PARAGRAPH 56-PAINTS, COLORS, ETC.

What would be the result if we had no Paris green here? You can readily see what would become of the crops. We think we are benefactors in a sense. We think we help the development of agriculture

in this country.

Mr. HILL. The general opinion is that you are robber barons. Mr. SOMERS. I would like to know why, Mr. Hill. Will somebody please let me know why? There is no combination. There is not even a gentleman's agreement. There is no connection between us; no connection one with the other; absolutely nothing. It is an open business, with the keenest kind of competition that you can conceive of. I am representing other people here, but they will tell me no more about their business than they will tell Beelzebub. They say to come down and make a protest, and I do it in their behalf, because it is my bread and butter, as it is theirs. I am only fighting for a situation that will enable us to do business as we have been doing it. We do not ask that you give us 15 per cent, as at present, but that you give us at least as much as Canada gives her manufacturers.

Mr. PAYNE. Have there been any large quantities of it sold at 50 or 75 cents?

Mr. SOMERS. I know of large quantities sold at 40 cents a pound. Mr. PAYNE. The same article that you sell at 13 cents a pound? Mr. SOMERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. PAYNE. If we take this tariff off and that profit of yours should go glimmering, if you sell your goods at eleven and a half cents a pound can the farmer save anything? If it goes through the middleman they would save one and a half cents a pound, perhaps, or on a hundred pounds a dollar and half?

Mr. SOMERS. Or less.

Mr. PAYNE. And that would amply compensate him-I want you to understand this theory-that would amply compensate him for taking the tariff duty off on all his products, to the ultimate benefit of the consumer in your line. That is the theory, and you ought to square off your Democratic politics with the theory of this committee and the prevailing theory of the Democratic Party.

Mr. SOMERS. I have not altogether agreed with that theory. I appreciate it. I have listened to-day very carefully, and I appreciate it, but at the same time it does not meet the situation that I am trying to describe. We are in this position: You are going to take Paris green off of the dutiable list and put it on the free list. You are going to open the doors to the Canadians who are protected from any other countries. We could not go there. They have closed their doors against us. You open the doors to them here and make it impossible for us to do business under legitimate conditions. You are going to create a situation that will put the farmer in the hands of the foreigner, who may or may not buy Paris green, as he pleases. That is the situation.

Mr. PAYNE. Where do the Canadians get the materials from which they manufacture?

Mr. SOMERS. I think in Canada.

Mr. PAYNE. Where do they get blue vitriol?

Mr. SOMERS. They get it from the Northwest and export it.

Mr. PAYNE. Do they not have to send to the United States to get their materials?

PARAGRAPH 56-PAINTS, COLORS, ETC.

Mr. SOMERS. They buy it cheaper than we can. They pay no duty on it there. They buy it at a price less than ours.

Mr. PAYNE. Is this not heresy, to say that one manufacturer sells cheaper aboad than at home?

Mr. SOMERS. I do not know whether it is heresy or not. If it is, I don't care. I am willing to stand on my position, however I may be

regarded.

Mr. KITCHIN. If Canada did not have this 10 per cent tariff against Paris green, you could ship to Canada and sell there?

Mr. SOMERS. Yes, sir; we could go into Canada and give them a run for the trade, particularly if they had free access to our markets. We will be satisfied to have them come to meet us on the same basis. All we want is to meet them on the same platform. I do not believe that you ought to build a higher platform for one and a lower platform for the other. We want an equal chance. This is a serious matter, and I do not know anything in the whole business that we are more concerned with than we are with the duty on Paris green.

We submit, in conclusion, that you ought to at least give us the same consideration that Canada gives to her manufacturers, and that is at least 10 per cent on Paris green.

I want to thank the committee for indulging me and allowing me to take up so much time.

Mr. PAYNE. The only thing that surprises me is that you did not appear here four years ago and argue as to the fact that as we were putting 15 per cent on Paris green that we ought to put 15 per cent on all colors, because you seem to make that same argument in regard to coal-tar dyes.

Mr. SOMERS. I appeared before the committee four years ago.

Mr. PAYNE. But you did not make any such suggestion as that. Mr. SOMERS. If you will remember, Mr. Payne, I was one of the first witnesses called on-the first. I suggested that I did not know what was in the minds of the committee, and you very frankly said that you were in the same attitude, that the committee scarcely knew what they expected to do with the tariff. I had nothing upon which to base my argument, as I have here. I argued generally before the committee before. I have before me now House bill No. 20182, and I had an idea of the points in the minds of the majority of this committee, and that is why I addressed myself specifically to those items. I thank you very much.

The brief above referred to by Mr. Somers is as follows:

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: Assuming that your committee is considering changes in the tariff along the lines proposed in H. R. 20182, we beg to present herewith a few important facts showing why the changes suggested in certain paragraphs would discriminate against the color manufacturers of the United States.

Section 56 of the present tariff imposes a 30 per cent ad valorem duty on all paints, colors, pigments, etc., n. o. s. Paragraph 68 of H. R. 20182 reduces the duty from 30 per cent to 20 per cent ad valorem. The colors included in section 56 for the most part contain considerable quantities of coal-tar dyes, at present dutiable in paragraph 15 of the law of 1909 at 30 per cent ad valorem. Paragraph 21 of H. R. 20182 proposes a reduction of 5 per cent, making the duty 25 per cent ad valorem.

There is also used in the manufacture of the colors above referred to considerable quantities of alizarin, paranitraniline, and alpha naphthylamine, all of which are at present free of duty. Under paragraph 6 of É. R. 20182 it is proposed to put a 10 per

PARAGRAPH 56-PAINTS, COLORS, ETC.

cent ad valorem duty on alizarin, and under paragraph 24 of H. R. 20182 it is proposed to put a 10 per cent duty on paranitranilinė, alpha naphthylamine, and other similar anilines, many of which are used in the manufacture of dry colors, but which are now on the free list. The situation presented to us is that it is proposed to reduce the duty on goods we manufacture in competition with Europe from 30 per cent to 20 per cent, while imposing a duty of 10 per cent on many of the anilines that we use in the manufacture of these colors, and which are now free; also by reducing the duty on other coal-tar dyes from 30 per cent to 25 per cent only.

This is a clear discrimination against the manufacturer of dry colors in the United States. If it is desired to reduce the duty on dry colors from 30 per cent to 20 per cent the duty on coal-tar dyes should be reduced from 30 per cent to 20 per cent, and alizarin, paranitraniline, and alpha naphthylamine should remain free of duty, inasmuch as they are not manufactured in this country, and must be imported from abroad. This seems to us a conclusive argument.

VERMILION RED CONTAINING QUICKSILVER.

Under the law of 1909 paragraph 52 imposes a duty of 10 cents per pound on this material. In H. R. 20182, paragraph 64, it is proposed to reduce this duty to 15 per cent ad valorem, or not less than 7 cents per pound. We ask that when considering this reduction the duty on quicksilver be taken into account, as unless the duty is reduced on quicksilver in proportion to the reduction made in the duty on vermilion red containing quicksilver, we will be entirely excluded from our home market.

We pointed out in a former brief, submitted to the Committee on Finance of the United States Senate on March 19, 1912, that during the year 1911 about 90,000 pounds of vermilion red, carrying a duty of 10 cents per pound, were imported. This is a very large percentage of the total amount consumed in the United States, and any further reduction in the duty that did not carry with it a corresponding reduction in the metal from which the vermilion is made would simply turn the business entirely over into the hands of the foreigners. We submit this for your earnest consideration.

PARIS GREEN.

Under paragraph 57 of the law of 1909, Paris green is dutiable at 15 per cent ad valorem. H. R. 20182 proposes to put the article on the free list. We pointed out in a brief submitted to the Senate Finance Committee in March, 1912, that there was the keenest competition among the manufacturers in this country on this article. We also called attention to the fact that we were discriminated against by Canada, who imposed a duty of 10 per cent on American Paris green, thus keeping us out of that market. If you put Paris green on the free list, you will invite the Canadian manufacturer to sell his goods in this country at a price lower than that at which the American manufacturer can compete, and his Government protects him in the exclusive enjoyment of the home trade.

This does not seem a reasonable attitude for your committee to take toward the manufacturers in this country. In the discussion before the Senate Finance Committee in March, 1912, it developed that there was a feeling that the manufacturers were asking an exorbitant price from the farmers for Paris green. The fact is that Paris green has been selling for approximately 13 to 15 cents per pound for several years. We know that in some cases retailers have charged 30 cents and as high as 50 cents per pound for Paris green to farmers when they needed it, but the manufacturers never got above 15 cents, so if an exorbitant price has been exacted from the consumer, it has been exacted by the small dealer, and not by the manufacturer: and if the removal of the 10 per cent duty now on Paris green would flood the market with imported green, it is fair to assume that the dealer would ask just as high a profit at a time when the farmer actually needed the green, and, consequently, the latter would enjoy no benefit of this apparent reduction in the first cost. Fifteen per cent is approximately our profit. If you take it away, you wipe out our business. We believe that we are entitled to at least as much consideration as is the Canadian manufacturer, and that at least a 10 per cent duty should be maintained.

The raw materials used in manufacturing Paris green are blue vitriol, arsenic, soda ash, and acetic acid. It is out of the question to think of importing acetic acid, because of the large content of water, so that putting it on the free list means nothing. Soda ash, which costs about five-eighths cent per pound, is made dutiable under paragraph 21 of H. R. 20182 at one-eighth cent per pound. Arsenic is free and blue vitriol is also made free. The latter article is largely exported, and the only

PARAGRAPH 56-PAINTS, COLORS, ETC.

importations that we have been able to trace in recent years have been importations of American-made blue vitriol sent abroad and shipped back to this country, so that while it appears that the material costs us no more than it costs the foreigner, it is a fact that the difference in labor is more than the 10 per cent asked for by the manufacturers. This is something that we do not care to discuss exhaustively, as you have information on the subject that is perhaps more conclusive than any we could bring to you. We ask, therefore, for at least 10 per cent on Paris green.

Permit us to respectfully ask whether it be a good policy to produce such a condition that the farmers must wait upon the pleasure of English and German manufacturers for 7,000,000 pounds of their most important insecticide? When the "bugs" begin to appear the farmer sends out urgent appeals for quick deliveries of Paris We green. buy our chemicals in the autumn, make our green in the winter and wait until early summer to sell it. Sometimes the "bugs" don't appear to any extent and we have to carry over a large stock of green to the next season.

If the farmer has to rely upon foreign green, a shortage of it would often send prices up to fabulous figures.

The demand for green from the farmers depends entirely on the number of "bugs" which appear during the season. This makes the manufacture of green a speculative business and even under present conditions, we makers are apathetic in regard to producing it.

Again, elaborate Federal and State laws exist to-day as to the proper method of making the green; the preventing of its being in any way adulterated; the restricting of the amount of soluble arsenic which it may contain; the way in which this poison may be distributed; the kind of package it shall be put in, with its net weight of contents. The law makes us state on every label that the amount of arsenious oxide combined with copper is not less than 50 per cent. We have to pay for a license in most States before we can offer these goods for sale. The retailer in these States can be arrested and fined if the green he sells does not conform to all the laws of his State. The law on these subjects varies in the various States. Let us suppose that a steamer brings in 50 tons of green and it is found that it doesn't exactly conform in composition to the Federal laws and also that the farmers are crying for green. Would the Government reject this lot and let the "bugs" eat up the crops, or would they let the farmer have any kind of green that Europe might please to send us? Then would the various States permit the sale of a green that did not comply with their State laws?

BLUES.

Blues, such as Berlin, Prussian, Chinese, etc., are now dutiable under paragraph 43 of the law of 1909 at 8 cents per pound. H. R. 20182 proposes, in paragraph 57, to make the duty 20 per cent, or not less than 3 cents per pound, or a reduction of about 62 per cent in the duty. The Ways and Means Committee report No. 325 shows that 190,000 pounds of these blues were imported in 1911, having an average value of 18 cents per pound. The proposed duty of 20 per cent would therefore be 3 cents per pound. This brings the duty paid cost to 22 cents per pound, which is below the cost of making these blues in this country. The chief ingredient of these blues is prussiate of potash, now dutiable at 4 cents per pound, which it is proposed to reduce to 1 cents. This is an apparent reduction in our favor of 24 cents per pound. But it must be borne in mind that it takes 120 pounds of prussiate of potash to make 100 pounds of Prussian blue. On this basis, the reduction amounts to only 2 cents per pound.

There is only a very small amount of prussiate made in this country, approximately 75 per cent of it being imported from Europe. The normal average price which we have paid for prussiate for the past few years has been about 13 cents per pound. The powerful chemical trust in Europe has now advanced the price to 164 cents per pound, and we are wholly at their mercy. There are but few agencies in this country from whom we can buy the foreign-made prussiate, and when we make a contract we do not know whether we are to receive German, Belgian, or English prussiate. On account of foreign competition, even at the duty of 4 cents per pound, the largest manufacturer in this country has been forced recently to go out of business. A reduction in the duty on blue means an increased importation, with a very much reduced revenue to the Government, whereas it is clear to us that the present importation of blue, paying a duty of 8 cents per pound, nets the Government a much higher revenue than would possibly be expected under the proposed order of things. At the same time it does not give the American manufacturer control of the home market but keeps him in sharp competition with his competitors abroad.

PARAGRAPH 56-PAINTS, COLORS, ETC.

We therefore ask for such consideration as an American manufacturer is entitled to. We do not ask for protection, nor for a tariff that will prohibit competition. We invite competition, but would ask to be permitted to enjoy a share of the trade on the same platform with outsiders.

We do not believe that we are getting this consideration under H. R. 20182, but, on the contrary, are being seriously discriminated against. We do not oppose the reduction in other colors that we manufacture, because corresponding reductions seem to have been made in the pigments used in their manufacture, but in the particular cases that we have pointed out it seems to us that the committee has not been fully informed of the effect of the proposed changes.

CONCLUSION.

We believe that the maximum revenue will be produced by equalizing the duty between coal-tar dyes, etc., and the dry colors made from the same.

We also believe, with respect to Paris green, that placing the article on the free list will wipe out whatever revenue the Government now enjoys, and there is Paris green imported even at the present duty of 15 per cent.

With respect to Berlin, Chinese, and Prussian blue we believe that the duty on these articles should not be lower than 8 cents per pound, if the revenue-producing principle is to be maintained.

The principle of tariff reduction is not lost by the adoption of our suggestion, as there are many reductions in other items that we manufacture against which we make no protest, because of the reasons pointed out.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

JANUARY 6, 1913.

ARTHUR S. SOMERS, Representing Dry Color Manufacturers.

BRIEF OF THE ROESSLER & HASSLACHER CHEMICAL CO., ON CERAMIC COLORS.

NEW YORK, January 3, 1913.

Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD,

Chairman Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

SIR: We respectfully petition that the present rate of duty on ceramic colors, 30 per cent ad valorem, be retained and remain unchanged.

prepa

For the reason that these colors are metallic and vitrifiable rations and substances, in powder and liquid form, composed of metal oxides with fluxes, to assist their melting.

The ceramic colors are also used by amateur artists for china and glass painting, and put up in vials and tubes separately or mixed with oil. The rich color effects being principally obtained by the use of precious metals, which limit their consumption to beautifying china and glassware, etc., making them more a luxury than a necessity of life.

CLASSIFICATION UNDER PAYNE-ALDRICH TARIFF ACT, 1909.

SCHEDULE A.-Chemicals, oils, and paints.

Paragraph 56 Ceramic colors proper, 30 per cent ad valorem. Imports, 1910-11, $16,334; 1911-12, $12,323. Artists' paints or colors (in bottles, packages, tubes, pans, cakes, etc.), 30 per cent ad valorem. Imports, 1910-11, $80,130; 1911-12, $106,940 (75 per cent ceramic colors and 25 per cent water-color paints).