There is no soap trust. There is no combination of soap manufacturers. There is keen competition in all sections of the country. This competition compels each manufacturer to give the largest possible cake or the best possible quality or the lowest possible price or all of these; otherwise his volume of business can not be increased or even maintained. The prices to consumers of the common and laundry soaps we are discussing run between 2 and 5 cents per cake or bar. While there have been large and almost universal advances in the cost of other essentials of life, the retail price of laundry soap has shown no substantial change during a long period of years. COMPARATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE SOAP INDUSTRY OF THE COST OF LABOR AND THE COST OF RAW MATERIALS. The labor employed in the soap factories is principally unskilled. The cost of raw materials is a more important item in the cost of soap than is the cost of labor. According to the figures furnished by the Thirteenth Census, all establishments engaged in the manufacture of soap paid during the year 1909, for both salaries and wages, the sum of $11,733,000, while the cost of raw materials is given as $72,179,000. The industry has been built up relying upon free raw materials. These materials have been upon the free list under all tariffs, and if a reduction on the manufactured article is contemplated it should only be made upon condition that they remain upon the free list. This condition is peculiarly proper in view of the fact that common laundry soap is used not only for laundry but also for personal and general household purposes by the great mass of people. With food and shelter, soap is fairly classed as a necessity. It is not the purpose of the tariff revision to increase the cost of a necessity of life, but on the contrary to reduce the cost of living. The revision of the tariff downward should not be coupled with a new tariff upon ingredients which enter into the manufacture of a necessity which is now sold at a low price and manufactured by an industry conducted without combination but competing in all markets. If to raise revenue it is necessary to impose a tariff upon some articles now upon the free list, it is respectfully submitted that such tariff should not be imposed upon the raw materials heretofore on the free list used in making laundry soap, because: First. It is a necessary of life. Second. It is sold under highly competitive conditions. Third. It is the product of an industry which has been developed relying upon free raw materials. Fourth. It is sold at a price which has not contributed to the high cost of living. At the proper time we will present more fully the facts and arguments against the imposition of a tax upon the raw materials now on the free list, and we refer the committee to our briefs on the item of tallow in Schedule G, dated January 20, 1913, and on the items of oils, gum resin, etc., on the free list schedule, dated January 31, 1913, which will be filed with the committee. We have deemed it advisable while stating our attitude with respect to a reduction of the tariff on laundry soaps to make it clear that such reduction should not be coupled PARAGRAPH 69-SOAPS. with an imposition of duty upon raw materials now on the free list and which are used in the manufacture of laundry soaps. Respectfully submitted. Committee of National Conference of Laundry Soap Manufacturers. TELEGRAM SUBMITTED BY HON. A. G. ALLEN. Mr. Allen presented the following telegram, and asked that it be inserted in the record: Hon. ALFRED G. ALLEN, Washington, D. C. CINCINNATI, OHIO, January 7, 1913. We have before us only press reports of statement made yesterday in Committee on Ways and Means. We wish to state positively that this company has never attempted to fix the prices at which its soaps are sold by the retail dealers, and so far as we know no laundry soap manufacturer has done so. In response to telegram from Mr. Longworth, have also wired him as above. Will appreciate effort on your part to correct wrong impression. THE PROCTER & GAMBle Co. LOCKWOOD, BRACKETT & CO., NEW YORK, N. Y., WRITE CONCERNING CASTILE SOAP. Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, NEW YORK CITY, January 28, 1913. Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: With reference to proposed revised tariff, the alteration in duty on castile soap, at present 1 cents per pound, proposed change to read "15 per cent ad valorem." This change means a flat increase in duty, particularly on the better grades. We respectfully petition you not allow this change to be made, and give the following reasons: The change is uncalled for. Castile soap manufactured in this country sells regularly with satisfactory profits for a much lower price than imported castile soap. Therefore the domestic soap needs no additional protection. The present duty is ample and the proposed increase amounts to undue protection. At the same time may we call your attention to the proposed decrease in the duty on olive oil, which is the chief article entering into the manufacture of castile soap, amounting to a still further benefit to the manufacturers of castile soap in this country. Imported castile soap is an everyday article of use in most of the homes of this country. It is therefore a common necessity and not a luxury. The advance would have to be borne by the consuming public and explanation rendered in every drug, grocery, and department PARAGRAPH 69-SOAPS. store that this Congress had advanced the duty when the whole country has been looking for downward revision. If it is desired to increase the total revenue through this proposed increase, that object would fail utterly, because the aggregate import of castile soap would decidedly decrease, resulting in considerably decreased total revenue. A large sum has been paid to this Government each year by importers of castile soap. Imported castile soap is sold so closely by the importers that the proposed increase will be a decided hardship. The consumer is paying enough to-day for imported castile soap, which is desired because of its peculiar qualities not existent in domestic goods. The increase would drive the consumer to put up with something he or she does not want. Interests controlling the larger soap manufacturing plants of this country need absolutely no additional protection, and those interests are the only interests that would be benefited. This duty has not been disturbed for many years. Very few know this time an increase is proposed. The advance would meet with a clear disapproval in every part of the country. We wish to most seriously bring this to your attention and respectfully ask that the proposed change in the tariff be withdrawn and that the present duty of 14 cents per pound continue as in the past. Respectfully, yours, PARAGRAPH 70. LOCKWOOD, BRACKETT & Co. Bicarbonate of soda, or supercarbonate of soda, or saleratus, and other alkalies containing fifty per centum or more of bicarbonate of soda, five-eighths of one cent per pound. PARAGRAPH 71. Bichromate and chromate of soda, one and three-fourths cents per pound. See Natural Products Refining Co., page 359. PARAGRAPH 72. Crystal carbonate of soda, or concentrated soda crystals, or monohydrate, or sesquicarbonate of soda, one-fourth of one cent per pound; chlorate of soda, one and one-half cents per pound. PARAGRAPH 73. Hydrate of or caustic soda, one-half of one cent per pound; nitrate of soda and yellow prussiate of soda, two cents per pound; sulphide of soda containing not more than thirty-five per centum of sulphide of soda, and hyposulphite of soda, three-eighths of one cent per pound; sulphide of soda, concentrated, or containing more than thirty-five per centum of sulphide of soda, three-fourths of one cent per pound. For hyposulphite of soda, etc., see Grasselli Chemical Co., page 326. PARAGRAPH 74. Sal soda, or soda crystals, not concentrated, one-sixth of one cent per pound. PARAGRAPH 75-ARSENIATE OF SODA. PARAGRAPH 75. Soda ash, one-fourth of one cent per pound; arseniate of soda, one cent per pound. ARSENIATE OF SODA. BRIEF OF W. H. BOWKER, BOSTON, MASS., CONCERNING ARSENIATE OF SODA. To the WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: I am aware that hearings on Schedule A have been closed, but I hope it is not too late to call the attention of the committee to two items in the schedule which are of vital importance in the preparation of insecticides and fungicides for agricultural purposes by farmers and manufacturers. They are blue vitriol and arseniate of soda (pars. 81 and 71, H. R. 20182). You are doubtless aware that the production and sale of insecticides and fungicides for the protection of crops, as well as for the protection of shade trees and shrubs, has enormously increased in this country in the past 10 years. It is believed that but for certain insecticides and fungicides the fruit and potato industry of this country would have been wiped out in certain districts, while in the protection of shade trees and shrubs, especially in New England, from the gypsy moth, and brown-tail moth, they have been of very great assistance. Messrs. McCall and Peters, of your committee, will bear me out in this statement. The company which I represent manufactures insecticides and fungicides, and for that reason it is interested in having the raw materials which enter into its products admitted duty free. The essential destructive agents of the efficient insecticides and fungicides are arsenic, sulphur, and copper. Arsenic (par. 77) is now on the free list, and it is proposed to retain it in H. R. 20182. Sulphur (par. 98) is now on the free list, and it is proposed to continue it in the new bill. Copper (par. 81) in the form of blue vitriol carries a duty of onefourth per cent per pound under the Payne Act, and in the new bill it is proposed to make it free, to which we subscribe, and therefore we urge it for the reason that we use it extensively in the manufacture of fungicides, but we do not manufacture it. Paris green and london purple (par. 91) now carry a duty of 15 per cent, and it is proposed to put them on the free list, to which the farmer certainly will not object, and we do not, but I should add that we do not manufacture them. But the particular article to which I want to call your attention is soda, arseniate of (par. 71), which carries a duty under the Payne Act of 1 cent per pound, but in H. R. 20182 it is proposed to make it one-half cent a pound. While this proposed reduction is a step in the right direction, yet I would respectfully request that this article be admitted duty free for the following reasons: To most manufacturers of insecticides, and to all farmers who manufacture their own, arseniate of soda is the initial source of arsenic PARAGRAPH 76-SILICATE OF SODA. and therefore more essential than arsenic, which is admitted duty free, and which is the destructive poison in all insecticides used for killing leaf-eating insects. It may be urged that arseniate of soda is a manufactured product, which is true; so likewise is blue vitriol, which is the initial source of copper, the destructive fungicidal agent in the preparation of Bordeaux mixture by farmers and by many manufacturers. Since both are initial sources, one of copper and the other of arsenic, both should be admitted free. Arseniate of soda does not materially contribute to the revenue (only $1,684 in 1911) and it never will, but the duty on it serves to keep up its price in this country, and thus the price of insecticides of which it forms a component part. I therefore respectfully request that before H. R. 20182 is submitted in its revised form that arseniate of soda (par. 71) be put on the free list, instead of at one-half cent per pound as proposed, and that blue vitriol (par. 81) be put on the free list as proposed. Respectfully submitted. W. H. BowKER, President Bowker Insecticide Co. 43 CHATHAM STREET, BOSTON, MASS., January 29, 1913. PARAGRAPH 76. Silicate of soda, or other alkaline silicate, three-eighths of one cent per pound. See Grasselli Chemical Co., page 329. SILICATE OF SODA. BRIEF OF MECHLING BROS. MANUFACTURING CO., CAMDEN, N. J., January 4, 1913. The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: When your honorable committee considers a reduction in the duty on silicate of soda, we would like to call your attention to the fact that there are a number of grades of silicate of soda manufactured abroad, and that if you form a new tariff bill let your committee specifically name the various grades. The present tariff bill makes the rate of duty on all grades of silicate of soda the same. Silicate of soda glass which contains 100 per cent of silicate of soda takes the same rate as a common solution which tests 40° Baumé and contains about 38 per cent of silicate of soda. The other grade imported tests 60° Baumé and contains about 52 per cent of silicate of soda. We request that your honorable committee in forming your bill specify the percentage of silicate of soda on which duty is to be paid. 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 78959°-VOL 1-13-27 |