States of considerable revenue which it obtained from this class of goods prior to the enactment of the Dingley tariff. It has also enabled the American manufacturer to raise his prices on this class of goods and increase the cost to the consumer. We respectfully ask for a reduction of the duty from 8 to 5 cents a pound. The reduced duty proposed would average from 28 to 40 per cent ad valorem, which would be, we submit, a sufficiently high duty upon this class of goods to produce a substantial revenue and permit the importation of foreign books, which represent a higher quality of artistic work than the corresponding domestic article.

The firm of Raphael Tuck & Sons Company have, by reason of the prohibitory tariff on these goods, if imported, been having them made here by a well-known domestic manufacturer, and it has been found that the price of the article here is about equal to the price of the corresponding book in Germany, so that the domestic manufacturer needs no protection.

I submit herewith Exhibit 1, which consists of six toy books marked respectively "A," "B," "C," Ca," "D," and "E." These books are all printed here with the exception of "Ca," which is printed abroad and which if compared with the others will show the superior quality of the foreign work. The following is a statement of the foreign cost and the landed cost here (exclusive of freight, etc.) of the corresponding foreign article, the rate of duty on the basis of the present law, and the selling price of the domestic book.

In view of the foregoing we respectfully submit that the rates artoo high, and that the American manufacturer needs no such protece tion, nor in fact any protection. We ask that the duty be reduced from 8 cents to 5 cents. If this is done the specific duty will be an equivalent ad valorem to the following percentages for these books: A, 333 per cent; B, 32 per cent; C, 34 per cent; D, 281 per cent; E, 40 per cent.

We submit that these proposed rates would be quite as high as ought to be imposed on these goods. They will bring in a substantial revenue to the Government, enable the importers to bring in these goods, and by competition with the domestic manufacturer reduce the price to the consumer, and will afford the manufacturer all the protection that he needs or ought to have.

There is no reason why the duty on toy books should be made higher than on toys generally, which are subjected to a duty under

the present act of 35 per cent. We do not suggest this rate, because experience has shown that it is better to preserve the specific duty system and avoid all questions of undervaluation.

W. WICKHAM SMITH.

LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTS.

[Paragraph 400.]

IMPORTERS AND DEALERS IN DECALCOMANIA OR LITHOGRAPHIC TRANSFERS RECOMMEND NEW CLASSIFICATION.

NEW YORK CITY, November 18, 1908.

The HONORABLE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE,

Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: On behalf of the importers and dealers of decalcomania, or lithographic transfers, we herewith beg to present our views on the rate of duty for the consideration of your committee as to the classification for duty purposes under the tariff to be promulgated.

A brief résumé of the tariff history of this merchandise may be instructive in the light of argument, pro and con, which will be advanced on this subject by your committee.

Ever since the decalcomania, or lithographic prints, were introduced into this country for the decoration of china and earthen ware, as well as numerous other materials, these lithographic prints have been properly classified under paragraph 400 of the Dingley tariff and previously under the Wilson tariff as lithographic prints from stone, zinc, alluminum, etc., at the rate of 20 cents per pound, net weight. This rate was the subject of a distinct understanding between foreign and domestic dealers on these goods at the time the present tariff was being framed, as per evidence before the Ways and Means Committee. These decalcomania, or transfer pictures, are known throughout the trade as lithographic prints, and manufacturers of these decalcomania in Europe style their firms as lithographic establishments.

Decalcomania is a form of a lithographic print now used very extensively in the decoration of pottery and other materials the world over. The name decalcomania does not indicate the real difference in any essential feature from the term "lithographic print," and the only difference between decalcomania and the common lithographic prints lies in the fact that a decalcomania is printed on gummed paper, so that it may readily transfer from the sheet on which it is printed to some other object. It may be said right here that this gummed paper is not a surface-coated paper, neither in a technical nor commercial sense, because a surface-coated paper has a permanent surface coating, while the gummed paper which is used for the decalcomania has the gum coating only for the purpose of transferring the lithographic print thereon upon the object, as aforesaid.

Before the adaptation of decalcomania to pottery decoration pottery was decorated with so-called "printed and filled-in" patterns, i. e., the outline of a pattern was engraved on a copper plate and from

same, with the aid of printing paper, transferred upon the ware, and colors were then applied to this outline or design by a brush in the hands of a workman. This process has become obsolete since the introduction of decalcomania. The colors are now all printed and the pattern made complete in all colors on the paper, and from this paper the pattern is transferred by one process to the ware. This reduces to a considerable extent the cost of hand labor required in pottery decoration, and since hand labor is and always has been much more expensive, and skilled labor particularly so much harder to obtain in America than in those European countries where pottery has been made for many years, it was decalcomania which has placed the American potter in a position to compete with the imported foreign goods.

From the time when pottery was decorated in this country until 1899 or 1900, the above-described process of printing and filling in by hand with colors was the only method of decorating used by the American potter, and all the materials, as printing paper and ceramic colors, necessary for the decorating, were imported. By adapting decalcomania and importing same from Europe, the potter is practically importing the same materials which he formerly imported, eliminating the high cost for skilled labor, and thus enabling him to compete against foreign importers of china, not to speak at all of the higher artistic standard of decalcomania compared with printed and filled-in patterns. At the time the Dingley bill was formulated there were decalcomania transfers imported from Europe, but only for use on other materials, not on pottery. Therefore ceramic decalcomanias are not specifically mentioned in that bill. It was only about 1900 that the use of decalcomania became quite general with the potters, and since then it has become almost a universal process of applied colors in pottery decoration. With the growth and development of the pottery industry, the importations of decalcomania grew readily, and for some years there was no question raised as to the propriety of classifying it as lithographic prints under paragraph 400. When decalcomanias were first used by the potters, there was absolutely no manufacturer in this country, but there were a large number of such establishments in England, France, and Germany employing a large corps of artists in designing their patterns, and the work of these artists was therefore made available for the use of the American potters. Naturally decalcomania took the place of the raw materials the potter had previously imported in the form of pigments, colors, and printing paper.

Now, if this material had been specifically mentioned along with lithographic prints in paragraph 400, no question would or could ever have been raised as to the propriety of that classification; but because decalcomania is nowhere mentioned, the opportunity was given to the American lithographers who later began to manufacture this material, to raise a technical question and to seek the classification of the decalcomania under some schedule paying a higher rate of duty than lithographic prints. Repeated efforts have been made, particularly by one domestic manufacturer of decalcomania, to have these reclassified, first, as cigar labels; second, as manufactures of metal at 45 per cent ad valorem; third, as manufactures of paper at 35 per cent ad valorem; and fourth, as surface-coated paper at 20 per cent ad valorem and 3 cents per pound, and this is the present

rate of duty assessed on these goods. The higher rate of duty was sought by the above-mentioned domestic manufacturer in spite of the fact that he has repeatedly and in many cases been able to sell his goods at a lower price than the imported article could be offered. It is a notorious fact, and the leading American pottery manufacturers will offer testimony to the effect, that the American manufacturers of the decalcomania do not and can not obtain as high a price for their decalcomania as the foreign importers on an average, for the reason that the American decalcomanías have been confined almost exclusively to the cheap lines and to copies of the foreign designs. In decalcomania, as in every other line of applied art work, originality commands a price.

While no doubt it would be possible to have produced a limited number of original designs in this country, yet there is by no means available here the great body of artists who are seeking commercial employment in Europe.

In this connection it may be mentioned that in all instances where the domestic manufacturer offers his goods at a lower figure than we have been able to sell them and where his decorations have been copies of our patterns, the importers and dealers in these goods were subjected to a very severe loss, because the importers had to pay the European manufacturers for all the expense connected with the creation of these decorations.

As above stated, these decalcomanias are lithographic prints and nothing but lithographic prints and can not be considered as anything else, and in support of this contention we beg to refer to the following Treasury and Appraisers' decisions:

Treasury decision 24748; Treasury decision 25312, paragraph 1486; Treasury decision 25385, paragraph 1868; Treasury decision 25482, paragraph 2353; Treasury decision 24827; Treasury decision 1765; General Appraisers 3700; Treasury decision 17669; Treasury decision 17897; Treasury decision 25863; General Appraisers 5873; Treasury decision 25676, paragraph 3723; General Appraisers 5445; Treasury decision 25848; General Appraisers 5459

And therefore claim and maintain that the present reclassification of lithographic transfers as surface-coated paper is erroneous and absolutely misleading.

Surface-coated paper is a material produced from ordinary mill paper and covered with coloring matter intended to remain permanent on the paper, and is used for binding, covering, and general manufacturing purposes, and the term "surface-coated paper" is never used to apply to lithographic work, as the application of color is not obtained by means of a lithographic stone.

This reclassification obtained by the domestic manufacturer was based upon a court decision rendered in the absence of any contesting testimony, in the absence of the importing interests, no evidence. having been furnished by the importers. At the hearings before the Board of General Appraisers no witness produced by the Government had other than a "general knowledge" of what a decalcomania was, with one exception-the treasurer of the American Lithographic Company, who stated, speaking from forty years' experience, that "decalcomania process is a lithographic process entirely, although the prints are generally known as decalcomanias."

61318-SCHED M-09-17

We importers are confident that if we would have had any knowledge of the proceedings before the court in Philadelphia and if we would have offered our testimony, that the decision of the court would have been to the effect that decalcomanias are lithographic prints; however, we are contemplating an appeal to a higher court, but since a new tariff bill appeared imminent, we decided to let the matter stand until we could submit our side of the case to the Ways and Means Committee.

"Surface-coated paper" and "decalcomania," both articles have a well-defined commercial meaning. Decisions of the court have been uniform in holding as a settled rule of construction of revenue laws that the duty to be imposed on an article is according to the designation of such an article as understood and known in the commerce of the United States and not with reference to the materials of which it may be composed or to the use to which it may subsequently be put. As said above, these decalcomanias are lithographic prints from stone. which can be proven beyond doubt by explaining the method of manufacture, the process being identically the same as in the manufacture of lithographic prints provided for in paragraph 400, as the following will illustrate:

The intended floral or figure designs are first produced by artists in the form of a water-color sketch; this sketch is then turned over to the lithographer, who, following the general lithographic process, will make the drawings provided for each color on lithographic stone. When all the drawings are completed, the stones are etched in the same manner as applied to all lithographic processes, and then from the stones so prepared impressions are taken and are transferred to large lithographic stones, which are used in the lithographic press for printing. The process of printing is exactly the same as the process used for printing every lithographic picture, and the same machines are used here in America as well as in Europe.

We submit samples showing the procedure which is followed in the manufacture of those prints in the different stages of color application, and we also submit samples of lithographic prints and decalcomanias showing the same design. Both are printed from the same stone. The lithographic print or chromo is printed with ordinary printing colors, while decalcomania is printed with ceramic colors, but they are both printed from the same stone, and neither technically nor commercially is there any difference between the two lithographic prints.

In consideration of the above facts, we think that there can not be any doubt that decalcomanias are lithographic prints and should be assessed as such when imported, and it is the desire of the importers and dealers in decalcomania to have these goods specifically mentioned under the head of lithographic prints, for the purpose of avoiding, in the future, disputes as to the classification of these goods, which disputes not only handicap the importers, but which have proven a serious drawback to the consumers of our goods, mainly the American potters, who are the principal users of this raw material.

While we admit the contention that the domestic producer should be protected as far as possible, the American potters have always looked, and are now looking, to the importers for their decorations. for the reason of their variety and their artistic conception and being the outcome of the combined talents in Europe of artists employed by