Imágenes de páginas


Beyond the spelling of the word “furs” itself, it has nothing in common, nor does it bear any relation to other "furs" as embraced in the various paragraphs of the tariff schedule.

We therefore respectfully ask that the portion of paragraph 439 “Furs not on the skin, prepared for hatters' use, including fur skins carroted, twenty per centum ad valorem, remain intact, but as a separate paragraph. Respectfully submitted.

AARON NAUMBURG, Representing Hatters' Fur Industry of the United States.


BETHEL, Conn., December 30, 1912. Hon. Thos. REILLY.

Dear Sir: I am inclosing statistics showing the importations of fur felt bats during the past 10 years. You will note that the importations are going up from year to year like a flight of stairs and that the greatest gain has been made during the past four years. It will take very little figuring on the part of anyone interested to show that if the duties imposed by the Payne-Aldrich bill are reduced at all that the foreigners will have all our business, for under the present tariff they are doubling up on us every four years. The writer urges you to give this matter your careful attention, as it is a very serious matter to the hat business, which is not prospering at the present time. Thanking you for your kind consideration of this matter, and with kindest regards, I am, Yours, very truly,

M. T. CUFF. Importations of fur felt hats for fiscal years ending

Dozen. 1902..

7, 819 1903.

9, 034 1904.

8, 817 1905.

8, 143 1906.

14, 536 1907.

19, 194 1908

21, 892 1909.

32, 714 1910

42, 940 1911.

46, 009 1912 (first six months)

37, 398



House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: Referring to paragraph 439, under Schedule N of the present tariff, we beg to call your attention to the part of the schedule referring to rough furs, such as goat plates and dog mats. These particular items are used very extensively in the manufacture of common lap robes and common coats over the entire Northwest and take the place of the cheap buffalo robes of former years.

These common goat plates and goat mats are tacked together in foreign countries merely for the purpose of giving them a commercial size, and, as this tacking is absolutely worthless, it is all ripped out again and the skins are reworked in this country. Under the circumstances the mixing of these common goods with high-class furs is a great hardship to every farmer and consumer in the entire North west, as it raises the duty from 15 per cent under the Dingley tariff to 35 per cent under the present tariff without any benefit to anybody.

We respectfully ask that the duty on this class of goods be either reduced to the old tariff or entirely abolished, as it would give the entire Northwest an article that they need badly at a lower price, as it is used almost exclusively in the Northwest for common robes for the common people. Respectfully submitted. Yours , very truly,


1 Full year not yet available. The present tariff bill was passed in 1909.




[ocr errors]



House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: Referring to paragraph No. 439 under schedule N of the present tariff, we beg to petition your committee in regard to the rough furs, which are commonly known as goat and sheep “rugs” and mats” and dog “mats” and ask that this class of furs be separated from the general class and be put by themselves with a special rating of their own. We ask this for the reason that they are of an entirely different class of material, being cheaper and rougher than what are commonly known as "fancy furs.” However, on account of not having separate classification, they are included in the second part of paragraph No. 439 under "Manufactures of furs further advanced than dressing and dyeing and prepared for use as material, including plates, linings, and crosses, 35 per cent ad valorem,” thus putting them on an equal basis with goods which are already prepared in the greater part for manufacture. We give you the following arguments in favor of a separate listing and reduction.

Firstly. We have no ax to grind. We neither gain nor lose on account of the higher duty. The only effect which it has is to make the manufactured article cost more to the consumer, without giving to anyone any added protection whatever, as this class of furs is used only for the manufacture of carriage robes and cheap grade of men's fur coats, none of which are imported into this country in the manufactured state.

Secondly. The term "rugg" and "mats” is simply the trade name for certain standard sizes of furs and has no meaning in any other sense than this. While they are not one separate skin, they are simply pieced out on the sizes with a loose stitch and basted to bring them up to the standard measurement. This stitch is absolutely worthless as far as being of any use in the manufacturing, it being necessary to rip the sewing, cut the "rugs” and “mats” apart, rematch them, and sew them before they are of marketable value, as far as manufacture is concerned. The principal reason for these rugs being imported in these sizes is because the importer in this country is better able to ascertain what amount of material he is getting than if he bought them in the regular skin shape, the skins being of variable sizes.

Thirdly. It requires just as much work to manufacture a robe or coat from these “rugs” or “mats as it would to manufacture from natural shaped skins.

Fourthly. The natural shaped skins which are no further advanced than these "rugs” and “mats” can be brought in at 20 per cent, even though they may be dyed abroad. The fancy fur plates such as squirrel, etc., even though dyed can be brought in at the same rate of duty (35 per cent) as our “rugs” and “mats” which we import in the undyed state entirely.

What we claim is that China goat and sheep "ruga” and “mats” and dog “mats” loosely basted together to make a standard size, not machine sewed, should be under a separate heading, so worded at 20 per cent duty.

In making this appeal to your committee, we beg to impress upon you the fact that this will reduce this class of skins to the old rate of duty at which they were always entered under the old Dingley tariff, that the advance of 15 per cent made in the last revision of the tariff simply increased the cost of the manufactured article to the consumer, giving no protection to any manufacturer in this country, and that under the present tariff, it would be advantageous for us to have our raw material dyed abroad instead of in this country, as we are doing now, and importing it in the dyed state, being able to do so without any increase in the tariff rate, and it could be stated in the separate clause for China goat and sheep “rugs” and “mats” and dog “mats” loosely basted together to make a standard size, not dyed and not machine sewed, to be admitted at 20 per cent duty. This would protect us in the fancy fur schedule.

We beg you to take this all into consideration and give the matter an unbiased decision. Very truly, yours,





Fans of all kinds, except common palm-leaf fans, fifty per centum ad

valorem. PARAGRAPH 441.

Gun wads of all descriptions, twenty per centum ad valorem. PARAGRAPH 442.

Hair, human, if clean or drawn but not manufactured, twenty per centum ad valorem; manufactures of human hair, or of which human hair is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this section, thirty-five per centum advalorem.




New YORK, January 28, 1913. The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR Sirs: We would respectfully call your attention to paragraphs 442 and 583 in the present tariff bill which relate to human hair.

Paragraph 442 reads: "Hair, human, if clean or drawn but not manufactured 20 per cent. Manufactures of human hair or of which human hair is the component material of chief value not specially provided for in this section, 35 per cent.

Paragraph 583 reads:
"Human hair, raw, unclean and not drawn, free."

Owing to the conflicting interpretation of these paragraphs, importers have had considerable trouble in the past. "In some instances duties have been imposed and in other cases hair which has been assessed as dutiable previously, has been brought in as raw material. So-called cleaned and drawn hair is regarded by the trade as rar hair, as it has to go through the identical process of washing, cleaning, bleaching, and dyeing as hair on which there has been no question raised as to it not being raw material. The cleaning and drawing in most cases is done for the purpose of complying with the sanitary laws, before shipment from foreign ports. There are employed in this city in the manufacturing of human hair into curls, switches, etc., about 10,000 persons, and although the argument may have been used that this is an industry of a luxury and not of a necessity, if a duty is imposed upon human hair, it will inure to the benefit of the foreign manufacturers and will throw out of employment in our country a large number of persons employed in this industry. In previous tariff laws the question has been raised a number of times as to what might be called raw hair, and we would call your attention to two decisions: Treasury Decision 9441, which reads as follows:

"TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 17, 1889. “Human hair, partially cleaned. Lewisohn v. Mogon. “Sır: The department is in receipt of a letter dated the 22d ultimo from the United States attorney for the southern district of New York, in which he reports the trial of the case of Leonard Lewisohn v. Daniel Mogon, collector, which was had before Hon. E. H. Lacone and a jury in the United States circuit court for said district on the 16th ultimo, which resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The question involved was as to the proper classification of certain importations of Chinese human hair which was subjected to duty by the defendant (collector) at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem, under the provision in Schedule N (T. I. 444) for human hair if clean or drawn, but not manufactured, but which the plaintiff claimed to be uncleaned and not drawn and to be dutiable at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem, under a clause in the same paragraph for human hair drawn, unclean and not drawn.

"The United States attorney reports that the proofs adduced in the trial showed that while the hair had been drawn to a little extent and to have been cleaned a

[ocr errors]

PARAGRAPH 442-HUMAN HAIR. little, yet that it was not the drawn and cleaned hair of commerce, it being dirty, inasmuch as it contained dead nits. The evidence adduced further show that while the drawn hair of commerce consists of bunches of individual hairs all of the same length and all of the roots being on one end, the points at the other end, and very highly cleaned the merchandise in question consisted of small bundles tied together at one end, the individual hair being all varieties of lengths, with roots and points at both ends. The question involved seems to be entirely one of fact as to the condition of the merchandise, and the verdict of the jury was substantiated in accordance with the evidence. Upon submitting the matter to the United States Attorney General for his certificate under act of March 3, 1875, that officer advises under date of the 7th instant that no appeal or writ of error will be taken by the United States from the judgment of the circuit court in said suit. The department therefore concurring hereby directs you upon due entry of judgment to take necessary steps for its settlement and payment. Any other suits of the same character may also be settled in the usual manner, provided it is ascertained that the requirements of law as to protest appeal, institution of suit, etc., has been duly complied with, and this ruling will apply to further importations of such merchandise, decision 8729 being modified accordingly. "Respectfully,


Acting Secretary." Decision 14252; G. A. 2216: “Human hair, raw, uncleaned and not drawn.

“Before the United States appraiser at New York, July 18, 1893. “In the matter of the protest 46164 A 2772 of A. Musica, against the decision of the collector of customs at New York, as to the rate and amount of duty chargeable on certain human hair imported per Elysian, December 21, 1892.

“Opinion by Sharretts, General Appraiser.

“The protest in this case is lodged against the assessment of duty of 20 per cent per hundredweight ad valorem on 20,400 kilograms of human hair, being a part of 266,600 kilograms of this substance, all of which was classified by the collector as human hair cleaned and duty assessed thereon at the rate complained of in paragraph 447 of the present act. The board has samples of the merchandige in dispute taken from the importation in question. The samples show that this hair has been put in small bun. dles assorted as to color and we think it has been drawn and cleaned to some extent. The hair, however, contains dead nits, is otherwise unclean, and is not arranged with all the roots at one end and the points at the other. In these respects it differs from the drawn and cleaned hair of commerce. We find as a fact, that the merchandise is human hair raw, uncleaned and not drawn. We sustain the claim of the appellant that the merchandise in question is entitled to free entry under paragraph 604. The collector's decision relative thereto is reversed."

In order to avoid these complications, would suggest that paragraph 442 reads as in the present law, and as a substitute for 583 the following:

“Human hair, uncleaned and cleaned, drawn or dyed but not commercially and not manufactured into switches, hair braids, curls, and ringlets, free.Respectfully, yours,

ALEX. E. KLAHRE & Co. 78959°_VOL 5—13–45

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]




Plushes and woven fabrics (except crinoline cloth and hair seating) and manufactures thereof, composed of the hair of the camel, goat, alpaca, or any animal, combined with wool, vegetable fiber, or silk, shall be classified and

dutiable as manufactures of wool. PARAGRAPH 444.

Hair, curled, suitable for beds or mattresses, ten per centum ad valorem.




CHICAGO, January 11, 1913. Hon. James T. McDERMOTT, Representing Fourth Congressional District, Chicago, Ill.,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: Regarding our telegram of January 8, 1913, we beg to state that we are in need of your valuable assistance in the coming fight

of our very existence and hope by heart not to meet a failure in our appeal to you. Reports in our local newspapers Tuesday, January 7, 1913, stated that Mr. Charles Delaney, of Philadelphia, Pa., has been agitating before the Ways and Means Committee to place curled hair on the free list. Mr. Delaney, owner of the curled-hair works in Philadelphia, Pa., and Toronto, Canada, as well as South America, is able by employing cheap sabor to manufacture a cheaper hair, and placing curled hair on the free list would mean an open market for him, thereby seriously ruining the curled-hair business in this country. The curled-hair trade right here in Chicago is in full flower, called for by consistent hard work in fullest gympathy between employer and employees. We fought hard and honorable for the past 12 years for our rights and a decent living, and we succeeded. Would you like to see us in despair if you can help to avoid it? We know by heart you do not. We know you will protect home industry and the American working class. You will remember when last spring before election you gave us the pleasure of your welcome visit at Armour's curled-hair works in this city and we promised to stand by you, and your election to the honorable office shows the result. We do not intend to take up your valuable time in writing long epistles; all we ask you is stand by us as we did; use all your influence and fight for us to a finish against removal of duty on curled hair. Thanking you in advance and wishing you a great success in this very important case, we beg to remain, Respectfully, yours,


Recording Secretary. PARAGRAPH 445.

Haircloth, known as “crinoline" cloth, eight cents per square yard; haircloth, known as "hair seating," and hair press cloth, twenty cents per square yard.




New York, January 29, 1913. The WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE,

Washington, D. C.
GENTLEMEN: Hair press cloth pays duty of 130 to 170 per cent.

The United States appraiser claims that because it is made of camel's hair or alpaca it should be classified and assessed under the wool schedule at 44 cents per pound and 50 per cent, notwithstanding it is specifically provided for in paragraph 445, at a duty of 20 cents per square yard.

The result of the above is that none of the hair press cloth, such as was at the time of the passage of the present act and is now commercially known by this designation, can possibly be imported.

This material sells abroad for from 33 cents to 44 cents per pound packed in condition ready for shipment, and a comparison of these figures with the selling price of the

« AnteriorContinuar »