Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

PARAGRAPH 709–PERSONAL EFFECTS, ETC.

The greater portion of this sum was collected on personal offects of less than $300 value per passenger. Should the amount admitted free of duty be increased from $100 to $300, the revenues derived from the duty on personal effects would be almost entirely wiped out.

Second. The Levy bill provides for an additional exemption of $250 in value for the personal effects of American residents who have been “sojourning abroad for a period of nine months or more.” This would cause a still further reduction of the revenues and would constitute a discrimination between passengers who are able to remain abroad only two or three months and those who are able to remain abroad for longer periods. This provision does not apply to those who have resided abroad for so long as to be treated as “foreign residents," but applies to those who travel about from place to place. The former are amply provided for under the existing law and the latter are amply able to bear their share of the assessed duties.

Third. The measure places the very wealthy upon a par with the poorest travelers. It is virtually a discrimination against the poor in favor of the rich. It is a greater, in fact a most outrageous discrimination against those who remain at home because they are not able to travel abroad. It is "class legislation" in its most offensive form,

Fourth. From an administrative point of view, it opens the door to frauds more extensive than any that have ever been practiced by tourists. It has always been difficult to appraise the personal effects of passengers for a number of reasons.

A. There are few facilities on any dock in the country for the examination and appraisal of passengers' baggage.

B. Passengers are not required to produce certified invoices of their purchases and, consequently, there is difficulty in fixing values. Generally the inspectors and examiners take the verbal representations of the passengers as to the prices paid.

C. There are not now enough examiners on the docks to properly appraise baggage. If the measure in question should pass, the force must be quadrupled, if the examination is to be effective.

D. In general it may be said that with the utmost diligence and integrity on the part of the customs officers, the hurry and confusion on the docks preclude the possibility of correct appraisement.

Fifth. The measure in question is a discrimination against honest importers who have paid their duties upon imported merchandise.

Sixth. It is discrimination against the retail merchant who has purchased goods upon which duty has been paid.

Seventh. It opens the way for dishonest merchants and their confederates to make large importations, and, through fraudulent misrepresentations, evade the payment of duty.

I say nothing of the domestic producers, who are also interested in the matter, but base my objections to the measure in question solely upon the fact that it is unjust to regular importers, retail dealers, and will deprive the Government. It is class legislation.

I may add that my experience of five years as United States appraiser, district of New York, leads me to believe that it would be more just to all concerned, and that the laws would be more honestly enforced, if the exemption of any portion of the personal effects of residents returning from abroad should be entirely abolished. Very truly, yours,

W. F. WAKEMAN, Former United States Appraiser, District of New York.

PHILADELPHIA, January 16, 1913. Hon, OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee,

United States Congress, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SIR: My official position on the staff of Wills Eye Hospital has brought me in contact with certain problems of the tariff question which I think ought to be considered in the preparation of a new tariff bill.

Some of the information I wish to convey has been obtained through discussion with various members of the Medical Club of Philadelphia, of which I happen to be president at this time.

I do not know whether this is the proper method of submitting such testimony, or whether I should appear before the committee. It is not possible at present for me to do this, but I might be able to arrange to do so at a later date, providing the matter is still in consideration at that time.

PARAGRAPH 709_PERSONAL EFFECTS, ETC. With appreciation of any courtesy you may extend In this matter, and hoping that you may give the “Suggested modifications,' which I inclose, the consideration which they deserve, I beg to remain, Very truly, yours,

S. LEWIS ZIEGLER, Executive Medical Officer Wills Hospital.

SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES TARIFF REGULATIONS.

[Inclosure.)

1. The present allowance of $100 per capita for travelers is too small, as anyone making a summer tour in Europe will surely spend more than this amount in necessary purchases, not all of which are required for the journey. At least $200 should be allowed to each individual.

2. This allowance should be made to cover all purchases and not those alone which are for the purpose of the journey. In other words, the "bale of hay” decision should be revived.

3. As the head of a family is required to pay for all the members of his family there should be no discrimination made as to the purchases made by each individual. In other words, if there are five members of the family the sum total for the five members should be allowed as a lump sum rather than as so much for each individual.

4. Physicians should have the privilege of bringing in free of duty for their own use all instruments, apparatus, and medical books under the classification of "Tools of trade."

5. If, however, a duty is assessed on instruments and apparatus 25 per cent would yield a sufficient protective revenue, as 45 per cent is unnecessarily high.

6. When instruments are imported and a whole or a part of the invoice is not according to specifications, or if when the package is opened it is found that the instruments are dull or broken and this is testified to under oath, it should be possible to claim a refund of duty, or else an equivalent invoice sent by the manufacturer in exchange should be admitted free of duty.

7. Instruments sent or carried abroad by the physician should be registered and and readmitted free on presentation of certificate and the proper checking of list.

8. If instruments are sent or carried abroad for repairs the same procedure in registration should be observed and duty charged only on the repairs. 9. Models or samples forwarded by mail to physicians should be admitted free.

10. Hospitals should have the same privilege as institutions of learning of having their books, instruments, and apparatus admitted free of duty.

JACOB FRIEDENBERG, NEW YORK, N. Y., IN RE IMMIGRANTS'

EFFECTS.

In view of the contemplated change of tariff, it might be well to call attention to the hardships and cruelties caused by the law and regulations regarding the effects and baggage of immigrants in general, and the Italian immigrants especially. There is scarcely any of them who does not recall his troubles when entering this country. Much of the difficulty in making regulations has arisen because due consideration has not been given to the different conditions surrounding immigrants, tourists (American and foreign), professional men, and commercial travelers.

Take paragraph 250, relating to household effects and articles used by him in his home. The law requires that these articles must be used at least one year abroad by the person coming to this country or by his immediate family.

Now, when leaving one's native country, forced to separate from parents and the nearest and dearest relatives, one is apt to be in rather difficult circumstances, and many of the valuable or useful articles of household furniture can not be brought because they have not been used one year.

The immigrant comes to this country to establish a home. Should he not be allowed to establish it as well as his means may afford? Would it be a great sacrifice on the part of the United States to cut the limitation "at least one year" and allow all used furniture and household articles of the immigrant to be imported free of duty?

Take paragraph No. 709, relating to personal effects of persons arriving in the United States. The law limits such articles to wearing apparel, toilet articles of personal adornment, when coming with the immigrant or so closely before or after him that they may be construed as actually accompanying him. Of course the immigrant arrives

a

a

a

PARAGRAPH 709–PERSONAL EFFECTS, ETC. with some clothing on his back and a few of the above articles. Why should he not be allowed to bring other personal effects? Why should he be obliged to pay duty on a few edible articles that a kind or indulgent friend or parent may have given him, so as to enable him to live while en route to this country, or perhaps for a few weeks after he shall have arrived here? Is it not an outrage that duty should be taken from the immigrant as soon as he arrives, carrying a few of the articles necessary for his very existence for the first month in this country, when he needs his few dollars more than at any other time of his life?

Because of the difficulty in determining in many cases which are personal effects and which are household effects, would it not seem sensible to combine these two paragraphs into one and let the immigrant bring with him his used personal and household effects with the privilege of bringing in a few new articles coming to this country? Of course the new articles should be limited in value and quantity so as to avoid the abuse of this privilege. Surely no one would deny the right of an immigrant to have one or two suits of new clothing. No American citizen wishes to see people come to this country in tattered or torn rags. It certainly would be humane to let him bring in enough to support himself until he shall have gained a foothold in the country, and why should he not be allowed to bring in his effects within a reasonable time before or after his arrival, according to circumstances?

Again, take paragraph 645, relative to tools of trade, occupation, and employment. The law requires such tools to be in the actual possession of the immigrant. How absurd a proposition to require them to be in the berth with the passenger. A carpenter or a mason traveling to the nearest town would ship his tools by freight, and yet a person traveling from an inland town, across the ocean, and perhaps many miles in the United States, must actually encumber himself with heavy luggage, when the very safety of his person and of his family, who might be coming with him, require him to be as free and as untrammeled as possible. Should not these used tools of trade and other necessary implements of occupation be included in the same category as personal and household 'effects?

As the law now exists an immigrant must pay duty on a few household effects which are really worth bringing to this country or he must perjure himself to get them in free, because he must take an oath that household effects were used by him for one year abroad. He is not allowed to bring in any clothing that is necessary and suitable for the climate of the country into which he is going because they did not accompany him. He is not allowed to bring in his tools of trade, necessary means for his subsistence, except by the most unusual and troublesome means.

As a matter of fact, the article above summed up practically means the following: That household effects should not be limited to those used abroad for one year, that personal effects should include everything but merchandise of the person immigrating to this country, and that a reasonable amount of new articles may be included in the baggage.

A reasonable time should be allowed to bring in personal effects, so that the immigrant may at least have time to locate and establish a home. Tools of trade should be included as personal effects.

JACOB FRIEDENBERG. PARAGRAPH 710.

Whalebone, unmanufactured. PARAGRAPH 711.

Witherite. PARAGRAPH 712.

Wood: Logs and round unmanufactured timber, including pulp woods, firewood, handle bolts, shingle bolts, gun blocks for gunstocks rough hewn or sawed or planed on one side, hop poles, ship timber and ship planking; all

the foregoing not specially provided for in this section. PARAGRAPH 713.

Woods: Cedar, lignum-vitæ, lancewood, ebony, box, granadilla, mahogany, rosewood, satinwood, and all forms of cabinet woods, in the log, rough, or hewn only, and red cedar (Juniperus Virginiana) timber, hewn, sided, squared, or round; sticks of partridge, hair wood, pimento, orange, myrtle, bamboo, rattan, reeds unmanufactured, india malacca joints, and other woods not specially provided for in this section, in the rough, or not further

PARAGRAPH 713_REEDS FOR WHIPS. advanced than cut into lengths suitable for sticks for umbrellas, parasols,

sunshades, whips, fishing rods, or walking canes. For reeds see F. M. Cleveland, page 5841.

REEDS FOR WHIPS.

The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Section 713 of the free list of the tariff act of 1909 reads in the second clause as follows: “Sticks of partridge, hair wood, pimento, orange, myrtle, bamboo, rattan, reeds unmanufactured, India malacca joints, and other woods not specially provided for in this section, in the rough, or not further advanced than cut into lengths suitable for sticks for umbrellas, parasols, sunshades, whips, fishing rods, or walking canes.”

We respectfully request that this clause be amended by the omission of the words "reeds unmanufactured.” Reeds are manufactured from rattan, and the present wording of the tariff makes a conflict between the free list and section 212 of Schedule D, under which reeds are subject to duty. The customs authorities have construed that reeds of sizes suitable for the manufacture of whips from one-quarter inch in diameter and larger should be allowed free entry under this clause in the free list. Such reeds can not be unmanufactured, as they are made only by the process of splitting rattan, and they ought not to come in free of duty, as should rattan itself.

We request that rattan be left on the free list. It does not grow in the United States, and is allowed free entry into other countries, and particularly into Germany, which imports more than twice as much rattan as is shipped to all other parts of the world combined. Yours, respectfully,

HEYWOOD Bros. & WAKEFIELD Co., By FRD. M. CLEAVELAND.

PARAGRAPH 714.

Works of art, drawings, engravings, photographic pictures, and philosophical and scientific apparatus brought by professional artists, lecturers, or scientists arriving from abroad for use by them temporarily for exhibition and in illustration, promotion, and encouragement of art, science, or industry in the United States, and not for sale, shall be admitted free of duty, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe; but bonds shall be given for the payment to the United States of such duties as may be imposed by law upon any and all such articles as shall not be exported within six months after such importation: Provided, That the Secretary of the Treasury may, in his discretion, extend such period for a further term of six months

in cases where applications therefor shall be made. PARAGRAPH 715.

Works of art, collections in illustration of the progress of the arts, sciences, or manufactures, photographs, works in terra cotta, parian, pottery, or porcelain, antiquities and artistic copies thereof in metal or other material, imported in good faith for exhibition at a fixed place by any State or by any society or institution established for the encouragement of the arts, science, or education, or for a municipal corporation, and all like articles imported in good faith by any society or association, or for a municipal corporation for the purpose of erecting a public monument, and not intended for sale, nor for any other purpose than herein expressed; but bonds shall be given under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, for the payment of lawful duties which may accrue should any of the articles aforesaid be sold, transferred, or used contrary to this provision, and such articles shall be subject, at any time, to examination and inspection by the proper officers of the customs: Provided, That the privileges of this and the preceding section shall not be allowed to associations or corporations engaged

in or connected with business of a private or commercial character. PARAGRAPH 716.

Works of art, productions of American artists residing temporarily abroad, or other works of art, including pictorial paintings on glass, imported expressly for presentation to a national institution, or to any State or municipal corporation or incorporated religious society, college, or other public institution,

PARAGRAPH 716-PAINTINGS ON GLASS. except stained or painted window glass or stained or painted-glass windows, and except any article, in whole or in part, molded, cast, or mechanically wrought from metal within twenty years prior to importation; but such exemption shall be subject to such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe.

PAINTINGS ON GLASS.

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY FREDERICK E. MAYER.

PHILADELPHIA, February 4, 1913. Mr. Oscar W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman Ways and Means Committee,

Washington, D.O. Dear SIR: I noted with pleasure last Saturday morning your interest in the testimony of Mr. T. M. Lane, who presented the case of Messrs. Mayer & Co. and Messrs. Benzinger Bros., importers of ecclesiastical supplies. Mr. Lane's plea in behalf of the free entry of sculpture intended for church use is closely related to another subject, to which I wish to call your attention, viz: Mr. Lane's' testimony on January 9 in which he advocated a change in paragraph No. 716, so as to permit the free entry of stained-glass windows intended for church use.

I first learned of Mr. Lane's testimony on Friday afternoon and immediately wrote a brief in which I endeavored to refute some of the statements of Messrs. Mayer & Co. The brief was filed with your committee and will be a part of the revised testimony. Having been written in a very short time, it is necessarily incomplete in some phases of the subject and I therefore take the liberty of submitting to you personally the following additional data:

First. There are two distinct types of church memorial windowsthe European type, known as the stained-glass window; and the American type, known as the American opalescent window.

Second. The methods by which each type of window is made are radically different. Stained-glass windows are made of “antique" glass, a special kind of glass made in Europe. The American artist having an order for a stained-glass window imports the antique" glass in the raw state, i. e., in sheets, then fabricates the window here, using exactly the same method as that employed by the European manufacturer. The stained glass window is painted throughout its entire surface.

The American opalescent window, on the contrary, is an unpainted window, the only painted parts being the flesh parts, i. e., faces, hands, etc. This type of window is made of glass made exclusively in America and known as American opalescent glass.

Third. European manufacturers make the stained glass window only. American artists can and do make both types of window.

Harry Goodhue, of Boston, makes stained-glass windows exclusively.
Nicola D'Ascenzo, of Philadelphia, makes both types.
The Gorham Co., of New York, has a stained-glass department in which they make
stained glass exclusively.
J. & R. Lamb, of New York, make both types of windows.
Willett, of Pittsburgh, makes both types,
Rudy Bros., of York, Pa., and Pittsburgh, make both types.

Fourth. We all feel that there is a promising field in America for the maker of stained-glass windows, particularly with the Catholic and Episcopal bodies, who nearly always prefer the stained-glass window, but this field can not be cultivated without the assistance of the present 45 per cent ad valorem duty. Even under the present tariff, Messrs. Mayer & Co. are always under our prices.

Fifth. The data contained in my brief refers to stained-glass windows only, thus when I say, "About 85 per cent of stained-glass windows sold to American churches are made by foreign manufacturers," I do not include in that estimate the American opalescent window.

Sixth. If you give stained-glass windows, intended for church use, the privilege of free entry, it would necessarily affect the selling price of the American opalescent window as well, for the removal of the present restrictions would immediately widen the field of the European manufacturer and would enable him to underbid us all along the line. The American maker of stained glass would either have to give up making stained-glass windows in America, except those special windows ordered under conditions free from competition, or he would be forced to open a workshop in Europe in order to compete successfully for the American trade.

ܙܙ

« AnteriorContinuar »