Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

PARAGRAPHS 220-222-WRAPPER AND FILLER TOBACCO.

question that Congress would have the right to impose the tax upon those coupons.

Mr. WOODARD. Yes, sir. Mr. HARRISON. And I ask you whether you believe that would be advisable, from a revenue point of view and also whether it would increase the opportunities of the small men ?

Mr. WOODARD. I do not know, sir. Now, I will tell you that is a hard thing to tell, because those fellows who get those schedules out have got a great deal more sense than I have.

I have only tried to answer the questions as they were given to me. And I will state that I do not know, sir; but I do think that it will be a great deal better to prevent it, and I believe that if you can not do anything else you should try that.

Mr. PAYNE. If the internal-revenue tax was high enough it would stop the practice?

Mr. WOODARD. No, sir.

Mr. PAYNE. You do not think that any revenue tax could be put upon them that would stop putting the coupons in? Mr. WOODARD. No, sir. Mr. PÀYNE. In each package ?

Mr. WOODARD. Well, you might say the tax should be $1.25 without coupons and $2 with coupons. That would be an illustration.

Mr. FORDNEY. You would make it prohibitive?
Mr. WOODARD. We would make it prohibitive.
Mr. FORDNEY. Anything to stop it?
Mr. WOODARD. Yes, sir; anything to stop it, is what we want.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further, Mr. Woodard ?
Mr. WOODARD. No, sir.

Mr. GEORGE W. PERKINS. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I was not on the list of witnesses; and while I do not want to speak now, I ask permission to file a brief in order that it may go into the record.

The CHAIRMAN. You will be given that permission. Hand your brief to the clerk. The next witness is Congressman Driscoll. We do not swear the Senators and Members of Congress, Mr. Driscoll.

TESTIMONY OF HON. MICHAEL E. DRISCOLL, A REPRESENT

ATIVE FROM NEW YORK.

Mr. DRISCOLL. I have not much to say, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. I received a letter yesterday from J. W. Upson, of Baldwinsville, N. Y., who some of you gentlemen know personally, with a copy of a resolution adopted by the New York State Tobacco Growers' Association, and this resolution, which he requested me to read to your committee, is as follows: The Hon. M. E. DRISCOLL, M. C. :

The following resolutions were adopted by the New York State Tobacco Growers' Association:

"Whereas an effort is being made to reduce the duty on Sumatra tobacco from $1.85 to $1 per pound, we, the New York State Tobacco Growers' Association, do hereby most earnestly protest against the proposed reduction of duty as injurious to the growers of this section, inasmuch as this reduction brings cheap foreign labor in competition with American labor, and it is the sense of this association that this is manifestly

PARAGRAPHS 220_222-WRAPPER AND FILLER TOBACCO.

unfair. Furthermore, we protest against the reduction of existing rates on filler tobaccos.

“We strongly urge our Representative in Congress, Hon. M. E. Driscoll, to use all the influence possible to prevent this proposed reduction.

“JAMES S. SCHENCK, President,
“BURT GIDDINGS, Secretary,
“J. W. Upson,
“CHARLES S. KELLER,
“F. W. SUNNES,

Executive Committee. “BALDWINSVILLE, N. Y., January 14, 1913."

Now, Mr. Upson states that no member of this association would be here to submit the case to the committee, but that gentlemen interested in the same line of tobacco business in Connecticut would be here for that purpose.

Baldwinsville, N. Y., in my district, is the center of the tobaccogrowing district of the State of New York and the headquarters of this tobacco growers' association are at Baldwinsville. I will file with your committee this resolution, which was signed by the officers of the association. I know most of them personally, and they are men of high standing and good judgment.

PETITION OF TOBACCO GROWERS OF SOUTHERN STATES.

SUMMERDALE, ALA., December 30, 1912. Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD,

Montgomery, Ala. DEAR SIR: Attached to this letter you will finil an argument from the Florida growers of leaf tobacco as to why the duty should not be removed in the imported Sumatra tobacco. I wish to add my voice to the same, as I heartily agree with everything that is said in the pamphlet.

Now that the State of Alabama is coming to the front in the growing of high-grade cigar-wrapper tobacco, and will in time be one of the principal industries of Alabama and a commodity that will enrich our growers, it should have protection. Tobacco, being it luxury, should naturally be taxed. The cigar manufacturers have long since adjusted themselves to the $1.85 tariff duty on imported Sumatra tobacco; consequently they need no protection. The grower of the raw material is the one in danger.

As a Democrat and a citizen of Alabama and a tobacco grower, I ask you to kindly add your strength and support in seeing that the tariff on imported Sumatra tobacco is not removed. If anything, make it higher. Wishing you all success, I remain, yours, very respectfully,

John H. HAY, Superintendent Alabama Tobacco Co.

SUMMERDALE, Ala., December 30, 1912. The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: We, whose names are subscribed, growers of wrapper tobacco, or interested in the tobacco industry, in the southern section of Alabama, respectfully request that there be no reduction of the tariff on imported wrapper tobacco. Should there be any such reduction, it will be impossible for wrapper tobacco to be grown in this district. Large investments have been made in equipment for growing wrapper stock in the shade, and we protest against any reduction in the tariff rates. We are attaching hereto a copy of the petition of the tobacco growers at Quincy, Fla., and beg to indorse the same and make it a part of ours.

W. S. GARRETT

(And 11 others).

PARAGRAPHS 220–222-WRAPPER AND FILLER TOBACCO.

QUINCY, FLA., December 21, 1912. The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN : We, the undersigned tobacco growers in the States of Florida and Georgia, respectfully petition your honorable body as follows:

Under the existing duty on imported wrapper tobacco, millions of dollars have been invested in this section in building shades, barns, tenant houses, and other equipment which is necessary in cutlivating fine shaded wrappper tobacco, and this equipment is used for the purpose of producing wrapper tobacco. The tobacco grown in this section is known as wrapper tobacco, and this type comes in direct competition with the imported Sumatra wrapper tobacco. Our Government is spending millions of dollars and is still appropriating annually large sums in developing the cultivation of fine wrapper tobacco. Experimental stations have been established at various points, and our Government has given the tobacco growers a great deal of help and has encouraged capital to invest in the interest.

In this industry we employ thousands and thousands of people, who are depending solely on the production of this tobacco for their livelihood. The aggregate investment represents millions of dollars, and this industry is still in its infancy and requires all the protection and encouragement we can get, in order to compete with the rich Dutch trusts who cultivate the Sumatra tobacco-employing only Chinese coolie labor, such labor receiving from 6 to 8 cents per day in wages, while our labor, throughout the tobacco section, commands from a dollar per day upward.

By any reduction in the wrapper-tobacco tariff it will be impossible to grow tobacco in this section of the country and compete with the Dutch trusts who employ coolie labor, as stated above.

The McKinley tariff on imported wrapper tobacco was $2 per pound. The present tariff, under the Dingley bill, is $1.85 per pound, and this rate has been effect for the past 14 years, and the relative importation was about the same under both tariffs.

During the past year the importation has represented 32,000 bales which produced, in round numbers, $10,000,000 to the Government in Sumatra tobacco. If this duty is lowered we claim that the entire benefit will go to the rich Dutch corporations, who are the largest tobacco growing trusts in the world, and our home industry will be injured irreparably and the ultimate consumer will not benefit one penny, owing to the fact that the difference in the reduction of duty, whatever it may be, will be absorbed on the other side by the Dutch trusts, who will demand a higher price for their tobacco, and neither the manufacturer nor the ultimate consumer will be benefited whatsoever by any reduction of the tariff. The sole beneficiary, under a reduction of the tariff on this article, will be the importers and the European tobacco trusts.

To illustrate to you, gentlemen, the duty on Sumatra wrapper tobacco under the Cleveland administration was $1.50 per pound; the present tariff is $1.85 per pound—the difference in the cost to wrap 1,000 cigars is approximately 60 cents-assuming a rate of 14 pounds of wrapper tobacco per thousand cigars, and this is a liberal estimate of the quantity used to cover cigars.

As stated above, the cultivation of fine wrapper tobacco in this section is an infant industry. Having been fostered by the Government. we are able to produce a wrapper tobacco that is classified by the best judges to be fully equal to the imported Sumatra tobacco.

To illustrate, the largest cigar manufacturers in the United States are no longer depending on the imported wrapper for the production of their cigars, but are using instead Florida, Georgia, Connecticut, and Porto Rican wrappers, which are giving universal satisfaction, and they are very successful; in order to induce them to use our tobacco, we are compelled to sell the finest grades lower than the present duty on wrapper tobacco; hence this leaves a very small margin of profit.

In conclusion, we claim that in order to continue growing this fine type of wrapper tobacco in competition with the European trusts, who are employing cheap Chinese coolie labor, that we require all of the protection and encouragement that can be afforded by our Government. We urge a continuation of the work being carried on by the Department of Agriculture the careful selection and breeding of seed, etc., all of which tend to still further improve PARAGRAPHS 220-222-WRAPPER AND FILLER TOBACCO.

our production, and a continuation of the present rate of duty is necessary to accomplish this result and safeguard the interests of our entire community, whose welfare depends solely upon the tobacco production.

MEMORIAL OF TOBACCO GROWERS OF FLORIDA.

UNITED STATES SENATE,

Washington, D. C., January 17, 1919. Hon. Oscar UNDERWOOD, Chairman Ways and Means Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Herewith is petition to the Ways and Means Committee from tobacco growers, farmers, and interested parties in Jefferson County, Fla. The petition is self-explanatory.

I would appreciate your giving same careful consideration and doing all that you consistently can toward granting their request. Yours, very truly,

DUNCAN U. FLETCHER.

(Inclosure.)

JEFFERSON SUMATRA TOBACCO PLANT,

Monticello, Fla., January 7, 1913. Hon. DUNCAN U. FLETCHER,

Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: As you know, the tobacco business in this county is still an infant industry and we need all the encouragement and protection the Government can afford to give us.

For this reason the tobacco growers and interested parties of this county held a meeting at Monticello on December 28, 1912, at which meeting it was decided to present to the Committee on Ways and Means a petition urging the continuation of the present rate of duty on wrapper tobacco.

We take the pleasure of inclosing a copy of the petition referred to and feel confident that you will do all that is possible to maintain the present rate of duty, as it is impossible to continue the growing of tobacco in this section without that protection. Any reduction in the wrapper tobacco tariff would simply kill this industry, even now only in its infant stage, before it is strong enough to withstand the severe encroachments of the strongly entrenched tobacco importers, who take advantage of the common delusion, that everything manufactured, grown, or made in the United States is inferior to imported goods. Yours, very truly,

J. J. NOLTHENIUS, Secretary Pro Tempore, Jefferson County, Fla.,

MONTICELLO, Fla., December 28, 1912. The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN : We, the undersigned tobacco growers, farmers, and interested parties in the county of Jefferson and State of Florida, respectfully submit to your honorable body the following petition :

Under the existing duty on imported wrapper tobacco millions of dollars have been invested in this State in building shades, barns, tenant houses, and other equipment, which is necessary for the growing and curing of shaded wrapper tobacco, and this equipment can be used only for that purpose.

The tobacco grown in this section is for the greatest part wrapper tobacco and comes in direct competition with imported Sumatra wrapper tobacco. Our Government is spending millions of dollars, and is still appropriating annually large sums in developing the cultivation of fine wrapper tobacco. Experiment stations have been established at various points, and our Government has given the tobacco growers a great deal of help and has encouraged capital to invest in this interest.

In this industry are employed thousands and thousands of people who are depending solely on the productions of this tobacco for their livelihood. The aggregate investment represents millions of dollars, and this industry is still

PARAGRAPHS 220-222-WRAPPER AND FILLER TOBACCO.

in its infancy and requires all the protection and encouragement we can get in order to compete with the rich Dutch companies who employ for the cultivation and handling of the Sumatra tobacco Chinese, Javans, and Malayan coolies (labor), which labor is earning, taking into consideration the different privileges, such as free doctor, free medicine and hospital expenses, house rent, etc., about 20 cents a day (30 to 40 cents in Mexican money), while our labor throughout the tobacco section commands from $1 per day upward.

By any reduction in the wrapper-tobacco tariff it will be impossible to grow tobacco in this section and compete with the large Dutch trusts and corporations, who are employing the cheap coolie labor as stated above.

The McKinley tariff on imported Sumatra wrapper tobacco was $2 per pound. The present tariff under the Dingley bill is $1.85 per pound, and this tariff has been in effect for the past 14 years, and the relative importation was about the same under both tariffs.

During the past year the importation of Sumatra tobacco represented 32,000 bales, representing in round numbers about $10,000,000, and we claim that if the duty is lowered the entire benefit will go to the rich Dutch corporations who are the richest and largest in the world. Our industry will be injured irreparably, and the ultimate consumer will not be benefited a penny by the reduction of the duty, whatever it may be. The benefit will be absorbed on the other side by the Dutch trusts, who will demand higher prices for their tobacco, and neither the manufacturer nor the ultimate consumer will be benefited whatsoever by any reduction of the tariff. The sole beneficiary will be the importers and European tobacco trusts and corporations.

To illustrate to you gentlemen : The duty on Sumatra wrapper tobacco under the Cleveland administration was $1.50 per pound; the present tariff is $1.85 per pound—the difference in cost to wrap 1,000 cigars is approximately 60 cents-assuming the liberal estimate of a little less than 2 pounds of wrapper tobacco per thousand cigars, making a difference of 0.06 cent per cigar.

As stated above, the growing of fine wrapper tobacco is an infant industry in this section. Having been fostered by the Government, we are able to produce a wrapper tobacco that is classified by the best judges to be fully equal to the imported Sumatra tobacco; but, as we all know, a prophet is very little honored in his own country, and it is the same with all homemade products, and it will take some time sill to overcome this prejudice.

Some of the largest cigar manufacturers are no longer depending on imported wrapper for the manufacturing of their cigars, but are using instead Florida, Georgia, Connecticut, and Porto Rican wrappers, which are giving universal satisfaction, and they are very successful. In order to induce them to use our tobacco we are compelled to sell the finest grades lower than the present duty on wrapper tobacco, hence it leaves a very small margin of profit.

In conclusion, we claim that in order to continue growing this fine type of wrapper tobacco in competition with the European trusts, who are employing the cheap coolie labor, that we require all the protection and encouragement that can be afforded by our Government. We urge a continuation of the work being carried on by the Department of Agriculture--the careful selection and breeding of seed, etc.—all of which tend to still further improve our production, and a continuation of the present rate of duty is necessary to accomplish and safeguard the interest of our entire community, whose welfare for the greatest part depends upon the tobacco production.

J. J. NOLTHENIUS

(And 26 others).

ARGUMENT PRESENTED BY THE SEED LEAF TOBACCO

BOARD OF TRADE.

CINCINNATI, January 6, 1913. Hon. E. R. BATHRICK, M. C.,

Akron, Ohio. DEAR SIR: The following resolutions and argument, a copy of which is in closed, are presented for your kind and earnest consideration by the Cigar Lear Tobacco Board of Trade of Cincinnati, the members of which unanimously

« AnteriorContinuar »