Imágenes de páginas
[ocr errors]

quotation from Dr. Doolittle on page 2428 substantially shows that the adulteration in spices and the grinding of worm-eaten, moldy, immature spices have been done by these domestic converters of spices; for, as he says, They are brought into this country in the whole state.”

They want protection, particularly on the ground spices, for two reasons, ays their spokesman (p. 2437):

“ First, because 50 to 60 per cent of the selling price is labor. Now, it is the question of labor that makes the price of spices higher than the material itself."

If this statement is true, these people ought to look into the cost of their manufacture. It is a saying among manufacturers that if the labor cost is more than 15 or 18 per cent of the cost of the material it is too much and there is something wrong that needs looking into.

The second point, for wanting a duty on ground spices, is still more illJudged than the other; for, said the same spokesman, “ We also make the point, Mr. Chairman, that the use of spices is more important to the poorer classes than it is to the better to do. In other words, they have to do with poorer food, perhaps, and the poorer food is made palatable by spices.” This is a poor argument that the poor should use spices to make spoiled or partly decayed food palatable, so they can eat it. The poor need palatable food, and if they have that, their natural appetite is the best spice, and all they want.

The duty on whole spices will not perceptibly, if at all, increase the cost of living. They have not gone up in price with other things, except on one or two articles, and that has been occasioned by an unusually short crop in the particular countries in which they are grown, and this is always the case. They are not used by the great masses of the people, and their use can be dispensed with by those who can afford them without injury to their health, but the masses of the people must have food, clothing, and shelter.

About 10 per cent of the cloves, cinnamon, and allspice, or pimento, are used in the whole or unground state in the barrooms and saloons of this country.

Some 50 per cent of the cloves is used for making oil of cloves, and the oil of cloves has been coming in free, and so has the oil of cassia, cinnamon, and mace, and many oils that are luxuries and that are used for making purely luxurious articles.

Probably not more than 40 per cent of these spices, except pepper, is ground. The last Republican House understood that whole or unground spices was a good subject to produce revenue, for they put a duty of 30 per cent on all these spices. The former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who was instrumental in having these whole spices put on the dutiable list in the House tariff bill in 1909, said (p. 277 of these hearings): “I want to say to you (the writer) that we put this duty on because we were looking around for revenue.

And we struck spices, and put them on. The bill went to the Senate with that provision in. Afterwards we incorporated a corporation

which has brought in a revenue of $27,000,000 per annum or more, and we found we did not need this duty on spices.”

If your committee desires, you can raise a revenue of $5,000,000 to $6,000,000 per annum from these spices, and it will go directly into the Treasury for the support of the Government, and its payment will not be felt, and it will not increase the cost of living to the masses of the people.

These spices can not be grown here; they can not even be hothoused; they are luxuries, and all luxuries should be taxed, the same as tobacco and wines, the same as they were in the days of our fathers. Respectfully submitted.






House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. We respectfully submit this brief for your consideration regarding a material reduction of the tariff on decalcomanias.

The tendency of certain testimony before the committee has been to closely connect decalcomanias with other lithographed material. Whether this was intentional or otherwise, we consider it important to preface our remarks with the statement that decalcomanias and ordinary lithographs are entirely different articles. This refers particularly to their ultimate use.

Decalcomanias are used to a very large extent on such household necessities as sewing machines, chinaware, and furniture.

Paragraph 412 of Schedule M on the tariff law now in force subjects decalcomanias to four different rates and classifies them as follows: Decalcomanias in ceramic colors, weighing not over 100 pounds per 1,000 sheets, on the basis of 20 by 30 inches in dimensions. Weighing over 100 pounds per 1,000 sheets, on the basis of 20 by 30 inches. If backed with metal leaf. All other decalcomanias, excepting toy decalcomanias.

Decalcomanias for pottery, called ceramic decalcomanías, were dutiable under paragraph 400 of the Dingley Act at 20 cents a pound. Under the Payne tariff law we pay 70 cents per pound plus 15 per cent ad valorem if the decalcomanias are on thin or duplex paper. If on heavy paper, the rate is 22 cents per pound plus 15 per cent ad valorem.

As four-fifths of the product of our American potteries must be decorated to make it salable (see brief of Mr. W. E. Wells, p. 657, hearings on earths, earthenware, and glassware), it is plain that the potters must have a large range of artistic decalcomania patterns to select from. This is not possible under the present prohibitive rate.

Since the Payne tariff bill went into effect we have discontinued importing ceramic decalcomanias on account of the high duty.

Cold decalcomanias are those used on sewing machines, farm implements, glass, furniture, etc. The Dingley rate of 20 cents per pound also applied to cold decalcomanias.

More than half the small quantity imported since 1909 was assessed at 40 cents per pound.

On the metal-backed decalcomanias, the customs officials collected 65 cents per pound. In connection with this paragraph there has been considerable confusion and misunderstanding, and the United States Court of Customs Appeals recently decided that the rate should be 40 cents per pound.

Even on this basis, the metal-backed decalcomanias, being heavier, bring about 20 per cent more duty than the other cold decalcomanias.

During the year ended June 30, 1912, the total cold decalcomania imports amounted to only $65,573, and the average for the two preceding years was still lower.

The domestic manufacturers practically have a monopoly in this line. We, of course, are at a great disadvantage in not being able to state the amount of their combined output. The writer of this brief makes regular trips from coast to coast and is, therefore, in a position to roughly estimate the value of the cold decalcomanias sold in this country. It is safe to assert that the importation does not exceed 6 per cent of the home consumption.

We therefore add our plea for a reduction. We do not ask that decalcomanias be placed on the free list. We do not even ask for a downward revision of the Dingley bill. But, as the domestic interests thrived under the Dingley law and could do so to-day with the same protection, we ask that the old rate of 20 cents per pound be restored.

To substitute this competitive for the present prohibitive rate, and at the same time preclude the possibility of any misinterpretation, we would suggest that the paragraph read simply:

All decalcomanias, except toy decalcomanias, 20 cents per pound.
Respectfully submitted.


171 Sixth Avenue, New York.


(From Textile World Record, March, 1913.) In the general clamor over the revision of all the textile schedules, the cotton trade has failed to take account of a radical change which the Underwood bills of 1911 and 1912 proposed to make in the method of classifying cotton cloths for tariff purposes. Under the new method cotton cloths are classified according to the size of the yarn in the fabric. The Payne law provides specific and ad valorem rates varying according to classifications that are based on the number of threads per square inch, the number of square yards per pound, and the value per square yard. The Underwood bill, on the other hand, provides for ad valorem rates which vary according to classifications based on the size of the yarn in the respective fabrics. Paragraph 3 of the Underwood cotton bill of 1911, which illustrates the new system, is as follows:

Cotton cloth in the gray. Yarn count:

Ad valorem rate. Under No. 50.

per cent.. 15 No. 50 to 100.

.do.... 20 Over 100...

25 This system of cloth classification based on the yarn count was incorporated not only in the Underwood cotton bills of 1911 and 1912, but also in the so-called Parker-Langshaw cotton schedule, recommended to the Ways and Means Committee on January 22, 1913, by the American Cotton Manufacturers' Association, and which was printed in our February issue.

CHAIRMAN UNDERWOOD'S EXPLANATION. When explaining his cotton bill in the House of Representatives on July 28, 1911, Chairman Underwood was questioned regarding the new method of classifying cloths, and during the debate, from which the following extract is taken, a letter was read from the Bureau of Standards, which had been written in reply to a series of questions regarding the size of the yarn as a basis for the tariff classification of cotton cloths:

"Mr. UNDERWOOD. In the Payne bill the classification is the most complicated in the entire tariff system. It is divided into a classification according to count of threads, first, for goods having not exceeding 50 threads to the square inch, then for goods having between 50 and 100 threads to the square inch, and so on, between 100 and 150, between 150 and 200, from 200 to 300, and, finally, for cloth exceeding 300 threads to the square inch—6 classifications. Then each of these classes is subdivided into three--for unbleached goods, bleached goods, and goods that are dyed, colored, stained, painted, or printed. Then there are further subclassifications according to weight and value, and on top of that there is a special provision for mercerization; so that the ordinary citizen can not read the bill and determine how much the taxes are, because they change so much, and because it is all an effort to make a practicable set of specific rates.

We change the classification entirely to an ad valorem rate, and that ad valorem rate rises and falls with the value of the goods. We found that what would be a revenue rate on high-class goods would be a prohibitive rate on certain classes of heavy, coarse goods. When we found that one general, uniform rate on cotton goods would not accomplish what we desired-revenue rates all the way through the schedule—we determined on a classification of our own. The number of cotton yarn in cotton goods is a fact uniformly known to the trade for 100 years or more. No. 1 cotton yarn is 840 yards in length to the pound. As you increase the number of the yarn, multiply the increased number by 840, which results in the number of yards per pound. For instance, in a pound of No. 400 yarn you get 336,000 yards, or 190 miles. * So that is a fixed fact.

“In the examination of the imports and exports there seemed to be a dividing line along about the class that carried from 100 to 150 threads to the square inch, and as these cloths mainly used yarns below No. 100 we fixed the classification there.

"We found that there was another distinction according to the unit value of goods and the amount imported in cloths running from 150 to 200 threads to the square inch, and if we fixed our second classification in thread, not on the number to the square inch, but on cloths containing no thread in excess of 100 and above No. 50, we would fall into the second classification.

"And then if we provide that all cloth which is made of yarn above 100 shall be in the third classification, we get in that class all the highest-grade goods.

“This new classification of cloth, I will say to the gentleman, is not a difficult one. The Bureau of Standards has stated that the number of the thread can be easily ascertained by an ordinary expert. The threads run in much the same classes, and our classification is merely to determine in what class they come by the highest number of the threads found in the cloth.

“Mr. MANN. I wondered what the reason was why you change from the method of counting the number of threads to the inch and fixing it on the number of the thread.

“Mr. UNDERWOOD. Because after discussing the question in the committee, consulting the Bureau of Standards, and talking with men in the cotton business, we concluded that it was a much simpler classification than the other.

"Mr. Mann. Was that the opinion of the Bureau of Standards? Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes. Their letter shows the practicability of this method. "Mr. Mann. I think that they are very high authority myself.

"Mr. UNDERWOOD. The letter of the Bureau of Standards will appear in the record:


July 18, 1911. “Hon. O. W. UNDERWOOD,

Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C. “Dear Sir: Complying with the telephone request of Mr. Roper, clerk of your committee, I am pleased to confirm herewith the information furnished him over the telephone by Mr. Douty, of this bureau, in response to questions relative to the analysis of cotton yarns and fabrics:

"1. Can a textile analyst determine the count of the yarn used in the manufacture of a cotton fabric, and if so, with what accuracy can it be determined?"

An analyst can readily determine the count of yarns used in the manufacture of any fabrics. The accuracy with which this can be done depends upon whether the count is to be given for the yarn in the finished condition or in its gray condition previous to weaving. If the count in the finished condition is desired, it can be determined accurately within one-half count for warp yarns and one count for the weft or filling yarns. If it is desired in the gray conditions previous to weaving, the possible accuracy will depend largely upon the nature of the fabrics. Fabrics having very slight amounts of loading or finishing materials upon them can be analyzed with an accuracy of one count for the warp yarns and two counts for the west yarns. Fabrics having large amounts of loading or finishing materials which have to be extracted before they are returned to the gray condition can be analyzed with an accuracy of two counts in the warp yarns and from three to four counts in the west yarns. The difference in the degree of accuracy attainable in the determination of the counts of the warp and weft yarns is not due to the variation in the method of observation, but to the wider variation and the lack of uniformity in the yarns used as filler or weft yarns.

The lower accuracy attainable in the determination of the counts of the yarn in its original or unwoven condition is due to the difficulty in extracting completely the loading or finishing materials without altering or injuring the nature of the fibers in the yarn. The determination must also be corrected for the "take up" of the yarn in the process of weaving. This introduces another possible source of error. În any case the accuracy attainable is much greater than that demanded by the weaver from the spinner furnishing the yarn for a given fabric. A variation of four counts either way from a specified count is usually accepted in the trade.

2. Is the process of analysis to determine the yarn counts a difficult one, and does it require a high degree of skill?”

It is not a difficult operation and can soon be acquired by anyone having a fair knowledge of laboratory operations and sufficient experience to have acquired a fair amount of manipulative skill. To be reliable, it must be performed carefully and under uniform conditions of humidity and temperature, and the results should always be accompanied with a statement of the relative air humidity and temperature at which they were obtained.

"3. Of what does the operation consist, and what apparatus is necessary to perform it?"

The determination is usually made by cutting from the fabric by means of a die or templet a square having its sides coincident with the yarns.

On very uniform fine fabrics a square 1 inch on the side is frequently used, but this is in general considered too small to give very accurate results. The Bureau of Standards used 4 inches square, and upon coarse and uneven fabrics prefers even larger pieces.

After the test piece is cut out the warp and weft yarns are carefully unraveled from the fabric until a definite length is obtained; their combined weights are determined upon an analytical balance, capable of weighing to a tenth of a milligram and, if the count is desired in the English system, the number of hanks (1 hank equals 7 lays of 80 turns, of 14 yards each equals 840 yards) which will weigh 1 pound is computed from these values.

In the metric system the yarn count for cotton is the number of 1,000-meter hanks required to weigh one-half kilogram, or 500 grams.

If the count for the gray yarn is desired, it is necessary to boil the fabric in a solution suitable to remove the loading and finishing material, without injuring, and proceed as above, correcting the results for the change in length due to the "take up of the yarn in the process of weaving, which, of course, depends upon the nature of the weave.

“4. Would it be difficult to secure the services of men who would be capable of making yarn-count determinations?”

There should be no difficulty in securing reliable assistants capable, with proper instruction for a short period, to make accurate yarn-count determinations. Graduates from the Lowell Textile School or the Philadelphia Textile School should be available at moderate cost.

"5. Would it be possible to carry on the work at any of the customhouses?”

It would. The ports New York, Boston, and Philadelphia have men qualified to make the determination. Any other ports receiving a sufficient number of importations to require the entire services of one analyst could be easily provided with properly qualified assistants. Ports of entry receiving an insufficient number of importations to require the services of an analyst continually could easily be provided for by requiring the collector to take the requisite samples and forward them to the Bureau of Standards for analysis. The Bureau of Standards is already equipped and has a trained personnel qualified to do the work.

If desired, the Bureau of Standards would undertake to develop standards and forms necessary to secure uniformity in all the customhouses, supervise the apparatus used to secure its accuracy, and make check tests in the same manner that it is now doing for sugar importations.

“6. Will you furnish list of ordinary fabrics which are manufactured from yarns within the following ranges of yarn counts:

“(a) ls to 50s.
"(c) 1028 to 2009.
"b) 528 to 100s."

The limits which you have indicated include so many fabrics which would fall within two classes that it is much clearer to indicate limits of the most common counts used in ordinary commercial fabrics as follows. Those, of course, are only approximations. Ducks....

68 to 188 Denims, jeans, ticking.

8s to 203 Canton flannel, sheetings.

88 to 248 Coarse ginghams, drills...

128 to 24s Outing flannel..

128 to 30s Damasks.

168 to 24s Chambrays..

20s to 40s Point cloths.

24s to 348 Fine damasks..

24s to 408 Sateen linings.

24s to 508 Piques....

24s to 808 Lawns..

30s to 70s Fine ginghams.

30s to 60s Coarse organdies.

30s to 808 Soisette..

32s to 80s Voiles, madras shirtings.

408 to 808 Batiste..

40s to 90s Long cloth..

408 to 1008 Dimity.

408 to 1208 Linons (India).

50s to 120s Swiss muslin.

60s to 140g Marquisettes.

50s to 150s Organdies.

80s to 100g Any further assistance which we can render you will be gladly supplied.

We shall be glad to have members of the Ways and Means Committee visit our textile laboratories, where we can show the apparatus used and explain more in detail the methods of making analyses and tests. Respectfully,

E. B. Rosa,

Acting Director. The reply of the Bureau of Standards to the first question is calculated to carry conviction by reason of the confidence with which the statements are made, but in the very nature of the things discussed such confidence is unwarranted.

Why, for example, should there be greater injury to the fiber in removing a large amount of sizing than when removing a smaller amount? What experience enables Dr. Rosa to state that the light sizing of warp yarn admits of an accuracy of one count, while heavy sizing increases the liability of error to two counts? What tests of cotton yarn before weaving and after weaving and finishing have been made in the Bureau of Štandards or elsewhere which would warrant fixing the accuracy of cloth analysis at one-half count for warp and one count for filling? By what method has the relative variation of warp and filling been determined so closely?

« AnteriorContinuar »