« AnteriorContinuar »
PARAGRAPH 689–TAPIOCA FLOUR. whiter than either sago or tapioca, and by reason of its own merits has an unshakable hold on the laundry trade. Sago as imported can not be used for laundry purposes, and neither can most tapioca. The American cornstarch industry is not only safe but is oversold at the present time. Furthermore, the American industry as always has been shipping an enormous and increasing large quantity of cornstarch into freetrade England in open competition with sago, tapioca, and potato starch. This is BO because cornstarch has certain peculiar properties which render it absolutely necessary for certain industries. With sago and tapioca on the free list the American cornstarch industry is safe, but if they are put on the dutiable list the people and other industries of the United States will not be so safe as they are at present.
Claim. Sago flour and tapioca flour are admitted free of duty through error or misunderstanding.
Answer. No matter what misunderstanding there may have been in the past Congress must completely understand and see the facts as they now exist. Cornstarch manufacturers undoubtedly had a great deal to say in the making of the old McKinley tariff and had hoped that in its wording they had succeeded in putting sago and tapioca on the dutiable list. While we can easily understand their chagrin at their failure to accomplish the desired result, we must not overlook the interest of the country at large, which is to have sago and tapioca continued on the free list.
Claim. Sago flour and tapioca flour are not the crude forms of sago and tapioca.
Answer. We have never seen any sago flour imported which could not be classed for a crude product. Of course, it is not the crudest possible product, but is undoubtedly a crude product containing a large quantity of fiber, etc. Sago can not compete in color with any of the other starches. It would have to be purified, cleaned, and bleached. Most of the tapioca flour imported into this country is by no means as clean and white as corn flour, and as before stated, neither of these flours could possibly substitute cornstarch for laundry purposes. We trust to avoid all misunderstandings that you will keep the expressions sago, crude, tapioca, crude, out of the tariff bill, but be sure to leave sago and tapioca four both on the free list.
Claim. Sago and tapioca in all of their forms could well be dutiable without disadvantage to the consumer and with an appreciable revenue to the Government.
Answer. Undoubtedly, if you put a duty on sago and tapioca you will bring revenue to the Government, because very large quantities of these materials will have to be imported, since cornstarch can not possibly replace them. This burden of duty, therefore, will undoubtedly fall on the consumer; but, as we understand it, it is the desire of Congress not to put duties on the raw materials of industry and on food products.
The statement that the food forms of sago and tapioca are in the luxury class is ludicrous. It may be that some retail grocers get high prices for sago and tapioca, and so they do for cornstarch, which in a wholesale way sells at 14 cents while it retails very frequently for 10 cents a pound and over. If Congress wants to make a campaign and educate the consumer, all right; but this present tariff bill is no field for such an educational propaganda.
I have already commented upon the mistakes of this witness in my letter addressed to your committee. I certainly think that your committee should reduce the tariff on potato starch, which is unnecessarily high.
If you will note, this letter is dated July 13, 1909, at which time, if my recollection is correct, tapioca flour was cheaper than the prevailing trust price on cornstarch. Without doubt, in some cases textile mills could use sago and tapioca to replace cornstarch, especially if cornstarch is much more expensive; but one letter from one mill, or several letters from several “stool pigeons,” should not control the decision of your committee. The above remarks also apply to Exhibit F, page
5026. As you see, these circulars are dated 1909, when cornstarch was high and tapioca flour cheap. Naturally, the importers of tapioca flour saw their opportunity, and were attempting, wherever possible, to have their cheaper product used in the industry in place of the then more expensive cornstarch. The very circulars quoted show that by leaving sago and tapioca flour on the free list the industry of this country can be to some extent protected against extortion by the cornstarch manufacturers.
As before stated, it is an advantage to this country to have its import of raw materials increase. Furthermore, the cornstarch industry is likewise increasing with leaps and bounds, and while we have no figures available, it would be interesting to parallel the increase in the cornstarch industry with the increase of sago and tapioca imports.
Tar and pitch of wood. PARAGRAPH 691.
Tea and tea plants: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to repeal or impair the provisions of an act entitled "An act to prevent the importation of impure and unwhdlesome tea," approved March second, eighteen hundred and ninety-seven, and any act amendatory thereof.
1332 I STREET NW.,
Washington, D. C., January 20, 1919. Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. SIR: On behalf of the tea merchants of the United States, who have complained to me, I would like to call your attention to the Canadian tariff on tea. I brought this fact out in a brief which I submitted relative to paragraph 195 in Schedule C, but I thought I had better bring it to your attention again under the free list, as that is where it belongs.
“Tea imported direct from the country of origin, and tea purchased in bond in the United Kingdom, free. Tea not otherwise provided for
ad valorem 10 per cent."
Under this provision Canadian merchants have a distinct advantage over tea merchants in this country, for the reason that while they may ship tea into this country free of duty, tea shipped by our merchants into Canada must pay duty at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem.
In view of the foregoing, the propriety of incorporating into the new tariff act the provision in the Canadian tariff act as to the imposition of duty upon tea not imported directly from the country of origin is suggested.
The Government spends a very large sum of money yearly enforcing the act entitled "An act to prevent the importation of impure and unwholesome tea, approved March 2, 1897.” This act guarantees to the people of the United States pure teas and also teas of good quality, since it requires that all teas imported should be up to a certain standard of quality. In view of the fact that the Government is paying out money each year to enforce this act, it seems right that there should be a small duty imposed on all teas coming into the United States, or perhaps on all teas coming into the United States packed in packages of 5 pounds or under. If this duty was imposed on the latter it would serve two purposes, besides producing enough revenue to cover the expenses of enforcing the tea law. It would also allow the tea packers in America to compete with foreign packed teas, which are packed with very much cheaper labor.
The writer would recommend that either paragraph 668 or 691 be so amended as to allow the bringing in of tea seeds duty free. Respectfully,
GEO. T. MITCHELL. PARAGRAPH 692.
Teeth, natural, or unmanufactured. PARAGRAPH 693.
Terra alba, not made from gypsum or plaster rock. PARAGRAPH 694.
Terra japonica. PARAGRAPH 695.
Tin ore, cassiterite or black oxide of tin, and tin in bars, blocks, pigs, or grain or granulated : Provided, That there shall be imposed and paid upon cassiterite, or black oxide of tin, and upon bar, block, pig tin and grain or granulated, a duty of four cents per pound when it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the President of the United States that the mines of the United States are producing one thousand five hundred tons of cassiterite and bar, block, and pig tin per year. The President shall make known this fact bý proclamation, and thereafter said duties shall go into effect.
PARAGRAPH 695-TIN ORE.
New YORK, December 30, 1912. Mr. UNDERWOOD,
Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Referring to our letter of December 12, as regards the paragraph 695, tin ore, black oxide of tin, tin in bars, blocks, pigs, grain, or granulated, be changed 80 as to read "tin ore, black oxide of tin,
tin in bars, blocks, pigs, grain, powder, and granulated," which is on the free list. We point out to you that this tin powder is po alloy nor a mixture, like tin bronze, and this pure tin powder can not be obtained in the United States, and it is imperative to have this article for manufacturing wrapping papers for food material, as only for this powder 994 per cent pure tin can be guaranteed. If you will kindly make this amendment when this paragraph is taken up, we shall feel very much obliged to you. Thanking you in advance for giving this your prompt attention, we remain, Yours, truly,
KUPFER Bros. Co. PARAGRAPH 696.
Tobacco stems. PARAGRAPH 697.
Tonquin, tonqua, or tonka beans. PARAGRAPH 698.
Turmeric. PARAGRAPH 699.
Turpentine, Venice. PARAGRAPH 700.
Turpentine, spirits of. PARAGRAPH 701.
Turtles. PARAGRAPH 702.
Types, old, and it only to be remanufactured. PARAGRAPH 703.
Uranium, oxide and salts of. PARAGRAPH 704.
Vaccine virus. PARAGRAPH 705.
Valonia. PARAGRAPH 706.
Verdigris, or subacetate of copper. PARAGRAPH 707.
Wax, vegetable or mineral. PARAGRAPH 708.
Wafers, unleavened, or not edible. PARAGRAPH 709.
Wearing apparel, articles of personal adornment, toilet articles, and similar personal effects of persons arriving in the United States; but this exemption shall only include such articles as actually accompany and are in the use of, and as are necessary and appropriate for the wear and use of such persons, for the immediate purposes of the journey and present comfort and convenience, and shall not be held to apply to merchandise or articles intended for other persons or for sale: Provided, That in case of residents of the United States returning from abroad, all wearing apparel and other personal effects taken by them out of the United States to foreign countries shall be admitted free of duty, without regard to their value, upon their identity being established, under appropriate rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, but no more than one hundred dollars in value of articles purchased abroad by such residents of the United States shall be admitted
free of duty upon their return. See also William J. Gibson, page 6203.
PARAGRAPH 709_PERSONAL EFFECTS, ETC.
PERSONAL EFFECTS, ETC.
BRIEF OF IMPORTERS, PARAGRAPH 709, FREE LIST. The WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: We particularly desire to call your attention to an existing injustice which demands correction.
Under the present tariff act all articles imported from any foreign country into the United States are called upon to pay duty, fixed under the various sections and paragraphs of the act, excepting such articles as are particularly designated in the free list.
Paragraph 709 of the free list permits residents of the United States returning from abroad to bring in free of duty all wearing apparel and other personal effects taken out by them, without regard to value; and a decision of the Treasury Department of August 10, 1910, held that any such articles of wearing apparel or other personal effects so taken abroad, even if of foreign origin and repaired while abroad, should only be held liable for duty to the amount and value of the repairs.
In the case of all other articles of foreign origin, however, even though it be proven that they have paid full duty upon originally entering the country, if sent abroad for repairs, duty is charged upon their return upon the full original cost of the article.
In other words, an American citizen owning a Swiss watch valued at $500 might take the same abroad, have $20 worth of repairs done upon it, and on his return he would be called upon to pay duty only on $20, while had he sent the watch abroad and the same repairs were made upon it, on its return he would be charged duty
The same is true as to fine mechanism made abroad. The best microscopes, polariscopes, and other mechanisms costing from $50 to $1,000, having been imported and duty paid thereon, if any accident necessitates their being sent abroad for repairs, they become liable to duty upon the full value on their return.
This is not only a great burden to the importer, or to the owner of the mechanism, but it is most inequitable and unjust, as well as exceedingly costly to the final purchaser. Fine precision instruments, most of which are made abroad, are expensive and so delicate as to be easily put out of repair, in which case they must be sent back to the workshops where they originated, as many of them are not as yet understood by the mechanics of this country and some are manufactured by secret processes. To attempt to repair in this country would be to ruin an expensive instrument; and yet even though the instrument has been in use 10 years, if sent abroad for the slightest repair, it is subject to duty upon its full original value on its return.
În many cases we have been forced to pay duty of $50 and upwards upon mechanisms which we had had to send abroad for repairs that cost from 50 cents to $2 only.
No question of foreign labor is involved, no question of competing with home production; merely the single question of a gross injustice which under the present law and regulations is enforced against us and our customers.
We therefore pray that the following be added to paragraph 709:
"Any article of foreign manufacture which has paid duty upon its original entry and is sent abroad for repairs, shall be entitled to reentry free, if the cost of the repairs be less than 10 per centum of the original entered value of the article; and if the cost of the repairs be more than 10 per centum of the original entered value, then it shall pay duty upon the full cost of the repairs at 60 per cent, under such rules and regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe.” All of which is respectfully submitted.
EIMER & AMEND,
Importers Chemical Apparatus, New York. FRANCIS E. HAMILTON,
Counsel, 32 Broadway, New York. PERSONAL EFFECTS OF PERSONS TRAVELING ABROAD.
New York, February 5, 1913. Hon. OSCAR UNDERWOOD, Chairman Ways and Means Committee,
Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I have been watching the papers during all of your hearings on the proposed new tariff bill and have seen no mention of any help to be extended to American tourists returning from Europe.
PARAGRAPH 709–PERSONAL EFFECTS, ETC.
I and a great many others are of the opinion that the $100 exemption is a bit unfair and we feel that we should be entitled to at least $250 and possibly $300 exemption.
If you would desire that I have a petition drawn up and signed by a great many people with whom I have talked this over, I will gladly do so, if you think it will be of any avail, but if you think that you would consider this matter without a petition I would feel greatly obliged to you to take it up. If you have ever traveled in Europe and have crossed the borders of Germany, France, Austria, etc., all of which countries have a tariff, you will have noticed with what courtesy and leniency all tourists, of whatever nationality, are treated. Why should we Americans returning to our own country be looked upon as perjurers, sneak thieves, and smugglers and be treated by the customs inspectors on the dock as if we were the above named. There is no question in my mind that if the Government was more liberal in its exemption agreement and in the handling of tourists it would pay in the end.
I trust that this communication will reach your eye and not go by the route of the
New YORK, February 10, 1918. Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman Committee Ways and Means,
Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I have your favor of February 7, in answer to mine about the baggage exemption.
I notice by the leaflet you sent that you have eased up a trifle on the conditions, but seeing that the Democratic Party stands for a reduction in tariff, I think it only fair that the matter of raising the exemption from $100 to a larger sum should be
It seems to be a well-known fact in New York, or at least that is the popular idea on the subject, that the department stores have been moving heaven and earth to have the exemption tax kept at $100.
Won't you, therefore, while you are considering reductions in almost every branch of the tariff schedules, consic er this matter of raising the $100 exemption to somewhere in the neighborhood of $250 or $300? It would prove a very popular move and the amount certainly would not take away very much of Uncle Sam's revenue.
Trusting you will give the matter your consideration and thanking you for the courtesy of your reply to-day, I am, yours, respectfully,
New York, February 19, 1913. Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, M. C. Chairman Ways and Means Committee,
Washington, D. C. DEAR SIB: I desire to enter my protest against the adoption of House bill 25883 of the Sixty-second Congress, introduced by Mr. Levy, of New York, or any measure incorporating the provisions of such bill, which provides for an increase from $100 to $300 in the exemption from the payment of duty on personal effects purchased abroad by returning tourists and brought in by them as baggage. My reasons therefor are based upon my experience as United States appraiser of the district of New York and my observation extending over a period of 22 years. Some reasons are the following:
First. The measure would deprive the Government of the greater portion of the revenue now derived from passengers' baggage. At the port of New York alone there have been collected from such sources during the past four fiscal years the following
$703, 895.00 June 30, 1910.
1, 448, 344. 48 June 30, 1911.
2, 305, 562. 20 June 30, 1912.
2, 382, 965. 77 Total for four years...
6, 840, 767. 45 Returns for the year June 30, 1910, illustrate the efficiency of the administration of Collector Loeb in enforcing the baggage laws of 1897 and 1909, which were identical.