« AnteriorContinuar »
PARAGRAPH 291-CHICORY ROOT.
The price usually asked by jobbers to the retail grocer is, in the North, from 20 to 25 cents per pound, according to the mixture of chicory, and in the South about 20 cents per pound. In further proof of the fact that a change of even 2 cents or 3 cents in the price of granulated chicory would not affect the consumer, we cite the fact that a reduction of 10 cents per pound in the price of coffee between 1895 and 1900 was not reflected in any corresponding degree in the price of coffee to the consumer, the retail price of coffee having been maintained despite the lower cost to dealers. li a change of 5 to 10 cents in the price of coffee is not reflected in the price to the consumer, it may be readily seen that a fluctuation of a fraction of a cent per pound, due to a change in the price of chicory, will never reach the consumer.
We, therefore, submit that while we have no means of ascertaining with absolute accuracy the total amount of dried chicory root produced in the United States, we estimate the annual production, under normal conditions, in the United States at 20,000,000 pounds, and believe this amount is very nearly accurate. The above figures, in regard to the amount of dried chicory root imported into the United States under the present duty of 14 cents per pound, show that upwards of 5,000,000 pounds were imported during the year 1911. This amount is, therefore, over 25 per cent of the production in the United States, and we submit that this demonstrates that the present duty is not prohibitive regardless of other figures submitted.
We, therefore, submit that the present duties upon chicory, both dried and granulated, are absolutely necessary for the preservation of the chicory industry in the United States and that the present duties do not affect the cost to the consumer, and that, therefore, the present duties, in the interest of American industry, should be maintained. Yours very truly,
E. B. MULLER & Co.,
Port of New York, April 23, 1912. Messrs. E. B. MULLER & Co.,
211 Franklin Street, New York City. SIRS: In reply to your letter of the 22d instant, addressed to the statistical department, requesting to be advised of the imports of chicory into the United States during the calendar year 1911, I beg to state that I am not in possession of the information showing the imports into the United States later than the fiscal year ending June 30, 1911, during which fiscal year the imports of chicory were as follows:
Chicory root, raw, dried, or undried, but unground, 5,393,374 pounds; value, $111.416.
Chicory root, burnt or roasted, ground or granulated, or otherwise prepared, 531,228 pounds; value, $26,225.
I have the information of chicory imported into New York during the calendar year 1911, which was as follows:
Chicory root, raw, dried, or undried, but unground, 2,898,951 pounds; value, $57,748.
Chicory root, burnt or roasted, ground or granulated, or otherwise prepared, 322,235 pounds; value, $16,874. Respectfully,
D. A. BAKER,
Special Deputy Collector. (The above brief and letter filed by Hon. Henry McMorran, M. C.) PARAGRAPH 292.
Chocolate and cocoa, prepared or manufactured, not specially provided for in this section, valued at not over fifteen cents per pound, two and one-half cents per pound; valued above fifteen and not above twenty-four cents per pound, two and one-half cents per pound and ten per centum ad valorem; valued above twenty-four and not above thirty-five cents per pound, five cents per pound and ten per centum ad valorem; valued above thirty-five cents per pound, fifty per centum ad valorem. The weight and value of all coverings, other than plain wooden, shall be included in the dutiable weight and value of the foregoing merchandise; powdered cocoa, unsweetened, five cents per pound.
PARAGRAPH 292–COCOA AND CHOCOLATE.
COCOA AND CHOCOLATE.
TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN L. BARTLETT, OF BOSTON, MASS.
The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.
Mr. BARTLETT. Gentlemen, I appear as an importer for my own account of manufactured cocoa and chocolate and not as a manufacturer's agent. I ask that you do not confuse raw material in the shape of 100 and 200 pound cases and barrels, and which is imported as à manufacturer's raw material, with confectionery, generally known as chocolate, and which is amply provided for in the sugar schedule.
Cocoa powder, in which I am chiefly interested, is no longer a luxury, used only by the wealthy; it is to-day a food, that is used largely by the middle and laboring classes. It is not a stimulant, as is tea and coffee, but a cereal food product.
Mr. FORDNEY. What product are you speaking of ?
Mr. BARTLETT. I am speaking of manufactured cocoa, sir. As a cereal and a food it should not be taxed any more than tea and coffee, which are often beneficial, but, nevertheless, they are not foods. In this country manufactured cocoa is taxed higher than-I will not say any other country—but higher than in most any other country, much higher than in France, Great Britian, and Germany, in all of which countries import duties are levied on coffee, tea, and on cocoa beans, from which beans all cocoa and chocolate preparations are made, and which cocoa beans are duty free into the United States.
I quote figures on imports of cocoa beans, manufactured cocoa, and chocolate, showing that under the present tariff imports of manufactured cocoa are not 1 per cent of the consumption; also figures showing that the growing importation under the McKinley tariff, which was 2 cents per pound, was at once under the advanced tariff of 1897 reduced more than one-half. The present tariff of 5 cents per pound gives a monopoly to the American manufacturer and deprives the Government of a revenue, as foreign manufacturers have said they do not care to try and enter the American market under the present tariff. The existing tariff is equivalent to a duty of 60 per cent, while the cost of manufacturing is much more than protected by the tariff of 2 cents per pound, formerly in force in this country. As a revenue measure the present law is of very little value; as a protective measure it is wholly unnecessary.
I call your special attention to the following figures from the Department of Commerce and Labor. Under the lower rate of duty the importations of manufactured cocoa had gradually grown from 614,845 pounds in 1889 to 1,374,675 pounds in 1897. Under the increased duty of the Dingley bill, by which the duty was increased 150 per cent, the importations dropped to 549,174 pounds in 1898, and the importations have never since then recovered to those of 1897. To emphasize these figures I call your attention to the importation of the raw material; that is, the cocoa, bean from which all cocoa and chocolate is made.
PARAGRAPH 292-COCOA AND CHOCOLATE.
In 1898 the importations of cocoa beans were 25,508,369 pounds; in 1912, during which time there had been in effect a practically prohibitory tariff on manufactured goods, the imports were 145,853,953 pounds, and such increase of cocoa beans afforded not 1 cent of revenue.
I now quote from a letter written by Mr. Henry L. Pierce, a chocolate manufacturer of Massachusetts, to Hon. W. L. Wilson, at the time the Wilson bill was being considered. He concludes his letter by saying:
In view of the fact that there is a duty of one-half a cent a pound (equivalent, say, to 11 per cent ad valorem) on the sugar which I use in making sweetened chocolate, and a duty of about 45 per cent ad valorem on foreign machinery required in my mills, and a duty of about 48 per cent on tin plate (of which I use a large quantity in putting up my goods), the present duty of 2 cents per pound on prepared cocoa, and on chocolate, both plain and sweetened, is about as near a tariff for revenue only as can be made, and with such a tariff I am entirely satisfied.
The CHAIRMAN. He said he was perfectly satisfied with the old rate?
Mr. BARTLETT. Yes; 2 cents a pound. That was the rate then in effect, and he said with that he was perfectly satisfied. And I claim that now 2 cents a pound, according to statements of American manufacturers who do not care to be quoted, is sufficient; they have told me verbally that the cost of manufacturing chocolate in this country is not over three-fourths of a cent to 1} cents a pound. I ask that a specific duty not to exceed 2 cents a pound be placed on manufactured and chocolate.
Mr. HULL. What is the consumption of these articles in this country-that is, last year-if you know?
Mr. Bartlot. The importation of raw material was 145,853,953 pounds.
Mr. HULL. I notice that the consumption of chocolate and cocoa for 1910 was $22,500,000. Do you know how much it was for last year?
Mr. BARTLETT. I do not, sir.
Cocoa butter or cocoa butterine, refined deodorized cocoanut oil, and all
substitutes for cocoa butter, three and one-half cents per pound. PARAGRAPH 294.
Dandelion root and acorns prepared, and articles used as coffee, or as substitutes for coffee not specially provided for in this section, two and one-half cents per pound.
78959°-VOL 3–13 65
PARAGRAPH 295_SALT. PARAGRAPH 295.
Salt in bags, sacks, barrels, or other packages, eleven cents per one hundred pounds; in bulk, seven cents per one hundred pounds: Provided, That imported salt in bond may be used in curing fish taken by vessels licensed to engage in the fisheries and in curing fish on the shores of the navigable waters of the United States under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe; and upon proof that the salt has been used for either of the purposes stated proviso, the uties on the same shall be remitted : Provided further, That exporters of meats, whether packed or smoked, which have been cured in the United States with imported salt, shall, upon satisfactory proof, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe, that such meats have been cured with imported salt, have refunded to them from the Treasury the duties paid on the salt so used in curing such exported meats, in amounts not less than one hundred dollars.
TESTIMONY OF J. P. SAMSON, REPRESENTING SALT MANU
FACTURERS OF THE UNITED STATES.
The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.
Mr. Samson. I appear before you to ask for a retention of the present tariff on salt. The salt manufacturers of the United States have filed with you a memorial showing the reasons why the tariff should be retained; but knowing that you have a great many things to consider in regard to this tariff bill, I have craved a few minutes of your time in order to present to you some arguments why salt should be continued under the present tariff.
I think you will all concede that salt is a necessity to maintain life and health. If there are any products that should receive the consideration of the Government, it should be those things which prolong life, those things which are essential in maintaining life and which prolong it. And salt is one of those things.
There is not a combination among salt manufacturers that I know of to maintain prices, to fix prices, or to work in harmony. Our competition in the salt business comes from England, and the salt in England is under the control of the British Salt Union. To put salt on the free list would not reduce the price to the ultimate consumer by one single penny. The grade of salt used for household purposes is the dried product, which is generally put up and sold at retail in 3, 5, and 10-pound packages, and the price of these packages at retail, as a matter of custom, has been fixed for many years. The 10-pound bag sells for 10 cents and sometimes as high as 15, and the 5-pound bag retails at from 5 to 10 cents. These prices vary, according to the amount of freight that the retailer or wholesaler has to pay. The amount of salt which every household consumes does not exceed 15 pounds per capita, and as a 10-pound bag can be bought for 10 cents it is evident that the tariff could not possibly affect the price paid.
In our brief we show that the expense for packing hogs the average quantity of salt used over all is 20 pounds of salt to 100 pounds of hog, and on the present market a dressed hog would average worth about 11 cents a pound, which figures 2} cents expense for salt on $11 worth of hog. Therefore who would profit by it? Simply the Meat Trust. To cure a hide, worth about $15, there is required 20 pounds of salt, which figures 21 cents per hide; for a sheep's pelt, varying in value,
about 7 pounds of salt is required, worth 0.0087 cent; for a calf's skin, value about $4, there is required 6 pounds of salt, worth 0.0075 cent; for 100 pounds of butterine, worth, at 20 cents per pound, $20, it is necessary to use 10 pounds of salt, worth 14 cents; for 100 pounds of butter, worth 30 cents per pound, or $30, there is required 6 pounds of salt, worth 0.0075 cent; for 100 pounds of casings, worth about $40, there is required 15 pounds of salt, worth 0.0187 cent; for pickles, 1 bushel of salt is used to 9 bushels of pickles, the salt being worth 7 cents and the pickles selling at about $1.25 per bushel; for fish curing, approximately 25 pounds of salt is used to 100 pounds of fish, the salt being worth 3] cents; and for freezing ice cream the quantity of salt varies according to the machinery used, but on the average it does not exceed 10 pounds per gallon, the cost of the salt being less than 2 cents. I do not know of a single commodity which would be sold to the ultimate consumer at a single cent lower if salt were put on the free list.
Mr. HARRISON. Are you speaking now in behalf of the Syracuse salt fields ?
Mr. Samson. No, sir; the salt fields in general in New York State. Mr. HARRISON. Well, they include the Syracuse fields, do they not?
Mr. Samson. Yes, sir; though they are what might be called rather old fields, and they are gradually reducing their output.
Mr. Harrison. Is not that true of the solar system generally?
Mr. Samson. The only solar salt made in the United States is at Syracuse, Utah, at the Great Salt Lake, and on the California coast.
Mr. HARRISON. You stated that the meat trust would be the only people benefited by putting salt on the free list. They already have their salt free through a drawback in case they export their products.
Mr. Samson. Yes, sir.
Mr. HARRISON. And salt is also free, under our law, in the case of the fish packers of New England ?
Mr. SAMSON. Yes, sir.
the rate of duty on salt which works out at 41 per cent. Now, as it is a necessary of life, as you state it is, it might seem to some members of the committee that that is too high a rate of duty. I find there is actually more salt exported from the United States than there is imported. That was true in 1912; and also that the imports did not amount to 5 per cent of the consumption in the United States. Those figures indicate that a competitive rate on salt has not been reached,
and in view of the uses to which it can be put you can understand why the committee recommended that the duty should be reduced.
Mr. Samson. The figures which are published by the special Consular Report, No. 52, show that the amount of salt imported in 1911 was 291,000,000 pounds and the salt exported amounted to 102,000,000 pounds. Now, I have no later figures than that, Mr. Harrison.
Mr. HARRISON. Well, the amounts are given here by the money value of the product and not in pounds, and in 1911, according to these figures, $390,000 worth was imported and $329,000 worth exported, but for the year 1912 the exports just passed the imports.
Mr. Samson. The largest amount of the salt that is exported is, no doubt, rock salt or mined salt from Louisiana; that is exported to