PARAGRAPH 13-CHALK.

market value of about 15 cents per pound and the duty thereon is 55 cents per pound.

3. Tannic acid "Tannin."-Tannin is specially provided for under paragraph 1 of the tariff act of 1909 to pay duty at the rate of 35 cents per pound.

In view of the fact that its market value rarely exceeds 35 cents, we recommend that the duty be modified to an ad valorem rate on the basis of chemical compounds or chemical acids, n. s. p. f.

Respectfully,

PARAGRAPH 13.

SCHERING & GLATZ.

Chalk, when ground, bolted, precipitated naturally or artificially, or otherwise prepared, whether in the form of cubes, blocks, sticks or disks, or otherwise, including tailors', billiard, red, or French chalk, one cent per pound; manufactures of chalk not specially provided for in this section, twenty-five per centum ad valorem.

See M. Ewing Fox & Co., page 324.

CHALK.

STATEMENT OF FREDERICK N. TIRRELL, OF STICKNEY, TIRRELL & CO., BOSTON, MASS.

Mr. TIRRELL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I wish to call your attention

The CHAIRMAN. What industry do you speak for?

Mr. TIRRELL. Stickney, Tirrell & Co.; Paris white, coming under two different articles in the schedule.

First, I will take chalk. Please refer to the present tariff under the free list, page 71, section 531, and page 2, section 13. Please note that H. R. 20182, page 21, section 84, continues chalk on the free list, but the wording of section 17, page 4, would impose a duty on "Chalk, natural," of 10 per cent ad valorem. Eliminate the word "natural" in H. R. 20182 and, as relates to chalk, it is consistent. There are no deposits of chalk on this continent from which the American manufacturer can obtain his supply of raw material, so that it must be imported from Europe-mostly from England and France-paying the ocean freights on same. The advantage to the foreign manufacturer under these conditions is obvious, as he has his whiting factory adjoining the chalk quarry. It is unquestionably most beneficial to all concerned in this country that chalk"crude or natural chalk"-shall be continued on the free list; we understand this to be your intention. In this section-17-please note that chalk, ground or bolted, becomes by this process of manufacture whiting, and should carry the same rate of duty as whiting and Paris white. We would suggest, to avoid confusion, that the following be stricken out of section 17, page 4, line 24, viz: "Natural ground or bolted, ten per centum ad valorem." Also permit us to call your attention to H. R. 20182, page 20, section 74, line 14, "French chalk, powdered, washed, or pulverized." By this process it becomes whiting and should carry the same duty as whiting and Paris white. Chalk-"crude, natural"-whether English or French,

PARAGRAPH 13-CHALK.

reduced to powdered form by any process of manipulation, becomes whiting and Paris white.

"Whiting" and "Paris white" are commercial terms and refer to merchandise produced principally from crude or natural chalk. A ton of chalk will not make a ton of whiting or Paris white. It requires from 2,700 to 2,800 pounds of the crude material to make 2,000 pounds of whiting or Paris white. The freight and handling charges on this 700 to 800 pounds per ton of waste reduces by so much the duty protection. We have no knowledge of any demand or request from the American consumer for a reduction in the present duty of one-fourth of 1 cent per pound. Please refer to the present tariff, page 5, section 54. Also please refer to H. R. 20182, page 18, section 65, proposing reduction to one-tenth of 1 cent per pound. The Government has imposed a duty on whiting and Paris white since 1816, and under any and all conditions never less than the present duty, and during most of this period the duty has ranged from one-half to 1 cent per pound, except from July, 1846, to July, 1862, when the "bars were let down," resulting in wide and violent fluctuations in prices, caused by short or oversupply in importations and ruling rates in ocean freights. "Corners' were of frequent occurrence and the very conditions which dealers and consumers seek to avoid were always present, creating an element of uncertainty. During this period the industry languished in this country. The universal sentiment expressed by dealers and consumers is that prices under the present rate of one-fourth of 1 cent per pound are satisfactory and that what is most desired is stability and uniformity of price which is secured to them by competition among the American manufacturers-and the avoidance of fluctuations certain to prevail under a tariff that would eliminate the American manufacturer. The present tariff is not prohibitive, although very little whiting and Paris white is imported. This is because of the low rate of prices of the American manufacturer. There is no trust or combination in the business. There have been no fortunes made by the whiting manufacturers. Competition among American manufacturers is, and always has been, intense. The margin of profit to the American manufacturer is so small that freight rates in this country largely determine the market in which the consumer places his orders.

Consumption of whiting and Paris white in this country, based on the statistics of 1911, is about 100,000 tons yearly. If the entire amount were imported under the proposed tariff rate, the Government would receive about $200,000 in duties and the loss to labor in this country would be about $500,000 to $600,000 per annum.

Labor is all able-bodied men and the scale of wages in this country ranges from $1.65 to $3 per day, the same being somewhat over 50 per cent higher than for similar labor in Europe.

The cost of chalk and labor to the European manufacturer is from $4.50 to $5.50 per ton less than to the American manufacturer, so that the present rate of one-fourth of 1 cent per pound duty on whiting and Paris white is protecting the American laborer only and does not contribute to the American whiting manufacturer's margin of profit. It is by superior methods of manufacturing we are able to maintain

PARAGRAPH 13-CHALK.

this business under the present tariff, and it appears to us the limit of possibilities in that direction is reached. We will be pleased to inform you in detail any information we possess in relation to this industry, believing that careful investigation by your committee will verify these statements and convince you that the industry is not deriving undue profit from the present rate of one-fourth of 1 cent per pound duty, that the present rate barely protects the common laborer in this industry in a modest wage, and that any reduction of the present duty is certain to seriously disturb and, if the rate proposed is maintained in the new tariff, probably abolish the manufacture of whiting and Paris white in this country.

In this connection it is only fair to state that the investments in mills and machinery, because of their nature, would become practically worthless, seriously crippling the various owners.

We therefore protest, and earnestly request that in your proposed bill these articles be placed at not less than that now imposed, and further ask the benefit of your wide influence to give us this measure of justice.

I present this not only in my own behalf, but have been requested to do so by the legislative committee of the whiting manufacturers, all of whom have indorsed this, and I would be pleased to present it as the brief of the whiting manufacturers, to be substituted for any brief that any individual member may have filed with your committee, because it embraces substantially all the facts contained in the various briefs that have been submitted.

I am also pleased to file with your committee, for reference, a couple of photographs that may be of some interest in determining the competition we are against as regards simply the process of manufacturing.

BRIEF OF THE CRESCENT BURNER MANUFACTURING CO., NEW YORK, N. Y.

Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD,

NEW YORK, January 27, 1913.

Chairman Ways and Means Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: We take the liberty of submitting to you herewith specimen of a raw material which is extensively imported into this country for the purpose of manufacturing gas burners and insulators. This material is now taxed, in the condition in which we submit it to you, at 1 cent per pound, the same as talcum powder.

We would ask to have this material, which classifies either as "cut steatite" or "German lava," on the free list, as it can not be used in this condition for any other purposes than to manufacture other articles, and in order to reduce it by crushing to powder American labor would have to be added, which amounts to more than 1 cent per pound. We have established a considerable industry with this material, and not only sell these goods all over the United States but also in foreign countries, where we have to compete with the market of Germany, which is also the country of origin of this raw material.

PARAGRAPH 15-COAL-TAR DYES.

The case would be covered by a paragraph in Schedule B, which would read: "Steatite, German lava, or soapstone, cut either in squares or in trapeze form, free."

Very respectfully,

PARAGRAPH 14.

CRESCENT BURNER MANUFACTURING CO.

Chloroform, ten cents per pound.

For chloroform, see also Mallinckrodt Chemical Works et al., page 48.

PARAGRAPH 15.

Coal-tar dyes or colors, not specially provided for in this section, thirty per centum ad valorem; all other products or preparations of coal tar, not colors or dyes and not medicinal, not specially provided for in this section, twenty per centum ad valorem.

For other coal-tar products, etc., see also Mallinckrodt Chemical Works et al., page 48; for coal-tar dyes or colors n. s. p. f., see also John F. Queeny, page 81; E. C. Klipstein, page 231; Verona Chemical Co., page 71; and General Chemical Co., page 40.

COAL-TAR DYES.

STATEMENT OF J. F. SCHOELLKOPF ON BEHALF OF THE SCHOELLKOPF, HARTFORD & HANNA CO., BUFFALO, N. Y.

Mr. SCHOELLKOPF. We respectfully request that no change be made in the rates on coal-tar dyes and allied products, covered by paragraphs 15, 482, 491, 536, 593, and 639, until a careful and expert investigation of the whole chemical schedule has been made by a committee or commission appointed for that purpose.

We are members of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association of the United States (with the exception of Central Dyestuff & Chemical Co.) and we thoroughly agree with the position taken by that association as outlined in the letter of October 31, 1912, addressed to you by the chairman of the executive committee, Mr. Henry Howard.

We maintain that the coal-tar color industry has never had adequate protection since the tariff act of 1883, and the most conclusive proof of this is that the large German manufacturers have consistently refused to establish plants in the United States, while they have not hesitated to build branch factories in Russia, France, and England, in all of which countries the consumption of these dyes is smaller

than here in America.

A further convincing proof that this industry has not received proper encouragement is the fact that since its establishment over 30 years ago it at no time supplied over 20 per cent of the domestic consumption, and at the present time more than 80 per cent of the coaltar dyes used in the United States are imported, principally from Germany.

The principal reasons for the nondevelopment of the coal-tar industry in the United States are:

(1) Patent law.-Up to 1880 the industry was in its infancy everywhere, even in Germany. About that time the first important German patents were taken out. Under our patent laws then, which remain unchanged to this day, the foreign owners of patents were not compelled to manufacture in the United States. The American

PARAGRAPH 15-COAL-TAR DYES.

manufacturers were therefore restricted to a few colors, such as magentas, rosanilinblues, eosines, chrysoidines, bismarckbrowns, etc. (2) Duty on raw materials. Since 1883 the domestic color manufacturers were necessarily confined to using coal-tar products which were on the free list and could be obtained in this country on a competitive basis, such as aniline oil and salts, benzole, nitrobenzol, arseniate of aniline, etc. For this reason the American maker was slow in taking up new lines even when the expiration of the foreign patents permitted him to do so.

(3) Insufficient duty on colors.-At no time since 1883, when the specific duty of 50 cents per pound was taken off coal-tar dyes, was the duty on colors high enough to compensate for the difference in cost between America and Europe. This was true even for colors using free raw materials, let alone dyes, the raw materials for which were taxed. (See Table D, annexed hereto.) Immediately following the passage of the tariff act of 1883 more than half of the American coal-tar dye factories shut down permanently, and the few remaining plants have kept up the struggle ever since under the most adverse circumstances.

We refer to the Report No. 326, on Schedule A, which report was printed to accompany H. R. 20182. On page 17, paragraph 4 of this report, the following language occurs:

Probably the most radical change in the chemical schedule made by H. R. 20182 is that of the classification and change of the duties of coal-tar products. The manufacture of these products is little developed in this country and imports are principally from Germany, where this manufacture is highly developed.

The changes alluded to were radical, indeed, for they proposed to reduce the duty on the finished colors and dyes and make the raw materials, which were on the free list, dutiable, thus placing the American manufacturers in a worse position than they ever were in before.

Why this industry, already underprotected and in a precarious condition, should be singled out in this manner we do not pretend to understand. If under present conditions it is hardly able to supply 20 per cent of the domestic requirements, one can easily imagine what would happen if these conditions were made infinitely worse by adopting such radical changes as proposed in H. R. 20182.

We have annexed hereto the brief submitted to the Ways and Means Committee during the tariff revision of 1909. The statements made in that brief are as true to-day as they were then, and if given the opportunity every statement made therein can be substantiated. WASHINGTON, D. C., March 14, 1912.

Hon. BOIES PENROSE,

Chairman Senate Committee on Finance.

DEAR SIR: The undersigned respectfully wish to protest most emphatically against the amendments to the present tariff law contained in H. R. 20182, paragraphs 21, 23, and 24, for the following reasons:

1. Even with the present duty on coal-tar colors and with coal-tar products coming in free we are barely able to hold our own against our foreign competitors. In fact we can only do so by sacrificing the greater part of our legitimate profits, and if a change is made in the rate for coal-tar dyes it should be increased rather than decreased, as is clearly shown by Tables A, B, C, and D, annexed hereto.

2. If the purpose of making these changes was to increase revenues this object will not be attained, for even if the importers should give the American consumers the benefit of the entire reduction in the duty, the consumption would not be stimulated.