PARAGRAPHS 220-222-WRAPPER AND FILLER TOBACCO.

a scrap-not one ounce used other than as a filler-all of it inside the cigarnone of it outside, even as a cover. Indeed, it is my understanding that whole vegas are imported solely with the intent of selling the tobacco to the "seed and Havana "manufacturer as Havana filler, and, of course, at Havana filler prices. Well, indeed, may the Havana importer throw up his hands in despair, even imprecation, calling upon gods and men, "Fiat justitia ruat cælum." Though the "heavens" may not "fall," he may look with equanimity on the fast-shrinking revenues resultant from a uniform, flat-rate duty as the natural sequence of a ruinous customs policy, to wit, attempting to construe and administer a law that seems to be the acme of blind crudity-a strange idiosyncrasy or inconsistency. By judicial decision (see Sharrett's San Francisco decision) the bale is made the unit of value in appraisements of Sumatra tobacco. By "15 per cent" in the law and as exemplified by numerous and various "rulings" by the Treasury Department, and still further complicated by innumerable appraisements by different appraisers (perhaps few, if any, of whom could qualify as experts) the leaf becomes the "unit of value" in Havana (Cuban) tobacco-by far the largest imports now of foreign leaf. Query: Can any layman or official tell me why "the bale is the unit of value" for Sumatra tobacco and (perhaps at the same time, in the same customhouse, by the same appraiser) the leaf is the unit of value for Havana tobacco? It therefore appears on last analysis that all those so-called "mixed" bales are, in fact, composed of binder and filler leaf, both, however, designated as" filler" in the law, therefore, as filler, dutiable at 35 cents per pound.

Havana wrapper leaf.-I have never understood there was the slightest objection by Havana importers to paying the wrapper rate of duty on wrapper bales of Havana tobacco. Indeed, I am assured by undoubted authority that no reputable importer, under the law as it stands to-day, would presume to, would in fact, dare to, enter a bale of Havana wrapper as filler. To do so would be as palpable "a fraud, per se," as a similar entry of Sumatra tobacco would be under Mr. Sharretts's San Francisco decision. As a matter of fact, "wrapper tobacco in Cuba or in the United States is never "mixed" or "packed" with filler tobacco.

As the result of emasculation of the 1883 tariff, under which for seven years over 99 per cent of all the Sumatra tobacco imported escaped payment of the wrapper rate of duty, the McKinley law went as much too far the other way, would have prohibited all Havana leaf imports, filler, wrapper, and all. Hence, the Sharretts 15 per cent decision, later incorporated in the laws, both the Wilson and Dingley. It is simply a trade and economic impossibility to "mix or "pack" "wrapper leaf" in Havana filler bales. Havana wrappers are an exceedingly limited factor in Cuba, are far too costly, the highest-priced wrappers in the world (I am told as high as $10 a pound, in some instances), and the average probably is higher than Sumatra in Amsterdam, Holland, by far too high to permit of "mixing," " packing," "15 per centum," or any more or less per cent in filler bales, because, if so done, the bale could never be sold in any market in the world at any price other than as a filler bale. One of the weak points in appraisement of Havana tobacco seems to be in assuming that any leaf that can be used to cover a roll of tobacco is a wrapper. I have previously written, there are just three kinds or grade of merchantable cigar leaf, to wit, wrappers, binders, and fillers. We have found that there is no filler in Sumatra leaf, all wrappers (at least all imported). Also, that there is but an exceedingly small quantity, and that the highestpriced wrapper in the world, produced in Cuba. That it is not an economic proposition to "mix" or "pack" Havana wrappers into Havana filler bales; therefore, as an economic sequence, there can be but a very small quantity of Havana "wrapper" leaf imported into the United States. There would be none, practically, but for the necessity of having some wrapper leaf fine enough for the few very highest-priced "clear Havana" cigars that to some extent are made in the United States, but we must have the Havana filler," or the large "seed and Havana" industry of the United States could not exist-would soon be destroyed; also it is a necessity to some extent in the domestic or "mixed" cigar, almost wholly wrapped with the Sumatra wrapper, but not 1 ounce of Havana wrapper can be, ever has been, used on "seed and Havana " or the "mixed domestic" cigar. Then what becomes of the broadleaf industry of the tobacco farmers growing wrapper and binder leaf for manufacture of the "seed and Havana" cigar? The best cigar (price considered) many think

PARAGRAPHS 220-222-WRAPPER AND FILLER TOBACCO.

46

made in the United States; the equal, also, many good judges think, of the domestic "clear Havana," but costing considerably less. The law says "suitable for cigar wrappers," not binders. If it was suitable" for Havana cigar wrappers it would be in a Havana wrapper bale. Therefore it appears in the last analysis that all those so-called "mixed" bales in Havana tobacco are, in fact, composed solely of filler and binder leaf, both, however, designated as "filler" in the law, under the term "all other," and therefore dutiable as filler tobacco at 35 cents a pound (or under Cuban reciprocity 28 cents), by far the largest portion of Cuban or Havana tobacco. I have previously shown that the first incentive, the sole purpose and intent of the customs law in question, was to impose a new rate of tariff duty on Sumatra tobacco; that wholesale frauds in Sumatra imports during the first seven years (1883-1890) of its existence caused exceeding drastic provisions in subsequent import laws, not at all to increase revenue from Havana leaf imports, but to effectually guard against any further frauds in Sumatra leaf imports. Mr. Sharretts's decision, before referred to, did that effectually when it ruled that all Sumatra tobacco was wrapper tobacco. I have sometimes thought it was a pity we could not have one more as wise judicial decision, to wit, that all Havana tobacco was filler tobacco. It would be the wisest, most fortunate thing that could ever happen in the end, not only to the great cigar and leaf interests of the United States taken as a whole, but to the prosperity of the United States, and especially the revenues, for under a reasonable, livable tariff tax on Havana tobacco, we would soon be the cigar-manufcturing country of the world. Consistency is a jewel.

In the last few years one department of our Government (the Agricultural) has expended in the northern tobacco States alone many thousands of dollars in the effort to develop an improved type of wrapper leaf, that in fineness, looks, and yield would, approximately, at least, reach the up-to-date modern standard of a wrapper leaf, so it could compete with or at least hold its own against the great ever-increasing flood of Sumatra wrapper imports that have already utterly destroyed, driven out of the market as a wrapper, the product of four great States, to wit, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin, and so nearly so in Connecticut and Massachusetts that outside the new and exceedingly costly "shade-grown," the average prices on the farm in those States for the last five years (other than the "broadleaf") have hardly been above the cost of production. Indeed, the four States first named are known now, in the trade, only as "binder and filler States." Now, we are confronted with the suicidal policy of one department of the Government (Agricultural), expending in recent years thousands of dollars in the effort to conserve, build up, an agricultural industry threatened with extinction, and another department (Treasury) doing its utmost to tear down-destroy-that industry, and ultimately all the protection we now have, inadequate though it is, by its drastic, unendurable, unjust persecution of Havana leaf imports that will drive us, as a natural sequence, into abolition of the wrapper rate of duty entirely, by a "uniform" or flat rate of duty that could only result in a tremendous loss in revenue from leaf-tobacco imports. Every" ruling" on leaf imports made in the last decade or more, so far as I know, has been made with the view, hope, or intent to increase the revenue from Havana leaf imports without any regard or consideration (apparently) to the future effect on the protection principle, of right or justice to the "seed and Havana" interests, or to the general cigar interests, or even the ultimate effect on the revenue, or, if you please, least of all, the Havana trade interests; surely some one or all these interests deserve respectful consideration.

EVOLUTION.

Eternal progression is accepted by modern philosophy as an immutable law of nature. In nature it is called "evolution," but nature's progress is slow, measured by the standard of human progression, at least in the twentieth century; especially so in economic, mechanical, and trade progression, the luxury of yesterday becomes the necessity of to-day. Probably not in the history of the world has there been a more radical and rapid change than in the evolution of the cigar wrapper. The "wrapper" of yesterday is the "binder" of today, as the natural sequence of the advent of Sumatra tobacco, a new, heretofore unknown type of leaf, unique in its distinctive qualities of size, fineness,

PARAGRAPHS 220-222-WRAPPER AND FILLER TOBACCO.

66

and, above all else, wrapping capacity; so, having no equal in the known world in those respects. has become the standard as a cigar wrapper, in appearance (looks) and wrapping capacity at least in the United States; therefore must be approximately equaled by any commercially known "wrapper" to become a merchantable or trade success. It therefore follows that this new "standard" for a cigar wrapper has relegated the wrapper of the obsolete past, and it is now a binder. This fact, disastrous though it be to our domestic wrapper industries, obtains among all our domestic leaf products (except broad leaf, and to a large extent in that). That it is not wholly so is solely due to its "blending" affinity with Havana filler or tobacco; it applies also to Havana tobacco, to some extent, I think; perhaps a larger percentage of binder leaf (designated by United States law, as we have seen, as "filler tobacco") under the mandatory caption "all other." Hence it appears this "Sumatra standard," especially in yield (wrapping capacity), as exemplified in Sumatra tobacco, has become the world-wide standard as a "wrapper leaf." and unquestionably the standard-the definition meant in the term wrapper tobacco in the law. A wrapper, in the trade sense of the term, moreover, as we have seen, in the intent of the law, should wrap the average-sized cigar with 3, or not much to exceed 4, pounds of leaf per thousand cigars. (Sumatra tobacco, I am told, hardly averages over 3 pounds per thousand.) Any leaf or piece of a leaf that will cover (wrap. if you please) a small roll of tobacco does not constitute a wrapper-is not "suitable," not now in the twentieth century sense of the term. If that were so now, as formerly, our Connecticut tobacco farmers could have, would have (as formerly), about 90 per cent of their product rated as-classed as-wrappers, salable at wrapper prices, instead of, as now, hardly 10 per cent; the balance, 90 per cent, classed as binders or fillers (mostly binders) and sold at binder and filler prices. True, a considerable amount of Havana leaf may be picked out of the best; the most "bindery" ("filler," the law says) bales that can be, probably is. used to cover "clear Havana cigars." This, however, only in the "clear Havana cigar" factory; not an ounce used, as I have shown in the "seed and Havana" or the "mixed" domestic cigar factory. But, I repeat, such leaf is not wrapper tobacco" or known as such in the trade under the standard of looks and yield, nor even as contemplated in the law. which defines it as being ("all other") "filler tobacco," therefore dutiable at 35 cents a pound. Asking the readers' indulgence, I will insert here one illustration: I was once asked in New York at the general appraiser's stores by a general appraiser to (unofficially) give judgment on a lot of several bales of Havana tobacco that had been appraised as "wrapper tobacco." On examination I found the leaf was exceedingly large, coarse, and dark. (I did not test its burning quality; no need to, in that instance. to decide its status as wrapper or filler tobacco.) It was about as "suitable" (to use the law's definition) for a "wrapper" for any cigar as a horse blanket would be "suitable" for a full-dress costume at an inaugural ball. If enough larger, it might do to cover the nakedness of a plains Indian, but was anything but "suitable" for a wrapper for even the cheapest domestic cigar-as a matter of fact, it was poor filler tobacco. A "clear Havana' cigar, of course, must be all Havana (Cuban) leaf, outside cover and all, though the cover (wrapper, so called) may be so coarse in texture that it could not be sold in competition with a cheap Sumatra-wrapped cigar selling at 5 to 10 cents, but for the fact of its being all Havana tobacco, solely because of its unequalled aroma or flavor. The "Sumatra-wrapped" cigar sells readily to the unsophisticated smoker, largely because to him it looks better. "Wrap (we will call it) around the same cigar a leaf of binder tobacco taken from a bale of Havana tobacco and probably he would not buy it at even 5 cents, while the "clear-Havana" devotee would willingly pay 10, 15. perhaps 20 cents for his cigar covered (wrapped, if you please) with exactly the same leaf. The one buys on “looks" mainly as his standard; the latter buys on "quality" as his choice. It therefore appears that the domestic "clear Havana" cigar is a merchantable, valuable product, not because of its "looks" or fineness of the cover-which may be, probably is, in all but the higher-priced cigars covered with a binder dutiable (don't forget that) at 35 cents a pound-not because the outside leaf is "suitable" or a commercially known wrapper, but solely because of its well-known quality, its aroma, and flavor, that has no equal as a cigar leaf, therefore, is a necessity, at least here in the United States, where we must have the best-a "necessity" not only to the "clear-Havana smoker,

66

PARAGRAPHS 220-222-WRAPPER AND FILLER TOBACCO.

but to the "seed and Havana" devotee (of which I am one; never had enough yet); not only that, but the consumer of the 5 and 10 cent domestic cigar, which, too, of necessity, must often be, partly at least, "filled" with Havana. Indeed, the United States Government can not impose any additional burdens on the already overburdened Havana-leaf interests without demoralizing the whole great cigar industry of the United States. It would be well here, I respectfully submit, for the reader, whether layman or official, to stop and think what that means, not alone to a great domestic industry, but to the revenue from tobacco. both internal and import, unless a radical change is soon made in the present out-of-date, obsolete methods of Havana-leaf appraisements. I am no magician or necromancer. I can not undertake to call forth at will life from the dormant seed, cause it to grow before the eyes of man in a few minutes, to leaf, to blossom, to maturity. I have studied deeply into the unsolved problem of cosmology, but I can not perform miracles. Moral: We may "kill the goose that laid the golden egg" and get that egg, it's true, but I defy any human intelligence to bring back the lost life of that goose so that it can lay any more golden or other eggs. Moral: We may seriously cripple, if not de stroy, the Havana importing business, and with the “seed and Havana" industry, including the domestic agricultural interests so closely allied with and dependent upon it, by continual nagging, drastic. unendurable customs, exactions on Havana leaf imports; we may go so far in our unholy crusade and suicidal exactions as to bring about a uniform or flat rate of duty on all leaf tobacco which will not only result in a large decrease or loss in revenue, but butcher outright the infant "shade-grown" industry that another department of the Government (its agriculture mother) has spent thousands of dollars and years of time in gestating and bringing up to the nursing period, or we may conclude to "let well enough alone," or, better yet, at least temporarily remedy the present conditions by a wise, righteous, just Treasury ruling, in effect making the bale, instead of the leaf, the "unit of value" for Havana tobacco, as it has been for Sumatra tobacco for nearly two decades, until by "act of Congress" we can get a law so worded that the status of "wrapper tobacco" may be made so clear that all can understand it.

66

BINDER LEAF WHAT IS IT?

Elsewhere I have shown that it is a distinct grade of leaf, a necessity as a binder, though not quite up to the modern "wrapper leaf" standard, in the manufacture of all domestic cigars made in the United States, including "Spanish work," though the method of using or working it in the latter is quite different from the method pursued in "American style." In the United States tariff law a "binder leaf" has no existence, yet in the manufacture of cigars it is by far a larger factor in pounds than the wrapper, especially so in all "Sumatra-wrapped cigars, as the binder underneath it is not only a heavier grade of leaf but often wraps around the inside filler more than once, so in the average cheaper "Sumatra-wrapped" cigar (by far the largest amount of cigars made in the United States) probably the binder weighs nearly or quite twice as much as the wrapper. The natural sequence being there seems to be a chronic shortage of "binder leaf" available (especially so at this writing). A binder is any leaf, without regard to looks (next to burn, the most important factor in a cigar wrapper) that will hold together for the moment (in the hand in "Spanish work") or indefinitely in a "mold" in "American style," the scraps or small parts of leaf used as the main body of the filler. The Wisconsin product is nearly all binder leaf; New York also, I think; Pennsylvania, probably one-half or more; Ohio, practically now all filler leaf. Now, all this great factor, millions of pounds, is a necessity the world over in the manufac ture of cigars, though (strange to say) nameless in United States tariff law, though specifically defined in the law as "filler leaf" under the mandatory term "All other."

I will here digress a moment to present some cigar percentages, well known to cigar manufacturers as approximately correct: On the average the weight per thousand of outside leaf compared to inside leaf-binder and filler-for all cigars is about as follows: "Seed and Havana," 10 pounds; "clear Havana," 5 to 6 pounds; "Sumatra wrapped," 3 pounds. So it appears the percentage of "binder and filler" leaf (all filler under the law) is 94 to 95 per cent in "clear

PARAGRAPHS 220-222-WRAPPER AND FILLER TOBACCO.

Havana" to 97 per cent in the "mixed" or "Sumatra-wrapped" cigar. Therefore it now becomes a demonstrated, mathematical fact that of the total “Havana imports" not over 5 per cent can be or is ever used on the outside of "clear Havana" cigars, whatever the quality of the outside cover may be, whether binder or wrapper; so it appears as an inevitable deduction that if 5 per cent of the total Havana imports pay the " wrapper rate of duty (no matter what the cigars may be covered with) the United States Treasury has received its full 100 per cent of all revenue from Havana leaf imports it is entitled to, under the most exacting interpretation of the law possible. I am under the impression, moreover, the domestic Havana interests would be willing to accede to a settlement of this vexatious question on that basis. Now, as all the contention appears to be over the domestic "clear Havana cigar, largely, it would appear, that because a large percentage, of necessity, of the ordinary and cheaper grades of domestic Havana cigars are, have to be, covered with binder leaf, not wrapper, as that is by far too rare and too costly to be used on the great bulk of Havana cigars made in the United States. We have found also that in all other cigars made in the United States it is exclusively used inside the cigars, so there can be no question about its being all "filler tobacco" in that instance, at least. We have found that, unlike the method of assorting in the States the binder and filler leaf, all not "suitable" for wrapper tobacco in Cuba goes into the bale together, and is a "bale of filler tobacco" in Cuba, and actually designated as "filler tobacco" under United States law, it has to be sold as filler at filler prices, varying, of course, upon the percentage of binder leaf that can be selected out of it in the factory where used.

NOTE. Of course, we are considering the binder-filler product of Cuba, by far the largest percentage, in the best of seasons, probably 90 per cent, perhaps more, of the entire crop, the balance, or first quality of leaf, "wrappers" having been treated of previously.

66

Does the percentage of wrapper leaf in Havana tobacco seem unreasonably low? Let us see. I have stated an estimate of not over 10 per cent as wrapper leaf" in Connecticut (not counting in the Connecticut "broad leaf," not a large factor now), but there remain four great States, to wit, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, all of them now known by their tobacco product, in the trade as "binder and filler States," evolution, raising the wrapper standard to the Sumatra standard. Up to 20 years ago all those States produced a good percentage of "wrapper leaf" they could sell at wrapper prices. They probably produce as good leaf now, but it is now so far below the Sumatra or modern "wrapper" standard in looks and yield it is only binder and filler leaf. Now, the incomprehensible thing to me is that at the same time when Sumatra competition has reduced the wrapper of those four States to the grade of binder and filler tobacco, the binder and filler tobacco of Cuba has gone up, been elevated to the wrapper standard. I might, in time-an eternity of timebe able to solve the problem of "the fourth dimension of space," but modestly doubt my ability to ever solve that problem. Now, we have the anomaly (Incomprehensible to the layman) of a "clear Havana" cigar, wrapped with a filler, but it is also difficult to understand why a leaf being on the outside of a cigar elevates it to the dignity of a "wrapper," dutiable at $1.85 a pound, while one inside the cigar (of as good quality, possibly a little better) is degraded to the filler level, dutiable (if from Cuba) at 28 cents. Does the law contemplate quality or locality? As this point seems a crucial test of this vexatious question, let us probe into it a little deeper, and perhaps we can solve the problem, so we will investigate further: A bale of Cuban tobacco is imported to be sold to a Connecticut "seed and Havana" manufacturer (for instance), but appraisement decided it was wrapper, all wrapper. Now, the "seed and Havana" manufacturer has no use for it as wrapper; his wrapper and binder must be "Connecticut broad leaf," so if the Connecticut manufacturer buys it he must buy it at filler price, because he uses it all inside the cigar, solely as filler, which means a tremendous, a ruinous, loss to the importer, or the manufacturer must submit to that extra duty tax of $1.85 a pound; in either case it is simply ruin. Or, most horrible of all (from the viewpoint of the overzealous appraiser), the penalized bales may be returned to Cuba or resold in some foreign country, so in either case the unjust tariff tax must be rebated. Therefore the anticipated increment from an unjust (really illegal) appraisement fails to materialize in dollars and cents, Cuba retains or the foreigner