the European decalcomania manufacturers and in the foremost European china factories. The ideas and suggestions offered by these foreign artists have enabled the importers of foreign decalcomanias to give to American potters the immediate benefit of European talent and art for application on their own wares, thus enabling the American potter to enter into immediate competition with the imported article. Should these decorations be excluded in the future by reason of an excessive tariff, it will mean a severe setback for the American potters, as they will no longer be able to compete with the foreign product, and any increase in duty on the decalcomania, which increase would immediately be followed by a proportionate increase in the price of the domestic article, would reduce the protection of staple productions in the pottery line, for which there is a most popular demand. Such an increase in duty on decalcomania would afford greater advantages for the importation of foreign goods, thus defeating the principle of protection for the benefit of a comparatively small industry, employing at the utmost 100 people, at the expense of crippling an industry employing 25,000 people and involving a yearly output of about $18,000,000. It is a matter of common knowledge that conditions for some years past have been adverse to the American pottery industry. It has been confronted by conditions in foreign competition that were not foreseen ten years ago. It is a safe assertion that the opportunity afforded him to use foreign decalcomania transfers, thus greatly improving the style and variety of his decorations, is the only important thing that has kept him in the market with comparative success against a most vigorous and aggressive foreign competition. Just at this time the American potters are entering into a new field, developing their goods technically and artistically by making translucent wares, equal in quality to the European china, and, furthermore, by producing fancy specialties besides the common staple goods. It is imperative and absolutely necessary for the American potters that their future goods are decorated as perfectly and artistically as the European goods, and in order to do so the American potter absolutely needs the foreign decalcomanias, made by the same artist who produces the decorations for the European china factories. No greater hindrance could be thrown in his way to the front than by laying a prohibitively high duty on the most important raw material which he uses to-day. The foregoing, perhaps, represents the sentimental reasons why decalcomania transfers should be brought in under a favorable duty regarding them as an essential raw material in the manufacture of American pottery, but, aside from this, decalcomania is in the strictest technical sense a lithographic print, and altogether aside from any interest the American potter may have in this subject, it is entirely consistent and proper that decalcomania transfers and lithographic prints should be assessed an identical duty. Therefore in conclusion of the above we respectfully beg to submit our argument, resting briefly upon the two facts: First, a printing from a lithographic stone can be nothing but a lithographic print, no matter to what purposes that printing may be applied subsequently to the impressions being taken upon some yielding surface; second, these lithographic prints are the most important and essential raw material used solely by the American pottery manufacturers, and as such should receive a favorable consideration when embodied in a new tariff act. Respectfully submitted. THE COMMITTEE OF IMPORTERS AND MANUFACTURERS OF DECALCOMANIA TRANSFERS. CERAMIC TRANSFER CO., 21 Washington Place, New York. RUDOLF GAERTNER, 299 Broadway, New York. THE PALM BROS. CO., OTTO PALM, Jr., President, 148 Chambers St., New York. EDWARD P. NORTH, NEW YORK CITY, SUGGESTS A DUTY OF ONE CENT EACH ON IMPORTED POST CARDS. Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE, NEW YORK CITY, November 18, 1908. Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. DEAR SIR: I am a dissatisfied, would-be consumer under what I consider an injustice to Americans in the present tariff law. I have friends in Europe who send me picture postal cards. The Italians send me postals made in Italy, the French those made in France, and the British those made in England. When I wish to return the compliment I am forced to send something "made in Germany." This discrimination against the art of my country I object to essentially. The difficulty is said to lie in the fact that cards made in Germany, due to the low wages of lithographers there, are cheaper than those made in this country. As ornamental postal cards are a luxury, and as such palpably subject to a revenue tax, I hope your honorable committee will see its way clear to impose a specific duty of 1 cent each on lithographed or otherwise ornamented postal cards. Then your petitioner will be able to return the civilities of his European friends with pride and pleasure. Very respectfully submitted. EDWARD P. NORTH. THE CROXALL CHEMICAL AND SUPPLY COMPANY, EAST LIVERPOOL, OHIO, ASKS TO HAVE DUTY REMOVED FROM DECALCOMANIA TRANSFERS. EAST LIVERPOOL, OHIO, November 18, 1908. Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE, Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We beg to respectfully call your attention to the schedule under which decalcomania transfers used by pottery manufac turers are scheduled. The Dingley bill provided for a specific duty of 20 cents per pound. These goods have been brought into this country under this ruling until August last, when the same was changed by an order from the court in Philadelphia. * * * * * The judge decided that they were surface-coated papers, and duty has been paid under protest on shipments arriving since that time. These decalcomania transfers can only be construed as raw materials. It is necessary for them to go through a process with the American potter before they are a finished product. To deprive the American pottery manufacturer of the privilege of going abroad and procuring the works of the old masters to decorate his ware in competition with the European pottery manufacturer would be more deplorable or equally so at least than a reduction in the present tariff schedule on pottery. The pottery business of this country is one that every American citizen can feel proud of. It is rapidly growing notwithstanding the fact that but very few have made any money in the past several years owing to the still keen competition with the European potters. You will therefore see that to deny him of the privilege of using the European transfers to decorate his ware to compete with the foreign potters would be most disastrous in its results as it is the decorated effect which eventually sells the goods. The decalcomania transfer industry is insignificant and of very small importance in comparison with the enormous interests in the pottery industry. The total output of decalcomania transfers would not exceed in value the output of one fair-sized pottery. We believe that every effort will be made by European pottery manufacturers, especially the Germans, to see that a high tariff is placed on decalcomania transfers so that the American potter can not afford to use the foreign article, and consequently cripple him in his own market in competition with the German goods. In support of this belief we are in receipt of a communication from Germany from a confidential source, the original of which we would be pleased to submit to your honorable body, in which they inform us that a movement has been started to increase the duty on decalcomania by German potters in the United States, as they fear that the American potters are becoming more serious competitors to them, especially by means of the high-classed decalcomania of which they are large consumers and obtain the choicest selections, and that they have succeeded in inducing the German Government to advocate a high duty on decalcomania, and will have the assistance of importers. of china ware in this country. In conclusion we sincerely trust that this matter will be thoroughly looked into, feeling confident that you will realize the importance of keeping this under the schedule as provided for in the Dingley bill, namely, at 20 cents per pound, and that to increase the duty on this article would be a gross injustice to the mammoth American enterprise such as this pottery business is. Very respectfully. J. T. CROXALL, For CROXALL CHEMICAL AND SUPPLY COMPANY. STATEMENT OF GEORGE R. MEYERCORD, CHAIRMAN TARIFF COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYING LITHOGRAPHERS, CHICAGO, ILL. SATURDAY, November 21, 1908. Mr. MEYERCORD. Mr. Chairman and members of the Ways and Means Committee, I represent the tariff committee of the National Association of Employing Lithographers, representing over 350 factories, employing a capital of over $50,000,000, and employing over 20,000 workmen, and desire to present the necessity of radical changes regarding the import duties on lithographic products of all descriptions. The paragraphs of the present law affecting the lithographic industry are 398 and 400, which read as follows: 398. Surface coated papers not specially provided for in this Act, two and one-half cents per pound and fifteen per centum ad valorem; if printed, or wholly or partly covered with metal or its solutions, or with gelatin or flock, three cents per pound and twenty per centum ad valorem; parchment papers, two cents per pound and ten per centum ad valorem; plain basic photographie papers for albumenizing, sensitizing, or baryta coating, three cents per pound and ten per centum ad valorem; albumenized or sensitized paper or paper otherwise surface coated for photographic purposes, thirty per centum ad valorem. 400. Lithographic prints from stone, zinc, aluminum, or other material, bound or unbound (except cigar labels, flaps, and bands, lettered or otherwise, music and illustrations when forming a part of a periodical or newspaper and accompanying the same, or if bound in or forming a part of printed books, not specially provided for in this act), on paper or other material not exceeding eight one-thousandths of one inch in thickness, twenty cents per pound; on paper or other material exceeding eight one-thousandths of one inch and not exceeding twenty one-thousandths of one inch in thickness, and exceeding thirty-five square inches, but not exceeding four hundred square inches cutting size in dimensions, eight cents per pound; exceeding four hundred square inches cutting size in dimensions, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; prints exceeding eight one-thousandths of one inch and not exceeding twenty one-thousandths of one inch in thickness, and not exceeding thirty-five square inches cutting size in dimensions, five cents per pound; lithographic prints from stone, zinc, aluminum, or other material, on cardboard or other material, exceeding twenty one-thousandths of one inch in thickness, six cents per pound; lithographic cigar labels, flaps, and bands, lettered or blank, printed from stone, zine, aluminum, or other material, if printed in less than eight colors (bronze printing to be counted as two colors), but not including labels, flaps, and bands printed in whole or in part in metal leaf, twenty cents per pound. Labels, flaps, and bands, if printed entirely in bronze printing, fifteen cents per pound; labels, flaps, and bands printed in eight or more colors, but not including labels, flaps, and bands printed in whole or in part in metal leaf, thirty cents per pound; labels, flaps, and bands printed in whole or in part in metal leaf, fifty cents per pound. Books of paper or other material for children's use, containing illuminated lithographic prints, not exceeding in weight twenty-four ounces each, and all booklets and fashion magazines or periodicals printed in whole or in part by lithographic process or decorated by hand, eight cents per pound. We ask that section 400 be amended to read as follows-this is the proposed amendment to paragraph 400: Lithographic prints, from stone, zinc, aluminum, or other material, bound or unbound, not elsewhere specified, and any article made up in chief value of lithographic prints. These are additions to that particular part of the paragraph. The object of this is to take any ambiguity out of the law. The CHAIRMAN. I think the word " and " should be used in place of the word " or," as the court might interpret that to involve all those items. Mr. MEYERCORD. It reads: and any article made up in chief value of lithographic prints. The CHAIRMAN. I mean in the first clause "or other material" should read" and other material." You read it, " lithographic prints, from stone, zinc, aluminum, or other material." The court might construe that to involve all of those items before collecting any duty. Mr. MEYERCORD. I thank you for the suggestion, Mr. Chairman. The schedule is: Rate of duty (cents per pound). On paper or other material not exceeding Too inch in thickness_ If both embossed and die cut__ Exceeding 1 inch and not exceeding 18 inch in thickness_ If embossed or die cut_. If both embossed and die cut_ 20 On cardboard or other material exceeding 18 inch in thickness. If both embossed and die cut_. 30 33 36 20 22 24 12 13 14 It then goes on with the former schedule. "Lithographic cigar labels" we have changed to read "lithographic labels, flaps, and bands, lettered or blank, printed from stone, zinc, aluminum, or other material." We have eliminated the word "cigar" and have made it read "lithographic labels," the reason for that being that perfume labels, etc., produced under the same general method of manufacture receive only 2 per cent or 3 per cent protection under the Dingley law. On account of the fact that they are very small and high class and in every respect identical in manufacture to the cigar label, we eliminate the word "cigar" and make it read: Lithographic labels, flaps, and bands, lettered or blank, printed from stone, zinc, aluminum, or other material. The schedule itself reads: For any embossed label, flap, or band add__ The CHAIRMAN. That is doubling the duty, generally? Bands printed in whole or in part in metal leaf and over five additional printings Bands printed in whole or in part in metal leaf and not over five additional printings Labels and flaps printed in whole or in part in metal leaf and over five additional printings Labels and flaps printed in whole or in part in metal leaf and not over five additional printings__ Labels and flaps, if printed in less than 8 colors (bronze printing to be Rate of duty (per pound). $0.30 .60 .40 .80 .50 75 1.00 1.50 .10 |