PARAGRAPH 423-BROOMS. State or Territory or remaining therein for use, consumption, sale, or storage shall upon arrival and delivery in such State or Territory, be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory to the same extent and in the same manner as though such goods, wares, and merchandise had been manufactured, produced, or mined in such State or Territory, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced in original packages or otherwise. Mr. HILL. I was only speaking of the merits of your proposition as you outlined it, that you were taking 10 per cent Mr. WASSERMAN (interposing). We do not make any question about the duty on brooms themselves, because we have had no competition. Mr. HILL. That puts it on an entirely different basis. Mr. WASSERMAN. We believe the Americans are ingenious enough and have been ingenious enough to put a broom upon the market at a lower cost than could come in from the outside to compete with them. Mr. HILL. If you want them on the free list, I do not see any criticism on your asking that the products you use should be put on the free list. Mr. WASSERMAN. That is what we ask for. Mr. HILL. I do not think it is fair to ask a 4 per cent reduction on your production and a 35 per cent reduction on the parties from whom you buy. Mr. WASSERMAN. We are entirely consistent in our position, I believe. Mr. KITCHIN. Sure. Mr. WASSERMAN. Whenever I refer to American Handle Co. as a trust, I mean a combination of factories or a large corporation combining smaller factories. The CHAIRMAN. That is all, Mr. Wasserman; thank you. BRIEF OF SAMUEL WASSERMAN, REPRESENTING THE BROOM Manufacturers of CENTRAL New York. The WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. This is an application to place broom handles made of wood on the free list of the forthcoming tariff. Broom handles of wood are now covered, under the Payne bill, by a rate of 35 per cent, under Schedule D, paragraph 215. This paragraph is the "basket clause" of Schedule D, and provides for 35 per cent on all manufactures of wood not otherwise provided for. Broom handles are not mentioned by name in Schedule D. This rate of 35 per cent is absolutely prohibitive of importation. It produces practically no revenue to the Treasury of the United States, nor can it do so on such an article as broom handles. The petitioners represent a very large manufacture of brooms in the United States, of which the wooden broom handle is an important element of material and cost of production. The production of brooms in the United States is estimated to be about 130,000,000 per annum; this means, of course, a like number of broom handles. There are in the United States about 3,000 broom factories, and the largest broom center in the United States is Amsterdam, N. Y., where the factories of the petitioners are located. Finished brooms are enumerated in the present tariff. But brooms are assessed at 40 per cent. Practically no brooms are imported, the above rate being prohibitive. The modern method of making brooms practically originated in the United States. Only by putting broom handles on the free list can the broom manufacturer get the benefit of competition in this important element of the manufacture of brooms. The broom manufacturer does not, ordinarily, manufacture his own broom handles. Under the cover of the prohibitive tariff rate on manufactures of wood (35 per cent) a trust or combination has been formed among the manufacturers of wooden broom PARAGRAPH 423—BROOMS. handles. This combination is known as The American Handle Co. Its offices are located at Grand Rapids, Mich., and most of its factories are scattered throughout Michigan. This combination takes in practically all the big producers of broom handles in and around Michigan, the principal center for the production of broom handles. The so-called trust was formed about 10 years ago, I am informed. Previous to that time the prices were as follows: On January 3, 1898, the Cadillac Handle Co., which concern went into and formed a part of the American Handle Co. billed first-grade parlor handles at the rate of $10.25 per thousand, first-grade misses handles at $10.25 per thousand, first-grade warehouse handles at $10.75 per thousand. In 1899 the handles billed by the Cadillac Handle Co. were about the same price. Tindle & Jackson, with mills located at Saginaw, Bellair, Gaylord, Alba, and Thompsonville, Mich., which concern also subsequently affiliated with the American Handle Co. combination, billed their No. 1 parlor handles at $11.25 per thousand, No. 11 parlor handles at $9.75 per thousand, No. 1 warehouse handles at $11.75 per thousand, No. 1 warehouse handles at $10.25 per thousand. In 1901, Lehentaler Bros., of Loleta, Elk County, Pa., billed their No. 1 parlor handles at $13.50 per thousand, No. 1 parlor handles at $11.50 per thousand, No. 2 parlor handles at $8.00 per thousand, No. 14 warehouse handles at $12.50 per thousand. The first invoice we have from the American Handle Co., the combination referred to, is dated October 24, 1903, and is as follows: 25,000 No. 1 parlor handles are billed and sold at $15 per thousand, an advance of about 20 per cent; 25,000 No. 1 warehouse handles are billed and sold at $16 per thousand, an advance of approximately 20 per cent. On January 22, 1904, the following year, the American Handle Co. billed and sold the broom manufacturer 25,700 No. 1 warehouse broom handles at $18 per thousand, 13,350 No. 1 warehouse broom handles at $15.50 per thousand, an advance of about 12 per cent on No. 1 warehouse broom handles. On April 9, 1906, the American Handle Co. billed and sold to a broom manufacturer 60,000 No. 1 parlor handles at $18.50 per thousand, an advance from October 24, 1903, of about 25 per cent. On May 17, 1906, the American-Handle Co. billed and sold to a broom manufacturer 45,000 No. 1 misses' broom handles at $19.50 per thousand. This was an advance of $1 per thousand during the same year. On July 27, 1907, the American Handle Co. billed and sold to broom manufacturers the following: 20,000 No. 1 parlor handles at $20.50 per thousand, an advance from the previous year of about 12 per cent; 19,200 No. 1 misses' broom handles at $21.50, an advance of about 10 per cent from the previous year. On September 23, 1912, the American Handle Co. billed and sold to a broom manufacturer 25,000 No. 1 parlor broom handles at $24.75 per thousand, an advance of about 20 per cent since 1907; 35,000 No. 1 misses' broom handles at $30.75 per thousand, an advance of about 40 per cent since 1907. Comparing prices before the formation of the combination known as the American Handle Co. with the prices existing at the present time, we have the following result: No. 1 parlor handles were quoted and sold prior to the formation of the combination at $10 to $11.25 per thousand, and they are quoted and sold at the present time by the American Handle Co. at $24.75 per thousand, an increase of approximately 110 per cent. No. 1 misses' handles were quoted and sold before the formation of the combination at from $10.25 to $11.25 per thousand, and are now quoted and sold by the American Handle Co., according to invoice of September 23, 1912, at $30.75 per thousand, an increase of nearly 200 per cent. These prices, both before and after the formation of the so-called trust, were quoted f. o. b., Amsterdam, N. Y. The prices of the American Handle Co. are even higher than those we have quoted, for the following reason: Originally the American Handle Co. allowed the purchaser a cash discount of 3 per cent and permitted this discount to be taken before freight was deducted. Now the American Handle Co. insist upon the freight being deducted first and the discount of 2 per cent being deducted from the balance of the invoice. The former method of discount was that in vogue prior to the formation of the combination. To further show the tactics of the trust, we cite the following from a letter written by one of the largest broom manufacturers, who is himself in a position to take advantage of the offers of the trust for the extra discount, which the smaller manufacturers are not in a position to take advantage of: PARAGRAPH 423-BROOMS. "There is also one other point which we wish to call your especial attention to, and that is, the American Handle Co. tries to force the broom manufacturers to buy all their handles which they use from them by allowing them a discount of 5 per cent, providing the manufacturers will buy 500,000 broom handles from them, to be taken within a certain period, and you can see at the present price of handles this extra 3 per cent is a big item, for the little manufacturer who can not buy 500,000 broom handles to be taken within a certain period is forced to lose this 3 per cent and the big manufacturer who can use 500,000 broom handles is forced to place a bona fide contract with the American Handle Co. that they will take 500,000 broom handles within a certain period in order to get this special discount of 3 per cent in addition to the 2 per cent usually allowed." It need not be pointed out that the broom manufacturers are compelled to pass along this extortionate rise in prices to the jobber and thence of the consumer. All the handlers of the brooms are compelled to make not only an additional outlay but must also get a profit upon the outlay and the carrying of additional capital. In other words, the American housewife and the American home must in the end bear the additional burden imposed by the Broom Handle Trust upon the broom manufacturer. Therefore, one of the elements in the rise in the price of brooms of which the public has heard so much is clearly pointed out in the above paragraphs. This trust has been sheltered behind the tariff since its birth. The Dingley bill tariff of 1897 carried the same rates of duty as are now enforced under the Payne bill, I am informed. As pointed out before, these rates on broom handles are prohibitive of importation. The American market is handed over to the trust. The only remedy for this is the placing of broom handles upon the free list. A mere reduction of 10 or even 20 per cent would do no good. The Broom Handle Trust can now manufacture these handles cheaper than they can be manufactured anywhere else. I believe they have the timber at their door, they have the best automatic machinery in the world. In fact, this machinery and manufacture in its present form is of strictly American origin, as I am informed. Every advantage in the case of protection rests with the Broom Handle Trust. There is absolutely no justification, from any point of view, for a protective duty or tariff in their favor. The tariff simply gives them the power to raise their price to an extortionate level. The figures from actual invoices, which are given in this brief and which can be produced in the invoices themselves, prove this statement beyond a doubt. The American broom manufacturer wants no favors from the Government in the way of tax levies through the tariff, but it does demand that it shall be released from the grip of a trust that has taken advantage of the tariff on his raw materials of manufacture. There never was a clearer case of abuse of a public privilege than the facts and figures herein cited bring to the attention of this committee. It is a situation that demands the only remedy that will be of any value whatever, namely, the transfer of broom handles to the free list. Whenever the American Handle Co. is referred to as a trust, a combination of factories is meant or a large corporation combining smaller factories. Respectfully submitted. SAMUEL WASSERMAN (Attorney for Amsterdam Broom Co.; Gardner Broom Co.; American STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. GARDNER, AMSTERDAM, N. Y., RE BROOMS. Hon. OSCAR UNDERWOOD, AMSTERDAM, N. Y., February 22, 1913. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. UNDERWOOD: You will probably recollect that I was in Washington with Mr. Wasserman at the hearing before the Ways and Means Committee last month. A request was made by Mr. Wasserman that broom handles be placed on the free list, they now being assessed at 35 per cent under Schedule D, paragraph 215. During the discussion Mr. Wasserman was asked by a member of your committee as to the duty on brooms. Mr. Wasserman answered that he saw no reason why the duty on brooms should not be removed, providing the American broom manufacturers be placed on a perfect equality with those in any other part of the world. The question PARAGRAPH 424-BRISTLES. of prison-made brooms was alluded to as one that was likely to injure the American manufacturer, and House bill No. 5601, now in the Senate, was alluded to as bearing upon the question of prison-made goods. There are, however, other obstacles against removing the duty on brooms, which is now 40 per cent ad valorem. In the first place, the Canadian Government imposes a duty of 20 per cent on brooms imported from the United States into Canada. In the second place, railroad rates for transportation of broom corn from the United States into Canada seem to be more favorable to the Canadian manufacturer. In the third place, the cost of labor seems to be considerably less in Canada than in the United States. The American manufacturers formerly did a considerable export business to Europe and South American countries, which has dwindled to almost nothing in later years because of the Canadian competition which has resulted for the reasons above mentioned. What we desire to emphasize is the point that if your committee desires to reduce the duty of the manufactured brooms it should be in an amount not exceeding 10 per cent. If any further information is necessary, or if the matter is not made entirely clear, we should be perfectly willing to explain any further details, and also to appear before your committee at any time you may desire. Thanking you for your interest in this matter and assuring you that we are animated by the wish to do justice to the American consumer as well as the American manufacturer, we remain, Yours, very truly, PARAGRAPH 424. WM. A. GARdner. Bristles, sorted, bunched, or prepared, seven and one-half cents per pound. BRISTLES. THE WILLIAM WILKENS CO., BALTIMORE, MD., WRITE CONCERNING DUTY ON HOG BRISTLES. Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, BALTIMORE, MD., February 24, 1913. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We did not file brief with your honorable committee on this subject, as we felt confident your honorable committee would not advocate to reduce the present duty on this article in view of the conditions as set forth in our brief presented at the former tariff-revision meetings, to which we respectfully refer you. We notice from a weekly journal of tariff news, however, that Messrs. John L. Whiting and J. J. Adams Co., of Boston, Mass., requested "that bristles be placed under one classification, as the fact whether they are crude, not sorted, bunched, or prepared is not essential.' And for this reason we kindly ask you to consider our opinion on this subject: We do not quite see the point that Mr. Whiting desires to make from his newspaper article. We think that it is just as essential to distinguish the manufactured bristles from the crude as in any other commodity. We think the present classification "fills the bill." We have not experienced any difficulty when importing bristles to classify them properly. If it is the brush makers' intention to try to lower the duty on hogs' bristles and increase the protection on the manufactured brush, we beg to say the average size brush does not contain over one-half to 1 ounce of bristles. On this quantity the duty would be less than one-half cent per brush, which the public would not get the advantage of. This small difference in the cost of manufacture of the brush would not lessen the ultimate selling price of the brush to the user, whereas, on the other hand, we manufacture great quantities of the domestic hog bristles, and if the duty were lowered it would either eventually kill the manufacture of the domestic bristles entirely, as it is as much as we can do now to compete with the foreign labor at the price of the imported article; or, possibly, the importers may increase their prices to just within the price for the domestic article, taking the extra profit resulting from the lower tariff and the brush makers would not benefit thereby notwithstanding. The present duty of 74 cents per pound is barely adequate to offset the difference in the cheap Chinese labor (from whence the largest quantities of the imported article originates) and the American labor, and should the duty be lowered we fear it would PARAGRAPH 425-TROUSERS BUCKLES. drive us out of the bristle business, which we established over 60 years ago. We would regret this exceedingly, not alone for ourselves, but for the number of men who have worked at our factory all their lives and know of no other means by which to make their livelihood; besides, the Government would lose the revenue. We respectfully submit the above for your kind consideration, and beg to remain, Yours, truly, THE WILLIAM WILKENS Co., PETITION BY JOHN L. WHITING-J. J. ADAMS CO., BOSTON, MASS. Schedule N-Sundries.-424. Bristles, sorted, bunched, or prepared, 0.074 cents per pound. If subject Free list.-523. Bristles, crude, not sorted, bunched, or prepared. We petition that all imported bristles be placed under one classification. to duty, the same rate to apply, whether in prepared or crude condition. The quantity of crude bristles imported is insignificant, and will not increase. It is not practicable, or economical for brush manufacturers, who are the only users of bristles to buy them in crude state. Quality can not be ascertained or the percentage of waste in crude bristles, also labor in the United States is higher priced in comparison with foreign labor. The great objection to importing crude bristles is that quality can not be determined. The preparation of foreign bristles to be used in making brushes is entirely carried on by the manufacturers of brushes who have their own methods, which they hold as trade secrets. The buying of crude bristles and preparing them for use will not become a business of itself. A small quantity of American bristles, which are short length and low grade, is prepared by bristle-dressing houses, and is diminishing in volume. If the Government can spare the revenue received from duty on bristles it will be of benefit to brush manufacturers to have all bristles on free list. Some brush manufacturers urgently desire this to be a fact. Our house would receive some benefit from free bristles, as the present duty is equivalent to a tax on bristle brushes of 2 or 3 per cent. It is of much more importance to all brush manufacturers in the United States that the duty on manufactured brushes be subject to a greater duty than at present, than that bristles be made free of duty. Bristles are the important raw material of brushes, but there are large quantities of brushes made abroad and in the United States which are made of various fibers and soft hairs. If raw materials in a general way are placed on free list, bristles are distinctly entitled to that classification. Bristles are a raw material which is not, and can not be produced in this country. Respectfully submitted. PARAGRAPH 425. JOHN L. WHITING-J. J. ADAMS Co., Trousers buckles and waistcoat buckles, made wholly or partly of iron or steel, or parts thereof, valued at not more than fifteen cents per hundred, five cents per hundred; valued at more than fifteen cents per hundred, and not more than fifty cents per hundred, ten cnets per hundred; valued at more than fifty cents per hundred, fifteen cents per hundred; and in addition thereto on each and all of the above buckles or parts of buckles, fifteen per centum ad valorem. See Adolph Keller, page 5125. TROUSERS BUCKLES. BRIEF OF DIECKERHOFF, RAFFLOER & CO., NEW YORK, IN RE TROUSERS BUCKLES. The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, NEW YORK, January 28, 1913. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: We respectfully request a reduction of duty on trouser buckles which are provided for in paragraph 425 under Schedule N of the present tariff, as follows: |