PARAGRAPH 91-MICA. Generally speaking, mica is being imported in the following forms: (1) Variously trimmed with sickle knife, shears, or machine, irregular in shape, sometimes nearly rectangular. (2) Splittings or films. (3) Cut to rectangular or some other definite shape. (4) Built-up plate in various forms. There are some other forms in which mica is being imported, but these will cover the bulk of it and they are all we now wish to call your attention to. The trimming of mica has been carried to such a point during the past few years that there is now practically no "unmanufactured" nor "rough trimmed only" mica imported into the United States. The Dingley Act read: "Mica, unmanufactured or rough trimmed only, six cents per pound and twenty per centum ad valorem; mica, cut or trimmed, twelve cents per pound and twenty per centum ad valorem." The new act reads: "Mica, unmanufactured, or rough trimmed only, five cents per pound and twenty per centum ad valorem; mica, cut or trimmed, mica plates or built-up mica, and all manufactures of mica or of which mica is the component material of chief value, ten cents per pound and twenty per centum ad valorem." So that the wording is practically the same in both laws for the "unmanufactured or rough trimmed only" class. The practice has been to put under the lower classification all imported mica except such as was cut to some definite size or shape. Under this rule there was even yet much evasion of the higher classification by mixing a great number of sheets cut to various sizes and packing them loosely in the case, or by marking on the edge of each piece a line to indicate it would yet be cut again to make it a size mentioned in standard lists that are used by the trade. This matter came before the Board of General Appraisers in case No. 20677-Protest No. 315568-and was decided against the importers. But this only settled a very extreme case, and we claim that there is yet much mica coming in that is so trimmed and manufactured that it should pay the highest rate of duty. To better explain this we describe briefly the process of manufacturing mica. When mica is first mined out it is in rough blocks of various shapes, size, and thickness. These blocks are split to about one-sixteenth of an inch in thickness and the sheets sorted according to what size can be cut out of each piece in sound glass-like material. On the edge of each piece is some unsound material that is only fit for grinding into ground mica, and it is usual for the miner to at least roughly trim this off the piece before it is packed for sale to the dealer in or the consumer of the mica. Some miners further advance their product to the condition used by consumer before they dispose of it. Understand that this trimming is first of all done to get rid of the unsound material on the edge, but the closer it is trimmed to any desired or expected pattern the less waste there will be in cutting it to the desired pattern, and the less specific duty there will be to pay on it. And, therefore, very properly in both the new and old tariff law the lower classification read "unmanufactured or rough trimmed only," and the higher classification "cut or trimmed," not "cut and trimmed," as the appraisers worded it in their decision in case No. 20677. So, then, the difficulty lies in distinguishing between what is "rough trimmed only" and what is "trimmed." It may be difficult for the inexperienced to draw the line closely between them under certain conditions, but as the bulk of the imported mica is now prepared, it is easy to see it is much more closely trimmed than could be termed "rough trimmed only." We claim that practically all the Indian, and much of the Canadian that is imported, is closely trimmed; very far beyond what could reasonably be called "rough trimmed only." And this is the case whether it has been trimmed with the sickle knife, shears, or machine. In every case they are trimming it so closely that there is little waste getting it to any desired shaped pattern or rectangular size, and it should be classed as "trimmed" and pay the highest rate of duty. Imported trimmed mica is not sold in the United States as rough trimmed, but as closely knife trimmed or closely shear trimmed; the importers' catalogues usually state "closely trimmed." In the London markets, where much of the Indian product is sold for export to the United States, it is usually called "uncut" when sickle trimmed; but also "trimmed," "square trimmed," "Calcutta trimmed," "circular trimmed," and other terms to designate the kind of trimming that has been done. But it is all "trimmed" until it reaches the United States customs, where it now passes as "rough trimmed only." The distinction between roughly trimmed and trimmed is well known and recognized among both the domestic and foreign producers, and why should it not be recognized when classing mica for duty? PARAGRAPH 91-MICA. We ask that all this trimmed mica (embraced under (1) on first page) as now prepared, be placed in the higher class and pay 10 cents per pound and 20 per cent ad valorem duty, until the foreign producer leaves his mica in a less advanced condition. The next step in the manufacture of mica is to take these trimmed pieces and either: (a) Split them with a hand knife to less than two-thousandths of an inch in thickness into what are termed "films" or "splittings." Several machines have been tried for this work, but so far they have not been so satisfactory as the hand work, and the bulk of it is yet done with hand. Understand, it is trimmed first and then split. Before good marketable splittings can be manufactured from the sheet, it is essential that each piece be closely-not roughly-trimmed. The law says "rough trimmed only" (notice the word "only") or "unmanufactured" in the lower classification, and "trimmed" and "all manufactures of mica" in the higher classification. So here we have a case where there can be no question of how much trimming has been done, for it is also manufactured (split). The material (films or splittings) is not "unmanufactured" nor "rough trimmed only," and it is "trimmed," and it is "manufactured." Some years ago trimming before splitting was not demanded by the trade, and we imagine it was then the evasion first began. They used to take sheets that had been trimmed very little, if at all, in fact were roughly trimmed if at all, and split them thin to films. And as it is more difficult to notice the trimming after the mica is split to films than before, no doubt the difference was overlooked until the custom was established. Our attention was not called to it until we were called as witnesses in case No. 20677, above mentioned. We may state that the labor cost of doing this splitting in the United States is 10 cents and 11 cents per pound, and there is about 10 per cent wastage of the mica in manufacture. We ask that all films or splittings (embraced under (2) on first page) be placed in the higher class and pay 10 cents per pound and 20 per cent ad valorem, as they should properly do. (b) Or the sheets may be cut to definite size or pattern-embraced under (3) on first page. These sizes or patterns are innumerable. The term is "cut" (not "trimmed") to size or pattern. It would be a stretch of the word to say trimmed to size or pattern. To get a pattern out of sheet mica it is cut with either a die or shears. It can be trimmed closely to the pattern or size desired, but to get cut mica as the trade demands, it must be cut, and then it is known as "cut mica"; and while considered generally as a finished product it is sometimes again cut down or changed in shape, so that it is difficult to determine what is a finished product in mica. For the purpose of assessing duty, cut mica is now put in the highest class, but until case No. 20677, above mentioned, was decided, quantities of it came in under the lower classification; and the same thing may occur again, and is in fact, we believe, now being done, by so.closely trimming the sheet that there would be, or is, but a small loss of weight to cut the pattern required. It is easy to determine "cut mica," and that is the reason we say case No. 20677 was an extreme one, and easy to decide. But as the law is worded “cut or trimmed," there is no more reason why closely trimmed mica, as now prepared by the foreign producer, should pay only the lower duty, than there is for the better known and determined cut mica. We ask that mica that has been trimmed closely to rectangular or some other definite shape be classed in the higher class the same as "cut" mica. Another step in the manufacture of mica is to take the films and build them up, layer upon layer, with some binder like shellac between the layers, until any desired thickness and size is formed. This is used in innumerable ways, shapes, and patterns, and is called by several trade names, or in general "built up mica." Cut mica is also used for building up, but not so generally as the films. Both are sometimes used with paper or other sheet material for making insulating material, any of which would be classified in the highest class under the new law. We, therefore, respectfully request that you have this matter investigated, and if necessary try a case on films first, and another on trimmed mica as now being imported. We will be glad to further post you on any facts in regard to the matter so that our contention can be settled on its merits. Yours truly, ASHEVILLE MICA CO., Per W. VANCE BROWN. THE GREAT SOUTHERN MICA Co., By H. F. SEYMOUR. SEPTEMBER, 1909. PARAGRAPH 91-MICA. BRIEF OF WATSON BROS., BOSTON, MASS. O. W. UNDERWOOD, WATSON BROS., Boston, Mass., February 14, 1912. Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, DEAR SIR: Yours of January 20 received. needs to be said can be said in a few words. Washington, D. C. In regard to duty on mica, all that As we are importers and also miners in this country, we are quite able to see both sides of the question. Undoubtedly a duty is necessary to protect domestic mining, not so much on account of difference in cost of labor as owing to the fact that in this country there are no mines that produce large quantities. Most of the product is the result of many small operations. Speaking for ourselves, we do not object to the present ad valorem duty, but we do object strongly to the specific duty of 10 cents per pound on cut and 5 cents per pound on uncut mica. As most of the mica produced is small in size, and the smaller the size the less the price, you can see that the specific duty will mean anywhere from a small per cent to one of 100 or 200 per cent, as considerable mica is bought and sold as low as 10 cents, 5 cents, and even less, per pound. Should your committee, in its wisdom, think that some compensation should be made for the specific duty, the ad valorem duty might be increased. There is great difficulty in classifying mica under the present specifications. We submit that these classifications are needless; that the ad valorem duty covers it all. As the price of cut mica is in proportion to its quality, the waste and labor is paid for in the higher rice. For instance, a pound of uncut mica costing $1 would pay 20 per cent and 5, or 25 cents per pound in all. Whereas a pound of cut mica, owing to the fact that usually half is wasted in cutting, would pay double the price, or $2. This at 20 per cent and 10 cents is 30 cents. As against this slight difference in favor of cut mica is the great difficulty of drawing the line between cut and uncut mica, as it comes from some sections roughly trimmed in square shapes. As this is generally trimmed over imperfections, the waste is somewhat less, but the first cost is higher, and in the additional price pays its proper duty. We respectfully ask that there should be one rate of duty, and that ad valorem, and but one description, and that the word "mica"; that anything in the shape of mica pay, say, 20 per cent ad valorem. Yours, truly, WATSON BROS. LETTER OF THE M. & G. MICA CO., PYRITON, ALA. Hon. J. THOMAS HEFLIN, La Fayette, Ala. PYRITON, ALA., January 21, 1913. DEAR SIR: The importers of mica are asking for a large reduction of the tariff on mica, while the Ashville Mica Co., in common with us and other domestic producers, are anxious that the present tariff thereon should be maintained. We insist that the tariff on mica should not be reduced for the very good reason that domestic producers of mica can not possibly compete with India mica if the present tariff were removed, or even reduced. The India mica, which is mined with labor that costs only from 10 to 20 cents per day, and even aside from the cost of labor is much more easily mined and less expensive to mine than mica in this country, would, if allowed to come in here without proper tariff restrictions, simply put every mica miner in the United States out of business and close every mica mine in this country. We have spent a large amount of money in your State and district in an effort to develop our property here and to pave the way for putting Alabama in the front rank as a mica-producing State. As fine mica as there is in the world is in the State of Alabama, and if the tariff is let alone the mining of mica will certainly become one of the prosperous industries of this State. Otherwise, it will be impossible to produce it here except at a great loss, and as you know that is not what men go into business for. We have what is said to be the best mica-mining plant in the United States, and we are operating it on a good mine that we have just opened up after two or three years of hard development work. So far we have not had a dollar in return for our large outlay, but if let alone we will pull through all right; but if the tariff on mica is reduced or removed it will simply mean that our expenditures here go for naught; 78959°-VOL 1-13- -36 PARAGRAPH 91-MICA. that our loss is complete and our property worthless, because under such conditions we could not operate it. We will greatly appreciate your consideration of this matter and anything that you may see fit to do for us, or rather to protect the interests of domestic mica producers from injury, or we may say ruin, from such drastic legislation as the importers of mica are asking for. Such a reduction of the tariff on mica as they have demanded, considered strictly from an economic standpoint, or more properly as an economic question, without reference to the interests of any particular class of people interested in the mica business, compels the conclusion, first, that the consumers of mica would not be benefited in the least if this reduction were made, because the present combination of importers could and doubtless would depress the price of domestic mica to the point where domestic production would be impossible and then put the price wherever they pleased and make the consumer pay it; secondly, it would decrease rather than increase the revenue to the Government derived from the importation of mica; and lastly and in a nutshell the mica-mining industry in this country would be completely destroyed, and without benefiting anybody whatever except the combination of mica importers. Thanking you in advance for any suggestions or advice you may care to offer us in regard to the subject herein referred to, we beg to remain, Yours, very truly, BRIEF OF THE KEENE MICA PRODUCTS CO., KEENE, N. H. The WAYS AND MEANS COММІТТЕЕ, Washington, D. C. KEENE, N. H., January 18, 1913. GENTLEMEN: We understand that there was recently a hearing before you regarding the tariff on mica, and that the importers have appeared before you with a request to have the tariff reduced on raw mica. We beg leave to state that we are producers of domestic mica in a somewhat large measure and anticipate extending our operations considerably along this line in the near future, and desire to have at least the protection against the foreign product that already exists, as on the last revision of the tariff the duty was lowered 20 per cent, and is at the present as low as the domestic miner can stand. In fact a further reduction would, in all probability, make it impossible for us to continue producing mica in this country at all in a profitable manner. We have discovered large deposits of mica in this State, and if we can retain the present protection, or even a little more, against the foreign product it will become, within a short time, a very large industry. A large proportion of the mica used in this country has heretofore been imported, and the chief reason for this is that the largest users of and dealers in mica have sent the men best posted on preparing mica for its various uses to India and Canada, which has resulted in the foreign mica becoming the best selected and prepared for the various uses, whereas the domestic miner, as a rule, is unfamiliar with the various uses his product is put to, and is not so well posted in preparing it for use. However, the producers in this country are gradually becoming better posted on the selection and preparation of their products, which will shortly result in the change of these conditions, as we think the users will readily buy the domestic as the Indian mica, which will give the production of the domestic mica a new impetus. Trusting that you will find it advisable to avoid a further reduction of the tariff, and will give us the protection that is absolutely necessary for our welfare, we beg to remain, Yours, respectfully, KEENE MICA PRODUCTS Co., PARAGRAPH 92. PARAGRAPH 92-POTTERY. Common yellow, brown, or gray earthenware, plain, embossed, or saltglazed common stoneware, and earthenware or stoneware crucibles, all the foregoing not decorated in any manner, twenty-five per centum ad valorem; yellow earthenware, plain or embossed, coated with white or transparent vitreous glaze but not otherwise ornamented or decorated, and Rockingham earthenware, forty per centum ad valorem. POTTERY. EXCESSIVE DUTY ON POTTERY IMPORTS. Hon. O. W. UNDERWOOD, Washington, D. C. ST. LOUIS, April 4, 1912. DEAR SIR: In regard to excessive duty on imports, I beg to call your attention to one classification on which, even to me, a Republican, the duty seems absurd. I refer to cheap, bulky, unglazed pottery, such as flower pots; also to cheap, bulky, glazed pottery, such as jugs and earthenware bottles and receptacles of many shapes and sizes. Now, these goods are all very bulky. They hold a great deal of air, being "empties." Being so bulky and clumsy to pack and ship the freight is very high in proportion to the low prices at which they must be sold, which in itself is sufficient protection against sharp competition by foreign labor. To protect them from breakage in long voyages and repeated transshipments by rail with so much handling and rehandling, they must also be packed with extra care and heavy crating or cases, all of which adds to the freight cost. It is ridiculous to think that American labor, even at high wages, is not sufficiently protected in this case by the great distance and high freights. It has been our need to import an article of unglazed cheap brown pottery, which the potters in this country are not skillful enough to make, but which those of Europe can make, and the duty of 25 per cent and the high freights make it difficult to do the business at all. Yet the article must be sold at a low price, owing to its cheap fabric and cheap appearance. If it was admitted duty free it would not be a hardship to American labor. H. B. SCAMMELL, President. Yours, truly, TARIFF ON STONEWARE. AKRON, OHIO, December 26, 1912. Hon. O. W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We note that the congressional committee, of which you are chairman, is to hold a hearing to consider matters pertaining to the question of tariffs on January 8, 1913, and as we are especially interested in Schedule B, covering chemical stoneware, we beg to say that this industry, being now protected, as we understand it, by 25 per cent only ad valorem, would be in case of a reduction so seriously crippled that it would in all probability result in a cessation of this industry in the United States. Our skilled American workmen in this industry are now earning an average of $3.50 per day, whilst the wages paid by our foreign competitors is considerably less than one-half of this amount. You will therefore see that the imported article can be and, in fact, is shipped into this country in large quantities, and is the most formidable competition with which we have to contend. In view of these facts and in the interest of the chemical stoneware manufacturer and his employees we trust that your honorable body will deliberate against any further reduction in the present rate of tariff. Obediently, yours, in the interest of America and Americans. |