If asked for his opinion, he would doubtless say that he did not use sulphate of ammonia as such, and that the amount in the mixed fertilizers he used was too small for the removal of the duty to affect the cost to him; which is an exact statement of the case. EFFECT OF TARIFF REDUCTION ON RETORT COKE-OVEN INDUSTRY. The coal-gas works of the country do not make sulphate, the retort coke ovens, working on a larger scale, alone being able to stand the higher labor cost for sulphate manufacture. The market for ammonia in other forms than sulphate is supplied. Hence additonal ovens must make sulphate. Exhibit B shows imports, production, consumption, and average market quotations of sulphate (and sulphate equivalent) since 1903. Note steady drop in price for past four years. Actual selling prices are usually below market quotations. Coincident with the fall in ammonia prices the number of retort. ovens under construction has suffered a striking decrease, as shown in Exhibit C. This slackening in progress is all due to fall in price of by-products, as coke has fulfilled all expectations. The depletion of the coal fields that yield standard coke in the beehive ovens has forced blast-furnace operators to erect retort ovens; but this has been done unwillingly, and action has been postponed as long as possible. This reluctance is partly because the investment in a retort oven plant is about three and one-half times heavier than for beehives for the same daily coke output. A number of retort coke-oven plants supply coke for the foundry, domestic and general fuel trade, and make illuminating gas as well. The latter is an essentially American development and promises to be the best source of cheap artificial gas. Domestic coke is also the only practical substitute for anthracite coal, and because of its smokelessness its use is strongly advocated in the cities of the Middle West, where anthracite is too expensive. Progress in all these directions will be hampered by the removal of the duty on sulphate of ammonia and the consequent halt in retort-oven construction. TO STOP RETORT-OVEN CONSTRUCTION WILL INJURE AMERICAN AGRI CULTURE. Each acre of a 4-foot vein of average coking coal will yield enough sulphate to fertilize an acre of land above it for four hundred and eighty years. This fertility should serve as a return to the farmer for the agricultural desolation in coal-mining regions. Instead, it is resolved into its elements and comes back mingled with the smoke of chimneys and beehive ovens, blasting vegetation rather than nourishing it. In 1907, 66,000,000 tons of coal were carbonized in coke ovens and gas retorts, which would have yielded 660,000 tons of ammonium sulphate if treated in recovery plants. Instead of recovering this we imported 322,195 tons of nitrate of soda duty free, besides 32,668 tons of sulphate of ammonia. Only 17.5 per cent of the coal carbonized was treated in recovery plants, and the actual ammonia obtained, all reckoned as sulphate, amounted to 97,310 net tons. Of this the retort coke oven supplied 62,700 tons, or 65 per cent, increasing from 56 per cent in 1905. Regarding loss of valuable by-products and economical importance of retort coke ovens, see Bulletin No. 65, Department of Commerce and Labor, page 18, by Prof. Chas. E. Munroe, and Geological Survey Bulletin, Manufacture of coke in 1907," pages 23-30, by Dr. E. W. Parker. For statistics of ammonium sulphate see accompanying article, "The production of ammonium sulphate," by C. G. Atwater. After fifteen years, retort coke ovens produce only 14 per cent of the metallurgical coke made. (See Exhibit D.) If tariff on sulphate of ammonia is removed, prematurely, there is no hope for better progress. THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DOES NOT AID PROPAGANDA FOR USE OF SULPHATE OF AMMONIA AMONG FARMERS. In Germany, where 263,000 tons of sulphate were used in 1907, the Government promotes its use by experiments and instruction. No such campaign has been undertaken here, so the farmer is largely ignorant of its advantages. Introduction work has been left to the initiative and cost of the producers Quantity and margin of profit have never sufficed for such a campaign of education. If inducements to manufacturers are decreased, sulphate of ammonia certainly will not be made in increasing quantities nor will it be placed before the farmer as a competitor with other forms of nitrogen. RELATION OF THE SURPLUS PRODUCTION IN ENGLAND TO OUR MARKET. England is the largest manufacturer of sulphate of ammonia for export and sells to all the other nations whose coal resources are not great enough to produce their own supply. Realizing that the United States was destined in time to be the greatest producer of ammonium sulphate because of its wealth in coal, England has not exploited this country as a market as it has other countries, but has dumped its surplus production here from time to time at a concession in prices in order to maintain rates elsewhere. Owing to the demands of other countries, which once developed will remain permanent customers, no large proportion of England's output will be diverted to this country in any event. In case the tariff is removed the present imports may be doubled or trebled; but what proportion does a probable 100,000 tons of sulphate ammonia bear to the present annual imports of 322,000 tons of Chilean nitrate, or to the 900,000 tons of blood and tankage estimated as the annual product of the packing-house industries, or to the 6,000,000 tons of cotton seed annually produced, over half of which goes back to the soil in one form or another as a nitrogenous fertilizer? What proportion would the possible saving in duty on even the above amount of imported sulphate of ammonia be compared with the $58,000,000 representing the value of the fertilizers annually produced and consumed in this country? The only logical way to really develop the stores of nitrogen that are available for the use of the American farmer in our bituminous coal is to continue the tariff protection now placed on it until such time as the increase of the retort coke oven industry shall have placed the production of sulphate of ammonia on a firm and profitable basis. Yours, truly, THE NEW ENGLAND GAS AND COKE COMPANY, EXHIBIT A. Table showing amount of ammoniacal nitrogen (as sulphate of ammonia) contained in 15 brands of Bowker fertilizers, also dealer's price and United States agricultural station valuation of same. United States production and imports of ammonium sulphate and average market price. The price is given for the calendar year, while the imports are for the fiscal year ending June 30. 1893. 1894. 1895. 1896. 1897. 1898. 1899. 1900. 1901. 1902. 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. EXHIBIT D. Coke production of the United States showing progress of the retort coke ovens. Memorandum.-Sulphate of ammonia, 1908. [Figures for imports taken from bulletins issued by Department of Commerce and Labor. Domestic manufacture estimated by reliable authority.] Imports 56 per cent of total; tariff, 0.3 cent per pound. We ask to have the present tariff retained. From the above it will be seen that the rate is a tariff for revenue only, and does not prohibit importations. See accompanying letter from James L. Richards, president, New England Gas and Coke Company, for further information. THE NEW ENGLAND GAS AND COKE COMPANY, BOSTON, MASS., THINKS THAT THE PRESENT DUTY ON SULPHATE OF AMMONIA SHOULD BE RETAINED. Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE, SHAWMUT BANK BUILDING, Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We give below the figures for imports, production, and consumption of ammonium sulphate for the year 1905, as given in Census Bulletin No. 65, and for the year 1907, as given in the United States Geological Survey report on gas, coke, tar, and ammonia and the Bureau of Statistics report on the commerce and navigation of the United States. These figures show that the imports of sulphate of ammonia for the year 1905 amounted practically to 50 per cent of the gross consumption, and that in 1907, the next year for which statistics are 75941-H. Doc. 1505, 60-2-vol 8-3 available, this had increased to 54 per cent. These figures are far above the average for Schedule A or for any of the other schedules, or for the free list itself. On these figures we base the following statements: (1) The present tariff rate produces as near as may be the maximum income to be expected from this article. If there be any change in the rate it should be increased rather than lowered. (2) As the foreign producer now controls over 50 per cent of the market, any decrease in the tariff will give him complete control. (3) Any equitable adjustment of this rate in the relation to the other rates in Schedule A or in relation to the other schedules must tend to reduce the amount of ammonium-sulphate importations rather than increase them. The producers of sulphate of ammonia in this country now face more than their share of foreign competition. For these reasons we ask you to retain the present tariff on sulphate of ammonia. Yours, respectfully, THE NEW ENGLAND GAS AND COKE COMPANY, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1907, Imports entered for consumption, p. 976. d United States Geological Survey Report on Gas, Coke, Tar, and Ammonia, p. 29. BAUGH & SONS' COMPANY, OF PHILADELPHIA, PA., ASKS THAT SULPHATE OF AMMONIA BE KEPT ON DUTIABLE LIST. DELAWARE RIVER CHEMICAL WORKS, Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE, Chairman Committee of Ways and Means, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Several large fertilizer concerns have petitioned your committee to remove the present tariff on sulphate of ammonia, thereby placing the article on the free list. We (as manufacturers of sulphate of ammonia, also as very large manufacturers of fertilizers) wish to protest against the removal of the present tariff on sulphate of ammonia, for we are convinced that while removal of the duty would probably effect a lowering of the price of ammonium sulphate for the time being the ultimate outcome would be grave |