PARAGRAPH 40-FISH OILS. Furthermore, on the free list of Newfoundland is noted the following: Flour, cottonseed oil, boracic and acetic acid, many lines of machinery, hides, corn, kerosene oil, lines and twines, motor-boat engines, wheat, and many other articles, all of which are exported to Newfoundland from the United States. Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Badcock, do you believe by reducing the duty as proposed in this bill from 8 cents to 5 cents a gallon the importations would increase only to 659,000 pounds, as we stated in our caucus copy? Mr. BADCOCK. I did not see that. Mr. HARRISON. Or do you think the imports would increase still more? Mr. BADCOCK. Yes, sir; I am quite sure they would. Mr. HARRISON. A reduction in the tariff from 8 cents to 5 cents would increase the imports far more than shown in our estimates? Mr. BADCOCK. It would, because the chief trouble we have in the matter of this oil is adulteration, and we know for a fact that unscrupulous dealers, of which there are many in this country, have adulterated this oil and sold it at the same price as the imported. The tanner has no way of finding it out until he dresses his leather with it, when it is too late in many cases. Mr. LONGWORTH. I would like to know a little more about your business. Do you import oil to sell to tanners? Mr. BADCOCK. Yes, sir; we import oil to sell to tanners. Mr. LONGWORTH. At what price do you sell it? Mr. BADCOCK. You mean the market to-day? Mr. LONGWORTH. Yes. Mr. BADCOCK. Forty-three cents. Mr. LONGWORTH. Are you advocating that this shall be put on the free list? Mr. BADCOCK. We are, with the help of the tanners. The tanners have asked us as importers to see what we could do to have this tariff reduced. Mr. LONGWORTH. You idea is to reduce the price at which you sell it? Mr. BADCOCK. It certainly is. Mr. LONGWORTH. How much? Mr. BADCOCK. To the extent of the duty, 8 cents per gallon, if the reduction be that much. Mr. LONGWORTH. How will you be any better off? Mr. BADCOCK. We will not be any better off except we will get a very much larger trade. That is our main point. Mr. LONGWORTH. You are acting with the tanners in this matter? Mr. BADCOCK. I have presented exhibits here from several of the tanners. Mr. LONGWORTH. All I want to know is why you are here. Mr. BADCOCK. These exhibits from the tanners, together with my statement, will show. The testimony of the witness was furnished in the shape of a brief signed by the following firms: W. & S. Job & Co., per Robert Badcock, jr.; Bowring & Co., Chas. W. Bowring, Director; New York, Newfoundland & Halifax Steamship Co. (Ltd.); Harvey & Outer PARAGRAPH 40-FISH OILS. bridge, per R. Harvey; National Oil & Supply Co., Arthur Phillips, President; Dooner & Smith Co., James J. Dooner, President; Newark Chamois Works, F. P. Chapot, Manager; National Red Oil & Soap Co., C. P. Gulick, Treasurer; Max Hertz, per Hass; Stengel & Rothschild; National Oil Products Co., R. Bambinger, Secretary; Blanchard Bro. & Lane, by M. T. Gay, President. EXHIBIT A. [Stengel & Rothschild, tanners and manufacturers of patent enameled and fancy leather.] NEWARK, N. J., December 26, 1912. W. & S. JOB & Co., 68 Broad Street, New York City. GENTLEMEN: We understand that there is to be a hearing in Washington on the 6th of January before the Ways and Means Committee regarding duties on oils and chemicals such as enter into the manufacture of leather. We are especially interested in the duties on Newfoundland cod oil, such as we have been purchasing from you. We would like very much to have you use your best efforts to have this duty reduced as much as possible. It is impossible for us to use domestic cod oil on the class of leather which we manufacture, as we have tried it over and over again without success, there being certain properties in it which makes it unsuitable for our work. We consider this oil in the nature of a raw material which we use in the manufacture of our leather, and have always believed that such goods as enter into the use of any product manufactured in this country should be taxed as little as possible. Furthermore there are times when the domestic catch is a failure or limited in quantity, and at such times the opportunity is used to drive prices up to the highest point. We hope you will use your best efforts to have the duty on this oil reduced, and trusting that you will meet with success, we remain, Very truly, yours, EXHIBIT B. STENGEL & ROTHSCHILD. [F. S. Walton Co., oil manufacturers, importers, exporters, and jobbers.] Messrs. W. & S. JOв & Co., 68 Broad Street, New York. PHILADELPHIA, December 31, 1912. GENTLEMEN: There are four reasons which we can cite why the duty on Newfoundland cod oil for commercial uses should be abolished, these reasons being as follows: First. It is the only pure cod oil on the market. Second. It is used by the best and largest tanners. Third. It does not conflict with a domestic cod oil, as it is greatly superior. Fourth. It would compel receivers of domestic oil to sell their oil pure, instead of it being the product of livers of several other fish, as at present. Yours, truly, F. S. WALTON Co., GEORGE T. EDGE, Treasurer. Increase in exports United States to Newfoundland, years ending June 30, 1907 and 1912. PARAGRAPH 40-FISH OILS. EXHIBIT C. [Newark Chamois Co., manufacturers of oil-tanned washable chamois leathers.] NEWARK, N. J., January 2, 1913. Messrs. DOONER & SMITH Co., Newark, N. J. GENTLEMEN: We understand there is to be a hearing before Congress relative to a change in the duty on leather manufacturers' products, and would respectfully ask that you use your best endeavors to have the duty on Newfoundland cod oil removed entirely or reduced materially, as we firmly believe that we should have our cod oil free from duty. It is our sole tanning material in the manufacture of chamois skins. This business has met with very little success in the United States on account of the great competition we are obliged to meet from abroad. The cost of labor here has been fully three times what it is in England, France, and Germany. Thanking you for any interest you might take in this matter in our behalf, we remain, Yours, truly, NEWARK CHAMOIS CO., EXHIBIT D. BOWRING & Co., New York, N. Y. MILWAUKEE, Wis., January 3, 1913. GENTLEMEN: Your letter of December 28 at hand inquiring why we use Newfoundland oil. We find this oil to be more pure and that it does not oxidize as readily as the domestic product. It penetrates the leather better and does not spew. Yours, truly, PFISTER & VOGEL LEATHER Co., EXHIBIT E. CLEVELAND, OHIO, January 4, 1913. BOWRING & Co., New York, N. Y. GENTLEMEN: Replying to yours of the 28th relative to cod oil, we wish to state that it is impossible for us to use the domestic oil, owing to its impurities. In the manufacture of patent leather it is necessary to have an oil that has a low cold test, otherwise the leather will bloom. The Payne-Aldrich tariff bill removed practically all of the duty on leather. This was done with the supposed understanding that duties would be lowered on everything that went into the manufacture of leather. This, however, was not done, as on some articles, namely, quebracho extract, the duty was raised. We do not believe, however, the foregoing is any argument, the only thing being that it is impossible for us to use any but Newfoundland cod oil in our business. Very truly, yours, THE CLEVELAND TANNING CO., STATEMENT OF CAPT. N. HIBBERD, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. Mr. HIBBERD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here as the representative and part owner of the Tyee Co., of San Francisco. This company is owned entirely by a number of merchants in that city, and is the pioneer concern in America to engage in catching three species of whales commonly called sulphur bottoms, finbacks, and humpbacks, which, until we commenced operations in 1908, had never been taken by the people of this country. Therefore, the establishment of our plant represented an entirely new American industry. PARAGRAPH 40-FISH OILS. The oil which we get from these whales is not the whale oil of commerce, because it has no lubricating value, and therefore has to be used for a different purpose. The English and Norwegians have been engaged in this business for many years, and knowing these whales were very numerous along the Alaskan coast, after mature deliberation our company was organized and $450,000 invested in our shore station and floating plant. We were aware that our equipment would cost us more than double what our foreign competitor had to pay for his. As an illustration, our first whaler cost $60,000, while our competitors on Vancouver Island, about 200 miles away, only have to pay $22,000 for their steamers, which they have built for them in Norway; and in addition to the first cost, the wages paid to our employees, including their maintenance, will average $100 per month each as against $40 without maintenance by the owners of the foreign plant. But we felt confident that the duty, which amounts to practically $3 a barrel, would enable us to compete with them. Unfortunately, we found there was no sale for our product in this country, for, as stated above, it has no lubricating value and the soap makers and tanners were afraid of it because of the odor, and we were therefore compelled to sell our oil the first year in Glasgow, Scotland, in competition with the English and Norwegian whaling companies, at a price which meant a loss to us of $100,000 for the season's operation. All this loss was not due to the price which we could have obtained for the oil had we sold it in Âmerica at the English price plus the greater part of the duty. Some of it was caused by the fact that we were new at the business and had much to learn before we could compete successfully with our foreign competitors, who had had many years' experience; but we did realize that even after we had mastered the details of the business we could not hope for success until we could sell our products at home, and before we could do this it was necessary for us to educate our possible customers. We therefore started in on a campaign of education, which cost us about $50,000 in money and took a great deal of care and trouble. But we finally succeeded in convincing the soap manufacturers and tanners they could use our oil as a substitute for tallow. The second year we succeeded in selling about one-half of our catch, which amounts to about 9,000 barrels per year, in this country. We did a little better the next year, and last year we succeeded in selling our entire output here in this country, and have therefore developed an entirely new business. The past year is the first time we have made any profit, and this profit, even with the protection afforded us by the duty of 8 cents per gallon, amounted to but $9,000. Surely not an excessive return on an investment of $450,000, especially when you consider that there was nothing written off for depreciation and there was an operating loss in the first three years of $150,000 in addition to our original investment. But we have been gradually working ahead, and two other American concerns who have watched our progress, and who, perhaps, have not been fully posted as to the financial returns of the venture, have put in similar plants, one of which has been in operation two PARAGRAPH 40-FISH OILS. years and the other one expects to commence work next year. One of these concerns has four steamers, which were built in Seattle at a cost of $60,000 each, while their competitor, 200 miles away on the coast of Vancouver Island, is using 12 steamers built in Norway at a cost of $22,000 each; and in addition all the American concerns are importing lines and other fishing gear from Norway, paying a heavy duty thereon (which the customs regulations of this country provide for) because these articles are not manufactured and can not be bought in this country, although some of the rope manufacturers are now endeavoring to make lines which we can use and thus avoid the necessity for this outlay; and if we can continue in business there is no doubt but that the American rope manufacturers will finally succeed in producing an article which will be satisfactory for our purposes, and thus we are indirectly helping another American industry. Now, does it seem fair or right when we have invested our money in these plants, feeling safe in doing so because the duty gave us this protection, and then had energy and pride enough to develop an entirely new industry, that you gentlemen should take it away from us? Because if you reduce the duty on these oils you will absolutely destroy our investment, for we could not possibly hope to operate in competition with our foreign competitor just across the border who has such advantages in the cost of his plant and the wages paid his workmen, and thus the $60,000 a year which we are paying out for wages and provisions to Americans would be entirely lost to this country and would go to the foreign workmen in their home countries. We have just about developed markets enough for our own output, and if other American concerns come into the field we will all have to continue our campaign of education so as to have a market for our goods at home, for none of us can hope to compete with our foreign competitors while they have such an advantage in the cost of their plants and wages to their employees, and we respectfully urge you not to make it impossible for us to continue but to give us the help necessary for us to go on and build up this trade, especially in view of the fact that in doing so you are helping several American industries, while on the other hand a reduction in the duty would be a benefit to the foreigner only and a handicap which would put your own countrymen out of business and mean a direct loss to American labor of $60,000 a year from this one plant. And I am convinced that the other two plants, one of which is now in operation, are in exactly the same situation, and their figures can safely be added to ours as showing the loss which must come to this country if this industry is to be wiped out, while at the same time there is no one to be helped but the foreigner, in whom I presume you are not especially interested, and whose interests you are not anxious to protect, particularly when in so doing you are working such a great hardship on a struggling industry which is trying to develop a new trade in this country. I trust that when you come to consider this question you will bear these facts in mind and give us the protection we ask for, to which I feel sure you will decide we are entitled. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. HULL. What is the average cost of one of those plants? Mr. HIBBERD. I know exactly what ours cost us-$100,000. Mr. HULL. What proportion of that is embraced in the machinery? |