PARAGRAPH 90-FULLER'S EARTH.

thirds of all the fuller's earth that is brought to this country, petition your committee to reduce the duties on fuller's earth to the following level:

Unwrought or unmanufactured to 75 cents, or not to exceed $1 per ton, 2,240 pounds.
Wrought or manufactured to $1.50, or not to exceed $2 per ton, 2,240 pounds.
At present fuller's earth is classified under paragraph 90 as follows:
"Unwrought or unmanufactured, $1.50 per ton, 2,240 pounds.

"Wrought or manufactured, $3 per ton, 2,240 pounds."

The specific duty now assessed would be equivalent on the wrought article, which constitutes about fifteen-sixteenths of the total importations, to from 36 per cent to 50 per cent ad valorem, according to quality.

The article is principally employed in refining cottonseed oil for edible purposes and for compound lard.

The total importation of fuller's earth amounts to about 15,000 tons per annum; therefore the loss in revenue would be insignificant. On the other hand, the reduction in price consequent to the reduction in duty would help the sale of it and would also slightly reduce the cost of edible cottonseed oil and compound lard, which are consumed altogether by the poorer classes in this country.

The saving to the individual if the duty on fuller's earth should be reduced may be insignificant, but if 100 or 1,000 or more articles should be reduced in duty in a similar manner the saving to the individual will become an important item. In other words, we believe that the reduction in duty asked for by us is in line with the policy to revise the tariff downward.

The production of domestic fuller's earth is more than twice as great as the importation of the foreign article, but the domestic article is principally used for refining oils that are not used for edible purposes; therefore there is practically no competition between the domestic and foreign article, as they are different in character. Besides, the domestic article sells for at least $3 to $4 per ton less than the imported, so that the reduction in the duty asked for by us on the imported would not affect the sale of the domestic product.

Respectfully,

L. A. SALOMON & BRO.
HAMMILL & GILLESPIE.

COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING KIESELGUHR.

THE STANDARD DIATOMITE Co.,
Eustis, Fla., January 8, 1913.

S. M. SPARKMAN, Esq.,
Chairman Committee on Rivers and Harbors,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SIR: In reply to your esteemed favor of the 5th instant, for which please accept my thanks, I beg to say the quantity of kieselguhr (diatomite) imported into this country is about 3,000 tons per annum. I am of the opinion, however, that considerably more than that amount arrives under the name of dried or burnt clay, or even crude clay.

The consumption of kieselguhr in New York alone is over 3,000 tons per year, and would be much greater if the foreign producers could supply the quantity required. Trusting I may have a favorable report from the Ways and Means Committee, and again thanking you for the interest you have taken in the matter and the courtesy shown, I remain,

Yours, very truly,

The Hon. S. M. SPARKMAN,

CHAS. R. GOSTLING.

THE STANDARD DIATOMITE Co.,
Eustis, Fla., January 16, 1913.

Chairman Committee on Rivers and Harbors,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SIR: In reply to your favor of the 13th instant, the average price for the highest grade of kieselguhr (diatomite) in New York City is about $80 per ton. There are many inferior grades sold for prices ranging between $30 and $40 per ton. Eighty dollars per ton seems a high price, but when one considers that it requires the handling of about 20 tons of raw material to produce one ton of kieselguhr it is explained.

Yours, very truly.

CHAS. R. GOSTLING.

PARAGRAPH 91.

PARAGRAPH 91-MICA.

Mica, unmanufactured, or rough trimmed only, five cents per pound and twenty per centum ad valorem; mica, cut or trimmed, mica plates or built-up mica, and all manufactures of mica or of which mica is the component material of chief value, ten cents per pound and twenty per centum ad valorem.

MICA.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES P. STORRS, OF OWEGO, N. Y.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Charles P. Storrs. We have assigned to you 10 minutes.

Mr. STORRS. Gentlemen, I want to ask a reduction in paragraph 91, relative to mica. The raw material is used by about 10 concerns whom I represent, who use it as a basis for their manufacturing products. Some of these concerns are importers and dealers, but a majority of them are manufacturers.

The reason for asking a reduction on the raw material is that the quality of the mica imported is different from anything produced in this country. The amber mica of Canada and the India mica is softer and of better cleavage and suitable for use in electrical insulation, in making mica lamp chimneys, and in various other lines. The American mica can not be used to produce as satisfactory a product for these purposes.

For that reason we feel that the present ad valorem rate, which amounts to about 35 or 37 per cent on the raw material, is an undue burden on this raw material. We ask to have a reduction made on the raw material, making the duty 3 cents a pound and 10 per cent ad valorem.

We ask further to have that apply to both uncut and cut mica, the cut mica that is imported being only a small percentage-about 15 per cent of the total importation. From that difference in the present act there is a great deal of confusion and a great deal of argument between importers and the customs authorities as to the proper classification.

Our proposed amendment would simplify that and would introduce all mica under the same classification. Our proposed duty would amount, figured on an ad valorem basis, to 19.4 per cent on uncut and 15 per cent on cut mica.

The CHAIRMAN. You propose to change the classification?

Mr. STORRS. Simply introduce the unmanufactured mica under the same classification. I am making the point of putting the cut mica under a lower classification. It makes little difference in the revenue, from the fact that comparatively little cut mica is imported.

The CHAIRMAN. The proposition is to leave the cut mica as it is? Mr. STORRS. No; leave the uncut mica.

The CHAIRMAN. As it is?

Mr. STORRS. Yes; the cut mica grouped together and a lower duty on both of them.

Mr. JAMES. Does your statement include ground mica?

Mr. STORRS. That would probably be considered as manufactured mica. We do not ask to change the last part of the paragraph that applies to manufactures. If the ground mica were considered a manu

PARAGRAPH 91-MICA.

factured mica it would come under the present rates-10 cents a pound and 20 per cent ad valorem.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand you to say that most of the importations come under the manufactured mica.

Mr. STORRS. No; I have not said anything about the manufactured mica. The cut mica is not considered as manufactured mica. It is considered as raw material; but it now takes the same rate as manufactured mica, and that is one of the points troublesome to us, because the difference between the tariff on the raw material now and the manufactured product is so slight that German manufacturers and English manufacturers of mica board are now in a better position here than the domestic manufacturers.

Mr. JAMES. What is mica used in the manufacture of?

Mr. STORRS. Making insulating material, which is largely used in electrical machinery. There is no other material that can take the place of it in many cases. It is molded into various forms for electri

cal insulation of all kinds, and those are built up of scales or films of mica, fastened together with an adhesive material, which is then pressed, molded, and is used in various electrical machinery.

Mr. JAMES. Whom do you represent?

Mr. STORRS. My own concern manufactures lamp chimneys of mica, and our friends are representatives of the electrical insulating manufacturers and the importers. The names are signed to the brief which we submit.

Mr. JAMES. What is the tariff that applies to that in which you are interested?

Mr. STORRS. That comes under the 10 cent a pound rate and 20 per cent ad valorem.

Mr. JAMES. On the finished product?

Mr. STORRS. Yes.

Mr. JAMES. You want that reduced?

Mr. STORRS. We do not ask to have that reduced.

Mr. JAMES. You would allow that to remain?

Mr. STORRS. Yes, sir.

Mr. JAMES. But you want this raw material that goes into the manufacture reduced?

Mr. STORRS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The figures that you submit this morning do not differentiate between the raw mica and the finished product. How much importation is there of the finished product?

Mr. STORRS. I have not any figures on that; I do not think there are any figures. There is very little of it introduced. I am not familiar with that. It comes under the electrical end of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Then it would be very proper to make some reduction on the finished product, if we give you this reduction on the raw material?

Mr. STORRS. Personally, speaking for my own company, they would not object to that, but some of our friends would feel the competition of the English and German importers.

Mr. JAMES. Would they be willing to have competition?

Mr. STORRS. They have competition. There is absolutely free competition in all this line in this country. There is quite bitter

PARAGRAPH 91-MICA.

competition in our line and in the electrical insulating line. The local competition will take care of that end of it.

Mr. JAMES. So far as you are concerned you are willing to have the tariff reduced on the finished product if a reduction is made on the raw material?

Mr. STORRS. Not speaking for our friends.

Mr. JAMES. But speaking for yourself?

Mr. STORRS. Yes.

Mr. DALZELL. How many friends do you include in that?

Mr. STORRS. About 10 different concerns.

Mr. DALZELL. You speak for 1 in favor of reduction and for 10 against it.

Mr. STORRS. I am not advocating reduction on the finished product. Mr. DALZELL. I say you are against a reduction on the finished product, and the 10 others are in favor of it.

Mr. STORRS. No; they are against it.

Mr. DALZELL. You are against it also?
Mr. STORRS. Yes.

Mr. DALZELL. Then you are all of one mind.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood the witness to say as far as he personally was concerned he had no objection to a reduction on the finished product, but he could not speak for his friends. Is that correct?

Mr. DALZELL. I understand; 1 out of 11.

Mr. STORRS. If the committee will allow me, I would like to give some of my time to Mr. Jefferson, who can speak in regard to that. Mr. HILL. Do you import any mica ground?

Mr. STORRS. No, sir.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, while this matter is under consideration, and for your information in the consideration of the bill, I want to call attention to and ask the gentleman's opinion about a matter. There is somewhat of a misconstruction of this paragraph. After this law was passed in 1909 ground mica made from scrap, worthless in the dump heap, was made dutiable as a manufacture of mica, just the same as the finished piece of mica for a stove, automobile, or anything of that kind. Just the ordinary waste scrap, which was ground up and shipped in here as a manufacture of mica. The Treasury Department made a ruling on it, and ruled adversely against that, and admitted it at a lower rate, as in my judgment it should be.

But I think the language should be now corrected in some way, so that it should not be construed at least with the highest grade of an article made from sheets of mica.

Mr. PAYNE. There does not seem to be any trouble about that. Ground is imported at 20 per cent.

Mr. HILL. On the manufactured article?

Mr. PAYNE. No.

Mr. HILL. That is the way it comes in

Mr. PAYNE. The ground is imported at 20 per cent.

Mr. HILL (continuing). Because the Treasury Department have ruled arbitrarily upon the manufactured article.

The CHAIRMAN. Your suggestion is

PARAGRAPH 91-MICA.

Mr. HILL (interposing). I have not any suggestion to offer. I simply desire to call it to the attention of the committee, and for that reason I asked the gentleman if he imported any ground mica.

Mr. STORRS. NO; but I understand that ground mica is imported under the general division of scrap materials.

Mr. HILL. No; that is not right. Some consideration should be given to placing it somewhere, so that there would be no doubt about it.

It

Mr. STORRS. Very likely that would be held to come under the language proposed by us, "Mica, unmanufactured, cut or uncut." certainly is unmanufactured.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you agree with what Mr. Hill has said about ground mica being the same as raw material, that there is no real advance in manufacture?

Mr. STORRS. That is a legal point about which I am not prepared to argue.

The CHAIRMAN. As a business point, are you familiar with ground mica ?

Mr. STORRS. We do not have anything to do with it. Mr. Chairman, could I give the balance of my time to Mr. Jefferson?

The CHAIRMAN. You have not any time left.

Mr. PETERS. One moment. What would you think of changing the duty from a compound duty to an ad valorem duty?

Mr. STORRS. I am afraid serious objection to that would be raised by the miners of American mica, because they need the specific duty. They feel that they do, in order to keep the market upon the American

mica.

Mr. PETERS. If the duties were changed from a compound duty, do you think it should rather be a specific duty?

Mr. STORRS. I think the specific duty would be more equitable. Mr. PETERS. I notice the importations have decreased under the Payne bill from $768,000 in 1910 to $540,000 in 1912. Could you enlighten us as to any reason for that?

Mr. STORRS. I do not understand the figures that way. The figures we have for the last three years show that importations have increased over 1908 and 1909. Exhibit A in our brief is taken from House Document 1504, and from later information furnished by the Department of Commerce and Labor. If these figures are correct, they show a marked increase in importations since the reduction in the Payne bill.

Mr. PETERS. I am referring to table 26 of our handbook.

Mr. STORRS. May I not submit a memorandum to you on that point later rather than take up the time of the committee?

The CHAIRMAN. We would be glad to have you do that, and if you will submit it before 5 o'clock to-morrow night it will go into the hearings. Of course, it can go in at any time before the general hearings are closed, but it would be published with some other schedules and probably be lost if you do not get it in before 5 o'clock to-morrow night.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. W. E. Wells.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Burgess and I are both here for the same purpose, representing the same people. Would it be agreeable to you to have him present his argument first?