PARAGRAPH 56-PAINTS, COLORS, ETO. (4) Mineral Resources of United States, bulletin issued November, 1912. (5) Tariff hearings before Committee on Ways and Means, Sixtieth Congress, Schedule A, pages 413-468. (6) Commerce and Navigation of United States, 1911, pages 993 and 994. (7) The Production of Mineral Paint in 1911, page 16. (8A) Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance for October, 1912, page 26. (8) Commerce and Navigation of United States, 1911, pages 993 and 994. (11) Commerce and Navigation of United States, 1911, page 473 (oil varnish). (12) Class 94, opening November 14, 1912. (13) Monthly Summary, Commerce and Finance, advance sheets for October, 1912, page 26. (14) Schedule 4715, class 36, opening of August 13, 1912. BRIEF OF J. W. COULSTON & CO., NEW YORK, N. Y. Hon. Mr. UNDERWOOD, NEW YORK, January 8, 1913. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Paragraph 56 of tariff act of 1909: Under this paragraph of paints, colors, and pigments, etc., a duty of 30 per cent is paid. Paragraph 117: Under this, iron ore pays duty of 15 cents per ton. Under Treasury Summary 29074 (119 Fed. Rep., 470, and 162 Fed. Rep., 880), oxide of iron in lump form is permitted to enter the United States on duty as iron ore at 15 cents per ton. Not a particle of this iron ore is used for smelting purposes but solely to make powdered oxide of iron. On oxide of iron we pay duty of 30 per cent, or $6 per ton, while the importer of crude material pays only 15 cents per ton. We respectfully ask that in some manner importations of iron ore, used in paints, be assessed at the same rate as the powdered iron ore. Very respectfully, yours, J. W. COULSTON & Co. BRIEF OF THE PAINT MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES. say ACME WHITE LEAD AND COLOR WORKS, Detroit, Mich., January 10, 1913. MY DEAR MR. DOREMUS: Referring to our recent conference covering the matter of proposed revisions in Schedule A of the tariff and the effect that said revisions would have upon our industry, wish to that when this matter was under consideration last March a committee, appointed by the Paint Manufacturers' Association, prepared a statement or brief to be presented in connection with a hearing before the Finance Committee of the Senate. You will, perhaps, remember that no opportunity was given for hearing on this schedule by the Ways and Means Committee of the House. This statement, which 78959°-VOL 1-13- -23 PARAGRAPH 56-PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. was prepared with considerable care, is applicable in every way to conditions as they exist at the present time. Hence, it occurred to me that it might be as well to send you a copy of same. As our conference was necessarily limited in time and the proposition, as a whole, gone over rather hurriedly, the statement I am sending herewith will probably make some matters more clear to you. Trusting that we may have your best cooperation in the way of bringing about an equitable adjustment of the tariff, as it affects this industry, along the lines of our conversation, I beg to remain, with kindest regards, Yours, most sincerely, Hon. FRANK E. DOREMUS, WM. L. DAVIES, President. House of Representatives, Washington. D. C. GENERAL STATEMENT REGARDING PAINTS IN SCHEDULE A. [Paragraph 68, relating to ready mixed paints; paragraph 60, earth paints for all painting purposes; paragraph 63, enamel paints made with varnish; paragraph 50, soya oil, china nut oil and linseed oil; paragraph 37, varnish gums.] Hon. BOIES PENROSE, United States Senate. DEAR SIR: Last fall the Paint Manufacturers Association, which I represent to-day, unanimously passed the following resolution: "Whereas in the opinion of the Paint Manufacturers Association of the United States tariff legislation requires careful and expert investigation in order to insure equitable and adequate protection, and to avoid undue favor through lack of full comprehension of the details of the industry involved; and "Whereas the Paint Manufacturers Association of the United States have already gone on record as approving such investigation and revision of the Tariff Schedule, based on the findings of the Tariff Board: Now therefore 'Resolved, That the Paint Manufacturers Association of the United States tender its cooperation in the event of any possible tariff revision by Congress, and that a copy of this resolution be sent to the President, the members of Congress, and the Tariff Board." No request for any information has been received from those in charge of the preparation of Schedule A, before it passed the House and no opportunity was given us there for a hearing, nor has the Tariff Board apparently made any investigation into production cost here and abroad, as shown by the absence of any figures of this sort from Appendix C, entitled "Glossary on Schedule A." It is no wonder, therefore, that the lower duties proposed show lack of familiarity with the intricacies of the paint business, and to the relation between what are raw materials to the paint grinder, but which are finished products to the dry color maker, from whom he buys; and in like manner raw materials to the dry color maker are in many instances the finished product of the chemical manufacturer, who in turn derives his raw material from the output of the mines bearing the necessary ores; or in the case of the vehicles employed in the making of prepared paints, principally linseed oil, which in turn is the finished product of the crusher of flaxseed, who takes for his raw material the flax, the product of the farmer. We notice also the omission of any mention of flaxseed, or of zinc and lead bearing ores, in the preparation of this schedule, though they are directly connected with our line of industry. It is impossible, therefore, to make changes in the tariff on any of these materials without having due regard to the others, and this is why we protest against them, until due consideration can be given to these facts, and data can be procured that will show the costs of production here and abroad. In the short time since the passage of Schedule A by the House we are unable. ourselves to furnish any data other than to state that from investigations made the committee of our association reported in 1909, at the time the Payne bill was being considered, as follows: PARAGRAPH 56-PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. "From investigations made your committee is not far wrong in stating that the wages paid in this country are from two and a half to three times greater than are paid for similar labor in most foreign countries. This being true, then to reduce the tariff to any appreciable extent would necessarily mean a proportionate reduction in the wage scale of the people employed in the paint factories, etc." We are able, however, from the Tariff Board's glossary on Schedule A, to observe that the English statistics for 1907 give in round numbers a total cost of $27,000,000 for raw materials of paint and varnish and of $40,000,000 for the value of the product, showing the raw materials to be in the proportion of two-thirds to the value of the finished product, which almost exactly accord with the proportion in this country for 1905, when the cost of raw materials was $60,000,000 and the value of the product $90,000,000, and again in 1910 when the cost of the raw materials was $80,000,000 and the value of the product $124,000,000. This, we think, shows how much care has previously been exercised in preceding tariff measures, including the one under which we are now operating, and that by reason of the present tariff our manufacturers are not selling their product at any higher percentage on its cost than in England. Yet we are paying higher wages and more for all the expenses of a manufacturing business. The present tariff has produced no trust, pool, or agreement on prices. Internal competition to use the words of another, "Has reduced the price of the article to a minimum of a reasonable profit on the capital employed." In our judgment it is radically wrong to reduce the tariff on paragraph 68, when applied to our particular line of industry, because our products contain a large percentage of linseed oil, now paying a tariff of 15 cents a gallon which it is proposed to reduce to 13 cents a gallon, equivalent to but 3 per cent ad valorem. Meanwhile, two flax crop failures prevent our buying linseed oil on a world's market basis, as heretofore, and thus handicaps us by this proposed 13 cents a gallon. If 2 cents a gallon on oil, then 5 cents a bushel should be taken off flaxseed. It, therefore, to our minds, furnishes no excuse for a reduction of from 30 to 20 per cent on the mixed paints, colors in oil, etc., mentioned in this paragraph, for in these products the price of oil and the tariff thereon determines more largely the cost of the products than any other item. We do not wish to be understood as complaining about the tariff on linseed oil. We believe the farmer should have protection, and have backed that belief by furnishing through voluntary contribution collected by members of our association many thousands of dollars for putting into effect methods devised by Prof. Bolley, of the North Dakota Agricultural College, that would produce a higher rate of yield per acre and prevent rust. We believe it is to the interest of the United States that the flax planter should not be discouraged by the prospect of any lower duty on either the seed or the oil which is pressed from it in order that we may again be independent in this respect of foreign countries. Great strides have been made in the scientific preparation of paint, especially during the higher prices of linseed oil, and a use has been found for the soya bean oil to the extent of 5,500,000 gallons imported during 1911, where a few years prior there was practically none imported. Yet it is proposed to transfer this from the heretofore free list and impose a tariff of one-fourth cent a pound. In like manner Chinese wood oil, of which 5,800,000 gallons were imported during 1911, and of very recent use in our industry heretofore free, it is now proposed to tax 5 cents per gallon. We also oppose the very unusual change from the free list to an average duty of 1 cent a pound on all the gums used in the manufacture of varnish. This proposed change, together with the tariff on china wood oil, will increase the cost of perhaps 50 per cent of all the varnishes used, so we are told by the varnish makers. So closely connected are the paint and varnish industries that the line between them can not be drawn, and this will manifest itself in increased cost of many of the preparations made by the paint manufacturers. Paragraph 63, among other things, relates to enamel paints made with varnish. The proposed tariff of 25 per cent is a reduction from 35 per cent, this in spite of the proposed changes which increase the cost here, as above stated, of all varnishes, thus increasing the cost of enamel paints made from varnish. The paint industry is a large and growing one, having increased 40 per cent in five years and showing sales in 1910 of $124,000,000. We dislike to see any changes made that would jeopardize this growth, and we believe the changes proposed will effect not only the manufacturers of paint, but clear along the line until it reaches the farmer who raises the flax and the miner who produces the ore as well as the laborer employed by them all. PARAGRAPH 56-PAINTS, COLORS, ETC. In the limited time in which this matter has come up there have been passed resolutions by local bodies in our line of industry in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, and also the principal cities, protesting against these changes, and a thorough canvass of the entire trade has shown that the position here taken is unanimously endorsed. Respectfully. PAINT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, HERBERT W. RICE, Chairman, Tariff Committee. BRIEF OF GEO. S. MEPHAM & CO., EAST ST. LOUIS, ILL. EAST ST. LOUIS, ILL., January 2, 1913. Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We are advised that hearing on Schedule A present tariff will be held January 6 next and that brief statements of facts and suggestions will be welcomed. We are interested in the mining and manufacturing of colors and have a factory at this point. Our principal competition comes from England though on some items we have strong competition from France, Germany, and Spain. The writer during four visits to Europe has carefully looked into the manufacture and production of paints and colors, and finds first that factories in this country are equipped with better machinery than any European factory he visited, but that American factories pay from three to six times as much for labor than is paid in England, Germany, France, or Spain. In England machinery used in the manufacture of paints and colors because of cheap labor cost may be bought at prices which, added to duty and freight, makes the machinery laid down here at East St. Louis at a lower cost than local manufacturers are able to produce, which makes cost of machinery in factory in England about one-half the cost of equipping over here and repairs, an important item, equally as low. The shipping facilities enjoyed by English producers is in itself an important item. As an instance the present rates less than carload on colors from English port to Atlantic seaboard from $2 to $2.50 per ton. Freight on same items from here to seaboard range from $7 to $8.60 per ton, which tells its own story and shows the necessity for protection if American factories are to be operated. We would say that with present duties we purchase considerable quantity of goods from all of the countries named above because they can be laid down at less than they can be produced here and shipped to seaboard and finally the English producer has in colonies of England and great purchasing markets of the world to which British producers are admitted by preferential duties at lower rates than from this country. Is it wise to turn over a still larger share of the trade in the United States to foreign manufacturers by permitting them to dispose of their surplus products in this country to the extinction of American industry and the employment of American labor? We would add that our crude material comes from Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Michigan, and Wisconsin. PARAGRAPH 59-PHOSPHORUS. We close with the statement that there is no request for reduction in tariff on items covered by paragraphs No. 42, barytes; No. 47, ocher, sienna, and umber earths; No. 54, whiting, etc., and No. 56, paints and colors of all kinds, and a reduction in tariff would only reduce revenue on the material already coming into this country, and permit of bringing into the cheaper grades which now are made in the United States. Yours, very truly, PARAGRAPH 57. GEO. S. MEPHAM & Co. Paris green, and London purple, fifteen per centum ad valorem. See Arthur Somers, page 336. PARAGRAPH 58. Lead: Acetate of, white, three cents per pound; brown, gray, or yellow, two cents per pound; nitrate of, two and one-fourth cents per pound; litharge, two and one-half cents per pound. For acetate of lead, see Grasselli Chemical Co., page 327. PARAGRAPH 59. Phosphorus, eighteen cents per pound. PHOSPHORUS. LAMAR CHEMICAL WORKS WRITES CONCERNING Hon. OSCAR UNDERWOOD, NEWARK, N. J., January 16, 1913. Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In reference to the item "Phosphorus" in the proposed new chemical schedule. We respectfully request your committee to report all varieties of phosphorus on the free list in the new chemical schedule. Under the existing tariff, the duty on phosphorus is 18 cents per pound. The manufacture and sale of phosphorus is practically monopolized in this country by an English concern, who have their American plant at Niagara Falls. In making phosphorus, labor is an insignificant item in the cost. The necessary raw materials, phosphate rock, charcoal, and limestone, are very cheap and abundant. The main cost is electrical power in the shape of heat. The electric furnace is employed in manufacturing phosphorus, and the Niagara Co. are fortunate in having secured, years ago, cheap power contracts from the electrical power plant at Niagara Falls. The patents on the electric-furnace method of making phosphorus have expired. This Niagara Co. are also joint owners with one of the large chemical concerns of the country in a company for manufacturing the compounds of phosphorus. This company for manufacture of phosphorus compounds have a practical monopoly of the manufacture in this country of sirupy phosphoric acid and the hypophosphite salts of sodium, potassium, and calcium. Phosphorus is the main ingredient and item of cost in the manufacture of sirupy phosphorus acid and the three above-named hypophosphites; and without a process for the manufacture of phosphorus here, or without the |