cost, and in Mauritius and Brazil, both actively developing the sugar industry, the cost is not comparable.

Under what law of trade or compensation should these countries be admitted to the market of the United States, when we have our own, or at our door which we dominate, supplies that we command. on favoring conditions that in return give us exclusive markets for the products and commodities created by our consumers?

Tons.

750,000

250,000

500,000

1,300,000

2,800,000

The consumption of the United States being 3,000,000 tons. If we are looking for more sugar and cheaper sugar, let us find it as before, though the system has given employment to producer and consumer alike, and withal cheaper sugar than the world sold us when our ports were free and our industry only sustained by an obnoxious bounty.

It seems clear to me we could truly "keep the tariff to trade on;" that we should maintain the status quo upon the assurance of the past that we will soon be eating the cheapest sugars in the world; extending favors-if any-only to those who are near us and essentially a part of us geographically and commercially, and gradually improve our relations in exchanging one commodity for another as now, under conditions which would injure no vested interests and would maintain our production equally with our increasing demands. With reference to the Philippines, whether the 300,000 tons suggested be brought in under an immediately effective or graduated schedule, the same concessions should certainly be given the American manufacturer to supply the material needed for its production. With assurance of high regard, sincerely yours,

R. B. HAWLEY.

SCHEDULE F-TOBACCO, AND MANUFACTURES OF.

TOBACCO.

H. S. FRYE, OF WINDSOR, CONN., FORWARDS SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT RELATIVE TO TOBACCO CLASSIFICATION.

WINDSOR, CONN., February 10, 1909.

Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE, M. C.,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: As a specialist of over twenty-five years' exhaustive study on leaf tobacco and cigars, tariff, revenue, trade, etc., this and other countries, I beg to submit the two inclosures, together with a proof sheet (statistics) sent you recently through Mr. Hill, Member of Congress from Connecticut, and suggest they be read in order numbered, to wit: First, statistics; second, rebuttal v. Hamilton et al.; and, third, tariff for revenue. This will give you as clear and conclusive a statement of facts as I can write, for I have devoted close, careful thought to it, with the sole view of making it as reliable as finite judgment can make it. I urge no policy, am absolutely unbiased (personally, now have no interest in tobacco), though, of course, the wrapper-leaf interests have my full sympathy, for I know better than most of the farmers do what the facts are and how utterly useless it is at this late day to talk of or even attempt to get a really protective rate of duty as against Sumatra, one that would actually check imports and lessen competition. It can not be done. I know that, but a little more revenue could be raised from that source by a small increase in duty. Not long ago I was still under the impression that some increase in revenue from cigars might be obtained by a lower rate in duty; that imports would increase to more than make up the loss in lower specific rate. But to be sure about that, I made more recent investigations and found the process of transferring the Habana cigar industry to the United States had gone on more rapidly of late years than ever before one reason being the better Tampa and Key West factories. Discriminating smokers slowly learned that, excepting a few Habana independents, better Habana cigars were turned out in Florida (New York City, too) than most of those in Habana, Cuba. So, on the whole, I had to abandon that theory, in view of later knowledge, because no large increase in Habana cigar imports could be expected, even at a one-half reduction, unless Tampa and Key West manufacturers should be driven back to Cuba by a large increase in duty on Habana filler. Reciprocity with Cuba, too, has been a factor, reducing the duty 7 cents a pound, or to 28 cents. I suspect that no one from foreknowledge (I didn't) ever worked out in his own mind what the result (transferring a large

75941-H. Doc. 1505, 60-2-vol 8- -23

manufacturing industry from Cuba to the United States) of present rates of duty on both filler, leaf, and cigars would be. But we know now, and can govern ourselves accordingly. It is an awful job for me to write out (as I have to here) copies, so beg to suggest you have a few typewritten copies made for your and colleague's use. Mr. Hill has a written one. If there are any points not clear, I will be glad to make them so; but, briefly as possible to cover the ground, I have done best I could, with no expectations or objects other than to help a little if I could in best possible adjustment of Schedule F.

IN REBUTTAL V. HAMILTON, ETC.

Having noted with surprise and regret that no official action relative to revision of the tariff (Schedule F especially) has been taken by the New England Tobacco Growers' Association, no brief on record and none in rebuttal filed against arguments of eight men and firms on record as urging schemes detrimental not only to tobacco farmers but large cigar interests as well, I deem it a duty to take some action, and beg indulgence in consideration of the following in rebuttal v. Mr. F. E. Hamilton's statements on record, especially so since whatever might be said regarding the other seven opponents of present schedule (not one statement among them all substantiated by a single fact, statistical or other) Mr. Hamilton's contentions embody within themselves the worst, most vicious, features of all the others. Stripped of its verbosity and chicanery, his whole argument is summed up in his opening proposition for more revenue by 50 cents per pound duty on all leaf tobacco and cigar duty reduced to $2.25 per pound specific (ad valorem same as now, 25 per cent), a reduction of $1.35 a pound on wrapper leaf, an increase of 15 cents a pound on fillers, and a reduction of one-half specific duty on cigars. Beautiful scheme for Mr. Hamilton and his two associates named, especially so when based on the alluring "more revenue" argument. First, we will consider his $1.35 reduction on wrapper leaf. As imports "for consumption" 19031907, inclusive, five years (see statistics), have been nearly 6,000,000 pounds annually (5,956,244, to be exact), he would have to about quadruple present imports under that reduction to 50 cents a pound to obtain any material increase in revenue from that source, and as Sumatra alone now wraps 85 per cent of all cigars covered with a "commercially" known "wrapper," known in the trade as "wrapper," and selling at "wrapper" prices, 2,000,000 pounds more, or 8,000,000 in all, would far more than wrap all the cigars made in the United States, and therefore as four times present imports (about 6,000,000 pounds) would be 24,000,000 pounds, what will he do with the surplus of 16,000,000 pounds, that surplus alone being amply sufficient to wrap all the United States cigar output for over two years? As a matter of fact the result would be a tremendous loss of revenue. Allowing that the 8,000,000 pounds wraps all the cigars made (no market left for a single pound of domestic wrappers), the 8,000,000 pounds at 50 cents a pound would yield a revenue of $4,000,000, and as the average revenue actually collected on wrapper leaf for five years, 1903-1907, inclusive, has been over $11,000,000 a year (see statistics) the actual loss on wrapper imports alone would be over $7,000,000, and over $6,000,000 after he had increased imports to 8,000,000 pounds. I beg to submit Mr. Hamilton must have an exalted opinion of the

intelligence of Congress to submit and have placed on record such assertions, but he may say "all filler leaf would have to pay 50 cents, or 15 cents a pound more duty than now." Admitted; and on the face of it, as Cuban filler (practically all imported) imports for the last six years, 1903-1908, inclusive, have averaged over 21,000,000 pounds annually, 15 cents added to present duty would yield some $3,150,000 more revenue. A poor trade, though, against an undoubted loss of $6,000,000 to over $7,000,000 on wrapper, provided (and here is concealed the Etheopian in his wood pile) Tampa and Key West manufacturers would submit to the extortion and "stay put" where they are. But will they? Not if Mr. Hamilton's scheme to reduce duty on Habana cigars to $2.25, specific, works; as in that event probably most of Tampa and Key West manufacturers would move over to Habana, Cuba, as they have previously intended to do in case of adverse tariff legislation here-would have to, with 50 cents a pound duty on all their raw material, and the duty on Habana (competing) cigars reduced one-half. So now we are getting a glimpse of the "cull'd g'l'm'n" (Mr. Hamilton's protégé). When the trust absorbed the Habana-Commercial, and the Henry Clay and Bock companies after the Spanish war, I was told by well-informed Habana interests that it then controlled two-thirds of all Habana cigar output, leaving only one-third as independents, and as Mr. Hamilton and his associates, presumably, can handle only that restricted output, his manifest object in driving Tampa and Key West manufacturers over to Habana becomes very apparent. True, there would be some increase in revenue from cigar imports, provided same should be more than doubled (hardly a million, though, at the outside), but not one-third enough to make up the loss by decrease in Habana filler imports (some wrapper, too) when by far the largest importers of Habana tobacco had moved over to Habana, Cuba, not counting the loss of six to over seven million dollars on wrapper imports. But this is not all the evil concealed in this nefarious scheme, masquerading as a "revenue" measure. Large amounts of Habana fillers are used in the "seed and Habana," the best cigar made in the United States outside "clear Habana," and, quality and price considered, the best and cheapest; but the filler duty is now almost at the prohibitive point is about 100 per cent more than the best Connecticut Valley crops can be sold for now, wrappers and all, and three times the average value of all product of northern seed-leaf States. At 50 cents duty the whole "seed and Habana" industry would be destroyed. What then becomes of the Connecticut broadleaf, used exclusively on those cigars, selling on their merit (quality), not looks, as does the Sumatra-wrapped imposter? Then too, the best 5-cent cigar, with a little Habana filler in it to give it a trace of that delectable Habana aroma, so essential to a really good cigar. No more good smokes for the millions, the really great consumers of this country. True, Mr. Hamilton's customers, the millionaires, would get their imported Habanas a little cheaper, perhaps, but the great mass of the consumers would pay as much as now for poorer, not better, cigars, the exact reverse of Mr. Hamilton's contentions.

I pass over his reckless promise to "save over $25,000,000" to the consumer as too absurd for patient consideration. His "$2,000,000 increase in revenue "would certainly result in a deficit of many millions. Not one single fact, statistical or other, to substantiate his

specious sophistry, and all statistical facts (that no one can question) disproving, utterly annihilating, his whole "revenue" argument from start to finish, these being the salient points for consideration now by men not biased by greed and self-interest.

TARIFF REVISION (SCHEDULE F) FOR REVENue.

Duty on wrapper leaf.-After twenty-five years' struggle and contention to obtain a protective rate on wrapper leaf adequate to save the industry from annihilation by Sumatra competition with no results other than a large increase in revenue from Sumatra imports and postponement of the inevitable, I admit it is useless now to longer hope for the unattainable. The domestic-wrapper industry is doomed to extinction. With Sumatra-wrapper imports continually increasing and fully 85 per cent of the home market already lost and no duty ever yet obtainable anywhere near high enough to even check imports of same, the end is plainly in sight. The wrapper product of State after State has been driven out of the market as any factor in wrapper-leaf production, until only the Connecticut valley remains, and there wrapper prices are now so low as to bring the average value of crops down to cost of production (or less), so there only remains the possibility of getting a little more revenue from the flood of Sumatra constantly pouring into the home market. Statistics show that during five years (1903-1907, inclusive) over $4,367,000 more revenue might have been raised from that source had the duty been only 15 cents a pound more, provided, of course, the added 15 cents would not have (in itself alone) decreased imports; and it would not, as every well-informed leaf and cigar man knows, since every brand of cigars once wrapped with Sumatra must continue to be so wrapped. Moreover, it is doubtful if that small increase in duty would have increased the cost here to any appreciable extent, since all Sumatra tobacco is sold under sealed bids, the American buyer at the inscriptions could (as he surely would) discount the extra 15 cents on all his bids. Therefore, the result of the Senate's refusal to adopt the rate passed by the House in the Dingley bill has been an undoubted loss of many million dollars revenue during the life of that law to date, with no resultant benefit to any American industry, simply adding that amount to the plethoric profits of the Dutch syndicates. It therefore follows that mistake should be remedied by restoration of the 1890 or $2 duty on wrapper leaf, since Sumatra-wrapper imports will even then continue to increase until all cigars made in the United States (except clear Habana) are wrapped with same, the only factor preventing which being the possible substitution to some extent of the domestic "shade grown," that contingency, however, being as yet a problem for future solution. It would therefore appear that somewhere around a million dollars more revenue annually might be obtained by increasing the duty on wrapper leaf 15 cents a pound, with no appreciable injury to any domestic cigar interests, since none but "clear Habana" have any foreign competition at all.

Filler leaf-As previously shown the present duty is about at the highest point possible as a "revenue" measure, because any increase in rate (to which the trade has been adjusted for many decades) must surely result in such decrease in imports as to yield less rather than