Imágenes de páginas




[blocks in formation]

1890. 1891. 1892. 1893. 1894. 1895. 1896. 1897 1898. 1899 1900. 1901. 1902 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906 1907. 1908. 1909 1910. 1911. 1912..

Bols.of 162 lbs.

1,556, 656
2,375, 469
1, 228, 652
1,098, 208
1,686, 851

968, 864
1,369, 907
2,502, 802
2,531, 392
3,880, 352
3,193, 930
5, 607,500
3,592, 500
4,959, 720
5, 205,000
6,066, 272
6,808, 333
6,370, 555
6,959, 444

Pounds. 136, 800,000 155, 665,000 237,546, 900 122, 865, 160 109, 820, 800 168, 685, 440

96, 886, 400 116,301, 760 136,990, 720 250, 280, 227 253, 139,200 388,035, 200 319, 392, 960 560, 750,000 586,000,000 359, 250,000 495, 972,000 520, 500,000 608,056, 000 606, 627,000 680, 833, 000 637,056, 000 695, 944, 000

Pounds. 68,361, 997 133, 104,063 85, 112, 164 81,031,944 86, 810, 536 141,301, 411 78, 190, 334 133, 939, 930 129, 810, 630 153, 837, 026 93, 648, 451 74,598, 061 75, 674,776 78, 317, 310 75,323, 157 43, 408, 509 58, 468, 791 71, 287, 151 87,619, 202 {3,780, 442 82, 662, 162 76, 657,974 73, 486,678

55, 667,174
81, 259,519
62,991, 524
66, 451,884
55,351, 281
78, 262,909
68,534, 273
63,876, 204
60, 474,685
50,340, 267
23, 031, 440
42, 601, 6-49
81,984, 118
91,338, 974
78,898, 615
63, 075,006
108,079, 166
138, 316, 029
125, 164, 190
134, 119, 980
142, 738, 383
132, 116, 821
116,576, 653

Pounds. 124, 029,171 214, 363, 582 148, 103, 688 147, 483, 828 142, 161, 817 219,564, 320 146,724, 607 197,816, 134 190, 285, 315 204, 177, 293 116,679, 891 117, 199, 710 157, 658, 894 169, 656, 284 154, 221, 772 106,483, 515 166, 547, 957 209, 603, 180 212, 783, 392 222, 900, 422 225, 400, 545 208, 774, 795 190,063, 331

[merged small][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small]



Seattle, December 26, 1912. Hon. WILLIAM HUMPHREY,

Washington, D. C.: DEAR SIR: It may be a little premature to anticipate any possible action which may be taken by the next Congress looking to a radical reduction in the present tariff, but as it has been publicly announced as the policy of the Democratic Party that such action would be taken, we deem it fitting that the business interests of the country should be benefited rather than harmed.


It is a well-known fact that under modern methods that have come into use during the past five or six years rice can be grown in the States of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas more cheaply than in Siam, Borneo, India, China, or Japan, or any other of the great producing countries of the Far East.

This condition has built up colossal fortunes for the growers and jobbers of the home product, and it is freely predicted that the time is not distant when the Orient will have to look to this country for its rice.

Yet in the face of this, the tariff on broken rice is still one-fourth cent per pound, and the domestic producers regulate their prices by those of the Orient, with the distinct advantage of freight, and a constantly increasing profit on a rising market.

Then comes the question of hops. Now domestic hops are not the equal of those grown in Bohemia, any more than tobacco grown from Cuban seed equals that of Cuba, and the hop growers of this country are fast abandoning the culture in favor of more profitable crops.

Yet the home producers are protected with a duty of 16 cents per pound.
This duty should be radically reduced or totally abolished.

Your constituents are not interested in the culture of either of these commodities, and the reduction or abolishment of the duty now enforced on them would be of great benefit to their business and that of the public generally:

While we have contentedly rested under the burdensome duties heretofore imposed on these necessary commodities, we feel in the event of any radical revision of the tariff, that the brewing interests of the country are entitled to a share of such reductions as are made.

We ask on behalf of the friendship of this company and that of the writer, for your good offices and aid, should the subjects outlined come before the House of Representatives or Senate; trusting that the same is not in conflict with your views.

Wishing you success in the good work you are now doing for the entire Northwest and all the country generally, we are, with the compliments of the season, Very respectfully,

CHAS. W. LOOMIS, Secretary.



Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: In regard to the prevailing import duty on foreign rice we beg permission to point out some of the reasons which prove it to be excessive. As an example, cleaned rice weighs between 64 and 70 pounds to the bushel, according to grade, and at 2 cents per pound the present duty amounts to $1.28 to $1.40 per bushel. Uncleaned rice weighs from 56 to 60 pounds to the bushel, and at 17 cents the present duty amounts to 70 to 75 cents per bush el.

Per contra, the duty on wheat is only 25 cents per bushel, on barley 30 cents per bushel, and on corn 15 cents per bushel, so that the rates on rice are many times in excess of those applicable to any other kind of grain, with the further exception that the duties on rice are always effective, as we have not enough rice to export to foreign countries, whereas import duties on other grains rarely become operative even in the smallest degree.

The present duty on rice amounts to from 80 to 100 per cent on cleaned rice of suitable quality, which seems very high for an article of food of such general use and of such great value to the poorer classes were it placed more easily within their reach.

Some years ago, when prices abroad were very low, the duty amounted to as much as 133 per cent.

In view of such facts it is plain that the unprotected wheat and corn farmer has to pay for the benefit of his rice brethren twice as much for his rice puddings as they would cost could he buy his rice as he sells his wheat in the markets of the world.

More than half the population of the world lives on rice, and of all the fabulous quantities raised throughout Asia none is grown for the markets of this country, and out of all the millions of tons raised in Asia an average of something like 1,000,000 tons alone is available for export to Europe, where it is milled for home consumption and from whence any rice required for the United States is shipped, and the freight from the Far East to Europe and thence to the United States, which amounts to some three-quarters of a cent per pound, is, we think, all the protection an article of food of this nature should require, and we believe that the duty should be very much


modified on cleaned rice and taken off rough and uncleaned rice altogether. The latter for the reason that our rice millers on the seaboard would thus be enabled to compete for the huge trade of the West Indies and South America lying right at our doors, and defy the millers of Liverpool, Bremen, and Hamburg, who now control the trade. Yours, very truly,



House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In the tariff discussions that we have noticed in the papers nothing appears to have been said regarding alterations of duties on rice, and there can certainly be no question but what such duties are ridiculously high. It, however, seems impossible to secure any concessions that we have asked for. We submit that if the duty on both brown and cleaned rice be reduced to 1 cent per pound that it will at least benefit the consumers to this extent. We do not see that the southern growers or millers can reasonably expect any more than this. We would suggest that the duty on brewers' rice remain as at present. Yours, very truly,



NEW YORK, N. Y., February 8, 1913. Oscar W. UNDERWOOD, Esq.,

Charrnon of the Ways and Means Conimittee, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: In framing the new tariff legislation we trust your committee will not, overlook the many reasons in favor of a reduction in the import duty presently existing on foreign-grown rices. As a house interested more immediately in Indian rices, we would urge indeed that the present duty of 2 cents per pound, or about 50 per cent on the cost of importing, be entirely abolished, as there appears to be no excuse or its retention. The overwhelming extent of the domestic industry needs no protection against the trifling imports of Indian rice and the equally trifling revenue derived from the small volume of imports might he easily dispensed with to encourage a larger volume of imports, which, at a future time, if the necessity arose, to reimpose a fraction of the existing tax, might yield a larger return than the prohibitive rates yield on the present basis. Further, there is a section of the foreign element in the population which through custom and predilection regards these rices as part of their food, on which the present high duty rests unnecessarily severe. From all points of view, therefore, we beg to urge that the occasion is opportune to cancel a burden which is not only artificial and unnecessary in its effects, but serves no useful purpose to the country in its operation. Yours, faithfully,


Robt. L. Hecht, President. PARAGRAPH 241.

Rye, ten cents per bushel; rye flour, one-half of one cent per pound. PARAGRAPH 242.

Wheat, twenty-five cents per bushel.



The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Give your full name, Mr. Thorp, to the stenographer.

Mr. Thorp. Freeman Thorp; my residence is at Hubert, Minn.

The matter to which I desire to call your attention to-day is of a patriotic nature. I have no greater interest in this matter than millions of other people in the Northwest. I want to call your attenPARAGRAPH 242—WHEAT. tion to the rapid development of the Northwest and its relation to the tariff. I do not desire to suggest to you what in your wisdom you shall make the rates of tariff further than to say that I believe that it would be beneficial to the Northwest to reduce the tariff on lumber to a revenue basis purely. There is in the Northwest, Mr. Chairman, 200,000,000 acres of dry land that are soon to be the best acres in the United States for general farming purposes. One hundred and fifty million acres of those are not in use at all to-day, and indirectly connected with this matter, Mr. Chairman, the growing of lumber or timber as a farm product will in the very near future be a very important thing. À way has been found to quadruple the annual growth of timber over anything that has been previously known in all the world, and a way has been found to double the farm products of this kind of land that I speak of, and to bring all of it into general farm use.

So that if the land now under the so-called “dry-farming process" about 50,000,000 acres have been bought under that method, and that land is producing now, say, 30 bushels of wheat eve


alternate year, under the same method, scientifically worked out, they can produce 30 bushels of wheat per acre every year on this land, because, Mr. Chairman, all of the rainfall

, every drop of the rainfall and the snow can easily be held upon the land, and its filtration into the soil forced. Then, the raising of crops on this land is like manufacturing; there is no such proposition as crop failure. A crop of wheat can be grown upon this land if not one drop of rain falls from the time the wheat is planted until it is harvested. Circumstances have given me special knowledge of this matter, and of the situation there, and I ask you in your wisdom to take into account the rapid development of all this area of land, if you deem it proper to retain a tariff. I do not say at what rate. If it be a tariff for revenue only, on a competitive basis, that yet saves a differential for the United States product, it will still accomplish largely the purpose that I hope to see, namely, the encouragement of men to make the effort and make the investment and go into the growing of food products on this land, and if that be done in the near future this part of the country will furnish to the markets more grain than all of the United States now furnishes. It will furnish to this country more cattle than is now furnished by all the United States, because it is a vast area of land that heretofore has not been utilized at all.

Mr. Chairman, personally I have been experimenting for one-half of my life with this very idea in view. I have a tract of land in northern Minnesota-dry land-considered absolutely worthless until I took hold of it, and upon that land by the methods that I have worked out I grow at this time 100 bushels of shelled corn per acre and other things in proportion, and grow it without any additional expense in the work. The method I have worked out does not cost the farmer anything at all, and if the matter can be arranged to encourage investment by the price of the products, it is not really of so much importance as it is that the people shall not fear the competition. Therefore, I hope that you will not put any of the important products of the Northwest on the free list-if, in your wisdom, you decide to reduce them to the level of a competitive rate of tariff so that there shall be imports that will bring large revenue, that you will still leave PARAGRAPH 242_WHEAT. a differential in favor of the American farmer. Then, it seems to me, that you will have acted very wisely.

Mr. Chairman, some of this information may be new to you; I grow successfully by this method that I have personally worked out with no view to personal profit or benefit, but for the benefit of all the Northwest and its development-I have made it possible for the farmer to grow a timber-belt windbreak on his prairie farm and receive from it as much profit as he can get from any acreage on bis farm. By this method I stopped soil erosion and largely reduced damaging floods, when it is once put into operation. On my own land not one drop of water or melted snow has run off from it in 17 years, and the soil is undergoing a marked change, a marked transformation, by reason of compelling the filtration of this water into the soil and enriching the soil by its fertilizing material, preventing the wash-off or run-off of any of this water, to carry with it the best of the soil, and if we can have the present state of things continued largely--and I do not say it will be necessary to hold all of the present tariff to do that-but do not put any of our products on the free list, and if we do that we will give to you the evidence in a few

years of the enormous benefits that will come to this new country in that development.

I will say, just in conclusion, as an evidence to you of what is going to be done, of the transformation that is to take place there, that I have growing upon my experimental tract of 1,500 acres of land in northern Minnesota, and on dry, sandy land considered absolutely worthless—when I wanted to buy it, even the land commissioner of the Northern Pacific Railroad told me it was utterly worthless-I have nearly 2,000,000 pine trees growing, some of which are 12 inches in diameter and 55 feet high, grown from seed in 17 years.

All works on forestry, all the publications of the forestry colleges, give 40 years time, but I doubled the growth of the diameter in a year over what it is without this method, and when we double the diameter we quadruple the amount of lumber in the tree, so that I say that we can easily quadruple the growth of lumber, and then we can easily double the crop products of this land. In the first place, by making a crop every year instead of alternate years, as they do by the dry-farming process up to date.

We double it that way, but we double it in a larger sense by bringing into farms and into farm culture 150,000,000 acres of land that is now not in use, and that all of it can be worked as certainly as manufacturing is. There is no such thing as crop failure under this method.

I will not go into the particulars of the method at all, but tell you what is coming, and tell you what we are going to do, and I am devoting one-half of my life to it, and I have been at it for nearly 40 years.

Gentlemen, I thank you.

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Thorp, you protested placing the agricultural products of the Northwest on the free list, but you do not protest to à reduction in the duties, as I understand it?

Mr. Thorp. No, sir; personally I believe it will be better to put the products on a competitive basis so that our people, instead of depending upon a high tariff for anything, will turn their attention,

« AnteriorContinuar »