APPENDIX. SCHEDULE D.-WOOD, AND MANUFACTURES OF. RATTAN AND REEDS. EDWARD BENNÈCHE & BRO., NEW YORK CITY, URGE THAT THERE BE NO INCREASE IN DUTY ON THESE ARTICLES. NEW YORK, December 18, 1908. Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE, House of Representatives. SIR: As we understand, the American Rattan and Reed Manufacturing Company, of Brooklyn, and the Heywood Brothers & Wakefield Company, of Gardner, Mass., are applying to your honorable body for a considerable increase of the duty on reeds cut from rattan, covered by paragraphs 206 and 700 of the present tariff. Being largely interested in the importation of this article, we beg to protest against any such increase of duty, for the following reasons: The article in question in its crude state is rattan, which comes from Singapore, the Dutch East Indies, etc. From this rattan, by a simple process and at one cut, the bark is split off, which bark makes the chair cane, nearly all of which is manufactured in this country, but what little comes from Germany pays a duty of 10 per cent ad valorem. This rate of duty, in our opinion, is correct and should not be altered. The material left after the bark has been stripped off is, in the trade, called "reed," which now pays a duty of 10 per cent ad valorem for sizes up to and including 63 millimeters (see par. 206), and is free of duty for sizes from 7 millimeters up, as being suitable for whips (see par. 700). Any reed recut into flat, oval, split reed, and the like pays 10 per cent. We are decidedly of the opinion that the present duty is correct and that no change should be made. The increase in duty asked for by the above two firms, viz, 5 to 10 cents per pound weight, is simply ridiculous, as it would mean on some of the articles involved a duty of 100 per cent and more; but any increase, however small, would be entirely out of place, as its effect would only be to enrich these two firms, with a few workmen employed for the specific work of cutting rattan, at the expense of the many manufacturers of whips, reed chairs, baby carriages, reed furniture, etc., their millions of capital, and their thousands of workmen depending for their living upon the importation of this crude or semicrude material at a reasonable rate of duty. In cutting rattan the yield of chair cane is about two-thirds of the value of the manufactured articles, consequently no factory can afford to cut more rattan than it can sell chair cane. At present the American factories are cutting all the chair cane needed in this country, the importation of German chair cane, owing to its poor quality, being exceedingly light. This practically gives to the American factories a monopoly of the trade in chair cane, or, in other words, of already two-thirds of the value of the manufactured rattan product. A claim for protection of their industry on part of the two above applicants is entirely out of place, since within the last ten years, and probably a good deal longer, they have met with a wonderful financial success. Within the last four or five years they had, as we are informed, an understanding to hold up the price of chair cane at a figure which must have left them a profit not far from 100 per cent. All this without danger from foreign competition, since chair cane made abroad is an article of inferior quality, which can be used to a very small extent only for American purposes, the demand for same in fact being so light that we do not think it worth our while to handle it. The effect of a high duty, such as asked for, would simply be this: The American Rattan and Reed Manufacturing Company would go on cutting as much reed as their sale of chair cane would permit, and would thus be able to supply only a small percentage of the reed goods manufacturers with reed, say 10 to 15 per cent, while the Heywood Brothers & Wakefield Company would cut just enough reed for their own manufacturing, and thus 85 to 90 per cent of the present manufacturers of reed goods, with all their invested large capital and their thousands of workmen, would be driven out of the business. Thus a higher rate of duty would benefit only these two parties to the detriment of the trade in general, while new factories for the cutting of rattan can not be started, because already as much chair cane is being cut in this country as can be used. Consequently there will not be sufficient reed to supply the other manufacturers of reed goods, unless same is imported and allowed to come in at the present reasonable rate of duty. The Heywood Brothers & Wakefield Company are not only cutters of rattan, which means manufacturers of chair cane and reed, but they are principally manufacturers of reed goods such as reed chairs, baby carriages, and reed furniture. Thus of course it would be a great gain for them, by means of an excessive duty, to drive all other manufacturers of reed goods out of the market. We inclose a list of some of the other manufacturers of reed goods in different parts of the country; and if you will take the trouble to inquire of them, you will no doubt find that they find our views correct and that they will urge you to accept them and to decline to increase the present rate of duty even to the smallest extent. As stated above, they are with their business, their capital, and their thousands of workmen dependent upon a supply of reed, which can be brought into this country at a rate of duty not exceeding the present rate. Respectfully submitted. EDWARD BENNÈCHE & BRO., Importers. EXHIBIT A. Manufacturers of reed chairs, baby carriages, and reed furniture. American Baby Carriage Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Bay State Chair Company, New Bedford, Mass. Bishop & Dickinson, Baldwinsville, Mass. Canada Furniture Manufacturers (Limited), Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Capital Rattan Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Carriage and Toy Company, Baltimore, Md. P. Derby & Co., Gardner, Mass. J. A. Dickerman, Gardner, Mass. Durfee Embalming Fluid Company, Grand Rapids, Mich. John A. Dunn Company, Gardner, Mass. A. Eggers & Sons, St. Louis, Mo. Garton Toy Company, Sheboygan, Mich. Gendron Manufacturing Company, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Hechinger Brothers & Co., Baltimore, Md. Imperial Rattan Company (Limited), Walkerville, Ontario, Canada. Jacob Kaiser Manufacturing Company, St. Louis, Mo. Kelly Brothers, Gardner, Mass. Kinley Manufacturing Company, Chicago, Ill. Michigan Buggy Company, Kalamazoo, Mich. Murphy Chair Company, Detroit, Mich. National Carriage and Reed Company, Cincinnati, Ohio. New England Reed Company, Boston, Mass. Newburgh Reed Company, Newburgh, N. Y. Omaha Reed and Rattan Manufacturing Company, Omaha, Nebr. F. Parthier, Chicago, Ill. Pioneer Manufacturing Company, Detroit, Mich. Philadelphia Baby Carriage Factory, Philadelphia, Pa. Rattan Manufacturing Company, New Haven, Conn. L. B. Ramsdell Company, Gardner, Mass. Rich Brothers, Baltimore, Md. St. Louis Rattan Company, St. Louis, Mo. South Bend Toy Manufacturing Company, South Bend, Ind. H. N. Thayer & Son, Erie, Pa. Gero. W. Travers, East Templeton, Mass. Peter A. Wagner, Philadelphia, Pa. F. A. Whitney Carriage Company, Leominster, Mass. W. F. Whitney & Co., South Ashburnham, Mass. Manufacturers of whips. American Whip Company, Westfield, Mass. Tipp Whip Company, Tippecanoe City, Ohio. LUMBER. T. B. WALKER SUBMITS, AS SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT, PAY ROLL OF RED RIVER LUMBER COMPANY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. Hon. S. E. PAYNE, WASHINGTON, D. C., December 16, 1908. Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SIR: The inclosed pay-roll list of wage rates I trust will cover the point you had in mind when you asked me to furnish it. It gives the rates for the year 1895-before the present tariff law was enacted and the rates from 1899 to 1908, inclusive. You will see that between 1895 and 1907 common-labor wages rose from $1.30 to $2 per day, or over 53 per cent. All labor advanced over 42 per cent. But the day labor is much the larger percentage of the total wage bill. This pay-roll list covers as nearly as possible what I think you have had in mind. Of course the whole pay roll of a thousand or twelve hundred men could not be sent. This list, showing the large rise in wages, answers the question of Mr. Clark as to the lumbermen receiving as a present the entire increase in the price of lumber under the tariff. It can be shown that the profit or net gain in holding timber as a mill supply is not as great as would result from investments in city property or good farm lands. The timber brings in no income until cut and is heavily taxed, and this, added to the interest on the investment, makes the net profit in the long run in favor of city or farm property. T. B. WALKER. Very truly, yours, EXHIBIT A. Labor pay-roll rates, 1895 to 1908, inclusive, Red River Lumber Company, $1.30 $1.50 $1.65 $1.75 $1.75 $1.75 $1.75 $1.75 $1.75 $2.00 $1.75 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.00 2.75 10.50 Sort shed common labor... Total. 1.30 1.50 1.65 1.75 1.75 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 27.20 29.60 31.15 36.00 36.75 37.75 37.25 36.50 38.25 39.00 36.75 HON. E. B. VREELAND, M. C., FILES RESOLUTION OF THE JAMESTOWN (N. Y.) MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION RELATIVE TO FREE LUMBER. JAMESTOWN, N. Y., December 7, 1908. Hon. E. B. VREELAND, Salamanca, N. Y. DEAR SIR: At our annual meeting held December 1 the following resolution was adopted (introduced by Cyrus E. Jones): Resolved, That our Congressman, Hon. E. B. Vreeland, be requested to use his influence to remove the present duty on lumber. Representing, as we do, a large element of furniture manufacturers, we beg to point out that no large fortune has ever been acquired in this line of manufacturing; on the contrary, the profits in this trade are admittedly small. Neither at the present time, nor in the past, have furniture manufacturers attempted by trust or combination methods to fix or regulate prices on furniture products. The forests of this country are being rapidly depleted and the lumber is month by month coming into stronger hands. All of which facts are matters of common knowledge, and we submit that Congress can hardly refuse to give us such lumber as we import free of duty. THE MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, Very truly, yours, R. J. BOOTEY, Secretary. SKILLINGS, WHITNEYS & BARNES LUMBER COMPANY, OGDENSBURG, N. Y., WANTS FREE LUMBER, AND SUGGESTS NEW LUMBER SCHEDULE. Hon. S. E. PAYNE, OGDENSBURG, N. Y., December 11, 1908. Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We address you on the subject of duties on lumber. We (Skillings, Whitneys & Barnes Lumber Company) have been lumber merchants since 1856. During these years we have maintained large distributing yards at Ogdensburg, North Tonawanda, and Burlington. To-day our business is all concentrated at Ogdensburg, where we have invested over $500,000 in yards, planing mills, and box shop. We pay out yearly in wages over $350,000. We buy lumber in Michigan and Canada, wherever it is the cheapest, bring it to Ogdensburg, where it is manufactured or dressed in our planing mills for local and export trade; and, besides, we use annually about 15,000,000 feet of lumber in our box shop. We are merchants, and do not own any timber limits either in Michigan or Canada. We wish to divide our argument, as it were, on this subject into two sections: First. Relative to the duty of $2 per thousand feet on rough lumber: We believe this duty should be abolished, because throughout the States we do business in, namely, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the New England States, white-pine lumber is almost extinct. To-day it is imperative to buy a large portion of the whitepine lumber in Canada to supply the trade in these States, and because this is the condition, why pay duties of $2 per thousand feet on an article the people must buy in Canada? The removal of the duties, in my opinion, will be beneficial to the people at large through these States. The only reason for a duty on rough lumber, in our opinion, is to furnish revenue. Second. Relative to the duty on manufactured lumber: There is to-day an additional duty on lumber when it is planed or manufactured in Canada and brought into the United States. We recommend the following duties on planed or manufactured lumber: When |