« AnteriorContinuar »
consistency, which renders it unpleasant to the taste. When, however, a certain proportion of peanut oil is used in combination with cottonseed oil thé butterine loses this pasty quality and melts on the tongue, just as butter would. Its use therefore enhances the quality of butterine, increases its consumption, and consequently the consumption of cottonseed oil. Respectfully,
LAMONT, Corliss & Co., By B. A. LEVETT, Attorney.
BRIEF SUBMITTED BY CHARLES A. STERNE, CHICAGO, ILL.
CHICAGO, ILL., January 8, 1913. TARIFF COMMITTEE,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: Your published schedule contemplates assessing a duty on peanut oil of 10 cents a gallon and on sesame oil of 1} cents per pound.
The principal use of this imported article at the present time is as one of the main ingredients in the production of oleomargarine.
Our press throughout the country have had a great deal to say concerning the high cost of living, and this added duty would put another tax upon the consumer, particularly as he present production of pure butter is not sufficient to meet the requirements that are here at home in the United States.
As for the product itself, we are very reliably informed by one of the principal manufacturers of peanut oil in the world that a great many experiments have been made with peanuts raised in this country and sent to Germany for refining, but in each and every case they have been unable to produce a satisfactory oil on account of the character of the peanuts, showing rather conclusively that up to this time they are either without the proper soil or the proper seed for the raising of nuts to make a satisfactory oil for this purpose.
In other parts of the world this same sort of a condition seems to prevail, for the nuts secured in a district known as Rufisque in Senegambia are the only nuts produced at present which provide an oil of sufficient high quality to meet the requirements of the Oleomargarine manufacturer of this country to-day.
On sesame oil it is a well-known fact that the production of seed in this country for such a purpose is virtually nil, and we must therefore depend upon the foreigners for the production of this oil.
In conclusion, it seems only fair to the general public, without respect to the wishes of a few manufacturers, that these oils be allowed to continue in the future as they are at present, on the free list.
This plea is based particularly upon the fact that these oils are an edible product, and in the universal effort to reduce the high cost of living it would seem unbecoming to add a tax to these materials under the circumstances, as the working people of the country must ultimately pay the bill.
Your earnest deliberation and consideration is especially requested before framing your conclusion. Respectfully submitted.
CHARLES A. STERNE.
RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE MEMPHIS MERCHANTS' EXCHANGE AT A MEETING HELD JANUARY 16, 1913.
MEMPHIS MERCHANTS' EXCHANGE,
Memphis, Tenn., January 16, 1913. Whereas the American Cotton Oil Co., in a circular of date New York, December 28,
1912, has made several pertinent and important suggestions and recommendations regarding revision of the tariff by the United States Government as affecting the
interests of cottonseed oil and allied industries; and Whereas the members of the Memphis Merchants’ Exchange approve and indorse those suggestions and recommendations; be it
Resolved, That the members of the Memphis Merchants' Exchange in special meeting assembled most earnestly request the House Ways and Means Committee, who are now conducting hearings on Schedules A to K, inclusive, to adopt the suggestions and recommendations by the said American Cotton Oil Co.; and be it further
Resolved, That the Representatives from Tennessee be requested to support these suggestions and recommendations; and, further, that the secretary of this exchange
be instructed to send a copy of the American Cotton Oil Co.'s printed circular to Chairman Oscar W. Underwood, of the House Ways and Means Committee, and to the Hon. Kenneth D. McKellar and other Representatives from this State. Attest:
N. V. GRAVES, Secretary.
BRIEFS ON SOAP MATERIALS.
(The Hygienic Products Co., manufacturers of refined soaps, toilet and hygienic preparations.)
CANTON, OHIO, December 27, 1912. Hon. J.J. WHITAKER, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: The inclosed letter is only one of many that we have received recently calling our attention to that part of the Underwood bill which provides for an import duty on the oils mentioned, and we are prompted to write you calling your attention to the fact that the raw materials from which these oils are made are not grown in this country and can not be grown in the United States territory.
We are interested very largely in the duty proposed on coconut oil, as we specialize largely in the manufacture of coconut-oil soaps, and do not want to see any duty placed on an article of this character, which can not be obtained in this country. The question of a duty on coconut oil has been brought up at various times during the past 20 years, even during President McKinley's time. This question was aroused and he interested himself to the extent of calling at the office of this company, to ascertain the facts, and when advised that coconut oil could not be produced in this country he immediately stated that there would be no duty on coconut oil.
Copra, the dried coconut, from which coconut oil is pressed, is not mentioned in the Underwood bill. During the last tariff legislation an effort was made to place a one-fourth cent duty on coconut oil, but not a word was said about a duty on copra.
Many were of the opinion that the influence that was attempted upon the committees to place this duty emanated from one of our largest corporations who have been in the limelight very much during the past two years. We refer to the Standard Oil Co. It was apparent to those interested that they were endeavoring to demand a duty on the oil, and then admit the copra free and press the oil in this country. Coconut oil is used in almost every high-grade soap made in the United States, and there is not an item entering the household as important as the matter of soap. It is not one of the luxuries, but one of the necessities." Why the American people should be compelled to pay more for such an absolute necessity as soap, resulting from a duty on raw materials not produced in this country, is absolutely inconsistent with the sentiment abroad as to reduction in tariff duty. If duties are to be placed upon imports, attention should certainly be directed to those items that are in direct competition with goods produced in this country. This proposed duty is positively an absurdity. It will benefit nobody, and we are very much of the opinion that there must be some selfish motive back of this question of dutv on goods that it is not possible to produce in this country.
We hope when this question comes up for consideration you will bear this particular point in mind. All of the oils mentioned in this letter are being used very largely in various manufacturing lines in the United States, and why they should be subject to a duty is entirely beyond the writer's understanding of the principles of the Democratic Party. Yours, very truly,
Tue HYGIENIC PRODUCTS Co., By C. H. SCHILABACH, Secretary.
DUTY ON VARIOUS SOAP MATERIALS.
NEW YORK, December 26, 1912. Dear Sirs: Knowing that you are one of the leading soap manufacturers and large consumers of various vegetable oils and fats as soap stuff, we beg to call your special attention that the Underwood bill, on which hearing is going to be given on January 6 at Washington, D. C., by Ways and Means Committee presiding, provides an import duty running from one-fourth of a cent to one-half of a cent per pound on such raw materials as soya-bean oil, coconut oil, palm oil, palm-kernel oil, etc.
Such assessment of duty on raw materials is undoubtedly unreasonable, as it will place the consumers in a very disadvantageous position in buying these materials in the future.
We recommend strongly to write or wire to the Representative of your district to oppose such assessment of duty and to leave them "free" as they are now, and by so doing it will protect your interest in buying of these materials, and further to insure the welfare of soap industries in this country.
On page 18 of the Oil, Paint, and Drug Reporter, issued on December 23, 1912, the. details are given about proposed change of duty on these commodities. Yours, very truly,
Mitsui & Co. (LTD.).
DUTY ON VARIOUS SOAP MATERIALS.
New York, December 27, 1912. DEAR SIRs: With reference to our circular letter of the 26th instant regarding the above subject, we believe that you are quite familiar with coconut oil, palm oil, palm-kernel oil, etc., as they have been imported into this country for many years.
However, when it comes to soya-bean oil, this material being quite a new article, we are afraid that you may not be well posted, and in this connection we herewith beg to attach a little information on this oil, which we hope will be of some value to you. We are, dear sirs, Yours, very truly,
Mitsui & Co. (Ltd.).
Soya-bean oil is crushed from soya bean, which is a product of north Manchuria, China.
This oil was used by soap manufacturers in extensive quantities about three years ago, when cottonseed oil, tallow, grease, and other soap materials were very high.
We heard that experimental plantations were made in this country with soya bean in the past, but the result was not successful.
There even might be a small quantity of soya bean raised in this country, but such quantity is used for cattle feeding, fertilizer, etc., and is not enough for crushing use to obtain oil; therefore the only way to obtain soya-bean oil is to import from foreign countries.
The production of soya bean in north Manchuria averages around 1,000,000 tons, of 2,240 pounds, per year. About 40 per cent of this quantity is now exported to Japan, where it is used for soy making, or feeding purpose, as well as for crushing use to make soya-bean oil. About 20 per cent is consumed by China itself; about another 20 per cent is crushed in northern China, thereby obtaining oil and cake; about 5 per cent will be kept by farmers for sowing use for next season. The balance of about 15 per cent is for export to European crushers. In Europe soya bean is used for crushing purpose to obtain soya-bean oil and soya oil cake.
Soya bean has only been introduced to European crushers since 1909. Therefore it is still quite a new product to them.
There is no industry in this country for crushing soya bean; therefore the soya-bean oil used by soap manufacturers has to be imported, as above stated, from foreign countries.
Below are the statistics of imports into this country:
P. S.--Under present tariff there is a duty of 45 cents per bushel on soya bean, which is a prohibitive rate. If there is a small number of farmers who are raising soya beans in this country, they are well protected under the above prohibitive duty on soya beans.
BRIEF SUBMITTED BY ANTOINE CHIRIS CO., NEW YORK
CITY, REGARDING ESSENTIAL OILS.
NEW YORK, January 4, 1919. The WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: We beg leave to direct your attention to the radical changes proposed in paragraph 51 of the chemical bill (H. R. 20182), relating to distilled and essential oils and products, 24 of which are transferred from the free list to dutiable provision.
In beginning, it is important that your honorable committee fully appreciate that all of these products are foreign to this country, and not one is capable of growth or production here in commercial quantities, and that all of them are distinctly raw products, and no one of them is suitable for use in the condition in which it is imported. All of these products are used in the manufacture of soaps, medicinal products, disinfectants, deodorizers, perfumes, tooth paste, and dental preparations, and all of which are household necessities having their therapeutic value, and the change in provision from free to dutiable list will so increase the cost of production to the American manufacturer he will be forced to increase the price of his finished product to the consumer in order to afford him a fair and reasonable return for his investment.
The blanket provision for all combinations of distilled and essential oils mentioned in the last part of paragraph 51 might, and probably will, in our judgment, deieat the object of the law, as they are all commercially capable of combination in such proportions as would adnit of immediate use in making any of the above-mentioned prod. ucts and would thereby be subject to a lesser duty than should be paid if imported separately because of the inability of the appraiser to determine the exact proportion of the oils entering into and making up the value of the combined article." As an illustration, oil jasmin, which costs $14 per pound, origanum white, which costs $1 per pound, and oil rosemary, which costs 65 cents per pound, could be combined and shipped to this country and billed as mixed oils for soap perfume, and it would be impossible for the Government to determine the dutiable value without the honest assistance of the importer. Under such a condition a reputable importer is at a great disadvantage.
The materials to which we refer have been specifically provided for as free in all tariffs since that of 1883, and, as stated, being raw products impossible of production in this country, we strongly urge that they should continue to be free.
The materials to which we refer and the countries of production are as follows: Oil bergamot, Italy; oil citronella, Java and Ceylon; oil almonds, France and England; oil caraway, Holland; oil jasmin, France; oil origanum, white and red, France; oil chamomile, Germany; oil cedrat, Sicily; oil neroly, France; oil aspic, France; oil valerian, France and Germany; oil limes, Sicily and West Indies; oil
thyme, France; oil cassia, China; oil lemon, Sicily; oil anise, China; oil lavendar, France; oil rose, France and Bulgaria; oil rosemary, France; oil juniper berries, Germany and Austria; musk, China; civet, Abyssinia; enflurage grease, Grasse, France. We have the honor to be, yours, respectfully,
ANTOINE CHIRIS Co.,
BRIEF OF SPENCER KELLOGG & SONS, BUFFALO, N. Y.
SPENCER KELLOGG & Sons,
Buffalo, N. Y., January 29, 1913. Oscar W. UNDERWOOD,
Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: We respectfully request that the following communication be made a part of the hearings by your committee of the proposed changes in the free list and Schedules A and G.
During the past two years we have been investigating the crushing in the United States of various oil seeds, nuts, and beans grown in foreign countries, with the idea of competing with Europe and the United Kingdom, each of which is now extensively engaged in this branch of manufacture and is exporting the oil to this country in great quantities.
In our investigations we have discovered that, although none of the raw materials, with the exception of peanuts, is grown in the United States, there is under the
present tariff law either a sufficiently heavy duty imposed upon these raw materials and a proportionately low duty on the resultant oil, as to render economic manufacture in the United States a practical impossibility, due to the necessity of importing a dutiable raw material and manufacturing a duty-free product in competition with Europe where the raw material is imported duty free. Or there is no duty on either raw material or oil, which makes it impossible to compete with Europe owing to their cheap freight rates on raw materials, their cheap labor, and their ready market for the by-products (oil cake), almost none of which can be marketed in this country. This condition results in American consumers being forced to buy foreign oils through importers and brokers on foreign terms, paying higher prices than necessary and having little recourse in the case of inferior quality.
We believe that the oils enumerated below can be manufactured in this country with the same success that they are now manufactured in foreign countries, and that the result will be the starting in the United States of industries hitherto untried, with the further result of better and cheaper oil to the consumer.
Let us repeat that none of these oil seeds or nuts is grown in this country, with the exception of peanuts, which article is treated separately in the detailed explanation below. Therefore there can be no injustice done the American farmer by lowering the duty on the materials enumerated below and allowing their crushing in this country.
Some of the materials, the crushing of which we have investigated, are not specifically provided for in the tariff act, thus bringing them under the n. 8. p. f, clause for oil seeds, or 25 cents per bushel of 56 pounds.
As this branch of manufacture has been neglected in this country up to this time, we feel that this chemical schedule of the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act has become obsolete, and that it should be changed in order to allow manufacturers to build up new oil industries in this country similar to those abroad. There has been during the last 10 years a tremendous growth in the oil-seed crushing industry in Marseille, Rotterdam, and the other centers of Europe, most of which growth has been occasioned by the increased demand for oil in the United States. It is our hope that, if the schedule is changed, the United States may be enabled to retain this large business and thereby improve the condition of both the manufacturer and the consumer.
We have given this matter much study, and we respectfully submit to your committee the request that the following be the rates of duty on the following materials. We have given in this schedule a detailed description of each seed, its resultant oil, with the present and suggested duty; a record of the imports into the United States from September 1, 1911, to September 1, 1912, of each oil and, following this data, a condensed paragraph giving materials and the suggested duties:
Shea nuts, present duty, n.s.p.f. (suggested duty, free); shea-nut oil, present duty, D. 8. p. f.(suggested duty, 2 cents per pound): This nut is a native of India and is not grown in the United States. It is inedible. The oil when refined is used for edible purposes and when raw for soap-making purposes. This oil was classed under “All other oils" in the import record.
Soya beans, present duty, n. s. p. f. (suggested duty, free); soya-bean oil, present duty, free (suggested duty, 2 cents per pound): A native of Manchuria. Inedible. Not grown in the United States. Oil used for paint purposes and for soap making. Imports during 1912, 26,230,061 pounds.
Mowra seeds, present duty, n.s.p.f. (suggested duty, free); mowra oil, present duty, D. 8.p.f.(suggested duty, 2 cents per pound): This seed is a native of India. Inedible. Not grown in the United States. "Resembles the peanut. Oil used for soap and, when refined, for edible sats. No imports during 1912.
Niger seeds, present duty, n. s.p. f. (suggested duty, free); niger oil, present duty, 25 cents (suggested duty, 2 cents per pound): Native of India. Not grown in the United States. Inedible. Oil used for soap and, when refined, for edible purposes. Classed under “All other oils” in imports.
Sesame seeds, present duty, 25 cents per bushel (suggested duty, free); sesame oil, present duty, free (suggested duty, 2 cents per pound): Native of India. Now grown in the United States. Oil used for soap and edible purposes. Imports during 1912 classed under "All other oils.”
Palm kernels, present duty, free (suggested duty, free); palm-kernel oil, present duty, free (suggested duty, 2 cents per pound): Native of Africa and South America. Not grown in the United States. Inedible. Oil used for soap and, when refined, used for edible purposes. Oil imports during 1912, 29,232,889 pounds.
Peanuts, present duty, shelled, 1 cent per pound (suggested duty, free); ground nuts, present duty, unshelled, one-half cent per pound (suggested duty, free); peanut oil, present duty, free (suggested duty, 2 cents per pound): Native of Africa.