TARIFF HISTORY. Spelter and old zinc were dutiable at 1 cents per pound in the tariff of 1883. In the act of 1890 the duty on spelter was increased bycent and that on old zinc was reduced by the same amount. In the act of 1894 the duty on spelter was reduced to 1 cent and that on old zinc was lowered to cent per pound. In 1897 duty on spelter was put back to 14 cents, while the duty on old zinc was increased only cent to 1 cent per pound. In 1909 the duty on spelter was shaded by cent per pound but no change was made in the case of old zinc. In the act of 1913 both these articles were grouped under an ad valorem rate of 15 per cent, which compared with an ad valorem equivalent of about 25 per cent under the former specific duties. COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS. The world's great zinc smelting districts have been (1) Upper Silesia, (2) Rheinland and Westphalia, (3) the valley of the Meuse and the Campine (in Belgium and Holland), and (4) the Mississippi Valley of the United States (especially Kansas, Oklahoma, and Illinois). This centralization is threatened to some extent by the development of the eletrolytic process of zinc reduction, but it can be assumed that these four districts will continue to furnish the bulk of the world's zinc at least until the metallurgy of this metal is greatly modified. The indications are that the United States will continue to supply its own vast needs even under the existing tariff, and possibly have a small excess for export to near-by countries. The export trade would be supplied largely by the smelting of Mexican and Canadian ores in bond. The European smelteries may be expected to divide the world trade among themselves; but they are not likely to be a large factor in the domestic market, which will be kept down by the pressure of potential importation for consumption of the metal produced from foreign ore in bonded works and by the large domestic capacity-both reserve and smelter output as stimulated by the war. Costs of zinc smelting vary between wide limits depending on unit fuel, freight and labor costs, and plant efficiency, but there are indications that the costs of producing zinc in the United States are slightly higher-even when considering only the metallurgical end of the business-than in the large European centers. The smelters of the United States have exceptional advantages as regards fuel supply (the domestic coals are much cheaper and are generally of better quality than the European varieties) and are not greatly handicapped in securing the refractory material needed in the retort process. In addition, the high zinc tenor of middle western ores cheapens the smelting process by conserving fuel and reducing handling charges and refractory costs. On the other hand, domestic smelters obtain less fuel efficiency than the foreign and are handicapped by wage rates from double to four times the European scale. There is a large excess of smelting capacity in the United States, and it was demonstrated during the war that American mines can produce ore in quantity more than sufficient to keep all the plants supplied. However, due in large measure to the length of railroad hauls from the western mines to eastern consuming centers, the cost of American ore is generally greater than the cost of foreign ore. Most of the European smelting works are located close to seaboard and, although much of their ore comes long distances, water freights on both ore and product are relatively cheap. TARIFF CONSIDERATIONS. The crux of the tariff situation on zinc is similar to that in the case of lead except that, unlike lead smelting, the reduction of zinc ore in the United States is at some disadvantage when compared with smelting in European countries. This difference, however, is not great, and the chief problem is the adjustment of the duty that shall be at least compensatory to the duty that may be levied on the zinc content of imported ore, bearing in mind that the recovery in zinc smelting is not greatly in excess of 80 per cent of the zinc content of the ore as delivered at the works. Spelter-Production in United States. [From Federal census.] 1809. 1904. 1900. 1904. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. 1 Including a small unknown amount smelted from foreign ore in 1904. Secondary spelter-Production in United States. $34, 206, 000 53, 538,000 From foreign From domestic Short tons. Short tons. 104, 005 564, 338 84,976 584, 597 25, 522 492, 405 13, 471 452, 272 Zinc produced in the United States, 1906-1917, apportioned according to States in which Spelter-Production in principal foreign countries. [From U. S. Geological Survey. In metric tons, by countries where smelted.] Statistics from the Metallgesellschaft for 1913, given for comparison. Secondary spelter-Production in principal foreign countries. 1 Included for comparison. * Calculated by C. E. Siebenthal from table published by Rudolf Wolff, Krueger & Co., London. Zinc in blocks or pigs and old—Imports by countries. |