« AnteriorContinuar »
PARAGRAPH 33—CASTOR OIL.
are not raised in the United States at the present time. There has been no account kept of the importations of these outside oils, as they have been run into the statistics as “all other oils."
Castor oil (not suitable for pharmaceutical purposes).—We would strongly suggest that this oil be placed on the free list, as in this case the American soap manufacturers could use same and turn out a soap, which would compete with the large quantities of so-called castile soaps imported from the countries bordering on the Mediterranean, i. e., Italy, France, etc. This oil is absolutely of no value for the making of pharmaceutical castor oil, as the latter must be taken from the first cold pressings only, while ordinary commercial castor oil is extracted by the addition of heat, thereby destroying its value for pharmaceutical purposes. This oil is especially adapted for the making of the castile style of soap, and if our soap manufacturers could get hold of this oil cheaply enough they could then compete with the foreign product. It should by all rights be classified simply as a soap stock. The importation of this oil into the port of San Francisco for 1912 was 2,077 gallons, valued at $1,871. "This, however, may include some pharmaceutical castor oil, but we think the bulk of the importation was represented by a sample shipment sent here by people in the Orient, who were unaware of the heavy duty of 35 cents per gallon now imposed.
With regard to codfish oil, we beg to draw to your attention the fact that ordinary fish oil (not American caught) bears a duty of 8 cents per gallon, but owing to the fact that codfish oil sometimes bears a trace of the cod-liver oil it is subjected to a duty of 15 cents per gallon. Now it is almost impossible when extracting this oil to have all the livers eliminated, and we would like to have this oil take the fish-oil rate of duty even if it should contain cod-liver oil as it is absolutely unfit for the purpose of making pharmaceutical codliver oil, and this is what the duty of 15 cents per gallon is to protect. Furthermore, we would suggest that all fish oils, whether seal, whale, sperm, or other fish oils be placed on the free list as they are suitable only for the manufacturers of soap or lubricating oils, and would in this way cheapen the cost of raw materials for our manufacturers of these products, enabling them to compete better with the foreignmade goods.
Rapeseed oil.—This oil is subject to a duty of 10 cents per gallon, but we respectfully beg to call your attention to the fact that samé is only used for the making of lubricating oils and does not compete with any American-made oil. It is one of the few oils which can be “blown,” and is almost indispensable to manufacturers of lubricating oils. We therefore think that it is a fit oil to go on the free list.
Hempseed oil.-We would also suggest this for the free list as well as sod oil, both of which are only used for manufacturing purposes, the former of which bears a duty of 10 cents per gallon and the latter a duty of 8 cents per gallon.
We herewith beg to give you the figures for the San Francisco customhouse for the year 1912;
Trusting that all these facts will be taken into consideration by the honorable committee above mentioned, and thanking you for the interest you have taken in the matter, we remain, Yours, very truly,
S. L. JONES & Co.,
W.C. DUNCAN, Vice President. Addenda.—Referring again to perilla oil, we would also beg to call your attention to the fact that nut oils, except those especially provided for, are free of duty, and according to all authorities we have consulted perilla is classified as a nut, and therefore should by rights come into the United States on the free list; but disputes have arisen, and a duty of 25 per cent has been levied on certain importations. We therefore strongly suggest that perilla oil should be added to the list of oils free of duty.
This oil has been used for centuries by the oriental lacquer makers and is a very important oil in the making of lacquers, and there is no oil in the United States which can entirely take its place. It is therefore essentially a fit oil to be admitted free of duty.
Another oil which we would also suggest as applicable to be placed on the free list is stillingia or tallow-seed oil, which is a drying oil shipped from China, and which, owing to its not being mentioned in the tariff, would be assessed a duty of 25 per cent; but had the framers of the present tariff had this oil brought before them they would have undoubtedly placed it on the free list.
Cod-liver oil, fifteen cents per gallon. PARAGRAPH 35.
Flaxseed, linseed, and poppy-seed oil, raw, boiled, or oxidized, Afteen cents per gallon of seven and one-half pounds weight.
LINSEED OIL. COMMUNICATION SUBMITTED BY SPENCER KELLOGG & SONS,
NEW YORK CITY.
SPENCER KELLOGG & Sons,
Buffalo, N. Y., January 4, 1913. Mr. Oscar W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: We respectfully request that the following communication be made a part of the hearings of your committee of the proposed changes in the chemical schedule and the agricultural schedule of the present tariff:
There are five points we wish to make:
(1) Trust.-Although stated to be so by at least one Member of Congress, there is no trust" in the linseed-oil business. The American Linseed Co. probably handles about one-third of the business in this country, which is conducted upon a very competitive basis.
(2) Profits.—These have not been large in this line; in fact, quite the contrary, as shown by the published reports of the abovementioned company, showing that they have not paid a dividend since 1900, and since then have only accumulated a surplus of $768,000, showing a loss during their last fiscal year of $478,000.
(3) Tariff on linseed and linseed oil should be adjusted at the same time and upon the same basis, for the one is the raw material of the other. One cent per gallon change in oil is equal to 2} cents per bushel change in seed.
(4) Drawback.-We urge the retention of the drawback system, for it allows us at certain times to import foreign seed, and to sell abroad both oil and oilcake made from this seed.
(5) Present duty on linseed should be maintained (consequently, the present duty on oil) for the purpose of giving all possible encouragement to our farmers to raise this crop. The paint trade, varnish maker, linoleum manufacturers and other interests affected, as well as the linseed-oil crushers, have during the past few years annually raised a fund of thousands of dollars to educate and to encourage our farmers to make a success of this
crop. Last year and the year before, owing to the poor linseed crops in this country, linseed oil was imported in large quantities, and the duty of 15 cents per gallon paid, showing conclusively that at such times the business is on a competitive basis with European mills, and that our farmers, because of the duty of 25 cents per bushel receive a higher price for their linseed to compensate for the smaller yield per Very respectfully submitted.
SPENCER KELLOGG & Sons (Inc.),
BRIEF OF WILLIAM GOODRICH & CO., MILWAUKEE, WIS.
MILWAUKEE, Wis., January 4, 1913. Representative UNDERWOOD, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House,
Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: We understand that the question of reducing or changing the present duty of 15 cents per gallon on linseed oil will come up for discussion before the Ways and Means Committee under the chemical and oil schedule on Monday the 6th inst.
In the interest of the linseed crusħing industry and of the flaxseed or linseed industry as a whole, we beg to enter an earnest protest against any further reduction in the duty on foreign-pressed linseed
PARAGRAPH 30--LINSEED OIL.
oil. At the present time both china-wood oil and soya-bean oil are admitted free of duty, and both are competitors of linseed oil. Under the Payne-Aldrich tariff the duty on linseed oil was reduced 25 per cent, and now stands at 15 cents per gallon. The removal of this duty would, we think, permit the importation of foreign oil at all times and necessitate a heavy reduction in the price of domestic flaxseed.
Owing to a gradual reduction in the area devoted to flaxseed and the consequent curtailment of the crop the linseed crushers and paint manufacturers of this country have for some years been contributing generously to an educational fund for the purpose of encouraging the growing of the flaxseed and of educating the farmer in the proper treatment of the soil and on the sowing of the seed. Our efforts have met with considerable success, and this year for the first time in several years we have raised a crop sufficient for the country's needs and one that has been profitable and satisfactory to the grower. Now, if through the removal of the protection given to linseed oil the price of seed is forced to considerably lower levels, the farmer, we believe, will not find it profitable to sow flax, and in consequence the linseed-oil industry of this country (which at present represents a business of sixty to seventy-five millions annually) would be very seriously crippled, if not entirely ruined. We would draw your attention to the fact that the duty on oil is in no sense a bonus to the crusher. There is widespread competition and over providing capacity sufficient to keep a considerable number of presses idle all the time. Aside from the benefit to the grower the duty on oil only serves to equalize the values as between this country and Europe.
In this country the oil is the principal product and the oil cake the by-product, while abroad the reverse is the case, the value of oil cake abroad being nearly twice that of the oil cake in this country. Under these conditions we can not compete with the European manufacturers of linseed oil without protection. The present duty on linseed oil is only just sufficient to meet these conditions, and in consequence we believe that any reduction of the present duty would be a serious menace to the life of the industry in this country, if not, indeed, its complete undoing.
As we can see no commensurate gain to any class of Americans by lowering or removing the duty, we earnestly pray your committee to recommend the same for retention. Respectfully, yours,
WM. O. GOODRICH,
Fusel oil, or amylic alcohol, one-fourth of one cent per pound. PARAGRAPH 37.
Hemp-seed oil, ten cents per gallon; rape-seed oil, ten cents per gallon. See S. L. Jones & Co., page 258.
PARAGRAPH 38-OLIVE OIL.
Olive oil, not specially provided for in this section, forty cents per gallon; in bottles, jars, kegs, tins, or other packages, containing less than five gallons
each, fifty cents per gallon. See Park & Tilford, page 67; F. S. Bright, page 267; Antonio Zucca, page 274; C. A. Mariana, page 278; Italian Chamber of Commerce, page 105; La Manna, Azema & Farnan, page 286.
STATEMENT OF DR. L. J. HUFF, OF LOS ANGELES, CAL., ON THE
SUBJECT OF OLIVE OIL.
Dr. HUFF. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have been delegated by the olive growers, nurserymen, and olive-oil manufacturers of California to appear before you representing their interests in the matter of a proposed reduction in the tariff on olive oil of 20 cents per gallon. We request that this duty be allowed to remain, as it is for the best interests of those concerned; and we believe that after you have thoroughly examined our statement and investigated our conditions you will
agree that to preserve that industry the duty must be left intact.
The proposed reduction of 20 cents a gallon, as far as we can see, will in no way reduce the cost of olive oil to the consumer for this reason: Ninety per cent of the olive oil sold to the consumer in the United States is sold in bottles and small cans called sixes (6 to the gallon) and contain 20 ounces of oil each. The average selling price in the United States is 80 cents per can or bottle. A reduction of 20 cents per gallon would be 3} cents per bottle. It is very obvious that the retailer would not sell at 75 cents and lose 1} cents per bottle of his profit, which profit is small enough at the present time. Neither would he make a 767 cents price.
We claim that the proposed reduction on an average annual import of 4,000,000 gallons, or $800,000, would go to the importer alone, and the Government would lose this revenue and not help the consumer, and work a very serious hardship on the olive-oil industry of California. Twenty cents a gallon reduction on 4,000,000 gallons would be a fine plum for the importer and absolutely no benefit for the consumer. The importer's argument has been that a 20-cent reduction would increase the sale and thereby increase the revenue. If
you will follow the European markets you will find that all of the olive oil being manufactured is readily sold, and that each year the supply is far below the demand, and especially so on the better grades of oil which come in competition with the California products.
There was imported in the United States during the year ending June 30, 1912, 3,050,322.96 gallons of olive oil, valued at $4,335,294.25, on which a duty of $1,525,161.58 was paid, a value of $1.42 per gallon. This was in packages containing less than five gallons. There was also imported 1,709,923.67 gallons, valued at $1,729,491, on which a duty of $683,969.44 was paid, a value of $1.01 per gallon. This was in packages larger than five gallons. There was also 702,565 gallons of denaturized oil, on which no duty was paid.
In 1908 we were represented here before the Ways and Means Committee, and at that time we asked that the duty be retained on