« AnteriorContinuar »
tained, and by applying to them the proposed rates of duty the estimated amounts of probable duties were reached. These estimates by groups have been already stated in connection with the comments in this report concerning such groups.
The committee also had an estimate made for each of the groups of manufactures of wool by an agent of the Treasury Department through a study and comparison of the imports and duties of 1896 with those of preceding and subsequent years under high protective duties, according to the method already explained in connection with the estimate similarly made of imports (and duties therefrom) of unmanufactured wools. In this additional estimate concerning manufactures of wool it was sought to secure some indication, as far as could be done through such statistical comparisons, of approximation to the probable maximum revenue rate, for each of the groups of the manufactures in question. In this additional estimate the total probable revenue from the manufactures of wool amounted to less than the total of the estimate above mentioned reached through calculations based on domestic consumption and imports, but within a reasonable range of variation from the figures of this estimate. The rates indicated from the computations as the probable maximum revenue rates are in most cases above the rates provided for in the bill H. R. 11019.
The estimated imports and duties are for a 12-month period under the rates provided for, and this period is considered to mean the calendar year 1912, as the act is to take effect on January 1, 1912. The total of the estimated revenue under the whole schedule, $40,556,000, falls below the revenue from the schedule in the fiscal year 1910 by not more than $1,350,000; and it is considered not unlikely that the bill H. R. 11019, if enacted into law, would produce revenue in 1912 equal to that derived from Schedule K in the fiscal
THE BEST BILL FOR COMPETITION IN WOOL MANUFACTURES.
In the actual imports and duties under the schedule in the fiscal year 1910, the average ad valorem equivalent of the duties collected on manufactures of wool was 90.10 per cent. Under the bill H. R. 11019 the average ad valorem rate on manufactures of wool, on the imports and duties as estimated for 1912, would be 42.55 per cent. The average ad valorem equivalent of the duties on all raw wool was 44.31 per cent in 1910 (47.60 per cent for class 1, and 46.54 per cent for class 2 wools, the classes which compete with domestic wools). The bill H. R. 11019 provides an ad valorem rate of only 20 per cent on all raw wool. With this duty on the raw wools, the material for the manufacturers (amounting to about 10 per cent on the manufactured product), the margin between the tax on the raw wool and the average ad valorem rate on the manufactured goods, as estimated, is about 32.55 per cent. Under the Wilson Act of 1894 the average ad valorem rate in 1896 was 47.84 per cent, with no tax on the raw wool, so that the margin in the rate on the manufactured goods was 47.84 per cent. In the Springer bill of 1892, the rate on the manufactured goods was, for the most part, 40 to 45 per cent. Likewise in the Mills bill of 1888, the rate on manufactured goods was, for the most part, 40 to 45 per cent, with the margin for the manufacturers the same. It is evident, therefore, that the bill H. R. 11019 provides a much lower margin, and hence a much more competitive rate for manufactures of wool than has been passed by the House of Representatives or enacted in any other Democratic measure since the tariff acts of 1846 and 1857.
THE FORM AND PHRASEOLOGY OF THE BILL.
The phraseology of the bill H. R. 11019 conforms throughout to that of the act of 1909. In framing the bill, the purpose of the committee has been to make no change in the language used in enumerating and describing the articles included under the provisions of the bill, except such as is necessarily involved in the omission of the provisions for the classification of raw wools, admixture of blood, the varying rates on washed, scoured, sorted, or skirted wools, etc., and the omission of subclassifications of most of the groups of manufactured articles according to value, weight, or dimension. The use of ad valorem duties exclusively throughout the bill makes unnecessary all the intricate and complex qualifications, differentiations, and discriminations of Schedule K of the act of 1909. The ad valorem duty adjusts itself automatically to all these distinctions. · As the bill H. R. 11019 is a special tariff bill, dealing with only one schedule, the form and scope of the bill conform to the arrangement of similar bills in the past, particularly to that of the Springer bill of 1892, except that the articles provided for are explicitly enumerated and described, instead of being referred to merely by the number of the paragraph of the present act in which they are included.
The enacting clause of the bill conforms exactly to that of the tariff act of August 5, 1909, of which the bill is practically an amendment, in order to avoid any possible conflict or ambiguity with regard to the insular possessions of the United States. The warehouse provision (sec. 2) also conforms exactly to the corresponding provision in the act of 1909 (sec. 29), except that the provision for levying duties based on weight at the time of the entry of the merchandise is omitted, since the bill H. R. 11019 provides for no duties based on weight. Under this warehouse provision, as in the present act, articles in warehouse when the bill H. R. 11019 takes effect, on which duties have not been paid, shall be subjected to duty when withdrawn, as if they had been imported after the taking effect of the act; but articles in warehouse on which duties have been paid and a permit of delivery issued, shall be subject to the duties imposed prior to the enactment of the new bill.
OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman. LINCOLN Dixon.
CORDELL HULL. DORSEY W. SHACKLEFORD.
W. S. HAMMOND. CLAUDE KITCHIN.
ANDREW J. PETERS. OLLIE M. JAMES.
A. MITCHELL PALMER. HENRY T. RAINEY.