STATEMENT OF D. A. WILLIS, REPRESENTING THE VIENNA PEARL BUTTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, 514 BROADWAY, NEW YORK CITY, N. Y. SATURDAY, November 28, 1908. Mr. WILLIS. Muscatine, Iowa, is our manufacturing point. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I address you in the interest of the pearl button manufacturers of the Mississippi Valley, who make pearl buttons from shells found in our western rivers. Previous to 1890 there were no staple pearl buttons made in America, as the low rate of duty, which was 25 per cent ad valorem, did not allow us to compete with imported buttons. The McKinley tariff placed a specific duty on pearl buttons, and this specific duty allowed us to start the pearl-button business in America. The Dingley tariff reduced the specific rate about 35 per cent and also reduced the ad valorem rate. Under the Dingley tariff the pearl-button industry has grown so that it now employs thousands of people and utilizes a product that was hardly known to exist previous to 1890. The annual consumption of fresh-water shells by the button factories now amounts to between 30,000 and 40,000 tons. This gives employment to the shell diggers who gather the shells from the river beds, the transportation companies who haul the shells to the factories, and the thousands of employees in the button factories who make the buttons, and all of whom make good wages. On account of improved machinery, better methods in manufacturing, and keen competition, the price of these buttons has been gradually reduced so that at present they are selling at about one-half of former prices, and the profit to the manufacturer is exceedingly small. It is absolutely necessary that the present specific rate of duty be maintained, as even a slight reduction in the specific rate would encourage competition from Europe, and especially from Japan. This Japanese competition would prove a very serious matter. It did not exist at the time the Dingley bill was framed. If there was no specific duty to-day, the Japanese would make all the staple pearl buttons used in America. Pearl-button manufacturing is one of the main and growing industries of a number of cities in the Mississippi Valley and elsewhere, whose population largely depend on the wages received from the button factories for their support. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, on behalf of the manufacturers of fresh-water pearl buttons I ask for the maintenance of the present schedule of pearl-button duty. BITUMINOUS COAL. [Paragraph 415.] ORMAN B. HUMPHREY, BANGOR, ME., QUESTIONS THE WISDOM OF A DUTY ON BITUMINOUS COAL. Hon. JOHN DALZELL, M. C., 961 EXCHANGE STREET, Bangor, Me., November 13, 1908. Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In view of the present agitation of the proposed tariff revision, it seems appropriate at this time to question the wisdom of the present duty on Nova Scotia bituminous coal. This question is one of vital importance to the State of Maine especially, owing to its proximity to the provinces. With the duty removed, or even materially reduced, Nova Scotia coal would be the direct means of building up great manufacturing industries in this State and throughout New England. This matter is of such importance to the manufacturing interests in my section of the country that I am prompted to earnestly advocate a very material reduction in, if not the absolute removal of, the duty on Nova Scotia coal. I sincerely hope this question may be most carefully considered by those who are in a position to act for the general welfare and industrial prosperity of the country. Yours, respectfully, ORMAN B. HUMPHREY. JOHN E. WARREN, OF CUMBERLAND MILLS, ME., THINKS THAT THE COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE FREE COAL. CUMBERLAND MILLS, ME., November 20, 1908. Hon. JOHN DALZELL, M. C., Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In common with many other Republicans of New England, I believe in the general principle of protection. I think that we are entitled to free coal and that the general policy of our country should be for free coal on the principle that it is raw material. We certainly are using up our own supplies of coal rapidly enough, and our coal regions presumably do not need any protection against the Nova Scotia coals that would come to us. I trust that you will see your way clear to use your influence for this purpose. Yours, truly, JOHN E. WARREN. MEMORIAL OF COAL OPERATORS OF THE PITTSBURG, PA., DISTRICT RELATIVE TO RECIPROCAL FREE COAL BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES. FULTON BUILDING, Pittsburg, Pa., November 23, 1908. Hon. JOHN DALZELL, M. C., Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: On January 24, 1907, the coal operators of western Pennsylvania, representing a production of 35,000,000 tons, wrote you urging reciprocal free coal between Canada and the United States, and seeking to enlist your aid in the cause. On January 29, 1907, you answered the letter substantially, stating that it was inopportune at that time to take up the subject, but when opportunity offered in revision of the tariff, you would be pleased to give the matter proper attention. I inclose copy of the letter the coal operators sent you in 1907, with the names of the several companies signing the letter The reasons are even more substantial and strong to-day in favor of reciprocal free coal with Canada, so far as the Pittsburg district is concerned, than at the time we submitted the matter to you, in 1907. The markets and outlet for Pittsburg coal have become very cir cumscribed on account of other fields opening up and their low freight rates. Canada is the only large market in close proximity to our field that we have at all to-day, and we feel that it is a vital matter to secure reciprocal free coal with Canada. In looking into this. matter we are informed that Canada is in a mood at the present time to consider the subject favorably. The coal-mining industry of western Pennsylvania feels that there is every reason why this should be secured, and is unable to see where there are any valid and substantial reasons against it; certainly the coal-mining industry of western Pennsylvania is entitled to as much consideration one way as the iron and steel industry is another. We feel that it is quite important for us that you lend your aid and abilities in securing congressional enactment on this subject. Meanwhile, I would thank you to give expression to your ideas on the subject and what methods we should adopt to push the matter, if that would be necessary. Several operators thought that it ought to be taken up with you first and get your suggestions in regard to how we should proceed in securing reciprocal free coal with Canada, which is, decidedly, a live question with us in this district to-day. Very truly, yours, Hon. JOHN DALZELL, Washington, D. C. D. W. KUHN. PITTSBURG, PA., January 24, 1907. DEAR SIR: The coal operators, subscribers to this letter, of the Pittsburg district, representing 35,000,000 tons of production of bituminous coal, are deeply interested in and strongly favor reciprocal trade relations between the United States and Canada, with special reference to reciprocal free coal between the two countries. The passage of an act by Congress securing such relations with Canada would enable the coal operators of western Pennsylvania and shippers of Pittsburg district to ship into Canada free of duty a large coal tonnage, which trade would greatly increase and expand with such an impetus. We believe that reciprocal free coal with Canada would be of vast benefit to the coal operators and shippers in western Pennsylvania; and the prosperity of this industry would benefit, directly and indirectly, more people than the promotion of any other industry in the western part of the State. Western Pennsylvania has always been foremost in seeking to protect and benefit its industries-no one has voiced these sentiments more strongly than yourself-and we submit that reciprocal free coal commends itself as urgently necessary as any tariff movement heretofore favored by its representatives in Congress. Other coal territories in other States have recently been opened up, which, on account of advantages in proximity to markets and freight rates, make it difficult for operators in the western Pennsylvania fields to compete therewith; whereas the comparatively short distance between our coal fields and Canada makes Canadian territory a natural and logical market for our product. The extensive development in all lines of industry now in progress in Canada are governed as to their location largely by cost of fuel and advantages in securing same; the upbuilding and general development of that part of Canada con tiguous to our coal fields will develop a large volume of trade between Pennsylvania and Canada in many lines of commerce other than the coal trade. As a comparatively small amount of coal is shipped from Nova Scotia into New England, on account of the better markets Nova Scotia is now finding for its "bunker" trade, and for the reason that reciprocal free coal with Canada would be of such vast benefit to western Pennsylvania, we believe that the time has arrived when we should secure by congressional enactment the privilege of shipping coal into Canada free of duty. We would respectfully assure you that the coal interests of western Pennsylvania feel deeply on the subject, and believing that it is for the best interests of this part of the State we urgently request that you lend your aid and abilities in securing reciprocal free coal between the United States and Canada, for which the undersigned would thank you. Yours truly, Pittsburgh Coal Company, W. R. Woodford, vice-president; Pittsburgh and Westmoreland Coal Company, H. A. Kuhn, president; Blaine Coal Company, Pittsburgh-Buffalo Company, David G. Jones, secretary; Youghiogheny and Ohio Coal Company, J. G. Patternson, vice-president; Great Lakes Coal Company, Emmett Queen, president; Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, W. L. Clause, president; Carnegie Coal Company, J. T. M. Stoneroad, secretary and treasurer; Verner Coal Company, H. J. Verner, president; J. H. Sanford Coal Company, United Coal Company, W. S. Kuhn, president; Fayette Coal Company, A. M. Bell; Richards Coal Mining Company, H. S. Richards, secretary; The People's Coal Company, G. W. Thomas, general manager; Braznell Coal Company, A. S. Braznell, president; Dunkirk Coal Company, A. S. Braznell, manager; Meadowlands Coal Company, W. L. Dixon, general manager. STATEMENT OF JOHN E. WARREN, REPRESENTING S. D. WARREN, & CO., BOSTON, MASS., AND CUMBERLAND MILLS, ME., ASKING FOR REDUCTION OF DUTY ON BITUMINOUS COAL. SATURDAY, November 28, 1908. Mr. WARREN. I represent the firm of S. D. Warren & Co., Boston, Mass., manufacturers of pulp and of paper, asking for a reduction or repeal of the duty on bituminous coal, and I will submit their state ment. I will briefly state that there were imported into the United States in the year 1907 about 2,100,000 tons of bituminous coal, of which about 1,400,000 tons, or two-thirds, came from British North America, and something over 600,000 tons came from Nova Scotia. The Nova Scotia coal is the article in which we are particularly interested, although, of course, I suppose that the duty on coal would refer to all bituminous coal; that is, a reduction would include all bituminous coal imported into this country. This 2,100,000 tons imported is but about six-tenths of 1 per cent of the bituminous coal that was produced and used in this country in the year 1907. The duty on this coal is 67 cents a gross ton. The duty, however, on the slack or culm is but 15 cents per gross ton, and is not prohibitory. As a citizen of the State of Maine, and a protectionist, I believe there is no reason other than revenue why there should be a duty upon bituminous coal. The coal producers of this country certainly do not need protection, and if they did this would not suffice. This is the nearest coal to us and ought to be used along the entire New England coast. It would not penetrate very far into the country. We in New England need it. The manufacturing industries of New England need it in competition with the cheap coal of Pennsylvania and of Virginia. Cheap coal is ofttimes cheaper than water power; and we need to import this coal, which would be used all along the New England coast. It would probably not be used over the country more largely than that. That is, I think, all I have to say; and I should like to submit my statement. Mr. CLARK. Did you say you were in the wood-pulp business? Mr. CLARK. And you want this coal as an aid to making wood pulp? Mr. WARREN. Well, yes-chemical pulp. Mr. CLARK. And you are not willing to take any of the tariff off of wood pulp, as was thoroughly demonstrated here? Mr. WARREN. I have not said that yet. Mr. CLARK. Everybody else that was given a hearing about it said it, except one fellow; and the others all pitched into him. Mr. WARREN. As a paper manufacturer, I will state that we would not oppose a revision of the tariff on paper. Mr. CLARK. You are willing to cut it down? Mr. WARREN. We are willing to have it cut down; and if it is accompanied with a reduction of the duty on the material that goes into paper, like coal and chemicals and clay, I do not know but that we would agree to the repeal of the tariff on paper. Mr. CLARK. I am glad to hear it. Mr. WARREN. I am speaking only for the institution that I represent. Mr. CLARK. I am delighted to make your acquaintance. Mr. WARREN. I am not speaking for the news men at all. (Mr. Warren's brief is as follows:) The Hon. SERENO PAYNE, Chairman Ways and Means Committee, NOVEMBER 25, 1908. Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We, the firm of S. D. Warren & Co., of Boston, Mass., are paper and pulp manufacturers, operating mills at Cumberland Mills, Me., Yarmouth, Me., and Gardiner, Me. Our total consumption of coal is between 100,000 and 120,000 tons per annum, of which at present some 50,000 tons come from Nova Scotia. This is the natural source of coal for New England, and in the early days of manufacturing it was almost the only source. The amount of coal sold by Nova Scotia to go to the United States was, in 1907, 616,312 tons, of which 545,652 tons were shipped to Boston. The duty on bituminous coal is 67 cents per gross ton and on slack or culm 15 cents per gross ton. Data as to what amount of this was slack and what was run of mine is not available, but it is safe to say that it paid an average duty of 40 cents per ton, or $246,525, which is a very considerable burden for the industries of New England to bear, handicapped as it is by its distance from the resources of the country. The total coal imported for the year 1907 was 2,116,122 tons, of which 1,398,194 tons came from British North America. Foreign coal is supplied to New England, the Gulf ports, the Pacific ports, and along the western Canadian border, at points where it is in a way |