PARAGRAPH 56-PAINTS, COLORS, ETC.

House came into power, we manufacturers could appear here, and such arguments that we might present would be listened to carefully and considered, and we would get our just due. We still have hope. Mr. LONGWORTH. Don't you think it would be fair for other manufacturers to ask for the same thing that you are asking for?

Mr. SOMERS. Certainly.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Don't you realize that throughout this entire chemical schedule the manufacturer in every case is getting just what you are getting in your case-the double-cross?

Mr. SOMERS. I am afraid

Mr. LONGWORTH. That his raw materials are being increased, and his finished product reduced?

Mr. SOMERS. I am afraid that is true.

Mr. LONGWORTH. How can you as a Democrat, come here and ask that the Democratic tariff policy be changed as to your particular

business?

Mr. SOMERS. Because I have not lost faith in the Democratic Party. I still believe that the majority of this committee will come to our way of thinking.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Then, when you voted the Democratic ticket this fall, you knew what had been done in this chemical bill?

Mr. SOMERS. Exactly. And I might state that I do not think for one moment that, even though the bill may pass both Houses, the President will sign it. He has previously vetoed a similar bill.

Mr. HILL. Has not the President elect expressed his approval of all these bills?

Mr. SOMERS. As I understand it, and one of the reasons why I supported him is, that he has expressed approval of the policyMr. HILL. No; but of this individual legislation?

Mr. SOMERS. I do not know, sir.

Mr. HILL. Would you like to have me read his statement, so far as one of them is concerned?

Mr. SOMERS. I do not want to take up the time of the committee for that. I have read Mr. Wilson's speeches and I have heard his speeches and I have made speeches on the same platform myself.

Mr. HILL. Did you make speeches that were any different from the policy which this committee is following now?

Mr. SOMERS. None whatever. I am in sympathy with the policy of tariff revision downward, but I want equitable revision; that is all.

Mr. LONGWORTH. You do not want to be hurt yourself?

Mr. SOMERS. I am perfectly willing to be hurt, if you put me on a competitive basis with the foreigners.

Mr. LONGWORTH. You supported this Democratic policy on the theory that Mr. Wilson and this committee would be open to receive suggestions if you got a chance to talk to them?

Mr. SOMERS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Somers, I would be very glad, if you have not already included it in your brief-if it is in there it is all right, and we will consider it when we reach it, but if it is not in there-I would be glad if you will file with your brief a statement making a relative comparison showing how it would cut your raw materials. Mr. SOMERS. I have included that, Mr. Chairman.

PARAGRAPH 56-PAINTS, COLORS, ETC.

The CHAIRMAN. We will consider it.

Mr. SOMERS. All that we ask for is an equalization; that is all. Now, we pass on to the question of the vermilion red, containing quicksilver. That carries a reduction of from 10 cents per pound to 7.5 cents per pound. I think I made myself perfectly clear at the hearings before the Senate Finance Committee on this very bill, when I said: "If you pass this paragraph we ask you to take into consideration at the same time the duty on quicksilver, which is included in that other schedule." Quicksilver is in the metal schedule, and I was informed at that time that it was expected to reduce the tariff on quicksilver in the metal schedule. If that be true, then we have no quarrel with it; but we want to keep that in mind, for the reason that to put under 10 cents per pound duty a great proportion--and by a great proportion I do not mean 10 or 15 per cent or any small proportion-but a great proportion of the quicksilver vermilion, so called, that is used in this country, is imported from Europe, even though there is a duty against it of 10 cents per pound. So, if you reduce it still further, without giving us some reduction in the duty on quicksilver, you wipe us out completely.

Mr. HARRISON. You will observe that there is a reduction in vermilion red containing quicksilver from 17.5 per cent to 15 per cent. Mr. SOMERS. Yes; that is about what it amounts to, from 10 cents per pound to 7.5 cents per pound.

Mr. PETERS. Quicksilver was reduced from 14 per cent to 10 per cent under the bill that passed the House.

Mr. SOMERS. Yes.

Mr. PAYNE. I suppose you have heard the evidence here that the policy of this committee is to put a tariff on these articles going into your manufactures, like quicksilver, in order to tax the manufacturer. You have heard that, I suppose?

Mr. SOMERS. I have not heard it, but I do not question that it has been stated.

Mr. PAYNE. It was stated yesterday.

Mr. SOMERS. I was not here yesterday.

Mr. PAYNE. Are you in harmony with such a policy as that to put a tax upon all of these materials you use that enter into the manufacture of your goods?

Mr. SOMERS. No; I am not wholly in sympathy with that policy, and I do not think that it tends to the best interest of the country. However, I am not prepared to discuss that now, although I would like very much to discuss it.

Mr. PAYNE. I am afraid you are a victim of misplaced confidence. Mr. SOMERS. I am not so certain about that, Mr. Payne. Perhaps I have made some mistakes in my time, but I am young yet, and have an opportunity to correct them.

Mr. PAYNE. On coal-tar dyes the duty has been reduced to 20 per cent. Do you know the cost of manufacturing these dyes here and abroad?

Mr SOMERS Not the slightest. I have no knowledge of it.

Mr PAYNE. You want to have that done for your special accommodation, and not because you think it is necessary to reduce that duty, and still preserve that competition between our people and the people abroad that are manufacturing coal-tar dyes?

PARAGRAPH 56-PAINTS, COLORS, ETC.

Mr. SOMERS. I believe it is perfectly equitable to comprehend the both materials, the coal-tar dye and the finished product, as being closely related to one another.

Mr. PAYNE. Well, that is an addition to your business?

Mr. SOMERS. Yes.

Mr. PAYNE. You are departing from your view.

Mr. SOMERS. Naturally, as other men do, I guess.

Mr. PAYNE. I thought it would result in a change in your opinion as to their being able to manufacture here when they get this schedule into effect.

Mr. SOMERS. Of course, I am not not arguing for another man's business, nor do I want to attack any other industry in this country; but I wish to emphasize the point that with every reduction you make in our colors, you give us just the same reduction in the materials that we can use.

Mr. PAYNE. Are the duties on this article that you are here talking about under the present law prohibitive?

Mr. SOMERS. No, sir.

Mr. PAYNE. They are competitive, are they not?

Mr. SOMERS. Oh, yes.

Mr. PAYNE. So far as your industries are concerned, the present law meets your definition of a competitive duty?

Mr. SOMERS. Exactly, sir. I have no quarrel with the present law. We have been getting along under it very well indeed. I have studied the Payne law, and have lived under the Payne bill, and expect to live even under this bill, if it is equitably adjusted. That is all.

Now, I am sorry to have taken so much time, and I do not want to exceed my limit, gentlemen, but I would like to say a word about blues-Chinese, Berlin, and Prussian blues-which are also included in this bill. They carry a reduction from the present tariff of 8 cents per pound to 20 per cent, or not less than 3 cents per pound.

Now, the chief article that we use in the manufacture of blues is prussiate of potash. It is proposed to reduce prussiate of potash from 4 cents per pound to 1.25 cents per pound; and I call your attention to the fact that while that may appear to be a reduction of 2.75 cents per pound on raw materials, it is not, for the reason that a larger quantity of prussiate of potash is required for the manufacture of blue than you really get back. For instance, we require 120 pounds of prussiate of potash to make 100 pounds of blue, so that in considering the change in the tariff on our prussiate of potash it is well to bear in mind that there is always an excess quantity used that does not come back to a manufacturer of Prussian blue.

I call your attention, further, to the fact that under the Payne law a volume of 200,000 pounds of this blue was imported during 1911. That is a considerable part of the consumption of blues in the United States.

Mr. HILL. Taking them generally, there was more exported than imported, was there not?

Mr. SOMERS. I am speaking of blues, now. I do not believe any blues could be exported; but certainly 200,000 pounds was imported. We have again imported 200,000 pounds, which is a considerable portion of the total quantity consumed in America under the 8-cent

PARAGRAPH 56-PAINTS, COLORS, ETC.

clause, and I will leave you to judge how much more would be imported under the 3-cent clause and how little opportunity the American manufacturer would have to compete.

When the Wilson bill was in effect, years ago, under the Cleveland administration-and some reference has been made to it this morning-we, as manufacturers of blue, imported bronze blue, which is a certain kind of Paris blue, because it was far more to our advantage to import blue than it was to manufacture it. That gave us a duty of 3 cents per pound, and we might get back to that same condition; so that we hope you will reconsider your determination in this matter, and not make the cut quite so severe. Instead of reducing it to this extent, if you should reduce it about 25 per cent of the present tariff, and carry with it the same reduction that you have proposed in prussiate of potash, then we would be pretty nearly right, and be on the same competitive basis as we are to-day.

We enjoy no monopoly of the market, as is indicated by the fact that a large percentage of the consumption in this country has been imported.

Now, the last article to which I wish to draw your attention-and I want to say here in passing that, coming back to the statement I made earlier, as far as chrome colors are concerned, we make no protest against the reduction in these, because you have suggested reductions in the lead products that form the basis of these colors, and we have no quarrel whatever with that-this last article to which I wish to draw your attention is Paris green.

We have taken Paris green and London purple and have combined the two. Let me ask the committee to divide these two insecticides, for the reason that they bear no relation to each other. Paris green is made the world over. It is made in America very extensively; several million pounds annually are made and sold to the farmers in this country. There is not a pound of London purple made in America. I believe that is exclusively made in England, and by but one concern. London purple does not come in competition with Paris green at all. London purple has some advantage over Paris green, as a spray for certain kinds of cotton worms. Paris green has an advantage over London purple as an insecticide in other directions; so we would ask you to divide the two. Paris green is the only insecticide that is not on the free list. Now, a large quantity of Paris green is made in Canada, just across the line. Canada has imposed a duty of 10 per cent on Paris green, and we have tried to go there, and have been excluded absolutely from the Canadian market. We can not go there and sell our goods. The Canadian does not come here, except in a very limited way. There has been some imported; as a matter of fact, I remember that there was a quarter of a pound package of Paris green that was made in Canada. If you put Paris green on the free list, you are going to wipe out this pipe dream, and you are going to wipe out every Paris green factory in the United States. So that we are complaining to you, and I am telling you something that is absolutely a fact, for the reason that the Canadian importer is but a few miles north of us, and there are concerns manufacturing Paris green in Detroit, in Indianapolis, in Chicago, and in Cleveland, and it is a very easy matter for them to step across the border, because these concerns have plants already

PARAGRAPH 56-PAINTS, COLORS, ETC.

in Canada making other lines of goods, and enjoying a share of the Canadian markets, and coming into the States with their surplus products and selling their green here against the home manufacturer, who can not compete, unless he has some duty that will represent just about the difference in the cost of labor-not the difference in the cost of materials, because we do not know that there is any difference.

You are putting blue vitriol on the free list. Arsenic is on the free list; acetic acid is on the free list. That would not be imported, anyway, because it contains so much water that nobody could afford to pay the freight on the water. But you are keeping soda ash on the dutiable list, one-eighth of a cent per pound, which amounts to probably 20 per cent of the cost; but I shall not press that as a reason. However, we do ask that you give us at least as much protection in the matter-and I hate to use the word-but as much protection in the matter as Canada is giving to her manufacturers. That is all I ask for.

Mr. KITCHIN. How much is the Canadian tariff on Paris green? Mr. SOMERS. Ten per cent.

Mr. KITCHIN. Where is it made?

Mr. SOMERS. It is made in Toronto by the Canada Paint Works. Sherwin-Williams have a factory over there. I believe they absorbed the Canada Paint Co., and are manufacturing Paris green in Canada.

Mr. KITCHIN. Do we export any into Canada?

Mr. SOMERS. Not a pound to my knowledge; not a pound in the last 10 years. I have not been able to trace a single pound. Mr. KITCHIN. Does England export any there?

Mr. SOMERS. To Canada?

Mr. KITCHIN. Yes.

Mr. SOMERS. That I do not know.

Mr. HARRISON. Do you not get your raw materials just as cheap as the Canadians get theirs? Do we not export immense quantities of sulphate of copper? That shows that we are able to produce the raw materials for the manufacturer

Mr. SOMERS. Do you know at what price?

Mr. HARRISON. The mere fact that we export it satisfies me that the Americans can get their raw materials cheaper than the manufacturers of other countries.

Mr. SOMERS. But that does not satisfy the man who pays the freight. He pays 4 cents a pound for blue vitriol to be used in this country, while he can buy that blue vitriol for 3 cents if he signs a bill of lading and manifest to have it shipped out of the country. I say that is our viewpoint, and I say we want to take into consideration the price at which it is exported. The mere fact that it is exported and brought back into this country and sold at the same rate shows that they must export it at a price far below the price they ask the American manufacturers. That is one of the things that hurts.

Mr. KITCHIN. How large is the American output of Paris green? Mr. SOMERS. I should say from five to seven million pounds.

78959°-VOL 1—13- -22