Imágenes de páginas

Number and tonnage of vessels in New England engaged in the fisheries.

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

Boston has 4 beam trawlers. The above figures do not include Nantucket, Barnstable, Castine, and some smaller ports.





House of Representatives: The duty as fixed by the present law:

Herring:-Pickled or salted, one-half cent per pound; smoked, one-half cent per pound; kippered, one-half cent per pound; fresh, one-fourth cent per pound.

Under the act of 1897 the duty was the same, one-half cent per pound on pickled or salted but was three-fourths cent per pound on smoked as against one-half cent per pound under the present law, and there was no duty on kippered herring as against one-half cent per pound under the present act, and the duty on fresh herring was the same as under the present act, one-half cent per pound.

Mackerel.— The duty on mackerel was unchanged in the act of 1909 from what it was in the act of 1897, and is as follows: Fresh, pickled or salted, 1 cent per pound.

Fish.—On fish, fresh, smoked, dried, salted, pickled, frozen, packed in ice or otherwise prepared for preservation, where not otherwise provided for, the present act imposes a duty of three-fourths cent per pound, which was the same as that imposed by the act of 1897. (See p. 57 of the comparison of the tariff acts of 1897 and 1909.)

The law seems clear that mackerel, fresh, pickled, and salted, pays a duty of 1 cent per pound, and herring, either pickled or ralted, smoked or kippered, one-half cent per pound.

Importations for the year ending June 30, 1912.

[blocks in formation]

WHY THE TARIFF ON THE ABOVE ARTICLES SHOULD BE REMOVED. These fishes are very largely consumed by the very poor and are not in any sense luxuries or in fact consumed in great part by people of any considerable means.

While a rate of 1 cent per pound for mackerel or one-half cent per pound for herring seems small, it means a rate of $2 per barrel in the case of mackerel and at least $1 per barrel in the case of herring, and results in putting just that much burden on the poor.


Certain of the witnesses before your honorable committee have asked that the present duty of one-half cent per pound on herring should be cut in half and other applicants have asked that the present duty on mackerel of 1 cent per pound should be reduced to equal the present duty on herring of one-half cent per pound. In our opinion the duty should be removed entirely, as any duty on salted, pickled, dried, or smoked fish adds an additional burden to the cost of living of the poorest class of citizens in our country, as they almost exclusively consume such fish of this kind as is imported.

No request is made to reduce the duty upon fresh fish, as this might be held in some way to interfere with some of the local industries of the United States which are in direct competition with Canada from which practically alone much fresh fish is imported, but the request made by your petitioner relates only to the removal of duties upon salted, pickled, smoked, or dried mackerel and herring, which practically enter into no great competition with any industries in this country, as the salted fish industries in this country relate most largely to cod fish and haddock.

Whatever else should be on the free list of a Democratic Congress that free list should include fish of the character and description consumed almost entirely by the poor or very poor. The revenue which might be lost thereby it negligible compared to the long step that we would be taking forward in the reduction of the cost of living by reducing the price from $1 to $2 per barrel on this article of consumption of the poor, to that extent maki more comfortable the lives of that great class of our citizens.

The population of the United States has been and will keep on increasing. The supply of these two forms of food will have to be increased. A duty, while the revenue to be derived is negligible, does make it possible to that extent to shut out competition and to add from $1 to $2 per barrel to the cost of living of the already overburdened poor.

While we have given the present amounts imported that are available from statistics, the removal of the duty would in all probability make much more available the mass of these products that could be purchased in our markets by the poor who desired to consume them, and would throw open the market and would prevent the possibility even of any combination or trust, under protection of from $1 to $2 per barrel, taking that much money unjustly and unnecessarily from the pockets of our consumers.

More and more as our population increases, the supply of this character of fish food will be required by the people, and to that end every inducement should be offered to make available for the poor people of this country the markets of the world upon the actual basis of supply and demand without the injection into the cost of a tariif duty.

Free herring and free mackerel are for the greatest good of the greatest number. Free food of this kind is a cardinal doctrine of the Democratic Party. To this doctrine the people of this country gave their adhesion at the last election when the Democratic Party pledged itself to reduce in every way it could the cost of living, particularly to those who most needed it. Whatever else a Democratic Congress should do under their mandate from the people, they should put foodstuffs of the kind here dealt with on the free list, particularly where as in this case there is no great interference with any American industry employing any large number of American citizens. All of which is respectfully submitted.

John Quinn, Attorney for Lawrence J. Callanan.

New York, February 19, 1915. Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. UNDERWOOD: Our mutual friend, the judge, has sent me the inclosed petitions regarding the tariff on salted and pickled mackerel and salted or pickled and smoked or kippered herring.

The signers of these petitions are the largest importers of this class of food that there are in New York, and you will see that they certify that “these articles of food are consumed almost entirely by the very poor, and the duty makes an added charge which greatly increases the cost of living for those who can least well afford it."

I know that it is too late to get these petitions in the record or among the briefs, but it occurred to the judge and myself that you might care to have these petitions when it came to the committee's consideration of that part of that particular schedule. Sincerely, yours,

John QUINN. To the honorable the members of the Committee on Ways and Means.

GENTLEMEN: Your petitioners respectfully ask that the present tariff duty of 1 cent per pound on salted or pickled mackerel, and of ļ cent per pound on salted or pickled and smoked or kippered herring be removed, and these articles admitted to this country free of duty or tariff charge.


We call your attention to the fact that these articles of food are consumed almost entirely by the very poor, and the duty makes an added charge which greatly increases the cost of living for those who can least well afford it.

To remove the duty on foodstuffs is one of the things promised by the Democratic Party, and we hope to see this promise carried out so far as the charges on mackerel and herring are concerned. Respectfully,





January 25, 1913. SIR: I have been directed by the rural district council of Ennis to forward you the appended copy of a resolution, unanimously adopted by them at their meeting on the 22d instant. I am, sir, your obedient servant,



White House, Washington.


That as the tariff imposed by the American Government on Irish mackerel imported into the United States for some years past has worked untold injury on the mackerel industry in Ireland, and as this is one of the few remaining industries in the Irishspeaking districts of Ireland, it being alomst entirely in the hands of Irish speakers, we appeal to the new Democratic Government of the United States of America, to abolish or reduce the tax.

No. 66.]



Cork (Queenstown), Ireland, December 5, 1912. The SECRETARY OF STATE,

Washington. Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith in duplicate copy of a letter received from Mr. R. A. Hegarty, town clerk at Kinsale, Ireland, inclosing copy of a resolv ion adopted at a meeting of the urban district counsel at Kinsale on December 2, 912 relative to the tariff on cured mackerel imported into the United States from Ireland and reguesting that it be forwarded to the proper authorities. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,




Cork (Queenstown), Ireland, January 24, 1913. The SECRETARY OF STATE,

Washington Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith copy of a letter and resolution received from R. A. Hegarty, secretary of the Kinsale Harbor Commissioners, in connection with the tariff on cured mackerel imported into the United States. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,



Kinsale, January 21, 1913. Dear Sir: I shall thank you to bring under the notice of your authorities the suboined resolution, passed at the last meeting of the Kinsale Harbor Commissioners. Yours, faithfully,

R. A. HEGARTY, Secretary. 78959-VOL 3-13- 45


RESOLUTION. Resolved unanimously, That we, the harbor commissioners of Kinsale, desire to bring under the notice of the newly elected President of the American Government, Dr. Wilson, the great injury caused to the industry by the present high tariff on cured mackerel imported from Ireland into the United States.

Town Clerk's OFFICE,

Kinsale, December 4, 1912. DEAR SIR: I beg to bring under your notice copy of a resolution adopted by the Kinsale Urban District Council at their meeting on Monday last relative to the present high tariff on cured mackerel imported into America, and shall thank you to bring it under the notice of the proper authorities. Yours, faithfully,


Consul, United States of America.


Resolved unanimously, That we, the Kinsale Urban District Council, in meeting assembled, representing as we do some thousands of fishermen and those depending on the fishing industry, view with extreme satisfaction the election to the presidential chair of so able and worthy a leader of the Democracy as Dr. Wilson. We note that one of his first duties on taking up office will be the adjustment of the several tariffs. Now, we beg to point out the exorbitant duty ($2 a barrel) on cured mackerel arriving from our coast. We ask that this tariff be immediately revised and reduced to a minimum, as we are of a pronounced opinion that it will tend to bring about a better understanding and a far more reciprocal and beneficial trade.

R. A. HEGARTY, Town Clerk. PARAGRAPH 274.

Apples, peaches, quinces, cherries, plums, and pears, green or ripe, twentyfive cents per bushel; berries, edible, in their natural condition, one cent per quart; cranberries, twenty-five per centum ad valorem; all edible fruits, including berries, when dried, desiccated, evaporated, or prepared in any manner, not specially provided for in this section, two cents per pound; comfits, sweetmeats, and fruits of all kinds preserved or packed in sugar, or having sugar added thereto, or preserved or packed in molasses, spirits, or their own juices, if containing no alcohol, or containing not over ten per centum of alcohol, one cent per pound and thirty-five per centum ad valorem; if containing over ten per centum of alcohol and not specially provided for in this section, thirty-five per centum ad valorem and in addition two dollars and fifty cents per proof gallon on the alcohol contained therein in excess of ten per centum; jellies of all kinds, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; pineapples preserved in their own juice, not having sugar, spirits, or molasses added thereto, twenty

five per centum ad valorem. See also under paragraph 279—Pineapples.



JOHNSON CO. Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, for your convenience I have had my remarks printed and will now give to the clerk copies thereof to be laid on your desks.

We respectfully submit for the consideration of your committee that paragraph 274, Schedule G, agricultural products and provisions of the tariff act of August 5, 1909, he amended as follows: Strike out the concluding sentence of said paragraph, which reads: “Pineapples preserved in their own juice, not having sugar, spirits, or molasses added thereto, twenty-five per centum ad valorem,"and substitute therefor: “Pineapples in tins or glass sweetened or unsweetened but not preserved by sugar nor containing alcohol, twenty per centum ad valorem."


page 98.

We also ask attention to section 11 of the administration division of the same act,

Under this section the appraisers are permitted or even required to add what in many cases are partially or wholly fictitious items of cost to constitute the dutiable value, and, where they are instructed to ascertain a dutiable value by starting with the selling price in this country and working backward through certain deductions, they are not required or permitted deduct the actual general expenses and profits of the importer, but a certain arbitrarily fixed percentage is made to apply to all aljke, the result being that, while some importers are allowed more than they would be strictly entitled to others find the fixed allowance absurdly inadequate to cover their general expenses and profits in this country. Importers of the latter class therefore find that the dutiable values as fixed by the appraisers include some part of their domestic expenses and profits.

That part of the duty paid on such domestic expenses and profits becomes, in point of fact, it seems to us, a direct tax, and therefore, as we think, probably unconstitutional. It is quite possible, under this section 11, to so manipulate dutiable values as to greatly increase, in effect, the rates set forth in the schedules of the tariff proper.

We submit to your committee a brief outline of how our own business has been affected by the item of the tariff we ask to be amended, and the application of section 11, and will satisfy your committee or put you in the way of satisfying yourselves of the truth and justice of our statements.

We are a domestic corporation with headquarters in New York. We own and operate a canning factory in the Bahama Islands, where we have been canning pineapples for more than 20 years. Our factory is constructed of materials taken from the United States. Its entire equipment of machinery, tools, and fixtures are American; all our supplies of every character are sent there from this country, and American vessels carry and bring our freights. It is to all intents and purposes a domestic factory except as to the fruit, labor, and salaries to local employees. Our products are of two general classes—pineapples without sugar and those to which a small quantity of sugar is added. The latter are of the same character as the well-known canned peaches and other fruits of this country, and at one time were the most profitable and principal of the two classes we pack. For many years the duty was a uniform one of 25 per cent on both classes.

In 1904 a pineapple-canning business was started in the Hawaiian Islands, and the natural advantages there for the business were so great that from 20,000 cases in 1904 the production grew to over 400,000 cases in 1909 and have now reached over 1,000,000 in 1912. Notwithstanding the phenomenal success of their business, the Hawaiian interests represented to the "Payne” Ways and Means Committee that their business was an infant one and needed protection for its development, thus inducing the committee to amend the rates so that pineapples to which any sugar was added should pay 35 per cent and 1 cent per pound specific. The House passed the bill with this rate, the Senate struck out the amendment, the conference committee restored it.

The effect has been that the Hawaiian packers have nearly secured, and will soon entirely secure, a practical monopoly of this variety of goods. Our own trade has been largely decreased, and such small quantities as we continue to produce are marketed at about cost or below it, and simply for the purpose of keeping our brand in memory of the trade, hoping that the tariff rate which has robbed us of our business will sooner or later be amended.

Having practically disposed of our competition in sugared goods, attention is now being given to those without sugar and through section 11, to so artificially boost our . dutiable values as to drive us out of this branch too.

The strange spectacle is thus presented of Congress uniting with one set of the citizens of the country to destroy an established business of another set of citizens in order that the first set may secure a monopoly; incidentally destroying, too, a source of revenue to the Government, and also incidentally putting the consumers of canned pineapples at the mercy of the monopoly.

According to the best information we can secure, the Hawaiian packers have so great an advantage in the wonderful natural adaptability of those islands to the growth of pineapples that they do not really need any tariff protection whatever as against us, and the only concern of your committee is to fix a rate which will permit these goods to continue to be a source of some revenue. A uniform rate of 20 per cent ad valorem would enable us to continue our business and thus furnish a source of revenue to the Government, and would be more than sufficient to offset the difference in labor rates between the Bahama and Hawaiian Islands.

The CHAIRMAN. Your proposition is to strike out 1 cent per pound, and also to reduce the rate ?

« AnteriorContinuar »