PARAGRAPH 466-COCOA-FIBER MATTINGS. PARAGRAPH 464. Manufactures of gutta-percha, ivory, vegetable ivory, mother-of-pearl and shell, plaster of Paris, papier-mâché, and vulcanized india rubber known as "hard rubber," or of which these substances or any of them is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this section, and shells engraved, cut, ornamented, or otherwise manufactured, thirty-five per centum ad valorem. See Geo. Borgfeldt, page 5224. PARAGRAPH 465. Masks, composed of paper or pulp, thirty-five per centum ad valorem. PARAGRAPH 466. Matting made of cocoa fiber or rattan, six cents per square yard; mats made of cocoa fiber or rattan, four cents per square foot. COCOA-FIBER MATTINGS. BRIEF CONCERNING MATTINGS MADE OF COCOA FIBER. The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C We, the undersigned, manufacturers of cocoa fiber and rattan mats and mattings, request that no change be made in the rates of duty on these articles, which are prescribed in Schedule N, section 466, of the tariff of 1909, as follows: "Matting made of cocoa fiber or rattan, 6 cents per square yard; mats made of cocoa fiber or rattan, 4 cents per square foot." The present rates of duty furnish the most vigorous competition from foreign manufactures, as is evidenced by the increase of 60 per cent in the importations of these goods which took place from 1908 to 1912. The manufacturers who have signed this brief employ free labor-all told, about 500 persons and they have to contend not only against the increasing tide of foreign competition, but against the competition of convict labor in this country, the most serious of it coming from the large mat and matting factory operated at Allegheny by the State of Pennsylvania. Because or these conditions we do not see how it will be possible for us to continue this industry if competition is made any more severe by the further increase of importations which would surely follow a reduction from the present duties on these goods. There is no foreign market open to the American manufacturer for the export of cocoa mats and mattings because of the extremely low prices made possible to foreign manufacturers by cheap and Eurpoean and Indian labor. Respectfully submitted. HEYWOOD BROS. & WAKEFIELD Co., Wakefield, Mass. JOSEPH WILD & Co., New York. NEW YORK, January 29, 1913. The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: Referring to Schedule N, section 446, tariff of 1909, as follows: Matting and mats made of cocoa fiber. We wish to indorse views expressed in brief presented by Messrs. Heywood Bros. & Wakefield Co., of Wakefield, Mass., and Messrs, Joseph Wild & Co., of New York, regarding retaining the present duty on these goods, viz, 6 cents per yard on matting and 4 cents per foot on mats. We are, gentlemen, Your obedient servants, DARRAGH & SMAIL. PARAGRAPH 467-STRINGS FOR MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. PARAGRAPH 467. Musical instruments or parts thereof, pianoforte actions and parts thereof, strings for musical instruments, not otherwise enumerated in this section, cases for musical instruments, pitch pipes, tuning forks, tuning hammers, and metronomes; strings for musical instruments, composed wholly or in part of steel or other metal, all the foregoing, forty-five per centum ad valorem. STRINGS FOR MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. BRIEF OF M. E. SCHOENING, NEW YORK, N. Y., REQUESTING CHANGES IN PARAGRAPHS 467 AND 529. Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman of Ways and Means Committee, NEW YORK, N. Y., December 21, 1912. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I take the liberty to address this letter to you as the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, begging you to kindly call the attention of the committee to correction that should be made in the present tariff bill, Schedule N, paragraphs 467 and 529. * * "Strings for musical instruments not otherwise * Strings for musical instruments composed * 1. Paragraph 467 reads: * enumerated in this section. * wholly or in part of steel or other metal, forty-five per centum ad valorem." 2. Paragraph 529 reads, in free list: "Catgut, whipgut, wormgut unmanufactured." 3. Catgut is defined in the Standard Dictionary "as a kind of cord, very thin, strong, and slender, made from dried intestines of sheep or other animals, used for strings for musical instruments, tennis rackets, etc." 4. In Webster's Dictionary as "a tough cord, made of the intestines of animals, especially sheep, used for strings for musical instruments, for sutures in closing wounds, etc." 5. Hence, it would seem that the intention was to admit strings for musical instruments of catgut free. 6. Paragraph 529, however, has no meaning, as there is no such thing as crude catgut or catgut unmanufactured. Catgut is a manufactured article and a finished product; the crude form are the intestines or guts of sheep or other animals, which no doubt the framers of this paragraph had intended. 7. The guts are saponified and bleached, and, as a rule, cut or split in two parts, right and left sides, then cut in lengths, loops are made on each end, one loop is put on a stationary hook, the other on a hook on a wheel and the guts are twisted and then allowed to dry, after that they are rubbed down to make them smooth. This finished productis commercially known as catgut, and is the only form in which catgut appears. 8. The Board of General Appraisers decided that catgut strings for musical instruments were dutiable at 45 per centum ad valorem. On the other hand, they decided that spinning gut was free, although they are the same, and all spinning gut can be used in condition as imported as strings for musical instruments. 9. Under decision Davis, Turner & Co. v. U. S. (115 Fed. Rep., 232), catgut for surgical purposes is admitted free. 10. There is absolutely no difference in the material used, process of manufacture, and the final product, catgut, for whatever purpose it is to be used. Strings of like gauges are interchangeable for all uses. Three manufacturers of catgut so testified in C. B. Richard & Co. v. U. S., No. 746, filed with Court of Customs Appeals, October 30, 1911. 11. All catgut should either be entered free or all catgut should pay duty. 12. Paragraph 529 should read, “Crude gut," and not catgut, unmanufactured. 13. And, as catgut is a manufactured article, there is no reason why it should not pay duty. 14. American manufacturers of catgut are not protected by a duty on catgut for spinning, surgical, and other purposes, and are able to compete with foreign manufacturers. On catgut, when imported as strings for musical instruments, the protection is 45 per centum ad valorem, according to decision of the Board of General Appraisers. 15. Catgut, if imported under other designation than strings for musical instruments, as a rule are passed free, and then can be used for any purpose, including strings for musical instruments. PARAGRAPH 470-PAINTINGS, ETC. 16. All catgut should either be allowed to enter free, or, as I believe, being a manufactured article, should pay duty. 17. If a rate of 25 per cent would be fixed on catgut in general, thus removing the necessity of trying to make distinctions which do not exist, and which have been annoyances and puzzles to all customs examiners and appraisers, including the General Appraisers and the Customs Court of Appeals, the revenue from this source would be much larger than heretofore, and all could work with a clear understanding. 18. If the duty on catgut is made less than the duty on musical instruments, etc., as per paragraph 467, then said paragraph should be made to read as far as the string part is concerned: "All strings for musical instruments excepting strings of catgut.” 19. A new paragraph could be made to read: "Catgut for all purposes,- per centum ad valorem," or free, as may be decided by the committee, which would embrace strings for musical instruments of catgut. Hoping you will pardon the liberty which I have taken and kindly give this matter your attention, I am, Yours, very respectfully, PARAGRAPH 468. M. E. SCHOENING. Phonographs, gramophones, graphophones, and similar articles, or parts thereof, forty-five per centum ad valorem. PARAGRAPH 469. Violin rosin, in boxes or cases or otherwise, twenty per centum ad valorem. PARAGRAPH 470. Paintings in oil or water colors, pastels, pen and ink drawings, and sculptures, not specially provided for in this section, fifteen per centum ad valorem; but the term "sculptures" as used in this Act shall be understood to include only such as are cut, carved, or otherwise wrought by hand from a solid block or mass of marble, stone, or alabaster, or from metal, and as are the professional production of a sculptor only, and the term "painting" as used in this Act shall be understood not to include such as are made wholly or in part by stenciling or other mechanical process. PAINTINGS, ETC. TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN QUINN, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PAINTERS AND SCULPTORS, INC. The witness was duly sworn by the chairman. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Quinn. Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear before you on behalf of the Association of American Painters. and Sculptors, a New York association, which is devoted to the practice, cultivation, and encouragement of contemporary art. That association, and I think I may safely say American artists generally, ask that the present duty of 15 per cent upon all art not 20 years old be unqualifiedly and unconditionally removed. I will not take up the time of the committee at any great length in giving the history of the various provisions of the eight or nine tariff acts that have dealt or not dealt with the subject of duty on art. I intend to submit a brief, with the permission of the committee, in which the dates of the acts and the duties imposed and the amounts realized, as well as the tariff acts where there were no duties, and the amount of art imported and the duty on art less than 20 years old under the act of 1909 will be set forth. I will come right down to the act of 1909. A very great effort was made at that time to have the Congress of this country make all art PARAGRAPH 470-PAINTINGS, ETC. free. Art associations, free-art leagues, painters, and sculptors, presidents of colleges, chambers of commerce, and other public bodies addressed or wrote to the then committee of the House in favor of free art. A few artists and art dealers asked that the duty be retained, and others asked that there be imposed a specific duty of $100 on all paintings, irrespective of their value or age. The result of the law of 1909 making art over 20 years old free is that the importation of old works of art has risen enormously. A glance at the figures will show that. For example, in 1908 the value of all art imported was $3,911,125, and it yielded a duty of approximately $700,000. In 1909 the value of all art imported was $3,239,168, and yielded a duty of approximately $600,000. In 1910, after the duty on art over 20 years old had been removed the value of the imports increased to $18,634,131, from which, under the present law, the Government derived no revenue. In 1911 it increased to $20,264,115, from which again the Government derived no revenue; and up to June 30, 1912, the figures that are available to me give the value of imports of old art as $5,259, 761, from which the Government derived nothing. I claim that the taxation of art, whether ancient, modern, or contemporary, is wrong. We are the only, or practically the only, civilized country in the world that places a tax on art. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves for doing so; other countries foster art; they subsidize art schools and art academies; they give prizes out of the national funds for the encouragement of art, and they buy the works of contemporary artists, even of American artists, out of their public funds; and perhaps every member of this committee has seen in the Luxembourg the works of Americans and been glad to see them there works by Mr. Sargent and by Whistler and by other American painters and sculptors. I have in my brief carefully and, I think, fairly summarized the testimony before the Ways and Means Committee of the Congress of 1909 on both sides of that proposition. I do not know that this committee will want to take the time to read that old testimony and the briefs then submitted, but I have summarized it in my brief to save you that trouble, and have there given, I think, accurately and fairly the arguments pro and con. I think it is a fair statement to say that all the arguments, both the arguments themselves and the authoritative or critical standing of those presenting them, were overwhelmingly in favor of unconditionally free art. In my brief I have referred to the pages of the seventh volume of the hearings on the tariff act of 1909, in which the arguments in favor of a specific duty of $100 on all works of art, irrespective of their age, and also in favor of sweeping aside all the duty, are contained. The Congress of that year compromised or, I may say, straddled on the question, with rather queer results-queer results both as to revenue and as to art. The duty before 1909 was 20 per cent, and in some cases 15 per cent, where there were reciprocity treaties with certain countries. They did not adopt the suggestion of certain artists, and of the man who said that artists were tradesmen, of a PARAGRAPH 470-PAINTINGS, ETC. specific duty of $100 on all works of art irrespective of their value and their age, but they put a 15 per cent duty on all works of art less than 20 years of age, with certain exceptions as to art intended for museums, galleries, etc. Under our present law, instead of making all art free, instead of buying, as a Government, the works of contemporary artists, we put a tax on the importation into this country of contemporary art. That is an anachronism and an absurdity. The revenue that we get under the present law is not so great that this country should continue in that position. According to the figures, which I will submit to the committee, the value of art imports less than 20 years old, for the year 1910, was $1,701,193 and yielded a duty of $255,178.95. The value for the year 1911 was $1,591,167 and yielded a duty, at the present rate of 15 per cent, of $238,675. So far as I have been able to get the figures, the duty up to June 30, 1912, was the sum of $52,179.16 on works valued at $347,861. A great many people say, and the argument was made before the committee of the House in 1909, that art is a luxury and not a necessity. There are many arguments against that proposition. In the first place, it is not a Democratic proposition. The Democratic Party on art has had rather a good record. The Democratic Party has been in favor of free art as a party and historically. I may call the attention of the committee very briefly to that fact. The act of 1832 was a protectionist measure, and yet it placed art on the free list. The act of 1846 was passed by the Democratic Party as a free-trade measure, and one of the principles of Mr. Walker, who was then Secretary of the Treasury, was that luxuries should be taxed the maximum; but that act put art on the free list. In the act of 1857 art was kept on the free list, and the Democratic Wilson bill of 1894 also put art on the free list. I am therefore asking this committee to put art on the free list and to put this country abreast of all other civilized countries-I will not say progressive countries; I say merely civilized countries. A whole volume could be written on the various phases and aspects of the proposition that art is a necessity and not a luxury. I do not want to use a vulgarism, but I think I could prove that art in the end would pay for itself as a necessity. The French people, as a people, sell millions of dollars' worth of things to the rest of the world, mainly because the artistic instinct and spirit has been fostered in them generation after generation. Where people have an artistic instinct and sense their products are certain to be finer and better and to be bought by other nations. That is not limited merely to pictures that one sees on the walls of museums or to pieces of sculpture that one sees in museums and galleries. It goes into almost everything that is worth having in life; it goes into everything where form, design, color, molding, modeling, or decoration may possibly enter. If we want to compete with the rest of the world in the finer grades of products, and if we want to raise the standard of our export products so that we can compete with the works of Germany and France, where art is fostered and not taxed, it will be only good business for us to encourage, at least to the extent of removing the |