than any difference in the cost of production between foreign countries and the United States, the freight and other expenses being a protection of at least 1 cent per pound, or 20 per cent on a 5 cents per pound glue. The present duty is nearly prohibitory, as of the total consumption of glues in the United States probably not over 3 per cent is imported, and this small quantity is used by the consumers here because there is nothing made here that will take the place of the foreign article, and they are willing to pay the extra price in order to get what they want, although it is an oppression upon them to be compelled to do so. The raw material used by the United States manufacturers of glue and gelatin comes into the country free of duty, while the merchandise that they manufacture is the raw material for hundreds of American industries, and should not be heavily protected. The wages paid in the glue factories of the United States are not high; consequently the argument that the tariff benefits the wageearner has no application in this particular case. A reasonable duty of 20 per cent would, we think, be acknowledged to be a fair rate, as the freight and other expenses equal 10 to 20 per cent of the cost, which would make the protection at that rate of duty 30 to 40 per cent. Hoping that there will be no change in the present tariff on glues and gelatins, except in the direction of lower duties, we beg to remain, Yours, very respectfully, EDWIN A. ROGERS & CO. LACTIC ACID. NEW YORK, November 12, 1908. The CHAIRMAN WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Referring to our letter of the 11th instant and other inclosures, we are induced to further address you in reference to this subject of reducing the duty on lactic acid. Prior to the enactment of the so-called "Dingley tariff bill," there was no duty on lactic acid, and the duty of 3 cents per pound was placed upon this article by the Dingley tariff bill to protect the manufacturer of this article in this country. The manufacture of lactic acid was carried on in this country at the time that this article was not protected by any tariff, which shows that the article could be made here without protection. However, as the tendency of the Dingley tariff bill was to protect the domestic manufacturer, and, which was perfectly proper, the tax of 3 cents per pound was put on lactic acid. This protection was sufficient to induce other manufacturers to start making this article, and while at that time there was but one manufacturer, subsequently two more concerns started to manufacture lactic acid, and resulted in there being three makers of this article. About a year ago these three makers combined their interests and made an arrangement to market their product through a selling company, namely, the Lactic Process Company (see invoice inclosed in our letter of November 11, marked " Exhibit No. 1 "), which arrangement stifled competition on this product and placed the tanners of this country in a position to purchase lactic acid from one concern, subject to certain rules and such regulations which this concern were able to enforce. The consequence has been that the prices on their lactic acid have advanced, compelling the consumer to purchase from them, and further opening the way by permitting us to import a foreign-made product, and also permitting the tanner to purchase from another source of supply. This is the situation, and calling your attention to our exhibits, marked "No. 1" and "No. 2," inclosed in our letter of the 11th instant, you will observe that it costs us more to import lactic acid, 20 per cent, than we can purchase it from the domestic manufacturer. The difference, we can explain, is that we get a better price for our lactic acid, 70 per cent, than the domestic article, because the only inducement that we can give the tanner is the saving in railroad freight charges, because I barrel practically equals 3 barrels of the 22 per cent product, and we will further add that in many instances, taking everything equal, we are given the preference, as we are about the only concern trying to compete with the domestic manufacturer. Referring to inclosed clipping, which mentions that the higher grades of lactic acid, which are used in the tanneries, should be put under a higher rate of duty than the lower grades, will say that the imported product is not superior to the domestic product as regards quality, excepting merely the strength, namely, the foreign product which we import tests 70 per cent and the domestic tests 22 per cent, and it simply comes down to a question of money value as affecting the strength of a lactic acid. Therefore, referring to our invoice, marked "Exhibit No. 1," which shows that the domestic article can be sold for 3 cents a pound, with a profit to the maker, we are compelled to compete with this strength of lactic acid and obtain the difference or advance in value for the higher-strength foreign product. Referring to the remark in the inclosed clipping, which mentions about "German subsidies," we know nothing of such an arrangement, and if such is the case, it does seem peculiar that the German Government would select some isolated product made in Germany and subsidize same for the benefit of the maker. Referring to the remark in the clipping that three factories in this country control the output, etc., we certainly admit that such is the case, and their control is managed for obvious reasons. In conclusion, we beg to say that there is no reason why the duty should be increased on lactic acid, as under the present arrangement it is difficult for us to sell the imported article, except with a slender margin of profit, but, as requested in ours of the 11th instant, the duty on lactic acid should be reduced to 2 cents a pound or lower. Hoping our claims will receive due consideration, and asking your indulgence for taking up any of your valuable time, we remain, Very truly, yours, HELBURN CHEMICAL COMPANY, Per VICTOR H. BERMAN, Secretary. Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE, LICORICE PASTE. ROCHESTER, N. Y., November 20, 1908. Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We are interested in the question of reducing or abolishing the duty on licorice. We believe that from 90 to 95 per cent of the licorice made in this country is made by the American Tobacco Company or concerns of which it owns control. By keeping the duty on licorice gives them an unfair advantage, as they make their own, but when they sell any they charge all they can possibly get for it; and, as the recent investigation shows, they combine with outsiders to advance the price to a point that just prevents importation and almost closes the market. If the duty was taken off, we could, we think, buy licorice cheaper and so far be on an equal footing with the American Tobacco Company. The duty is, we understand, 43 cents per pound, or nearly 100 per cent. The revenue derived from this duty must be very small, as there is very little imported, and that because the imported is a better quality than any that can be bought in this country at any price. Every person is now looking for and expects a fair, square deal, and that is all we ask. Thanking you in advance for your assistance, we remain, Yours, truly, R. WHALEN & Co. UTICA, N. Y., November 23, 1908. Utica, N. Y. Mr. LESLIE W. BROWN, MY DEAR LESLIE: Your note of the 21st instant in reference to the discontinuance of the 4 cents per pound duty on licorice paste is just received. I will forward your letter to Mr. Payne, of the Ways and Means Committee, assuring him of your reliability and standing and asking him to give to your suggestion full consideration. Very sincerely, yours, Hon. JAMES S. SHERMAN, Utica, N. Y. UTICA, N. Y., November 21, 1908. DEAR JIM: At the hearing before the Ways and Means Committee this month of those interested in the tobacco business as manufacturers Mr. John W. Yerkes, late Commissioner of Internal Revenue, asked the committee to put licorice paste on the free list. At present it now pays a duty of 4 cents per pound, practically excluding it from our markets. As is well known, the manufacture of licorice paste is practically controlled by the American Tobacco Company for its own benefit, and it seems to us only fair to the independent tobacco manufacturers that the paste should be allowed to come in free, 61318 TARIFF-No. 17-08—7 If you can favor any action to this end, we would be very grateful to you. Licorice root at present is on the free list, thereby enabling the trust to manufacture its own paste at cost. DEAR SIR: In regard to paragraphs 68 and 69 of Schedule A, we would like to state that if any reduction should be made in the present tariff they now cover, it would prove most disastrous to us and to other manufacturers in our line. We therefore hope that you will kindly consider this when you are preparing the bill for these two sections. We have also written to Mr. Wanger, our Congressman from this district, regarding the matter. Very truly, yours, J. ELLWOOD LEE COMPANY, Hon. JOHN DALZELL, Washington, D. C. OLIVE OIL. NEW YORK, November 13, 1908. DEAR SIR: We note from the New York papers that your committee are now considering articles affected by Schedule A of the Dingley tariff, and this schedule no doubt contains the items referring to olive oil and yellow malaga olive oil, both of which are very largely used in manufacturing, particularly by soap makers. At the present time we are having a most difficult task to procure this oil for our purpose without paying the arbitrary duty of 40 cents per gallon, which is so excessive that we only have two alternatives, one to discontinue the use of the olive oil or to increase our prices to the consuming public. We desire to give the public the very best soap Soap that can be made and at a price that they can afford to pay for it, but in paying 40 cents our profit is entirely absorbed. You are no doubt familiar with this provision, which, as we understand, provides that when olive oil reaches a price of 60 cents per gallon in Europe it then requires paying an import duty to this country of 40 cents per gallon. When the crops are short, or for other reasons, you can readily perceive that this works a great injustice upon manufacturers, which is neither reasonable nor logical. We based our price upon the yellow malaga at 55 cents per gallon, and now are asked to pay from $1.10 to $1.25 per gallon for the identical oil. Is it not possible to arrange this schedule on a more fair basis either by a certain percentage of the cost of raising the arbitrary price from 60 cents to, say, 80 cents per gallon? We trust that you will give this matter due consideration, and we have taken the liberty of addressing the same letter to each member of the committee. Very truly, yours, SAPONAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, Per B. S. McKEAN, Treasurer. (Formerly of Washington County, Pa.) Hon. JOHN DALZELL, Washington, D. C. OXALIC ACID. BRADFORD, PA., November 12, 1908. MY DEAR MR. DALZELL: I had not been aware of the sitting of the Committee on Ways and Means to consider the questions of tariff on new industries until it was too late to take any action, so I take the liberty of writing you in behalf of a matter in which I am deeply interested. I should have been better informed regarding the action of your committee, but on account of the enormous pressure of business under which I have been the matter was neglected. The American Alkali and Acid Company have been the first and only concern to successfully manufacture oxalic acid in this country, and I am proprietor of this concern. We have been struggling along for the past four years, trying to make the goods, but from one cause or another we have not been successful until within the last six months. We have expended some $400,000 in experimenting and constructing our plant. We have now brought the factory to successful operation through the efforts of a very competent German chemist, and have made several thousand pounds of the goods, equal in quality to any goods produced. The consumption of oxalic acid in this country amounts to some 7,000,000 pounds per year, and at present the German syndicate is throwing its surplus into this country at a considerably less price than is asked in Europe. We feel that there should be a tariff on these goods, and I would like to have an opportunity to appear before your committee to present to them the necessities of the case. Would it be possible for you to arrange at some time in the near future for me to present our case? If so, I would be pleased to have you specify the time. I have not the pleasure of an acquaintance with Mr. Payne, of your committee, but will take the liberty of writing him on the LEWIS EMERY, Jr. matter. Yours, very truly, |