Imágenes de páginas




Chairman Ways and Means Committee: House bill 20182 in paragraph 50 makes the duty on castor oil 20 cents per gallon and on the sulphonated oil made from it, known as alizarin assistant, 15 per cent ad valorem. These are practically the rates of the Wilson bill, which made the duty on castor oil 35 cents per gallon and on alizarin assistant 30 per cent. The Wilson bill seriously injured the manufacturers of assistant and it is certain the rates now proposed would do the same, because the duty on the finished product is relatively less than on the raw material, castor oil. In this case three rates of duty must be considered: First, the duty on castor beans; second, the duty on castor oil; third, the duty on alizarin assistant.

The McKinley tariff in 1890 imposed the following. rates: Castor beans, 50 cents per bushel; castor oil, 80 cents per gallon; alizarin assistant (containing 50 per cent of castor oil), 80 cents per gallon, less than 50 per cent, 40 cents per gallon; all other, 30 per cent ad valorem.

The Wilson bill in 1894 reduced the duty on castor beans to 25 cents per bushel, on castor oil to 35 cents per gallon, and on alízarin assistant to 30 per cent.

The Dingley Act of 1897 and the Payne bill both retained the low rates of the Wilson bill on castor beans (25 cents per bushel) and on castor oil (35 cents per gallon), but made the rates on alizarin assistant to correspond, viz, 30 cents per gallon when it contained over 50 per cent of castor oil, 15 cents per gallon when it contained less than 50 per cent castor oil, and 30 per cent ad valorem when made of other than castor oil.

The makers of both castor oil and alzarin assistant have managed to exist comfortably in spite of the tremendous reduction of duty in the Dingley and Payne bills as compared with the McKinley bills, because the duties on beans, oil, and alizarin assistant were justly proportioned.

In view of this fact both the makers of castor oil and of alizarin assistant would be perfectly satisfied with a reduction of duty on their products if you will make a corresponding reduction in the duty on castor beans; and in that case you could not do better than to follow the relative rates of the present tariff and make the duties about as follows: Castor beans, 124 cents per bushel; castor oil, 20 cents per gallon; alizarin assistant, containing 50 per cent and over of castor oil, 17 cents per gallon, containing less than 50 per cent castor oil, 10 cents per gallon. If made from any other oil than castor oil, 20 per cent ad valorem.

The consumption of sulphonated oils has increased very much in the past few years, and a great many other oils are being so treated besides the castor oil.' This is notably true of fish oils, cod oils, etc., which when so treated are largely used by the leather industry. It is important, therefore, to specify clearly that all sulphonated oils must pay a duty-say, 20 per cent—as otherwise foreign manufacturers can evade the duty on oils by sulphonating them. As a matter of fact, at the present time an English manufacturer is sulphonating fish oil and shipping it in large quan. tities to this country free of duty as a “soluble grease fit only for leather dressing. This is a fraud on the revenue and should be rendered impossible in the new tariff. Respectfully submitted.

E. C. KLIPSTEIN. New YORK, January 6, 1913. PARAGRAPH 26.

Ink and ink powders, twenty-five per centum ad valorem. PARAGRAPH 27.

Iodine, resublimed, twenty cents per pound.
See Mallinckrodt Chemical Works et al., page 49.

Iodoform, seventy-five cents per pound.
See Mallinckrodt Chemical Works et al., page 49.

Licorice, extracts of, in paste, rolls, or other forms, two and one-half cents
per pound.
For licorice root, etc., see also Italian Chamber of Commerce, page 103.

Chicle, ten cents per pound.




NEW YORK, February 3, 1913. Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Sir: We would like to call your attention to the rate of duty on chicle, which to-day is 10 cents a pound, and there is no other condition included in the paragraph which we believe is not just, for the following reasons:

The American Chicle Co., Wm. Wrigley, jr., Co., the Sen-Sen Co. (Ltd.), etc., otherwise known as the trust, forward practically all the gum they receive in transit to Canada, where it is ground, cleaned and all the moisture and foreign matter taken out, and is then reimported into the United States. This process, however, reduces the weight about 30 per cent, and naturally the Government loses the duty on said shrinkage, besides which the labor which would otherwise be performed by the residents of this country, and the greater number of people which would be employed.

We do not know the exact number of smaller manufacturers of chicle chewing gum, but there are from 150 to 200 scattered all over this country that have not sufficient capital to enable them to do the same as the trust is doing, and therefore they are at a disadvantage and find it extremely difficult to compete with the trust.

We would suggest, therefore, that in revising the tariff, paragraph 30, Schedule A, it read as follows:

Chicle: Crude, in solid or liquid form, 10 cents per pound. Refined, cleaned, dried chicle, advanced in manufacture or in anywise prepared for making chewing gum, or similar purposes, 25 cents per pound; chewing gum prepared for sale without any further manufacture, 50 cents per pound.

It is possible that the trust will be manufacturing the chicle in foreign countries and import it into this country unless some such step as we suggest herein is taken, and while the gist of our meaning is expressed above, we have not the slightest objection to your changing the wording in such manner as to make the distinction between the various classes of chicle clearer, and the rate of duty on each respective class well defined and without liability of misinterpretation. Respectfully submitted.

Isaac KUBIE Co.,
ISAAC KUBIE, President.



House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. SIRS: We understand ihat section 37 of bill 20182, which passed the House of Representatives on February 20, 1912, will be included in the tariff bill your committee now has under consideration.

As large gatherers, importers, and users of the article known as gum chicle, we respectfully request your attention to the following statement:


First. Gum chicle is the sap of the sapote tree and is found only in Mexico, Guatemala, and British Honduras, and is used in the United States solely in the manufacture of high-class chewing gums.

Second. The gathering of gum chicle is attended by many difficulties and risks. The crop of chicle is determined by the rainfall. A drought in the early part of the year affects the output to a large extent, and may involve the gathers in heavy financial loss. If the rainfall be abnormally heavy, the roads become impassable for months, thereby increasing the cost of transportation. An added trouble will be seen in the disturbed political conditions of Mexico.

Third. Gum chicle contains a large percentage of water, much of which must be extracted before it can be incorporated with the other ingredients in the manufacture of chewing gum. During the past 12 years 29 per cent of water has been extracted from gum chicle used by us.

Fourth. The present import duty on gum chicle is 10 cents per pound. The average invoiced price is 32 cents per pound, making à duty of over 31 per cent, but on the gum chicle actually usable and used, the duty amounts to 44 per cent.

Fifth. Your committee will readily see that in the event of section 37 of bill No. 20182 becoming law, the duty on chicle actually used will be 88 per cent.

Sixth. We contend that gum chicle is a raw material and as such should be admitted into the country duty free. Respectfully submitted.


Secretary and Treasurer.


CHICAGO, January 4, 1913. Hon. Oscar W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman Ways and Means Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Referring to bill H. R. 20182, which passed the House February 20, 1912, and which we understand will be the basis of a new tariff bill to be introduced, we desire to protest against an item in section 37, raising the duty on chicle from 10 to 20 cents per pound, for the following reasons:

First. There is not a pound of gum chicle, so far as we know, raised in the United States, and we have to depend entirely on Mexico, British Honduras, Guatemala, and other tropical countries for our supply. In order to obtain a large supply of gum chicle it is now necessary for us to advance the cost of hiring native help, buying mules, implements, etc., for sending them into the woods to tap the trees, and this advance is often made months before we use the chicle. There is more or less loss by contractors to whom the money is advanced failing to produce the chicle. There have also been advances in the duties to the Governments in the different countries. All of this tends to raise the price of chicle, and inasmuch as we are paying an extremely liberal duty on this article (10 cents per pound), we believe it would be unjust to raise this duty.


Second. The chewing-gum business is very difficult to successfully conduct. This is proven by the fact that many thousands who have gone into this business have failed, and we believe the smaller chowing-gụm manufacturers who are struggling to make enough to pay their help and a small profit can only continue by raising their prices.

Third. Thousands of people are employed in the manufacture of chewing gum, and there are many more thousands employed in selling same. There is a large class of people selling chewing gum on the streets in a retail way that are not ahle to do anything else, and perhaps supporting families by so doing, who would otherwise become a burden to the community. Hundreds of thousands of stores add a little to their profit by selling chewing gum, and inasmuch as raw material, labor, etc., have been steadily advancing, this bill, if it becomes a law, will add an additional burden, which can only be borne by raising the price of chewing gum.

We respectfully ask that the above letter may receive your careful consideration, and that only a just and equitable duty be placed on

gum chicle.

Very truly, yours,

A. G. Cox, Vice President.


Magnesia and carbonate of, medicinal, three cents per pound; calcined, medicinal, seven cents per pound; sulphate of, or Epsom salts, one-fifth of one

cent per pound. For calcined medicinal magnesia, see also Mallinckrodt Chemical Works et al.; page 49; for Epson salts, see also W. H. Nichols, jr. page 37, and General Chemical Co., page 39.




Mr. S. G. Boykin. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee

Mr. LONGWORTH (interrupting). Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that each witness, if he can, state what paragraph he intends to speak on, and what his interest in it is.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we will be glad to have you state what paragraph you intend to talk about.

Mr. Boykin. Paragraph 31, Schedule A.
The CHAIRMAN. And of what commodity are yɔu a manufacturer ?

Mr. Boykin. Epsom salts. I am vice president of the N. P. Pratt Laboratory of Atlanta. I filed my brief with the clerk, and I just want to say that Epsom salts produced in the United States is simply a manufactured article, while the majority of Epsom is dug out of the ground and made from kaiserite. Therefore, we are unable to compete with those people, as ours is a purely manufactured article. Epsom salts can be imported into the United States with the duty around 65 cents.

Now, to reduce the duty on Epsom will not benefit the consumer. Why, you can buy for 5 cents all you can carry now and in 10-cent quantities you would have to get a cart to carry it away with you, so the consumer will not be benefited; it will be the foreign manufac


turer. This kaiserite is controlled by the general patash syndicate, and it will simply put us out of business if this duty is taken off We are selling it now as cheaply as we can make it, and it will simply be a benefit to German manufacturers rather than to the consumer. We get for Epsom around 85 cents or 90 cents a hundred pounds at the factory, and it is sold to the consumer by the retail drug tradewe sell to the wholesalers—at anywhere from 10 to 40 cents a pound, so if the imported article comes in to a greater extent it will be the same thing. It will simply put us out of business. We can not compete with a 20-cent reduction or a 10-cent reduction on Epsom salts. We would simply have to abandon it. Now, in the past three years two Epsom factories have gone out of business on account of the low price of salts, and I certainly hope you gentlemen will see that the same duty remains on Epsom. I thank you for your attention, sirs.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir.

Mr. Boykin presented the following brief of the N. P. Pratt Laboratory, Atlanta, Ga., manufacturers of Epsom salts, protesting against a reduction of duty on Epsom salts: The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: The tariff act of 1909, page 4, line 34, reads: "Sulphate of magnesia or Epsom salts, one-fifth of 1 cent per pound." The proposed Underwood bill now reads, on page 11, line 22: "Sulphate of magnesia or Epsom salts, one-tenth of 1 cent per pound."

We respectfully ask your honorable body to recommend to Congress the retention of the present rate of duty and not to make the reduction fixed in the proposed Underwood bill for the following reasons:

1. Epsom salts produced in the United States is strictly a manufactured product, raw materials required being sulphuric acid and carbonate of magnesia, and, consequently, the cost of manufacturing is much greater than that of the German article which is mined in the crude state and only needs slight purification.

2. The proposed reduction in duty will not benefit the American consumer but the beneficiary will be a foreign monopoly:

On these two points we beg to submit the following:


Considering the high price of raw materials, no American manufacturer could manufacture Epsom salts solely. It is therefore, manufactured in connection with carbonic-acid gas from magnesite and sulphuric acid.

Grecian magnesite is an imported article, upon which we pay a freight of $5.20 per ton from New York to our plant, in addition to the price per ton to New York, which varies from $7 to $8. While there is no duty on magnesite, it will be seen that the transportation charges are very high.

To show the cost of manufacturing Epsom salts and the low prices received for same, in the past three years two carbonic acid plants have discontinued the manufacture of Epsom salts, due to the fact of the low selling price and the high cost of materials, even in the face of the present duty.



To reduce the tariff from its present basis it will mean a reduction in the selling price of the American producer, and, considering the extremely high cost of producing Epsom salts now, it would mean the discontinuance of the manufacture of Epsom salts, thereby leaving the field in the United States entirely to a foreign monopoly.

A reduction of 10 cents per 100 pounds in the wholesale price of Epsom salts will never be felt by the consumer, who pays from 15 cents to 40 cents per pound.

« AnteriorContinuar »