PARAGRAPH 279-PINEAPPLES.

increase the cost of this article of food to all the consumers in the United States in order that the growers of Florida can contribute more than they should to a line of 150 miles of railroad in Florida running through the pineapple district.

6. In 1908 the growers and canners of pineapples in the Hawaiian Islands also asked for an increase in the tariff. They asked for a tariff that would cover the difference in the cost of production and the freight, so that they could start canneries in the islands and increase the canneries then existing in Hawaii. It is a matter of common knowledge that fresh pineapples from Hawaii can not be imported into the United States successfully for the reason that Hawaii is so far away from the United States that the cost of getting the fruit here is too high, and the conditions of the climate are such that the fruit is not fit for use, especially for canning, when it reaches the United States. It is manifestly unfair and unjust that the canneries in the United States, employing a large number of men, should be forced out of business in order to help establish canneries in Hawaii, and that the entire body of American consumers of pineapples should be forced to pay a price much greater than they should pay in order that the canning of pineapples should become profitable to the people of Hawaii. This is one of the items that has added to the high cost of living in the United States. 7. If anyone were to recommend that a duty should be placed upon bananas, such a recommendation would carry no weight, because bananas, while grown in foreign countries, are a most commonly used fruit by all of the people. Pineapples are rapidly taking a place along with bananas. The pineapple is recognized as a healthy food and its use is recommended by physicians and sanitariums all over the country. Its juice is especially valuable as a remedy for all forms of throat trouble. It is most widely used in the congested districts of the large cities and furnishes a health food for the use of all the people. Why not give all the people an opportunity to buy this fruit under the same conditions that they now buy bananas? Why force the consumer to pay a tax every time he uses this fruit?

8. All pineapples imported from Cuba are wrapped in paper and crated before shipment. The paper and crates used for such purposes are manufactured in the United States and shipped to Cuba. The lumber is American lumber; the nails are American nails; the paper is American paper; all grown and manufactured in this country. The capital engaged in this business is the capital of the citizens of the United States. The transportation of this fruit between the United States and Cuba is almost exclusively in American vessels, freight is paid to citizens of the United States, and the benefits of the business of transportation accrue to citizens of this country. A prohibition of importation means a loss to the citizens of this country, means the destruction of the business of the citizens of this country, and the throwing out of employment of a large number of men. In addition, the steamers that carry Cuban pineapples are always loaded on their way back to Cuba with the products of the American farm and factory. These goods are purchased by the Cuban growers of pineapples with the money received for their pineapples in this country. The removal of the present duty on pineapples will greatly stimulate business with Cuba, will largely increase trade between the American factories and farms and the growers of pineapples in Cuba.

In conclusion, we believe that the removal of the present tariff and the admission of fresh pineapples free into this country will supply the American people with a healthgiving food which will become as common as it is delightful and which will be purchased at so low a price that every American family, no matter how humble, may partake thereof. It will stimulate the growth of canneries employing American labor, will cause to be used increasingly more and more of the products of the mills and factories of this country, will greatly increase our trade with Cuba, and will materially reduce the cost of living.

Respectfully submitted.

By their attorney:

DUDLEY M. SHIVELY.

E. E. MILLS.
MILLS BROS.

PARAGRAPH 280.

PARAGRAPH 280-ALMONDS.

Almonds, not shelled, four cents per pound; clear almonds, shelled, six cents per pound; apricot and peach kernels, four cents per pound.

ALMONDS.

BRIEF OF CALIFORNIA ALMOND GROWERS.

CALIFORNIA ALMOND GROWERS' EXCHANGE,
Sacramento, Cal., January 15, 1913.

To the honorable Congressional Committee on Tariff Schedule, the Capitol, Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: By request of the California Almond Growers' Exchange and as representing the almond growers of the country, we desire to lay before your honorable committee the following statement of facts regarding the horticultural industry of almond growing.

We find the following duties to have been levied on almonds in former years, according to the data at our command: 1804, 2 cents per pound; 1816, 3 cents per pound; 1832, admitted free; 1833, 3 cents per pound; 1842, 3 cents per pound; 1846, 40 per cent ad valorem; 1861, March, 2 cents per pound; shelled nuts, 4 cents per pound; 1861, August, 4 cents per pound; shelled nuts, 6 cents per pound; 1864, 6 cents per pound; shelled nuts, 10 cents per pound; 1883, 5 cents per pound; shelled nuts, 7 cents per pound; 1890, 5 cents per pound; shelled nuts, 7 cents per pound; 1894, 3 cents per pound; shelled nuts, 5 cents per pound; 1897, 4 cents per pound; shelled nuts, 4 cents per pound; 1909, no change.

As it is only within the last 20 years that any considerable planting of almond trees has been made in this country, and that planting confined almost entirely to California, we respectfully submit that it would appear that the duty had been so uniformly imposed and collected for over 100 years on the basic idea that it was one imposed on a luxury or semiluxury, and was imposed for purposes of revenue only. Attached hereunto is a schedule covering on the 25 years from 1887 to 1911, inclusive, showing in pounds the California production and foreign import of almonds. This shows a growth in the California production from 300,000 pounds in 1887 to 3,400,000 in 1911, and an import of foreign almonds ranging from 5,482,363 pounds in 1887 to 15,552,712 in 1911. The imports for 1912 being 17,231,458. The crop is a very uncertain one in all countries, and the schedule clearly shows that an extra good year is quite generally followed by one yielding only 25 to 50 per cent of a crop. This means that the expense of production is increased and the industry discouraged by great uncertainty as to the financial results of the work performed.

That the growing of almonds is a horticultural industry built up and followed by the horticulturist largely on the personal work of himself and family, and not an industry engaged in on a large scale by capitalists, we believe to be amply proved by the record of bearing trees in the State, i. e.:

Bearing trees in—

1890.. 1900. 1912.

658, 566 1, 601, 947 1,384, 933

Also by the records of the California Almond Growers' Exchange, which shows that the 1912 crop marketed by them, namely, 1,450 tons, was produced by 476 owners. This indicates small orchards held by men of small means, which is indeed the case.

While the value of almonds fluctuates greatly, according to the size of domestic and foreign crops, we believe that the average value of all varieties over a term of years might be said to be $250 per ton; and we contend that a duty of 4 cents per pound, or $80 per ton, on nuts in the shell is absolutely necessary to keep the industry alive in this country, and that its removal or material reduction would be tantamount to confiscation of the present value of the orchards.

The domestic crop is not materially greater than it was 10 years ago, while the foreign importation shows an increase of nearly 300 per cent, and the market in this country is constantly increasing and widening.

We have pointed out that the domestic production of almonds has not materially increased in the last 10 years, and that the number of trees in bearing in California

PARAGRAPH 280-ALMONDS.

has actually decreased, but would also call your attention to the fact that the number of new trees not yet bearing is 678,522, and that for the last three years it has been impossible for the nurseries to supply the demand for these trees.

This large increase of planting we believe due in part to the appearance of growers' cooperative organizations on the horticultural horizon, and in part to the enormous development of the confectionery trade and consequent steady demand for our product. There are tens of thousands of acres of land in the West now being placed on the market for subdivision in small holdings, much of which is admirably adapted to nut culture, and if nothing adverse is decided on to check the present impulse we believe the culture of almonds will soon assume important dimensions in the West and Southwest States.

I have the honor to be, gentlemen, on behalf of the growers' committee, appointed by the California Almond Growers' Exchange, Yours, obediently and respectfully,

J. B. WRAUGHAM,

Chairman of Committee.

CONCORD, CAL., February 14, 1913. To the honorable members of the Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: I am a California almond grower, and am interested in the pending revision of the tariff.

I would have, could I have my way, the schedules revised downward so thoroughly as to relieve almond growers, fruit growers, and general farmers, as well as all industries, from the burdens imposed on them by the effects of protectionism.

What the American producers need is not protection from foreign producers but relief from the exactions of protected interests at home.

Give us a tariff for revenue only, and as little of that as you deem proper, make up the shortage, if any, by a reasonable tax on incomes, and our industries will flourish as they have not done for a half century. We as almond growers will then have nothing to complain of in the way of protection.

When you get a brief from the California Almond Growers' Exchange, please consider this along with it.

Respectfully submitted.

J. F. BUSEY.

PARAGRAPH 280-ALMONDS.

LETTERS URGING REDUCTION OF DUTY ON ALMONDS, ETC.

Congressman E. S. UNDERHILL,

Washington, D. C.

ELMIRA, N. Y., February 5, 1913.

DEAR SIR: Re reduction of tariff on almonds, walnuts, and filberts. I am heartily in favor of the reduction of tariff on almonds, walnuts, and filberts. These are now a regular article of food and not looked upon as a luxury any longer. Manufacturing confectioners use large quantities of them each year and, according to statistics, the average price of these goods is constantly advancing and is now from 40 to 50 per cent higher than 10 years ago. If, upon inquiry, you find it possible or advisable to reduce the tariff on nut meats, it would be a benefit to my customers and to the thousands of people con uming my goods. There seems to be no reason for protecting home industry on these articles, as the great quantity used in this country is largely purchased from abroad.

Thanking you for your kind consideration of the matter,
Very respectfully, yours,

WILFRID I. BOOTH.

CINCINNATI, February 4, 1913.

Hon. ALFRED ALLEN,

Member of Congress, Second District of Ohio,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR Mr. ALLEN: Want to call your attention to the tariff bill in reference to nuts imported into this country, notably almonds, walnuts, and filberts.

We trust that you will vote for the abolition of the duty in the same. The consumption of all kinds of nuts has increased enormously in the past years and is especially true regarding almonds, which are largely used in the confectionery and bakery line. Ten or 15 years ago they could be purchased at the cost of 60 shillings per 50 kilos gross. To-day the average cost abroad on the same goods is 95 shillings per 50 kilos gross. To-day's price for these goods is 100 shillings per 50 kilos gross. Comparing average price of to-day with that of about 10 years ago, we have an increase in the cost of these goods from 40 to 50 per cent.

Farmers in Italy and Spain cultivating almonds have grown enormously rich on account of these high prices, and there is no reason why the producers of almonds in this country should not be able to compete sucessfully under the circumstances. In fact there are not enough of these goods grown in this country to be worthy of consideration.

Trusting you will give same your consideration, we remain,
Very respectfully, yours,

Hon. IRVIN S. PEPPER, Washington, D. C.

P. ECHERT FACTORY,
J. H. HART, Manager.

RODDEWIG SCHMIDT CANDY CO.,
Davenport, Iowa, February 17, 1913.

SIR: Permit us to ask you to give the question of tariff on almonds, walnuts, and filberts your kind consideration, and if you can consistently do so, please favor abolition of the high present duty on these importations.

We know of no goods which can stand the abolition of tariff better than almonds, walnuts, and filberts. Goods of this kind used to be looked upon as a luxury. That time, however, has passed, and nuts to-day are classed among articles of necessary food. The consumption of all kinds of nuts has increased enormously within the past years, and, notwithstanding the fact that their production has been greatly increased, the prices of some nuts have advanced from 40 to 50 per cent. This is especially true regarding almonds. The ordinary kinds of almonds, such as Sicily, Bari, and Majorca, which are being used in very large quantities in the confectionery, chocolate, and bakery lines, could be purchased abroad some 10 to 15 years ago at an average cost of 60 shillings per 50 kilos gross. To-day the average cost abroad of the same goods is 95 shillings per 50 kilos gross. To-day's price for these same goods is 106 shillings per 50 kilos gross. Comparing the average price of to-day with that of about 10 years ago, we have an increase in the cost of these goods of from 40 to 50 per cent.

PARAGRAPH 281-WALNUTS.

The farmers in Italy and Spain cultivating almonds have grown rich on account of these high prices and there is no reason why the producers of almonds in this country should not be able to compete successfully under the circumstances. What the home producers have to strive for is to bring their products up to the high standard of quality that the foreign-grown almonds are.

As to the duty on walnuts and filberts, there is no reason for same on account of protecting home industry, as there are not enough of these goods grown in this country to be worthy of consideration.

We trust, with these facts, you will give the question due consideration.

Yours, very respectfully,

P. RODDEWIG, President.

PARAGRAPH 281.

Filberts and walnuts of all kinds, not shelled, three cents per pound; shelled, five cents per pound.

See also Italian Chamber of Commerce, page 2500.

WALNUTS.

BRIEF OF WALNUT GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA.

The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

WASHINGTON, D. C., January 20, 1913.

House of Representatives.

GENTLEMEN: The following brief and its accompanying exhibits are hereby submitted by a committee representing the walnut growers of California, in support of the retention of the present rate of duty upon walnuts. Respectfully submitted.

C. C. TEAGUE.
FRED. A. HAZZARD.
J. A. OSMUN.

The walnut growers of California, through the undersigned committee, desire to submit for your consideration a few reasons, supported by facts and figures, showing why the present duty of 3 cents per pound on walnuts, not shelled, and of 5 cents per pound on walnuts shelled, should be continued. Under the present rates of duty, the walnut industry is having a healthy growth, the production having more than doubled in the last 10 years, until the domestic product is supplying about 50 per cent of the consumption of walnuts, not shelled, in the United States. (See Exhibit 1.)

From 1901 to 1911 the importation of walnuts, not shelled, has increased from 4,851 tons to 11,104 tons, an increase of 127 per cent. Shelled walnuts have increased from 1,112 tons to 5,356 tons, an increase of 373 per cent. In a corresponding increase, the revenue to the United States upon these two classes of walnuts has gone from $402,311.69 in 1901, to $1,201,929.68 in 1911, an increase in revenue of 198 per cent. (See Exhibit 1.)

The countries furnishing these imported nuts are, in order of importance, France, with 78 per cent; Italy, with 13 per cent; Chile, Turkey, Hungary, Spain, Manchuria and other countries collectively, 9 per cent. (See Exhibit 2.)

Only two districts in Europe, viz, Sorrento in Italy, and Grenoble in France, produce nuts comparable in quality and size with the domestic nut. The quantity that can be furnished by these districts is limited, and, of the total importation of walnuts, less than 20 per cent are of these grades.

The bulk of imported nuts are the Marbot and Cornes varieties; these correspond in size and quality to the second grade of the Pacific coast production. Many walnuts of foreign production, especially in France, are used in making oil; these nuts are small and practically unfit for exportation. If the present duty is lessened, many of these inferior nuts will be sent to the United States.

Under the present rates of duty the production of walnuts on the Pacific coast since 1903 has increased from 6,339 tons to 12,500 tons in 1911. (See Exhibit 3.)

The consumption of walnuts in the United States has increased from 16,166 tons of walnuts unshelled and 1,789 tons of shelled nuts in 1903 to 23,604 tons of nuts not shelled and 5,356 tons of shelled nuts in 1911. These totals are found by adding importation totals and domestic production. (See Exhibits 1 and 3.)

The rates of duty of 3 cents and 5 cents, respectively, per pound on walnuts barely represents the difference in the labor costs of production. The duty on walnuts