principal marble interests of the country, against the removal or reduction of the duty on marbles.

We desire to add our name to this list and to express the opinion that the reduction or removal of the duty would be very disastrous, if not ruinous, to the marble business of this coast.

There are in Alaska extensive and valuable deposits of white, variegated, and colored marbles, from which the markets of the Pacific coast should be supplied.

Development work on some of these properties has only recently been begun on a systematic and extensive scale. If there is an infant industry in the country needing protection, surely this is one, and if the producers and manufacturers of New England and the South are handicapped in their competition with Italian marble by higher wages and greater natural difficulties, the producers of Alaska marbles are at a much greater disadvantage because