PARAGRAPH 67-PERFUMERY. The revenue the Government would receive from import duty on fine oils might be considerably minimized by the dishonest importer. Valuable oils mixed or combined at a cost of, say, $20 a pound might be invoiced at $3 a pound. The appraisers could scarcely determine value, and might receive 60 cents instead of $4, as was expected, as mixed oils are very difficult to appraise. I had an interview with the chief appraiser of our customs in New York, and tried to get points bearing upon the classification, the appraisement, or the adjudication of the questions that came up. Our entire industry most respectfully, but most earnestly, protests, and urges the return to the free list of the items named in paragraph 51, and all of paragraph 54, which are our raw materials on the free list; avoiding repression or restraint of trade, which is sure to follow if a duty is levied on them. Confident that you will realize the justice of our position, and appreciating your laborious task, and relying upon your fair interpretation of the vital needs of our industry, we bespeak your effective influence to this end. Mr. HARRISON. I would like to state to Mr. Ricksecker that, in preparing this bill, the committee left the duties at 60 and 70 per cent upon the finished product, because we considered that perfumery is really a luxury, and, according to our theories, the proper subject of a high tax; and in view of that fact, that those high duties were left upon the finished product, the committee thought it wise to recommend a 20 per cent ad valorem tax on these essential oils and materials for the manufacture of perfume which were not grown in this country, by which means we estimated that we would raise one-half a million dollars' worth of revenue. We thought it was fair to the manufacturers that perfume should bear that tax in view of the high duty which has been left on their finished product. It is entirely a revenue proposition. Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes. We understand that, and I have gone into the matter and have classified and totaled the amount of revenue you could derive from it, and our figures are just a little short of that sum; but the reasoning above the question at issue, together with the fact of our big alcohol-revenue tax, offset that issue. In the original bill prepared by Mr. Payne they also took the same ground in 1909. When they saw the issue in the House and Senate, as presented by our industry, they saw its fairness. Now, it may be pertinent to the question to state that, at different times, the question of alcohol tax has come up in our industry and in the arts, and in an interview with an old friend, Senator Allison, in his room, I said to him that "It seems hard that the industry should be taxed as much as liquor." He said to me, "If you will prepare a bill which will hold water as to a tax on alcohol in the arts and manufactures, I will do what I can to support it." The CHAIRMAN. I thought in your perfumery you used a good deal of methyl alcohol? Mr. RICKSECKER. NO. The CHAIRMAN. I see that every now and then some person takes a drink out of a bottle of perfume and is poisoned. PARAGRAPH 67-PERFUMERY. Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes; that is a rare thing. I know of only one instance where a certain house sold some toilet water with denatured alcohol. It went to North Dakota and killed seven Indians. Mr. HARRISON. We have provided for the 60 cents a pound in addition to the ad valorem duty to take care of that alcohol proposition. Mr. RICKSECKER. Well, the trouble is that is not enough; free raw materials are imperative for successful business. Now, I have been called the oldest perfumer in the United States, and I have studied the question from every standpoint, and am pretty well tired of having to come down to Washington every few years to defend the position which we have been accorded in the past for so many years in the Dingley law, in the Wilson bill, and in the Payne law-from the opposition on both sides of the House. The Senate has seen the justice of our position. The consumption of these oils is a part of civilized life to-day. Toilet goods are used liberally even by the working people. The standards are higher to-day. Eliminate these things, and you take out a slice of happiness that we are all entitled to, on the part of the girls and women, who get very little else in the way of luxuries, except such few things as they can buy of this character. They do not buy liquor and cigars like men do; but they do buy these things. The consumption falls not upon the rich, but on the great middle class. Intelligent laborers are all consumers of the goods in which we use these materials. Mr. HILL. Mr. Ricksecker, are you president of and represent the Manufacturing Perfumers' Association? Mr. RICKSECKER. I am the chairman of the committee and represent the association. Mr. HILL. I understand that you have no criticism of this bill, which is printed as a part of the tariff handbook here, so far as the duties are concerned, where they are continued the same as they were, in the finished products. What your criticism is, is as to the addition of 20 per cent duty on the noncompeting raw materials which enter into the finished product? Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes. Mr. HILL. Is not your association perfectly aware that this bill, representing the true principle of a tariff for revenue only, was adopted twice by Congress in its former session, and ratified by an overwhelming majority of the people last November? Mr. RICKSECKER. That does not disturb the soundness Mr. HILL. You mean that does not alter your views or mine, but is the fact that it is clearly before us that the Democratic majority in the House was more than doubled; the Senate was made Democratic; the President elect has approved this legislation in express terms concerning one bill, and that the country has overwhelmingly indorsed it. Mr. RICKSECKER. I admit Mr. HILL. The theory and principle Mr. PAYNE. Let him answer that. I do not believe he would agree with you. Mr. HILL. The theory of putting a revenue duty on raw materials, noncompeting. PARAGRAPH 67-PERFUMERY. Mr. PAYNE. The majority of the people of the country did not elect the House and Senate and the President, but the minority did. Mr. HILL. I don not alter my question at all. My theory is that the voter intelligently understands what he is doing, and that if he votes for a third party, he puts the first party in power. Mr. RICKSECKER. I shall answer that by referring to a little incident that occurred on New Year's Day. Mr. HILL. Your association was familiar with the terms of this bill before the election, was it not? Mr. RICKSECKER. I was going to answer you question in a moment. I met one of our manufacturers in New York, and he spoke of the hearings, and I asked him if he knew that raw materials were proposed to be taxed 20 per cent hereafter. He said no; he did not. That gentleman travels all over the country, and I was surprised to find that, although a member of our association, he did not know the fact. I think that is the case with a great many. They are so absorbed in their business that they do not watch congressional proceedings as they might, and they rely upon a few of us to take care of that. Mr. HILL. But your association was before the Senate after this bill had passed the House and went over there? Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes. Mr. HILL. And they understood it? Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes. Mr. HILL. Is there any reason to doubt that the association at least understood then that the duty of 20 per cent was going on raw materials? Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes, sir. Mr. HILL. And that policy of revenue duty on raw materials was the policy of the bills generally that were introduced and would be introduced, not all probably along that line, in case the result of the election was favorable to them? Mr. RICKSECKER. There is where I found some of the members were lame. They did not notice the bill had been passed, and they did not take enough interest to inform themselves. Mr. HILL. They must not plead their own default now, to me. it seems Mr. RICKSECKER. Well, I am simply representing them. I certainly have no right to speak for each one's knowledge of what has happened. I only know that I met this gentleman that I speak of on the street, and I found that he, a manufacturer who has traveled all over the country, and an intelligent man, did not know that we were up against a possible 20 per cent increase of duty on our raw materials. Mr. HILL. What percentage on the cost of the finished product would this 20 per cent on the raw material probably make? Mr. RICKSECKER. Mr. Hill, I like to answer all questions as closely to fact as I possibly can, and I am not informed. Mr. HILL. Well, it would amount to more than 5 per cent on the finished product? Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes. In most instances it would amount to more; perhaps 10 or 15 per cent. 78959°-VOL 1-13- -25 PARAGRAPH 67-PERFUMERY. I want to say right here that the working people, who get a few luxuries in their lives once in a while, will pay 25 or 50 cents for a bottle of perfume or a cake of soap, or a box of talcum powder, etc., and if we increase our price to the retailer he will have to increase his price, and the consumer would say, "Why 30 cents for a 25-cent article?" It would be a blight on the retail man's reputation. It would be the same way if he charged 55 cents for the 50-cent article. The prices of some of these goods are so close that if we had to sell them alone, we could not come out even. Mr. HILL. Are you aware of the fact that the changes in this bill from the Payne law will take forty-odd million dollars from the present free list, or that the free list of the Payne bill was double as much as H. R. 20182? Mr. RICKSECKER. I have not heard the total. Mr. HILL. I would like to make a part of my question, Mr. Chairman, the exact figures. The clerk will put them in the record as a part of my question, showing the difference between the free list in the two propositions and the dutiable lists in the two propositions. Mr. JAMES. Before that is done, I suppose you ask that question with the understanding that you acquiesce in the verdict of the people? Mr. HILL. I have always believed that the people should rule. These figures are taken from the Democratic report, and so vouched for their correctness, so far as the report is concerned. Mr. JAMES. As a good patriotic citizen you are going to support our bill? Mr. HILL. I have announced my policy. The figures referred to by Mr. Hill are as follows: - per cent.. Under Democratic rates in the last session bill and classification (from Democratic report), 1912: Total estimated importations.. Dutiable... Free.... $117,092, 655 48, 869, 368 68, 223, 287 12, 609, 456 10.7 $122, 921, 793 96, 742, 850 26, 178, 943 Duties to be collected.. 16, 101, 595 Rate on bill.. per cent.. 13. 1 RESULTS. Finished products greatly reduced. Raw materials largely increased. Result, importation of finished products. No revenue from increase on raw materials. Revenue must come from increase of imported finished products, which means a transfer of industry or reduction of wages. The CHAIRMAN. Of course we have a great deal of latitude in these hearings, gentlemen, but as we have a large number of witnesses this morning, and as it is the last day, I would like, as far as we can, to confine the questions to the bill and not wander into the realm of political discussion. Is that all, Mr. Ricksecker? PARAGRAPH 67-PERFUMERY. Mr. RICKSECKER. I have twice in my commercial life suffered from legislative action on tariff matters. I started in as an importer of toilet goods and began a business which was successful. I soon saw that the trend was toward perfection of industries, and I went into the manufacture of toothbrushes in Brooklyn. I started a factory and got English and French workmen and made a success of it. One morning in 1884 I read in the morning paper that the duty on toothbrushes was reduced from 40 to 30 per cent. It floored me. It killed my industry and it killed those in Newburyport, in Florence, Mass., in Brooklyn, N. Y., and in different places. It killed the toothbrush industry, and it has been dead ever since. I had to gird my loins. thing else, so I went into this business. Then in 1893 the menace of the change in the tariff-you must bear in mind our industry is a very sensitive one; it is a regular barometer to tariff changes. I lost considerable and I had to try some Under President Cleveland's proposed tariff for revenue only the menace to our industries was so potent that I lost one-half of my business. Mr. KITCHEN. Do you know the difference between the tariff under the Cleveland administration, the Wilson bill, and the tariff of the Payne Act or the Dingley Act on your products? Mr. RICKSECKER. I know that there was and is no tariff on our raw materials. Mr. KITCHEN. Do you know the difference as to the finished products? Mr. RICKSECKER. I Mr. KITCHEN (interposing). I know what it is, but you said it killed you; but were not raw materials of your products on the free list under Cleveland? Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes; but they do not cover the requirements of our industry alone. Mr. KITCHEN. Were not those same raw materials on the free list under Cleveland? Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes, sir. Mr. KITCHIN. And did you not practically have the very identical tariff you have now? Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes, sir; nearly the same. Mr. KITCHIN. How then could the tariff under Mr. Cleveland have affected you? Mr. RICKSECKER. It was the menace in the minds of the public Mr. RICKSECKER. (continuing). That broke up confidence and destroyed order. Mr. KITCHEN. Then it was not the tariff that affected you, but this menace? Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes. Mr. KITCHIN. Just the fancy of the people? Mr. RICKSECKER. Yes, sir. "Menace" is the word I used. Mr. KITCHIN. How much of this perfumery is exported, if you know? |