Imágenes de páginas


the cost of production. We are compelled to pay about two-thirds more wages than our competitors in Europe; and we can not therefore fairly compete with them if they are allowed to send their goods to the United States free of duty.

We know of no tariff provision in any paragraph which permits free import to church furniture, fixtures, or equipment other than such as may be classified as works of art and the exceptions growing out of the peculiar wording of the paragraph No. 649. In this paragraph "church furniture and fixtures" are expressly excepted from free import as "regalia,” showing the intent of Congress to levy a uniform duty on articles of church use, the same as any other form of article imported in this country.

The articles, which we ask the committee to except from the free list, chalices, ciboria, and ostensoria, are not works of art, but are the products of art industry. This industry has developed to such an extent in this country that we are in a position to compete with European manufacturers in quality and artistic execution; but in recent years the importation of this class of goods has cut down to a minimum the production of chalices, ciboria, and ostensoria. Machinery can not be used in the manufacture of these goods, and consequently we are not in a position to make them in better time than our European competitor. The class of labor necessary for the making of chalices, etc., costs us two-thirds more than in Europe, as stated above, and hence our inability to compete with European prices.

Another argument against the free admission of metal church goods is that it breeds class discrimination. "If a dealer orders a chalice on his own account, that chalice is subject to a 45 per cent duty; but if he orders that same chalice for a church, under affidavit that it will be borne in hand 28 an insignia of office, he can import it free of duty. This is a direct case of cl ss discrimination. If there is a duty imposed by Congress, that duty should be collected regardless of the person ordering the article. The churches get their entire support from the people of this country, and mostly from the laboring class, and it is only just that the churches, in turn, should help American industry and in that way help the American workman, so that the latter can continue to contribute to the support of his church.

Many foreign houses advertise free import” on each page of their catalogue and spread these catalogues throughout the country. Many of the foreign houses have agencies in this country. Many of these agencies do business from an office, and carry little or no stock in trade, and take their orders from catalogues, which orders are executed abroad. The work of these agencies, along with the work imported by importing houses having a permanent residence in this country, is best evidenced by the figures of the customs authorities.

It is not our intention to have the committee redraft the entire paragraph No. 649, but simply to petition it to strike from this paragraph the words or borne in hand,”' and the manufacturers of this country will be placed on an even footing with their foreign competitors, the industry in this country will be developed to its fullest extent, and the manufacturer will be able to pay wages in accordance with the high class of skill necessary for the production of this class of goods. Respectfully, yours,





House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Sirs: The undersigned respectfully urge upon your committee and Congress that the provision for the free entry of regalia specially imported in good faith for the use and by order of churches, public institutions, and societies of a religious or educational npture as it now appears in paragraph 661 of the tariff act of 1909, be retained without change.

Respectfully, yours,
J. Card. Gibbons; Henry Moeller, archbishop of Cincinnati; James J.

Keane, archbishop of Dubuque, Iowa; Benjamin J. Keiley, bishop of
Savannah, Ga.; James J. Davis, Davenport, Iowa; Camillos P. Maes,
bishop of Covington, Ky.; Edward P. Allen, bishop of Mobile, Ala.
James J. Hartley; James Schwebach, bishop of La Crosse, Wis.; E. D.
Kelly, auxiliary bishop of Detroit, Mich.; H. J. Alerding, bishop of
Fort Wayne, Ind.; Chas. I. Colton, bishop of Buffalo, N. Y.; Henry
P. Northrop, bishop of Charleston, S. C.: John Janssen, Belleville, Ill.;
Leo Haid, '0. S. B., Lishup vi North Carlina; Chas. E. McDonnell,


bishop of Brooklyn, N. Y.; John J. O'Connor, bishop of Newark, N. J., Regis Canevin, bishop of Pittsburgh, Pa.; E. A. Garvey, bishop of Altoona, Pa.; P. J. Donahue, bishop of Wheeling, W. Va.; D. J. O'Connell, bishop of Richmond, Va.; John J. Monaghan, bishop of Wilmington, Del.; John E. Fitzmaurice, bishop of Erie, Pa.; Thomas S. Byrne; Nashville, Tenn.


Rennets, raw or prepared. PARAGRAPH 663.

Saffron and safflower, and extract of, and saffron cake. PARAGRAPH 664.

Sago, crude, and sago flour. See John A. T. Hull, page 6009; Leo Stein, page 6035; National Gum & Mica Co.,

P. 6043.


Salicin. PARAGRAPH 666.

Salep, or salop. PARAGRAPH 667.

Sausages, bologna. PARAGRAPH 668.

Seeds: Anise, canary, caraway, cardamom, cauliflower, coriander, cotton, cummin, fennel, fenugreek, hemp, hoarhound, mangel-wurzel, mustard, rape, Saint John's bread or bean, sugar beet, sorghum or sugar cane for seed; bulbs and bulbous roots, not edible and not otherwise provided for in this section; all flower and grass seeds; evergreen seedlings; all the foregoing not specially provided for in this section.



ROCHESTER, N. Y., February 12, 1913. Hon. Oscar W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman the Ways and Means Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. SIR: We desire to request that the committee may report in favor of having this article remain upon the free list.

In addition to mustard flour there is prepared from the mustard seed an article that is known as prepared mustard, the consumption of which in this country is enormous. It is the most popular sauce or condiment that is used and is used almost exclusively by the poorer people--people of moderate means and by the working man.

Prepared mustard is a preparation of mustard seeds and vinegar with spices. To give you an idea of the enormous consumption of this article we would say that in the city of Rochester alone there is produced and shipped from 12,000 to 18,000 barrels of this article every year. In the city of Rochester alone, a city of 210,000, it takes from four to five carloads of empty tumblers to supply the demand for a 5-cent package of this tumbler mustard.

A package containing 8 ounces is sold in this city for 5 ceits, and a package containing 11 ounces of the highest grade it is possible to make is sold in various portions of the country for 10 cents.

The sales in the city of Rochester are cited because we know what they are and we also know that the sales in other cities of the United States are proportionate. There is hardly a city that has not its prepared-mustard mills and soine of them a number of concerns manufacturing this article.

The competition is very keen. We are selling to-day prepared mustard at 10 cents per gallon. Of course the higher grades made from higher-grade seeds are sold for higher prices. Competition being exceedingly keen, the goods are sold exceedingly close. The very largest possible package is being given for a nickel or for 10 cents, and a duty upon the seed would increase just in proportion to the amount of duty the cost of the prepared mustard to the manufacturer and would make necessary an increase in the gallon price to the consumer and a decrease in the size of the package



that is at present sold for a nickel and a decrease in the size of the 10-cent package and would be felt keenly by the great mass of the people who are using prepared mustard because, you must know, prepared mustard is used to make the coarser foods more savory and palatable. In many instances the poorest class of people spread it on their black bread or their rye bread, sometimes with a piece of meat-often without.

Under the regulations of the pure-food laws the goods that are sold are healthful and are a part of the daily food of the very great majority of the American people, and it would seem to me that it is very far from the intention of the committee to increase the cost of such staples to the poorer consumer.

In addition to the above we have built up an export business with the Dominion of Canada; one city alone buying from five to seven carloads of these goods per annum, and we are shipping these goods from this point. A duty upon mustard seed would ruin this business.

There have been inquiries made from the finer trade in England for the best American prepared mustards and there is a possibility of a growing export business on account of the excellence of American manufacture, the standard of purity, and the quality; and a duty upon mustard seed would prevent the business, not only of shipping into England and into Canada, but of taking advantage of the business that the South American trade is now opening to the American manufacturer.

Of course the manufacture of mustard is one of the small spokes in the great wheel of national manufactures but it is an important one, as it is in the multiplicity of the minor manufactures that a country or city is made strong rather than by concentration of all of its help and its interests upon one single line of manufacture whereby an accident of trade or the advances of the competition might create a serious injury to the business and to those interested in it as earners.

We believe that the smaller manufacturer has your interest and we are only one of a very great many, and we appeal to you for free crude material in the process of our manufacture.

We are perfectly willing to meet any competition on the manufactured product. Canada offers a large and growing market; it would be impossible to take advantage of rebates of duty into Canada, under their “dumping" clause, and the business could be ruined.

We hope this will meet your favorable consideration; and, in addition, we want to call your attention particularly to the fact that the woman who goes out and buys a little 5-cent tumbler of mustard containing 8 ounces which lasts her for two or three days is not going to be content wich one that will cost her a higher price, because as the cost of the material increases that is contained in the package so also must the cost of the container decrease in proportion in order to produce the same pro rata cost of the finished article, which is, in this instance, the mustard in its container ready to be handed to the consumer.

There are retail grocers in this city that sell from 5 to 10 dozen of these tumblers containing 8 ounces, every week to their small trade.

We write this to give you an idea of the enormous consumption and the enormous number of people that this little interest affects. We sincerely hope that our letter may have sufficient interest for you to read it and to accept it as a faithful presentation of the facts as the writer sees them, and that it may have not only your favorable consideration, but that, as in the last bill that was proposed a year ago, mustard seed may remain as it has, upon the free list. Very truly, yours,

GEO. J. FRENCH, President. PARAGRAPH 669.

Sheep dip.
Shotgun barrels, in single tubes, forged, rough bored.



SPRINGFIELD, Mass., February 15, 1913. Hon. Oscar W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman Ways and Means Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. My Dear Sir: Having been informed that it is proposed to take shotgun barrels from the free list and levy a duty thereon of 25 cents per pair of tubes, I desire to earnestly protest against this proposition for several reasons.


First. Shotgun barrels are not made in this country and they can not be bought, and all the small gun manufacturers are obliged to buy all their barrels abroad and this duty would really work a great hardship to all the double-barrel gun manufacturers, such as the Hunter Arms Co., Fulton, N. Y.; Ithaca Gun Co., Ithaca, N. Y.; Baker Gun & Forging Co., Batavia, N. Y.; Lefever Arms Co., Syracuse, N. Y.; the Crescent Fire Arms Co., and the Hopkins & Allen Arms Co., of Norwich, Conn.; A. H. Fox Gun Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; N. R. Davis & Sons, Assonet, Mass., etc. All the above manufacture double-barrel guns, which is a real sportsman's gun. Winchester Arms Co. and Remington Arms Co. manufacture mostly rifles, and automatic shotguns, single barrels, which are called “game destroyers;" these latter two manufacturers would not be affected by the duties, as their barrels, being single barrels and heavy, are made by themselves.

My second reason is a selfish one, if looking out for one's business interests can be so called. The proposed duty would in a short time prohibit the importation of shotgun barrels, for the reason that the manufacturers would install machinery to make their own barrels in this country rather then submit to a duty of 25 cents per pair, and if the idea of your committee is to get some revenue from the gun barrels imported into this country in levying this duty it will work only long enough to give time for the manufacturers here to install machinery to make their own barrels, for the price of a pair of plain steel barrels which are used most altogether here runs from 95 cents to 79 cents per pair, and you can readily see that the proposed duty would add greatly to the cost of the barrels. So in levying such a high rate of duty on these barrels for revenue only the very fact that the duty is excessiye will in a short time defeat the object of the duty, for I repeat it is prohibitive, and all it will do will be to stop all importations of gun barrels into this country, and do no good to anyone, but instead it will ruin my business and increase the cost of manufacturing double-barrel guns in this country.

I sincerely hope you will look into this side of the question and give it due consideration before incorporating in the new tariff law the proposed 25 cents duty per pair of tubes, and after you have considered it well, if you still believe that the shotgun barrels ought to pay a duty, compromise by putting on one somewhat more reasonable, say, about 10 cents per pair, this I believe would bring in more revenue than the higher rate, as it would last longer; that is, the manufacturers in this country would not be so liable to install machinery so soon to make their own barrels, but even with the 10 cents per pair duty, in time it will stop all importations of barrels, and the Government will not derive any revenue from them.

Trusting that you will present this question to your committee and look into it from every point of view, and that you will see your way clear to leave the barrels on the free list, but if this is asking too much, you will at least reduce the proposed duty to about 10 cents per pair, and thereby postpone for a longer time the entire stopping of importation of barrels, I am, Yours, respectfully,

J. G. Riga.



Shrimps and other shellfish. PARAGRAPH 672.

Sulk, raw, in skeins reeled from the cocoon, or rereeled, but not wound,

doubled, twisted, or advanced in manufacture in any way. PARAGRAPH 673.

Silk cocoons and silk waste.


Silkworm eggs. PARAGRAPH 675.

Skeletons and other preparations of anatomy. PARAGRAPE 676.

Skins of all kinds, raw (except sheepskins with the wool on), and hides not specially provided for in this section.



Soda, nitrate of, or cubic nitrate.



Boston, Mass., January 31, 1913. Hon. Oscar W. UNDERWOOD,

Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: On behalf of the Merrimac Chemical Co. I beg to submit herewith the following brief:


Under the act of 1909 nitrate of soda is entered free of duty. The same is true of all previous tariff acts in the history of this country. It is of the utmost importance that it should remain upon the free list.

Nitrate of soda is not only indispensable to the chemical manufacturers who use it as a basic raw material for many products, particularly in the manufacture of nitric acid, which is itself on the free list, but it is also consumed in large quantities by several other industries. It is one of the three chief sources of nitrogenous fertilizers used so extensively for agricultural purposes. It is also one of the chief elements entering into the manufacture of dynamite.

All the nitrate of soda consumed in this country is imported from Chile, where it is known as Chile saltpeter. Its importance will be seen from the amount imported. The Government statistics for the year ending June 30, 1912, show that there were imported into this country 481,786 tons, at a total valuation of $15,420,904.

To place a duty on this basic material would simply raise the price to the American consumer of the many finished products of which it is an essential ingredient. Respectfully submitted.

S. W. WILDER, President.


[ocr errors]

Boston, Mass., January 31, 1915. Hon. Oscar W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman Ways and Means Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: On behalf of the Cochrane Chemical Co. I beg to submit herewith the following brief:

Nitrate of soda.-Under the act of 1909 nitrate of soda is entered free of duty, and if our data is correct nitrate soda has always been on the free list, where it properly belongs.

Nitrate of soda is not only indispensable to the chemical manufacturers, who use it as a basis of raw material for manufactured products especially nitric acid, which is itself on the free list—but it is also consumed in large quantities by other manufacturers, chiefly the fertilizer and powder industries.

There is not a pound of nitrate soda produced in this country so far as we know, the entire consumption coming from Chile, where it is known as Chile saltpeter, and by a tax levied upon its production is the chief support of the Chilean Government. Its importance will be seen from the amount imported. The Government statistics for the year ending June 30, 1912, show that there were imported into this country 481,786 tons, at a total valuation of $15,420,904.

To place a duty on this basic material would mean the raising in price of many of the important chemicals entering into the manufacture of our cotton, wool, iron, and steel industries, etc., and consequently advanced prices on the finished products,

The farmers especially would suffer, as it is they who indirectly, but ultimately, are the largest consumers of nitrate soda, therefore we again urge you that we most earnestly believe that any change in the present laws regarding nitrate soda would work a very serious injury to the interest of this country. Yours, very truly,


« AnteriorContinuar »