MATERIAL FOR INSOLES. [Paragraph 322.] AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS OF CORK INSOLES WISH LEGISLATION THAT WILL REDUCE THE DUTY ON THEIR RAW MATERIALS CLASSED AS COTTON MANUFACTURES. WASHINGTON, D. C., January 17, 1909. GENTLEMEN: As manufacturers of cork insoles, used in the manufacture of boots and shoes and as loose insoles, we have found it necessary to use to a considerable extent an imported article, composed of ground cork and linseed oil applied to cotton muslin for backing. A competitive article is made by American manufacturers of the same guage and thickness at a price considerably less than the article herewith represented. This article at first was brought in under Schedule N, paragraph 448, of the tariff act of July 24, 1897, as a manufacture of cork or of which cork was the component material of chief value, at 25 per cent ad valorem. Subsequently, it was raised by the Government as to classification by being placed under Schedule 1, paragraph 322, as a manufacture of cotton not specially provided for at 45 per cent ad valorem. Protests as to this latter classification have not been settled by the National Board of Appraisers at last accounts. This latter duty is absolutely prohibitive, and we therefore would request that you give this article proper classification that no misunderstanding as to duties can hereafter arise. Even under its first classification, viz, as an article of which cork was the component material of chief value, its price was so far in excess of the American manufactured article that it has rendered it a tremendous handicap to its usage. As manufacturers of insoles from fabrics of this nature, with a demand for a quick supply, we respectfully submit this said article for your careful consideration for classification. We decidedly object to the contents of the brief submitted by the Armstrong Cork Company, dated at Pittsburg on November 23, 1908, in which they suggest a duty of 5 cents per pound on cork bark, wholly or partially manufactured, for life preservers, for cork insoles, etc. Taking the weight of this article into consideration-which is about 1 pounds to the square yard-it would simply mean a prohibitive duty and eliminate foreign competition absolutely to the benefit of the cork trust and consequent handicap to ourselves as American manufacturers of cork insoles. We would suggest that an ad valorem duty of 12 or 15 per cent be placed on this article, which will permit of a sufficient protection to the American manufacturers and not be a prohibitive duty on the foreign goods. Respectfully submitted. WILLIAM M. GARFIELD. H. H. BECKWITH, President. GEO. G. LONDON MANUFACTURING Co. J. A. WILEY, President. SCHEDULE J-FLAX, HEMP, AND JUTE, AND MANUFACTURES OF. OILCLOTH AND LINOLEUM. [Paragraph 337.] THE NATIONAL WHOLESALE DRY GOODS ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK CITY, THINKS THE DUTIES ON OILCLOTHS AND LINOLEUM SHOULD BE REDUCED. Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE, 346 BROADWAY, New York, February 25, 1909. Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We beg to refer to the recommendations made to your committee by the oilcloth and linoleum manufacturers for increased duties. The manufacturers have asked, first, that the duty now assessed on linoleum over 12 feet in width-namely, 20 cents per square yard and 20 per cent-be applied upon all linoleum over 7 feet in width. Linoleum is made in the following widths: 6 feet, 7 feet 6 inches, 9 feet, and 12 feet, the wider widths being used to fit rooms with the least possible cutting. All linoleum is sold by the square yard. The manufacturing cost per square yard is little or no greater on the wide goods than on the narrow. The assessment of higher duties on goods over 7 feet is therefore indefensible. In the second place, the manufacturers have asked that granite. and oak-plank linoleums, which are now dutiable at 8 cents per square yard and 15 per cent, be placed in the same class as inlaid. linoleum, which is dutiable at 20 cents per square yard and 20 per cent. These goods, the granite and oak plank, are made by a very simple process, the cost to produce being far less than in the case of the inlaid linoleum, and the assessment of these goods at the same rate as inlaid linoleum is manifestly unjust. Quoting from the Government Statistical Record of Imports for the year ending June 30, 1907: The average cost of all linoleums, other than inlaid, was 21.4 cents per square yard. This includes both of the classes mentioned above, namely, those under 12 feet in width and those known as "granite' and "oak plank" linoleums. The duty proposed upon these goods of 20 cents per square yard and 20 per cent equals 24.28 cents, or an equivalent of 113 per cent ad valorem. The duty at present assessed upon these goods of 8 cents per square yard and 15 per cent equals, according to the government statistics, an ad valorem equivalent of 52.32 per cent, which we submit is amply high. Linoleums, particularly those of the grades mentioned, are used by the poorer classes, and the proposed duty would mean the doubling of the tax on the poor for the benefit of a few manufacturers already too highly protected. The duty at present assessed upon inlaid linoleum of 20 cents per square yard and 20 per cent equals an ad valorem equivalent of 56.64 per cent, and, as stated above, all other linoleums under 12 feet in width are at present dutiable at 8 cents per square yard and 15 per cent, or an ad valorem equivalent of 52.32 per cent. The present schedule, being thus evenly applied on high and low cost goods, should not, we contend, be changed in its form, but as it affords such high protection should be reduced in amount. Very respectfully, THE NATIONAL WHOLESALE DRY GOODS ASSOCIATION. By KENNETH BARNHART, Chairman Tariff Committee. BOBBINETS. [Paragraph 339.] THE AMERICAN MAKERS OF NETS AND NETTINGS SUGGEST A SPECIAL CLASSIFICATION FOR THEIR PRODUCTS. Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE, NEW YORK, February 9, 1909. Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The undersigned American manufacturers of bobbinets respectfully ask that the following special paragraph be enacted in the tariff law to cover bobbinets, nets, and nettings: Bobbinets, net, or nettings, other than lace curtain nets, made on the Nottingham lace curtain machine, or Nottingham warp machine, composed of cotton or other vegetable fiber, shall pay a duty of one-third of one cent per square yard for each hole or part of a hole within the area of a square inch, counted perpendicularly on the warp and diagonally on the bobbin lines, counting the corner hole twice; and shall pay in addition to the foregoing, when made of single yarns up to and including number fifteen, three cents per pound. When made of single yarns, exceeding number fifteen and up to and including number thirty, one-fifth of one cent per number per pound. When made of single yarns, exceeding number thirty, onequarter of one cent per number per pound. When made of yarns combed or advanced beyond the condition of singles, by grouping or twisting two or more single yarns together, on all numbers up to and including number twenty, six cents per pound. When made of yarns combed or advanced beyond the condition of singles, exceeding number twenty and up to number eighty, one-quarter of one cent per number per pound. When made of yarns combed or advanced beyond the condition of singles, including number eighty and above, three-tenths of one cent per number per pound. When such bobbinets, net, and netting are composed of more than one count of yarn it shall pay duty according to the highest count. All articles composed wholly or in part of bobbinet shall pay the duty provided by their respective paragraphs and in addition thereto the duty imposed on bobbinet. From a thorough study of the cost of manufacture in Europe as compared to the cost to manufacture in this country the above method of applying the duty will about equalize the difference in the American and foreign cost. You will notice that the duty asked is entirely specific, and it does away with the fluctuating ad valorem rate, which is a very important matter, and thereby precluding any possibility of undervaluation. The bobbinet industry in this country is very small, whereas the consumption is very large, and if it is the desire of the Government to enable us to develop such an industry we must be protected, not only against the underpaid labor of Europe, but against the importer who imports under value. There is no better opportunity afforded at this time to provide a revenue for the Government than the imposing of a proper import tax on bobbinet. The amount produced in this country is trivial as compared with the amount imported. We therefore respectfully ask your favorable consideration for our appeal. Respectfully submitted. BROMLEY MFG. CO., AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS OF HATS AND IMPORTERS OF STRAW AND FANCY BRAIDS OBJECT TO INCREASE OF DUTY ON SILK OR COTTON HAT BRAIDS. 12 BROADWAY, New York City, January 17, 1909. COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: We, the manufacturers of hats and importers of straw and fancy braids for the manufacture of hats, respectfully ask for a moderate rate of duty upon hat braids composed of silk, artificial silk, artificial horsehair, or cotton. We submit that the present rate of 60 per cent is already prohibitive as to many varieties, and any increase whatever would be wholly .disastrous. We ask for a rate which will be revenue-producing, which will afford adequate protection to domestic interests, and which will at the same time greatly aid the American manufacturers of hats in developing their industry. We desire in this connection to reply briefly to some of the representations made on behalf of the braid manufacturers of the United States to this committee at the tariff hearings Saturday, November 28, 1908. Paragraph 9 of their brief states that the duty on braids made of artificial horsehair is 20 per cent, whereas it is actually 60 per cent, and has been so since it was first introduced. Paragraph 10 states that the labor and expense of braid made in the United States is approximately 60 per cent of cost. We submit that 75941-H. Doc. 1505, 60-2-vol 8-30 this is incorrect and grossly misleading, for while it might be so in respect to handmade braids, such braids for the manufacture of hats made of silk, cotton, artificial hair, etc., have been almost entirely superseded, even in Europe, by the machine-made patterns, while in this country handmade braids for the purpose before mentioned have been made only in the most infinitesmal quantities. We might mention that the machinery in the United States used for this purpose is superior in many instances to the European; so much so that makers of the American machines for the manufacture of these braids sell their machines in Europe. Referring to the extravagant statement that 60 per cent is the approximate cost of the labor of braids made in the United States, we submit herewith: Exhibit A, made of silk, produced by two machines; the method being first to produce the lames or strips, which are wound on spools and then put on a machine, which machine costs approximately $70. This machine produces 1 gross per day of ten hours of the finished article, and a girl is employed at the wages of from $6 to $8 per week to watch eight to ten of these machines. The selling price of this pattern is $6 per gross yards and the cost of labor per gross is less than 75 cents. Careful investigation points to the fact that the cost of producing braids by machinery in the United States is from 10 to 20 per cent, according to the quantity made and the speed of production, the latter figure (20 per cent) being only for extremely fantastic patterns, of slow production and varied materials, which are sold in small quantities only, while 10 per cent would cover the usual run of designs. To show that the domestic manufacturers are, under existing conditions overprotected and the consumers overtaxed, and, moreover, that braids made of silk, artificial horsehair, etc., under the existing tariff of 60 per cent are prohibited from importation, we submit: Exhibit B, made of silk and artificial horsehair. The cost price in Switzerland is 3.15 francs; plus duty and freight charges, the cost to land is $1.05 net per piece of 12 yards. Exhibit B is the same pattern, made by a manufacturer in New York State (name can be supplied if desired) and sold for 76 cents net per piece of 12 yards; and in respect to this exhibit we might add that a New York importer took an order for this pattern, and, instead of sending the same to Switzerland, had the braid made in the United States. Exhibit C, Swiss, costs in Switzerland 313 francs per gross, plus 60 per cent duty and freight-$9.75 net, landed. Exhibit C, domestic, is the same pattern made in the United States and can be bought at $5.50 net per gross. It is therefore clear that machine-made braids of silk and mixtures of silk, owing to improved methods, can be made cheaper in this country than in Europe, and consequently no protection to the domestic manufacturers is necessary, while in fact such braids, under the existing tariff of 60 per cent, are actually prohibited; but if the duty was reduced 20 per cent novelties in this style of braid might probably be imported. Examples could be multiplied ad infinitum, but we consider the foregoing sufficient to illustrate our point. We might repeat that the |
