PARAGRAPH 31-EPSOM SALTS. THE PROPOSED REDUCTION WILL NOT BENEFIT THE AMERICAN CONSUMER, BUT THE DIRECT BENEFICIARY OF IT WILL BE A FOREIGN MONOPOLY. Practically all the Epsom salts which is manufactured in this country is produced from magnesite. Magnesite is a mineral which is imported into this country from Greece, Austria, and other European countries. The Epsom salts which is imported is made in Germany and is produced from kieserite. Kieserite is one of the minerals found in the potash mines of Germany, and its production and sale is under the control of the German Potash Syndicate. The subsidiary companies of this syndicate manufacture Epsom salts and kieserite, and it is this which is imported into this country. Kieserite is a crude, impure Epsom salts, and all that is necessary is to refine it in order to produce the Epsom salts of commerce. To produce Epsom salts from magnesite in this country, the magnesite must undergo expensive chemical processes and we are free to admit that the production of Epsom salts from magnesite is more expensive than is the production of Epsom salts from kieserite. It is true that both magnesite and kieserite, under the present tariff, enter the country free of duty, but since kieserite is controlled by the German monopoly, which also makes Epsom salts, it is self-evident that kieserite is available to the manufacturers in this country only on such conditions as the German monopoly, in active competition on the finished material, sees fit to impose. The average market price for Epsom salts in barrels, car lots, in this country, is somewhere around 90 cents per 100 pounds, f. o. b. works. We are advised, and we have every reason to believe that it is true, that the prices governing in Germany and England are considerably higher. In fact, a quotation which we had some time ago from Germany and which named a low price on Epsom salts, was made with the provision that the product was for delivery and sale in the United States, that if it were sold in the United Kingdom, a penalty of £1 per ton would be exacted. £1 per ton is approximately 25 cents per 100 pounds. Your honorable committee will agree, therefore, that the assumption is fair that if the proposed change of daty carries with it a destruction of the American manufacturing industry, it will certainly not mean a lower cost to the consumer. As soon as the domestic competition is snuffed out, we can rely on the foreigner placing a higher price on his product than is now in effect under the present system of competition and the consumer, instead of paying less, will pay more for his product. We respectfully submit that it would be strange indeed if Congress in these days, where so much legislative effort is exerted toward the rectification of evils due to combinations and trusts, should wipe out of existence an American industry which is on a strictly competitive basis, in order to hand the business over to a foreign monopoly over which Congress has no control, and the selfishness and power of which has made itself so strongly felt in the potash controversy. PARAGRAPH 31-EPSOM SALTS. That the very existence of this American manufacturing industry is immediately threatened by a reduction of the tariff, is perhaps best emphasized by this statement of fact: Two years ago the then largest producers of Epsom salts, viz: the Liquid Carbonic Co., of Pittsburgh, Pa., found it unprofitable to continue even at the present tariff rate, the manufacture of Epsom salts. It discontinued that portion of its business entirely, dismantled its plant, and sold its machinery. We leave it to the imagination of the members of your honorable committee as to the effect a still lower rate of duty will have on what remains of the industry. THE COMMITTEE'S DECISION FIXING THE PROPOSED REDUCTION IS BASED ON ERRONEOUS INFORMATION. Report 326, which is the report on Schedule A, submitted to Congress by the Committee on Ways and Means, states on page 88 the consumption in this country of Epsom salts during 1905 as 30,677,838 pounds and the consumption for 1910 as 47,785,000 pounds. On page 328 the consumption of Epsom salts for 1904 is given as 15,935,837 pounds. According to these figures it would appear that the consumption of Epsom salts doubled in 1905 over what it was during 1904. No such increase in the consumption took place. As a matter of fact, the figure of actual consumption of Epsom salts, given by us as 23,000,000 pounds per annum during the year ending June 30, 1912, is a conservative estimate and based on a thorough knowledge of the business and is, we believe, as near accurate as can be had. When it is considered, therefore, that the importations of Epsom salts of 8,000,000 pounds during the year ending June 30, 1912, represent fully one-third of the total consumption in this country and that the importations are increasing at the present rate of duty, we believe that your honorable committee will agree that the foreign producer is already in the position to control the Epsom-salts business in this country and a reduction in duty will simply strengthen the foreigner's hold on the business, without any advantage to the American consumer, the American Government, nor the American manufacturer. Further, on page 229 of the same report, a statement is made that Epsom salts is used in the industry in dye and print works for making carbonate of magnesia, and the argument has been made that Epsom salts, being an important raw material in the dye and print industry, the duty should be reduced. As a matter of fact, the quantity of Epsom salts used in the dye and print industry is negligible. In our opinion it amounts to less than 50,000 pounds per annum. The principal use of Epsom salts is for pharmaceutical purposes. CONCLUSION. We are convinced that the American Epsom salts industry will not be able to maintain itself for very long even at the present rate of duty, but believing that the principle of protection is not one that is being considered in framing tariff schedules at this time, we refrain from suggesting the wisdom of increasing the tariff rate on Epsom salts to protect the industry. PARAGRAPH 31-EPSOM SALTS. We believe, however, that on the facts as shown not even the most strenuous advocate of free trade will be in favor of a reduction of the duty on Epsom salts, and we respectfully but earnestly petition your honorable committee that the present rate of one-fifth cent per pound be maintained. CHICAGO, January 2, 1913. VICTOR CHEMICAL WORKS, By AUGUST Kоснs, General Manager. Imports entered for consumption, Epsom salts. [Commerce and navigation of the United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Statistics.] BRIEF OF MECHLING BROS. MANUFACTURING CO., Camden, N. J., RELATIVE TO EPSOM SALTS. CAMDEN, N. J., January 4, 1913. The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: We submit to your honorable committee the following reasons against a reduction in the present rate of duty on Epsom salts. A reduction in the duty will not in any way change the price to the consumers at large. It will probably increase importations and thereby reduce the amount of products manufactured in the United States. A reduction in the tariff can not possibly change the price to the ultimate consumer, as the public at large buys Epsom salts in minute quantities. A reduction in the tariff would not affect the retail prices. We further protest on the ground that a reduction of the tariff on a low-priced article is manifestly unfair to manufacturers located on the Atlantic coast, as it opens competition from abroad, which they alone feel. The interior points are not affected because the imported goods can not come into their territory on account of the freight rate from the seacoast. The object of a reduction in the tariff is therefore defeated, inasmuch as prices are not reduced excepting along the Atlantic coast. Trusting that your committee will give the foregoing their consideration, we beg to remain, Very truly, yours, MECHLING BROS. MANUFACTURING CO. PARAGRAPH 32-ALIZARIN ASSISTANT. PARAGRAPH 32. Alizarin assistant, sulpho-ricinoleic acid, and ricinoleic acid, and soaps containing castor oil, any of the foregoing in whatever form, in the manufacture of which fifty per centum or more of castor oil is used, thirty cents per gallon; in the manufacture of which less than fifty per centum of castor oil is used, fifteen cents per gallon; all other alizarin assistants and all soluble greases used in processes of softening, dyeing, or finishing, not specially provided for in this section, thirty per centum ad valorem. For alizarin assistant, see E. C. Klipstein, page 229; T. S. Todd & Co., page 252; Bosson & Lane, page 254. ALIZARIN ASSISTANT. BRIEF OF BAKER CASTOR OIL CO., NEW YORK CITY, RESPECTING ALIZARIN ASSISTANT OR SOLUBLE OIL. The WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, Washington, D. C. Under the Dingley bill the provision with respect to alizarin assistant has been subject to criticism, and several cases have been carried to the courts. It is therefore important that the reading of this provision should be so arranged as to eliminate dispute and litigation, and also be so broad as to prevent the real intent of the act from being avoided. We are not manufacturers of alizarin assistant, but sell castor oil to those makers of alizarin assistant who do not manufacture their own castor oil. Many foreign manufacturers of alizarin assistant have branch houses in this country and import this oil in quite large quantities, as you will see from the records of imports. Consequently it can not be claimed that 30 cents per gallon protection on this article is prohibitive. Alizarin assistant usually consists of castor oil treated with sul- phuric acid, etc., and is used as a mordant, and has been variously known under the names of alizarin assistant, soluble oil, Turkey red oil, oleate of soda, padding liquor, etc.; various importers bring it under various names in order to endeavor to pass it through the customhouse at a lower rate of duty than the Government exacts. It is made of varying strengths, the strength usually used by the consumer being what is called 50 per cent, that being the percentage of castor oil used in the mixture. It is possible, however, to have almost the entire mass of this article consist of what was originally pure castor oil, in which shape it can be and has been imported into this country, and afterwards, by the addition of water, can readily be reduced to the required strength. Alizarin assistant has the property of holding castor oil in solution, just as water would hold sugar in solution, and the castor oil could be thus mechanically mixed with it, imported into this country, and afterwards recovered from the mixture as castor oil by a very simple process. Referring to H. R. 20182, this bill made a reduction of duty on alizarin assistant to 15 per cent ad valorem, regardless of the per cent of castor oil in the assistant, and reduced castor oil to 20 cents per gallon. To illustrate the gross injustice of a duty of 15 per cent ad valorem on assistant as compared with 20 cents per gallon on castor oil we beg to submit a concrete example: PARAGRAPH 32-ALIZARIN ASSISTANT. A imports 100 pounds of alizarin assistant containing 50 per cent castor oil or 50 pounds, costing at 44 cents per pound, $45. Cost $45 at 15 per cent ad valorem the duty would be 67 cents. B imports 50 pounds of castor oil and pays duty of 20 cents a gallon, or $1.25. (Fifty pounds equals 61 gallons.) This little example is sufficiently plain to illustrate how necessary it is to have the rate of duty on alizarin assistant within 5 cents per gallon of the rate of duty on straight castor oil. We suggest that the wording of the tariff be as follows: "Alizarin assistant, by whatever name known, whether liquid, solid, or in paste, 10 cents per gallon when containing less than 50 per cent castor oil, and 15 cents per gallon when containing over 50 per cent castor oil, including all soluble greases used in processes of softening, dyeing, or finishing.' We would state that the clause "by whatever name known" is very important, as parties have endeavored to evade the tariff by bringing it in under various names. The words "liquid, paste, or solid" are necessary, as parties have had alizarin assistant made abroad, carrying the process to the point of saponification (which can be readily done by expelling the moisture) and then passing it through the customhouse as "soap." Castor oil and alizarin assistant are manufactured here by many concerns, and the use of castor oil in this country is small compared with what it is used abroad, consequently cost of manufacturing and distribution is much cheaper abroad. Respectfully, yours, JANUARY 2, 1913. THE BAKER CASTOR OIL Co., 100 Williams Street, New York City. F. H. MARSH, Secretary and Treasurer. BRIEF OF T. S. TODD & CO., NEW YORK, N. Y., CUSTOMHOUSE BROKERS AND FORWARDERS. The WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, NEW YORK, January 3, 1913. Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: The manufacturers of alizarin assistant desire to bring to your attention the close relationship that exists between this article and castor oil and which they hope will be recognized and maintained when tariff provision is made for them. Should provision be made for alizarin assistant without regard to its castor-oil content, such provision would, without doubt, more or less nullify the provision for castor oil and at the expense of the revenue. Alizarin assistant is made of castor oil which has been treated with sulphuric acid, washed and neutralized by alkalies so as to be made. perfectly soluble in water, and it is used as a mordant and softener, and for fixing the dyes in cotton fabrics. In H. R. 20182 provision was made for castor oil at 20 cents per gallon; alizarin assistant was provided for at 15 per cent ad valorem, without limitation as to castor-oil content. |