Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

$3,000,000. This amount, then, represents the volume of domestic products which is in immediate competition with the, say, $875,000 of imports for the past year. In other words, foreign competitors are selling in this country at the present time over 25 per cent as much wall paper of the better and most desirable grades as is placed on our market by all the American manufacturers each year, and, as has been indicated, this is done at the expense of the domestic producer, who finds the reasonable margin of profit of this class of papers, which is absolutely necessary for his prosperity, to a great extent eliminated. Foreign competition, then, strikes the American manufacturer at a point where otherwise he could reasonably hope to make good, in a measure, for the narrower margins of profit at present realized for the cheaper grades of paper, which, in every instance, make up the bulk of the output of all the factories.

Attention is also directed toward the present regulations in respect to determining whether or not importations of wall paper are undervalued.

A committee of manufacturers offered to act in an advisory capacity to the appraiser at New York, with the view to ascertaining whether goods were entered in the custom-house at less than their actual value at the place of manufacture, but were informed by the appraiser that only importers were eligible to act as his advisers.

Now we contend that such a regulation is inconsistent and that wall-paper manufacturers as well should be afforded the fullest possible information in order to correct any evils which may at present exist.

That the wall-paper industry is not in a condition to bear any great strain because of excessive foreign competition is evidenced by the fact that the bankruptcy of wall-paper manufacturers is frequent. During the past eight years the following factories have been discontinued for this reason: Gossler & Wilt, Philadelphia; Wagner, Wagner & Co., Philadelphia; Philadelphia Wall Paper Mills, Philadelphia; Johnstown Wall Paper Mills, Johnstown; Corey, Heller Company, Newark; Essex Wall Paper Mills, Newark; Steubenville Wall Paper Company, Steubenville, Ohio; Western Wall Paper Mills, Superior, Wis.; Conowingo Wall Paper Company, Baltimore; Hoefer, Meinken & Baeck, Nepera Park, N. Y.; Illinois Wall Paper Company, Chicago; George Halbert, Brooklyn, N. Y.; Ithaca Wall Paper Mills, Ithaca; Lakeside Wall Paper Company, Chicago, Ill.; Middletown Wall Paper Company, Middletown, Mass., and Syracuse Paper and Pulp Company, Syracuse. While other factories, viz, Cresswell & Washburn, Philadelphia; Williamson Wall Paper Company, Long Island City, and Tarrytown Wall Paper Mills, Tarrytown, N. Y., have discontinued because of the lack of profit attending their operations, while several other factories of large caliber, such as Allen Higgins Company, Worcester, Mass., and Wm. Campbell Wall Paper Company, Hoboken, N. J., were compelled to reorganize for the same reason.

The wages paid machine printers in England are 25 shillings, or $6, per week, as against an average of $22.50 per week for the same class of help in this country, and it is fair to assume that the wages of the other laboring help is in proportion.

The wages paid machine printers and color mixers in Germany are equivalent to $6 per week.

Respectfully submitted.

The Robert Graves Co., by Henry Burn, president; M.
H. Birge & Sons Co., by John J. Lindsay; Standard
Wall Paper Co., W. A. Huppuch, first vice-presi-
dent; William Campbell Wall Paper Co., by Chas.
F. Murray, president; Janeway & Carpender, J. J.
Janeway, president; Becker, Smith & Page; Imperial
Wall Paper Co., J. J. McCabe, secretary; Carey Bro.
Wall Paper Manufacturing Co., E. R. Happelfinger,
vice-president; Gledhill Wall Paper Co., by George
H. Keim, treasurer; Williams & Co.; York Card and
Paper Co., Henry Buin, attorney; York Wall Paper
Co., Henry Buin, attorney; Hobbs, Benton & Heath,
Henry Buin, attorney; Allen Higgins Co., Henry
Buin, attorney.

HENRY BURN, REPRESENTING THE MANUFACTURERS OF WALL PAPER, NEW YORK CITY, FILES SUPPLEMENTAL, BRIEF.

Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE,

NEW YORK CITY, N. Y.,
November 30, 1908.

Chairman Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SIR: In view of the stress that was laid by several members of your committee on the questions submitted to me at your hearing on Saturday, November 21, based upon my request for an increased duty on wall paper, I deem it advisable, on behalf of the wall-paper manufacturers, to bring to your attention certain facts that were not brought out by the examination.

First. Referring, therefore, to the question as to whether a profit of 10 per cent was not adequate, I would say that this assumed profit of 10 per cent is based on the 1905 report of the Departinent of Commerce; that the reports from the manufacturers, on which the calculation referred to in that report was made, do not show the net profit to the manufacturer, as the inquiries made by the Department of Commerce did not call for sufficient information and did not take into consideration many items that would have to be considered in referring to a net profit.

To be more specific, they did not consider the item of depreciation, which should be calculated at at least 5 per cent on the value of the plant each year, and this amount must be deducted from the gross result in calculating the net profit.

Depreciation must also be considered in a general way in connection with the question as to whether a profit of 10 per cent is ample return in a normal business year on the business of a wall-paper manufacturer. There is probably no other class of machinery on which the depreciation would be so great as on that of wall-paper machinery in case of a discontinuance of the business, which might be caused by the death of the manufacturer or his inability to continue the busi

ness from whatever cause, and this is due, not so much to the cost of the actual machines themselves, but to the enormous cost of their installation in a building, and as the value of this installation would be entirely destroyed by removal of the machines to another building, I can safely make the statement that in the event of such contingency as outlined above the value of the wall-paper plant would shrink fully 75 per cent, and this assertion is made based upon my personal knowledge in respect to wall-paper plants that have been discontinued. Consequently a profit of 10 per cent would not be adequate, taking into consideration the enormous shrinkage in the value of the plant that would be incurred in the event of its discontinuance.

Second. Again, bearing upon the question of a possible profit of 10 per cent being adequate return, I call attention to the fact that $1 of capital is required for every dollar of business done, and that thereby the manufacturer is enabled to turn over his capital but once a year, and that the business therefore calls for an unduly large amount of capital as compared with that of other industries, and the risk is consequently so much the greater and the wall-paper manufacturer is therefore entitled to a greater margin than the manufacturers in other industries, who can do the same volume of business on perhaps one-fifth of the amount of capital and whose risk is therefore just one-fifth that of the wall-paper manufacturer.

Then, again, the credit risk must be taken into consideration in determining whether a profit of 10 per cent is adequate, inasmuch as the goods are sold on long-credit terms, and it frequently happens that while the credit of the purchaser may have been first class at the time the obligation was incurred he may be in financial straits by the time the obligation becomes due, and a fair percentage for bad debts must also be considered in arriving at the net profit, and it is no exaggeration that the percentage of losses arising from bad debts. amount to nearly, if not fully, 2 per cent.

Now, the reports collated by the Department of Commerce do not take in the items of depreciation or of bad debts, and consequently even assuming that otherwise the report reflects accurately the condition of wall-paper manufacturers, the net profit they would show as a result, after providing for depreciation and for bad debts, would bring the net profit down to about 6 per cent, which is certainly not adequate return for the investment and the risk attending same.

Third. Several members of your committee have assumed that inasmuch as the imports of wall paper amounted to only $700,000 and as the aggregate of the domestic production is $12,000,000 we are already well protected under the present tariff, and looking at the matter superficially this argument would be correct, but it has already been pointed out in our brief, and again in the statement I made before your committee, that the importation of, say, $750,000 affects more directly goods of a similar character produced in this country and on which the domestic output is only $3,000,000, and that the percentage of competition is therefore 25 per cent instead of 6 per cent, as assumed by some of the members of your committee; and inasmuch as the imports on these grades of goods have risen in the space of four short years to the extent of 230 per cent, it is quite clear that the present rate of duty on wall paper does not afford a reasonable protection, and as to the other 75 per cent of the domestic production

the goods are of a character of which similar goods are not made abroad, and this accounts up to the present time for the fact that we have no European competition on these grades, and in my estimation, therefore, it can not be contended that the present duty on wall paper has given us protection on the sale of these goods; but inasmuch as the governments of European countries, notably that of Germany, are assisting their industries in finding new fields for their outputs, it is by no means impossible that this market will also be sought on the cheaper grades unless we are protected by an increased duty.

Fourth. As to the question as to whether we desire to have the tariff made prohibitive, we have already stated that that was not our desire. In fact, it could not be made prohibitive, as there will always be a demand for foreign goods on the part of some of our peoplepeople who underrate American productions and who can not see any merit in any production unless it is marked "imported"-and there is no reason why the disparagers of American productions should not be made to pay the additional cost of the imported goods because of an increased duty on same.

Fifth. I was also asked whether the wall-paper industry was not willing to take a part of the burden in supporting the Government, and I replied that we always have, and I now claim that the increase of the duty to 35 per cent or 40 per cent will give the Government as large a revenue from the importation of wall paper as it now derives from the present importations on the lower rate of duty, and at the same time will diminish the importations to an amount that will not seriously affect the wall-paper manufacturers of this country.

Sixth. The greatest danger to our industry, however, is the reciprocal arrangements that are supposed to exist at the present time between the United States and Germany, whereby wall paper may be imported at a less rate of duty than that specified in the present tariff; but your chairman assured me that the committee would probably overcome this difficulty by recommending a maximum and minimum tariff, and in making such a recommendation I would earnestly request that you take into consideration the advisability of making the minimum duty 35 per cent and the maximum duty 45 per cent.

Thanking you for the courtesy extended in permitting us to offer these further suggestions, I am, HENRY BURN,

Very respectfully,

Representing Manufacturers of Wall Paper.

NATIONAL PRINT CUTTERS' ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA ASKS INCREASE OF DUTIES ON WALL PAPER AND PRINT BLOCKS.

Hon. S. E. PAYNE, M. C.,

NEW YORK CITY, December 19, 1908.

Chairman Ways and Means Committee,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: I have been directed by the above association to write to you in regard to any possible change in the present tariff on manufactured wall papers and interior decorations, and also on print blocks and rollers used in the printing of same.

If any change is contemplated, we respectfully ask your assistance to have the duty on wall papers increased, if at all possible, as we believe the present duty entirely inadequate to give the American manufacturer proper protection against foreign importations.

During the past five years the importations of wall paper have increased about 300 per cent. In 1903 the imports amounted to about $200,000, while now they amount to almost $800,000.

As wages in foreign countries-England and Germany-are only about one-half of what they are in the United States, we feel that not only are the American manufacturers entitled to fair protection but that we ourselves are entitled to protection against the low wages and unfavorable conditions existing in England and Germany, where the wall-paper industries are controlled by syndicates, whereas the American manufacturers, from whom we obtain our livelihood, are hardly making any profit at all, certainly not what they are entitled to make considering the capital invested.

Regarding print blocks, we wish to say that this work is entirely done by hand; not a single part of the same can in any way be made by machine, and it would be a great injustice to us if the present tariff on these print rollers were removed or made any less. They are classified as manufactured wood and metal, principal value on metal 45 per cent ad valorem, and we ask that you use your influence to have this duty increased, if at all possible, as the wages paid in Europe for this work are only about one-half what we receive, and we believe we should receive the protection that years of work entitle us to. Trusting you will give this your support and assuring you that anything you may do in our behalf will be appreciated, I remain, Yours, very truly,

[SEAL.]

THOS. I. G. EASTWOOD,
Secretary-Treasurer National Print Cutters'
Association of America.

THE WALL PAPER MACHINE PRINTERS AND COLOR MIXERS' ASSOCIATION ASKS INCREASE OF DUTY ON WALL PAPER.

Hon. S. E. PAYNE, M. C.,

PHILADELPHIA, December 20, 1908.

Chairman Ways and Means Committee:

I have been directed by our association to write to you regarding any possible change in the tariff on wall paper. We respectfully ask that you advocate an advance over the present duty, as it seems to be entirely inadequate to give the American manufacturer proper protection against the importation of wall papers from Europe, where the wages paid are much less than that received by our members'

During the last five years the importation has risen 300 per cent; as while the importation five years ago was only $200,000, at the present time it has exceeded the sum of $800,000. These are the conditions that our members of the trade have been working with. Trusting that you will give this your earnest support, assuring you anything you may do in our behalf will be appreciated, I am,

Yours, respectfully,

JOHN T. FURLONG,

Color Mixers' Association.

Secretary No. 3, The Wall Paper Machine Printers and

« AnteriorContinuar »