THE GIFT OF 
 
 t^^.l^-^:!i.-L ___ _30/y/«>^ 
 
pornell University Library 
 
 HW^«6'<A25 1890 
 
 Revision of the tariff. 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 032 519 351 
 
 Date Due 
 
 ms: 
 
 -^a*««W?2^ 
 
 'MJHm 
 
 iijts'S'jit^i ^(.;i,^,-i 
 
 -i-fc. 
 
 Svsafesm — ^§^^ 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924032519351 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 HEARINGS 
 
 EEFOEB THE 
 
 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 
 
 - ■ - lill; - Fli'TT-PIEST CONGRESS, FIEST SESSIOliJ", 
 
 1889-'90. 
 
 WASHINGTON : 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
 1890. 
 

 (COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS. 
 
 FIFTY-PIEST CONGRESS. 
 
 WIXLIAM Mckinley, jr., chairman. 
 
 JTJLIUS C. BtTEEOWS. JOHN H. GEAR. 
 
 THOMAS M. BAYNE. "JOHN G. CARLISLE. 
 
 NELSON DINGLEY, Jn. EOGEE Q. MILLS. 
 
 JOSEPH MoKENNA. BENTON McMILLIN. 
 
 SEEENO E. PAYNE. C. E. BEECKINEIDGE. 
 
 .EOBEET M. La FOLLBTTE. EOSWELL P. ELOWEE. 
 
 John M. Caisson, ClerTe. 
 
51ST Congress, ) 
 Isi Session, i 
 
 REVISION OF TARIFF. 
 
 HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS. 
 
 OBES, METALS, AND COAL. 
 
 lEON ORES. 
 
 December 26, 1889. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means met at 10 o'clock a. m., Mr. McKiuley, Cliair- 
 man, presiding. 
 
 The Chairman. To-day and to-morrow have been set for a hearing on the subjects 
 of metals, ores, and coal ; and in order that we may proceed as systematically as possi- 
 ble, if any gentlemen present desires to speak in favor of free iron ore or a reduction 
 in the rates of duty on the same, we will be glad to hear from him at this point ; if 
 not, we will hear from gentlemen who favor the duty upon iron ores. 
 
 STATEMENT OP GEORGE H. ELY. 
 
 Mr. George H. Ely, of Cleveland, Ohio, president of the Western Iron Ore Asso- 
 ciation, addressed the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee : You have heard me give my rela 
 tlons to this subject. I come here representiug th'" Western Iron Ore Association, 
 whose headquarters are at Cleveland, Ohio. That association takes in almost all of 
 the production of the four Lake Superior districts of iron ore. It is an association 
 that was organized about eight years ago. Its objects, as the articles of association 
 state, are limited purely to the reduction of the cost of transportation on the lakes, 
 and objects of general and common good. It is precluded by its articles of associa- 
 tion from ever doing anything to regulate the production of iron ore or the price of 
 iron ore. 
 
 Now, the history of this iron-ore duty is familiar to almost all of you, and I will 
 merely advert to it. Previous to 1879 there were no importations of iron ore into the 
 United States to speak of. Iron ore was not mentioned previous to that time in the 
 tariff schedules. But iron ore did come in. It came in under the clause of all mineral 
 and bituminonssubstances,not otherwise provided for, 20 -per cent, ad valorem. Under 
 that clause the importation came in up to the enactment of the tariff law of March 
 lis, 1883. While the tariff commission of 1882 was doiug its work — at their instance 
 and request that the manufacturers of iron and steel in the United States should 
 assemble and agree amoug themselves as to the proper rates to be put on the metal 
 schedules — a convention was called at Cressou, Pa., of all the manufacturers in the 
 United States. This was in September, 1882. The iron-ore people of the country were 
 invited to send suitable representatives to that convention. I went from our State 
 with many others. I raised the question on the floor of the convention as to our re- 
 lationship to the manufacturing interests of the United States. I stated : " We have 
 no place here in this convention if it is not entirely proper and consistent with your 
 objects. We are producers of your materials as manufacturers, and I would like to 
 have this question settled. We will retire if we do not belong here." 
 
 The convention unanimously stated we did belong there, becanse the production 
 of iron and steel in the United States began with the ore in the mountain, and the 
 producers of iron ore were just as much entitled to recognition in the tariff schedules 
 as the manufacturers were. On that basis wo remained and participated in the 
 convention. I will not delay you with the details, but the result was a recom- 
 mendation to the tariff commission and to Congress that the duty on iron ores bo 
 
I REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 fixed at |1 per ton. That was done by a large majority of the vote of that con- 
 vention. Subsequently, as a member of the committee, and representing the iron-ore 
 section in that committee, I myself made the recommendation that the duty on iron 
 ore be reduced from $1 to 85 cents a ton, provided the convention would be unanimous 
 in that recommendation. That was unanimously voted for by the committee and 
 also by the convention ; and 85 cents a ton was recommended to the tariff commis- 
 sion and to Congress as the proper basis for iron ore in that schedule. Now, that is 
 that history. The rate as put in the existing tariff was 75 cents, which was a reduc- 
 tion from the 85 cents a ton and on which we had a unanimous vote. That reduction 
 was made to 75 cents on my own suggestion. 
 
 The Chairman. You mean the reduction to 75 cents was made on your suggestion ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. Yes, sir. We felt then that the iron ore people were being recognized to 
 a greater extent than ever before. It was the unanimous sentiment that it should be 
 75 cents. Now, what has been the elect of this duty since it went into operation in 
 July, 1884? It has been beneficent; it has been satisfactory; it has promoted the 
 iron and steel interests of the United State* to a remarkable degree, and the impor- 
 tation of iron ore— I have that right here, to which I will refer— the importation of 
 iron ore down to this time was in 1879, 284,000 tons— I will not give the odd tons— in 
 1880, 493,000 tons ; in 1881, 782,000 tons ; in 1882. 589,000 tons ; in 1883, 490,000 tons ; 
 in 1884, 487,000 tons ; in 1885— here comes in operation the interesting tariff— 390,000 
 tons; in 1886, 1,039,000 tons; in 1887, 1,094,000 tons; last year— 1888— 587,000 tons, 
 and for the last ten months of 1889 down to the first of November, 716,000 tons. 
 
 Now, the importation of iron ore of course depends on the conditions of the trade in 
 Europe. The demands for Spanish ores last year were diminished, as you vi^ill notice 
 that last year — in 1888 — there were two causes aftecting that trade — the increased 
 activity of the conditions of trade and the high ocean freights, which, of course, are 
 important factors in all these things. 
 
 Now, the trouble about the iron ore producer is this: The iron ore producers of 
 Lake Superior and all over the country have their capital in a production, say of a 
 Lake Superior mine, a year or a year and a half ahead (I mean current mining — their 
 capital comes in five or six years earlier) which goes to building railroads and pay- 
 ing taxes, etc. In the Lake Superior iron ore production the money for it goes into 
 the mines and into the railroad transportation to get ready for the summer trans- 
 poration on the lakes, and the ore is not realized on for say from a year to a year 
 and a half. Consequently they have to have a large amount of capital, and they 
 take a great deal of risk on the conditions on the other side and the conditions of 
 the trade as they may be here. 
 
 But what has been the history of this iron ore production in the Lake Superior dis- 
 trict ? Now there are four districts comprising the Lake Superior iron ore production. 
 They are the Marquette, the Menominee, the Gogebic range, and the Minnesota 
 range. The Gogebic range, which was not before opened and had sent out only 
 about a thousand tons in 1884, has since that time sent out to the markets of this 
 country 1,424,000 tons of ore. Four different railroads were built into that wilder- 
 ness, these mines were opened, and 1,400,000 tons have been sent out into the trade 
 of the country from 1884 to this time. Just about the same thing has happened in 
 the Minnesota district. The first shipments were made in the autumn of 1884. The 
 railroad was commenced to be built in the preceding June of 1883, and in fourteen 
 months the railroad went into that unbroken wilderness, and, with all their sup- 
 plies to be gathered in there, they shipped in 1884 about 60,000 tons. I have not in 
 my mind the exact figures, but the production that went out from the Minnesota 
 district this year must be about 800,000 tons. 
 
 Mr. Flowek. Allow me to ask you a question right there. How much of this is 
 Bessemer and magnetic ore in the Menominee and Minnesota range ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. The Menominee range does not produce — I will have to qualify that as 
 the Chapin, which is one of the largest mines, produces Bessemer ore, and in the be- 
 ginning of the Bessemer production it was limited largely to the Marquette district. 
 The Minnesota ore is about the best ore there is in the world, according to my judg- 
 ment, and laying aside my modesty I will state that I have been in this business 
 since Lake Superior was first opened, and have been selling these ores for the last 
 thirty years. I think I understand the quality of the ores in these different districts 
 and their comparative standing with ores of other parts of the world. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I want you to answer the question I ask. In 1884 or 1883 this tariff 
 duty of 75 cents a ton was made instead of having it an ad valorem duty. Now at 
 that time was any considerable amount of Bessemer ore found in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. I do not say considerable Bessemer ore 
 
 Mr. Flower. The Gogebic range and the Minnesota range have been discovered 
 since that time. There was not near enough at that time for the steel rails we pro- 
 duced. 
 
 Mr. Ely. No, sir. There is a large variety and quality in both of these districts. 
 T'hereis some Minnesota ore thpjt.is ,not up to the standard, of low phosphorns, and 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 3 
 
 some Gogebic ores that are not, and then there are some that are strictly Bessemer 
 ores. The opening of these two districts, it may he observed, afforded a wonderful 
 help and stimulus to the iron and steel trade of the United States. I have read you 
 the importations. The average importation of foreign ore and the average realized 
 on the foreign ores for the support of the iron and steel industries of the United States 
 has not been one-twentieth, and we have produced four-fifths of the iron and steel 
 out of Americah home production of ores, and of Bessemer ores, too. Now, say the 
 total production of iron ore in 1886 was 10,000,000 tons. I do not mean to include 
 the foreign importations. In 1887 it was 11,300,000; in 1888 it was 12,062,000. I 
 estimate that inasmuch as the production of these four districts about which I am 
 talliing has increased 2,000,000 this year that the estimated production of 1889 of iron 
 will be 14,500,008 to 15,000,000 tons. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You speak of the calendar year, and not the fiscal year? 
 
 Mr. Ely. Yes, sir; I mean the calendar year. Now let me advert to some of the 
 arguments 
 
 Mr. Gear. Importations of foreign ore are for the fiscal year. 
 
 Mr. Ely. There is some slight discrepancy in that. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It would make no diiference in a series of years. 
 
 Mr. Ely. -No, sir ; now it raises the great question of whether it should be the pol- 
 icy of the United States Government to employ American labor and American capital 
 in building up and developing her own country or some other country. I am deci- 
 dedly in favor of building up our own country. 
 
 I am speaking, recollect, of the Lake Superior productiou, and Lake Superior is 
 only a portion of the iron production, of course, of the United States. Seven mill- 
 ion tons came out of Lake Superior in this year of 1889 — no less than 7,000,000 tons. 
 It did not all go on the lakes ; 200,000 tons were carried up from the mines into Illi- 
 nois — 7,000,000 tons is just about half the total ore production of the United States. 
 But more Bessemer ore comes out of the Lake Superior districts probably — there are 
 others that are not Bessemer — than the other sections of the country. The great 
 supply of Bessemer ore for home production may bo said to come from Lake Superior. 
 
 Now this whole question of the duty on iron ore, or otherwise a reasonable duty 
 — a low duty — is a question of wages. Now I can give you the comparative wages 
 paid for mining the Lake Superior ore and the wages paid in Spain. I will read here 
 a portion of an article in the North American Review of April, 1888. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. By whom is that article? 
 
 Mr. Ely. This article I contributed. But I was not going to raise that question. 
 This is something I am willing to stand upon. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That is something that will not detract from the merits of the 
 article. 
 
 Mr. Ely. I hope the committee will grant me that favor. Mr. Jeremiah Head 
 read a paper before the Mechanical Science section of the British Association on the 
 iron mines of Bilbao, Spain, and this comes from that : 
 
 "The hours of labor per week were: At Bilbao, 72; in Cleveland District, England, 
 46; on Lake Superior, 55 to 60. Wages per day for drillers and miners at Bilbao, 60 
 to 72 cents ; Cleveland, drillers and miners, |1.21 ; Lake Superior, drillers and miners, 
 $2.25 to $2.75. Wages per day for common laborers at Bilbao, 36 to 60 cents ; Cleve- 
 land, common laborers, 72 to 84 cents; Lake Superior, $1.60 to $2. Wages per day 
 for boys or women, Bilbao, 24 to 36 cents ; Cleveland, boys or women, 24 to 60 cents ; 
 Lake Superior, $1 to $1.25. Wages of miners, then, on Lake Superior are more than 
 three and three-quarter times what they are at Bilbao, and more than double those 
 paid in the Cleveland District." 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. Have you any statistics by which you can inform us what is the 
 relative production with the machinery in use at Bilbao and that at Lake Superior? 
 
 Mr Ely. Perhaps I have got it right here : " The labor cost to a ton of ore on Lake 
 Superior would be ten times what it is at Bilbao, and more than four times what it is 
 at Cleveland. The average metallic content of Lake Superior ore is a little more 
 than Bilbao, but the labor cost of a ton of iron ore in the Lake Superior region would 
 be at least eight or nine times that at Bilbao. Under these labor conditions and the 
 present rate of duty, importations are likely to continue to increase. In that event 
 wages in American ore production must decline, or a large number of American mines 
 will be closed and the men pushed out to crowd laborers in other industries. This 
 process began three years ago in New Jersey. Prof. George H. Cook, in his annual 
 reportfor 1884, said : 'The low price of iron ore and the light demand for ore at almost 
 any figure have caused a large shrinkage in the production and closed many of our 
 mines. The large and increasing importations of iron ore from Spain and Africa also 
 operate against our mines.' " 
 
 I can not give you the population that is supported. It is estimated that in th ■ 
 mines of these four Lake Superior districts and in the railroads (and there are as 
 many as eight railroads whose principal business it is to take the ores from these 
 mines and put them on the waters of Lakes Superior and Michigan) the amount of 
 
4 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 property and development of mining property in these railroads and in the shipping 
 on the iake that is exclusively oconpied in iron ore— I made a close calculation hve 
 or six years ago— is supposed now to be $150,000,000. Now let me illustrate that by 
 adding this: That a great ship-building industry has grown up ou all our 1^^^^- -^"^ 
 1879 there were seventy-nine large steel and wooden ships put afloat. In 188b there 
 were sixty-two. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You mean vessels constructed ? . 
 
 Mr. Ely. Yes, sir, and I might add that if you turn to the transportation statistics 
 issued by the Interior Department for 1888 you will find the number of vessels on the 
 lakes diminished, but there is a very large registered increase of tonnage on the 
 lakes, and it grows out of the fact that these small vessels are no longer consul ructed 
 on the lakes. When I first went into this business of selling ore an the s'^ti^s, we 
 used to carry ore from Marquette on vessels carrying not more than 3o0 to bOO 
 tons. When we got a vessel above 000 tons it was considered extraordinary. But 
 what are the vessels now ? Their size and capacity have greatly increased. Steam 
 has been substituted almost exclusively for sail. The average size of those vessels 
 now put afloat at Cleveland aud other ship-yards is from 2,500 to 3,000 tons. Seventy- 
 nine of these large ships were launched the year before last ; last year sixty-two, 
 and there is now being contracted-^ — • 
 
 The Chairman. In your former statement you said in 1879 
 
 Mr. Ely. I meant in 1887. You must excuse me, as it was a slip of the tongue. 
 There are now under contract on the lakes forty-two more to be launched. From 
 September to next May there will be forty-two more of these big vessels launched, 
 and the average size is ifrom 2,500 to 3,000 tons. What has been the effect on ores ? 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. These are iron and steel vessels ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. Some few of them are wood. I went into the Cleveland ship-yards (and 
 I have been in foreign ship-yards), and really it seems to me that the ships we put 
 afloat on Lake Superior are equal to any in the world. Of course I do not mean in 
 regard to passenger steamers, but for trading purposes there are none better than we 
 put afloat on the lakes now. What has beeu the effect ? To lower freights. The 
 first few years of my engaging in this business we could not get the average freights 
 from Marquette to Cleveland down below |3, and the average last year would not 
 exceed $1.25. 
 
 The Chairman. When did you pay $3 a ton ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. Twelve years ago. 
 
 The Chairman. lias there been a gradual reduction ever since ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. There has been from the time we began to get deep water. In 1881 we 
 got 3 or 4 feet more at the St. Clair Flats, aud they have deepened Lime Kiln Cross- 
 ing, and the large ships have been doing so much more business that the freights have 
 been reduced to $1.25. AVho has got the advantage of that? Where does that go 
 to? It enables these Lake Superior districts to send these ores to a much larger 
 extent than ever before all over the United States. Now the principal market 
 for the Lake Superior ores has always been in the Pittsburgh and Wheeling districts 
 up to a few years ago ; but of late years, as you are well aware, Chicago has become 
 a great manufacturing center. The advance there has been most marvellous. The 
 history of this country shows nothing like it. I think a million tons of iron 
 ore went into Chicago this year. Now we began last year to send this ore over 
 the AUeghenies. Three hundred thousand tons of that ore was lauded at Buffalo, 
 aud went over the Lehigh Valley road aud over other roads into the Lehigh 
 Valley in eastern Pennsylvania. What is the meaning of that ? That is a high 
 grade of Bessemer ore, and the freight was made very low. It is landed from Lake 
 Superior at Buffalo at the same price as it is at Cleveland, and the railroads have 
 reduced their rates of freight to such an extent that this ore will be SI. 55 a"gross 
 ton from Buffalo, including the dock charges at Buffalo, which is for the distance 
 carried four-tenths of a cent per ton a mile. 
 
 The Chairman. From Buffalo to what point ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. To furnaces in the Lehigh Valley. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What are the dock charges to which you refer? 
 
 Mr. Ely. Of course the ores have to have a deep-water dock, which is a very ex- 
 pensive dock, and requires hundreds of thousands of dollars capital to build. The 
 ore is hoisted out of the vessel and landed on the dock, and of course the ore cannot 
 all go in the cars and go forward as fast as landed, because the furnaces can not use 
 it tliat way. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You seem to give prominence to the fact that there are dock charges 
 there. How much are they ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. There has always been at Cleveland on ore going to Pittsburgh a dock 
 charge of 20 or 25 cents, and Ihat is included in the rate of freight. Now wo used 
 to pay |1.. 50 freight, but the rates were redm;(!(l last year to $1.05, including use of 
 the dock and loading into the cars. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You mean that there is a charge of from 20 to 25 cents per ton ? 
 
EEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 5 
 
 Mr. Ely. Yes, sir ; these freight rates include tlio dock charges, the docks being 
 owned partly by the railroad company. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is the distance from Buffalo to the Lehigh Valley mines by 
 rail? 
 
 Mr. Ely. I can not give it satisfactorily. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Well, approximately? 
 
 Mr. Ely. It is four-tenths of a cent per ton a mile. I cannot give you the distance, 
 as I have not it in my mind. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. It is sug:gested by the clerk that it is 191 miles. 
 
 Mr. Ely. It is 1.50 miles from Cleveland to Pittsburgh, and the rate on this ore is 
 $1.05 to Pittsburgh, Wheeling, from all Lake Erie ports. 
 
 I think it is sate to say, gentlemen, that this duty of 75 cents a ton (and I am sure 
 of the statement) has been a wonderful help and stimulus in the production of Ameri- 
 can iron ore. I do not think that the iron and steel interests of the United States 
 could have done without it. We could not have manufactured one-half of the pro- 
 duction of this last year that we have if it had not been for the abundant and ade- 
 quate supply of American iron ore of all varieties. This development, I can say, is 
 only just beginning in the sout"hern country. If the southern country has got much 
 Bessemer ore, and some people say it is doubtful, I think it is something yet to be 
 proved. They have only scratched the surface of the southern country. I remember 
 the first demand in 1868 for Bessemer ore. In the Lake Superior region an explora- 
 tion was carried on. Money was put in in opening up new mines and we found 
 Bessemer ore. They will do that in the South. 
 
 Mr. Geab. Are these Spanish ores Bessemer ores ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. Mostly ; but some of the ores are a little higher in phosphorus over there. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is it necessary in the iron and steel production of this country that 
 any ores whatever should be imported ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. No, sir; the increase of ore production in the United States is more than 
 abreast of the iron and steel production of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. That is as to the quantity. Now as to the quality. 
 
 Mr. Ely. From the tenor of my remark you will infer my belief that there is an 
 everlasting abundance of Bessemer ores in the United States, not only in the Lake 
 Superior region but in northern New York, and there will be gentlemen here to say 
 this to you from other districts of the coimtry. I took out of a jiaper yesterday a para- 
 graph to this effect : That there is an organization of quite prominent Southern rail- 
 road men — a North Carolina iron and steel company — who propose to erect a Besse- 
 mer blast furnace in Wellsboro, N. C. I have a dispatch from H. S. Chamberlain, of 
 Chattanooga, who regrets very much he is not here to-day to say ho is in favor 
 of this duty on iron ore being let alone. He believes it works well. They have 
 got Bessemer ore. The Cranberry ores are Bessemer ores. The present condition of 
 the Southern ore trade and Southern freight transportation is right over again the 
 experience of the Lake Superior product. If capital had not stood at the door of 
 these Lake Superior mines this country would never have supplied Bessemer ore, and 
 it would have had to rely upon foreign importations of Bessemer ore. 
 
 I do not suppose there will be a ton of Spanish ore coming into America this year 
 simply for one reason. There is a demand of the iron and steel industry of Great 
 Britain, Germany, France, and Belgium that gobbles up all the Spanish ores. I do 
 not know that it is a fact, but I know wo have the statement on record from the 
 British trade papers of public meetings held over there to the effect that they intended 
 to keep a grasp on all the Bessemer ores they can find on the Continent. You know 
 Great Britain has little high-grade ore — no Bessemer ores — and the English manufact- 
 urers are reaching out in every part of the world where there are large and important 
 openings of Bessemer ores. There is one in Sweden, and a railroad of 120 miles is 
 being built in to these mines extending to the northern coast, which is expected to 
 give the English a supply of Bessemer ore in the future. It will take a few years to 
 do that ; but those gentlemen are far-sighted and long-headed in this matter. They 
 do not propose to have the British iron and steel industry rest on unstable founda- 
 tions. In foreign ores we do not know what we can ever do six months ahead. 
 We can not buy ahead, because we do not know what the ocean freights will be. 
 There is a large deposit of ore on the Island of Cuba. It is a good and rich ore, a 
 Bessemer ore, and it will be a grand resource ; but they can produce ore, put it on 
 board at Cuban ports, pay the duty, and then run all around the producers of ore on 
 Lake Superior or anywhere else in the United States. 
 
 If there is any concern on the Atlantic slope that thinks it is wise to reduce the 
 duty or have no duty at all — I have seen such a statement in a paper — if there is any 
 such concern as that, I want to say this : That they could certainly make a handsomer 
 profit than Lake Superior iron men can on their ore, and pay the duty on Cuban ores. 
 I do not think anybody should grumble at paying that duty. I have got some little 
 interest in a Cuban mine as well as in Lake Superior, and I believe in the protection of 
 American interests. I believe in a higher range of wages for American laborers, and 
 
6 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 if it waa against my personal and individual financial interests I would advocate that 
 same doctrine. Go up to the Minnesota mines and look at the advantages of the 
 people up there thirty or forty miles in the wilderness. What do you see ? Men, 
 women, and children living like human beings there. They get good wages, as 1 
 have read to you out of this hook. They get from $2 to |2.50 a day for experienced 
 men, and the consequence isthat there are schools, churches, and comfortable houses; 
 good food, and everything to make life desirable and bright. No wonderthese Scan- 
 dinavian miners come from Sweden and Norway into the mining districts, because 
 the rate of wages is such that they can live. I have heard it stated that the range of 
 wages was going to rise in Great Britain. If they ever rise they have got to change 
 their policy. The policy of Great Britain at this moment in regard to iron and steel 
 production is to make it cheap, and cheap at the expense of the manhood and woman- 
 hood that produces it. We do not want things too cheap, and we do not want to see 
 the range of wages reduced inthis country. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. About how much is a ton of ore at the mines worth in the Lake Supe- 
 rior district ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. Well, I would have to make a calculation. I can give the ranges for it 
 at Cleveland. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Take this whole 7,000,000 tons produced. What is the average price 
 of that at Cleveland? I will take the Gogebic; of course, there is also the Minnesota. 
 
 Mr. Ely. I will read this, which is a reliable statement : 
 
 Prices for last seven years, delivered at Cleveland and other lower laJce ports. 
 
 
 1883. 
 
 1884. 
 
 1885. 
 
 1886. 
 
 1887. 
 
 1888. 
 
 1889. 
 
 
 $7.50 
 
 6.50 
 6.00 
 
 $6.00 
 
 6.75 
 5.25 
 4.75 
 
 $5.75 
 
 5.00 
 4.75 
 5.00 
 4.00 
 4.00 
 
 $6.25 
 
 6.50 
 6.25 
 6.75 
 6.00 
 4.50 
 
 $7.00 
 
 6.50 
 6.00 
 6.75 
 6.00 
 6.00 
 
 $5.75 
 
 5.25 
 4.75 
 6.75 
 4.75 
 4.00 
 
 $5.60 
 
 Bainum, Cleveland, and Lake Superior 
 
 5.00 
 
 Chapin and Menominee, No. 1 
 
 4.50 
 5.60 
 
 
 
 4.75 
 
 Hematites, No. 1, non-bessemer 
 
 4 75 
 
 4.50 
 
 . 3.75 
 
 
 
 The Vermillion and Gogebic districts not opened until 1884 and 1885, respectively. 
 
 At this time the Minnesota was not opened, and they are considered the best ores 
 in all the world. There is a good deal of ore sold for 1890. That is $6.50. 
 
 Mr. I'LOWER. How much of this $6 a ton, taking it on the average, does the miner 
 make on that ore per ton? 
 
 Mr. Ely. The owner of the mine ? 
 
 Mr. Flower. The owner of the mine, or how much are transportation and labor? 
 
 Mr. Ely. That can not be answered in relation to large quantities. The mining 
 conditions are entirely different in some districts. Sometimes you will have a mine 
 that costs from |2.50 to $2.75 to mine, and in another you only pay from |1 to $1.75. 
 It depends upon whether it is soft or hard ore; it depends upon the condition of the 
 minin^roof, the walls, and the nature of the ore. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Well, say, for instance, at the Minnesota mines. What is the freight 
 on the railroad from the Minnesota mines to Duluth or to the lake ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. I think it is $1. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How much from there to Cleveland? 
 
 Mr. Ely. About $1 .25 from Marquette. The year before last it was |l-75. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That is |2.25. Your point is Cleveland ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Then yon have got $2.75. How mnch does it cost to mine that ore ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. As I said before, the mine has different conditions ; it is the difiference 
 between a good and a poor mine. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Give the average. What was the average of the Minnesota ore ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. I do not think those statistics have been gathered. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Does the estimate you have given describe the condition of ore in 
 your mines rather than in other mines ? What would you estimate your mines ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. I am not now selling any iron ore, and am not in charge of any mine, and 
 the accounts in connection with them do not come to me. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Can not you give it in a general estimate ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. I think it costs the Lake Superior Iron Company $2.50 a ton to mine ; 
 hut there are mines 
 
 Mr. Gear. That makes it $5.25 at Cleveland. 
 
 Mr. Ely. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That makes 75 cents which capital gets out of it. 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFP. 7 
 
 Mr. Ely. I know A company — the Washington Iron Company — I will simply men- 
 tion it — that opened twenty years ago. It put 500,000 tons of good hard magnetic 
 ore on the market. They put '500,000 tons of ore on the market. The stockholders of 
 that company never had one penny for it. They got in deht and stopped mining, and 
 the people who leased the mine never made anything out of it. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. That is a funereal condition. What are the other conditions ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. I cahinstance several different oases. Take the Lake Superior, the Repub- 
 lic, Chapin, Old Jackson, the Minnesota, the Colby, and two or three others, they 
 have got peculiarly favorable mining conditions. Some of these people who mine a 
 moderate quantity of ore mine for two or three years and do not know what it costs 
 them. 
 
 Mr. Bkkckinridgb. Do you not know the cost of mining in any instance ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. I have just said that I think the mining cost of Lake Superior ore is |2.50. 
 
 Mr. Brbckinridgb. Do you mean wages paid the miners ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. That is the cost of getting the ore out. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Would you say that is the average cost? 
 
 Mr. Ely. No, sir; I would not say that. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you mean that is what it costs them at that particular mine ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. I said the Lake Superior, as I happened to have in my mind the Lake Su- 
 perior. That is one of the oldest of the Marquette district. Of course there are soft 
 ores that only run 58 to 60 per cent, iron as against those best ores which run 64 to 
 68. That is a soft ore and mined at a much lower cost. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do they pay the same price for labor in that district? 
 
 Mr. Ely. They pay about the same average price for labor; but the mining is let 
 out in different mines by contract. That is, eight or ten men will take it a month. 
 
 Mr. McKENiSTA. What is the cost of mining under the hardest conditions ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. I can not tell you, because I am not familiar with that. In regard to the 
 Lake Superior company I have instanced that as fairly illustrating a hard-ore mine. 
 I have no experience about the soft-ore mines. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What do you mean by a hard-ore mine ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. I mean an ore that comes out in the form of lumps as big as a hat, and 
 when it goes to the fui'nace it has to go in a cruster before it is ready. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Is the cost of mining that greater than mining the soft ore ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. It is greater. This ore has to be separated from the inclosing rock by 
 dynamite and high explosives, and the cost is great. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Then the illustration you gave is a cage of hard conditions of pro- 
 duction ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. Yes, sir; a hard ore. Yet the Lake Superior mine has been a prosper- 
 ous one. It was opened in 1858 and lias been mining ever since. When a place gets 
 exhausted they open up a new mine. Their cost for mining runs along to about $2.50 
 a ton. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You have spoken of what the reduced price is for the last year or 
 two, showing the scale had been reduced, as with everything, and you have given 
 now the average cost for a number of years as being $2.50. What is it under the 
 lowest condition of 1888, when the average price was |5.79 ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. As I said before, I am not selling iron ore now, and the accounts of none 
 of these mines come under my eye. I have not that particular information, but I 
 will read these statistics if you like to hear them. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I would like to know this : A ton of ore lying in the ground is worth 
 about so much, and a ton of ore mined is worth about so much. What is the relative 
 percentage of labor on that ton of ore ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. Why, it is all labor, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Was the mine worth nothing? 
 
 Mr. Ely. Unless a man developed a mine it is worth nothing. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. But I suppose It sella for something? 
 
 Mr. Ely. But a man might buy a piece of mining property intending to develop 
 it. That development will cost 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Does the land-owner charge you royalty 7 
 
 Mr. Ely. The royalty is 25 to 50 cents a ton. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That is the tax upon the ore in the ground ? 
 
 Mr. Bayne. And the rest of the value of that ton of ore is labor? 
 
 Mr. Ely. The whole of it. I should say Mr. Carlisle has brought out the point by 
 his question to me. There is, of course, in every piece of mining property what 
 might bo called intrinsic value as it lies in the earth. That is called the royalty ; 
 and mines are leased ; and I know of some that are leased at 25 cents a ton and some 
 at 50 cents ; it will depend upon the location, for if it is upon low ground where the 
 expense of hoisiing machinery and the expense of getting the water out will be 
 great, it is of course less. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do I understand you to say that when a ton of this ore is brought out 
 
8 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 of the eartli for sliipmont that the value this represents is nothing but the value of the 
 crude ore iu the ground, or royalty, and the labor that brought it up? i,- i • 
 
 Mr. Ely. Yes, sir; and the use of the capital and the risk on the capital, which is 
 very large. . . 
 
 Mr. Gbau. The people who lease the mine or pay rent always do the developing ( 
 
 Mr. Ely. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And the royalty goes to the owner ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How long does it ordinarily take to develop a mine? 
 
 Mr. Ely. It is impossiijlc to answer that question. Some mines will he located on 
 a hill-sido where they can get right at the ore and get out 10,000 or 15,000 tons 
 a year. Then there is the low ground where you have to search for the iron, and 
 when you hnd it you have to put down the shafts and work it under ground. So a 
 great variety of questions arise. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. I understand the price of the ore nrast pay for mining the ore under 
 the hardest conditions. Is not that true? The price of ore must pay for ore mined 
 under the hardest conditions. 
 
 Mr. Ely. Of course the ore seller gets all he can, and he will sell it at the highest 
 price he can. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. And the price must be sufficient to compensate a working under the 
 hardest conditions. 
 
 Mr. Ely. No, sir. There are more than one hundred mines up there. I do not 
 know but there are one hundred and twenty-five. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You gave some informacion (perhaps from an article) about 
 the relative cost of Spanish and Lake Superior ores. Did you compile that informa- 
 tion yourself? 
 
 Mr. Ely. Yes, sir ; I compiled it from sources of information I had at that time. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But you have not that information now ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. I can only refer to it as I gave that information 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That ia not an answer. These are general estimates ; but you 
 are in possession of details by which you made up these conclusions at that time. 
 
 Mr. Ely. I took that, as I have already said when I read it, from statements by 
 Mr. .Jeremiah Head, who made them in an address before an association in England. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then this was not derived from your own personal informa- 
 tion ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. They are gotten from this English source, but I have no doubt they are 
 reliable. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Let me ask you one question right here, because it bears upou this 
 question of duty. The price of this iron, according to your statement, has not gone 
 lip since 1884 by reason of the taritf ; but the needs of the railroad building, etc., gave 
 you a larger demand. This year the price is downbecause of the smaller demand for 
 your ores. It is down compared, ,at least, with the last year. 
 
 Mr. Ely. No, sir ; higher for 1890. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I mean 1889. It is down. 
 
 Mr. Ely. In the winter of 1889 there was a great depression in iron and steel here 
 andin Europe. Now comes this advance. There is a great change in the market in 
 England, and for the last two months it has been steadily going up. English rails are 
 quoted higher in London to-day than in New York or Philadelphia. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The tariff duty at 75 cents a ton does not seem to have had any effect 
 on the price of ore since 1884. 
 
 Mr. Ely. Except in this, that it enables our mines to pay higher wages, and they 
 do pay those wages. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Are you familiar with the Gogebic range ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. No, sir ; I have never been there. 
 
 Mr. Flower. In 1887 you had very high freights there, I am told, and that very 
 year there was a great depression in the Gogebic range. Y'our freights went from 
 11.25 to $2.37. Have you any statistics that will give the output of your mines at 
 that time, as to whether they were increased or diminished. 
 
 Mr. Ely. No, sir. I have never gotten any ores from the Gogebic range. My whole 
 relations were with the Marquette and Minnesota districts. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Have you been iu the Spanish mines? 
 
 Mr. Ely. No, sir; I have not, but I have studied them very well. I got most of 
 my information about the Spanish mines from people who had owned Spanish mines. 
 
 Mr. Gear. My reason for asking thiit was I wanted to know the condition of the 
 wa SKS. 
 
 Mr. Ely. I read that. 
 
 Mr. Dingley. What number of the North American Review was that? 
 
 Mr. Ely. This is the number for April, 1888. 
 
 Mr. LaFollettisi Aside from last year, when you say England chiefly absorbed the 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 9 
 
 product of Bessemer ore from the Spaiiisli mines, wliat percentage (if you can tell) was 
 imported from Spain previous to this last year? 
 
 Mr. Ely. I mean to say tbat I think about one-twentieth of the total consumption 
 of the American ores that went into the iron and steel industries came from foreign 
 supplies. 
 Mr. La Foli.ette. Previous to 1889. 
 
 Mr. Ely. Let me see. The importationslast year were only 587,000 tons, and for 
 the ten months of this year they were 716,000 tons. Two or three years previous to 
 that the importations were very much larger. They varied very much according to 
 the conditions of ocean freights and the conditions of trade on the other side of the 
 hemisphere in regard to Spanish Bessemer ores. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. If England exhausts the Spanish Bessemer ore what other supply 
 will she have ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. There are ores in the island of Elba which are controlled by the Italian 
 government. There are some ores in Africa. There is a large ore field, supposed to 
 be in Sweden, away np in the Arctic Circle, and an English company have built a 
 railroad of 120 miles to exteud to the western coast of Norway ; and all that ad'air is 
 in English hands. In the apprehension of the not distant exhaustion of the Bilbao 
 mines they are looking ahead lo have ore after that is gone. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You speak of ores in the island of Elba controlled by the Italian 
 government. 
 
 Mr. Ely. I say they are controlled by the Italian government, and the Italian gov- 
 ernment is trying and has been trying to build up an iron and steel production. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You say England is absorbing most of the supplies of this Bessemer 
 ore. 
 Mr. Ely. For this coming year — 1890. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. If this duty of 75 cents is removed could the United States compete 
 for Bessemer ores ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. But the year 1890 is exceedingly exceptional and is temporary. I see no 
 sonrce of supply — no S' urce of importation — except the island of Cuba. 
 The Chairman. How after 1890 ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. The conditions after 1890 can not exist as they exist here to-day. 
 Mr. Bay'NB. The demand of Great Britain for Spanish ores may stimulate the pro- 
 duction of Spanish ores largely ? 
 Mr. Ely. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You say the price of ores of the Lake Superior region was higher for 
 1890 than for 1888 and 1889. What is the difference ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. I guess I had better read you that. It is just about |1 a ton laid down at 
 Cleveland. It ranges, I should say, from 75 cents a ton on one ore up to $1.10 on an- 
 other. 
 , Mr. McMiLLiN. What I want to -get at is, has there been an increase of a dollar a 
 ton in the wages of the laborers employed in the mines? 
 
 Mr. Ely'. That I can not tell you anything about, but I know that when the mar- 
 ket is active and strong and the people can afford they always pay wages to the 
 highest possible point. They hold their men and pay them their wages, and of course 
 when there is competition they are expected to take their chances in the law of de- 
 mand and supply. I beg your pardon for having occupied so much of your time. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You stated that England absorbed the Bessemer ore for 1890. You mean 
 absorbed the output but not the mines themselves? 
 
 Mr. Ely. I understand that we are not to expect anything more than small impor- 
 tations in 1890 of Spanish ores because the English manufacturers have already 
 bought them. 
 Mr. Gear. That is they have absorbed the output but not the property ? 
 Mr. Ely. Oh, no sir; the general production of these Bilbao mines is not for the 
 miscellaneous public. Three or four large concerns in England control the best of 
 them. 
 Mr. McKenna. What if this should continue after 1890 ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. It would be extraordinary, sir ; these trade conditions change year by 
 year — the conditions of manufacture here and abroad. It ought to be the general 
 policy of this Government to do what it can to stimulate the i)roduction of our own 
 native supplies of iron. 
 
 Mr. McKenxa. This is one of the causes preventing foreign production from com- 
 peting with the domestic pioduction ? 
 Mr. Ely. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. At the present time and jnclnding 1890 there will be no foreign pro- 
 duction to compete with the domestic, and the large Lake Superior mines -nill bo 
 strained to the utmost ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. Ye3,-sir ; all the iron ore the world can produce will be wanted for 1890, 
 and after that we will drop back, by the fluctuating and changing condition of trade, 
 
10 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 to the production of years past. But this preseut condition of things in 1890 is tem- 
 porary and exceptional, and ma? not be repeated again for 25 years. 
 
 Mr. JVIcKknna. That isjnst what I was trying to t;et yon to say a little whiie ago. 
 
 Mr. Ely. Excuse me if I aid not quite understand your question. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Will not the demand of England for Spanish ores stimulate the pro- 
 duction of Spanish ores and cause investment of capital there so as to create a greater 
 output than heretofore existed; and when a depression of iron comes is it not UKely 
 that that output will come into a lively competition with American ores I 
 
 Mr. Ely. Certainly that would be an active factor, and the overflow would come 
 to this country. What we want is to allow this duty to stand where it was hxed. 
 We are not asking an increase. The duty as provided makes up part of the difter- 
 ence in wages paid. If we had a full equivalent to the diaerence in wages paid here 
 and abroad in mining ore and in transportation, this ore comes very cheaply across 
 the ocean hv tramp vessels, that duty would be $1.50 instead of 75 cents. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How many tons of ore can a single miner take out m a day on an 
 average? 
 
 Mr. Ely. That is a question that can not be answered, because the conditions vary 
 in every mine. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I simply ask for the average. 
 
 Mr. Ely. I can not tell yon, sir. Some of it is hard and some soft ; some of the 
 mines have got water to be pumped out. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. And some contain more metal to the ton than others? 
 
 Mr. Ely. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you mine by the ton t 
 
 Mr. Ely. Where it can be done the men prefer to mine by the job. .They prefer to 
 take a job. Now that is done exclusively in some districts. They take a job, a cer- 
 tain part of the mine, say for a month, and the mine superintendent says that he 
 will give them such and such a price to put the ore out. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the usual price paid per ton when the employment is by the 
 ton? 
 
 Mr. Ely. This is variable, sir. Nobody can tell, because it varies with every 
 mine. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Yon have already spoken of the wages a man receives. 
 
 Mr. Ely. When I speak of wages paid in a general statement like this, as com- 
 pared abroad, I am speaking of the common labor. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Where you employ by the day — do you employ any by the day ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. So you are prepared to make a statement as to what is paid by the day, 
 but you are not prepared to make a statement as to what the average price per 
 ton is? 
 
 Mr. Ely. I sai d a little while ago that in the case of one of the mines I know that 
 it was $2.50 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Not paid to the miner ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. No, sir. 
 
 Mr Gear. I want to know what is paid to the miner. You are not able to give 
 that information in any instance whatever. Have you information on that subject? 
 
 Mr. Ely. As I say, sir, I am not in charge of any mine; am not mining any ore, 
 although I used to be years ago. I have got a little interest in a couple of mines, 
 and these accounts which would show the wages paid, and what the ore costs by the 
 ton when it comes to the surface of the ground, I have not got. 
 
 The Chairman. You can get that and give it to the committee. 
 
 Mr. Ely. Yes, sir; I will try to do so. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. When yon make a general statement, that must be an estimate 
 based upon particulars. Now I want to get at the particulars, if I can, from which 
 your general statement results. 
 
 Mr. Ely. It would be exceedingly difficult to make a deduction, .as there are so 
 many mines with such a great variety of conditions that would be misleading to auy- 
 body. Very difficult, indeed. 
 
 Mr. Flov^br. Are you acquainted with this great find out in Montana, at Great 
 Falls, so talked about. 
 
 Mr. Ely. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Are you acquainted with the Washington mines ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Are you acquainted with the Color.ado mines ? 
 
 Mr. Ely. No, sir; I have not any information west of our Lake Superior region. 
 All I know is there is an abiiudance of ore in Washington Territory and in Colorado ; 
 and in Colorado there are some blast-furnaces and rolling-mills. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Tobey is present, and we will hear him on the suliject of free 
 iron and free coal. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 11 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. HORACE P. TOBEY. 
 
 Mr. iJoRACB p. ToBEY acidiessed tbe committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of tlie committee: I came unexpectedly and linr- 
 riedly iu answer to a telesram, and I sliall tiave to beg the indulgence ot the gentle- 
 men, for what 1 have to say has not had as careful preparation as it might have had. 
 We have had prepared in Massachusetts, the State from which I come, a memorial 
 address to the Senators and Representatives from our part of the conntry calling 
 their attention to certain facts in reference to the duties upon iron and iron ore, and 
 as that memorial appears to touch directly upon the present inquiry, and as it was 
 prepared by myself and I myself am responsible for the statements in it, I will, with 
 your permission, read the memorial or such part of it as maybe acce,. table to the 
 committee. 
 
 I understand this discussion at the present time to be confined to the question of 
 iron ore. In this document which I beg permission to present, the duties upon iron 
 ore are'prepared in connection with the cost of iron and the prices paid 
 
 Mr. Brkckineidgb. If yon desire to speak on that you can do so as this day has 
 been appointed for all classes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is your business? 
 
 Mr. ToBBY. I am a manufacturer of steel. Our business is the manufacture of Bes- 
 semer steel which we carry into the finished product. 
 
 In 1872 the duty upon pig iron was fixed at $6.30 per ton ; that upon cast scrap- 
 iron at $5.40 per ton, and that upon wrought scrap-iron at $7.20 per ton. In 1883 
 the duties upon these three grades of Iron were equalized, under a uniform rate of 
 $6.72. During 1872 the average price of No. 1 foundry iron, at Philadelphia (see 
 statistics of American Iron and Steel Association, 1880), was $48.87J per ton, in cur- 
 rency ; $43.63 in gold. The duty, therefore, was equivalent to 14.44 per cent, of the 
 value, in gold, of American iron. 
 
 The average prices of No. 1 foundry iron, at Philadelphia, in 1879, and the subse- 
 quent years, were as follows : 
 
 1879 |;21.50 1884 $19.87 
 
 1880 28.50 1885 , 18.00 
 
 1881 25.13 1886 18.75 
 
 1882 25.75 1887 20.92 
 
 1883 22.38 1888 18.88 
 
 The average price for the last ten years has been, therefore, $21.97 per ton, or about 
 one-half the price of 1872. At this time, February, 1889, its value is $18 per ton, and 
 the daty is $6.72 per ton, or 37.33 per cent, of the value of the iron. As compared 
 with the protection on American iron in 1872, the present protection is in the ratio of 
 2.58 to 1. 
 
 Duties are, however, assessed, not on the values of American iron in America, but 
 on the value of the imported article at its last port of exportation. We give, there- 
 fore, the values of ordinary Scotch pig-iron, at shipping port, in Scotland, for the 
 same years, as shown by the sale of " warrants." 
 
 In 1872 Scotch pig-iron warrants were sold for 132s. (say $32.50) per ton of iron. 
 The specific duty then imposed, $6.72 per ton, was, therefore, when reduced to ad valo- 
 rem terms, at the rate of 19.38 per cent, of tbe value of the iron. 
 
 The average yearly value of this iron, for tbe last ten years, has been as follows : 
 
 8. d. 
 47 
 54 6 
 
 1879 
 
 1880 , 
 
 1881 49 1* 
 
 49 4i 
 
 46 9 
 
 1882. 
 1883. 
 
 1884. 
 
 42 
 
 d. 
 
 1885 41 10 
 
 1886 39 11 
 
 1887 42 3 
 
 1888 39 11 
 
 The average value for the ten years has been 45s. 3J d. (say $11.32), or about one- 
 third of tbe value of the same iron in 1872, when the duty was imposed. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. How does that compare with American" prices ? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. The average American price for the same product was $21.97 per ton, 
 and the average foreign price was $11.32. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. That was the average price 1 
 
 Mr. ToBBY. That was for 1888. In regard to it since I will speat a little later. 
 
 The average value of this iron for the year 1888 was 39s. lid. (say $9.98) per ton, 
 and the duty upon ii is $6.72 per ton, or a little over 67 per cent. 
 
 The price of iron for puddling, at an English shipping port, is now about 34s. (say 
 $8.50) per ton. The duty upoD it is about 80 per cent. 
 
 The price of scrap-iron is 42s. (say $10.50) per ton. Tbe duty on it is about 64 per 
 cent. 
 
12 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 While foreign pig-iron has fallen to about one-third of its value of 1872, the specific 
 duty has not been reduced at all. In other words, for the last ten years pig-iron has 
 paid nearly three times the duty, value for value, that was imposed upon it m ia7«i. 
 
 The case has been nearly the same as regards scrap-iron ; but, in the absence or 
 exact statistics, we do not tabulate the prices of this grade of crude iron. 
 
 This duty is practically prohibitory. Importations are confined almost entirely to 
 certain high grades of pig-iron, in the use of which quality is more considered than 
 price. 
 
 The result has been that New England rolling-mills and foundries have been com- 
 pelled to pay for their crude materials the price ruling at distant furnaces in other 
 States, plus a freight rate of several dollars per ton, to their works. As the rolling- 
 mills, foundries, and machine shops located near such furnaces can transmit their 
 finished goods to the New England consumer nearly as cheaply as the New England 
 mill, foundry, or machine shop can bring in its pig-iron, the tendency has been to 
 throw all the manufacturing, manipulating, and finishing of iron and steel, as well 
 as the production of pig-iron, into the hands of the iron-producing States, and to 
 wipe out the iron and steel industries, large and small, of New England. The sur- 
 viving mills owe their continued existence, in a small part, to the fact that they 
 have been able to pick up and rework a little old material (scrap-iron, castings, and 
 turnings) in their own territory; but chiefly to the fact that they have, through 
 the compulsion of circumstances, been systematically engaged in the degradation of 
 American labor in New England. A skilled operative in a New England rolling-mill 
 does not, on an average, receive one-half the pay that a man similarly employed in 
 a Pittsburg mill receives for the same work. 
 
 But how inefficient even this exasperating resource has been in retaining the man- 
 ufacture of iron in New England can be learned by examining the following statis- 
 tics, compiled from the valuable annual reports of the secretary of the American 
 Iron and Steel Association, and covering the period already discussed, that is, from 
 1879 to 1888. 
 
 Since 1879 there have died out, of the rolling-mills in Maine, 50 per cent.; of those 
 in Vermont, 100 percent.; of those in Massachusetts, 36 per cent.; of those in Connect- 
 icut, 20 per cent.; of those in Rhode Island, 50 per cent. Or, to show the same facts 
 in another form, in 1880 the New England mills produced 170,877 tons of rolled iron 
 and steel; in 1887 they produced 102,711 tons. In these years, therefore, the annual 
 production of rolled iron and steel in New England has dwindled 40 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. In the rolling-mill do you have a scale t 
 
 Mr. TOBEY. No, sir ; we pay every man just as we can mate a trade with him. 
 
 Some exception has been taken to these statistics by Mr. Swank, secretary of the 
 iron and steel association, and I invite his attention to this note inserted for the use 
 of the Committee, as I should not care to have a wrangle about these figures. Mr. 
 Swank is here, I think. 
 
 Note. — Statistics covering the manufacture of Bessemer steel rails in New Eng- 
 land are not published in the annual reports of the American Iron and Steel Asso- 
 ciation, nor are they embodied in the figures here given. The experiment of Bessemer 
 steel rail making in New England commenced in 1884 and ended in 1888. The cost 
 of converting pig-iron into steel rails is so largely dependent upon the cost of mate- 
 rials and so little a6fected by any ordinary differences in the rates of labor that under 
 existing competitive conditions the industry is an impossible one in the New Eng- 
 land States so long as they are dependent ni^on others of the United States for a sup- 
 ply of iron, coal, and coke. 
 
 Mr. James M. Swank, statistician of the American Iron and Steol Association, has, 
 in a published article, taken exception to the figures (170,877 tons) given in this 
 statement as the production of 1888, claiming that unpublished data in his possession 
 indicate that the true figures are 160,799 tons. While the figures given in the text are 
 believed to be derived, with substantial accuracy, from his published statistics and 
 statements, attention is called to the fact that the substitution which he desires to 
 make would not affect the general tenor and strength of this argument, showing the 
 dwindling of the iron and steel industries of New England ; its only effect would be 
 to alter, to an immaterial extent, the percentage of diminution. 
 
 Nor is this shrinkage confined to rolling-mill products only. Unfortnnately, there 
 are no statistics to show the change which has been going on, not alone in the number 
 and size of the New England foundries, machine shops, forges, and other manufac- 
 tories of iron and steel goods, but also in the class of goods they turn out, and in the 
 character of the skilled labor required to make these goods. The heavy miU-wright- 
 iug business hardly exists in New England; the old mill-wrights are dying off, and 
 few are being educated to take their places ; their vocation is gone. Our iron and 
 steel architectural beams, columns, roofing, gas-pipes, water-pipes and sewer-pipes 
 are made in Pennsylvania. The iron stores and workshops in which New England 
 men transact their business are machined by Pennsylvanian mechanics, and are 
 erected by Pennsylvanian superintendents, in accordance with plans made by Penn- 
 
REVISION OF THE TAKIFF. 13 
 
 sylvaniau engineers. Our heavy machinery, also, is made iu gigantic Pouneylvanian 
 foundries and fitted up in spacious Pennsylvanian machine shops. In the mean-time 
 the surviving New England foundries are running, mostly, on small job -work to 
 repair broken machinery, and the New England machine shops that still exist are, for 
 the most part, turning out pulleys and shafting, sewing machines, rifles, and other 
 small wares, or, in short, articles requiring much skill and labor and comparatively 
 little iron. 
 
 During the same period what has been the progress of the country, as a whole, in 
 the production of rolled iron and steel? Shall we find that New England has been 
 taking only her fair share in a general decline of the iron and steel industries ? By 
 consulting the same sets of statistics, we find that in 1879 the total production 
 throughout the United States of rolled iron and of iron and steel rails was 3,160,757 
 tons. In 1887 it was 4,961,835 tons. In addition to this there were rolled, in 1887, 
 902,156 tons of steel other than Bessemer r.ails, which amount is left out of this cal- 
 culation of percentages, because no accurate collection of statistics for this depart- 
 ment was made in 1880. It is safe to say, however, in passing, that in this depart- 
 ment (rolled steel other than Bessemer rails) the production has more than doubled 
 between 1880 and 1887. But excluding this item entirely, we have, as already stated, 
 a production in 1887 of 4,961,835 tons, against a production in 1879 of 3,160,757 tons. 
 These figures show an increase of about 57 per cent, iu the production of rolled iron 
 aud steel throughout the country, during the same period that has witnessed a 
 shrinkage of 40 per cent, in New England. 
 
 It is very evident that, for some reason. New England is working iron and steel at 
 a disadvantage, as compared with other States. What is this reason ? 
 
 Some from ignorance, aud some in order to obscure the truth, harp continually 
 upon the theme that "It is hard for New England mills to compete with the cheap 
 coal and natural gas of Pittsburgh." The constant repetition of this remark has gen- 
 erated the idea that high-priced fuel is one of the unalterable conditions of manu- 
 facture in New Engl.and. On the contrary, it is largely an artificial condition. The 
 Now England mills were formerly supplied with bituminous coal from the Cana- 
 dian Provinces exclusively free of duty. This supply was shut off by the imposing 
 of a prohibitory tax, and New England was compelled to purchase its mill coal from 
 Pennsylvania and Maryland. 
 
 The tax has since been reduced, but not sufficiently so to encourage the fitting up 
 of the Provincial mines with such modern machinery as is necessary to the produc- 
 tion of cheap coal, on a large scale, and to the reopening of trade with the United 
 States. The freight on coal from the mines of Pennsylvania and Maryland to a New 
 England mill is about $3 per ton. The freight from the Provinces, by water, is $1.50 
 per ton. New England is, therefore, under a disadvantage, imposed by the tariff, of 
 about $1.50 per ton, which can be removed by the abolition of the duty on coal. And 
 this is true, for the reason given, notwithstanding the fact that the tariff is only 75 
 cents per ton. 
 
 The present cost of bituminous coal, delivered in New England, is about $4 per ton. 
 New England, by the removal of the tariff upon this coal can, in time, obtaiu it 37^ 
 per cent, cheaper, through the development of the Provincial mines, at her doors. 
 This development will follow the abolition of the duty. 
 
 As bituminous coal is worth, at the miue, about $1 per ton, the present duty upon 
 bituminous coal is equivalent to 75 per cent, ad valorem. The present duty upon coke 
 is 20 per cent, ad valorem. Both duties should be removed. 
 
 IRON ORE. 
 
 Iron ores are divided into two grand classes : First, the "mill ores," suitable only for 
 making iron; and, secondly, the " Bessemer ores," suitable for making steel. The 
 mill ores are impregnated with sulphur and phosphorus, which are injurious to steel. 
 The Bessemer ores are nearly pure.* 
 
 The Bessemer ores of the United States are found chiefly, and almost exclusively, 
 in richness, purity, and large mass, in the district around Lake Superior. Lean ores, 
 of the Bessemer type, are found in large masses and of good quality in eastern Penn- 
 sylvania, New Jersey, and New York, but are too poor in iron to be profitably worked 
 
 *Mill ores carrying excessively large quantities of phosplioi-us can be used for steel making by tlie 
 basic process, "l^liey avo common in Europe, but so rare in A.raerica that the basic process is not iu 
 use in tliis country. The excessive tariff upon pig-iron Ibrbiils tlie importation of tno cbeap, beayily 
 phospborlzed pig-irons of Europe, wbicb could, by tluj basic pi'ocess, be ctieaply converted into steel, 
 in the limestone districts upon the coast of Maine, contiguous to tbe coal-producing slioiea of tbe 
 Canadian proviaces, if tbe duties upon raw iron, coke, and coal were removed. 
 
14 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 ■without an admixture of richer ores. Pockets of these ores also occur in other States J 
 but the ore is too scanty and too scattered to pay for the cost of mining. A large de- 
 posit is said to exist in North Carolina, but the conditions ap]3ear to be siich as not 
 to favor its immediate large development. Practically, therefore, the native Besse- 
 mer ore supply of the United States comes from the Lake Superior district, the center 
 of which is about 1,100 miles distant from the coast of New England, 1,000 from the 
 coast of New York, 1,100 from that of South Carolina, 1,600 from the southern coast 
 of Florida, 1,200 from that of Alabama and Louisiana, 1,500 from that of Texas, and 
 1,600 from the Pacific coast. The transportation of this ore is by railroad and inland 
 navigation lines, subject, as regards time, to the disturbances arising from railroad 
 strikes and accidents ; and, as regards cost, to the. caprices of railroad mauagement. 
 
 The coke of the United States is produced, in largest quantity and of the best 
 quality, in the ConnellsviUe coke district, near Pittsburgh. Tlie Bessemer ores of 
 Lake Superior are smelted, and the iron from them is converted into steel, with the 
 aid of this coke. 
 
 Upon the line of travel from the coke Jields to the iron mines, and in the district 
 surrounding its southern terminal, there is building up an enormous monopoly of the 
 steel business of America, through the operation of the tariff upon iron ore, which is 
 forbidding the importation of foreign ore, and the consequent utilization of the native 
 Bessemer ores of the eastern districts above referred to. 
 
 The duty is 75 cents per ton. This duty represents an extra cost upon the pig-iron 
 of from $1.25 to $1..50 per ton ; and this extra cost is sufficient to discourage the manu- 
 facture of Bessemer iron in eastern Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey ; to 
 cause the Bessemer ore beds of these sections to lie almost idle ; to put the dependent 
 steel works at a heavy disadvantage ; and, ultimately, to drive them out of the 
 business, and to compel the coast population to draw its steel supplies, at heavy 
 cost, delay, and inconvenience, from the far interior. 
 
 It is from the coast districts just named that, during the existence of a prohibi- 
 tory import duty upon pig-iron. New England must draw her supplies of steel-making 
 iron. And the tariff which puts a high cost upon the pig-iron made by the Besse- 
 mer iron furnaces of eastern Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey cripples New 
 England correspondingly. 
 
 The use of steel is rapidly supplanting that of iron. In 1887 the entire production of 
 rolled iron in the United States was 2,588,500 tons ; that of rolled steel was 3,275,491 
 tons. (See statistics of American Iron and Steel Association, 1888.) 
 
 The import dnty upon iron ore is tending to rapidly concentrate the manufacture 
 of steel at a distant point in the interior to the large injury of the coast States. 
 
 The foreign cost of iron ore is from |1.25 to $3 per ton. The duty is, therefore, from 
 37| to 60 per cent. 
 
 CRUDE IKON. 
 
 It is quite probable that the repeal of the duties upon iron ore, coal, and coke would, 
 in time, enable New England to smelt her own crude iron from foreign ores. Bat 
 long before commercial relations can be established, the Canadian coal mines be put 
 into shape for producing coal under modern conditions, and the necessary capital be 
 obtained and furnaces erected for smelting, the last vestiges of iron and steel manu- 
 facturing in New England are liable to be swept away unless a reduction is made in 
 the duty upon crude iron. As an act of national justice, as well as a matter of relief 
 to the sections oppressed by the present law, there should be an immediate and heavy 
 reduction in this duty, which is enormously in excess of the duty upon any other 
 crude material, embraced in the whole list of duties. 
 
 New England, being on the coast, can obtain her crude iron, both pig and scrap, 
 at low-water freights, and at alow first cost, in Europe. Surely, then, she should be 
 able to manufacture iron and steel under such favorable conditions, and especially 
 so if the duty on coal is removed. But here we come face to face with an ugly fact. 
 New England must pay a duty of $6.72 per ton on pig and scrap iron, and this, not as 
 a revenue duty (for it is almost prohibitory and gathers little revenue), but as a duty 
 protective of the iron-producing States. Now, to measure in figures a part of the in- 
 jury that is done to New England by this tariff, we will take as an illustration the 
 prices of Bessemer pig-iron at Pittsburgh ($16.25 per ton) and at Boston ($20 per 
 ton), say, in February, 1889. The price of the Bessemer iron (English) was 
 made up of: First cost, say, $12.03; freight, $1.25; duty, $6.72, making |20 in 
 all. It is evident that if the duty, $6.72, were removed, Boston would, ati the low 
 rates of freight now ruling, buy its iron at the price represented by the other items 
 of cost — that is to say, at $13.28 per ton. By a similar computation, scrap-iron would 
 cost $11.75; foundry iron, $11.25, and puddling iron f 10 per ton. While a large de- 
 mand from this country would, doubtless, advance somewhat both the cost and the 
 freight on English iron, it is still evident that there are no natural disadvantages to 
 prevent Boston, and New England generally, from becoming great iron and steefmau- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 15 
 
 nfacturing centers. If the duty on crude iron and coal is removed, New England can 
 rival Pennsylvania in manufacturing iron and steel. Her location on the coast fully 
 offsets her disadvantage as regards fuel ; for she can buy crude iron more cheaply 
 than Pittsburgh can make it. It is, th u, clearly the duty on coal and crude iron (pig 
 and scrap, the duty on each being !|6.72 per ton) that is strangling in New England 
 one of the largest of all the wonderful industries of our modern days. 
 
 Now, in considering the equity of a national duty on coal and iron doing such large 
 injury to New England, let us see to what extent and in what manner the iron-pro- 
 ducing States are benefited. The iron market is a close one, and it is safe to say that 
 if New England should buy of them all her crude iron, of the grade named, at |16.25 
 per ton, they would not, under present conditions, make V5 cents per ton on the trade. 
 Ic seems inequitable to tax New England $6.72 per ton in order that Pennsylvania, 
 for instance, may make 25 cents per ton. But, in fact, 25 cents per ton is by no 
 means the measure of the bounty that is paid to Pennsylvania. She does not make 
 her profit by selling her pig-iron to New England. She reaps the benefit of the |6.72, 
 but she does it in another way. She takes upon herself the profitable business of 
 doing all the steel and iron manufacturing, in rolling-mills, foundries, and machine- 
 shops, rather than the mining and smelting only for New England. And there are 
 to-day half a million atieast of Penneylvanians fed and clothed by doing, directly 
 and indirectly, the iron and steel manufacturing and manipulating that ought to be 
 going on in hundreds of New England villages, in rolling, casting, forging, machin- 
 ing, chipping, filing, and otherwise finishing the iron that is used in New England. 
 And it follows, aa a consequence, that there are half a million less of people fed and 
 clothed in New England than there might be if the duty imposed on coal and crude 
 iron did not deprive New England of the privilege of manufacturing her own iron 
 and steel goods for her own consumption. 
 
 To establish these statements by authority, we gather from the excellent set of sta- 
 tistics already named, the following information as to the consumption of iron aud 
 steel in the United States, assuming, as must be, broadly, the case, that ttie iron aud 
 steel manufactured and imported annually passes annually into consumption. 
 
 The total consumption of the United States in 1887 was 9,330,673 tons. Of this 
 amount there were of rolled iron aud steel 6,603,389 tons ; the rest, probably melted 
 by foundries, 2,727,484 tons. Assuming that the consumption of iron and steel in New 
 England was in the ratio of her population, as shown by the United States census of 
 1880, about 8 per cent, of the whole, we have, as her annual consumption of iron and 
 steel, 746,469 tons, of which 528,263 tons are in the form of rolled metal and 218,206 
 tons in the form of cast metal. Assuming that a mill converting 5,000 tons of pig iron 
 annually into rolled iron will employ 100 hands, aud that a foundry melting 3,000 
 tons of pig-iron annually will employ 100 hands, there are needed 10,565 mill hands 
 and 7,273 foundry hands to convert, roll, and cast from pig-iron the steel and iron 
 annually consumed in New England. If we allow for each hand an aver-ige family 
 of four, we find that 71,352 people are supported by the labor done in the rolling- 
 mills and foundries alone. To forge, turn, plane, drill, and otherwise fit for its vari- 
 ous uses the bars, beams, plates, shapes, and castings thus produced by these 17,838 
 hands will require (as an estimate) at least four men for each hand; aud allowing 
 these men also families of four, as before, we have 28-'i,408 people to be added to the 
 71,352 already accounted for, making 356,760 in all. To furnisli these with their arti- 
 cles of necessity, such as food, clothing, fuel, shelter, etc., will provide work which 
 will support at least as many more; and we have a round 700,000 people (but not New 
 England people) now supported by the manufacture and manipulation of the iron 
 and steel used in New England. 
 
 Space is taken to introduce this calculation, because it is so often comfortably as- 
 serted in Pennsylvania, aud conceded in New England, that iron manufacturing in 
 New England must die. It is well to show the magnitude of the interest which we 
 have been so quietly consigning to death ; and to emphasize the statements that there 
 is no necessity for letting it die; that it is only the existing duties on coal, ore, and 
 crude iron that are strangling it ; and that the abolition of those duties will not only 
 keep it alive, bub will insure it a tremendous vitality and large increase, and will 
 add more largely to the wealth and population of New England than any possible 
 legislation upon any other subject. 
 
 But compare these possibilities with existiug facts. As no statistics regarding 
 foundry consumption are obtainable, we are confined to the statistics regarding rolled 
 iron and steel; but may infer that the foundry statistics, if obtainable, would indi- 
 cate a similar state of affairs, as the conditions of the two branches are similar. Out 
 of the 528,263 tons of rolled iron consumed in New England in 1887, 102,711 tons, or 
 only one-fifth part of the whole, wore produced in her mills, and the tendency of 
 the interest is even worse than its existing condition. 
 
 Look at the following record of the production of rolled iron by the Massachusetts 
 mills from 1880 to 1887, taken from the same set of statistics from which we have 
 aOready guated so freely: 1880, 114,250 tons; 1881, 116,846 tons: 1882, 111,388 tons; 
 
16 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 1883, 100,418 tons; 1884, 77,560 tons; 1885, 75,074 tons; 1886, 61,323 tons; 1887, 
 45,853 tons. In 1887 tbe surviving mills produced but little over one-third as mucn 
 as was produced in 1880. . , , . , 
 
 These figares represent the destruction of many villages once occupied by indus- 
 trious and coateuted colonics of producers, and the swamping of millions ot dollars 
 of capital. , , „ 
 
 Under the tariff duties upon irou and coal, as they were before the war, the JNew 
 England States had slowly and surely built up a healthy and thriving iron and steel 
 manufacturius interest. 
 
 The large demand and high prices created during the war enabled them to survive 
 under the war taxes, and the consumption of their accumulated profats and reserves 
 kept them iu existence until the resumptiou of specie payments. The tremendous 
 decline iu tbe price of crude iron which followed, not being accompanied by any re- 
 duction in the specilic duty, and being aggravated by the retention of a prohibitory 
 duty upon coal, has created a condition which has, since 1880, destroyed two-thirds 
 of the iron and steel manufacturing capacity of Massachusetts, aud built up an enor- 
 mous monopoly for a few iron-producing States. No change iu the law can compen- 
 sate New England for the heavy losses already sustained ; but a restoration of the 
 aute-war tariff rates upon crude "iron, ore, coal, and coke will iirevent the further ex- 
 tension of the evil and gradually restore to her her fair share iu this great manufact- 
 uring interest. 
 
 It may be thought that even if the rolling-mills have to go out, there will still re- 
 main work for the fouudries, machiue shops, and smaller manufactories, which can 
 use Pennsylvania pig, bar, and plate iron. This is, doubtless, true, to a limited ex- 
 tent. They will still ruu, some of them, on a small scale, on local work, repairs, and 
 small specialties; but the heavy work, the contracts, all the large operations, have 
 already gone to Pennsylvania, and the smaller ones are fast following them. Why 
 should it not be so ? Pittsburgh has cheap iron, and all the iron and steel industries 
 nourish there, while, in New England, they languish and die, because iron is made 
 dear by tariff duties six times greater than the average duties upon other crude ma- 
 terials. 
 
 The Pennsylvania Railroad Company (assisted, we may hops ignorautly, by its al- 
 lied New England roads) has, apparently, formed a deliberate plan for destroying 
 the iron and steel industries of New England, with a view to securing to Pennsylva- 
 nia the manufacture, and to herself, forever, the ti^nsportation, of her iron and steel 
 goods. While it brings iHto New England manufactured iron and steel goods at com- 
 paratively low rates ; and while it carries back to Pittsburgh, at the same, or even 
 lower rates, the scanty supply of scrap-iron and old rails produced in New England, 
 and constituting almost the only available raw iron of the New England mills, it 
 imposes a high freight charge upon the coke, which forms the staple, and only, fuel 
 for the steel-making and foundry work of New England. For illustration: In De- 
 cember, 1888, it transported, from Pittsburgh to Boston, nails and the kegs contain- 
 ing them for |3.04 per net ton (10 cents per 106 pounds); and from Boston to Pitts- 
 burgh, old rails for |12.86 per net ton. But, for bringing coke from Couuellsville (in 
 the immediate vicinity of Pittsburgh) to Boston, it charged $4 per net ton. A car- 
 load of nails (240 kegs) was worth about |500; a car-load of coke (24,000 pounds) 
 about |18. The freight rate per ton on the cheap coke, used for manufacturing iron 
 and steel in New England, was 33 per cent, greater than on the costly nails, made in 
 Pennsylvania; and 40 per cent, greater than on the old rails, thus removed from the 
 reach of the New England rolling mills. 
 
 This discrimination, however, seems to have been rather stiff, even for the con- 
 science of a railroad manager; and, at this time (February, 1889), the rates upon nails 
 and old rails are 40 cents per ton higher than in December last ; the rate on coke still 
 remaining unchanged, and much higher than on those and other iron and steel goods. 
 The intention to keep raw material scarce and high, and to introduce manufactured 
 iron and steel at low rates until, under the combined pressure of customs duties and 
 di.scriminating freight rates, the New England iron and steel industries are killed off 
 is too clear to be mistaken. After that, the freight rates of this railroad upon man- 
 ufactured iron and steel goods may not be so low. 
 
 In the eighteenth century Lord Chatham said, " England should not suffer the col- 
 onies to make even a horeshoe for themselves." In the nineteenth, Pennsylvania and 
 the Pennsylvania Railroad Company say, "We will not suffer New England to make 
 even a horseshoe for herself." In the lapse of a century we have only changed mas- 
 ters. 
 
 The surrender by any State of the power to manufacture its own goods was not 
 contemplated in the formation of the Union. It is not right to so protect the man- 
 ufacture of pig-irou that a few States can kill out, by virtue of such protection, all 
 tbe iron industries of other States. If the iron-producing States could, by the aid 
 of a tariff', develop their coal and iron mine.9, and send their coal and raw iron here, 
 lor us to manufacture in to various forms suitable for our uses, we, as Americans might, 
 
EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 17 
 
 althongh at large injury, even under 8ucli circumstanoea, to ourselves, consent to the 
 continuance of the present tariff rates. But, as they are not content with that, but 
 insist upon making our bars and plates, our beams and columns, our agricultural 
 tools, castings, forgiugs, shovels, nails, tacks, cutlery, and everything else that is 
 made of iron or steel, closing our workshops, and paralyzing our industries, we now, 
 as New England men, say this is not fair; and we are not called upon to sacrifice our 
 growth, prosperity and independence, in order that the iron-producing States may 
 become inordinately great. 
 
 Estimating their consumption of iron by the relative percentages of their popula- 
 tions, there are but six States that produce more iron than thev use. In all the re- 
 maining States and Territories, crude iron is, and, in most of them, always must be 
 a raw material, to be purchased, in whole or in part, from other States or abroad. To 
 enable these six States to firmly establish their industries, and to meet the expenses of 
 the war, the other thircy-two States and the Territories have, for many years, sub- 
 mitted to a heavy war duty upon coal, iron ore, pig-iron, and scrap-iron. But it has 
 become evident that this duty is tending to the degradation of New England. Since 
 the exigencies which called for- it no longer exist, it should, injustice to her, be abol- 
 ished, or heavily reduced. 
 
 Thus far, this question has been considered only as aflfecting the diminution of the 
 opportunities for labor, in the New England States. There is, however, a still more 
 serious injury being done by the existing tariff rates upon coal and iron. 
 
 Iron and steel are the basis of all industries ; and cheap iron and steel are necessary 
 to the growth and prosperity of a country. To compel New England to pay freight 
 from Pennsylvania, or Alabama, upon its iron and steel, at a railroading "cost which 
 is a heavy tax now, and which will become still heavier when the interested rail- 
 roads, with the help of the present extreme tariff rates, shall have accomplished their 
 purpose of obliterating the manufacture of iron and steel in New England, is to set 
 her back in the scale of civilization, and to put her at an infinite disadvantage, as 
 compared with those States to which monopolies in iron are given by the tariff. It 
 is to limit and restrict the use of iron and steel ; to compel the use of wood where 
 metal would be better ; to forbid the building of iron and jteel ships, and to crip- 
 ple commerce; to discourage manufacturing and invention ; and to tend towards the 
 conversion of a maritime, commercial, and manufacturing population into an agricul- 
 tural peasantry, not even possessing a soil fit to cultivate. 
 
 The laws should not degrade one section of our common country in order to exalt 
 another. They should not forbid New England to enjoy the rights which her location 
 on the coast gives; they should be so amended that crude iron may be as cheap in 
 her ports as it is in Pennsylvania or Alabama ; and that coal and iron ore may be as 
 cheap as the world will furnish them to her. 
 
 It is not claimed that crude iron should be allowed to come in at such rates of duty 
 as to flood the iron producing districts, even if such a thing were possible ; (but, in 
 fact, it is not, for the world, outside of the United States, can not produce and spare 
 iron enough to half supply this country ; and a speedy advance in the price of for- 
 eign iron would follow any importations larger than the sea-coast requirements, even 
 if crude iron were absolutely free of duty). But we claim that the tariftshould allow 
 crude iron to be as cheap on the coast as it is in the interior, in order that New Eng- 
 land men may manufacture and finish the iron that New Englanduses ; and thatshe 
 may not be set back in civilization by the impediments arising from the lack of cheap 
 iron and steel. 
 
 Is there not poor national economy in continuing a condition of affairs that re- 
 quires ns to pay three or four extra dollars per ton for our manufactured iron, even 
 althongh we thus furnish work to certain railroads in the transportation of it? The 
 railroad's profit is not equal to our loss, and the transaction is a losing one, even 
 from a national point of view. It is true that employment is given, and wages are 
 paid to the trainmen; but the wages are paid for unnecessary labor, and are conse- 
 quently wasted. It is New England that foots the bill for the waste, besides being 
 deprived of the opportunity to employ her own people in manufacturing the iron. 
 
 It is objected that Americans in the iron-producing States are deprived of the oppor- 
 tunity to mine and smelt the iron which is imported by the sea-board States. This is 
 trne; but it is also true that more men are employed iu manufacturing and finishing 
 than in raining and smelting a given quantity of iron; and also that cheapness 
 largely increases consumption, and especially the consumption of iron. Consequently, 
 at a decreased cost of three or four dollars per ton for iron, it is probable that to off- 
 set every man who, in consequence of an increased importation of iron into the New 
 England States might be thrown out of work as a common laborer at mining and 
 smiting in the iron-producing States, two men would find employment as skilled 
 laboir^s in manipulating and finishing iron and steel in New England. Is it not 
 lietter jnational economy to find employment for two skilled laborers than for one 
 («^mmo:p laborer ? Afl.(} )et ua not forget tliat front a natiQi}£il point pf vjew it is j ust 
 
18 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 as well that men should he employed in New England as in Pennsylvania or Minne- 
 sota ; this fact seems to be often overlooked. Touching the remark sometimes made, 
 that a free importation of coal, iron ore, and crude iron would close the furnaces ot 
 the interior, we quote the following paragraphs from a Boston paper of recent date : 
 
 " In a recently published article, Mr. Andrew Carnegie has made the admission 
 that, 80 far as foreign competil ion in pig-iron is concerned , if we have no tax upon that 
 article, it would be confined to the sea-board districts of this country, where cheap 
 transportation, by water, could be obtained from thecentersof production in Europe. 
 In the interior of this country iron is already manufactured at so low a price that 
 foreign producers could not afford to send their product across the Atlantic, and pay, 
 in addition, largo rates of freight for trjinsportation by rail in order to compete, in the 
 interior, with American producers." Mr. Carnegie, thus speaking, is good authority 
 on this subject. 
 
 It has been stated (page 8) that " under the tariff duties, as they were before the 
 war, the New England States had, slowly and surely, built up a healthy and thriving 
 iron and steel manufacturing industry." But it should be understood that, even 
 then, the possible growth of this industry was measured by the gradual increase in 
 the production of domestic scrap-iron, which was used in connection with some im- 
 ported pig and scrap iron. Unfortunately, the duty, 24 percent., was no lower, in 
 percentages, than the duty, 24 per cent., upon manufactured iron and steel. In com- 
 peting with other States for the right to do her own manufacturiDg, New England, 
 under an import duty of 24 per cent, upon crude iron, had a better chance than she 
 now has. But, neither then nor now, could the New England States, or any other 
 States using, exclusively, crude iron imported under a 24 per cent, duty, manufacture 
 iron and steel at price's to compete with manufactured iron and steel also imported 
 under a 24 per cent. duty. By using cheap domestic scrap, in connection with cer- 
 tain proportions of imported pig or scrap, she was able to do a part of her own man- 
 ufacturing ; but the small supply of domestic scrap limited her ability ; and more than 
 half the manufactured iron and steel used in New England was made in England and 
 Germany. With a duty of 24 per cent, on manufactured iron and steel, crude iron 
 should have been admitted free of duty. 
 
 Small regard for the interests of New England has ever been shown in the making 
 of the iron and steel tariffs. The earlier legislation compelled her to have the manu- 
 facturing other iron aud steel done largely in England and Germany. The existing 
 tariff turns it over to Pennsylvania. A just and equitable tariff will enable her to do 
 it at home, and will permit her iron and steel to be as cheap as they are in Alabama 
 or Pennsylvania. Nothing but the tariff laws forbid this. Is it right that the United 
 States should bar her from this privilege by discriminating legislation against the 
 importation of crude iron ? 
 
 The petition annexed to this statement is based upon the supposition that the pres- 
 ent duties upon manufactured iron and steel will remain as they are. If, however, 
 these duties shall be reduced, an equivalent reduction in the duty upon crude iron 
 (pig and scrap) asked for (24 per cent.) should be made. No increase in the duties 
 upon manufactured iron and steel will aid New England. It is not increased protec- 
 tion from foreign manufacturers, but cheaper raw material, that she asks for. In her 
 struggle to do her own manufacturing her contest is not with England, but with 
 enormously protected Pennsylvania. 
 
 This statement has, throughout, been confined to a discussion of the interests of 
 New England ; but it is evident that the reasoning applies with equal force to the 
 interests of the whole sea-board population of the United States. It is not an argu- 
 ment for a corner of the country, hut for all the people that live upon our Atlantic 
 shores and Pacific coasts. All of these have the right to do their own manufacturing, 
 manipulating, and finishing of iron and steel, and to have their crude materials tor 
 this purpose as cheaply as those who live in the interior. Natural obstacles may be 
 insurmountable ; but there should be no artificial barriers erected to prevent the sea- 
 board States from advancing, with equal step, in comfort, prosperity, and oiviliza 
 tion. 
 
 COMPARATIVE TABLE OP DUTIES. 
 
 The following rough grouping of the articles (some of them crude materials, andl 
 some of them manufactured) which' are most largely used in the arts and manufact- 
 ures, and the annexed r.ates of duty imposed upon them, respectively, by the present 
 tariff, clearly shows the enormous discrimination which is m^de p.giiinst the crudfi 
 piaterials that enter into the manufaptiiro of iron and steel; '" 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 19 
 
 Articles. 
 
 Rate of duty. 
 
 Acida, alkalia, alkaloids, chemical salts and compounds, mostly 
 
 In a few instances only, llie duty runs up to 
 
 Bones, crude, bone-ash and bone-dust , 
 
 Brick and cements 
 
 Cotton and cotton waste , 
 
 Cork-wood and cork-bark 
 
 Drugs, non-edible, dye-woods, and dye-stuffs, crude 
 
 Drugs, non-edible, dye- woods, and dye-stuifa, not altogether-crude , 
 
 Extracts and decoctions of dye-woods 
 
 Feathers and downs, for beds, free; otherwise, if crude, undressed , 
 
 Flax, not hackled or dressed , 
 
 Glass, broken, fit only for remelting 
 
 Glue stock, horns, hoofs, and hides 
 
 Guano, manures and phosphates 
 
 Guttapercha , 
 
 Hair, from horses and other animals, crude 
 
 Hemp, not hackled or dressed 
 
 Hides skins and furs, not dressed or tanned , 
 
 India rubber — , 
 
 Ivory, vegetable ivory and whalebone , 
 
 Jate 
 
 Leather , 
 
 Lime 
 
 Oaknm and old junk 
 
 Paper stock of all kinds, including grasses, fibers, rags (excepting 
 woolen), clippings, etc 
 
 Precious stones , 
 
 Ores of gold, silver, tin, cobalt, and manganese 
 
 Ores of chrome 
 
 Ores and minerals not otherwise provided for, crude , 
 
 Silk, raw 
 
 Spices, nearly, or qnite, all of them 
 
 Timber, round, unmanufautured 
 
 Timber, hewed or sawed 
 
 Wood, for cabinet-makers' use, mahogany, ebony, satinwood, etc., in 
 the log 
 
 T?ood pulp 
 
 Wool, estimated average rate, about , 
 
 Antimony and quicksilver 
 
 Brittania and pewter, as old metals 
 
 Brass, in bars or pigs, or as old metal, IJ cents per pound, equivalent, 
 at present prices, to 
 
 Copper, in ingots, bars, or pigs, 4= cents per pound, equivalent, at pres- 
 ent prices, to 
 
 Copper, as old metal, fit only to rework, 3 cents per pound 
 
 Cadmium and platinum, unmanufactured 
 
 German silver, unmanufactured 
 
 Lead, in pigs, bars, blocks, or as old lead, 2 cents per pound, equiva- 
 lent, at present prices, to 
 
 Tin, in pigs, bars, or blocks 
 
 Zinc, in pigs,,bars, or blocks, 1^ cents perpound, equivalent, at present 
 prices, to 
 
 All other metals, unwrought, not otherwise provided for 
 
 Free. 
 
 25 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Free. 
 
 20 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 10 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 10 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 25 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 $20 per ton. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 $10 per ton. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 10 per cent. 
 
 15 to 20 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 10 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 10 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Free. 
 
 15 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 Free. 
 
 20 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Free. 
 
 10 percent, ad valorem. 
 
 40 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 10 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Free. 
 
 15 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 24 per cent, ad valorem. 
 20 per cent, ad valorem. 
 Free. 
 
 25 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 66 per cent, ad valorem. 
 Free. 
 
 37i per cent, ad valorem. 
 20 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 It is seen at a glance that the average duty upon the many articles comprised iu 
 the groupings given above will fall far short of 10 per cent. Now, compare with this 
 fact the duties upon the crude materials which enter into the manufacture aud ma- 
 nipulation of iron and steel, as follows: 
 
 The duty upon iron ore is 75 cents per ton, which is equivalent to an ad valorem 
 duty of 37i to 60 per cent. 
 
 The duty upon bituminous coal is 75 cents per ton, which is equivalent to an ad 
 valorem duty of 75 per cent. 
 
 The duty upon scrap iron and scrap steel is |6.72 per ton, equivalent to an ad valo- 
 rem duty of 64 per cent. 
 
 The duty upon pig-iron is $6.72 per ton, equivalent to an ad valorem duty of 67 to 
 80 per cent. 
 
 It should be clearly understood that this euormous disproportion did not exist in 
 1872. It arises from the large shrinkage in values which has taken place siucethat 
 time. Iron, at foreign shipping ports, is now worth only about one-third of what it 
 was in 1872; but the specific tax of |6.72 still remains unchanged. An ad valorem 
 tax adjusts itself to the changing markets ; a specific tax does not. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 (1) The duty upon imported crude iron is, and for ten years, on an averagCj hftB b^rn 
 nearly tUree timea as large, coraputed by values, aa it ^vay \u l^Tiv. 
 
20 REVISION OF THE TAUIFF. 
 
 (2) The existing duty upon bituminous coal prohibits to New England the exercise of 
 the right which she enjoyed, and largely used, before the war, of importing Cana- 
 dian coal ; and, without producing any revenue for the Government, puts an extra 
 and unnecessary cost of $1.50 per ton upou all bituminous coal used in New England. 
 
 (3) The combined duties upon coal and iron ore prohibit the sQielting of iron in New 
 England, and the duty upon pig and scrap iron and coal is closing her iron and steel 
 mills and workshops. 
 
 (4) Under the pressure of these duties, statistics indicate that the iron and steel 
 working industries of New Enghmd have, during the last ten years, shrunken 40 
 per cent., while those of the country at large have, during the same period, increased 
 about 57 per cent. 
 
 (5) No natural disadvantages have caused this large loss to New England. The 
 osbtacles interposed by the tariff are solely responsible for it. 
 
 (6) These obstacles have caused a degradation of American labor in New England. 
 
 (7) In the manufacture, manipulation, and finishing of the iron and steel consumed 
 in New England there would be support for 700,000 of her people if the prohibitory 
 tariff duties upon crude iron, coal, coke, and iron ore were removed, or properly re- 
 duced. 
 
 (8) Crude iron is, in whole or in part, raw material in thirty-two of the States and 
 in all the Territories. 
 
 (9) The prohibition of cheap iron and steel to New England (through the heavy 
 duty upou the crude materials used in their manufacture) is an obstacle to her prog- 
 ress in arts, sciences, manufactures, and civilization, and tends to her degradation in 
 rank among the States. 
 
 (10) National economy calls for the removal or large modification of the restrictions 
 upon the importation of coal, coke, iron ore, and crude iron, since more men would 
 thereby be given employment in the New England States than would be thrown out 
 of work in other States, and the labor done wonld be of a liigber grade. 
 
 (11) The importation of crude iron under a largely reduced tariif into the sea-board 
 States will not prevent the American furnaces from making iron for all the interior 
 States, and, through the fluctuations of the market, competing for and securing a 
 large part of the trade of the sea-coast. 
 
 (12) While this argument has been closely confined to the interests of the New 
 England States, it applies with nearly equal force to all the sea-board districts of the 
 United States. 
 
 (13) The rate of duty imposed upon the crude materials used in iron and steel manu- 
 facturing is at least six times as large as the average duties imposed by the existing 
 tariflfupon all other crude materials used in the arts and manufactures. It iinds its 
 parallel only in the heavy duty still imposed upon lead. 
 
 PETITION. 
 
 To the Senators and Bepresentatives in Congress of tlie Neio England States : 
 
 The undersigned, proprietors or managers of iron-working establishments in New 
 England, being members of all political parties ; and believing that, in the adjust- 
 ment of the tariff, a careful regard should be had to the rights and interests of all sec- 
 tions, and of all the people ; that the local interests of each section should be care- 
 fully watched by its delegates in Congress; and that in order to be fully informed, 
 such delegates must necessarily depend largely upon information furnished by their 
 constituents, do hereby respectfully unite in calling your attention to the condition 
 of the iron and steel working interests in New England, and to the effect of this con- 
 dition upon the general interests of this section of; our common country, as fully set 
 forth in a statement prefixed hereto. 
 
 And, in view of the approaching revision of the tariff laws, we further unite in the 
 request that you will insist upon the incorporation of the following provisions in 
 any revised tariff law that shall be enacted : 
 
 First. That iron ore, coal, and coke shall be put upon the free list, as they were be- 
 fore the war. 
 
 Secondly. That the duty upou pig iron and scrap iron and scrap steel whicli pre- 
 vailed immediately before the war be restored : to wit, a duty of 24 per cent, ad valo- 
 rem. 
 
 I'own. State. 
 
IJEVlSIOlSr OF THE TAEIFP. 2l 
 
 The Chaikman. You can leave that with the stenographer. 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. There has been a marked advance in the price of iron goods since that 
 time. The advance is calculated upon by those who are best informed without ex- 
 ception as a temporary advance. The tendency in all articles is for lower prices pro- 
 gressively. 
 
 Mr. BaYjSTE. Are you a consumer of ore ? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. Not' ore directly. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Are you a consumer of coke ? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How much does your coke cost you at the works per ton ? 
 
 Mr. TOBBY. About p. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. And it costs the consumer at Pittsburgh about p. 25? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. I thinkcokeof theeame grade would cost about $1.75 there, and about 
 |2.40 for coke of the same grade at Connellsville. The coke I use is average coke. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you think now when you have to pay that enormous price you 
 would ever be able to compete if the raw material was made free ? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. Wo think Providence is kindly to everything, and we are manufactur- 
 ing our class of goods very cheap. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How much do you pay for coal ? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. Our coal costs about $4.25 at this time. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. If you have seventy-five cents a ton taken off it would cost you $3.50? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. You would be very far from the difference by taking off that seventy- 
 five cents. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Why so ? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. Because the mines in Nova Scotia have been restricted instead of be- 
 ing developed for thirty-four years. They have been laboring under the certainty of 
 having to pay this duty of seventy-five cents a ton. So we are enabled to exclude 
 them in that way from the American markets. There has been no attempt at devel- 
 oping the mines of Nova Scotia. If the Canadian mines were developed a large part 
 of the product would come to this country. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Enough for the consumption of this country ? 
 
 Mr. TOBEY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. But now our own employes and people produce the supply largely of 
 this material. 
 
 Mr. ToBBY. Yes, sir; but we have to pay the Pennsvlvania people $3 a ton to haul 
 it. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You pay the Pennsylvania Eailroad, and under the existing condition 
 our own people produce the coal and our own miners are given employment, whereas, 
 without that system the supply would largely come from Canada and thus deprive our 
 producers of the production of that quantity of coal which you would consume. 
 
 Mr. ToBBY. Yes, sir ; and deprive our people of the same amount of labor. We 
 hope to he able to build up a large amount of labor in our section by givingthem the 
 equivalent legitimate labor from the increased production. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How many men have you in your employment? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. I should say about two hundred and fifty or three hundred. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is the product of this establishment ? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. The amount ? 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What do yon make ? 
 
 Mr. TOBBY. Bessemer steel. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you manufacture the finished product ? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. Yes, sir, we carry it into the finished product. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you carry all of the Bessemer steel into the finished product ? 
 
 Mr. Tobey. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You do not sell any ? 
 
 Mr. Tobey. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the relative cost of labor in making the Bessemer product in 
 your country compared with the Pennsylvania rolling mills ? I speak of skilled 
 labor. 
 
 Mr. ToBET. I think the skilled labor would be at least double. I think the skilled 
 labor in our mill is uot much more than one-half that of Pittsburgh. 
 
 Mr. Gear, How so ? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. We have succeeded in degrading American labor. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Row so ? 
 
 Mr. Tobey. By being compelled to hire it as cheaply as possible. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you wish to ask for an increase in the tariff? 
 
 Mr. Tobey. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would you be willing to consent to a reduction on steel products? 
 
 Mr. Tobey. In that case it would be necessary to give us a reduction of 25 cents a 
 ton. 
 
22 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 Mr. McEenna. Why is it labor worts for one-lialf in Massacliusetts of what it dofiS 
 in Pittsburgh ? t • f 
 
 Mr. ToBET. Because they are obliged to work for that or move. It is noc agree- 
 able to many of them. Some prefer to live at that rather than move. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. So they take one-half rather than go to Pittsburgh ? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. Yes, sir. „ 
 
 Mr. Gear. You do not quite comprehend my question. I ask you jf you tavor a re- 
 duction ? 
 
 Mr. ToBBT. I think the duty has been so high a reduction 
 
 Mr. Gear. But on the general productions ? , •, j.. 
 
 Mr. ToBET. I do not think from the tariff at present that a horizontal reduction 
 could be made to advantage. It appears inequitable that there should be a duty of 
 75 per cent, on raw material. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you favor a reduction on the steel products made in your mill I 
 
 Mr. TOBET. I will answer a little indirectly, if you will allow me. We have had 
 to pay on pig-iron which we have brought out and used in our mill a duty of 70 to 75 
 per cent. We have been protected by the labor together with the duty on steel bil- 
 lets, slabs, and blooms, which we make, to the extent of 45 per cent. ; it appears to 
 my mind that there should not bea duty of 75 per cent, on the raw material and a duty 
 of 45 per cent, on the face product. Although I advocate a reduction of duty on raw 
 material, it does not follow that I must necessarily advocate a reduction on the fin- 
 ished product, as I think the duty is out of proportion. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Your product among other things includes billets ? 
 
 Mr. TOBET. Billets for nine-tenths of the Bessemer steel works are the finished 
 product. The duty of these has been 45 per cent, and on pig-iron 75 per cent. Now, 
 if it is right and equitable to ask for a reduction on the 75 per cent., it might follow 
 that we feel it was right to ask for a reduction on the 45 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Your production is in billets. Are you in favor of a reduction 
 
 Mr. ToBET. Yes, sir. I might answer the question by saying I favor a reduction 
 on nails, which is my chief article of production. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Why ? 
 
 Mr. TOBBY. Because I think the duty could be reduced and I could still make nails. 
 
 The Chairman. Suppose we had free coal and free ore ? 
 
 Mr. TOBEY. I should be willing to submit to as much reduction in nails and then 
 double it. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Suppose wo gave you free raw material ; would you make nails free f 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. I think I would rather have the duty on them. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much reduction would you favor? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. I could not tell that. The duty upon them is large, so we do not import 
 any at all ; and they cost so much for transportation. I mean nail plates. At pres- 
 ent they are not imported. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It is a prohibitory duty now ? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. Yes, sir ; practically so. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I understand you to say that whether or not the tariff be made 
 a little lower, at all times it is proposed the higher tax should be upon the crude ma- 
 terials than upon the finished product ? 
 
 Mr. TOBEY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Therefore you are arguing against the present inequalities of 
 thetarifi'? 
 
 Mr. Tobey. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What are the steel billets you manufacture used for ? 
 
 Mr. TOBBY. They are used in manufacturing nails. Nail making is substantially 
 the same thing, 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you import any ores? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. No, sir ; we do not use any directly. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you import any pig-iron ? ' 
 
 Mr. ToBBY. Yes, sir; formerly. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Will you state to the committee the cost of transportation from the 
 place of production to your place per ton of pig-iron ? 
 
 Mr. Tobey. It varies from time to time. A short time ago it could have been 
 brought in for 75 cents per ton. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. From the place of production ? 
 
 Mr. Tobey. From the port of shipment. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What does it cost to take it from the place of production to the 
 place of shipment? 
 
 Mr. Tobey. That was included in the price to me on shipboard. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The charge for transportation paid by you was 75 cents? 
 
 Mr. Tobey. No, sir; we are not importing at this time, but we could have gotten 
 it at that price. This is lower than tlio freight price. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What has been the average price for the last five years? 
 
SEVisioN OP The TAftlFP. 23 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. Perliaps f l.GO would be a very fair price. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. From Glasgow or Liverpool ? 
 
 Mr. TOBET. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Where are they produced ? 
 
 Mr. ToBBY. On the west coast of England generally, hut we have purchased some 
 from Scotland. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How far inland ? 
 
 Mr. TOBEY. I am not familiar with the details of production over there ? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you know anything of the cost of transportation of ore 
 brought here from Spain and various other sources of supply ? 
 
 Mr. TOBEY. If it was brought over by steamers as pig-iron it would be lower than 
 if brought by transport ships. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. In proportion to its value ? 
 
 Mr. TOBEY. It would be absolutely more per ton. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Why for pig iron ? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. For the reason that the steamers take pig-iron for ballast. They like 
 to have some heavy weight in the bottom of the ship. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The cost of bringing the ore is less than the cost of bringing 
 the pig-iron ? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. No, sir. The pig iron is in a very convenient shape to handle. It is 
 the right size and the passenger steamers like to have the ballast all low down intho 
 ship. Ore is friable and they have to handle it with shovels, so they dislite to 
 receive it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You say the cost per ton for transporting pig iron is less than 
 the cost per ton for transporting ore 1 
 
 Mr. TOBEY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How much coke does it require to reduce a ton of ore ? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. I am not a blast furnace man, but I understand it to be about three- 
 quarters to seven-eighths of a ton; but I do not run a blast furnace. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Does it not require more than that ? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. No, sir ; I think not. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I think it is a ton and a half. If you jiut $4 to the ton for coke and 
 should buy the reduced ore, the pig iron and coke would cost you apparently $6 per 
 ton. 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. I should like to inquire of Mr. Swank whether it is a ton and a half ? 
 
 Mr. Swank. Some require a little less than others. I should say a ton and a quar- 
 ter. Some can make pig iron for a little more a ton. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Say a ton and a half. That would be about $4 a ton for coke. 
 
 Mr. Tobey. We pay more than $4 a ton for coke. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How much do you pay ? 
 
 Mr. Tobey. Seven dollars a ton. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Then it would cost you about |10 ? 
 
 Mr. Tobey. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What interest have you in getting free ore if you have to pay that 
 enormous price for coke ? 
 
 Mr. Tobey. You appear to overlook the proximity of Nova Scotia to us. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. If you take seventy-five cents a ton off coal you still have this enor- 
 mous cost for fuel ? 
 
 Mr. Tobey. The coal can be produced here at a price which will more than offset 
 the seventy-five cents when this development has been made. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Suppose that there was a lively competition. You would still pay 
 more for your fuel than in Pennsylvania ? 
 
 Mr. Tobey. Very little more. I think we would get it at $2.50 per ton. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you think according to the laws of trade you could succeed in com- 
 peting with Pennsylvania under these conditions ? 
 
 Mr. Tobey. What would you think of Chicago competing with Pennsylvania when 
 she has to pay more? 
 
 Mr. Bayne. She is compensated by nearness to the ore. 
 
 Mr. TOBBY. That is quite so. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You did not think of the advantage of Chicago when she is near the 
 Lake Superior ore mines, whereas you are so far away. 
 
 Mr. Tobey. Water freights are quite low. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Of course you are a little farther away and do not have such com- 
 pensation as Chicago in the way of cheap re ? 
 
 Mr Tobey. Yon are aware furnaces are run in New Jersey and Pennsylvania en- 
 tirely on foreign ores, and they manage to live ; and then there is the 75 per cent, 
 duty. 
 
 It may appear strange that I have not, in the rates I have given, included the year 
 1888. At the time this statement was made the statistics for 1888 were not out. 
 They had not been published. They have since been published, and a statement 
 
24 
 
 llKVJ.SKJM 01-' THE TARIFF. 
 
 might have beou mude in refe.rcuce to them. An exammat.on of thm maUs y 
 clear the fact that they are quite erroneous as compared with t\« ^'^^fj'^oduct on 
 preceding years. There has beenintroduced into them the steel rolliDgproauct,on 
 
 of the la^g^st concern in Massachusetts, which never lip'-?t.«/?'-'^,l?„^^,i'tTsticrfor that 
 until this year. In 1881, I think, Mr. Swank incorporated it m his statistics tor tnat 
 
 ^tlr. SWANK. We have asked for the product of the establishment alluded to for the 
 
 last seventeen vears, and have always received a statement from tnem. 
 
 Mr. TOBEY. You have received a statement m regard to scr,ip iron, but not steel. 
 
 Mr. SWAXK. Thev so reported to me. . rri,„+ ;„ 
 
 Mr TOBEY Mr Moyue is the person from whom I got my information. That is 
 
 the reason I have notTncorporatid the statistics for 1888, as I considered them quite 
 
 *"'Mr."GEAR. You speak of the decadence of the iron manufactories in New England. 
 Is it not true that other manufactories than iron have a tendency towards the West- 
 such manufactories as shoes and other such articles ? . ^„„„f„ .+„,.;„„ 
 
 Mr ToBEY I do not think the census reports show diminution of manutaotories. 
 
 Mr Gear Is it not a matter of fact that the general trend of maiiulactures is 
 towards the West; that the people are going out there to live, leaving their shops in 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. I should hardly think so. I think there are some new cotton manu- 
 factories building up in the South, r -1 1 * „1,„1,„™ 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you know that there are some manufactnrersof nail plates who have 
 gone out tbere? ^ , r • 
 
 Mr ToBEY I do not know of any who have closed them for the purpose ot going 
 West. A good many people have gone West, but I do not know of any who have 
 closed their manufactories and gone there. 
 
 Mr. Gear. They have abandoiied them ? 
 
 Mr. ToBEY. I do not know of any industries to which that remark would apply. 
 I have a list of the signers of document. 
 
 The Chairman. Leave that, if you please. 
 
 PETITION. 
 
 To the Senators and Representatives ire Congress of the New England States : 
 
 The undersigned, proprietors or managers of iron-working establishments in New 
 En "-land, being members of all political parties; and believing that, in the adjust- 
 ment of the tariff, a careful regard should be had to the rights and interests of all 
 sections, and of all the people ; that the local interests of each section should be care- 
 fully watched by its delegates in Congress ; and that in order to be fully informed, 
 sucii delegates must necessarily depend largely upon information furnished by their 
 constituents, do hereby respectfully unite in calling your attention to the condition 
 of the iron and steel working interests in New England, and to the effect of this con- 
 dition upon the general interests of this section of our common country, as fully set 
 forth in a statement prefixed hereto. 
 
 And, in view of the approaching revision of the tariff laws, we further unite in the 
 request that you will insist upon the incorporation of the following provisions, in 
 any revised tariff law that shall be enacted, • 
 
 First. That iron ore, coal, and coke shall be put upon the free list, as they were 
 before the war. 
 
 Second. That the duty upon pig iron and scrap iron and scrap steel which pre- 
 vailed immediately before the war, be restored, to wit, a duty of 24 per cent, ad valo- 
 
 TAst of names of the prominent signers of the iron and steel petition. 
 
 Karnes. 
 
 Buainess. 
 
 Town. 
 
 State. 
 
 Palmer "Wire Manufactnring 
 Company, Henry V. Holdeii, 
 treasnror, H. L. Holdon, presi- 
 dent. 
 
 
 
 Mass, 
 
 
 
 Do. 
 
 TVIUi'iTn F, Ooffln 
 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 B;iyStatB Iron Company, .Jolinll. 
 
 Reed, treasurer. 
 Sonth Boston Iron 'Worlja, W. P. 
 
 Hnnt, p-nsident. 
 Khode Island Tool Company, 
 
 William B. Dart, treasurer. 
 
 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 do 
 
 Do 
 
 Nuts, bolts, drop fori^ings, etc .. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Clark &Dow 
 
 Tack and nail manafacturers. .. 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
HBVISION OP THE TARIFF. 25 
 
 List of names of the prominent sujners of the iron and steel petition — Contimied. 
 
 Busineas, 
 
 Town. 
 
 Stato. 
 
 Bartlett & Perkins 
 
 Nahum St etson 
 
 J. A. Northrop 
 
 Dighton Furnace Company, 
 James H. Codding, treasurer. 
 
 E. Phillips &. Sons 
 
 Z.Talbot 
 
 HoUiston Milla 
 
 Peter Joyce 
 
 Kicbard Susden 
 
 Dunbar. Holjart & Co 
 
 David B. Gurney 
 
 D. A. Gurney & Co 
 
 Jenkins Bros. & Co 
 
 A. B. Phillips &Co 
 
 Charles T. vStetson 
 
 American Screw Company, Ed- 
 win G.Angell, president. 
 
 Albert Field Tack Company, N. 
 B. Dean, treasurer. 
 
 Norway Steel and Iron Company, 
 Albert Geiger, treasurer. 
 
 Taunton Tack Company, Thomas 
 J. Lothrop, treasurer. 
 
 Brown and Sharp Manufacturing 
 Company. 
 
 Franconia Steel and Iron Works. 
 
 Somerville Spike Works 
 
 Howard Foundry Company 
 
 Fairhaven Iron Works 
 
 New Bedford Iron Foundry, Ed- 
 ward Grinnell. 
 
 Governor Oliver Ames 
 
 Ellis Foundry Company, Peleg 
 McFarlin, treasurer. 
 
 Rhode Island Locomotive Works, 
 
 Highland Foundry Company, T. 
 W. Elliott, treasurer. 
 
 Magee Furnmco Company 
 
 Warebam Nail Company 
 
 Taunton Lncomotive Works 
 
 Tremont Nail Company 
 
 Cambridge KoUing Mills 
 
 New England Butt Company 
 
 Cobb & Drew . 
 
 Armington & Sims Engine Com- 
 pany, Pardon Armington, treas- 
 urer. 
 
 H.C. & W.S.Cole 
 
 French, Hall &Co 
 
 Henry Perkins 
 
 Perkins Bros 
 
 Tyler Steel Tnbe Company 
 
 Florence Tack Company, G. W. 
 Bond.trt-asurer. 
 
 East Biidgewater Iron Company. 
 
 Boston Forge Company, James 
 Smitb, treasurer. 
 
 W. Osborne & Co 
 
 B. Schlesinger 
 
 Manchester Locomotive Works, 
 Aretas Blood, manager. 
 
 Nashua Iron and Steel Company. 
 Aretas Blood, treasurer. 
 
 Bradford Joint Company 
 
 Brainard Milling Machine Com- 
 pany, A. H. Brainard, general 
 superintendent. 
 
 John T. Robinson & Co 
 
 New HomeSewingMachineCom- 
 pany. 
 
 Joel Knapp 
 
 Roilney Hunt Machine Company, 
 E. N. Harris, treasurer. 
 
 Chase Turbine Manufacturing 
 Company, L. Kilburn, treasurer. 
 
 Samuel B. Locke & Co 
 
 Cnnningbam Iron Works Com- 
 nany. 
 
 Nail manufacturers 
 
 Iron manufacturer 
 
 Foundry and machine works . 
 Stove foundry 
 
 Tack manufacturers 
 
 Tack manufacturer 
 
 Machiner y 
 
 Iron foundry 
 
 Wire mauutacturer 
 
 Tack mauuiacturers 
 
 Tack manufacturer 
 
 Steel shanks 
 
 do... 
 
 Machinists 
 
 Machine-shop 
 
 Screws tire and stove bolts, 
 
 rivets, wire nails, etc. 
 Tacks, nails, shoe and wire 
 
 nails, etc. 
 Iron and steel manufacturers . , . 
 
 Tack manufacturers, etc 
 
 Machinists 
 
 Steel and iron manufacturers. . . 
 
 Spiko manufacturers 
 
 Iron foundry 
 
 Iron foundry and machine-shop 
 Iron foundry 
 
 Shovel manufacturer . 
 Stove-works 
 
 Locomotive works. 
 Stove works 
 
 Stove works and furnaces 
 
 Nail manufacturers. 
 
 Locomotive works. 
 
 Nail manufacturers, etc 
 
 Iron and Steel manufacturers . . . 
 
 Foundry, machinery, and hard- 
 ware. 
 
 Nail, tack, and rivet manufact- 
 urers. 
 
 Manufacturers of steam-engines, 
 
 Tack manufacturers 
 
 do 
 
 Foundry and machine-shop 
 
 Wire-nail manufacturers 
 
 Steel tubes, etc 
 
 Tack and small nail manufact- 
 urers. 
 
 Iron manufacturers 
 
 Railroad and steam marine 
 works, etc. 
 
 Nail manufacturers 
 
 Iron manufacturer 
 
 Locomotives 
 
 Manufacturers of all kinds of 
 iron and steel. 
 
 Bedstead fastenings 
 
 Machine tools 
 
 Fine machinery ,, 
 Sewing machines. 
 
 Machinist 
 
 Machinists and iron founders . 
 
 Machinery and iron foundry. . . 
 
 Iron foundry 
 
 Boiler manuiaoturers , 
 
 North Middleborough 
 
 Bridgewater 
 
 New Milford 
 
 Taunton 
 
 South Hanover . 
 
 Holliston 
 
 do 
 
 Brattleborough . 
 
 Spencer 
 
 Whitman 
 
 do ..„„.... 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 Hanover 
 
 Providence 
 
 Taunton . 
 Boston . . . 
 
 Taunton 
 
 Providence . 
 
 Warehara 
 
 Somerville... , 
 Bournedale ... 
 
 Fairhaven 
 
 New Bedford . 
 
 North Easton. 
 South Carver . 
 
 Providence 
 
 Boston Highlands . 
 
 Boston 
 
 South Wareham . 
 
 Taunton 
 
 West Wareham . 
 Cambridgeport .. 
 Providence 
 
 Plymouth .. 
 Providence , 
 
 Kingston 
 
 Rockland 
 
 Bridgew ater . . 
 
 do 
 
 Boston . .. 
 
 Northampton . 
 
 East Bridgewater. 
 East Bo8t(m , 
 
 Lakeville .-., 
 
 Boston 
 
 Manchester., 
 
 Nashua 
 
 Plymouth .. 
 Hyde Park . 
 
 do. 
 
 Orange . 
 
 Lowell .. 
 Orange . 
 
 -do. 
 
 Someryille 
 
 Charlestown 
 
 Mass. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Conn. 
 
 Mass. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Vt. 
 Mass. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Uo. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 R.L 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 R.L 
 
 Mass. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 R.I. 
 
 Mass. 
 
 R.L 
 
 Mass. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 N.H. 
 
 Mass. 
 De. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
2\j REVISION OF THE TAJJIFF. 
 
 List of names of the prominent signers of the iron and steel petition — Continued. 
 
 iffames. 
 
 Honaehold Sewing-Macliine Com- 
 pany. 
 A. E. Tenney Mannfacturing 
 Company. 
 
 George W. Payne & Co 
 
 J. C.Potter, president 
 
 J.S.White 
 
 Mc Williams Manufacturing Com- 
 pany, Jolin McWilliams, pres- 
 ident. 
 Allen Fire Department Snpply 
 Company, E. J. Gilmore, man- 
 ager. 
 Mechanics' Iron Foundry Com- 
 pany, J. A. Caldwell, treasurer. 
 
 Globe Nail Company 
 
 William H. Haskell Company, 
 
 D. A. Abbott, agent. 
 Corliss Steam-En<iin6 Company 
 William M. Cowan, treasurer. 
 
 Aretaa Blood, president 
 
 Edward Kendell &. Sons , 
 
 Henry M. Bird 
 
 Miller & Shaw 
 
 Walworth O. Barboar & Co 
 
 Alfred Morrill & Co 
 
 William Campbell & Co 
 
 Augustus Swift 
 
 Bo wker & Tripp 
 
 liUscomb &. Corey 
 
 Browuell, Ashley & Co 
 
 Humphrey Macnine Company . .. 
 
 Walter Aiken 
 
 Thomas W. Keely, treasurer 
 
 Business. 
 
 KoUins Engine Company 
 
 The American Tool and'Machine 
 Company. 
 
 J. M. Watson 
 
 Moore &. Wy man 
 
 Jos. F. Carroll 
 
 Jas. C. Newell & Co 
 
 C. H. Hutchinson 
 
 Harrison Sonle 
 
 John A. White • 
 
 John P.Smith 
 
 Wm.P. Ford & Co 
 
 Daniel Eadder 
 
 Washburn & Moan Manufactur- 
 ing Company. 
 American Twiat Drill Company. 
 Geo. H. Whitney :..... 
 
 J. K, Holmau 
 
 G. W. &C. A. Lane. 
 
 Edward S. Taber , 
 
 Biddeford Stove Foundry, Geo. W. 
 
 McFadden. 
 Portland Stove Foundry, F. M. 
 
 Lawrence, treasurer. 
 
 EugifneC. Le Baron 
 
 E.O. Baldwin , 
 
 Cole & Nichols. 
 
 F.S. Perkins '.'". 
 
 A. L. Smith 
 
 Geo. W.Fifield .'... 
 
 Benjamin F. Stevens 
 
 Alfred Nourboum 
 
 A.L.Wright, ''." 
 
 J.J.Crawford & Son ..'.". 
 
 Sewing-machines 
 
 Manufacturers of machinery. 
 
 do .... 
 
 do .... 
 
 do ..., 
 
 Machinery. 
 
 -do. 
 
 Iron founders . 
 
 Horseshoe nails 
 
 Bolts, screws, etc. . 
 
 Engine builders . . . 
 
 Horse-shoe nails 
 
 Charles River Iron Works , 
 
 Broadway Iron Foundry 
 
 Machinists and blacksmiths ... 
 
 Iron founders 
 
 Machinists and blacksmiths . . . 
 
 Cambridge Boiler Works , 
 
 Iron founder 
 
 Machinists 
 
 ... do 
 
 Carriage manufacturers 
 
 Founders and machinists 
 
 Hosiery and machine bailder ... 
 
 NashuaCo-operaiivelron Foun- 
 dry Company. 
 
 Steam-engines 
 
 Iron foundry and general ma- 
 chinery. 
 
 Special machinery 
 
 Elevators and ma.chinery 
 
 Machinist 
 
 Press and machinery manufac- 
 turers. 
 
 Foundry and machine works... 
 
 Iron founder 
 
 Wood-working machinery 
 
 Machinist 
 
 Iron founders 
 
 Machinist , 
 
 Steel works and wire mills 
 
 Machinery and tools 
 
 Manufacturer of machinery and 
 turbine water wheels. 
 
 Machinery 
 
 Manufacturers of mills and -ele- 
 vators. 
 
 Machinists' tools 
 
 Stove manufacturers __-.., 
 
 -do. 
 
 Iron foundry . 
 Millwright ... 
 Iron foundry , 
 Machinist . ... 
 Iron foundry . 
 Machinist 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 
 Whittier Machine Company, by 
 Charles Whittier, president. 
 
 Steam plate presses, steana-boil- 
 
 ers, etc 
 Manufacturers of machiniory. .. 
 
 Town. 
 
 Providence . 
 Pawtucket . 
 
 .do. 
 
 -do . 
 
 Providence . 
 do 
 
 Boston . 
 
 do 
 
 Pawtucket . 
 
 Providence . 
 
 Boston 
 
 Cambridgeport . 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 New Bedford . . . 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 Keene 
 
 Franklin 
 
 Nashua 
 
 -do . 
 
 Boston and Hyde Park. 
 
 Boston., 
 
 do. 
 
 do . 
 
 do . 
 
 Manchester 
 
 Kochester 
 
 Concord 
 
 Exeter , 
 
 Concord 
 
 North Groton. 
 Worcester 
 
 Laconia . 
 Nashua . 
 
 Hinsdale . 
 Exeter..., 
 
 New Bedford. 
 Biddeford 
 
 Portland. 
 
 Middleborough - 
 North Stratford , 
 
 Lowell 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do. 
 
 do 
 
 Nashua 
 
 ^Boston. 
 
Revision oP the taeifp. 27 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. F. S. "WITHERBEE. 
 
 Mr. F. S. WiTHERBBE, of Port Henry, New York, president of the Eastern Iron-Ore 
 Association, next addressed the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee : Mr. Ely, who has preceded me 
 here, has very generally covered the ground in regard to the duty on iron ore, and I 
 shall simply confine what I have to say about the subject to the interests of the sec- 
 tion which Irepresent. The territory which is covered by the Eastern Iron-Ore Associa- 
 tion 18 practically bounded on the west by the Allegheny Mountains, on the north by 
 the St. Lawrence Eiver, and on the east by the Atlantic Coast. That section of 
 country produced last year, I should estimate, very closely over two million tons of 
 iron ore. That represents probably a body of miners composed of not less than ten 
 or twelve thousand men, and in all probability a very large body of men who are di- 
 rectly or indirectly dependent upon the resources of this district. This region is 
 more assailable to assaults which would come upon it by foreign labor than the 
 western" country, for the reason that it lies close to the Canadian line on the north 
 and the sea-ports, and the mines are no very great distance from tidewater. Now, the 
 question has been raised by a gentleman who spoke before me as to whether this 
 eastern portion of the country was able to supply a sufficient quantity of iron ore to 
 be converted into Bessemer steel. I want to say in answer most emphatically that 
 it is, and whatever we may be short can be supplied from Lake Superior at a price 
 not far from what it costs now at Pittsburgh. 
 
 In regard to the future, I think I can speak unhesitatingly. We have an unlimited 
 supply for any demand that may come upon us for two reasons. In the first place 
 basic steel — I do not know but what I will have to explain this^is a commodity 
 which is one of the purest products of steel, and yet it does not require the purest 
 ore to produce it. Almost any ore containing almost any amount of phosphorus can 
 by this process be enabled to remove almost entirely the phosphorus from the ores. 
 Now, an enormous quantity of ore in this eastern district is especially adapted to this 
 basic process. 
 
 This process not only converts the pig-iron into steel, but it makes a commonly 
 desired commodity, which is superior to the ordinary acid steel product. Then there 
 is a system of concentration. Concentration consists of a method of applying a 
 magnet to the separation of iron ore. It consists of first grinding the ore, and sec- 
 ondly, passing the particles so ground over a magnet. The magnet attracts the par- 
 ticles of iron and does not attract the rock. Therefore the particles of rock are placed 
 at one point and the particles of iron at another point, so leaving the high phos- 
 phorus in the rocky material. So we are euabled to manufacture a product which in 
 purity of iron and lowness of phosphorus will equal if not excel any ore mined in this 
 country. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. This is the process 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBKB. This is the process of concentration or the magnetic process. I 
 might say this is yet in its infancy, but is very rapidly developiug. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. If I could interrupt you here, with a view of determining the 
 efficiency of the scheme. What is the cost of that method of freeing the ore by 
 magnet ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHEEBKE. It is very early in the stage of its development to answer that. 
 Mr. Edison is perhaps more largely interested in it than anybody else. He is to-day 
 buying heaps of iron ore left out for years, which, by other processes, would yield 25 to 
 30 per cent, of metallic iron, and he has been able to bring that product up to 60 per 
 cent, of iron. In rough numbers I should say perhaps it would go to 75 cents or $1 
 a ton additional cost. Mr. Edison has had considerable experience in that, and can 
 answer it more definitely, although we have just started it ourselves. 
 
 Now, we have to look in the east very much as a gentleman who preceded me said, 
 to the fact that our industries have not progressed in the last ten or fifteen years as 
 in other parts of the country. I do not agree with him in the statement he made 
 that removing the duty on pig-iron and iron ore would be the remedy desired. 
 I think we have the remedy, it lies within ourselves by putting ourselves on a 
 plane of development equal to that of the South and West, and secondly by using 
 what influence we can toward securing low freight rates. The gentlemen made sev- 
 eral assertions in regard to the Pennsylvania Railroad as being a great obstacle to 
 development. We have to deal with it and with roads in other directions, and I 
 would say that the chief obstacle I find to Now England trade arises from the almost 
 prohibitory rates charged by the New England railroads. The trouble from the Penn- 
 sylvania region is not so much occasioned by the Pennsylvania Railroad as by the 
 almost prohibitory rates charged by the New England roads. What we need is low 
 rates. Let the gentleman whoprecededme endeavor to run entirely upon foreign ore 
 or pig-iron. They are selling abroad higher than here without the duty. I agree 
 
28 feEVISIOX OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 they may go lower. At the same time they probably Tvill never get hack to where 
 they were before. . , » 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlx. Does that advance here correspond with the advance tueie 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. Not correspondingly. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But there has been a considerable advance ? 
 
 Mr. WiTKEKBEE. Yes, sir ; but not a corresponding one. 
 
 Mr. McMiEi,i>f. "What is the advance here? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBBB. It is very hard to get it proportionately, but I should say that 
 iron which sold at $16.50 is now probably fairly quoted at §19. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLix. I want to get at iron ore— the advance here. 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. The advance here has not been nearly as great as that m foreign 
 ore. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLix. What is the price abroad ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. I do uot know accurately, but I could give an estimate. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlx. How, then, do you know it is not as great ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. I Simply know from the sales at New Yerk harbor. I know the 
 advance in this country has been from seven and a half units up to ten and eleven 
 units. It seems to me we have in the eastern territory a production with which to 
 supply our wants, and, looking at it from a manufacturer's point of view (for I am a 
 manufacturer as well as a producer of ores and iron), I feel the manufacturers' inter- 
 ests will be protected better by the fact that they can have a steady supply of do- 
 mestic ores with a duty maintained, because the discovery of new mines has been 
 taking place very rapidly in the last few years, than it would be to give us free ore, 
 because if you do not protect this industry you intimidate capital from developing 
 mining properties. 
 
 In closing, in reference to the conditions of trade of New England, I have to say in 
 regard to New York— there are more idle furnaces in New York than in any other 
 State in the Union. She is almost worse than New England — but otir raw material 
 will not help us, though modern plants might. I feel here to-day I am representing 
 the sentiments of the people living throughout my part of the country when I say 
 that we believe in protecting our laborers, who have to compete with the labor of 
 Africa and Spain. We think we are very justly entitled to protection on the raw 
 material. We have to meet the cheapest of all labor abroad. We have to compete 
 with the development of Georgia, Alabama, Obio, Illinois, and Minnesota, but if we 
 have got to give way to them, and I say with all my heart that if we have got to die, 
 I would prefer to have American friends officiate at our funeral rather than for- 
 eigners. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The tariff duty on iron ore, as I understand it, is 75 cents a ton. 
 What do you make a ton on your kinds? I do not mean in a booming year, but 
 an average year. In your mines what do you make a ton ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. Well, it is rather hard to give it in that form. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you make a dollar ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. No, sir ; not 50 cents. 
 
 Mr. Flower. At the Troy or any other mine? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What about the Troy rolling-mill, that is not running T 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. Yes ; it is running now. 
 
 Jlr. Flower. They only started a short time ago, then ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. Yes ; owing to the fact they are going to get better ore. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You are not despondent, like Massachusetts, In regard to the profits 
 to be made on iron manufacture ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. I am not despondent, like the gentleman from Massachusetts. I 
 think we have a great future. I think the development of the basic process and the 
 magnetic process will be a great advantage. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLix. And yet you say you have a very large number closed up, and idle 
 furnaces; so protection has not lieen able to keep theni alive? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. Not that, sir. I think the fact of improved plants has a great 
 deal to do with it. It is impossible to run the old furnaces, which required '2 tons to 
 smelt the ore, against the modern plants, which require only 1 ton. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The trouble comes in part that you have not got the iron ore coal, 
 and liniHNtone all together. 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. (Somewhat that way ; and another thing is we have to meet the 
 foreign Bessemer ore close by at sea-ports. A large amount of Bessemer ore has come 
 in the Inst three or four years and has sold at lower figures than we can produce it. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is the basic process much employed now? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. Ycs, sir. I should say the last year the product of the European 
 Continent was probably two-thirds basic. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Yon are encouraged to believe by the adoption of the pr.'.cesses beiuc 
 developed in your State and New England that you will be able to produce your iron 
 approximating the cost of production elsewhere f 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 29 
 
 Mr. WlTHBRBBE. It loots SO. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Explain the basic process. 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEK. I am not as competent as gentlemen who will speak after me. 
 
 Mr. Ba YXE, How near are you to the New England line ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHEKBEE. About 2 miles. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. If the New England railroads would give as fair rate of charges as the 
 Pennsylvania Railroad, could you supply Massachusetts with iron ores at a reasonable 
 rate? 
 
 Mr. WiTHEKBEE. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. That is, if the New England railroads would charge as low rates as 
 the Pennsylvania? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEB. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You employ about twelve thousand men ? 
 
 Mr. Witherbee. No, sir; I said the territory I represented did. 
 
 By Baynb. I mean your district. 
 
 Mr. Witherbee. Yes, sir; that is a fair estimate. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What wages do those men get? 
 
 Mr. Witherbee. On the whole they are much the same wages mentioned by Mr. 
 Ely. They do not differ very much because if they differed in the two districts they 
 would migrate from one to another. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. That would be from $1.25 to $2.50 a day 1 
 
 Mr. Withbrbee. That would be a fair average. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. So the iron workers and the workers in the mines are a well-paid body 
 of men ? Mr. Toby says they only pay them about half. 
 
 Mr. Wctherbbe. I think Mr. Toby's figures would be considerably above ours, as 
 he is not a miner, but a manufacturer and employs largely skilled labor. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You have not reduced the cost of your labor of mining as Mr. Toby 
 has? 
 
 Mr. Witherbee. I am sorry to say we have, very much against our wishes, although 
 they are getting a very much larger proportion of the selling price of iron ore than 
 ever before in the history of mining. The iron-ore men have within the last fifteen 
 years certainly had double the wages they are receiving to-day. 
 
 Mr. Breckixeidge. Do you pay by the ton or by the day ? 
 
 Mr. Witherbee. By the ton. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much do you usually pay per ton ? 
 
 Mr. Witherbee. No ; I should have said by the day. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you mine any by the ton ? 
 
 Mr. Witherbee. I do not think we do any mining by the ton. We pay them so 
 much by the ton where a specihc amount is to be gotten out. 
 
 Mr. B'.'ECKINRIDGE. How much do you estimate the cost of wage per ton per day? 
 
 Mr. Witherbee. You mean to say from the time the iron ore leaves the ground 
 nntil discharged on the top? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I asked you how much was paid your miners? 
 
 Mr. Witherbee. We have no royalties to pay, but I should say it is very hard to 
 estimate. I should say it was from $1.50 to $3..50 a day, according to the ore and 
 grade. I mean to say the actual cost of iron ore is $1.50 to $3.50 a day. That is the 
 actual labor. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you mean to say you have no capital invested in your mines ' 
 
 Mr. Witherbee. This is the cost. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I ask you to give me the price to the miner per day, how 
 much per ton ? How much of the wage would that cost you per ton to, say a man to 
 whom you give |;1.50? 
 
 Mr. Witherbee. Of course there isthe matter of transportation and the matter of 
 powder and dynamite. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does he have to furnish the powder? 
 
 Mr. Witherbee. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I have especially excluded everything except the mere ele- 
 ment of wage. 
 
 Mr. Witherbee. I am sorry I could not possibly give that to you, because we do 
 not keep our figures that way. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much do you give a good miner per day? 
 
 Mr. Witherbee. He should control about $1.65 ; say $1..50 to $1.75. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I understand what you call a day's wage to a good miner 
 would be .|il.50 to $1.75. How many tons of ore would you expect that miner to get 
 out? 
 
 Mr. WitherbbB; That is utterly impossible to answer because it varies with the 
 conditions of the mining. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Take an average vein, take an ordinary working state of 
 things. How much would you expect him to put out, one, tvfo Of tea tons, or wb^tT 
 
 Mr, Witherbee, I b»ye no idea, 
 
30 KEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 Mr. Breckinmdge. How then can you form any calculation of tbe cost of produc- 
 tion ? , 1 f j-1 
 
 Mr. WniiERBEE. Simply l)y taliing the gross expenditures at the cucl ot tue year 
 for the luinini;- department, a'nd we do not even then get at the wage of each indi- 
 vidual man. "You Moe in some places the body of ore is soft and in others it is hard. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinridge. Suppose it i.^ in a body of soft, how many tons would you ex- 
 pect a man to get out in a day ? 
 
 Mr. Withekbee. I have never figured it out. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Have you any information of any day's production? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. We have a record of the daily production. 
 
 Mr. Beeckixridge. Can you get the total production and the total number of 
 miners will vou get that ? 
 
 Mr. With'eebee. The number of miners vary from day to day. I do not know 
 how many we employ. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Can you find out bow much your miners on an average turn 
 out per ton when they are afforded every favorable condition ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHEEBEE. I do not know. There are bard places where the amount of dy- 
 namite used varies from day to day. 
 
 Mr. Breckenridge. Did you ever have them get out ore by contract? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEB. In very rare instances ; I might almost say never by the ton. 
 As a rule it Is a very dangerous practice, because if you make a contract with the 
 men they are apt to encroach upon the pillars which support the roof. If a man makes 
 a contract he wishes to get as much oreout as possible, and he will leave as little sup- 
 port for the roof as possible, and tbe practice is considered injurious to tbe mine. We 
 certainly not in the last twenty years to my knowledge did any contract mining, be- 
 cause we are opposed to it. 
 
 Mr. Breckenridge. You mean you have done little, 'or none at all ? 
 
 Mr. Witheebee. Wo may have done a little, but chiefly it has been done tbe other 
 way. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I understand that these Port Henry mines are a compact mass of rock 
 and ore, and one day you will be mining regularly, and then you have jigs in which 
 you jig this ore? 
 
 Mr. Witheebee. That is done at Chateaugay. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That jigs 50 per cent, of the best shipping ore. I understand you 
 can not tell what you pay a miner for mining a ton of ore, and you can not tell how 
 much he can mine in any one day, or the cost of it for the reason your accounts are 
 kept, BO that the plant, dynamite, coal, wood, everything that goes into that mine is 
 charged on that account, so at the end of the month or year that figures up just bow 
 much your ore costs you. Everything that goes into the mine is figured in the cost ? 
 
 Mr. Witheebee. Yes, it is about that way. 
 
 Mr. Flower. If so, what is that cost in your mine ? 
 
 Mr. Witheebee. There is a difference in every mine. We have mines running there65 
 percent, of ore and another will run, say, 30 to 50 per cent. We have others running 
 :iO to 50 per cent, ore that lies on the bank and is not transported sometimes for two 
 years. So you see it is utterly impossible for us to get tbe exact cost of the ore pro- 
 duced. This ore thus lying out will be utilized by concentration. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Have you never made an estimate of what the labor costs you ? 
 
 Mr. Witheebee. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Have you no estimate as to whether you are making money or los- 
 ing ? 
 
 Mr. Witheebee. We can not tell until the end of tbe year. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Can you tell at the end of the year? 
 
 Mr. Witheebee. Yes, sir, generally. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Have you investigated the element of that cost ? 
 
 Mr. Witherbee. We do, but not the direct source, not tbe individual production 
 of one man. We take at tbe end of the year what the product has cost, the general 
 balance sheet shows bow we stand. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Did you never consider the elements of computation at all, so as to 
 see in regard to the cost of labor, transportation, and other things ? 
 
 Mr. Witheebee. No sir, not so as to make a detailed account. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Can you give a rough estimate as to the various elements ? 
 
 Mr. Witheebee. I could not, certainly. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. How can you determine the price to pay your miners? 
 
 Mr. Witherbee. We can only settle the wages by what the law of supply and de- 
 mand dictates. We intend to i)ay as much if not more than other people. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. You spoke of a reduction of wages. When was that last reduction ? 
 
 Mr. Witherbee. I do not know if there has been a reduction in three years 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Neither in time or rate f When was the last reduction in time ? 
 
 Mr. Witherbee. Our last reduction in time was very close to ^ffeajj years a"0 
 That was 0., Saturday half-JjolJday fifteen years ago. ^ ■ - < ■ — o • 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 31 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do your miners work all the year round ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBBB. Yes, sir; more generally in winter than summer. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How did you conclude to give them this half-holiday f 
 
 Mr. Withkrbbe. We thought the men would be better for it. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Could you give anything except what you lost or made by your 
 general expenditures and general receipts? Did you know what was x^aid the stock- 
 holders ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. We are a firm, not a stock company. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Can you tell how much profit was on the inveakment ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBBB. It is very hard to tell on the investment. I should say on a fair 
 mine, twenty years, the profits did not exceed at the outside 10 per cent. 1 would like 
 to explain that. In regard to mining iron ore you are taking out your property and 
 not replacing it. It is not only dividends, but you are taking away the very prop- 
 erty itself. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I understood you to say that ore in the ground was not worth any- 
 thing ; that it was all labor. 
 
 Mr. Withkrbee. That is very true, but it is just that much loss and no profit on it. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Then it is worth something ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBBB. It is worth what you make on it. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. But the ore is worth something in the mine. 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBBB. It might be in the form of royalty. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you consider the capital invested anything t 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBBB. It is worth the plant and what the profit is worth. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It is worth what it cost you ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHBRBBE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Will you continue the explanation of the question in regard to the 
 profits you made 1 You said something about 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Witherbek. How would you like the explanation ? 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. Any way you choose. 
 
 Mr. WiTHBRBEE. It is very hard to arrive at it. 
 
 Mr. MoKenna. Does that 10 per cent, include the interest on the money you have 
 invested and the cost for superintending the work? 
 
 Mr. WlTHERBEB. I suppose so. As I said before, it represents the value of the 
 property. I am giving that figure of 10 per cent, as a comparative value. I think 
 our mines are capable of producing ores at as low prices as most of the mines in the 
 East. A good many of them have paid 5 and 6 per cent., and therefore I should say 
 ours pay about 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are you familiar with the rolling-mill interests ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBBB. Very indirectly, I have had an interest in tbem. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You have stated that one reason for the decadence of manufacturing 
 iron in New York, converting ore into the pig, is that the furnaces there require more 
 fuel. 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBBB. I referred more particularly to blast furnaces than to rolling-mills. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is that relatively true of the rolling-mill plants of New York? 
 
 Mr. Withehbee. Yes, sir; and New England. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Therefore, if that be true, we cannot compote with more modern plants 
 which use less fuel? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. Not at present, but in the future we may with modern plants. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You say your dividends have been about 10 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. That is not put in the form of a dividend, but a calculation that 
 we ought to gain that much on the property. If you ask me to-day what 1 consider 
 the value of the property I could not tell you. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You think your profits then would be 10 per cent, on the investment? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. Some years. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What are the dividends on an average? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBBB. That I can not tell you. 
 
 Mr. Carlillb. Do the books show it ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. They might. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you know what they were last year? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE, I could not tell you here. Our dividends do not always show bo- 
 cause we often invest money in the purchase of new property. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Something has been said in regard to the ore in the ground. Suppose 
 you buy a thousand acres that you think contains good iron-ore. What is the value 
 of that without developing it ? Has it any or none ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBBB. That is very problematical. Of course you can not tell its value 
 nnder ground. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the best ordinary acreage price . 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBBB. It may have some or little value. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Then the value is (iependent upo^ the developnjejat and the plant T 
 
 Mr. WiTHBBBEE. Yes, sir. 
 
32 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Flower. And also on how much it is developed and whether it is good iron or 
 not? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. That is about it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. 1<- is like bnyiny a pig in a poke. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What do you estimate to he the value per acre of your best 
 iron property ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. I could not answer that, because it is not defined iu the form of 
 acreage. The lots are laid out in certain tracts. Sometimes they are awards of 
 soldiers in the Revolutionary war. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is not an acre a unit of measurement which you usually employ 
 in estimating ore land ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. No, sir; it is generally a mine. The mine may cover parts of sev- 
 eral acres or may be in a certain tract. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. By what means do you measure the dimensions of the ores? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. We generally measure by the length of the vein and the thickness 
 of it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then you reduce that into what form of expression ; feet, 
 yards ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. Into feet. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. When it is quoted for sale or purchase, what unit of measure 
 as to the physical area is generally employed 1 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. You mean as to the area of the mine? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. As to the property you are going to buy? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. It is generally stated so much for a mine and not the acreage. It 
 is mining property. There may be a large numberof acres or small number covering 
 a tract or range. You buy it by the quality of the ore and the thickness of the vein. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You generally estimate the capacity in some form ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am endeavoring to get at the mode of making a calculation 
 in either the purchase or sale of a mine. You have some mode of reasoning about 
 these things? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE, In buying a mine we generally go and look over the country 
 with a compass and see what the magnetic indications are, what other tracts are in 
 the neighborliood, etc. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You can not state the manner in which you estimate the 
 value? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. No; it is a jump in the dark absolutely. I would be very glad 
 to answer the question. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You estimate it, I presume, in some way? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. If I was buying iron-ore property to-morrow, I should estimate it 
 by the surrounding circumstances of the country and the prospects of corresponding 
 veins in the vicinity. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You would seek to get at the amount of ore iu the mine? 
 
 Mr. WiTHKRBEE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How would you measure that? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. By tons. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And what would you consider to bo the price per ton for a 
 good mine jn your section of the country ? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. You mean the price I would realize 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If you wanted to make a purchase, what would you take to 
 be a fair selling or purchase price per ton for what you would call a good piece of ore 
 property in your section of the country? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. There is no uniform estimate. There is one piece of property you 
 could purchase for one price and another for another. There is one piece of pronerty 
 you might purchase for $1,000 • 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. A thousand dollars for what? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. For the farm. Perhaps the very next land to it would be $500 or 
 $5,000. You are governed entirely by the circuuistances and what you think the 
 property is worth. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You have spoken in regard to making an estimated 10 per 
 cent, dividend on your properties. Do you estimate the value of those properties by 
 acreage or by tons, or upon what unit of measurement? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. We have no uniform estimate in anyway. We estimate that 
 about 10 per cent, is what we ought to get out of the mines. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Take one of your mines. What valuation do you put in your 
 estimate upon any given mine ; take a good one, ? "' 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEE. The mines are grouped as a whole. I should put it iu this way ' I 
 think we ought to get a fair profit— of not less than 25 cents a ton. The risk won'ld 
 be hardly worth that it ought to be 50. At the same time, if we oniy get 25 cents a 
 
 ton, WP would be willing to take tljo risk, There is uo suffioicut return to minipg 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 33 
 
 capital. It ought to pay 20 per cent., because you are continually destroying your 
 principal. 
 
 Mr. Gbak. It is only a question of time to work it completely out? 
 
 Mr. WiTHERBEB. Yes, and the time may be only a few days, a few months, or a 
 few years 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I move the committee now take a recess for thirty minutes. 
 
 Accordingly the committee took a recess until 2 p. m. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. V. K. MOORE. 
 
 Mr. v. K. Moore, of Detroit, Mich., next addressed the committee. He said: 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, it was certainly far from my ex- 
 pectation to appear before you. I am here purely to answer a few inquiries, as gen- 
 tlemen who spoke earlier this morning failed to develop some of the details which 
 the committee seem to wish to know. It will be only my purpose, as far as possible, 
 to answer a few of these questions. My connection with the trade has been since 
 1883, with one of the smaller mines — a non-Bessemer mine — one of that class of which 
 you hear but little ; not like the Lake Superior and Republic mines, but is one of 
 those smaller ones, of which you hear but seldom. If they are prosperous you hear 
 more of them, and if not they quietly pocket their losses and are very careful not to 
 develop how much they have lost. Our mine was opened in 1883. Since that time 
 we have produced about 200,000 tons. 
 
 The Chairman. Where is your mine ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. It is in the Menominee district, and is about 30 miles west of the Cha- 
 pin mine, in the State of Michigan. We are just a little above the Florence mine. 
 Inquiry has been made here, " What does it cost to mine a ton of ore ? " and the an- 
 swer has been, " We can not tell." That is true. So many circumstances enter into 
 it that it is impossible to determine the cost of a single ton of ore. I will illustrate 
 it by saying this: Our mine is what is known as a semi-hematite. We pay, for in- 
 stance, in some portions of our mine 30 cents a ton for mining. We pay in other por- 
 tions of our mine $1 a ton for mining, and in other portions as high as $1.50 a ton, 
 dependent upon the conditions under which the work is done. That is why the gen 
 tlemen can not tell you what the price is specifically per ton of ore. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You can take a year's output, and all the plant that goes into the 
 mine and all the products that come from it and all the labor and everything else 
 that enters into it, and when you strike a balance-sheet at the end of the year you 
 can not tell what a ton of ore costs on an average ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. That is not what I intended to say. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is not that the way you keep the accounts of the company? 
 
 Mr. Moore. That is the way the thing has been mixed in the answers that have 
 been made. I went back to my room for the purpose of obtaining some statistics 
 in regard to that which I had. For instance, in 1887 we produced about 30,000 tons 
 of ore. Our pay-roll was $40,000 and a little over. There you can get an average, 
 perhaps, for a year. Yet for some of that ore we only paid from 35 to 40 cents a ton 
 for mining, and in other portions we paid from $1 to $1.50 a ton for mining ; so that 
 it is impossible to determine what the cost of a ton of ore is for mining until the bal- 
 ance-sheet is struck. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That is what I wanted. That is the direction in which my question 
 pointed. What is the average price per ton of ore mined — for bringing it out of the 
 ground, including in that, plant, new machinery, and everything ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. In the estimate I have given it does not include new machinery. It 
 is simply the pay-roll of our works. We produced a few tons less than 30,000, and 
 our actual pay-roll, exclusive of superintendence, was a few dollars over $40,000 for 
 that one year. 
 
 The Chairman. That was for actual labor ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What year? 
 
 Mr. Moore. 1887. 
 
 Mr. McMillan. And how many tons t 
 
 Mr. Moore. 30,000 tons a year. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. To place your ore where ? 
 
 Mr. MOOKB. At the mouth of the mine. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. That does not Include anything for superintendence 1 
 
 Mr. Moore. It does not include superintendence. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That is not a fair statement, if you will allow me, for you can mine 
 and make money some years, and some years not. Now will you give au estimate of 
 what your plant cost you per year at that mine? How much on a ton separate? 
 
 Mr. Moore. In the figures I have given they do not include that estimate. We 
 
 485 3 
 
34 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 have not estimated tliat :it all. In the case I mentioned it is simply the days worked 
 that goes in it. It is no interest on the money nor anything on the plant at all. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How much does it cost to get it from your mine to Lake Michigan 1 
 
 Mr. MOOKE. It costs ns 75 cents freight from our mine to Escanaba. From Escan- 
 aha to Cleveland this year the freight has been steady (until in September) at 90 
 cents. After that $1.30 a ton to Cleveland. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Some years it costs more? 
 
 Mr. Moore. Two years ago it cost $1.35 for the season through. 
 
 Mr. Flower. On an average you could say |1.'25 for the labor at the mines, and 
 you pay 75 cents to take it to Escanaba, and |l on an average to Cleveland. That is 
 $3. What does that ore sell for there ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. It sells at Cleveland this year at |3.75. We paid out of that about 40 
 cents a ton royalty for that ore. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Then you made about 35 cents a ton, and with that you purchase 
 your machinery, etc.? 
 
 Mr. MooKB. Yes, sir ; that is the situation. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there anything further, Mr. Moore f 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Have you any means by which you can designate which is the la- 
 bor? 
 
 Mr. MooKE. Yes, sir ; that is all labor. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Now, is that a fair average of the cost of labor in the production of 
 iron ore in the United States? 
 
 Mr. Moore. It is impossible to average the price of labor, as in one mine (for instance, 
 our mine) it varies from 50 cents to $1 a ton. It is done by contract mostly. The 
 Lake Superior mine pays twice that, and more, possibly, for the reason that our mine 
 is a soft mine, while theirs is all hard. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Have you any means of ascertaining or can you state about how 
 many tons of ore an ordinary good miner can take out in a day ? 
 
 Mr. MooKE. That depends entirely upon the conditions of the ground in which they 
 are worked. It is impossible to tell. I will say this : We mine by contract there as 
 far as possible, and our contracts pay from $i to |2.50 a day to the miner. The 
 miner making 50 cents a ton makes $2.50 a day if he mines 5 tons. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If a man make $2.50 a day you say he mines 5 tons ? 
 
 Mr. MooRE. That is in certain rooms. For instance, we suit our contracts so that 
 we can judge pretty nearly the amount they can take out. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you ever employ men to mine by the day ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What do you pay ? 
 
 Mr. MooEE. In some rooms $1,'$1.50, and $1.75. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. On account of what ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. On account of the diiference in the rooms in the work of mining. That 
 is the rule. We endeavor to equalize the wages as far as possible, according to the 
 amount of labor required. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. It makes a difference whether a person can get out 1 ton or 5 ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. Yes, sir ; all the difference in the world. I do not think I have any- 
 thing further to say, simply to emphasize what Mr. Ely said. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. V. K. MOORE. 
 
 Mr. Ely has given prices at Ohio ports and drawn his deductions mostly from 
 Bessemer ores ; non Bessemers, while paying the same fixed charges between mine 
 and market, have not brought so much, but have ranged in 1889 (for 60 per cent, and 
 above) from $3.50 to $3,75 in Cleveland. These fixed charges have averaged this 
 year from the Menominee and Marquette ranges about $1.80 for freight and insurance 
 from the mines to Ohio ports; 10 cents for commissions and handling there and a 
 royalty of from 25 cents to 50 cents, or an average of about 35 cents on non-Bessemers 
 (the Western mines are all leases), m.tking in all about $2.25 from these ranges. 
 
 Deduct this from the selling prices for this year and we have from $1.35 to $1 50 
 net returns to the operator for putting the ore into railroad cars in his yard and de- 
 velopment work. 
 
 This $1.25 or $1.50 must pay the laborers for mining, for fuel, for steam to pump 
 and hoist, for supermtendence, interest and expense, and for renewals and main- 
 tenance of plant. 
 
 The balance, if any, may apply to repaying cost of the plant, much of which will 
 be practically useless when the ore is exhausted. You will readily see that any ma- 
 terial reduction from these figures in the net returns must come from labor 
 
 The non-Bessemer mines are mostly short-lived, being in lenses or pockets' and can't 
 be counted on with any certainty for large amounts of ore in one place. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 35 
 
 This makes development work expensive in proportion to amount produced, and 
 it requires a vast amount of courage to prosecute it. It is a vast industry, for the 
 aggregate of the non-Bessemer small producers is a very important figure in the 
 totals of the Western mines, but it would be much restricted with adverse legisla- 
 tion. 
 
 Vast sums of money have been lost in many uuprolitable and abandoned while 
 the very few profitable mines are the exception instead of the rule. These few, how- 
 ever, are used to point the argument that the industry no longer needs protection. 
 
 What the ore business wants, and the same may be said of iron, is steadiness in the 
 national policy. Changes in existing conditions tend directly in this more than in 
 any other branch of production to discourage investments in these hazardous enter- 
 prises. 
 
 Ore, duty free, would not only increase shipments from Cuba and Spain, but would 
 lead to the immediate development of a near Canadian field of very considerable 
 magnitude about Georgian Bay and up on Lake Ontario. 
 
 I believe in protection. In the ore and iron business it must be maintained, else 
 we must reduce our labor, or what would result in the same, the smaller producers 
 must go out of the business and their laborers seek other employment. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. POWELL STACKHOUSE. 
 
 Mr, Powell Stackousb, vice-president of the Cambria Iron Company, next ad- 
 dressed the Committee. He said : 
 
 I have no statement to make, gentlemen, but if you have any questions to ask I 
 will be pleased to answer them. 
 
 The Chairman. Are you engaged in the mining of ore ? 
 
 Mr. STACKHOUSE. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Where ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhoosb. In the Menominee range, Michigan. 
 
 The Chairman. Are you a consumer of ore as well ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhousb. Yes, sir ; we consume our own product. 
 
 The Chairman. What do you represent ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhousb. The Cambria Iron Company. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there any gentleman who wishes to make any inquiry of Mr. 
 Stackhouse ? 
 
 Mr. Flower. I would like to know whether you run the Chapin? 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. No, sir ; we do not. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Does not the Cambria own that ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. No, sir. 
 
 Mil. Flower. Do you keep your accounts in this slipshod manner that the rest of 
 them do ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. We try to know what we are doing. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you try to put the plant and the labor and everything else to- 
 gether at the end of the year ? Do you charge the plant to profit and loss ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. No, sir. I had better make an explanation of that. Oar mine 
 is a lease-hold one, and of course the plant is personal property and we have a right 
 to move it. 
 
 The Chairman. You pay a royalty. 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How much is that ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. Twenty-five to 40 cents a ton, and 50 cents in some cases. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What do you pay your employes a day. 
 
 Mr. Stackhousb. A man credited as a practical miner will get from $2.25 to |2.50 
 a day when he is working under contract. Company miners working by the day get 
 about $2 as a rule. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Then vour ore when taken above ground pays a royalty of 40 cents 
 and costs |2.50 a ton ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. The duty of 75 cents a ton is equivalent to about 25 per cent, ad 
 valorem ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhousb. Nearly that. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How many men have you employed ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. It varies in different seasons of the year from about 750 to 900. 
 
 Mr. McKenna Do you pay them all $2.50 a day ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. No, sir. That is for the practical miners. Our pay-rolls — leav- 
 ing out the salary men, such men as get $100 a month and above that — will average in 
 different years from $1.75 to as high as $1.90. That covers skilled and unskilled la- 
 bor of all kinds. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What is the lowest price you pay anybody ? 
 
36 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Stackhodsb. About |1.40. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What does he do ? t- , 
 
 Mr. Stackhousb. He is a common surface laborer. The figures I nave mentioned 
 above leave out mechanics m the general average and include everybody employed by 
 the company. 
 
 Mr. MoKenna. Let ug get at the elements of them. The laborer you pay how much f 
 
 Er. Stackhousb. The common $IA0 ; the better $1.50. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Now, your skilled miner ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhoose. If he works by the day he gets |2. 
 Mr. McKbnna. Then the mechanic ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. They get from |2.75 down to $2. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What do you mean by ordinary labor as distinguished from the 
 contract miner ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhousb. Such men as you can go in the street and pick up are ordinary 
 laborers, but when you come to the miner he is a man who is skilled in his work, 
 who can drill, sink, and drive a shaft, or any regular mining work. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Does the company furnish the explosives ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhousb. In most cases, except in contract work, where we pay so mnch a 
 ton. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Where do you receive your ore ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhousb. Johnstown. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. What is the cost of the transportation of that ore ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhousb. At present just about $4. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Four dollars a ton ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhousb. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you mean it costs $4 actual transportation ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Baynb; Well, your ore must cost you about $7 a ton at Johnstown ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. Yes, sir. Some of our ores' are cheaper, but the average will be 
 in that neighborhood. It varies, but it will be between $6 and |7. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. That vast cost of transportation is what enabled Chicago to build her 
 iron works? 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. That enables them to equalize the freight and cost of fuel. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You have to bring ore a vast distance to your establishment and Chi- 
 cago has to bring fuel a long distance to hers ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flowtsr. Do you mean Johnstown, Ohio? 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. No ; Pennsylvania. 
 
 Mr. Flowbr. What is your haul of coke ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhousb. About 75 miles. 
 
 Mr. Flower. And your ore about — - 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. About 45 miles to Escanaba ; from Escanaba to Ashtabula, and 
 from that — say about 120 miles. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. This is Bessemer ore you are getting out ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhousb. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it a soft or a hard ore? 
 
 Mr. Stackhousb. It is soft. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is it called ; a blanket vein ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. No, sir. It lies in this form [illustrating with a book], and it 
 lies in the ground like that [illustrating]. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Entirely different from the Southern formation in Alabama, which 
 lies like coal lies. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are you familiar with deposits where you excavate from the 
 surface, and where there is no use for beams or anything of that sort ? 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. You have to timber very heavily as the ore is soft and the mine 
 has to be well timbered. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. If it costs you at Johnstown $7 a ton that includes transportation 75 
 cents a ton, and the duty on iron ore would be a trifle over 10 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. That is the cost delivered at the works. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. That would not be enough duty. 
 
 The Chaiuman. Is there anything further, gentlemen ? I will read the committee 
 a telegram I have just received : 
 
 „ .^ „ „ ' Platt8Bukgh,N. Y., DecemJ-er 2,5, 1889. 
 
 Hon. Wm. McKinlby, ' 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 Washington, D. C. : 
 Learn I am on committee to appear before your committee to-morrow and am unable 
 to attend at such short notice ; but wish to most respectfully but earnestlv protest 
 with other producers of iron ore m the East against any reduction of the dutv on iron 
 ore, •' 
 
 Smith M. Weed. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 37 
 
 STATEMENT OF F. J. DOMINICK. 
 
 Mr. P. J. DOMINICK, representing the Chateaugay Ore and Iron Company, the 
 Crown Point Iron Company, and the Hudson River Ore and Iron Company, next 
 addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee : In the absence of the president 
 and general manager of the Chateaugay Ore and Iron Company and the Crown 
 Point Iron Company, it was decided yesterday I should come here and state on 
 their part they desired to be represented here as opposed to any redaction of the duty 
 on iron ore. Those companies are situated in northern New York, and the question 
 of ore has been so fully argued by Mr. Ely and Mr. Witherbee that it seems to be en- 
 tirely unnecessary to go more into the question. If there are any questions you desire 
 to ask me I will be happy to answer them. 
 
 The Chairman. Will you be able to give us the cost of producing a ton of iron ore f 
 
 Mr. DOMINICK. I can not give the cost of production, as I have no reference to the 
 books at Plattsbnrgh. I have had no time since yesterday to look up the question. 
 The Chateaugay crude ore, I understand, will cost this year about |2.20 a ton at the 
 mine. 
 
 The Chairman. How much of that is labor 1 
 
 Mr. DOMINICK. Except perhaps 15 or 16 cents royalty it is all labor, or material 
 in the shape of powder, the expense of running engines for the compressed air and 
 the power of hoisting. How it is to be divided I can not tell without reference to 
 the books. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Does the capital invested get anything of that at all ? 
 
 Mr. DOMINICK. I think the capital would get nothing of that price this year. 
 
 Mr. Batnb. You sell at an advance for that price ? 
 
 Mr. DOMINICK. Unfortunately this year we have not, but we hope to do so, other- 
 wise we would not"be in the business. Besides that we make a concentrated ore upon 
 which there is a small profit. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is that by this process which one gentleman explained? 
 
 Mr. DOMINICK. Not precisely. That ore is concentrated with jigs by water, and 
 not by electricity, but the principle is the same. The lump ore is crushed until it 
 is about one-fourth of an inch in diameter, which passes through an extra mesh in 
 the sieve. Then this is washed in a jig and the gangue washed away from the ore. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is that the process in general use ? 
 
 Mr. DOMINICK. It is not in as general use as it was a number of years ago in that 
 region of northern New York when so many were engaged in manufacturing bloom 
 iron. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Have you any other information of its use in other localities ? 
 
 Mr. DoMiNiCK. Not until very recently. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it used to any extent in other localities of which you know ? 
 
 Mr. DOMINICK. I do not think it is at this time, but there are concerns that are 
 going into the business now of making it by electricity, but the process of making it 
 by water I do not think is done elsewhere. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That I understand is still in an experimental stage. 
 
 Mr. DoMiNlCK. Yes ; we use electricity to charge the magnet itself. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am not speaking of the mode, but the state of maturity ; it 
 is yet unfinished. It is still in an experimental state. 
 
 Mr. DoMlNiCK. Yes, sir ; I think it is. 
 
 Mr, Bayne. Do you think you can supply New England with ore from the New 
 York region f 
 
 Mr. DOMINICK. That is a question I can not answer without knowing the quantity 
 required for New England. Do you mean as far as price is concerned t 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Yes. 
 
 Mr. DOMINICK. We do send a little ore to New England, but not a great quantity. 
 
 Mr. Batnb. Do you feel encouraged by the introduction of the basic process? 
 
 Mr. DOMINICK. It will not affect us in the least. Chateaugay ore is a Bessemer ore, 
 and the basic process will not require Bessemer ore. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. It will affect you injuriously where it afi'ects you at all. 
 
 Mr. DoMUfiCK. I doubt it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. When it enables ores higher in phosphorus to come in competition 
 with Bessemer ores, which they can not do now, will it not affect the Bessemer ore ? 
 
 Mr. DOMINICK. It would if there were any longer a demand for the Bessemer ores 
 by the furnaces now in existence ; but they no longer require them. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Would it have the effect of cheapening Bessemer ore and enabling you 
 to supply New England ? 
 
 Mr. DoMiNiCK. I think it would. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. According to what you said you could not stand cheapening ? 
 
 Mr. DoMiNiCK. We can not. 
 
38 REVISION OP THE TAEIFP. 
 
 Mr. Caklisle. This year you are not selling at a profit? 
 
 Mr. DOMINICK. 1889* , ,,. ix^-„^^„^. 
 
 Mr McMiLLiN. What did I understand you were selling at this year T 
 
 Mr'. DOMINICK. I said we sold it at about $2.20 a ton at the mines. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Does that include interest on the plant ? 
 
 Mr. DOMINTCK. I should thinli not. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You do not know how that is ? , x-u • 
 
 Mr DOMINICK. 1 am quite sure that is only the expense at the mine. 
 
 Mr Carlisle. If I understand the statement you made yon said the ore cost at the 
 mine after it was taken out $2.20, and that all of that with the exception of 16 or 17 
 Tents was lahor. Do you mean to say you pay the miner $2.20, less 16 cents per ton, 
 
 ^° Mn'lJSmNiCK."'Nor«ir ; excuse me. T said that included labor, the cost of produc- 
 ing the ore, the use of machinery and everything. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Are you connected with the Hudson mine ° . . 
 
 Mr. DOMINICK. No, I have no connection with it, but it is in the same office with 
 me in New York, and I know something about it. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Have they to jig that ore? . , , , . 
 
 Mr DOMINICK. It is not possible to do that. The structure of the ore is such that 
 It can not be done by water, nor has-lt been saccessfully done by electricity. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Well, the Chateaugay ? 
 
 Mr. DOMINICK. That mine and the Troy company do it. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is it Bessemer ? -, _^ ., , 
 
 Mr. DoMiNiCK. Some of It is Bessemer and some of it is not, but the larger propor- 
 tion is Bessemer. , „,, . , i, . ■, 
 
 Mr. Breckinrldgb. In this cost of ore at the mouth of the mine, how much is paid 
 
 per ton to the miner ? ' . j_, -^ ^ 4. a 
 
 Mr DOMINICK. The mining at Lyon Mountain is done mostly by contract, and 
 those contracts are fixed according to the ground. That is a hard ore, and they mine 
 a good deal of rock, and a mine which will bring a higher price. It is done by the 
 square foot and fathom. ,. ■ <. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are you able to tell us on an average how much a miner gets 
 
 Mr. DOMINICK. I am not able to do so, but from my knowledge elsewhere I should 
 say not less than $1.7.5 in any case. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That much you think is received by the miners per day, but 
 my question was how much does he receive per ton ? 
 
 Mr. DOMINICK. No, I can not tell you how much. It is very uncertain in these 
 
 mines. ■ • » 
 
 Mr. BRECiaNRiDGE. Have you any general idea what it is? 
 
 Mr. DOMINICK. No ; I think the only way it could be done would be to average the 
 total amount taken out, the total cost of it, and divide it by the number of men em- 
 ployed. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. And even these contractors make their profits? 
 
 Mr. DoMiNiCK. He may make a slight profit, but the contractor is a miner, who may 
 employ some one else to help him. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Can you figure this out? 
 
 Mr, DOMINICK. I think so. But it was only 1 o'clock yesterday when it was de- 
 cided I should come here, and I could not have the use of the books in the New York 
 office yesterday. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You could consult the books and give that information ? 
 
 Mr. DOMINICK. I think any data the committee require could be obtained. 
 
 The Chairman. You could send that to us at any time ? 
 
 Mr. DoMlNiCK. Will you note down just what you want ? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I hope you will make a note of it. 
 
 The Chairman. If there is any gentleman present desiring to be heard against the 
 duty on iron ore we will be pleased to hear him. If not, we will proceed to hear 
 statements in regard to coal. 
 
 New York, January 14, 1890. 
 Sir: In reply to the inquiry, what is "the price per ton of iron ore paid to the 
 miner only" made by the Hon. Mr. Breckinridge at the hearing of December 26, 
 1889, I would state: that upon every ton of ore sold by the Chateaugay Ore and Iron 
 Company during the past three years, the amount paid the miner for mining a 
 delivering the same at the mouth of the pit averaged ^LST-i^o- per ton. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 F. J. DOMLKICK. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlet, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 39 
 
 VIEWS OP L. S. BENT. 
 
 208 South Fourth Street, 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., December 26, 1889. 
 
 Dear Sir : Engagements preventing my appearing before your honorable commit- 
 tee to-day, I take the liberty of presenting my views in writing on the subject of 
 foreign ore in connection with the tariff and the manufacturing interests which I 
 represent. 
 
 The demand for free ore, in my judgment, can now be presented from a commercial 
 standpoint, which can not fail to convince all fair-minded persons that immeasurable 
 benettts to our country would follow without working harm to a single interest which 
 is legitimately connected with the production of American ore, iron, or the products 
 proceeding therefrom. To substantiate this permit me to present the following facts : 
 
 First. That only ore which is suitable for the manufacture of steel is ever imported ; 
 and if competing at all, can only compete with the like quality of domestic produc- 
 tion. 
 
 Second. The steel making ores produced in this country for the year of 1890 will 
 closely approximate the following estimates : - 
 
 Practically all the ore imported into this country is used for steel purposes, and 
 therefore there is absolute absence of competition between foreign ores and the non- 
 steel ores of this country. The whole quantity of ore suitable for Bessemer pig-iron 
 which it will be possible to produce in this country during the year 1890 will not 
 exceed five millions of tons. This estimate includes every ton of ore of suitable 
 quality that can be raised by hook or by crook. Three and one-half million tons of 
 pig-iron, it is estimated, will be required to supply the wants of the steel manu- 
 facturers in this country during the year 1890. To manufacture this amount of pig- 
 iron, 6,500,000 tons of iron ore of suitable quality will be required. One and one- 
 half millions tons of Bessemer steel ore must therefore be imported into this country 
 by our steel manufacturers, or their works will remain idle 25 per cent, of the year. 
 
 One-half million tons of iron ore will come from the Island of Cuba, where the mines 
 are owned by an American company, having invested nearly $3,000,000, and where 
 the importation of this ore is the direct means of securing the exportation to the 
 West Indies and South America of American coal, as return cargo in the steamers 
 which bring the ore to this country. In 1889 the export of American coal in these ore 
 ships has been almost equal, ton for ton, to the importation of iron ore. There is no 
 reason why, by using these steamers, this country can not so develop her coal busi- 
 ness in the West Indies and South America that she will absolutely drive English 
 coal out of those markets. 
 
 One million tons of ore will be imported froiri the Mediterranean, and the three 
 hundred and fifty steamers which will be required to bring that quantity of ore to this 
 country will leave our shores laden with wheat, cotton, and corn. By so much as the 
 ship derives profit from the freight which she receives on iron ore on her voyage here 
 by that amount will she carry her outward cargo from this country more cheaply. 
 
 There is to-day no question of competition between imported and native ore, be- 
 cause all the native ore is already sold, and the foreign ore is required to fill an ab- 
 solute shortage of raw material. All the continental nations who are large manu- 
 facturers of steel import the bulk of the ore which they use in the manufacture of 
 pig-iron for steel purposes. The quantity of imported ore that these countries con- 
 sume is so large that the quantity shipped to America is relatively quite small, and 
 American shipments have practically nothing to do with fixing the price of the ore 
 free on board vessel at its place of export. The price is fixed by the European de- 
 mand. 
 
 The freight that is paid by America for the carrying of this ore to this country de- 
 pends, first, upon our harvests, and, secondly, upon the harvests of Southern Russia. 
 At the present moment, to my own personal knowledge, there are seventy-five steamers 
 chartered to bring iron ore to this country, and all of those steamers are rechartered 
 to carry back com from Baltimore. 
 
 Practically the whole of the imported iron ore is used in the furnaces located .at or 
 near tide-water. Seventy-five cents per ton duty on these ores represents the cost of 
 hauling 1 ton of iron ore 100 miles. 
 
 Removing this duty, therefore, only enables iron ore to enter 100 miles farther into 
 the interior than it does to-day. On the other hand, it will enable my company, as 
 exporters, to go 800 or 1,000 miles by sea to compete with our competitors abroad. 
 
 The condition of the supply and demand for Bessemer steel raw material has not 
 materially changed in this country for the past five years. This country has never, 
 since the introduction of the manufacture of Bessemer steel, imported less than 
 twenty-five per cent, of the material consumed in the manufacture of the steel out- 
 put; and the prospect for the future, judged by the past, is that the national growth 
 
40 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 of the country -will keep pace Tvitb, and probably more than absorb, the increased 
 out-put of native steel raw material arising from the new developments that are 
 and have been coostantly projected. It used to come here in the form of pig-iron, 
 but as this country increased her furnace capacity, the steel manufacturer now seeks 
 to bring' it here more and more in the form of ore. 
 
 As I have said before, imported ore is used in supplying the requirements of furnaces 
 situate at or near tide-water, and a removal of the whole duty of 75 cents per ton 
 would only pay for 100 miles of inland transportation of the ore, or double that dis- 
 tance ou the finished steel product, while Lake Superior Bessemer ore would have to 
 be transported 450 miles by rail beyond its present Eastern limit of use, to meet its 
 foreign competitor. The effect of the removal of the duty on iron ore would be to 
 slightly increase the importation, but not materially, as I have before stated. An- 
 other eft'ect of the removal of the duty on iron ore would probably be that the ocean 
 freight-rate on iron ore would be increased, and if so, the outward freight on grain 
 and cotton would be diminished accordingly. Experience has shown that it is nec- 
 essary for steamers coming to this country to take back grain and cotton to earn a 
 certain sum for the round trip, and if ore pays more cotton and grain pays less, and 
 vice versa. 
 
 There are in Virginia deposits, said to be large, of quasi Bessemer ore, which 
 probably can be used as a mixture by the addition ot the purer imported ores. At 
 our works at Baltimore we shall require fully 1,000,000 tons of ore annually, and 
 expect to be able to use 200,000 tons of that quantity of these quasi Virginia ores; 
 but without the foreign ore to use with it I can not use 1 ton of Virginia ore in our 
 works. 
 
 The removal of the duty on iron ore would directly affect our business as follows : 
 
 We should not require any protective tariff upon pig-iron or steel rails other than 
 an amount sufficient to pay the freight from our works to the Southern ports, where 
 England can deliver her goods as ballast in steamers going for cotton. In making 
 this statement I have in mind our works now being located on Chesapeake Bay, very 
 favorably located for coastwise and export business. Other works not so welllocated 
 would require an additional protection, to the extent, probably, of $5 on pig-iron, 
 and §10 on steel rails, and while such a duty could work no harm at any time, it 
 would act as a barrier to prevent our markets being flooded with the surplus products 
 of Europe in times of depression. 
 
 I have thus outlined my views. Steel rails are now quoted at the same price at 
 the shipping ports both in this country and England. 
 
 I fully appreciate that my proposition opens up a wide field for serious thought, 
 but the brief notice of your honorable committee desiring information has not per- 
 mitted me to go further than to discuss these two points, which are the most im- 
 portant to the interests that I represent. 
 
 If, at any future time, I could be of any service to you or your committee, in 
 elucidating the position I have taken, it would give me pleasure to come before you. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 L. S. Bent, 
 President Pennsylvania Steel Company. 
 
 Hon. Wllliam McKlnley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 IRON AND STEEL. 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JOSEPH G. BUTLER. 
 
 Mr. Joseph G. Butler, of Youngstown, Ohio, next addressed the committee. He 
 said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I represent an industry which is 
 the foundation of all kindred industries of iron and steel. lu the Mahoning, Ohio, 
 and Wyoming Valley, down in Pennsylvania, there was produced in 1888 about 9,000 
 tons of pig-iron. We shall manufacture in 1889 something over a million tons, or 
 more than one-eighth of the pig-iron produced in the United States. We live within 
 7 miles of the Pennsylvania State line. We use Connellsville coke and Lake Su- 
 perior iron for smelting, and I am here to protest against any reduction in the duty. 
 We produced in this country in 1840 less than a half million tons of pig-iron. This has 
 been gradually increased, until in 1869 we shall have produced something over 8,000,000 
 tons, or more than Great Britain ; and we have furnaces projected so that in 1890 we 
 shall produce over 9,000,000 tons, or very nearly one-third of the world's production. 
 This is done largely under a protective policy. We manufacture at Youngstown 
 a supply of crude iron which is largely sent up into New England. We send it over 
 different roads, and a very large amount of it over the Pennsylvania Railroad right 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 41 
 
 through Pittsburgh, the greatest iron-producing place in this country, right through 
 the antliracite region, and lay it down at the New England farms and make a little 
 money on it. 
 
 We give cheaper pig-iron than ever before, and if you will let us alone and not 
 reduce this duty we will keep on reducing the price the people have to pay for pig- 
 iron. If not for the development of the pig iron industry to-day in this country, 
 brought about under this protective policy, I do not know where we could get it to- 
 day ; we can not import a ton. Scotch iron cannot be laid down here at |v!6 a ton. 
 We have orders on our books, taken some little time ago, where we have sold Clove- 
 land and other points our iron in place of Scotch iron. Some few years ago our iron 
 was not known at all, and we had great difBcuIty to get it introduced. We called 
 on one concern and persistently pushed our iron, and managed at last to get this iron 
 in. They said that they would make a contract with us, and I gave the gentleman an 
 option on a thousand tons. He took 50 tons as a trial. It turned out just right, and 
 he gave us an order. Ever since then our furnaces for making this crude iron have 
 constantly grown until the imported iron is pushed out. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. In this price of imported iron do you include the duty ? 
 
 Mr. Butler. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is the price ? 
 
 Mr. Butler. I think Scotch iron is to-day worth 80 shillings at Glasgow. Then add 
 the freight at which they can lay it down here. It has enabled ue to turn out this vast 
 production. Now, I listened with a great deal of attention to a gentleman — Mr. Toby, 
 I think his name is — in the remarks he addressed to the committee before lunch, and 
 I was handed a pamphlet here of which I am told he is the author. If I am mistaken 
 he can correct me. It is entitled a statement regarding the iron and steel interests 
 of New England, and a petition to the Senators and Representatives of the New 
 England States in Congress for the year 1889. There is one clause here I will read you : 
 
 "New England being on the coast, can obtain her crude iron, both pig and scrap, 
 at low water freights and at a low first cost in Europe." 
 
 Now, as I said, I listened with much attention to what he said. If I had happened 
 to come in after he commenced and got at what he said, I should think that he was 
 talking for Old England instead of New England. He simply talked about what he 
 wants in his section. We propose out West to take a broader view of this question. 
 We do not single out one particular place, but we say this protection policy is ex- 
 pected to take in the whole people of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You do not believe in placing a tariff on a local interest? 
 
 Mr. Butler. No, sir. I believe in protecting everything in this country, whether 
 it is coal or sugar, no matter what it is; and I do not think a single industry should 
 be singled out, brought here, and hammered at. I know the rolling-mill interest of 
 New England does not amount to anything. We have got one located in Youngs- 
 town which makes a vast amount, and one in Pittsburgh which makes more than we 
 do. They must recognize the fact that this industry is moving west and south. A 
 large amount of southern iron is taken into New England. That iron is brought from 
 the South and laid down at Boston. These gentlemen want to get cheap pig-iron, 
 and if you let us alone we will cheapen this product. The gentleman speaks of the 
 high price he paid for coke. In these manufactories the present price is $1.75. Add 
 |4 freight, and it has cost about $6.95 instead of $7. Assuming that the duty on 
 coke, as I am informed, to be 20 per cent., if he goes to Nova Scotia, and they charge 
 him a liberal price, say |3 a, ton on the vessel at Nova Scotia, add duty, 60 cents, and 
 freight, $1.40, that makes $5 a ton laid down in New England. Why does he not go 
 and get coke ? Why does he not go to Canada, where they pay a bounty of $d f 
 
 Mr. Breckinkidgb. Yon think a reduction in the tariff would not lose the market ? 
 
 Mr. Butler. I say at present it does not make much difference. There have been 
 times, but just at present we have got something to fall back on, and we want to 
 continue to increase this vast industry. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Yon say now, by reason of the price, the tariff is of no consequence f 
 
 Mr. Butler. I say the present tariff' does not cut any figure at this time. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Owing to the recent rise? 
 
 Mr. Butler. It cut a good deal of a figure at one time, but at present it does not 
 cut any figure at all. On the other side of the water they need all the iron they can 
 get. There has been a great expansion there and we are now wholly dependent on 
 our own iron for supply. We are getting ready, and if you will let us alone we will 
 increase this right along, year after year, until we are the greatest iron producers in 
 the world. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Until the tariff is of no consequence ? 
 
 Mr. Butler. Possibly. No tariff man will admit that. We want this tariff on 
 everything we can produce in this country. We do not want to import anything. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What grades of pig-iron do you make ? 
 
 Mr. Butler. We make very largely foundry iron. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. For casting purposes ? 
 
 Mr. Butlbk. Yes, sir. 
 
42 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. BR:fCKiNRjDGE. Where do you get your iron ? 
 Mr. Butler. From Lake Superior. 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you mine your ores ? 
 
 Mr. Butler. I am interested Va ore mines and I am interested in making pig-iron. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Where ? 
 Mr. Butler. Connellsville. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You said in Canada they gave a bounty of $2. 
 
 Mr. Butler. I understand so. I will be glad to answer any questions the commit- 
 tee may wish to ask. 
 
 STATEMENT OP "WILLIAM H. MORRIS. 
 
 Mr. William H. Morris, of Pottstown, Pa., next addressed the committee. He 
 said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee : Our works are located in the 
 Schuylkill Valley, about forty miles from Philadelphia. We are manufacturers of 
 iron and steel, and our products are billets, ship and tank plates, and cut nails. I just 
 want to say briefly a few words in favor of the tariff on ore. You have hf ard a good deal 
 about ore to-day, and I do not wish to wear you out and rub the subject threadbare, 
 but I believe in protecting all of the industries. I think if I want protection on plates 
 and nails that the ore producer is entitled to have it. The cheap labor is entiiled to 
 protection from the tariff rather than skilled labor. We have men working who get 
 as much as $5 or $6 a day. We have men getting |il.25 and $1.50 a day. Certainly, 
 of those two classes, the men that are working forfl andlfl.50 a day are the men who 
 need protection. The man who works in the mine would be idle to-day if he did not 
 accept $1.50 to $2 a day. Hois certainly more in need of the protecting arm of the 
 Government than the skilled laborer who can make much higher wages. We are 
 large buyers of ores, so you see in speaking in favor of the protection of ores I 
 am speaking against my own interests. The same thing applies to pig iron. While 
 we manufacture pig iron we also buy largely, and I believe in the protection of pig 
 iron. I think were it not for the tariff that we have been enjoying the benefit of for 
 some years, we would find it difficult to get pig iron ; certainly we would have to pay 
 miich higher prices than rule to-day. 
 
 In hastily going over the statistics, I estimated, as Mr. Ely told you, we would 
 produce this year and next year in the neighborhood of 15,000,000 to 16,000,000 tons 
 of ore, and in 1888 we produced about 13,000,000 tons. I think that is a very good 
 showing, that we have been able to very nearly reach the English production. Now, 
 there has been a great deal said about ores and the quality of ores, aud if we were 
 allowed to run two of our works — there is one part of our steel works standing idle 
 recently, which I will explain — if we were allowed to run that, we would largely in- 
 crease the consumption of ore, and be able to use a class of ore which to-day is almost 
 unsalable — these phosphoric ores. We would not be depeedent upon the foreign 
 markets for ores. I do not think it is the intention of this committee to force our 
 labor to the Padrone system of labor. I might call attention to the fact that last 
 year 30,000 tons of plate were impoi-ted. For the ten months of this year 125 tons of 
 steel plates, and (5,000 tons of iron plates, have been imported, showing the duty on 
 this is not sufficient to keep out the foreign article. We do not propose to ask for an 
 increase in the duty, but we do ask that it be allowed to remain where it is, and we 
 trust that this Congress will do something in the way of shipping, and giving ns 
 good carrying facilities, so the plate business will be increased and we will be able 
 to take care of ourselves. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Why do you wish the shipping interests increased'? 
 
 Mr. Morris. If ships are built in this country it will make a very large demand 
 for shipping plates and boiler plates. 
 
 Mr Flower. I thought you were interested in the rate of freights? 
 
 Mr. Morris. No, in making the plates. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Would it add to the export sales? 
 
 Mr. Morris. I do not think there are any plates exported. If there are they are 
 very few. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Would you not expect to build up an export trade for plates f 
 
 Mr. Morris. Not at the present time although we may come to that later on. The 
 same thing applies to out nails which have been at a very low ebb for some two years. 
 I must differ from my friend Mr. Toby in thinking we could stand a reduction in duty. 
 There are some nails made in Canada. Certainly anything that would make the 
 nail business worse at present would be a deplorable state of affairs. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What are you getting for iron nails 1 
 
 Mr. Morris. They bring about $2. 
 
 Mr. Geae. Has there not been an advance in the last ninety days ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. Yes, sir ; there has been. 
 
 Mr. Gear. About IF) to 20 cents ? 
 
 Mr. Morris, Yes, sir. 
 
EETISION OF THE TAEIPP. 43 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Do you manufacture steel plates t 
 
 Mr. MoRKis. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What do you think of the duty on steel plates. 
 
 Mr. Morris. I think on steel plates there should be a specific duty. It should be 
 increased to one and a quarter for the steel plates the same as iron plates, for I be- 
 lieve that specific duties are always better than advalorem duties. 
 
 There is another matter, gentlemen, I wish to call attention to of arather different 
 eharaoter from this. I am sorry I am forced to bring it before you. I undertand you 
 propose to legislate as far as possible against trusts and monopolies. We have the 
 Bessemer steel works, which we propose to run somewhat in the same line as the 
 basic process which has been spoken of here. There are large supplies of ores in our 
 country that are particularly adapted for this process. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. Will yon explain that process ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. The difference between the acid process and the basic process is, in 
 the acid process you use pure ore without any phosphates, and line the vessel with a 
 salicious lining. In the basic process you use a different material. You use a lining 
 that is made up of lime and dolamite, or something of that kind, and in doing so you 
 are able to use the phosphorus ore. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is this a cheaper construction ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. No, sir; it is more expensive to handle, but the metal should be 
 cheaper. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. What is the difference in cost ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. About $5 a ton on the average. The ores are worth much less. 
 
 The Chairman. The basic costs 
 
 Mr. Morris. Five dollars a ton more than the acid. Ordinarily I do not think the 
 basic steel can compete with the acid steel ; certainly not for rails, but for ordinary 
 soft steel I think it is as good. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you get dolamite in your country ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. Yes, sir; close by us. These patents the Bessemer Steel Association 
 claim to own. I might say here that they did not spend a dollar in working out 
 these patents, and it is not their intention to do so. It is simply holding these for 
 the sake of preventing competition which they fear would injare their business. 
 There was a partial attempt at Harrisburg some years ago to run an old plant which 
 has been abandoned for the Bessemer process. They thought they could afford to 
 experiment with that, and naturally it was a failure, Carnegie & Co. are running a 
 basic iron hearth in Pittsburgh, but there is no basic Bessemer works running, nor 
 has any ever been attempted on a thoroughly practical scale, except the iron plant at 
 Pottstown, which we wish to run on a somewhat similar line to that. The members 
 of this Bessemer association are the large rail producers of the country. They cer- 
 tainly deserve credit for what they have done to cheapen the cost of rails. You 
 know rails are selling as cheap here as at Liverpool. 
 
 Mr. LaFollette. What is the price here ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. About $35. There has been considerable advance in the last six 
 months. They were selling as low as $26, and thd price in England was only a dol- 
 lar or two difference. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How cheap can Bessemer steel raUs be put on board at Liverpool ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. I think at about $35. 
 
 Mr. Flower. At what price have they been put on within the last two years f 
 
 (Some person). Thirty-nine dollars. 
 
 Mr. Morris. I am not here to criticise the rail-makers of the country, for I think 
 they deserve a good deal of credit for what they have done, but I think they have 
 rather overreached themselves in this matter of competitiou. The steel we propose 
 to make is of a different character from what they propose to make, It is an entirely 
 different class of steel and it is suitable for boiler-plates, ship-plates, and material of 
 that kind. 
 
 The Chairman. Why cannot you make it ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. They claim to own these patents. 
 
 Mr. Baynr. Cannot you get into ttiat association t 
 
 Mr. Morris. No, sir ; I hold in my hand a report of a former interview before the 
 Committee on Ways and Means in 1884. At that time this matter was brought up 
 by Mr. Head, and the southern people were very much exercised because they thought 
 they would have no opportunity of developing the ore, they were principally phos- 
 phoric ores, and the south as well as other points in the country, and the rail men, 
 sent a committee down. Mr. Wharton represented the Bessemer men. Here is a 
 letter which was read at this time : 
 
 " Office of the Bessemer Steel Company (Limited). 
 
 " Philadelphia, October 29. 1883. 
 "My Dear Sir: Replying to your application for a license for your company to 
 nse the patents owned by this association, and relating to the basic process, I have 
 the pleasure to report as follows : 
 "This association will grant you a license to use the patents referred to at $1 per 
 
44 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 ton royalty, and advance payment of .$50,000 to be made at the time the license issues 
 as royalty on the first 50,000 tons of metal treated under the license. 
 " Hoping this will prove eatisfaotory, 
 
 " I am, very truly, yours, etc., " Jno. M. Kennedy, Secretary, 
 
 " Per Eob't F. Kennedy. 
 
 "H. S. Ch MBERLAIN, Esq., 
 
 " President Eoane Iron Company, Chattanooga, Tenn." 
 
 In the first place it is an outrageous royalty, and I do not believe that letter was 
 written with the intention of giving a royalty. We were assured by the Bessemer 
 people that if we would build our works they were prepared to grant the license, that 
 they would go to work and develop this process, and we would have special terms. 
 They failed to carry out their promise. They said that owing to some litigation of 
 Mr. Reese, who claimed to be the inventor of the American patents, they preferred 
 not to enter into any agreement just as soon as we said we were ready to do so. 
 
 The Chairman. Has that been settled 1 
 
 Mr. MoRRip. Yes, sir ; they are declared to be the owner of Reese's patents. I will 
 read part of a letter of November 14, 1889. I have had some correspondence with 
 those gentlemen and I have had personal interviews. 
 
 "Pending the organization of the new company it would be premature and inex- 
 pedient to discuss the rate of royalty for the use of the patents referred to." 
 
 After an interval of five years these people have not been able to fix a rate of roy- 
 alty, and they are not willing to grant a license. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. What did they pay for the patents ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. This testimony showed they paid $'225,000 for the use of them. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. If you could get in, would you not be a partner in the concern f 
 
 Mr. Morris. I don't think you could buy an interest in the thing. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. If you pay a royalty, do yon become one of the partners in the pat- 
 ents? 
 
 Mr. Morris. No, sir; but I have a right to use the patents. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. By the payment of the amount you pay, you would share to the ex- 
 tent of the payment of that fund ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Where would that fund go f 
 
 Mr. Morris. In their pockets. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. As I understand it this fund is kept separate ; that fund is not mixed 
 up with their common property ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. They decline to grant any license on any terms. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What remedy would you suggest f 
 
 Mr. Morris. I think the proper remedy suggested at that time, five years ago — it 
 strikes me it is not the object of this Government to protect people and enable them 
 to build up a grand monopoly and prevent everybody else from carrying on a similar 
 business. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I understand that they have got these patents and refu.se to use 
 them themselves, and they refuse to let others use them and supply the country with 
 their products by the use of this process. 
 
 Mr. Morris. They are not, because there is a great deal of basic steel imported. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Their object is to sell the Bessemer steel ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. Yes, sir ; for rails and such blooms as they are able to make. There 
 is one further thing I call attention to. In 1888 nearly 2,000,000 tons of basic steel 
 was produced abroad. There was also 100,000 tons of slag produced. This is one of 
 the best materials for fertilizing there is. It contains over 20 per cent, of phosphoric 
 acid, and by actual experiments it has been found very valuable. Now, these gen- 
 tlemen are doing not only a great injustice to the producers in the country and to the 
 consumers in the country, but also to the farmers in the country. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Are they making basic steel? 
 
 Mr. Morris. I do not know that they are making any except at probably one mill. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You do not seem to recognize the patented rights of these gentlemen ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. I do, but I do not think they have a right to lock them up and say 
 that others shall not use them. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. If a patentee sells a patent you have a right to use that to the exclu- 
 sion of the whole world. 
 
 Mr. Morris. But these gentlemen are not using it. The basic process is not prac- 
 ticed in this country to-day. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Do they monopolize the market? 
 
 Mr. Morris. For Bessemer steel; they produce Bessemer steel and they supply 
 that to the extent of their ability. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. If you should make this basic steel, how much competition would 
 that make? 
 
 Mr. Morris. I do not think it would be competition, as it Is suitable for other pur- 
 poses. They are afraid there will be some competition. They certainly bouo-ht it 
 with that view. " 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 45 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What competition ? 
 
 Mr. MoKRis. They are afraid if we make steel we will interfere with them. I saw 
 a letter written recently callinp; the attention of members to the fact of this particu- 
 lar testimony and promises that were made at that time to grant licenses at a rea- 
 sonable rate, at 50 cents a ton if necessary. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How long are the patents ? 
 
 Mr. MoKRis. The foreign patents are about eight or nine years old, and the Amer- 
 ican or Reese patents, some of them, are still in the patent office. 
 
 The Chairman. Can you make the Bessemer steel without paying a royalty t 
 
 Mr. Morris. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But you can not do that with the phosphorus ore ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. No, sir. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JOSEPH "WHARTON. 
 
 Mr. Joseph Wharton, president of the Bessemer Steel Association, next addressed 
 the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am chairman and president of 
 the Bessemer Steel Association, limited, against which Mr. Morris has made charges. 
 
 I remember very well the circumstances of the negotiations to which he has alluded. 
 The impression with the officers of our companies is that the concern which Mr. Morris 
 represents made endeavors to produce basic steel by other methods than those covered 
 by our patents, and those efforts have not been successful. When the question rose it 
 almost became a sectional question, because the Southern people thought that they 
 were being discriminated against on account of their having phosphoric ores. They 
 were not aware they had Bessemer ores as well . When the basic process began to be 
 talked of in Europe some of our members examined the question, and became con- 
 vinced that there was a great fature for the making of steel from these phosphorus 
 ores. They made a preliminary purchase of the rights for the process which had been 
 adopted in England, and these rights were bought finally, and so they ar' owned by 
 this Bessemer Association. I had better explain that the Bessemer Association is not 
 incorporated for manufacturing in any business. It is a voluntary association of the 
 great steel mills of the country for the purpose of controlling patents relating to their 
 manufactures. 
 
 When the Bessemer process was originally patented there was an American patentee 
 named Kelly who thought he had invented it. Some people thought we could work 
 under Kelly's process and others thought the Bessemer process was the safer one, and 
 that resulted in the formation of the trusteeship to own and control patents, both the 
 KeUy and Bessemer— the American and English. All the companies then engaged in 
 making steel rails participating in the purchase became joint owners, so this Besse- 
 mer Association was formed which would own all the patents. They bought the 
 rights of Kelly, and that association has kept them from tliat time to the present, and 
 has acquired other patents that seemed necessary for the prosecution of their busi- 
 ness. We could not aifoi-d to let somebody come in with a patent that would perhaps 
 involve the' processes we have been working and forbid us to manufacture, or pay 
 them a royalty ; so we have bought all the patents necessary for the prosecution of 
 our business. Coming to the basic process, after an examination of it, we concluded 
 to purchase it ; and then we became aware that there was an American claimant for 
 all those patents — Mr. Jacob Reese, of Pittsburgh. While the patent was in dispute 
 we were invited to name the price of royalty by which business could be done under 
 this process. 'We did our best to get into position to name a price. Lawsuits and 
 patents are very tedious things, and several years passed before that dispute ended. 
 In the meantime we had informed the country, and those particular gentlemen in the 
 South who desired to use our patents, that wo intended to allow the process to be used 
 at a reasonable royalty. In point of fact, no Southern concern was found ready and 
 no Southern concern is yet ready to go to the expense of putting up a considerable 
 plant to manufacture steel by the basic process. We have applications made from 
 all over the country. There is a large concern in the South, the name of which es- 
 capes me, formed by the combination of a number of iron establishments. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. I think it is the Southern Iron Company. It is formed of various 
 companies making charcoal iron. 
 
 Mr. Wharton. Mr. Shook, the president of the company, has written several 
 times lately to Philadelphia with the view of making an appointment with me and 
 an investigation into this matter, and as to whether we could agree upon terms by 
 which they could go into the business. Finally I told him what I am going to tell 
 you. I think he was well satisfied that we acted in a reasonable manner. We had 
 this dispute with Jacob Reese. This dispute was between the Thomas Gilchrist patents 
 and Reese. So we became parties in the dispute, as we had thought it necessary to 
 buy the Keese patents. Finally the Reese patents were adjudged to be the valid 
 oneK. When we got so far, Reese made claims for certain inventions he had made 
 which he claimed were not included in the patents sold to us, although his sale was 
 of all xtatents relating to the making of this steel, and improvements he might make 
 
46 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 thereon. He olaimed certain things were not included. That entailed another long 
 fight. Finally that fight was decided against him, and quite lately we became the 
 undoubted owners of those patents. 
 
 The Chairman. When was it finally disposed of? 
 
 Mr. Whabton. Last October a year ago. Then we had a title, I think, for the 
 first time to this property. Then came the question : If a man is invited to sell some- 
 thing, he necessarily desires to know something about the value of the thing which 
 he is to sell before he names a price. We had only the experience with the process 
 in Europe, and the importance of that invention has not been overestimated by Mr. 
 Morris. Experiments have been carried on on a large scale, and these experiments 
 have demonstrated to us that the process is of very great value ; of greater value 
 than we were prepared to hope for. So now we have two things ; we have a good 
 title and we have acquired some idea of the value of the process. Now comes an- 
 other complication. The Bessemer Steel Association was organized according to the 
 best light we had at that time, but when we got to a certain expansion of the busi- 
 ness, involving the dealing with outsiders and involving the question of locality and 
 other C[nestion3, we found the association was not such a one as we thought best fit- 
 ted to conduct the business. Last spring we therefore took such steps as were nec- 
 essary for a reorganization among ourselves, and those steps have been going on to 
 the present time. I was made chairman of this association last spring, and I have 
 not had the thing out of my mind from that time to this. There has been no time 
 lost in the endeavor to make this organization complete. Mr. Morris has been well 
 aware of this — at least he has been told so. Probably he does not believe it. These 
 are the facts. But he is grieving for being kept from enjoying a thing that belongs 
 to another man. Mr. Morris no doubt owns a house, and he can not think it hard 
 for a man if he comes to him and demands the price of that house and Mr. Morris 
 refuses to name a price. I do not think that Mr. Morris would feel that the man was 
 aggrieved because he refused to name a price for a thing he wanted to keep. I do 
 not think he has any standing at all before a court of law, while before a committee 
 of this kind I hardly see why he should bring it, as it is not a question of tariff. 
 
 Mr. Flower. This Bessemer Steel Company does not manufacture anything ? 
 
 Mr. Wharton. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is it prepared some day to ofi'er for sale these rights ? 
 
 Mr. Wharton. It is making all possible diligence now to do so. •■ 
 
 Mr. Flower. I understand from Mr. Morris that it is not an eleemosynary institu- 
 tion ? 
 
 Mr. Wharton. No, sir ; we paid our money out and we hope to get it back. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Why is a reorganization necessary to name the price of a thing 
 whose value you know bj' your own admission ? 
 
 Mr. Wharton. A reorganization is neceesary because until it is effected no one 
 has a right to speak. You probably would say that the president should have the 
 right, but that is not the case. He has to be guided by orders from the companies 
 who form the association. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. Could they not allow their representatives to act ? 
 
 Mr. Wharton. They are using all diligence to come to that point. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. It does not take a reorganization to enable them to do that ? 
 
 Mr. Whartox. It is necessary for this purpose. We do not now have any author- 
 ized agent who can speak. It requires a certain large proportion of all members of 
 the association to name a price at which anything in the nature of a patent license 
 can be sold. This is the case now. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Your organization is for the purpofe of dealing in these fiatents? 
 
 Mr. Wharton. Ves, sir; exclusively. We keep this thing moving among our- 
 selves, and are using all diligence to get the thing in shape, so that persons may be 
 permitted to use this or any other patent we possess. Among our members there is 
 a great difference of opinion. Some of them would shnt the door if they could ; 
 others would open it and let the outside public in, not because we feel we are forced 
 to do that, but because we think it is, on the whole, reasonable and right. That if 
 they, for instance, did not choose to carry on a manufacture in the State of Georgia 
 or Missouri somebody else shall be allowed to carry it on there by pay in o- us what 
 we could agree on with the person desiring to use it. That is the whole story, and 
 I have to regret taking up so much of your time in telling it. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. When do you think this reorganization will be completed? 
 
 Mr. Wharton. I understand we shall have a meeting of the association next month. 
 There have been circulars sent out to members of the association iuvitino- them to 
 respond affirmatively to the question, of joining in the reorganization. ° 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Is there any prospect of their doing so ? 
 
 Mr. Wharton. There is every prospect of it. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. After that wbat do you think of the prospect of granting the right 
 to sell these patents 1 o & 
 
 Mr. Wharton. I am not sure we shall be able to fix it at a nrice that Mr. Morris ap- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 47 
 
 proves of. That is a qnestion that does not concern you gentloinen. That is a ques- 
 tion of private trade. My own intention is to speak in favor of a price that I think 
 ■will be a reasonable one. It would not be right for me in relation to my coUeaaues 
 to name the price that seems to me a reasonable one, for I have no right to bind them. 
 There is no disposition on my part to do that. I have said so to Mr. Morris, who 
 does not believe it. He can not come cheaply into a thing that has cost a vast sum 
 of money, and a good many years' interest, and cost a good deal of toil, on the basis 
 of the people who have stood by it for that length of time. He will have to pay the 
 price, but it will not be so unreasonable that he can not come in. 
 
 Mr. Flower. As far as you have experimented with the basic process, have you 
 made steel rails ? 
 
 Mr. Whaeton. Not yet. I think the chief uses for basic steel will be for other 
 things than steel rails. 
 
 Mr. McMlllin. Will it probably make steel cheaper than it can be made by the 
 Bessemer process ? 
 
 Mr. Wharton. No, sir ; I should think not. If we have got ores that do not con- 
 tain phosphorus there is no improvement probable on the Bessemer process except 
 mere details of construction. Where you have rich ores free from phosphorus the 
 Bessemer process will be used. Where you have ores containing a good deal of 
 phosphorus then the basic process will be cheaper, but I should not imagine steel 
 rails can be made by the basic process cheaper than the Bessemer, the acid process. 
 
 Thereupon the committee took a recess until 7.45 p. m. 
 
 LEAD ORES. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. OSCAR KEEN. 
 
 Mr. Oscar Kben, attorney for the Newark Smelting and Refining Works, next ad- 
 dressed the committee. He said : 
 
 I am very much indebted to you for the privilege yon have granted to me of ad- 
 dressing you very briefly in behalf of any action that this committee of the House of 
 Representatives may take in respect to duties that may be imposed upon importation 
 of silver-lead ores from Mexico into this country. I represent the firm of E. Balbaoh 
 & Sons, of Newark, N. J., who are the owners and proprietors of the Newark Smelt- 
 ing and Refining Works. They have been engaged in this business for over forty 
 years. About three years ago last spring they embarked in a new enterprise in addi- 
 tion to the business of smelting and refining ores. They embarked in the business of 
 getting ores from Mexico imported into this country. These ores were silver-lead 
 ores, and it was in pursuance with the rulings of the Treasury Department of the 
 United States that were made by the Secretary of the Treasury in the month of Jan- 
 nary, 1880, during the administration of Mr. Hayes, and also the administration of 
 Mr. Cleveland, in 1886, that they engaged in this enterprise. The Treasury Depart- 
 ment made this ruling, that where silver-lead ores imported into this country, where 
 the sUver in value predominated in value over the lead in the ores, though the lead 
 might predominate in quantity and weight over the silver, that in a legal and com- 
 mercial sense these ores .were silver ores, and therefore not subject to duty. 
 
 The Chairman. Because silver is free? 
 
 Mr. Keen. Yes, sir. And I might add, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Com- 
 mittee, that it seems to be the policy of this Government that gold and silver ores shall 
 befreeof duty, and where there are in the ores containing gold and silver small quanti- 
 ties of lead, it is of no consequence and should not be considered by Congress or by 
 this committee as amounting to .anything in the way of protection. Now, it was not 
 until after Assistant Secretary of the Treasury French, in 1880, made that ruling in 
 respect to the statute passed by Congress, and it was not until after Assistant Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury Fairchild made a similar rulinij^, in 1886, affirming the ruling of 
 Mr! French, that my clients, Messrs. E. Balbach & Son, embarked in this enterprise; 
 and it was in the pursuance of that ruling and in consequence of that ruling and by 
 reason of that ruling that they embarked in the enterprise. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the quantity of lead that is brought over ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. I know the quantity of lead compared with the quantity of silver is very 
 small and the silver has always predominated. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you know what is the proportion of the lead to the silver ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. I do not; but I know the lead is smaller in value than the silver, and 
 the lead used is for the purpose of fluxing. 
 
 The Chairma^j. It takes the place of that quantity of lead that might be purchased 
 here 9 
 
 Mr. Keen. Perhaps so, yes, sir, I was about to state it was in consequence of 
 this rulingmade by the Department under the administr.ition of Mr. Hayes and of Mr. 
 Cleveland that they embarked in this enterprise. Before that time they had been 
 engaged in the business of smelting and refining ores for forty years at Newark, 
 
48 KEVISION OF THE TAEIB^F. 
 
 They employed 350 people in a population of 175, 000, and these are wage workers, 
 and of these 175,000 Messrs. E. Balbach & Sons support, perhaps, 1,500 to 2,000 peo- 
 ple, feed, clothe and house them. When the Treasury Department made this ruling 
 they engaged in this business. In addition to the plant they had in Newark 
 they put up in Sabinas, in the Republic of Mexico, additional works amounting to 
 $350, 000 in value, and it was in pursuance of the ruling made by the Department 
 that they entered into this enterprise. 
 
 Last May an application was made to the Treasury Department to change the 
 ruling made by Assistant Secretary French and Assistant Secretary Fairchild also. 
 Secretary Windom, after due consideration, refused, and stated he had this ruling 
 before him, and that this ruling was made by his predecessors in office and had re- 
 ceived also the sanction of tlie Judiciary Committee of the Senate, of which Mr. 
 Edmunds was Chairman, and that it should still be retained. The law now is 
 that when silver-lead ores are imported into this country, where the silver pre- 
 dominates in value over the lead, although the lead may predominate in weight, in 
 a legal and commercial sense these are silver ores and exempt from duty. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. So the lead always comes in free T 
 
 Mr. Keen". Yes, sir. Now, my clients also have an establishment at Kansas City, 
 and the reasen why Mr. Windom decided this question is this : He said his prede- 
 cessors had made a certain ruling and that rule has been acquiesced in by the De- 
 partment and by his predecessors in office, and on the faith of that ruling capital had 
 been placed on that industry, and that it would be contrary to equity and good faith 
 if the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States should change this ruling ; be- 
 cause on the faith of that ruling men had put their money into that business and 
 relied upon the faith of the Government of the United States that they would con- 
 tinue to maintain the ruling that had been previously made. 
 
 Now, I submit to this honorable committee where on the faith of the act of Con- 
 gress and on the action of the Department gentlemen have placed money in an en- 
 terprise, they have a right to presume that Congress will not change that ruling 
 unless Congress is satisfied that any change of law that may be made will accrue to 
 the benefit of the country at large and a better law than that which already existed. 
 Now, gentlemen, what reason is alleged against the law as it now stands ? As I un- 
 derstand this law it is this : Wherever silver-lead ores are imported into this country 
 or elsewhere and where the lead predominates in value as well as in quantity, a duty 
 should be imposed upon these ores at If cents a pound. It was the intention of the 
 Allison bill, introduced last summer, to assess upon any lead found in the ore a duty 
 of IJ cents a pound. That was contrary to the act of Congress March 4, 1883, and 
 also to the act of Congress passed prior to that time. 
 
 Now, what is the reason these gentlemen see fit to ask this committee to change 
 the statute law ? As I understand, there was imported from Mexico during the year 
 ending June 30, 1889, about $930,000 worth of lead. Now, the people of Montana and 
 Colorado object to that, and I do not know for what reason. It is imported with sil- 
 ver, and I will remark to you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, that 
 while lead imported from Mexico amounts to $930000, the value of silver imported 
 from Mexico was $4,870,000 and some odd dollars. Now, if the committee please, 
 there is no objection on the part of the people of Montana or Colorado to the impor- 
 tation of this silver from Mexico ; and yet before the Treasury Department last May, 
 they said that there was great objection on the part of the wage-workers to letting 
 the law remain as it is. They did not, however, make any objection when $4,870,000 
 worth of silver was imported ; they diKi not think that interfered with the wage- 
 workers. Yet this committee will easily see that if the importation of $930,000 
 worth of lead from Mexico interfered with the wage-workers of Utah, Colorado, and 
 Montana, how much more would the importation of this large amount of silver do 
 sot Now, gentlemen, the question to be considered is this — I did not come here in 
 favor of free trade. I come from a district which has never sent here a man who is 
 opposed to American industries. I represent a firm who are in favor of American in- 
 dustries. And yet if you take from these people the law as it now stands and give 
 them another law, you interfere with the operations of American industries and par- 
 tially deprive one thousand five hundred people in the city of Newark of their bread 
 and butter. 
 
 Now, what interest is opposed to the law as it now stands ? It comes here to- 
 night asking the committee to recommend to Congress that tlie bill passed by the 
 Republican Congress in 1883 stand as it is. We ask for no change. We represent 
 nine electoral votes and the State of Kansas has nine electoral votes also. The only 
 people opposed to this are in the States of Montana, Colorado, and the Territory of 
 Utah; and, gentlemen, I am told that the total value of the lead in the State of 
 Montana Is 2^ per cent, as compared with the value of the other minerals of that 
 Commonwealth. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you think there should be a duty on lead ores ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. No sir. I think lead ores ought to be free, as they are now. I think in 
 a legal and commercial sense, where ores are imported from Mexico containing silver 
 
KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 49 
 
 and lead and where the silver predominates in value, these ores should come in free, 
 and where in silver and lead ores the lead predominates in value, they ought to be 
 subject to a duty. I desire to say that I come here from a tree-trade stand point in 
 this respect. I come here representing an industry in the city of Newark, and the 
 same industry in the city of Kansas City. We do not ask any change in the law, but 
 simply ask this honorable committee to submit to Congress that the law as it has 
 been for years shall remain. 
 
 The Chairman. Do I understand you to say that you favor a duty on lead if it is 
 separated from, and not if it is assimilated with silver ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. If the lead is brought in yer ae I think a duty should be imposed on 
 lead. 
 
 Mr. McMlXLiN. If I understand you correctly, yon think there ought not to be an 
 embargo imposed upon importations of silver simply because it is found in connection 
 with some baser metal f 
 
 Mr. Keen. That is it. 
 
 Mr. Baynk. These people simply refine the silver t 
 
 Mr. Keen. Yes, sir; that is all. If you will ask some gentlemen — I will refer you 
 to General Rosecranz, who is acqiiainted with the works of B. Balbach & Sons 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Your word is good enough. They are general smelters and refiners, 
 and they have embarked in this enterprise on the good faith of Congress and under 
 the rulings of the Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Mr. Keen. On the rulings of the Secretary of the Treasury and on the statute law 
 passed by Congress. 
 
 The Chairman. If you want silver metal you can import that free of duty, and 
 therefore the lead is so much clear gain if you get it in freet 
 
 Mr. Keen. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. There is no embargo on silver, as referred to by Mr. McMillin? 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Our embargo I had reference to is that embargo that is necessary 
 from its having to come across the country for miles packed in that way, with lead 
 and dirt in the silver. Then the proposed tariff would be an embargo ? 
 
 Mr. Flower. Where does this come from T 
 
 Mr. Keen. Sabinas. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How far from the railroad is that ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. About 72 miles. It crosses from there by railroad to Galveston and 
 then by steam-ship to New York City. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is that all the importation that comes from there ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. That is a good deal of the importation. I will state that the Southern 
 Pacific Railroad and its kindred corporation, the Morgan Steamship line, depend upon 
 the ores sent from the West. What we want to do is this — that you should report to 
 Congress that the law as it now stands and as it has stood for several years be kept 
 the same and unchanged. Under that law we have invested a large sum of money in 
 Newark. We have done well; we have provided homes, etc., for about 1,500 people, 
 and all we ask is that the law shall remain. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. You want the ruling as it is to continue ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. Yes, sir, we want the law upon which the ruling was made to continue. 
 In other words we do not want a change in the law. 
 
 Mr. Bbbckenridge. You want the present ruling under the administration of Mr. 
 Windom to continue 1 
 
 Mr. Keen. I do not mean his regulations of the 17th of July last, but his ruling of 
 October or November whereby he aflirmed the ruling of his predecessors in office. As- 
 sistant Secretaries French and Fairchild. 
 
 Mr. Breckenridge. In which he set aside the regulations you speak of? 
 
 Mr. Keen. Yes, sir ; We do not come here at the present time for the purpose of 
 asking this honorable body to suggest any law of reciprocity. We perhaps may 
 come to that in the near future, because these countries in Central and South America 
 produce nothing in the way of machinery and manufactories which we produce. We 
 have a large field of market to which we can send our goods. We have the machin- 
 ery they use. They manufacture nothing there, and what we want here is raw ma- 
 terial ; and we ask that it be given us in such a way that we can use it. 
 
 The Chairman. When were your smelting-works established ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. Forty years ago. 
 
 The Chairman. Did you commence the business of smelting silver and gold before 
 this ruling of the Treasury ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. Yes, sir ; but we never entered into this business of importation of 
 Mexican lead ores until after the Secretary of the Treasury in 1880 and 188(> gave an 
 opinion in regard to the tariff' act of March 4, 1683, and the tariff' act of April, which 
 was the s'lccessor of that. 
 
 The Chairman. Was your investment made before that ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. I had already stated, Mr. Chairman, and I will state it again, that it 
 was only after this ruling, and in pursuance of this ruling, that we embarked in this 
 
 485 4 
 
50 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mexican business and put in additional capital to the amount of $350,000 in our 
 plant, and that is one of the reasons why the Secretary of the Treasury did not re- 
 verse the ruling when ho was asked to do so last May. He applied this doctrine : 
 That where parties under the faith of the ruling had invested money in an enter- 
 prise, it was the duty of the Government to consider that the money so invested in 
 that plant was properly invested. In other words, that the decision of a previous 
 Department was binding upon their successors in office; and inasmuch as his prede- 
 cessor had so decided, Mr. Windom made this ruling. 
 
 The Chairman. Where did you get your silver ores prior to this ruling ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. In diiierent parts of the country. 
 
 The Chairman. Did you get it all in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And the fact that you could get lead in the silver made you pre- 
 fer to import it rather than buy the home product I 
 
 Mr. Keen. Yes, sir ; I was about to observe to the Chairman that the silver ore 
 from Mexico about paid the expenses of bringing it over, and the lead also afforded a 
 good flux. 
 
 The Chairman. You mean the lead ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. Yes, sir ; this lead is useful for fluxing. It ia dry ore generally, and 
 the fact is, these people would rather have these Mexican ores because they are better 
 ores than those of Montana and Colorado. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. This is useful for fluxing native ores ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. Yes, sir; and I was about to state that this ore is used much by the 
 people of Montana and Colorado for that purpose. There are gentlemen — I do not 
 know whether they will address your committee — sent here from Montana and Colo- 
 rado who say they need these ores. There are two mines in Colorado which have 
 these ores of the same quality and quantity, but they charge the people who want 
 these ores very high prices, and the result is they alone have these ores and nobody 
 else can supply them, and they compel the people of Colorado and Montana to use 
 them at high prices. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Where is that mine in Colorado? 
 
 Mr. Keen. Leadville. 
 
 Mr. Gear. They do not use any Mexican ores there ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. No, sir; but you will iind that when Governor Grant came here last 
 May and made an argument before the treasurer, he admitted he had used ores and 
 fluxing in Colorado works. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You speak of the predominance of silver in lead. Do you mean in value 
 or weight ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. In value. The ruling now established by the Treasury Department is, 
 where the silver predominates in value, that in a legal and commercial sense it is sil- 
 ver ore and free of duty. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. This ore which you procure from Mexfco has relatively very little sil- 
 ver in it compared with its weight ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. Yes, sir ; but in every instance the silver is largely superior in value to 
 the lead and all silver-lead ores imported by E. Balbach& Sons, of Newark, are really 
 silver ores; that is, the silver is predominant in value, and they come under the rul- 
 ing of the Treasury Department and the Judiciary Committee of the United States Sen- 
 ate. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I understand you imported some ore where the lead predominated in 
 value ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. I understand there are instances of that kind, but where that has hap- 
 pened they have paid the duty. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. And where the silver predominates? 
 
 Mr. Keen. They did not pay the duty. 
 
 Mr. Bayne In point of weight what would be the percentage between them where 
 the silver predominates? What would be the relative weight of the two metals? 
 
 Mr. Keen. Of course the lead would weigh considerably more. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. But take 100 pounds of ore combining silver and lead. 
 
 Mr. Keen. I do not know that I can answer that cfuestion correctly. I have come 
 for the purpose of addressing this committer on the policy of the Government in 
 regard to the matter, and I am not prepared to give those statistics. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. That is the very tiling that affects the policy. If you are importing a 
 vast quantity of lead ore and a small quantity of silver you are getting this lead here 
 free — that imported lea<l you get free ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Suppose you have 100 pounds of Galena ore and the lead is worth, saj, 
 3 cents and the silver is worth 1^3. .50, it would come in free? 
 
 Mr. Keen. Yes, sir. T was about to st.nte that this committee would undoubtedly 
 have in view the interests of the greater number of people. Now, as I understand it, 
 in the State of Montnna 2J per cent, of all her mineral products is lead, We do not 
 
KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 51 
 
 ask any reciprocity, although I desire to call attention to this fact : here is a treaty 
 ■between the United States and the Hawaiian Islands, by virtue of which there has 
 been received up to the end of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889, over $9,000,000 
 worth of sugar, rice, and molasses. There has been no complaint on the part of the 
 gentlemen coming from the South, although that, perhaps, interferes with their 
 industries. 
 
 The Chairman. You are mistaken; there is a great deal of objection. 
 
 Mr. Keen. I mean as far as the treaty is concerned. 
 
 The Chairman. There are great objections to it all the same. 
 
 Mr. Keen. I mean that this provision stands ; that it is the law of the land. I am 
 not speaking of the present state of affairs. We have no w a treaty and I desire to call 
 the attention of this honorable body to the fact that while I do not ask reciprocity 
 at this time, I do represent the idea prevailing in our section of the country. If you 
 will give us a place where we can put our surplus production, you will enable us to 
 do better in manufacture than in the past. Not only the smelting and refining works 
 in Kansas City, the Southern Pacific Railroad Company and the Morgan Line of Steam- 
 ships, but also the manufacturers in Illinois, Pennsylvania, New England, and New 
 Jersey, who make the machines for crushing these materials, to work them up — they 
 also will be interfered with. So your body will take into consideration not only the 
 fact of the business we are engaged in, but all the other businesses connected with 
 and intluenced by it. 
 
 Mr, Gear. How much was the tonnage of that ore ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. The value of that ore was about |930,000. 
 
 Mr. Gear. But about how much tonnage ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. I think I can give you that exactly from an official document in Con- 
 gress. There was imported for the year ending June 30, la89, $931,229 worth of lead — 
 the number of pounds is what you want. Imported from Mexico during that year, 
 from June 30, 1888, to June 30, 1889, 58,679,609 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That all comes in free under this ruling? 
 
 Mr. Keen. No, sir ; wherever the lead preponderated in weight and value it was 
 subject to a duty of 1^ cents per pound. 
 
 The Chairman. Does it ever preponderate? 
 
 Mr. Keen. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you mean that where the people imported that lead with sil- 
 ver and where the lead predominated in value over the silver, that it came in free. 
 
 Mr. Keen. The Newark Smelting Company have often paid duties to the Govern- 
 ment wherever the lead in the ore predominated in weight and also in value. 
 
 The Chairman. Within what period ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. During the last four years. 
 
 Mr. Batne. Say that a pound of silver is worth $13.60, and a pound of lead is 
 worth about 3 cents. One pound of silver worth $13.60 would be more than equal in 
 value to about 400 pounds of lead which would come in free. 
 
 Mr, Keen. You must remember this lead is not brought in to interfere with the 
 product of Montana, but is brought in for the purpese of fluxing, for the purpose of 
 separating the ore trom the dross. We do not wish to do this thing for the purpose 
 of getting free lead, 
 
 Mr. Gear. How many tons do you use to get a ton of base bullion ? I take it, it is 
 in the shape of base bullion ? 
 
 Mr. Keen. I do not know whether I could answer that xuestion. I ask the com- 
 mittee that I may be allowed to file printed particulars on behalf of these works. 
 
 Mr. Gear. As-I understand, in Leadville — I spent some time there — it takes about 
 6 or 7 tons crude ore to make a ton of base bullion. 
 
 Mr. Keen. I had no idea that I had taken as much time as I have, and I desire to 
 express to the committee my sense of the obligation for the courtesy shown me. 
 
 STATEMENT OF L. E. HOLDEN. 
 
 Mr. L. E, HOLDEN, of Cleveland, Ohio, next addressed the committee. He said: 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I do not come as a lawyer, but 
 simply as a business man interested in the great industry of producing lead and sil- 
 ver in this country. It happened to be my fortune to be in this city when the present 
 tariff law was passed, and of course, as my business has been so largely connected 
 with the production of lead in the West, I feel all encroachments upon the law. 
 Now we all understand when the present tariff law was passed it was passed as a 
 protection measure, and it was not understood th.at there was such exception made 
 in the law, and that lead in any shape or in any way was to be introduced into this 
 country free. It was almost by an inadvertence, I might say, that the policy of 
 bringing in lead ores free from Mexico was inuuguratecl, It no doubt grew out of a. 
 
52 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 ruling made by Secretary Sherman, wherein he permitted iron ore, which was of ne 
 value, to be admitted free because it carried silver of a higher value. All subsequent 
 rulings have been based on this ruling, till the results are unbearable. 
 
 I will read a few statistics showing the gradual importations of lead for a series of 
 years past. In 1874 I went to the great West for the purpose of mining. I became 
 interested in this great industry and I have been interested in it ever since. You 
 will understand that previous to the war a very large percentage of the lead that was 
 used in this country was imported from Europe and Mexico. It was not until since the 
 war that the great lead industries began to come to the front; so that you cango back 
 to the year 18(J3 and yon will find that we commenced spending money building plants 
 and building up this great industry ; so that at the present time, or at least up to the 
 time that they began to import these ores from Mexico, we were producing nearly 
 all the lead used in the United States. 
 
 But as to these vested rights which the gentleman who preceded me refers to. 
 Long before 1884, before the thought of introducing and importing lead ores free, more 
 than a hundred times as much money had been expended in building up great plants 
 in the West, in mining the silver-lead ore and in building refineries and furnaces, as 
 have been expended since this recent interpretration of the law. Have these men 
 who invested this money no vested rights? Are their interests not to be considered! 
 If the question of vested rights has any weight whatever, certainly those who in- 
 vested their money previous to that time under the law should be considered as well 
 as those people from New Jersey and Texas, who have invested their money. I will 
 refer to the statistics which I wish to read. In 1884 there was imported from Mexico 
 1,815 tons of silver-lead ore; in 1885, 8,403 tons. , 
 
 Mr. La Follette. When was this ruling made ? 
 
 Mr. Kebn. In January, 1886, by Assistant Secretary French. There was no plant 
 in Texas until some time subsequent to that. 
 
 Mr. HOLDEN (continuing). In 1885 there was 8,403; in 1886,22,045 tons; in 1887, 
 44,773 tons; in 1888,68,214 tons. In 1889, up to the time that the statistics were 
 concluded, which was about the 4th of May, there had been imported about 29,000 
 tons. A total in five years of 91,832,075 pounds of lead were extracted by smelting 
 those ores. Thus the Government is cheated out of revenue and our industries are 
 jeopardized. Now, the point we make, gentlemen, is, this is a policy to protect 
 American industries. It is the law of the land ; we all understand it. Whatever the 
 tariff may be on any one industry or product — that is protection. Thus 20 cents 
 tariff is 20 cents protection. There is no question about that, as it is the truth. This 
 is a mining industry, and it is a great user and consumer of the products of the 
 East. Everything enters into our production. Everything we have to buy comes 
 from high-priced labor. We all understand that we do not want to degrade Ameri- 
 can labor, but we want to elevate it. But we want to have the principle of protec- 
 tion applied equitably. 
 
 The Chairman. What would be the effect of free lead on your industry ? 
 
 Mr. HoLDEN. I will tell you. We pay in wages $3 a day for miners and $2.50 for 
 common laborers on the outside. Idaho pays $2.50 for laborers and for miners $3.50. 
 For all this ore which comes in from Mexico the average price paid for labor is 54 
 cents. I got that from Mr. Cavanaugh, of Idaho, who has been the superintendent 
 of mines there for years. He gave it to me about three weeks ago. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. If you will allow me to interrupt your remarks, have you any in- 
 formation as to the relative efaciency of the American laborer and the Mexican 
 laborer in the production of the ore ? 
 
 Mr. HoLDEN. I do not think I have any statistics which would shed any light 
 upon that. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But the Mexican labor is not so efficient generally f 
 
 Mr. HoLDEN. It is not so understood. 
 
 Mr. Batne. Do you think we can produce in this country a sufficient quantity of 
 lead to supply the domestic need f 
 
 Mr. HoLDEN. Yes, sir ; I know that we can. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Then there is an abundance of leadt 
 
 Mr. HOLDBN. There is an abundance of lead ores, and we would have a surplus 
 which would not exceed 5,000 to 10,000 tons. 
 
 Mr. Batne. Then you are in favor of protecting this lead ore? 
 
 Mr HOLDEN I am in favorof applying the same principle to the protection of lead 
 ore that is applied to iron ore, and everything else. 
 
 Mr. Ba-stne. In other words, you are in fa\^r of protecting the industries all along 
 the lines, from raw materials up ? i » o 
 
 Mr HoLDEN. I will state what I am in favor of. I want just so much protection 
 as will protect our laborers against the labor of foreign countries that are in compe- 
 tition with us and I want just so much protection ou capital as will protect that 
 capital against the cheaper capital of competing countries. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I agree with you exactly. 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 53 
 
 Mr. HOLDBN. That is my measure of protection. lu regard to the policy wliich 
 the gentleman who preceded me is advocating, he desires to have lead ores made an 
 exception and let them come in free. In the first place, this attempt to make an 
 exception of lead ores is unjnst for many reasons; first, because it would kill one of 
 the great — I might say the industry — that is building up the cities in the new West, 
 To refer to what that industry means, I will just take the figures by Wells, Fargo & 
 Co. I will take only a few years back, and I will begin in 1878. The total pro- 
 duction of precious metals in the United States was $81,000,000 in that year. In 
 1879 it was ^75,000,000. Then I will drop down to 1886. There was a gradual in- 
 crease until in that year we had $103,000,000 worth of precious metals produced. 
 In 1887 we had $104,000,000, and there was produced from argentiferous lead ores 
 $44,000,000 in 1888. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Of what ? 
 
 Mr. HOLDBN. The value of gold, silver, and lead produced $44,000,000 in 1888. 
 That amount of gold and silver was added to the stock of gold and silver in the 
 country, because it was possible for us to run these silver and lead mines in these 
 mountains. In other words, the silver and lead produced was 43 per cent., in 1886, 
 of all the gold and silver that was produced in the United States, and 39 per cent. 
 in 1887. I simply quote these few figures to show you the value of this great indus- 
 try. As I say, we buy steel from Ohio and Pennsylvania. We buy our machinery in 
 the East. We have paid, perhaps, $300,000 this year into Ohio and Pennsylvania for 
 machinery for pumping out the mines, and for machinery for turning the wheels 
 which will take out the ores that carry not over 10 per cent, of lead, and prepare 
 them for the furnaces by nleans of concentration. And right here we should under- 
 stand what constitutes lead ores. I do not care where it is found, whether in large 
 or small quantities, it is lead when found. If there is an ore that carries a sufficient 
 amount of lead to make it of commercial value, whether it is first class or any other, 
 it is lead ore. The question of value does not enter into it at all. It has nothing to 
 do with it, in my judgment, and should not have entered into the interpretation of 
 the law by the Secretary of the Treasury ; and in a new law to be formed this false 
 interpretation should be guarded against by making all lead in ore pay duty. 
 
 I gave an afiidavit before the Secretary of the Treasury at the hearing in May last, 
 and I beg leave to read it. 
 
 AITIDAVIT OF L. E. HOLDEN. 
 
 To the honorable the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, in the matter 
 set for hearing in regard to the importation of lead ores. May 15, 1889. 
 
 Utah Territory, Salt Lake CounUj : 
 L. E. HoLDEN, of lawful age, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: 
 That he is a graduate of the University of Michigan ; that he has given special 
 study and attention to mining, reducing, and selling lead and silver ores for about 
 twenty years, and is familiar with the terms used, the classifications of ores, and their 
 commercial value and methods of reduction ; that in the accurate use of the word 
 ore it means " a metal chemically combined with some mineralizing substance which 
 completely disguises its usually recognized and useful properties," as instance, hem- 
 atite iron ore, carbonate of lead ore, and sulphuret copper ore, neither of which rep- 
 resent in appearance their respective metals. 
 
 (2) In miners' usage an ore consists of a mixture of rock or gangue and the metal 
 which gives name to the ore. Thus, in Lake Superior, ore is worked in concentrat- 
 ing mills which carries three-fourths of 1 per cent, of copper, and is designated 
 copper ore; so in Bingham Cafion, in Utah, ores are designated lead ores, and are 
 concentrated from 3 per cent, lead ores, and then sent to the furnaces. 
 
 (3) There is another class of lead ore, known as silver-lead ore, which carries both 
 silver and lead, and often gold, copper, and zinc. 
 
 (4) Whenever gold, silver, or lead are collected into bars by smelting in large quan- 
 tities it is called base bullion, or lead bullion, and the value of the silver and gold 
 does not change the nomenclature. For instance, if lead is worth $70 per ton, and 
 the gold and silver in that ton were worth $1,000, it would be still lead bulliou. 
 
 (5) In the reduction of ores the amount of lead in the ores does not determine 
 whether they can be smelted at a profit or not. The gangue, as to whether it be 
 lime or iron, and the silver, gold, and copper all enter into the question, and in Utah 
 a 5 percent, lead ore, with an iron and lime gangue carrying as much as 10 ounces 
 of silver, is readily sold to the smelters ; as an illustration, the ores from the Flag- 
 staff and Vallejo mines, in Little Cottonwood. I am mining, concentrating, and 
 selling to-day 500 tons per month of sulphuret lead ores that wnen mined carry 7 per 
 cent, lead, 7 or 8 ounces of silver, and $2 in gold, and about 20 per cent. iron. 
 
 This lead ore when concentrated gives two classes of ore. About one-tenth is first 
 class, and carries 50 per cent, lead, 26 to 30 ounces of silver, and $6 to $20 in gold per 
 
64 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 ton. The rest, which averages about 2 tons from 3 of crude ore, runs about 10 per 
 cent, lead, 10 to 12 ounces of silver, and $2.50 to $6 in gold, and .30 per cent. iron. 
 This ore has to be roasted and then smelted. It fiads a ready sale to the smelters, and 
 the lead, silver and gold and iron are paid for, every unit; but there is no profit when 
 lead is under 4 cents per'pound in New York. It is known as low-grade lead ore. It 
 is an almost universal practice for furnace men to analyze ores before purchasing, so 
 as to determine the iron, silica, lime, and zinc, as well as the lead, silver, and gold. 
 The price for fuel and transportation are factors which decide whether most ores can 
 be smelted or milled, as, for instance, with cheap coke, say at $3.50 to $5 per ton, a 
 lead ore carrying 3 to 5 per cent, lead, with an iron gangue, and as low as 6 to 8 ounces 
 of silver, could be smelted at a profit because of its lead and iron, whereas it could 
 not be milled at all at a profit. Such an ore is never classified as a silver ore, but 
 always as a low-grade lead ore, notwithstanding the silver is greater in value than 
 the lead. 
 
 Take another example — an ore which carries 50 per cent, lead and 200 ounces of 
 silver. Such an ore is not classified as silver ore. It is known as a silver-lead ore, 
 and always as a suielting ore. It is usual where an ore which has been crushed, 
 amalgamated, or leached carries, say, 5 per cent, and, in some instances, 3 per cent, 
 of lead to concentrate the tailings and save both lead and silver, and thus make an 
 ore which is smeltod and which produces lead bullion. Thus it is manifest that, in 
 the strict sense of the term, a lead ore is an ore which produces lead, and that in the 
 arts and in the commerce of the country that is a lead ore which carries lead which 
 may be wrought into metallic lead. 
 
 (6) I am familiar with the present tariff law pertaining to the importation of 
 metals. I was present during the session of Congress in 1883, during the entire dis- 
 cussion of the law, and at the passage of the law th^t lead, in ores or in any other 
 form, should be admitted free of duty, and in my opinion any construction of the 
 law by which lead in ores, or lead ores, or any ores bearing lead which are converted 
 or may be converted into lead, are admitted free of duty, is a forced and wrong con- 
 struction of the law. The miner pays for steel, iron, candles, machinery, nails, and 
 all clothing which he wears, prices enhanced by tarifi^ and which go to promote the 
 great industries of this country, and it was the intent of the law that the product of 
 this labor should also be protected as against foreign labor and foreign capital. So 
 long as this policy is the American policy it is but justice that the law should be so 
 construed and so applied as to protect the miner in what he produces as it does the 
 manufacturer of what he consumes. The great wrong is, that the lead in ores im- 
 ported from Mexico under the present ruling lowers the price of all lead produced in 
 this country below the actual cost of production. In short, we pay $'S for the labor 
 of a miner, in Utah, per day, while the wages for miners, as I am credibly informed, in 
 Mexico, average less than $1 per day. 
 
 L. E. HOLDEN. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me, May 8th, 1889. 
 
 Wm. M. Beadlky, 
 Notary PutUc, Salt Lake County, Utah. 
 
 Mr. Flower. They have made you say that you are in favor of protection, and Mr. 
 Bayne finds that you agree with him exactly. Now, I want you to state whether you 
 would collect a dollar more revenue than is needed for the support of the Government? 
 
 Mr. HoLDEN. It will take something of a protection law to collect that revenue. 
 We will not go into a discussion of politics, because this is a square matter of busi- 
 ness. In regard to the miners of the Rocky Mountains, I might go on and tell you 
 something of their lives there ; it would be interesting to you. If I should tell you 
 how they have gone out from the Eastern States— they have all come from there, and 
 have built up the country — and how the source of all their lives and hopes centers 
 in these mines, you would be interested. 
 
 I speak for them because I know them and live with them, and they work for me, 
 and I know all their interests in and out. I know that without this protection the 
 mines of the great West can not exist. I know that the silver and lead mines 
 of Utah, Montana, Idaho, and Colorado can not stand by the side of Mexico and pay 
 the wages they are now paying. The Mexicans peon themselves to the masters who 
 work them. You know that and I know it. What we, representing the great inter- 
 ests of the West, want and ask you to recommend, is the present law as it now stands, 
 modified, perhaps, with some such language as the Senate bill. I mean this, that if 
 the principle of protection is to be applied to all other industries— to the things 
 which enter into our mines— if we have to pay that enhanced price for what of ma- 
 terials and labor we use, we ask you to put tije same protection on what we produce, 
 and say that any ore carrying lead is lead ore, and that lead ore shall pay a duty of 
 li cents a pound (m all the lead contained. The interpretation of the Secretary of 
 the Treasury I believe to be unjustifiable, for the case has been construed directly 
 opposite all along its line. But we must prevent all doubt for the future. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 55 
 
 The Chairman. Does the Senate bill make a correction? 
 
 Mr. HoLDBN. The Senate makes the correction which I read : 
 
 ''Provided, That silver ore containing lead shall pay a duty of IJ per cent, per 
 pound on the lead contained therein according to sample and assay at the port of 
 entry." 
 
 This is the same principle that is applied to iron ore, copper, and all other things 
 that are protected in this country. We ask nothing more than is commou justice 
 and common right. ■ 
 
 I thank you for listening to me, and trust that this subject, as I know it will, may 
 receive your favorable consideration. 
 
 ARGENTIFEROUS LEAD ORES. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS H. CARTER. 
 
 Hon. T. H. Carter, Representative from the State of Montana, next addressed the 
 committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee : On the 10th day of next August 
 tariff legislation on the subject of lead will have existed uninterruptedly in this Re- 
 public for one hundred years. On that day in 1790 Congress passed the first law, at 
 that time relating exclusively to pig-lead and lead in bars. That taritf was continued 
 until 1812 at 1 cent per pound. From 1812 to 181t) the tariff was 2 cents per pound. 
 From 1816 to 1824 it was 1 cent per pound. From 1824 to 1828 the tariff was 2 cents 
 per pound. From 1828 to 1846 it was 3 cents per pound. From 1846 to 1857 it was 20 
 per cent, ad valorem in lieu of specific. From 1857 to 1861 the tariff was 15 per cent, 
 ad valorem, still relating exclusively to pig-lead and lead in bars. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Up to that time there was no tax on ore? 
 
 Mr. Carter. There was no tax on ore. In 1861, from the 2d of March to the 5th 
 of August the taritf was fixed at 1 cent per pound in lieu of the ad valorem duty there- 
 tofore existing. On the 6th of August, 1861, the tariff' was raised to 14 cents a pound 
 on the pig lead and lead in bars, and on June 30, 1864, it was placed at 2 cents per 
 pound, where it has since continued. On the 11th of July, ,1862, the first legislation 
 was placed upon our statute-books relative to importetl lead ores. That statute 
 fixed the amount at 1 cent per pound and continued in force until the 30th of June, 
 1864. June 30, 1864, the tariff' on lead ore was placed at 1| cents per pound. It 
 has continued at that figure uninterruptedly from that day. In connection with 
 this line of legislation, which is varied somewhat, the principle of protection in its 
 beneficial operations is most thoroughly and clearly illustrated. In 1885 the first 
 effort was made to collect data relative to the amount of lead produced in this coun- 
 try. We produced 1,500 net tons in that year. Under the tariff legislation which 
 has been in force from that day to this the gratifying result of protection is shown 
 in the fact that during the year 1888 this country produced 157,000 net tons, the pro- 
 duction being only about 5, 000 tons less than the total lead consumed in the United 
 States last year. 
 
 Prior to 1867 this country depended for its whole production of lead on what is 
 known as the non- argentiferous ores, the product of Virginia, Wisconsin, Illinois, 
 and Missouri mines chiefly. At or about that time the first smelters were erected in 
 the Rocky Mountain country for the purpose of reducing argentiferous lead ores. 
 Our galena, as it is commonly called, contains some silver; but in Missouri, Wiscon- 
 sin, Illinois, and Virginia the silver is found in insignincent qnantities— what we 
 would call a trace. In the Rocky Mountain country, however, it is found in con- 
 junction with certain deposits of silver or what is there called lead-silver, or silver- 
 lead ore, and it varies from 5 up to 80 per cent, to a ton of ore. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is that in bulk or value 1 
 
 Mr. Carter. That is in bulk. The reduction of ore in that country commenced 
 with experimental work in 1867. One small smelter was erected that year in the 
 State of Nevada and one about that time in the Territory of Montana. The indus- 
 try has continued to develop in such proportions that to-day 80 per cent, of the 
 lead produced in the United States is produced in the argentiferous-ore districts. 
 Last year the proportions were about 82 or 83 per cent, of lead thus produced from 
 ore in which silver was found in quantities sufiSciont to be saved, and about 18 per 
 cent, in Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Virginia. In connection with the produc- 
 tion of lead in that country, and from the statement I have made, borne out as it is by 
 the statistics, the fact of its importance, I think, is clearly shown. The lead is found 
 in what is known as the low-grade ore in the mining country. 
 The silver mine which produces silver in large quantities per ton produces what 
 
56 EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 is commonly known as silver ore, and ore that will yield up its precious contentB by 
 what is known as the free milling process, that is, "by the mere pounding of the ore 
 into dust and then passing this dust through water over plates charged witli varlons 
 chemical compounds which take up the silver. This is comparatively an inexpen- 
 sive process. The smelting process, however, which is the only one by which lead and 
 silver can be saved when found in combination, is an expensive process. By this proc- 
 ess the ore is reduced to the form of a liquid slag. This process, as I have said, is a 
 very expensive one. Experiments in this line have been attended by great financial 
 loss to those who have undertaken to pioneer the smelting of this ore in the Eocky 
 Mountain region. I cannot, at this moment, recollect any of the smelting works that 
 have started on what we call low-grade mines in that country that have paid a div- 
 idend outside of Leadville and the surrounding country where a remarkable deposit 
 of carbonate ore was discovered. Notwithstanding this fact, efforts have been made 
 for the last twenty-five years to improve the machinery and process untilrecently we 
 have reached a point which has a reasonable amount of stability and fair prospects of 
 returns to capital invested in the enterprise. 
 
 It must be borne in mind that the profit on the silver in these large mines is ordi- 
 narily insuificient in itself to justify continuance in business. The combination of 
 profit on both silver and lead contained in the ore is absolutely essential to a profit- 
 yielding basis ; or, to be more explicit, if the lead does not pay a profit, the business 
 must of necessity stop, because the returns of silver alone yielded by the ore will not 
 pay the expenses of conducting the mining and smelting operation. While these 
 conditions exist we are meeting with an inundation of Mexican lead and silver ore, 
 produced by primitive processes, it may be, but most assuredly under labor conditions 
 with which the people of this country can not, and I hope will never, be called onto 
 compete. The miners of Montana, and I believe what I say of Montana is true of 
 that entire region of country, receive from $3 to |5 per day. 
 
 Mr. Gear. For eight hours' work? 
 
 Mr. Carter. Yes, sir ; in many cases for eight hours' work. I venture to say be- 
 fore this committee that there is not a man working in that country, who has a family, 
 who has not a laudable ambition to see his home well kept, his wife neatly dressed, 
 and his children provided with all the facilities for education and refinement that 
 cluster about any home. These men, receiving |3.50 per day (we will assume that 
 average, which I believe is correct), are enabled at the wages thus furnished to in- 
 dulge such ambitions. Butte City, Montana, is one of the most thriving communities 
 on the face of the earth. You will find there a class of men as well fed, as well clothed, 
 as well behaved, and as intelligent, on an average, as in any country in the world. 
 Now we are asked by our worthy friend from New Jersey to subscribe to a theory or 
 proposition through which the miners in that country will be brought in direct com- 
 petition with men whose wants are supplied and whose ambitions are satisfied on 50 
 cents a day. The Republic of Mexico has a population of about 10,000,000, 1 believe. 
 That population is divided into two distinct elements, blending here and there, it is 
 true, but as a fact about 7,000,000 of the population of Mexico is of a half-breed or 
 mongrel character. About 3,000,000 of the population of that country rlaims connec- 
 tion, without any pollution of blood, with the Latin race. These people seem well 
 satisfied with the trifling compensation paid them, but our people can not assent to 
 similar conditions. 
 
 But our friend suggests that it ill-becomes Montana to complain in view of the 
 fact that only about 3 per cent, of her mineral product is bound up in lead. I do 
 not know of any place in the world where a man can be mistaken as readily as in 
 figures when he gets started wrong. The facts in reference to the computation lead- 
 ing to the result announced by the gentleman from New Jersey are these : In Alder 
 gulch, Montana, where Virginia City now stands, in a valley about three times as 
 wide as this room and a few miles long, a comparatively small number of men washed 
 out something like $100,000,000 in clear, pure gold in an incredibly short period of 
 time. In Last Chance gulch, where the city of Helena now stands (and we have 
 witnesses here to the fact that such a place exists), some $60,000,000 were taken oat 
 in a very brief time. At Confederate gulch three men scraped up some $6,000,000 
 in ninety days, picked up the nuggets and filled wash basins daily, hired ox-teams 
 and took it away. The Granite Mountain mine yields an average of $200,000 per 
 month in net profits, the gross output being about $250,000 per month. From the 
 Drumlumon, at Marysville, near Helena, they take out about $200,000 a month and 
 pay a net profit of about |150,000 monthly. 
 
 Mr. McMillan. Are you afraid that these folks will destroy this industry ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. Not at all; but permit me to say that the worthy gentleman takes up 
 all this aggregate out-put and says that after a lapse of twenty-seven years the lead 
 there as compared with other metals is only 3 per cent, of our entire metallic pro- 
 duction. Now, the facts are that we have been smelting for a long time in Montana 
 butfor over a quarter of a centnry silver and gold have been taken out without 
 touching the low grade lead mines at all. Placer mining has ceased to be an im- 
 portant factor in the mining industry of that country. We are, therefore ' at the 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 57 
 
 present time using the smelting process of reducing- ores. The Granite Mountain 
 mine is an exception. The Last Chance and Alder gulches were remarkable excep- 
 tions. Other gulches can not be found now to yield as those yielded, and I insist 
 that figures based on exceptions are not reliable. The low grade mines of Montana 
 are numerous. Starting at a point 100 miles south of the Canadian border on the 
 main ridge of the Rocky Mountains, in every township in Montana you will find 
 promising low grade prospects. Mines are being opened all over that region of 
 country, and labor conditions in these mines are not identical with the placer mines, 
 because the peon labor of Mexico comes in direct competition with their lead product. 
 Now, our worthy friend has suggested that we are in need of this Mexican lead ore 
 to which he refers. Let me call attention to this fact in that connection without 
 taking up the time of the committee. Before the hearing on the 15th day of last May, 
 before the Secretary of the Treasury, which resulted in the ruling in October, the 
 Bunkerhill and Sullivan and other western mines had by virtue of this identical com- 
 petition ceased operations and were idle at that time. In the West we can furnish an 
 abundance of lead ore of a very high grade. Within a radius of 25 miles in Shoshone 
 County, Idaho, enough lead to supply this country fof ten centuries to come exists. 
 Much of it is in sight to-day. At Cooke City and Castle Mountain, in Montana, we 
 have an inexhaustible supply of lead ore, and I can state to Messrs. Balbach & Bros., 
 of Newark, that if they need this lead we can furnish it in Montana until they are 
 fairly satisfied. The people of Utah can do the same. The Treasury rulings of which 
 we complain originated through error in following an inapplicable former ruling. In 
 1880 there was submitted to Acting Secretary French a proposition relating to the im- 
 portation of certain ore containing iron and silver in combination, and that ruling 
 read as follows: 
 
 "The samples forwarded by you have been submitted for assay to the Superin- 
 tendent of the Mint at Philadelphia, and he reports that the ore is iron ore (hematite), 
 containing 54 ounces of silver and a slight amount of copper to a ton of 2,000 pounds. 
 The value of the silver contained in the ore being largely in excess of the value of 
 the iron, the Department is of the opinion that the ore is entitled to entry free of duty 
 as silver ore." 
 
 Now, there was a duty at that time upon iron ore. The proposition submitted to 
 acting Secretary French was, should this iron ore, carrying fifty-four ounces of sil- 
 ver, pay a duty or come in free. His ruling was it should come in free, because the 
 silver predominated in value over the iron contained in the ore. This ruling was 
 made as a basis for the ruling in 1883, and the subsequent rulings that have obtained. 
 But mark this well to understand the difference. In the ore referred to in the ruling 
 of 1880, the iron as a component was of no value at all if it was desired to save t"he 
 silver in the ore. That it was the intention to save the silver was borne out by the 
 fact that the silver was of more value than the iron. It is a fact known to smelters 
 that where silver is saved in treating iron ore the iron can not be saved, and that 
 where iron is saved the silver can not be, by the present smelting methods. There- 
 fore, the fact was that the iron in that ore cut no more figure than did slate, rock, or 
 granite that might have been mixed up to some extent in the ore as waste. There- 
 after, the same principle was, inadvertently, no doubt, applied to lead ore ; Secre- 
 tary French, doubtless failing to comprehend the fact that the silver as an element 
 of value could be saved, and the lead as an element could be saved as well. The lead 
 ruling assumed parallel cases, but overlooked the modifying facts, and the ruling of 
 1883, which has formed the basis of all the rulings subsequent to that time relating 
 to lead ore, has practically abolished the protection on that commodity. 
 
 Now, we claim that it has been the policy of this government through all the 
 changes consequent upon the working of the tarifl^ lor a period of one hundred years, 
 to protect the lead-producing industjy in this country by an adequate tariff. Up to 
 1883 no complaint as to the working of the tariff law was made, for the reason that 
 prior to that year the lead pre of Mexico could not under existing conditions have 
 been imported into this country successfully. The committee will take notice that 
 about 1883 railroad communication was completed pretty thoroughly with the Re- 
 public of Mexico, and these communications were driven up to the mining sections 
 of that country. When transportation was thus afforded, the iron-ore rulings having 
 been placed on file in the Treasury Department, it was very apparent to Messrs. 
 Balbach & Bros., and other parties, that they could evade the payment of duty on 
 lead by taking advantage of that class of ruling if applied to lead ore. They could 
 buy lead ore in the Republic of Mexico produced by wages at GO cents a day, and get 
 the advantage of Montana where we are paying $3.50 a day, and the profits would 
 be correspondingly better. That is all there is about that pi'opositiou. 
 
 The Chairman. Does the Senate proposition correct the evil you complain of? 
 
 Mr. Carter. The Senate bill is defective in this. It does not settle the question of 
 fact as to what is and what is not lead ore. That question would still be left as an 
 open question under this Senate bill. The Senate bill reads as follows: 
 
 "Lead ore and lead dross, 1^ cent per pound provided that silver ore containing 
 
58 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 lead shall iiay a duty of l-J cents per pound on the lead contained therein, according 
 to sample and assay at the port of entry." 
 
 Now, the difiiculty with that section is shown hy the question, what constitutes a 
 silver ore I How miich lead must exist in a given ore to redeem it from the charac- 
 teristics of lead and stamp it as silver ore 1 Under present Treasury rulings market 
 value is erroneously made the test, with the result that nearly all ore imported from 
 Mexico is called silver ore. 
 
 The Chairman. That provision does not fix any amount ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does it not provide that it shall pay a duty of 1 J cents ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. On lead contained in silver ore. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Whether it is large or email 1 
 
 Mr. Carter. It is immaterial as to that. Ore containing 50 per cent, of lead, or 
 1,000 pounds to the ton, would be at present worth about $36 a ton ; and containing 
 40 ounces of silver, thesilver value would be $37.60, making the comaiodity silver ore, 
 under Treasury construction. Mexican importers would, under this provision of the 
 tariff, only pay duty on the 1,000 pounds of lead and nothing upon other elements in 
 the ore. Whereas 'if that ore contained only $30 or |35 worth of silver, under the 
 present ruling the duty would then be iiiroosed upon 2,000 pounds. To put the matter 
 difierently, if lead is to be assessed it should be assessed when subtracted from all 
 other comi)onents of the ore, as pig-lead when brought into this country. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is not that the meaning of it? 
 
 Mr. Carter. No, sir. The duty on pig-lead is 2 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is it not the meaniug that the lead shall be assayed and the quantity 
 of lead ascertained and duty paid on that lead ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. On lead ore 1^ cents per pound on the entire ton, including waste, 
 and the same amount only upon the iiure lead which is found in silver ore. 
 
 The Chairman. Your point is that it should bearthe same rate of duty as pig-lead? 
 
 Mr. Carter. Yes, sir ; you would be assessing lead and not lead ore, under the pro- 
 viso, whenever the Treasury officers choose to say that any given ore was silver ore 
 containing lead. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Has it to go through a process ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. Yes, sir ; a process of extraction. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You would not leave as high a duty in that case as where it has not 
 to go through a process ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. I think the fairer proposition would be to impose a duty upon all ore 
 containing over .5 per cent, of lead. It is a fact demonstrated that where ore contains 
 5 per cent, of lead or over that, it is known to the smelters as a smelting ore and can 
 not be passed through any other process for extracting the lead and precious metal. 
 That would relieve the law of all ambiguity of construction. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Do I understand you to say that it is ambiguous to provide 1^ cents 
 as the rate for lead ore and 2 cents as the rate for pig-lead — do you make that com- 
 plaint ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. No, sir ; but I apprehend that much difficulty would arise from the 
 enforcement of Ihe Senate proviso that silver ore containing lead should be assessed 
 upon the lead contained in the ore at a cent and a half a pound instead of assessing 
 the ore at 1^ cents a pound with unvarying uniformity. If it is the intention of 
 Congress to assess }i cents per pound on lead ore, and I suppose, according to the 
 theory of legislation that has herefofore existed and now obtains, such is the inten- 
 tion, it can be best carried out by defining the terms "lead ore" by law, thus pre- 
 venting defeat of the law by executive construction. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You are proposing to put a duty on the merchantable silver ore 
 that has any lead in it, a thing that has not been heretofore done, and I would not 
 think your State, owing to its prominence in the production of precious metals in 
 our midst, would be damaged by silver's free entry. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Protecting lead will increase our silver production. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is lead associated with copper ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. Sometimes there is a trifling amount of copper. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is there any provision in the Senate bill with reference to the associa- 
 tion of copi_ier ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. It is simply in regard to its .'issociation with silver. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I understand the better plan would be to make lead associated with 
 any other metal pay a duty on the proportion of lead imported. 
 
 Mr. Carter. If I have not made myself sufficiently clear in reference to this dis- 
 tinction 
 
 The Chairman. You would nut maintain that lead in the silver ore was dutiable 
 at the same rate as the duty on pig-lead? 
 
 Mr. Carter. I do maintain this,^ that with this provision of the Senate bill added 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 59 
 
 to the law as it is, the question would exist whether in a given ore the solid con- 
 tents of a ton sbonld be assessed |30, or whether importers should pay only upon 
 such percentage of the weight as repi<'.sentcd by the lead. 
 
 Mr. Breckinimdge. Bearing upon the question I want to ask you whether under 
 the present law the rate on lead ore is fixed at lA cents per pound ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I understand that it is fixed npon the ore by gross weight, 
 and therefore your position is that this ore containing silver should be taxed by Con- 
 gress altogether, or else, if the lead is to be separated from it, it 'should be the same 
 rate as a pound of pure lead? In other words, you do not believe in treating this 
 ore difl'erently from any other ore containing lead? 
 
 Mr. Carter. My suggestion related to the assessment of 2 cents per y)Ound on lead 
 contained in ore called silver ore, in the line of an argumentative proposition merely, 
 not in consequence of a settled conviction. Such proposition would bo proper and 
 just. If the lead contained in a given ore is to be assessed so as to make the tariff 
 equal to 1^ cents per pound on the lead ore it would then bo proper to assess the 
 lead in silver ore higher than IJ cents. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How much does it take to reduce a ponnd of lead ore? 
 
 Mr. Carter. That has been variable. In Leadville, in the early days, when trans- 
 portation facilities were meager and imperfect, smelting cost about %20 per ton. In 
 that country, under the improved processes and with i)etter transportation facilities, 
 they have reduced the smelting charges to less than |3.50 per ton in some cases. In 
 the Territory of Utah charges average $5.50 per ton. It is |10 on what is known as 
 refractory ore. The cost of treatment is modified by the character of other metallic 
 substances found in the ore in combinaiion with lead. Antimony and arsenic are 
 sometimes found in connection with silver-lead ores, which render those ores refrac- 
 tory and more costly to treat. 
 
 The Chairman. Please furnish to the committee later on the amendment to the 
 Senate bill which you desire, and we will be much obliged to you. 
 
 Mr. Carter. I will do so with pleasure. I believe I have said all that I desire, and 
 thank the committee for their courtesy in hearing me. 
 
 Later, Mr. Carter delivered to the committee resolutions and briefs from the Utah 
 Ore Producers' Association, and the following substitute for the Senate lead ore clause, 
 namely : 
 
 "Lead ore and lead dross, 1^^ cents per pound : Provided, That all ore in which lead 
 is of greater weight than any other metal contained therein shall be classified and 
 assessed as lead ore." 
 
 In support of the foregoing provision I call the attention of the committee to the 
 general principle so often applied, that where the rates of duty ou two given articles 
 differ, and such articles are presented at the custom-house inseparably ooiubiued, 
 both must pay the highest rate of duty assessable on either of the components found 
 in the combination. Again, where an article dutiable engross weight is imported in 
 combination with a non-dutiable article both should pay duty. It may be suggested 
 that as silver usually accompanies lead as a component in ore the provision would, in 
 effect, levy a duty on the silver contained in the ore. • Such would be the fact un- 
 doubtedly, but this would not be of material consequence. The average silver con- 
 tents of imported lead ore, or so-called silver ore, containing lead, will not equal 3 
 pounds per ton, hence to do full justice to lead producers and relieve Treasury offi- 
 cials of all latitude for construction, would only b'urden the average silver contents 
 of a ton of ore 4J cents. But if it be insisted that the so-called silver ore imported 
 will average twice the amount in silver I have stated, then the B pounds of pure silver 
 happening to displace an equal weight of waste in the ton of ore, would only pay 9 
 cents doty, which is less per ton, I venture to say, than would be the cost to the im- 
 porters and the Government of the sampling and calculations which would attend the 
 enforcement of the Senate proviso, to say nothing of the annoyance, expense, and un- 
 certainty avoided. 
 
 The Senate provision is but a slight improvement on the law as it is. Where the 
 value of silver is greater than the value of lead in ore the Secretary of the Treasury 
 announces his Department bound by the force of precedent to classify the ore as silver 
 ore and free from duty. This will continue to be the ruling unless Congress makes 
 the law so explicit that such rulings can not longer apply. The Senate provision 
 would leave the Treasury Department as free from restraint in classification as it 
 now is. Commercially and scientifically a ton of ore containing 1,000 pounds 
 of lead and only 40 ounces of silver is certainly known as lead ore, but the Treas- 
 ury Department insists that inasmuch as the silver in such ore is of greater market 
 value than the lead, it is silver ore and entitled to entry duty free. Now the 
 Senate provision allows the Treasury Department to continue to call that ton of ore 
 silver ore on condition that it shall pay 1| cents per pound on half its weight. 
 This reduces the duty on the entire ton of undoubted lead ore to ,$15, or three-fourths 
 of one cent per pound. In view of the established ruling of the Treasury Department 
 
60 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 and the necesHity for secure protectiouto thelead ore miners, I respectfully and earn- 
 estly recommend the adoption of the unvarying standard of weight fixed in the 
 cause I have the honor to present. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. H. F. BARTINE. 
 
 Hon. H. F. Bartine, a Eepresentative from the State of Nevada, next addressed 
 the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: There are several reasons vrhy I 
 should detain you but a very few moments. One is, the subject has been pretty 
 thoroughly covered, and the other is I do not come from a section of the country 
 which can be called a producer of lead ores. My home is in western Nevada, where 
 the ores are exclusively free milling ores, and I am familiar with this question only 
 in a very general way; but this I do know : The people of our district, comprising 
 the whole great inter-mountain region between the Eocky Mormtaius and the Sierra 
 Nevada, are a unit upon this question regardless of political proclivities. We have 
 neither Eepublicans nor Democrats among us with reference to this question. We 
 are all high-tariff men so far as the duty on lead is concerned. You can not find a 
 Democrat between the Eocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevadas who will tell you 
 he is in favor of free importation of Mexican lead. What I say shall be chiefly 
 directed to a little resolution I introduced into the House a few days ago. This reso- 
 lution recited the fact that under the tariff law of 1883, lead ore is made to pay a 
 duty of li cents per pound ; that in construing that law the Secretary of the Treasury 
 and his predecessors bave ruled that where the ore contains more in value of silver 
 or gold than of lead it shaU be deemed a gold or silver ore and not pay auy duty. 
 The final clause of that resolution declares it to be the sense of Congress that when 
 ore contains lead in sufficient quantities to make it valuable for commercial and in- 
 dustrial purposes it is lead ore within the meaning of that law, and the Secretary of 
 the Treasury is requested to modify his ruling accordingly. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I introduced this resolution advisedly. I introduced it because I 
 thought it was in accordance with the priuciples of eternal justice. It seems to me it 
 is utterly absurd to say that a ton of ore which contains 500 pounds of metallic lead 
 and a few ounces of silver is in any sense a silver ore containing lead. It is highly 
 preposterous, to my mind, to speak of 25 ounces of silver containing 500 pounds of lead. 
 The lesser never contains the greater. It is not in accordance with the eternal fitness 
 of things at all, and is perfectly ridiculous. The ruling complained of involves just 
 this absurdity. Now, nature knows nothing about values. Value is a thing purely 
 artificial. It is something that arises out of the wants and necessities of mankind. 
 There is no doubt in my mind that the law contemplates ore, that is lead ore per se, 
 in which lead is the great and predominating metal, and which gives to the ore its 
 distinctive character. The fact that it contains a little bit of silver makes no differ- 
 ence. I think the resolution which I introduced should be acted upon, and acted 
 upon at once. It has been suggested that we oughtnot to place an embargo upon the 
 importation of silver, but no one proposes to do so. It is true the law provides that 
 gold and silver ores shall pay no duty. It is also true that if a ton of lead ore con- 
 taining a few ounces of silver is imported and pays a duty of l-J cents per pound, the 
 gold or silver contained in that ore will bear that rate of duty, but the duty would 
 be almost infinitesimal in amount, and it is a principle of the law that it does not cure 
 infinitely small things. But it would not be imposing a duty upon silver or gold as 
 such if we should make the silver and gold contained in this ore bear the duty. In 
 this case the gold or silver would be just the same as so much barren rock and other 
 substances which would not be regarded in the computation except as it helped make 
 up the aggregate mass of ore. I think you ought to act upon this resolution and act 
 favorably, because it is of the most infinite importance that our people should be re- 
 lieved, and .speedily, from these importations of which they complain and which are 
 continuing from day to day. There are thousands of tons of this ore— more than one 
 thousand — being imported every week. 
 
 I stopped at Salt Lake City on my way East, and in consultation with prominent 
 men of that place I learned that a "reat many of the mines there are just hanging on 
 "by the skin of their teeth," or " their eye-lids," as some expressed it, and would be 
 compelled to close down if the importation of this lead continued; and the opinion 
 was universal that if this ruling w:is to be maintained for auy length of time it would 
 practically destroy the silver-lead mines in that great region.' If this ruling is wrong 
 it ought to be rectified without delay. We should not be compelled to wait for a 
 regularly formulated tariff bill, because such a. bill might never become a law. We 
 know the long-winded debates which take place over these tarifi' bills. Congress 
 might get into a deadlock over it, no tariff law be enacted, and our relief postponed 
 indefinitely. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 61 
 
 The Chairman. I will be glad to submit your resolution to the committee at an 
 early day. 
 
 Mr. Bartinb. Id seems to me that resolution can do no possible harm, and it will 
 giTB us immediate relief. I think a precedent for it was made during the last admin- 
 istration, if my memory serves me right. Mr. Cleveland was inaugurated, and after 
 he was inaugurated his administration ran along possibly nine, ten, or eleven months 
 ■without calling in any bonds for redemption. The reason that Secretary Manning 
 gave was that under their interpretation of the law there were no funds available for 
 the redemption of these bonds. He claimed that the provision which authorized 
 them to redeem bonds at all was but a rider upon an appropriation bill, and it had 
 expired by limitation of law, so a joint resolution was introduced declaring it to be 
 the sense of Congress that that law was still in force, and in a very short time the 
 administration did make a call, and for sometime thereafter called in, I believe, 
 about ten millions monthly. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Do you think the miners at that meeting were as distressed as the 
 Dernocratic party was at that time ? 
 
 Mr. Barthste. I am not prepared to say. One was a political distress ; the other a 
 financial one. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How compared with last fall elections ? 
 
 Mr. Bartine. I am not here for the purpose of discussing elections. It seems to 
 me that this resolution expresses the correct principle. It may not be out of place 
 for me to say that I had an interview with President Harrison in regard to this mat- 
 ter, and he acknowledged very frankly the justice of our contention. He said that 
 it was absurd that large quantities of lead should be imported into the country duty 
 free merely because there happened to be a little silver mixed with it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Did yon have a conversation with the Secretary of the Treasury ? 
 
 Mr. Bartine. No, sir ; I did not. But the President said he did not feel at liberty 
 to depart from the ruling of his predecessor. In other words, he invoked the doctrine 
 of stare decisis. It seems to me that doctrine has nothing to do with this question. 
 When an administration finds that a ruling has been made that is wron* it is the 
 duty of that administration to reverse it just as speedily as possible. But his view 
 was different. He said he did not feel at liberty to go behind the ruling of his prede- 
 cessors. If Congress will pass this resolution I think it will settle the question. 
 
 The Chairman. You are sure he would sign it? 
 
 Mr. Bartine. I do not say that. I know he conceded the justice of our claim and 
 can see no reason why he should not sign it. I sincerely hope that the committee 
 will take that view and report this resolution favorably at an early day. That will 
 give us relief at once. Then, in the framing of a general tariff law you can guard 
 against all such contingencies that may arise in the future. I think this is about all 
 I care to say, and I thank the committee for their courtesy. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. FRED T. DUBOIS. 
 
 Gentlemen: I thank you very much for the courtesy you extend my Territory on 
 asking me to present our wishes to you and our views with regard to proposed legis- 
 lation relative to the lead industry of the United States. I shall occupy but a few 
 moments of your valuable time ; enough only to show you by statements of fact, 
 without argument, that the law as it now stands has not been complied with. Idaho 
 is more interested in having the lead industry properly protected than any other 
 section of the United States, we producing about one-half of the entire consumption 
 of the United States. From our best estimates Idaho produced last year 80,000 tons 
 of lead. 
 
 By the tariff act, approved March 3, 1883, a duty of 1| cents per pound was levied 
 on imported lead ore. We ask that this duty be collected. The duty has not been 
 collected and is not now being collected, owing to a confusion in the interpretation 
 of the term "lead ore." Silver and gold ores are exempt from duty. Nearly all lead 
 ore in the United States and Mexico is argentiferous ; that is, silver-bearing. Various 
 Secretaries of the Treasury have ruled that " the component of chief value in the 
 ore should determine the classification of the ore." This ruling virtually admits free 
 of duty all Mexican lead, as the value of the silver in the ore is greater than the 
 value of the lead. We contend that Congress did not intend to admit lead free of 
 duty, and that the ruling of the Secretaries is contrary to law. 
 
 It is the common and accepted definition that "lead ore" is an ore containing lead 
 and silver, which, treated by a smelting process, will produce lead bullion. Any ore 
 containing sufficient lead to be merchantable is lead ore. If there is .5 per cent, of 
 lead in an ore the lead is merchantable, and such ore is considered and known as lead 
 ore among smelters, assayers, superintendents, and rainiTs. The tariff .act of 1883 
 seems to be plain enough, yet the interpretation given to lead ore makes it necessary 
 
62 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 for ns to ask Congress to speoificallj define the term, and vre shall ask that the duty 
 of li cents per pound be collected on all imported lead ore, no matter whether gold, 
 silver, or lead be the component of chief value in the ore compared vyith the other 
 metallic components of the ore. A silver ore is an ore producing silver. It does not 
 contain lead. There are but few silver mines in Idaho. Lead ore always contains 
 silver in the Rocky Mountain region. 
 
 Idaho ranks among the first as a silver. producing territory, yet we must receive a 
 fair price for our lead in order to produce silver at all. The value of the lead in our 
 ores will average twice the value of the silver. We cannot compete with Mexican 
 lead. A Mexican miner is content to receive less than .fl per day. Our miners 
 expect, should get, and do receive from $3 to |5 per day. Mexico sent to the United 
 States last year about oue-fifth as much lead as was produced in this country free 
 of duty, and if the law is not so defined as to exclude Mexican lead unless it pays 
 duty, most of our lead-silver mines will have to close, as we cannot reduce the 
 compensation of our miners to a level with the Mexican peons. 
 
 Idaho produced nearly $8,000,000 of silver last year. You can say that all of this 
 silver came from lead-silver mines, and would not liave been dug out and given to 
 the world had not a fair price been given to the lead. As I said, we can not compete 
 with the peon labor of Mexico ; nor should we be asked to. We are practically as far 
 from the market as Mexico, and transportation is so high that it costs us as much to 
 get our lead to market. Sooie of our best mines were compelled to close down last 
 year owing to low [irice of lead and high transportation rates ; mines, too, producing 
 from $25 to $50 in silver per ton. Many mines are not running now owing to the fluctu- 
 ations and uncertainty in the price of lead, brought about by the looseness of the in- 
 terpretation of the tariff law relating to 'Mead ore." A great many mines bearing 
 silver and lead would immediately spring into active producing operation if this 
 vexed question were settled so as to protect us against the cheap labor of Mexico. 
 
 You should consider that when you destroy our lead industry you also destroy our 
 silver industry. This is true of Idaho and Utah, almost literally. You should con- 
 sider that it is not the mine owners alone, but the entire country who are the direct 
 beneficiaries of the silver production. Oar country is new and struggling. This is 
 our chief industry. It aids the most to build up other industries. Give us the pro- 
 tection which Pennsylvania and the Now England States have enjoyed, and we will 
 soon grow and prosper in a manner to make you all proud of your young sister Com- 
 monwealth. We ask only that the law of Congress in relation to the tariff on " lead 
 ore " he so defined as to compel foreign lead ore to pay duty. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What portion of your Territory produces the most lead? 
 
 Mr. Dubois. The north, in Cosur d'Alene, which alone produced about 60,000 tons 
 last year. 
 
 Mr. La Folletb. Is development still going on there? 
 
 Mr. Dubois. Rapidly, but the mines are compelled to close down when lead is 
 much less than four cents per pound. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What do you pay your miners ? 
 
 Mr. Dubois. On an average about $4 per day. 
 
 The Committee of fVays and Means, House of Representatives : 
 
 Gentlemen : The undersigned, on behalf of the lead producers of Missouri, de- 
 sires to present hig objections to any change, or, if any, a very slight one, in the tariff 
 on lead ores. He would remind the committee that the growth of the lead industry 
 in this country has been carried on amid trials, and would never have been where it 
 is except for its protection. 
 
 To-day the country is producing pig-lead to the value of $12,000,000 per annum, and 
 silver, incidental thereto, for as much more. In addition to this many million dol- 
 lars are expended in labor and freight, and it is one of the few industries which abso- 
 lutely increases the metallic wealth of the country. 
 
 For a few years, so far back as 18ri5-'60, considerable lead was made in the rich 
 Galena, district of Illinois, but since 1860 the main reliance has been upon the low- 
 grade limestone formation of disseminated ores of southeast Missouri and the richer 
 but niined-with-more-difiiculty ores of southwest Missouri and the argentiferous 
 ores of Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado. This industry, under the fostering care 
 of a wise Government, has risen from 90,000 tons in 1877 to 157,000 tons in 1888, or 
 enough for most years to supply the United States with all its increasing wants and 
 at a price but little above the cost of foreign load, and this is likely to continue 
 under wise protection. 
 
 To accomplish this very heavy amounts have been expended in lands, opening 
 mines, mills, machinery, etc., in States above named, which, if any reduction should 
 become a law and free ores be permiticil, would l)ecome almost v.aluelcss. During 
 tljcse years domestic lead has been once sold as low as 2| cents in New Yurie (during 
 the year 1878), and the average price for 1878 was oven lower than in Loudon. For 
 the ten the years from X878 to 1887 the average price in New York was but 1.1 oentB 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 63 
 
 above London prices. To show that the lead produced in the United States has low- 
 ered the price over the world, it is sufficient to give you these facts. During the 
 years to 1867 to 1876, when our j)roductionsdid notsnfficefor the wants of the country, 
 we imported at various periods altogether ^16,399 tons of lead, at an average of £209 
 10s., or 4.77 cents per pound in London or 6.77 duty paid at New York, and meanwliile 
 domestic lead cost about 61 cents iu New York on the average. In the years, 1877- 
 1887 we imported a total of but 35,814 tons, average £149 3s., or 3f cents per pound 
 in London, or 5| cents duty paid in New York, and meanwhile the average price was 
 4.45 cents New York for domestic. Here we show that where much is drawn from 
 Europe, prices advance very largely and with small imports prices are low. 
 
 The deductions we draw from this is, that if you should so legislate as to close even 
 50 per cent, of onr mines and draw from Europe 50 per cent, of our wants, or say 
 80,000 tons a year, within a year or two prices would advance to even a higher price 
 than has prevailed in the United States for ten years past, because our mines would 
 meanwhile close down. 
 
 Now we think we have shown that a reduction in duty (while it might add IJ cents 
 per duty, $1,775,000 to our revenue which we do not want) would give our people 
 their lead no cheaper than now, and in all probability within one or two years would 
 make them pay more than they have paid for the past ten years. 
 
 We desire to call to mind that lead is essentially an article of which labor forms at 
 least 95 per cent, of its cost. The ore in the mines is almost worthless; while pros- 
 pecting for it, blasting, mining, raising the ore to the surface, grinding, washing, 
 roasting, smelting, refining, and getting it to market, forms at least 95 per cent, of 
 its cost. It gives employment to at least 15,000 men and supports at least 60,000 
 people, and gives value to thousands of acres of land worthless but for this. 
 
 It may be asked, how Spain can sell lead at 1 cent and lA cents lower than the 
 United States ? and we make answer, ■' because labor is the main cost of the article." 
 We pay from $1.25 to $2 per day for a man's wages, while Spain pays 30 to 40 cents 
 per day. Again, the ores of Spain are much richer than ours; the former containing 
 from 40 to 70 per cent, of lead, while ours run but from 5 to 30 per cent. The ores of 
 southeast Missouri contain but 5 to 8 per cent., an average of 6 to 6^ per cent. 
 
 Again, the product of all the German and Spanish mines can be laid down at Lon- 
 don and New York at an expense by sailing vessels of $2 to $3 per ton, whereas the 
 cost from our Missouri mines to New York is |8 per ton, and the average cost from the 
 Far West producing-regions to New York is not less than |25 per ton, and often $30. 
 This is one of the fundamental features of the situation which can never vary ma- 
 terially. Railroad transportation is down very close to cost, and lead can never be 
 transported 3,000 miles by rail to compete with sailing vessels traversing the free 
 ocean highways. Thus the duty of 2 cents per pound does but little more than com- 
 pensate for this fixed charge of transportation to the sea-board, leaving out of consid- 
 eration the added expense of laboi', etc., above named. 
 
 Just here it is to be especially noted that the importation of free ore has checked 
 the production of the country, not in actual figures but in its proportional increase ; 
 for while the total consumption has increased since 1 855 from 146,000 to 170,000 tons, 
 or nearly 25,000 tons, the production has increased only from 135,000 to 157,000 tons, 
 and would have been even less had it not been for an accidental speculation last year 
 which carried the price above 5 cents, and so stimulated the output. During the 
 past year the 30,000 tons of lead imported free from Mexico has dragged down the 
 value of the entire 160,000 tons produced in the States, making the average price at 
 New York about 3.80. If we deduct from this li cents freight to the sea-hoard it 
 leaves the price at the mines 2.3 cents per pound,' which is confessedly lower than any 
 mines in Europe can live at, for it is the parity of £10 lOs. at which price even 
 European mines are shut down, and is a limit which has been reached in the old 
 country only twice, and for a short period, after which there was a speedy reaction 
 to £15 or £17 which is equivalent to 3.80 per pound, and is a living price for them. 
 Touching the silver-lead ruling, which in a round-about way permits the free im- 
 portation of ores from British Columbia, Mexico, and other points, we would say 
 that lead ores are more to be feared than lead itself, because almost all the foreign 
 ores contain a little silver, enough to cover freight and cost of smelting ; hence, at 
 $30 a ton for ores in Spain, or even $40, or 2 cents a pound for 60 per cent, ores, lead 
 could be made on our sea-board with a duty of three-fourths cents per pound, at 2f 
 cents to 3 cents per pound. We believe we state a fact beyond dispute, in saying 
 that no lead can be produced in this country for less than :i| to 3f cents a pound 
 in New York. 
 
 What we demand is the fair and just protection which shall pay American labor 
 and develop American resources, and render reasonably profitable the capital we 
 have invested under promise of such policy. 
 
 We ask that a reasonable duty (say from 1| to 2 cents per pound) be imposed on 
 pig-lead, and we especially urge that the tariff on ores may be more consistent, and 
 that all lead in ore shall pay a, fair duty (say from 1 to 1} cepts per pound). The 
 
64 
 
 REVISION OP THE TAEIFF. 
 
 law on this metal would then be consistent with the law in copper, antimony, and all 
 other metals, and would not present the glaring absurdity which it now does of tax- 
 ing lead in one form and allowing it to come in free under another form, which is 
 practically identical with the form in which it is taxed. 
 
 The increasing importation of these silver ores from Mexico and other countries 
 containing from -20 per cent, to 60 per cent, of lead (which enters free of duty) 
 has alarmed and discouraged the lead producers of the country. In the year 1886 
 5,000 tons were imported ; in 1887, 15,000 tons ; in 1888, 30,000 tons, and in 1889, 
 about .30,000 tons. 
 
 Should our lead mines be closed by reason of low prices, caused by large importa- 
 tions, and then prices did rally to a'paying figure again, our capital would be loath 
 to enter the field again, knowing that the same cause still existed to depress prices 
 below our cost. It is always difficult to resuscitate a closed business in a factory or 
 mine. Once closed the chances are that they remain closed for years. 
 
 Hugh N. Camp, 
 For St. Joseph Lead Company and Dob Run Lead Company, of Missouri. 
 
 Washington, D. C, December -27, 1889. 
 
 Produotion of lead in the United States. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Arizona 
 and Cali- 
 fornia. 
 
 Colorado. 
 
 Idaho 
 and Mon- 
 tana. 
 
 Missonri, 
 Kansas, 
 Illinois, 
 and Wis- 
 consin. 
 
 Nevada. 
 
 TJtall. 
 
 Other 
 States. 
 
 Total pro- 
 duction. 
 
 1873 
 
 
 66 
 312 
 
 818 
 
 667 
 
 897 
 
 6,369 
 
 23, 674 
 
 35, 674 
 
 40, B47 
 
 55, 000 
 
 70, 557 
 
 63, 165 
 
 
 22, 381 
 
 15, 000 
 
 20, 000 
 19, 000 
 
 25, 000 
 27, 000 
 
 21, 000 
 14,000 
 15, 000 
 24, 000 
 30, 000 
 29, 000 
 28, 000 
 
 26, 000 
 24, 000 
 
 22, 000 
 
 22, 283 
 
 23, 000 
 
 5,103 
 
 31,768 
 
 15, 123 
 
 11, 982 
 
 3,127 
 
 5,858 
 
 4,171 
 
 2,802 
 
 8,912 
 
 10,285 
 
 2,600 
 
 6,256 
 
 42,549 
 52, 080 
 59,6iO 
 64, 070 
 81,900 
 91 060 
 
 1874 
 
 
 
 
 1875 
 
 
 
 24, 699 
 26, 421 
 31, 152 
 
 26, 770 
 28, 130 
 
 27, 690 
 30, 770 
 29,015 
 21, 600 
 19, 676 
 
 
 1876 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 19,724 
 
 31, 063 
 
 22, 805 
 
 16, 669 
 
 12, 826 
 
 8,590 
 
 6,000 
 
 4,000 
 
 3, 600 
 
 3,400 
 
 3,400 
 
 2,400 
 
 1,500 
 
 1878 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 92, 780 
 97, 825 
 117, 085 
 132, 890 
 
 1880 
 
 
 
 1881 
 
 
 
 
 11, boo 
 
 14, 500 
 
 1882 
 
 
 1883 
 
 3,200 
 4,300 
 
 143,957 
 139, 897 
 129,412 
 135, 629 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 
 59, 000 
 63, 000 
 65, 442 
 70, 000 
 
 17,000 
 27, 000 
 34,875 
 30, 000 
 
 22, 000 
 28, 000 
 30, OOO 
 34, 000 
 
 14, 229 
 
 16, 300 
 
 *30, 000 
 
 t31, 000 
 
 1887 
 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,500 
 
 160, 700 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 
 
 190, 00» 
 
 'Including 28,636 tons from Mexico, 
 tlnclnding 19,000 tons imported in Me^cioan ores. 
 
 Average monthly prices of lead in N'ew York, in cents per pound. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 rjan. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 May. 
 
 June. 
 
 July. 
 
 Aug. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Oct. 
 
 Nov. 
 
 Dec. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 1870 .. 
 
 6.25 
 
 6.21 
 
 6,15 
 
 6.20 
 
 6.22 
 
 6.22 
 
 6.25 
 
 6.35 
 
 6.33 
 
 6.31 
 
 6.30 
 
 6.30 
 
 6.25 
 
 1S71-. 
 
 6.22 
 
 6.22 
 
 6.17 
 
 6.16 
 
 6.14 
 
 6.13' 
 
 6.12 
 
 6.06 
 
 6.06 
 
 6.93 
 
 5.95 
 
 5.87 
 
 6.08 
 
 1872 -. 
 
 6.95 
 
 5.93 
 
 5.93 
 
 6.00 
 
 6.43 
 
 8.50 
 
 6.50 
 
 6.45 
 
 6.40 
 
 6.51 
 
 6.65 
 
 6.51 
 
 6.30 
 
 1873 . . 
 
 6.32 
 
 6.45 
 
 6.37 
 
 6.37 
 
 6.50 
 
 6.33 
 
 6.00 
 
 6.12 
 
 6 60 
 
 6.60 
 
 6.25 
 
 6.06 
 
 6.32 
 
 1874.- 
 
 5.95 
 
 6.12 
 
 6.18 
 
 6.07 
 
 5.87 
 
 5.81 
 
 5.71 
 
 6.72 
 
 .5.87 
 
 6.22 
 
 6.37 
 
 6.26 
 
 6.01 
 
 1875 -. 
 
 6.10 
 
 5.87 
 
 5.68 
 
 5.83 
 
 6.92 
 
 5.82 
 
 5.97 
 
 5.91 
 
 5.78 
 
 5.62 
 
 5.76 
 
 5.90 
 
 5.85 
 
 1876 - - 
 
 5.93 
 
 6.17 
 
 6.45 
 
 6.26 
 
 6.30 
 
 6.37 
 
 6 27 
 
 6.32 
 
 6.12 
 
 5. 90 
 
 5.75 
 
 6.67 
 
 6.13 
 
 1877.. 
 
 6.12 
 
 6.30 
 
 6.62 
 
 6.37 
 
 6.77 
 
 5.66 
 
 6.50 
 
 5.00 
 
 4. KO 
 
 4. 56 
 
 4.62 
 
 4.55 
 
 6.49 
 
 1878.- 
 
 4.17 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.02 
 
 3. 3V 
 
 3.30 
 
 3.43 
 
 3.35 
 
 3.35 
 
 3.48 
 
 3.77 
 
 3.95 
 
 3.61 
 
 1879 -. 
 
 4.25 
 
 4. 50 
 
 3.87 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.46 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.02 
 
 3.87 
 
 4.75 
 
 5.30 
 
 5.55 
 
 4.14 
 
 1880 . . 
 
 5.80 
 
 .5. 93 
 
 5.62 
 
 6.57 
 
 4.82 
 
 4.02 
 
 4.60 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.76 
 
 4.80 
 
 4.60 
 
 5.04 
 
 1881.. 
 
 4. 65 
 
 4.95 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.60 
 
 4.47 
 
 4.37 
 
 4.70 
 
 4.85 
 
 5.16 
 
 ■ 5.06 
 
 5.07 
 
 5.12 
 
 4.81 
 
 1882 . . 
 
 5.05 
 
 .5.10 
 
 5.00 
 
 4.05 
 
 4.72 
 
 4.72 
 
 5.02 
 
 5.02 
 
 6.05 
 
 5.00 
 
 4.70 
 
 4.62 
 
 4.91 
 
 1883.. 
 
 4, 63 
 
 4. .55 
 
 4. .57 
 
 4.50 
 
 4.47 
 
 4.42 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.22 
 
 3.86 
 
 3.67 
 
 4.32 
 
 1884.. 
 
 4.12 
 
 3.90 
 
 4.12 
 
 3.81 
 
 :i.03 
 
 3.61 
 
 3. 02 
 
 3.61 
 
 3.65 
 
 3.67 
 
 3.46 
 
 3.62 
 
 3.74 
 
 1885 . . 
 
 3.65 
 
 3. 65 
 
 3.65 
 
 3. C5 
 
 3. 65 
 
 3.76 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.20 
 
 4.10 
 
 4.55 
 
 3.95 
 
 1886.. 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.78 
 
 4.70 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.87 
 
 4.75 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.22 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.32 
 
 4.63 
 
 1887 .. 
 
 4.31 
 
 4.37 
 
 4.32 
 
 4.27 
 
 4.52 
 
 4.65 
 
 4.55 
 
 4.68 
 
 4.50 
 
 4.25 
 
 4.40 
 
 5.12 
 
 4.50 
 
 1888.. 
 
 4.90 
 
 4.95 
 
 0,15 
 
 4.75 
 
 4. 25 
 
 3. 90 
 
 3.97 
 
 4.45 
 
 5.00 
 
 4.50 
 
 3.67 
 
 3.75 
 
 4.42 
 
 1889 - - 
 
 4.84 
 
 3.73 
 
 3.72 
 
 3.68 
 
 3.78 
 
 3.96 
 
 3.88 
 
 3.86 
 
 4.00 
 
 3.86 
 
 3.89 
 
 3.89 
 
 3.93 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 United States imports and exports of lead. 
 
 65 
 
 Fiscal 
 
 Imports. 
 
 Total 
 imports. 
 
 Total 
 exp'ts. 
 
 endlDg 
 Jnue 30— 
 
 Pigs and bars. 
 
 Sheets, pipe and 
 ehot. 
 
 Old and scrap. 
 
 Not 
 speci- 
 fied. 
 
 1867 
 
 1868 
 
 1869 
 
 1870 
 
 1871 
 
 1872 
 
 1873 
 
 1874 
 
 Pounds. 
 65, 322, 923 
 63,254,677 
 87,865,471 
 86, 895, 724 
 91,496,715 
 73,086,667 
 72,423,641 
 46, 205, 104 
 32, 770, 712 
 14,329,366 
 14,683,845 
 6, 717, 052 
 1,216,500 
 
 6, 723, 706 
 4, 322, 068 
 6, 079, 304 
 
 4, 037, 867 
 3, 072, 738 
 
 5, 862, 474 
 11, 005, 083 
 11, 148, 311 
 
 7, 035, 625 
 2, 554, 729 
 
 $2, 312, 668 
 
 2, 668, 915 
 
 3, 853, 481 
 3, 630, 837 
 3, 721, 098 
 2,929,823 
 3, 233, Oil 
 2, 231, 817 
 1, 559, 017 
 
 683, 132 
 671, 482 
 294, 233 
 
 42, 983 
 246, 015 
 189, 129 
 203, 603 
 130, 108 
 
 85, 395 
 143, 103 
 294, 856 
 323, 256 
 189, 989 
 
 71,449 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 185, 825 
 
 142, 130 
 
 307, 434 
 
 141, 881 
 
 86, 712 
 
 12, 518 
 
 105 
 
 .fO, 560 
 7,329 
 1.5. 531 
 6,879 
 4,209 
 8.J9 
 12 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1, 258, 233 
 
 2, 465, 575 
 
 2, 983, 272 
 
 3, 758, 785 
 
 2, 289, 088 
 
 4, 207, 778 
 
 3, 645, 098 
 395, 516 
 383, 150 
 285, 860 
 249,645 
 106, 342 
 
 43, 283 
 21.3, 003 
 123,018 
 220, 702 
 1, 094, 133 
 160, 356 
 4,866 
 
 17, 943 
 
 35, 081 
 122, 055 
 
 73, 522 
 
 $53, 202 
 101,586 
 123. 068 
 
 150, 379 
 94, 407 
 
 171, 324 
 
 151, 750 
 13,897 
 13, 964 
 
 9,534 
 
 8, 383 
 
 3,756 
 
 1, 153 
 
 5,262 
 
 2,729 
 
 5,949 
 
 31,724 
 
 4,830 
 
 106 
 
 607 
 
 1, 452 
 
 3, 529 
 
 2,015 
 
 $8, 247 
 
 6,843 
 
 18, 885 
 
 10,620 
 
 8,740 
 
 21,816 
 
 21,553 
 
 37, 833 
 
 36, 098 
 
 28, 310 
 
 2,303 
 
 1,076 
 
 1,139 
 
 425 
 
 1,005 
 
 3,048 
 
 8,136 
 
 2,005 
 
 1,429 
 
 1,698 
 
 360 
 
 13,441 
 
 5,498 
 
 $2, 881, 677 
 
 2, 784, 573 
 
 3, 810, 965 
 3,698,715 
 3, 828, 512 
 3,123,422 
 3, 400, 332 
 2, 283, 547 
 1, 689, 079 
 
 719, 978 
 683, 163 
 299, 065 
 
 45, 275 
 251, 702 
 163, 463 
 211, 600 
 169, 958 
 
 93, 8G0 
 160, 855 
 298, 243 
 345,171 
 208, 227 
 
 80, 702 
 
 $32, 859 
 
 71, 339 
 
 17, 240 
 
 28, 315 
 
 79, 880 
 
 48, 132 
 
 13, 392 
 
 302, 044 
 
 429, 309 
 
 10'^ 726 
 
 
 
 
 1876 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 49, 835 
 314, 904 
 280, 771 
 49, 899 
 39 710 
 
 1878 
 
 
 
 1879 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1881 
 
 
 
 1882 
 
 
 
 178, 779 
 43 108 
 
 1883. 
 
 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 
 
 15, 040 
 971,951 
 24, 087 
 19, 260 
 26, 959 
 43, 251 
 
 630 
 22, 217 
 1,023 
 
 950 
 1,268 
 1,793 
 
 135, 156 
 123, 466 
 114,098 
 141.154 
 129, 658 
 199, 802 
 
 CUTLERY AND FIRE-ARMS. 
 STATEMENT OF "W. F. ROCKWELL. 
 
 Mr. W. F. Rockwell, of Meridian, Conn., next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 I have printed what I wish to say. We haive a table here, and iu addition to that 
 we have extracts from the English newspapers of recent date showing the prices they 
 are paying in detail, and showing that their prices have been very much rednced. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. "Where is your establishment ? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. Meridian, Conn. 
 
 Mr. Batne. Where are the others ? 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. In the statement which I have filed the whole business is shown, 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What per cent, of increase do you ask for? Just state it in round 
 numbers ; you need not go into details. 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. We make it 73 per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You increase it to the average of 
 
 Mr. Rockwell. Seventy -three per cent. It is all figured out here in each classi- 
 fication : 
 
 To the honorable Ways and Means Committee, Souse of Representatives, Washington, D. C: 
 Gentlemen': We respectfully suggest the following specfic and ad valorem rates 
 of duty on pocket cutlery in the schedules being prepared by your committee : 
 
 "Pen-knives or pocket-knives of all kinds, and erasers, or parts thereof, wholly or 
 partly manufactured, valued at not more than fifty cents per dozen, twelve cents per 
 dozen; valued at more than fifty cents per dozen and not exceeding one dollar and 
 fifty cents per dozen, fifty cents per dozen ; valued at more than one dollar and fifty 
 cents per dozen, and not exceeding three dollars per dozen, one dollar per dozen ; 
 valued at more than three dollars per dozen, two dollars per dozen ; and in addition 
 thereto on all the above, fifty per cent, ad valorem." 
 
 485 5 
 
66 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Statement showing the average ad valorem duty under the specific and ad valorem rates ahovi 
 
 proposed. 
 
 
 Foreif^n 
 co»t. 
 
 Specitic 
 daty. 
 
 Ad valo- 
 rem duty. 
 
 Total 
 cost. 
 
 Eatead 
 valorem. 
 
 Valued at not more than 50 cents per dozen, 12 ! 
 cents per dozen and 50 per cent, ad valorem . . . j 
 
 $0.18 
 .24 
 ..'iti 
 .50 
 
 $0.12 
 .12 
 .12 
 .12 
 
 $0.09 
 
 12 
 
 .18 
 
 .25 
 
 $0.39 
 
 .48 
 .06 
 .87 
 
 Per cent. 
 116 
 100 
 83 
 
 74 
 
 Average ad valorem rate on first classification, 87 
 per cent 
 
 1.28 
 
 .48 
 
 .64 
 
 2.40 
 
 
 Valued at more ttian 50 cents per dozen and not j 
 exceeding $1.50 per dozen, 50 cents per dozLn< 
 
 .75 
 1.00 
 l.--'5 
 
 1. .--.o 
 
 4.50 
 
 .50 
 .60 
 .50 
 .60 
 
 .37 
 
 . oil 
 .63 
 
 .75 
 
 1.62 
 2.00 
 2.38 
 2.75 
 
 116 
 100 
 90 
 83 
 
 
 Average ad valorem rate on second classification, 
 
 2.00 
 
 2.25 
 
 8.75 
 
 
 
 
 Valued at more than $1.50 per dozen and not es- 1 
 ceeding $3 ptr dozen, $1 per dozen and 50 por^ 
 
 1. 75 
 2.00 
 
 2. 50 
 3.00 
 
 1.00 
 I.OO 
 
 l.Oii 
 
 1.00 
 
 .88 
 1.00 
 1.25 
 1.60 
 
 3.63 
 
 4.00 
 4.75 
 6.50 
 
 107 
 100 
 90 
 83 
 
 
 Avf_ra'j:e ad valorem rate on third classification, 93 
 
 9.25 
 
 4.00 
 
 4.63 
 
 17.88 
 
 
 
 
 Valued at more than $3 per dozen, $2 per dozen J 
 
 4.00 
 6.00 
 9.00 
 12.00 
 15.00 
 18.00 
 
 2. 00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 2.00 
 
 2.00 
 3.00 
 4.50 
 6.00 
 7.60 
 9.00 
 
 8.00 
 11.00 
 15.60 
 20.00 
 24.50 
 29. 00 
 
 100 
 83 
 72 
 66 
 
 I 
 
 63 
 
 61 
 
 Average ad valorem rate on fourth clasaificatioD, 
 
 64.00 
 
 12.00 
 
 32. 00 
 
 108 00 
 
 
 
 
 Avi-rane ad valorem rate on all classiflcations, 73 
 per cent, (bum total of all classificaUona) 
 
 79.03 
 
 18.48 
 
 39. 52 
 
 137.03 
 
 
 
 The estimated average di1t,y is probably figured bigher tban actual importations 
 wouild show, as foreign manufactuiers would naturally adjoHttho kiuds of cutlery seat 
 here to conform as nearly as possible to the lowest duty iu each classilication. 
 
 W. F. Rockwell, Meiiden, Conn., 
 Thos. W. Bradley, Walden, N. Y., 
 \f. B. RuDD, LakeviUe, Conn., 
 W. P. DusTiN, Turner's Falls, Mass., 
 Committee representing American Pocket Cutlery Manufdctiirers.^ 
 
 To tlie honoralle Ways and Means Committee, House of Eeprcsentatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Gentlemen : Our statement of the •' Relative cost prices of Foreign and American 
 Pocket Cutlery," herewith submitted, shows the fust of the American -product of 
 lower priced knives 250 iier cent. i;ieuter thau the Geruuxn, and to average over 200 
 per cent, above their whole line. 
 
 The schedules of specific and ad valorem rates of duty submitted for your approval, 
 average 7.3 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 The present average margin between cost of higher finished American pocket cut- 
 lery and the consumer is about 75 per cent., but very small on low-priced knives. 
 The present margin between imi)orters' cost of low grade foreign poclcet knives, duty 
 and expenses paid, and the consumer is about 175 per cent. The duty as herewitli 
 proposed will still leave a margin between impoiterH' cost and X'rice to consumer of 
 about 139 per cent. 
 
 The effect of the proposed duty will not bo to advance the price of knives to the 
 final purchaser. It will simply reduce the large profit of premium, now divided be- 
 tween importers, jobbers, and retailers, to an amount nearer that afforded American 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 67 
 
 pocket cutlery, and lessen the two great inducements now offered for pusliingpoor 
 goods upon the public. 
 
 William F. Rockwell, Meriden, Conn. 
 
 Thojias VV. Bradley, Walden, N. Y. 
 
 W. B. EuDD, Lateville, Conn. 
 
 W. P. DuSTiN, Turner's Falls, Mass. 
 Committee representing American Pocket Cutlery Manufacturers. 
 
 To the honorable Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, I). C. : 
 Gentlemen : The committee of American Pocket Cutlery Manufacturers respect- 
 fully submit for your consideration the following extract "from the "London Iron- 
 monger " of April 2, 1889 : 
 
 " SHEFFIELD CDTLERS' WAGES. 
 
 " To the Editor of the Ironmonger : 
 
 "Sir: From information received, I agree with your SheiBeld representative that 
 in many classes of cutlery wages are deplorably low — perhaps not lower than I have 
 known them, but I should say about 25 per cout. less than a fair average. At the 
 same time I must give a word of caution to the framers of the contemplated new 
 price-lists. 
 
 "Although Soliugen has long been a dangerous competitor in common and medium 
 penknives with one to four blades, and in fancy cutlery, I have not hitherto thought 
 there was much to fear in pocket or jack knives. I regret to say that even iu these 
 lines the German is now underselling Shefitield, even at present starvation figures. 
 As yon know, I have long ceased to have any personal interest in prices, yet I keep 
 myself pretty well posted up with the course of events, and I can assure my old 
 . friends I could buy German boys' knives at 8s. per gross, and strongest 3|-inch pocket 
 knives, with two blades, brass lining, and German-silver Ijolster, shield, and cap, at 
 4s. per dozen, which cannot be obtained in Sheffield under V>s. 6d. and 5s., respect- 
 ively, even though the small manufacturer is content with 5 per cent, for his wages 
 and profit. As an old hand I think the Sheffield knives a trifle better, but they have 
 no pretension to good quality, and I must admit that, as far as the ordinary public 
 go, the German knife is equally or more salable. I learn from New York that the 
 old American preference for Sheflields, except for iine goods, is dying out, and that all 
 the dealers in cheaper lines now keep the Solingen products when prices tempt. The 
 real issue is, therefore, between Germany and Hallamshire to-day, though I believe in 
 happier times I have paid as much as Gs. tid. or 7s. and 16s. or IBs. for knives now 
 made in Sheffield at 58. and 10s. dd. ; but this is of no earthly consequence to-day 
 compared to the fact that the Solingen productions are becoming equally acceptable, 
 and are 20 to 30 per cent, lower than ijresent 'sweated' Sheffield terms. 
 
 "It is a legitimate and laudible object to attempt to raise the wages of a very un- 
 derpaid class of skilled artisans, for there is much manual dexterity and trained in- 
 genuity in even the commonest cutlers, but it will task all the wisdom and tact of 
 their leaders to avoid the risk of a majority finding out that no bread is even worse 
 than half a loaf. 
 
 "Yours truly, ' * *." 
 
 Also extract from "London Ironmonger" of October 26, 1889 : 
 
 "effect of FOREIGN COMPETITION ON SHEFFIELD CUTLERY. 
 
 "The first result of the combination of spring-knife cutlers in Sheffield has been 
 the discovery that foreign competition is to blame for the low wages earned by many 
 men in this trade. The extent of the trade may be gathered from the fact that seven- 
 teen hundred members have already joined the Spring-knife Cutlers' Union. In con- 
 sidering this statement and the facts I mention below it must be borne in mind that 
 the cutler is only one of several trades engaged in the manufacture of a knife. The 
 grinders and forgers, for instance, are distinct trades. The cutler is the man who 
 puts the parts of the knife together and finishes it. The union alleges that there are 
 hundreds of these men working from seventy-two to eighty-four hours per week at 
 an average of 2|(2. per hour. In all those cases where the employers are approached 
 for an advance they reply that they cannot give it because of foreign competition. 
 From facts which are within my knowledge I believe this is quite true. I have been 
 assured by manufacturers that they have been ashamed to give out work to men at 
 the prices they could offer. But they have added, ' What can we do ? We have 
 either to let the order pass us or take them at their low prices.' The following are 
 
68 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 some of the prices paid: For a 3i peacli-pruner, square J°'">, <?? J^^^^/*'"°^'J»- Pf„ 
 dozen. A quick man, worliiug twelve hours a day, can make 18 dozen When his 
 expenses for files, rasps, wire, oil, etc. are deducted, he has earned net about 15s. M. 
 for seventv-two hour's work. Metal jacks are now paid 5s. a gross, which includes an 
 a.lvance of 6d. But, as there are fourteeu to the dozen, the net P^ice '« ^ fraction over 
 4M.per dozen. Six dozen (fourteen) can be made in a day of tourteen hours. The 
 expenses are Is. 6<?„ and the workmen receive 2s.net for a day of ourteen hours. 
 Ninepence a dozen of fourteen is paid for 3i gray buifalo. There is extra work m th s 
 class of goods. The horn has to be roasted, creating a horrid smell, and then has to 
 be pressid and rasped. The working expenses for 18 dozen in a week of seventy-two 
 hours are 2s., and the net week's wage is Us. dd. Three-inch Barlows at 3s. M. per 
 o-ross are equal to 3irf. per dozen of twelve. The working expenses are Is. 6d. per week, 
 and working fourteeu hours a day 6 dozen a day can be made, or Is. lOif a day 
 gross, equal to 9s. ed. a week net. White boue 3i pocket-knives have been raised Is., 
 and are now 6s. M. per gross, not quite 6d. per dozen of twelve. Five dozen can be 
 made in a working day of fourteen hours, and the net week's wagp for 34 hours, de- 
 ducting 2s. working expenses, is l?.s. It is admitted that these are the very worst 
 cases the men can bring forward, and they are bad enough if they are literally true." 
 
 To the lionovable Ways and Means Committed, 
 
 Houie of Representatives, TVasliington,D. C: 
 
 Gentlemen : We respectfully submit for your consideration the following extract 
 from the " Sheffield Independent " of March 30, 1889 : 
 
 "THE world's trade. 
 
 " There are movements of importance going on in the cutlery trade. The demand 
 for the best line of goods has undoubtedly improved for the home, the American, and 
 other distant markets. More men are finding employment at better wages. One 
 large house has this week put on thirty additional hands in the spring-knife depart- 
 ment. There are manufacturers who 'believe that in the better demand for higher 
 class goods, and the employingof men to produce them, will be found the best solution 
 of the difficulty about 'sweating.' The trade has beeu overstocked with workmen, 
 and when it has not been possible to obtain the remunerative work they would have 
 liked they have taken what they could get. In other words, they have gone in for 
 preducing at low wages the cheap goods to run inocilipetition with the German lines. 
 The local cutlery manufacturer who recently returned from a visit to tlio United States, 
 where his house does a large business in higher class goods, informs us that he found 
 the market literally drugged with cheap German stufi, and in such ill odor are their 
 productions now held there that they have taken to stamping them with Enghsh 
 and American names in order to find a sale for them. The American cutlery manu- 
 facturers declare themselves utterly unable at present to compete with the foreign 
 made cheap goods, and allege that unless they can obtain an increase iu the tariff 
 American made cheap cutlery will become a tbing of the past. The tariff bill now 
 before the American Senate is declared to be aimed against cheap German cutlery, 
 the duty on which will be, if it should become a law, something like 300 per cent. 
 The increase is not aimed against best spring and table cutlery, scissors, and razors, 
 such as are sent by leading Sheffield houses. They are growing in favor and a larger 
 trade is now being done than for some ye'ars past. 
 
 " We have had from several quarters words of warning with respect to the efforts 
 to raise the wages and to generally improve the position of spring-knife cutlers. By 
 the adoption of the interchaugeablo system, the free use of uiachinery, and cutting 
 things very fine all round it has beeu found possible to compete successfully with the 
 German manufacturers, and it is averred that any increase in the cost of making 
 will put local firms out of the market. They askthatthissideof the question should 
 also be considered. So long as there is not much difference iu price between German 
 and Sheffield goods preference is given to the latter; but the scale might easily be 
 turned in the other direction." 
 
 Also extract from the "London Ironmoger," of November 9th, 1889: 
 
 "the merchandis:^ marks act. 
 
 "The response of our colonies to the invitation of the home Government to legis- 
 late on the lines of the merchandise marks act, has been extremely satisfactory. Up 
 to diite many of the principal colonies, including Canada and the Cape, as well as 
 India, have virtually adopted the imperial act, while in almost all the other colo- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 69 
 
 nies legislation is either promised, or has been already taken in hand. In the crown 
 colonies the provisions of the act have been adopted, as a matter of course. In two 
 of the colonies, Bermuda aud Cyprus, legislation on the subject has been rejected; 
 indeed, the legislative council of Cyprus appear to feel so strongly about the matter 
 that they have twice defeated the measure. With these two not very important ex- 
 ceptions, however, the principles of the primary measure have been adopted, or are 
 likely to be adopted, throughout the whole of the British empire; consequently to 
 that extent honest trading has received a well-deserved impetus and frudulent 
 marking an equally well-merited check. This is a matter for sincere congratulation 
 all around, and if the various Australian colonies and New Zealand can see their 
 way to pushing forward rapidly their proposed enactments the results will be all 
 the more 8ati8.factory to all concerned." 
 
 The above are a fair specimen of the opinions of English trade journals on Ger- 
 man cutlery and fraudulent marks. 
 
 William F. Rockwell, Meridian, Conn., 
 Thomas W. Bradley, Walden, N. Y., 
 W. B. RuDD, Lakeville, Conn., 
 W. P. DusTiN, Turner's Falls, Mass. 
 
 Committee American Pocket Cutlery Manufacturers, 
 
 To the honorable Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 Souse of Representatives, Washington, D. C: 
 
 Gentlemen : We respectfully submit for your consideration a statement of the "rela- 
 tive cost of German, English, aud American pocket cutlery," together with the num- 
 ber of dozens of pocket-knives made in this country in 1887, and the average cost of 
 same ; also the number of dozens of foreign pocket.knives imported in same year and 
 their average invoice value, as compiled from consular invoices at the United States 
 custom houses. 
 
 We also include, as confirmatory, a foreign manufacturer's statement of average 
 costs of German pocket-knives. 
 
 The custom house records indicate that less than one-sixth of the number of pocket- 
 knives used in this country are manufactured here, and more than five-sixths are 
 made abroad. 
 
 As compared with the accurate statement of the business of 1887, herewith appended, 
 the years 1888 and 1889 show even less production of American pocket cutlery and a 
 considerable increase in the amount imported. 
 
 The list of manufacturers of American pocket cutlery is the same, with an addition 
 of one in Ohio. 
 
 The earlier representatives of the pocket cutlery industry in this country must 
 have greatly underestimated foreign competition, or lacked the necessary informa- 
 tion to properly present their case to the framers of tariflE' legislation, otherwise they 
 would have secured a specific and ad valorem duty approximating the difference in 
 prices paid for labor here and in Europe. 
 
 Not in one single instance has the manufacture aud sale of American pocket 
 cutlery by itself, unsupported by auxiliary business, been a finoucial success in this 
 country. 
 
 The great majority of the manufacturers have sold their products to the retail 
 trade, and by constituting themselves jobbers of a variety of other goods, the value 
 of which exceeded the amount of their own manufacture, a fair profit on their busi- 
 ness has sometimes been realized. 
 
 Of the twenty-five concerns making pocket cutlery in 1882, eleven have either 
 failed or been reorganized. 
 
 Foreign cutlery has afforded a large profit to the foreign manufacturers, through 
 their resident agents, also to both jobbers and retailers, the consumers paying the 
 same average prices as for American goods. 
 
 The manufacture of small jack-knives and penknives has steadily decreased in this 
 country, until now it is but a small percentage of the output. 
 
 American manufacturers are confined almost exclusively to jack-knives of medium 
 and large sizes, in which good steel is more remarked, than in boys' knives and pen- 
 knives. 
 
 Notwithstanding the enormous profits which have been realized from foreign cut- 
 lery, and the small relative cost of steel used in its manufacture, instead of diminish- 
 ing their large profits a trifle, by using a good quality of steel, for the benefit of their 
 generous American customers, the Germans especially have been despicable enough 
 to place American names upon their wares, which of itself is ample evidence that 
 American manufacturers, however slender their profits, have carefully guarded 
 American names and reputation for g<ipd quality. 
 
70 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 If it is desirable that the manufacture of pocket cutlery should coutinue and in- 
 crease in this country, and that it should not be circumscribed to a few staple patterns 
 as an unprofitable auxiliary of some other business, a mixed duty, " specific and ad 
 valorem" should be imposed equal to the difference in cost between labor and material 
 here and in Europe. 
 
 We submit the list of American manufacturers of pocket cutlery, and present a 
 synopsis of their business, showing their available capital. 
 
 First. To emphasize the fact that nearly one-half of them had no auxiliary busi- 
 ness, and without a single exception failed during the past five years, involving a loss 
 of nearly half a million dollars. 
 
 Second. To show the committee there is ample capital, sufficient capacity, large 
 manufacturing experience, and presumably intelligence enough left unimpaired to 
 manufacture all of the pocket cutlery which the people of the Uuited States can con- 
 sume. 
 
 About one thousand persons were employed in the United States in 1887, at an 
 average of |2 per day, to manufacture 271,500 dozen pocket-knives. 
 
 Employment could be given to six thousand persons at an average of $2 per day, if 
 the proportion of 1,721,150 dozen pocket-knives used in this country and sold to 
 consumers as American knives, at the price of American knives, could be made in 
 and under the suitable XJrotection of the country whose name and imprint they bear. 
 
 William F. Rockwell, Merideu, Conn., 
 Thomas W. Bradley, Walden, N. Y., 
 W. B. EuDD, Lakevillo, Conn., 
 W. P. DuSTiN, Turner's Falls, Mass. 
 Committee American Pocket Cutlery Manufacturers. 
 
 Exhibit B. — Statement of foreign manufacturers in regard to the cost of Qerman pocket 
 
 knives in 1882. 
 
 [See report Tariff CommiseiOD, page 1939.] 
 
 Description. 
 
 Prices. 
 
 One blade : 
 
 Lowest .. 
 
 Average 
 Two blades : 
 
 Lowest .. 
 
 Average . 
 Tbree blades 
 
 Lowest . . 
 
 Average. 
 Four blades : 
 
 Lowest - . 
 
 Average . 
 
 Marks. 
 .93 
 L25 
 
 $0.23 
 .30 
 
 1.75 
 4.25 
 
 .435 
 L061 
 
 4.50 
 6.50 
 
 1.124 
 L62i 
 
 4.75 
 7.00 
 
 L19 
 1.75 
 
 The above demonstrates they figure cost of labor and material in Germany even 
 lower than we do. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Relative cost prices of German, English, and American poclcet cutlery. 
 
 71 
 
 Description. 
 
 Iron lined : 
 
 4-incli jacklinife,'one blade, -wood 
 
 coTerin.s:; 
 
 4-iuclijackknife, two blade, wood 
 
 covering 
 
 3|-inclij;ickknife, ono bladi', wood 
 
 coTerin^ 
 
 3i-incli jackknife, two blades, 
 
 wood coverin cc 
 
 3^-inch jackknii'e, one blade, wood 
 
 covering 
 
 SJ-inch jackknife, two blades, 
 
 wood coverin 
 
 3i-incli jackknife, one blade, wood 
 
 covering 
 
 3i-incli jackknife, two blades, 
 
 wood covering 
 
 Brass lined: 
 
 2^inch penknife, two blades, ivory 
 
 or stag covering 
 
 2J-inch penknife, tbree blades, 
 
 ivory or stag covering 
 
 2J-incli penknife, four blades, 
 
 ivory or slag covering 
 
 3-incb penknife, two blades, ivory 
 
 or stag covering '', . 
 
 3-incli penknife, tbree blades, 
 
 ivory or stag covering 
 
 3-inch penknife, four blades, ivory 
 
 or stag.covering 
 
 3J-incti penknife, two blades, ivory 
 
 or stag covering 
 
 3i-incii penknife, three blades, 
 
 ivory or stag covering 
 
 3J-incii penknife, four blades, 
 
 ivory or stag covering 
 
 3i-incb penknife, three blades, pearl 
 
 or shell covering 
 
 3i-inch penknife, four blades, peailor 
 
 shell covering 
 
 3J-inch penknife, three blades, pearl 
 
 or shell covering 
 
 3J-inch penknife, fourblades, pearl or 
 shell covering 
 
 German. 
 
 $0.21 
 .30 
 .19 
 .20 
 .16 
 
 .10 
 .16 
 
 2.70 
 3.40 
 3.52 
 
 .$0. 35 
 .50 
 .34 
 .48 
 .28 
 .41 
 .28 
 .42 
 
 .95 
 
 .62 
 
 .86 
 
 1.02 
 
 .65 
 
 .90 
 
 1.06 
 
 1.82 
 
 1.90 
 
 2.11 
 
 2.19 
 
 $0.56 
 .80 
 .53 
 .74 
 .44 
 .63 
 .33 
 .68 
 
 1.05 
 1.21 
 1.01 
 1.39 
 1.44 
 1.12 
 1.29 
 1.56 
 4.42 
 4.60 
 5.51 
 5.71 
 
 English. 
 
 .10 
 .16 
 
 .24 
 
 .25 
 
 .20 
 
 .39 
 
 .43 
 
 .42 
 
 .47 
 
 .49 
 
 .50 
 
 2.60 
 
 2.70 
 
 3.40 
 
 3.52 
 
 $0.70 
 1.00 
 .67 
 .95 
 ..b6 
 .83 
 .66 
 .83 
 
 1.15 
 1.61 
 1.90 
 1. 2". 
 1,72 
 2.03 
 1.29 
 X.S! 
 2.12 
 3.65 
 3.80 
 4.23 
 4.38 
 
 .$0. 91 
 1.30 
 
 .86 
 1.21 
 
 .72 
 1.05 
 
 .66 
 
 .99 
 
 1.39 
 1.86 
 2. 16 
 1.04 
 2.15 
 2.45 
 1.76 
 ^30 
 2.e2 
 0.25 
 6.50 
 7.63 
 7.90 
 
 $0.29 
 .41 
 .25 
 .35 
 . 22 
 .30 
 .14 
 .21 
 
 .33 
 .35 
 .36 
 .53 
 
 .58 
 
 .57 
 
 .64 
 
 .67 
 
 68 
 
 3.60 
 
 3. (.5 
 
 4.60 
 
 4.75 
 
 $1.12 
 2,02 
 1.33 
 1,90 
 1.12 
 1.05 
 1.12 
 1.06 
 
 2.30 
 3.22 
 3.80 
 2.49 
 3.44 
 4.07 
 2,59 
 3.62 
 4 23 
 7.30 
 7.60 
 8.45 
 8.75 
 
 $0.19 
 .27 
 .17 
 .25 
 .14 
 ,21 
 .13 
 .20 
 
 .29 
 
 .39 
 
 .46 
 
 .33 
 
 .41 
 
 .51 
 
 .34 
 
 .47 
 
 .64 
 
 1.20 
 
 1.25 
 
 1.45 
 
 1.50 
 
 $1.90 
 2.70 
 1.75 
 2.50 
 1.48 
 2.10 
 1.39 
 2.07 
 
 2.92 
 3.90 
 4.62 
 3.35 
 4.46 
 .5.15 
 3.58 
 4,76 
 5.45 
 12.00 
 12.50 
 14.50 
 15.00 
 
 In consiLlcringthe above tabulated facts, .aud not incluiliug pearl and shell knives, 
 the material of which is much more expensive and of which but few are made in this 
 country, the average cost of material and snnpHes in American pocket-knives is 20 
 per cent. The average cost of labor is 80 per cent. 
 
 It will also be seen that labor in Gerra.auy is not more than one-fourth the American 
 prices, and English wages not over one-half the average amount paid here. 
 
 A comparison of our tignres and costs of German knives with Exhibit B shows for- 
 eign estimates are below onrs for that line of goods. 
 
 To further substantiate our statement, consular invoices show an importation in 
 1887 of 1,450,000 dozen knives at the low average valuation of 83 cents per dozen, 
 $1,200,000. Exhibit A submitted shows but 271,500 dozen American knives made and 
 sold in 1887 at an average of .'jpS per dozen, $815,000. 
 
 One million one hundred and seventy-eight thousand, live hundred dozen more 
 knives were imported than manufactured hero in 1887, and a largo number of them 
 were sold to consumers as American knives and at the prices of American knives. 
 
 While the foreigners have almost the entire trade In two, three, and four blade 
 penknives, the larger importations of worthless one-blade small knives bring the 
 custom house average of 83 cents, a little lower than the table given by us of rela- 
 tive costs. 
 
 That table furnishes-sufficient classification of relative costs of low and high priced 
 knives to base a specific and ad valorem duty, approximating the difference in costs 
 of material and wages. 
 
72 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 a 
 
 ,a 
 
 ■^ 
 
 to 
 
 V 
 
 a 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 ;3 
 
 = 
 
 1 
 
 "fe 
 
 "S^ 
 
 w 
 
 p d" • 
 S aJoo 
 
 
 
 ©ma 
 
 ■ o 
 
 o 
 
 <=) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '~' 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 lO 
 
 t- 
 
 00 
 
 
 CO o ^ 
 
 O O 
 
 CD O 
 
 o o 
 
 o o o o 
 
 CC <D O 
 
 o o o o o o 
 o o o o o o 
 o o c> o <= c> 
 
 Nl 
 
 D tr. 
 
 O o o ^-g 
 
 c IT- a> 4^ .- 
 
 P-ta 
 « o go ;■■; 
 
 1 fe " t 5 ■ 
 o ^ o i ^", ; 
 
 
 ^t^ 
 
 bh 
 
 
 5 = 
 
 -t-3 CD 
 
 rid O 
 
 o o 
 
 7-: 2 & 
 
 
 ; CI 3 5 d 5 s ^ 
 
 
 f3 oi .~i m 
 
 ; a fl a □ 
 
 ; ?i c3 ig « 
 
 33 a 
 
 - a 3 is 
 
 ri r— ;:2 ,2© 
 
 5 a 
 
 
 
 ■H -^ :zl -£ w 1i+^ 
 
 t; ^ -^ M 
 
 B 6^ 
 
 ID S 
 
 
 O O 
 P'P. 
 
 O O 
 
 o r o E. 9 
 
 3 o'x 
 
 n i- p i^ 
 
 rt -I rt o 
 
 a d g p 
 
 C3 o rt c3 
 
 3 a 
 
 tn «,rf t:,rt O . 
 
 
 o P 
 
 o a a 
 
 33 
 
 
 ,•2 3 
 
 c8 ee,2 s,a 
 
 a c3 p. c^ ,a .^ - 
 
 H W U OCM -^? 
 
 
 si 
 
 <S^- 
 
 O C« 
 
 o a * 
 Mm t-1 
 
 
 -1 
 
 a 
 
 o;x 
 
 
 
 
 
 ce 
 
 fH 
 
 u 
 
 -i-.'A 
 
 
 03 
 
 d- 
 
 Prf 
 
 
 e 
 
 f 
 
 ?t-S 
 
 ^ 
 
 H 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 § !§^ ^ 
 
 Q O 
 
 M ct- 
 
 o a s 
 
 o.o 
 
 ■ a 
 
 u:S 
 
 p S 
 
 fci^ 
 
 ?7;o 
 
 
 — '^ 
 
 
 1^ 3 
 
 oo 
 
 ,..^^ 
 
 1=1 1^ 
 
 o u 
 
 ^■^ 
 
 
 *-. o. 
 
 
 !qa 
 
 OO 
 
 oM 
 
 rt a 
 "I 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 O 
 
 9 a 
 
 a ° 
 n +j 
 o o 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 S3 
 
 
 §"2 
 
 •^ !=• 
 
 n S 2 
 
 a|^ 
 
 (3^ ^ 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 73 
 
 T-H O 
 
 2n 
 
 S a 
 
 rC O 
 
 O 3"" 
 
 
 (2 fl-i3 
 
 C3 & 3 
 
 floe 
 
 25 ■«§ 
 
 05 t* rt * Gi 
 
 
 a a 
 
 O O 
 
 bCtJD 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
74 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THOMAS "W. BRADLEY. 
 
 Mr. Tho:\ia.s W, Bradley, of Walclen, Orange Comity, N. Y., president and 
 treasurer of tbe New York Kuife Company, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of tlie committee, I assume that in a revision of the 
 tariff by the present Congress that revision will be laid down on the strict lines of 
 protection to industry, to say nothing of protection to American capital. I speak 
 from the stand-point of an American cutler, from the fact that I am president and 
 treasurer of a cutlery works employing three hundred men. 
 
 The Chairman. Where are yonr works? 
 
 Mr. Bradley. The lirm name is the New York Knife Company, and they are lo- 
 cated at Walden, Orange County, N. Y. The greater part of my life has been spent 
 as an apprentice and practical workman. - Prior to 1861 the tariff on cutlery was 
 about 30 per cent., varying, I think, to 40. In 1861 it was made 5U per cent., which 
 would require an ad valorem duty to-day of just 150 per cent, to cover the difference 
 between the labor price of Germany and the labor price of America. 
 
 The Ch.\irjian. You mean the labor price you have to pay in this business? 
 
 Mr. Bradley. Yes, nir. It is $2 in Orange County, N. Y., and it is 25 cents in 
 Solingen, Germany, which is a great cutlery district in Germany. In Joseph Rodgers 
 & Sons' works at Sheffield it is 60 cents ; in George Wosteuholm's it is 65 cents, and In 
 the general run of Sheffleld labor it is about 4b cents to |1. Cutlery began in this 
 country about 1840 by Governor Holly, of Connecticut. This firm is in existence to-day. 
 This product is placed through the small trade chiefly to the retailers in New England 
 in the jobbing business, withother articles. There was in the country prior to 1861 
 aboutfive concerns inNew York; rone in Pennsylvania, and none in Ohio, and none 
 in any other State inthe Union. Fifty per cent, it has always been claimed has built 
 up the Americanpocket-knife industry of the country. That is not so. It was the 
 great gold premiumin the days of the war, from 1861 to 1865, which built it up. Some 
 who got down in 1861 built up again and were all right in 1866 and 1867. la 1870 
 there were threepocket-knifo manufacturers in the State of New Jersey, five in the 
 State of New York, double in Connecticut. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I think one in my State failed. 
 
 Mr. Bradley. There were two in Ohio and Pennsylvania. There were none in 
 New Jersey, unless one employing about six hands. It is the same thing with Con- 
 necticut and the same thing with New York, and it has continued. Just about one- 
 half of these firms have failed or reorganized m the last seven years. 
 
 The Chairman. Where is your principal competition ? 
 
 Mr. Bradley. From Germany. 
 
 The Chairman. When did you first feel it ? 
 
 Mr. Bradley. For the last fifteen years. It has crowded us to the wall for the last 
 five years, and was particularly hard in the latter part of 1884 and 1885. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. What is the duty now ? 
 
 Mr. Bradley. Fifty per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. Bayne, Is the Senate bill satisfactory to you ? 
 
 Mr. Brablbtt. It is in regard to the basis, but it is not carried out properly. For 
 instance, the first clause of the provision is satisfactory. That is just as much as we 
 can expect to get; but beginning with the second clause, for some reason or other 
 they reduced it down to nothing. If carried out on the basis of the first clause we 
 would not be en.abled to enhance the price to consumers in this country at all, but 
 wo would be enabled to reclaim the market for the five years we have lost it. In 
 1883 we made in Ibis- country |1, 350,000 worth of pocket-knives and imported 
 $1,000,000; duty paid, $1,500. We had nearly one-half the trade of the country. In 
 1837 we produced :::S15,000 as against about $1,200,000; duty paid, SI, 800. We had 
 less than one-third. We have gone down in five years from one-half to nearly one- 
 fourth. 
 
 The Chairman;. The Senate provision : " Pen-knives or pocket-knives of all kinds 
 or parts thereof, wholly or partly manufactured, valued at not more than 50 cents per 
 dozen, 12 cents per dozen." That is what you mean is satisfactory ? 
 
 Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir ; that is satisfactory. That is all we hope to get. 
 
 The Chairmax. " Valued at more than 50 cents per dozen and not exceeding |2 per 
 dozen, 36 cents per dozen." Can you suggest a change from that ? 
 
 Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. What is it? 
 
 Mr. Bradley. To make it the same average as the first clause make it 50 cents in- 
 stead of 36 con Is, Make it in the same ratio. 
 
 The Chairman. " Valued at more than |2 per dozen, 60 cents per dozen." What 
 is your suggestion in regard to that? 
 
 Mr. Bradley. I would make that |1, which would be less than the ratio of the 
 other two. 
 
Revision of the Tariff. IB 
 
 The Chairman. "Iu addition thereto on all the above 50 per centum ad valorem." 
 Jfou would let that remain f 
 
 Mr. Bra-DLBT. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. That is what you think you ought to have? 
 
 Mr. Bradley. That is what we must have or quit. We are not asking for any- 
 thing more than the diii'erenoe between the labor of Germany and the labor of 
 America. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLiN. What would the combined duty amount to— ad valorem and spe- 
 cific — on an average ? 
 
 Mr. BRADtKY. On the range of cutlery from the minimum would be from 18 cents 
 up to $18 per dozen, the average ad valorem would be 73 per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. What was the highest rate on any class t 
 
 Mr. Bradley. It would be 116, and on the lowest it would be 74 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Would it not be more in harmony to bring that down somewhat T 
 
 Mr. Bradley. You could hardly do it withoutmaking some special provisiou. When 
 it was under consideration by the Finance Comuiittee of theSenate it was found ex- 
 tremely difficult to make tariff provisions apply to pocket cutlery. In the Senate 
 bill as printed we had 50 cents specific duty. It is almost impossible to correct this. 
 There may be coming from Germany three thousand patterns of pocket cutlery, 
 and there is nobody iu the custom-house at New York who is expert enough to 
 understand the question. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What kind of cutlery do we export Germany t 
 
 Mr. Bradley. Axes, I presume ; not pocket cutlery. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I see iu the table of exports axes are not classed as cutlery. 
 
 Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir; I think you will tiud they are by large dealers. In the 
 custom-house they are classed as cutlery. I think edge tools of all characters are 
 classed as cutlery. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I observe under the head of cutlery the only exports we send 
 are to Brazil, and a little to England — about $15,000 worth to England, which is not 
 much. I may be mistaken, perhaps, in regard to sending it to Germany, but we 
 sent fil5,000 worth to England, .^'iO.OOO worth to Brazil, etc. 
 
 Mr. Bradley. Y'ou will find American hatchets sell in England, and axes, too. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You think it relates more to edge tools than to pocket cutlery ? 
 
 Mr. Bradley. It does not relate at all to edge tools, as that is utterly impossible. 
 I wish to impress upon the committee this fact in regard to what we ask. It is im- 
 possible for us to enhance the value of cutlery to the consumer. This exhibit practi- 
 cally illustrates it (showing knife). This is a one-bladed, three-and-a-quarter knife. 
 That knife cost a little over $1 per dozen to make — call it $1 for illustration. The 
 labor cost of that is a fraction over 79 cents — call it 80 cents for illustration. The 
 material cost 20 cents. In Germany the labor for making that knife would be a lit- 
 tle less than one reichmark. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much is it of our money t 
 
 Mr. Bradley. About 22 cents. Adding the cost of material, 20 cents, and the duty, 
 It would make it about 60 cents, which would require a duty of 141^ per cent, on that 
 knife in regard to the labor item aloue. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. This is the cheapest sort of knife ? 
 
 Mr. Bradley. This is a good knife, made of the finest quality of Shefileld steel, 
 which an American boy can buy for 15 cents, and never in the history of America 
 before could an American boy buy a knife like that for 15 cents. It is a class of 
 goods on which we make no profit. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is to keep you from putting up the prices if the duties 
 are increased on foreign manufactures ? 
 
 Mr. Bradley. I will illustrate. That knife costs 40 cents a dozen on the other 
 side. In the specific provision we ask for the duty would be 80 per cent. ; that is, 30 
 per cent, more tlian we now have. That costs in Germany 40 cents, material and 
 labor. Fifty per cent, duty is 20 cents, and if it was 80 per cent, it would be 32, 
 which would be 72 cents, the cost in this market. Now, we can not put up the 
 prices when our German competitors can furnish the same at 72 cents. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What you mean is, the proposed increase would not make it 
 higher 1 
 
 Mr. Bradley. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If that knife ^s made so cheaply in Germany and can be 
 brought in here for so much less than you can make it, how does it happen that you 
 are able to sell it now f 
 
 Mr. Bradley, We are not able to sell it. We are simply obliged to give it away. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The Germans, as I understand it, can now put this knife here 
 for something like 60 cents. How can you get $1 a dozen for them ? 
 
 Mr. Bradley. Allowing the profit represented on this side, it would be sold for 66 
 or probably 70 cents. In the first place, it is a better knife. In the sc'cond place, 
 every American with sufficient patriotism ought to buy an American knife if it does 
 
76 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 cost 2 cents more than the German. That knife we use to fill in orders. If they sell 
 it at 80 cents, we do the same thing. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is the German manufacture as good as that f 
 
 Mr. Bkadlby. No ; but when the German knife has the stamp of the Granite City- 
 Cutlery Company, or the stamp of the New York Cutlery Company, or of the Meridan 
 Company, or any other stamp on it, or anything else, say the Star Spangled Banner 
 Company, or any other workshop, even if they never thought of making a knife, it 
 will bring the same price as we could get by selling it ourselves. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you suggest a remedy for that ? 
 
 Mr. Bradley. The only remedy I suggest is that the American Congress protect the 
 manufacturers, and take that same pride in our cutlery manufacture that the Govern- 
 ment of Great Britain does in theirs. You take an Englishman. He may be in South 
 Africa or the Indies, and if he takes up a knife and reads, " Joseph Eodgers & Sons, 
 cutlers to Her Majesty," his heart thrills with pride. Do you think our American 
 hearts thrill with pride when we take up a knife ? No; because we have not con- 
 trolled our markets yet sufflciently for that ; but we hope the time will come when 
 we will sti'ike upon our goods, " Cutlers to the American people." We want you to 
 be proud of that fact, and there is no reason why you should not be. Now, England 
 some forty years ago passed an act of Parliament to protect their manufactures against 
 the impcisitions of "outside barbarians," and it stands so to-day. You can not 
 send American materials which do not bear the stamp of the place of manufacture. 
 Germany can not send anything unless it bears the stamp that it was made in Ger- 
 many. In short, whatever articles enter Great Britain from any place must bear a 
 stamp upon it containing the name of the country where manufactured. England 
 has good reason for that law. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you buy Sheffield steel ? 
 
 Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you have to go abroad to buy cutlery steel f 
 
 Mr. Bradley. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Why can not we supply that steel T 
 
 Mr. Bradley. You can not. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Where is your patriotism when you buy your steel of Sheffield J 
 
 Mr. Bradley. To meet American prejudices, which is " English, you know." 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. So you commit a fraud on the public by not letting them know 
 
 is an English blade ? 
 
 Mr. Bradley. The finest grade of steel is that, of course, which goes into a good 
 pocket-knife. The Americans have not yet attained to that degree of perfection in 
 the manufacture of steel of that quality. Every now and then we make an attempt 
 at it. But we dare not label our knives that these goods are made of American steel, 
 as this is just about the turning-point. The time is coming when we are going to use 
 American steel for pocket-knives. In the manufacture of table cutlery we use 
 American steel. The backspring is American steel. That label is used simply to 
 cater to the prejudices and tastes of the American people. 
 
 I want to say one thing about the English law. In England three years ago the 
 Sheffield cutlery trade was at its lowest water-mark. Hundreds of thousands of 
 pounds of cutlery came into Sheffield in boxes from Germany, and were reboxed in 
 Sheffield and sent over here as Sheffield goods. Parliament enacted a law thoroughly 
 stopping it by placing this item upon the statute-books, that everything entering 
 that country must bear the name of the place where it is manufactured. That is why 
 to-day the cutlery industry in Sheffield is better than it has been for fifteen years. 
 Those goods are made in Germany, sent to Sheffield, stamped there, and sent here. 
 Here is an article from the London Ironmonger, in which it displays no fear and ex- 
 presses the hope it will shut out German competition. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. In what shape do they import thist 
 
 Mr. Bradley. In a rod of steel. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it worked up here T 
 
 Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir ; these goods can be made in this country. Take cutlery as 
 a rule, it is made by the second generation of Englishmen who came over between 
 lf-40 and 1850. I am one of them myself, and the best of my workmen are the sec- 
 ond generation of Englishmen, and of the 300 men employed in our establishment, 
 nearly all of them are American-born, and have grown up in the village where the 
 manufacture is carried on. Of a village of 2,000. inhabitants, 415 are cutlery work- 
 ers. In 1854 it was a little hamlet of 250 people. Our mill started with about 30, on 
 the co-operative principle. Every man put in whatever capital he could raise, and 
 from time to time added to the capital of the institution, and so it grew up. It is 
 water-power, and the whole sides of that river are covered with cottages belonging 
 to the people who work in that industry. They are bright and well adapted for the 
 people. I could name a German factory employing 1,200 men the machinery of which 
 is made in America. 
 
 I know these people ; I have lived among them. We were boys together, and I 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 77 
 
 have grown up with them. Now, of these 300 people, I know the name of every fam- 
 ily. I have grown up from childhood in that village. It has grown from a little 
 hamlet of 250 people into a thriving village of '2300. I simply say this, that unless about 
 in the light of the last five years, where eleven out of twenty-five firms in this coun- 
 try have gone to the wall, where their production of $1,350,000 in 1882 was reduced 
 to $815,000 in 1887 — unless you give some relief, you simply in five years destroy ut- 
 terly the pocket-linife manufacture in this country. As I have said before, and as I 
 will say again, the thing which we ask will not enhance the price of goods to the 
 American consumer, because the two articles sell for about the same thing, as what 
 the retailer sells to the consumer he gets about 200 per cent, on the German goods. 
 We merely ask you to give us the difference between 50 and 73 and take away the 200 
 ]ier cent, profit which the dealers in German goods make, and we will not ask for any 
 more. 
 
 Friday, December 27, 1889. 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment, Mr. McKinley in the chair. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES S. LANDERS. 
 
 Mr. Charles S. Landers, of the firm of Landers, Frary & Clark, of New Britain, . 
 Conn., addressed the Committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee : I am a manufacturer of table 
 cutlery at New Britain, Conn., and represent before this committee what is left of 
 that industry in the United States. The condition and history of the industry is 
 weU known to trade. In 1885 the concern at Bridgeport, Conn., was sold at auction 
 and realized to the creditors 20 cents on the dollar, I think, sacrificing about $450,000, 
 I think. In 1869 the Economic Society, of Beaver County, Pa., with almost un- 
 limited resources, took up the manufacture of cutlery, and, after five years, it was in 
 the hands of the creditors. In the last ten years there has been more than half the 
 investment sacrificed. In regard to the concerns which have existed, there is not 
 one single case where any concern, even supported'hy auxiliary business, has paid an 
 average of 6 per cent, on the capital. The average interest paid probably does not ex- 
 ceed 3 per cent. 
 
 This is wholly a question of labor. The mills and improvements can he put in this 
 country as cheaply as abroad, with the exception, possibly, of a very small amount of 
 hone, wood, ivory, and pearl not made in this country; but it can be purchased by 
 our manufacturers as cheaply as by the manufacturers of Sheffield. The price for 
 labor is very large, but not quite as large as for pocket cutlery. These are state- 
 ments which I feel can not be regarded as extravagant. We must have a protection 
 for this labor or go out of the business. I do not propose to argue the case at all, 
 hut simply to submit the facts upon the matter and stand upon them. 
 
 The Chairman. How does the Senate provision suit you? 
 
 Mr. Landers. We had an extended hearing on this question before the Senate 
 committee. We are satisfied with the provision, with the exception of a slight dif- 
 ference in one respect, the exact nature of which I will state in a moment. The 
 question will probably be asked as to the matter of duty. If I am asked what is the 
 highest rate of duty under the Senate bill — there are very few knives which amount 
 to anything which come in at 20 cents a dozen, between 2o cents and $3 — the average 
 of the Senate bill is 52 per cent., and a slight change in one respect changes it to an 
 average of 56|-. If you make it 21 and 20 it makes 41 per cent. The highest single 
 possible duty under the correction which I make in the Senate bill i871 per cent. By 
 oue of the errors which creeps into a bill at the last moment, table cutlery in the 
 Mills bill is put at 35, while pocket cutlery is put at 50, and this difference between 
 35 and 50 in the last year has been a great drawback. With this change we are sat- 
 isfied with the Senate bill, with the exception that we strike out "carving and cooks' 
 knives " and make it a separate class for business reasons. It is unnecessary to state 
 in regard to the labor, except that our labor is mostly skilled. The Germans have 
 driven out England on pocket cutlery. They have cut -them in two. As stated here 
 last night by Colonel Bradley, in the Solinger district the Germans manufacture very 
 cheaply, and unless we are protected they will drive us out. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Have you made provision for carving knives? 
 
 Mr. Landers. Yes, sir. The two words "carving " and "cooks " should he stricken 
 out and an addition put in covering those grades. There is nothing in regard to the 
 
78 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 wliole matter of this industry and wages and in regard to the price that I am not will- 
 ing to answer. I do not come here to argue the question but to give facts to the 
 committee, and I do not think you could ask me a question in any shape or form the 
 answer to which will be "I do not know." We have got to have this protection or 
 be driven out. I have given the facts and I do not propose to argue the question. 
 
 Mr. McMiLT.iN. I understood you to say that with the exception of ivory, wood, 
 and some articles not produced in this country, you get your materials as cheaply as 
 they do in England. 
 
 Mr. Landeks. Yes, sir, 
 
 Mr. McMiLi.iN. What are your materials, with tliis exception? 
 
 Mr. Landkhs. Probably steel. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you use American steel ? 
 
 Mr. Landers. Wholly. We have not used the Engli.sh steel for a long time. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is it your opinion that Anjerican steel manufacturers, notwith- 
 standing the difference between wages paid here and wages paid in England, pro- 
 duce steel as cheaply as England? 
 
 Mr. Landers. I do not know what it costs to produce, but I know I can buy as 
 good Auierican as English. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Your experience is that the steel is as cheap as in England? 
 
 Mr. Landers. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Do you exactly understand that? 
 
 Mr. Landers. I am taking the prices here and the prices in Sheffield, and I would 
 rather have American steel at :"> per cent, difference. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Can you get'Americau steel here as cho,aj)ly as you can buy English 
 eteel ? 
 
 Mr. Landers. I do not know the English price ou steel now. We used it up to ten 
 years ago, and now we use extUisivtly American steel. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you tliink the American steel is of a better quality ? 
 
 Mr. Landers. For table cutlery, unquestionably. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is the diilcreuce jiaid in our steel works here and the wages paid in 
 the steel works of England greater ? 
 
 Mr. Landers. I do not know the wages the steel-workers in England get. I know 
 aliout tlie wa>;es of the cuUers, but I know nothing about the other. 
 
 Mr. McKexna. How do your cutlers' wages compare with the wages in England* 
 
 Mr. Landers. I have an extract from a Shoffleld paper, where a plant is, which 
 states that the grinders get wanes of 14 sbillings a week. We have not a grinder 
 that gets below |1.85 a diiy, aud .skilled grinders make from |2.50 to $3 a day. We 
 have grinders sitting side by siilc, one of whom will make |2.50 a day, and the other, 
 being Ujore skilled, will make .$5 a day. 
 
 The Chairman. Do these things appear in the statements you file? 
 
 Mr. Landbiis. I put the wages for the English cutler at 70 per cent, lower than in 
 this country, as I do not propose to be brought up on any charges of exaggeration at 
 all. 
 
 To the TionorahJe Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 Gentlemen: The manufacturers of table cutlery, employing some two thousand 
 men, rospoilfully submit that the industry has been notoriously and increasingly 
 unprolitablr for tire past fifteen years. 
 
 Investments to the amount of $1,500,000 have been utterly wiped out, and in no 
 case has the manufacture of this line of goods been able to sustain itself, save when 
 associated with some other industry. 
 
 This state of .affairs has been brought about by the continually increased importa- 
 tions of tlie fnicii;n undervalued product. 
 
 We call special atteutiou to the fact that the compctilion is entirely one of labor, 
 as the materials of all kinds n,sed in the production of this line of goods .are obtaina- 
 ble in this country at fully as low rates as in England or Germany. 
 
 The situation can be summed up in the fact that the average wages of the Ameri- 
 can cutler are at least 70 per cent, more than those of the English, aud the difference 
 in Germany is much greater. 
 
 Unless this difference can be equalized by a proper tariff, the wages of the Ameri- 
 can cutler must be made the same as those of his foreign competitor, or the produc- 
 tion of this line of goods must pass wholly into foreign hands. 
 
 We further submit and are jiroparcd to prove that a reasonable protection, as pro- 
 posed in what is known as the Senate tariff bill, will not enchance the cost to the 
 consumer, as the difference in quistion has been almost wholly absorbed by the im- 
 porters and middle men. 
 
 We therefore ask the adoption of the clause 172, of the Senate tariff bill, with the 
 following correction, viz: 
 
 "Carving and cooks' knives and forks should be separated from what is known as 
 regular table cutlery." 
 
REVISION OP THE TAEIFF. 79 
 
 As proof of thiSf the importation of tliis class has nearly doubled in the past 
 twelve months, and is to-day almost entirely in the hands of foreign manufacturers. 
 
 Senate clause corrected — correction and additions in italic : 
 
 172. Table knives, forks, steels, and all butchers', hunting, kitchen, bread, butter, 
 vegetable, fruit, cheese, iilumbors', painters', palette, and artists' knives of all sizes, 
 finished or unlinislied, valued at not more than $1 per dozen pieces, 1.5 cents per 
 dozen; valued at more than |1 and not more than $3, 50 cents per dozen ; valued at 
 more than $3 and not more than |8, $1 per dozen ; valued at more than $8, |2 per 
 dozen; and, in addition, upon all the above-named articles, 30 per centum ad val- 
 orem. All earring and cooks' hnives and forks of all sizes, finished or viifiiiislied, valued 
 at not more than $i per dozen pieces, $1 jjfc dozen; valued at more than iii and vot more 
 than §S, $2 per dozen piecet; valued at more than $8 and not more titan iijV2, is^'A per dozen 
 pieces; valued at more than |12, %\- per dozen pieces; and in addition upon all the ahove- 
 named articles, 'if) per centum ad valorem. 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 Charles S. Landers, New Britain, Conn. 
 Waeeen p. Dustin, Turners Falls, Mass. 
 I. HiRSCH, Chioago, 111. 
 
 Committee of Table Cutlery Manufacturers. 
 December 26, 1889. 
 
 FROM WHOLESALE HARDWARE ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Hon. WlLUAM McKiNLEY, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Deak Sir : A delegation of representative merchants from the Wholesale Hardware 
 Association were granted a hearing by the subcommittee on the tariff of the Senate 
 Committee on Finance on the evening of December 12, IRbS, and in response to their 
 question as to what representations or arguments had been used to influence the large 
 proposed increase of duties on cutlery and guns. The chairman of that committee, 
 Mr. Allison, stated that it was based'ou the supposition of undervaluations. We made 
 a statement to the committee showing that this charge ciiuie from interested persons, 
 who desired to xjrevent all importations of these goods, and that a disreputable scheme 
 had been set in motion to this end, and that substantially there wa;-i no foundation in 
 fact for such charges, and that such charges against reiiutable merchants could not 
 pos.sibly be proved or substantiated by any credible evidence. 
 
 We discovered later on that the real argument on whicli was based the enormous 
 increase proposed was a comparative table of costs of poclcet-knives in the countries 
 of Germany, England, and America. This table is primed in the Tarifl' Eeports, 
 Fiftieth Congress, first se&sion, report 2332, part 3, and may also be found in the 
 Congressional Eecord of January 20, 1889, page 1022. 
 
 This table was not submitted to us for reply when before the Senate committee, 
 and we had no suspicion of its existence, yet it appears it was at that time in print, 
 and in the custody of the committee. Considering we bad specially asked the com- 
 mittee for any such information as they had, and their omission to favor us with 
 this table, it seems unfair to us that Senator Piatt, of Connecticut (who was in the 
 committee-room during all the time we were there), in the Senate discussion (Con- 
 gressional Record, January 20, 1889, page 1028) should make the point against us 
 that " it has not been questioned by any importer," referring to the very table. 
 
 The reason we did not question it was because we did not know of its existence, 
 but we propose to question it now, with a good deal of emphasis, aud show it up as 
 notorious for lamentable ignorance or deliberate falsification on the part of the men 
 who concocted it. 
 
80 
 
 EEVISION OF THE TAKIFF. 
 
 The table is as follows, omitting the separation of the cost of material and labor 
 and only giving the total costs, the only items which are germane to the argument : 
 
 American manufacturer's laile. — Belatwe cost of German, English, and American pochet 
 
 cutlery per dozen. 
 
 Description. 
 
 No. of 
 
 German 
 
 Englieli 
 
 I)lad63. 
 
 C03t. 
 
 coat. 
 
 1 
 
 $0.56 
 
 $0.91 
 
 2 
 
 .80 
 
 1.30 
 
 1 
 
 .63 
 
 .86 
 
 2 
 
 .74 
 
 1.21 
 
 1 
 
 .44 
 
 .72 
 
 2 
 
 .03 
 
 1.05 
 
 1 
 
 .38 
 
 .66 
 
 2 
 
 .68 
 
 .99 
 
 2 
 
 .81 
 
 1.39 
 
 3 
 
 1.05 
 
 1.86 
 
 4 
 
 1.21 
 
 2.16 
 
 2 
 
 1.01 
 
 1.64 
 
 3 
 
 1.29 
 
 2.15 
 
 4 
 
 1.44 
 
 2.46 
 
 2 
 
 1.12 
 
 1.76 
 
 3 
 
 1.39 
 
 2.30 
 
 4 
 
 1.58 
 
 2.02 
 
 3 
 
 4,42 
 
 6.25 
 
 4 
 
 4.00 
 
 6.50 
 
 3 
 
 6 51 
 
 7.63 
 
 4 
 
 5.71 
 
 7.90 
 
 Ameri- 
 can cost. 
 
 Iron-lined Jack knife, wood covering: 
 
 4 inclies - 
 
 4 Inches 
 
 35 inches 
 
 33 inches 
 
 3^ inches 
 
 3J inches 
 
 3| inches 
 
 3| inches 
 
 Brass-lined penknife, ivory or stag covering: 
 
 2^ inches 
 
 2| inches 
 
 2| inches 
 
 3 inches 
 
 3 inches 
 
 3 inches 
 
 3^ inches 
 
 3^ inches 
 
 3J inches 
 
 Brass-lined penknife, pearl or shell covering 
 
 3^ inches 
 
 3^ inches 
 
 3J inches 
 
 3| inches 
 
 $1.90 
 2.70 
 1.75 
 2.50 
 1.48 
 2.16 
 1.39 
 2.07 
 
 2.92 
 3.96 
 4.63 
 3.35 
 4.46 
 5.15 
 3.38 
 4.76 
 5.45 
 
 12.00 
 12.50 
 14.50 
 15.00 
 
 The above table of comparative cost, of pocket-knives submitted by the American 
 manufacturers, was, as we uurterstand it, the basis on which the so-called "Senate 
 substitute" tariff on cutlery was built. This table was a gross misrepresentation of 
 facts, and it is very difiScult to realize how such absurd statements could possibly 
 gain credence with the Senate committee. Admitting this statement to be correct 
 (for argument's sake), it would seem that the point would have suggested itself to the 
 Senate committee as to how it was i)ossiblo for American manufacturers, under such 
 conditions as they name, to have prospered and assumed the proportions they 
 have, for with the 50 per cent, ad valorem duty now exacted addetl, the prices they 
 name as their costs are in some cases over three times the cost of the foreign goods, 
 and yet, according to the statement of the domestic manufacturers, the capital em- 
 ployed in making pocket-knives was in 1887 nearly $2,300,000. (See Senate Report 
 12:«2, part 3, page 685.) 
 
 Below we give a table marked A, which is an actual comparison supported by affi- 
 davits of the same knives in the three markets already named, showing the manu- 
 facturer's selling price in these different markets. This table covers the descriptions 
 given by the domestic manufacturers in their table and can be readily substantiated 
 by ^ny honest seeker after facts. 
 
REVISION OP THE TAKIFF. 
 Table A. 
 
 81 
 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 German cost 
 
 aa ner 
 
 English cost 
 
 as ner 
 
 
 
 
 
 affldavitA.H. Sax- 
 ton. 
 
 affidavit A. H. Sax- 
 ton. 
 
 American mate. 
 
 
 
 q 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 .14 
 
 Si 
 
 at 
 
 ■p.g, 
 
 It 
 
 1"^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 E a 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 <^ 
 
 
 ^W 
 
 ^P 
 
 O (D 
 
 Sample 
 No. 
 
 DescriptioD. 
 
 
 fl 
 
 n 
 
 ii] 
 
 rt 
 
 
 a» 
 
 
 - d 
 
 - 3 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 2-1 
 
 
 a 
 < 
 
 rS"3 
 
 ^1 
 
 wa 
 
 % 
 
 ■^1 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 i 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 .13 
 
 .2 
 
 ^ 
 
 ill 
 
 
 ill' 
 
 
 
 . cb 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 q 
 
 
 
 m ftO 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 W 
 
 H 
 
 w 
 
 < 
 
 ■^■^ 
 
 <t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s. d. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 109 
 
 3J-iiicli 1 blade, iron lined * . 
 
 2.50 
 
 «0.60 
 
 $0.95 
 
 2 1 
 
 $0.61 
 
 $0.83 
 
 $0.95 
 
 $0.90 
 
 
 22522 
 
 3|-lncli 2 blades, iron lined - 
 S^-incb 2 blades, iron lined 
 
 3.04 
 
 .72 
 
 1. 10 
 
 
 
 
 1.50 
 
 
 
 5008 
 
 3.04 
 
 .72 
 
 1.16 
 
 
 
 
 1.25 
 
 
 
 5005 
 
 3\-inch 2 blades, iron lined.. 
 3|-inch 1 blade, iron lined*. 
 
 3.44 
 3.50 
 
 .83 
 .81 
 
 1.31 
 1. 33 
 
 
 
 
 1.70 
 1.15 
 
 
 
 1256 
 
 3 4 
 
 .81 
 
 1.32 
 
 1.10 
 
 
 209 
 
 3i-inch 2 blades, iron lineil* 
 
 3.60 
 
 .86 
 
 1.37 
 
 3 6 
 
 .85 
 
 1.40 
 
 1.50 
 
 1.40 
 
 
 222o 
 
 SA-inch 1 blade, iron lined . . 
 3|-incb 2 blades, iron lined. . 
 4-incb 1 blade, iron lined* 
 3i-inch 2 blades, iron lined* . 
 
 3.80 
 3.93 
 4.25 
 4.30 
 
 .90 
 .93 
 1.01 
 1.02 
 
 1.4,j 
 1.49 
 1. 63 
 1.04 
 
 
 
 
 1.45 
 1.90 
 
 
 
 22553 
 
 
 
 1002 
 
 4 2 
 4 
 
 1.01 
 .97 
 
 1.66 
 1.60 
 
 
 1 60 
 
 14051 
 
 1.65 
 
 1.65 
 
 
 252c 
 
 4.incb 1 blade, iron lined 
 
 3^incb 2 blades, iron lined . . 
 4-"inch 2 blades, iron lined*.. 
 
 4.60 
 5. CO 
 5.80 
 
 1.10 
 1.33 
 1.38 
 
 1.75 
 2.13 
 2.20 
 
 
 
 
 1.50 
 2.05 
 2.00 
 
 
 
 222o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 265 
 
 5 
 
 1.22 
 
 2.00 
 
 2.00 
 
 
 2254 
 
 3J.incb 2 blades, iron lined* . 
 3^-incb 2 blades, brass lined* 
 
 6.10 
 
 0.30 
 
 1.45 
 1.50 
 
 2.33 
 2.40 
 
 6 3 
 6 3 
 
 1.53 
 
 1.53 
 
 3.50 
 2.60 
 
 
 
 
 2065 
 
 
 
 2.35 
 
 253c 
 
 4-inch 2 blades, iron lined. . . 
 3-inch 2 blades, brass lined, 
 
 6.40 
 
 1.52 
 
 2.44 
 
 
 
 
 3.60 
 
 
 
 2136 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ivory* 
 
 7.00 
 
 1.70 
 
 2.66 
 
 7 
 
 . 1.70 
 
 2.80 
 
 2.25 
 
 2.60 
 
 
 3114 
 
 3^-inch 3 blades, brass lined 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 18 50 
 
 4 40 
 
 7 03 
 
 18 
 
 4 38 
 
 7 20 
 
 7 50 
 
 7 90 
 
 
 3053 
 
 SJ-inch 3 blades, g. a. lined, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 19.50 
 
 4.64 
 
 7.41 
 
 25 6 
 
 6.20 
 
 10.20 
 
 
 
 9 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ColamnNo. 1 represents the actnal man ufacturei's' sell insr priceain Germany, its equivalent in Amer- 
 ican cnrrency, and the cost of same laid down in the United States, duty and other expenses added. 
 
 Column No. 2 represents the actual manufacturers' sellin;^ prices in England, its equivalent in Amer- 
 ican cnrrency, and the cost of same laid down in the United States, duty and other expenses added. 
 
 Column No. 3 repreaenta the price the various samples are being regulai 1} sold fur of American make 
 aa per affidavit I. W . Morton. 
 
 Column No. 4 represents the price the various samples are being regularly sold for of American make, 
 as per affidavit E. B. Seara. 
 
 Column No. 5 represents the price the various samples are being: regulaily sold for of American make, 
 aa per affidavit -J. B. F. Champlin. 
 
 The German mark is reckoned at 23.80 cents. The English shilling at 24.33 cents, both being cua- 
 tom-houae values. Those marked * are American-made knives. All the others are German make. 
 
 It must be borne in mind tbat the foreign cost, with duty and charges added, 
 represents the cost of the goods laid down at the port of New York, and that the im- 
 porter must add his proiit to such cost before they can como into competition with 
 the domestic article. It will be observed that out of nineteen .samples corresponding 
 with the descriptions named in the American manufacturers' table, that without 
 adding anything for importers' commission or profit nine patterns figure out a higher 
 cost than the American selling price; eight patterns figure slightly lower, and two 
 patterns figure substantially the same. It will therefore be readily seen that if the 
 importer should add 10 per cent, to his cost for jirotit, it would bring an average 
 price considerably higher than the domestic makers are :iNkiug for their goods. 
 
 It must be understood we are simply now combatting the erroneous statements 
 made by the domestic manufacturers on which they claimed an advance of duties. 
 
 Take Senator Piatt's argument from this manufacturers' table of relative cost 
 (Congressional Record, January "20, 1888, page 1022) and see how it works out with 
 actual facts, facts that can not be controverted. He takes a 4-inch iron-lined jack- 
 
 485 6 
 
82 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF, 
 
 'iug, one blade, and says (quoting from the table in question): 
 ; in Germany 56 cents, in England 91 cents, and in America $1.90," 
 
 knife, wood coverir 
 
 " This knife costs i:. — ^ , „--- i ^i 
 
 and then quotes the labor cost in Germany " at :iO cents, in England at /U cents, and 
 in America at $1.4:-'." Now turn to Table A, and take knife 25::'.c, uhich is the exact 
 description as the above knife referred to, and it is found that this knife costs lu 
 Germany .-il;!. 10 instead of 5G cents, and that this knife in like quality and descrip- 
 tion can be purchased from the American manufacturers at ^d.-OU, though the manu- 
 facturers' table makes it cost to produce :rl.90, and farther, that alter this samekuife 
 has become subject to the present duty of 50 per cent, ad valorem anct othei usual 
 charges necessary to laud it in this country, it costs the importer ^1.75, or nearly 17 
 per cent, more than the selling price of the American knife of same grade, so that 
 the importer to compete with the American manufacturer on this Uuife mast sell it 
 at 20 per cent, less than cost. This showing makes it quite unnecessary to comment 
 on the labor argument of Senator Piatt in this connection. There are plenty of 
 other cases in this table in the same boat. 
 
 The following Table B is a comparison of the American manufacturers' table with 
 Table A, the latter being supported with actual samples and afGdavits of the prices - 
 at which they can be purchased for abroad, and also affidavits of the prices at which 
 they are being sold for by American manufacturers in the open market to well known 
 houses in the trade : 
 
 Table B, 
 
 BeBcription. 
 
 Germnn 
 cost as per 
 American 
 manufact- 
 ures. 
 
 G e-mail 
 cost as per 
 afiiJavits. 
 
 Same laid 
 down in 
 New York, 
 duty and 
 expense 
 added and 
 10 per cent, 
 for import- 
 er's profit. 
 
 Sheffield 
 
 cost per 
 
 zV in eric an 
 
 manufact- 
 
 11 res. 
 
 Sheffield 
 cost per 
 
 I 
 
 Same laid 
 down in 
 
 New York, 
 duty and ^ 
 exxjcnse 
 added and 
 10 percent, 
 for import- 
 er's profit. 
 
 Ameiican cost,' 
 
 per Tiianut'acturera* 
 
 statement. 
 
 American selliDg 
 price, per affidavits. 
 
 Iron-lined jack-linife, wood 
 coverius, 4. inches: 
 Sample 253 C: 
 Per manufacturers' i 
 price. ! 
 
 Per actual price, Table 
 A. 
 
 Per manufacturers' 
 
 price. 
 Per actual price, Table 
 A. 
 As above, but 3J inches; 
 Sample 1256: 
 Per manufacturers' 
 
 price. 
 Per actual price, Table 
 A. 
 Sample U051 : 
 Per raanu f a c t u r ers' 
 
 price. 
 Per actual price, Table 
 A. 
 Same aa above, but 3^ 
 inches : 
 Sample 109: 
 Per ui anufacturers' 
 
 price. 
 Per actual price, Table 
 A. 
 Sample 209: 
 Per manufacturers' 
 
 price. 
 Per actual price, Table 
 A. 
 3-incb brasiM liuful iion- 
 knife, iv<)r\ liaudlu: 
 Sample i^U'.ii : 
 Per manufacturers' 
 
 price. 
 Per actual price. Table 
 A. 
 3J-inch brass-lined, prarl 
 liaudle: 
 Sample 3114:* 
 Per mauufactiirt.'.ra' i 
 price. I 
 
 Per actual pi ici', Table 
 A. 
 
 \- 
 
 $0.50 
 1.10 
 
 f .03 
 
 ( 1.03 
 
 .38 
 .00 
 
 .58 
 .86 
 
 4. <I2 
 
 4.40 
 
 1.50 
 
 7.73 
 
 $L4.-| 
 
 1.05 
 .97 
 
 .66 
 .51 
 
 .80 
 .85 
 
 1.64 
 
 1.70 
 
 Ciist $1.00 per Ameri- 
 can manufacturera. 
 
 SclliDs; $1.60 per affl- 
 diivits wcU-kEOwn 
 Ijuyers. 
 
 Cost $2.70 per Ameri- 
 can manufacturera. 
 
 Selling $2.00 per affi- 
 davits -well-known 
 buyers. 
 
 Cost $1.48 perAmeri- 
 ( an manufautureia. 
 
 Selling $1.10 per affi- 
 davits well known 
 buyers. 
 
 Co9t$2.16 per Ameri- 
 can manufacturers. 
 
 Selling $1.65 per affi- 
 davits well-known 
 buyers. 
 
 Cost $1.30 per Ameri- 
 can manufacturers. 
 
 Selling 90 cents per 
 attidavits well- 
 known buyers. 
 
 Cost $2.07 per Ameri- 
 can manufacturers. 
 
 Selling $1.40 per affl- 
 davifs well-known 
 buyers. 
 
 Cost $3.35 per Araeri- 
 
 3. OS <'i can manufacturers. 
 
 ( S.lliug $2.60 peraffi- 
 
 1 diivio well-known 
 
 bnyers. 
 
 Coat $12 per Ameri- 
 can manufacturers. 
 
 Soiling $7.90 per affi- 
 davits well-known 
 buyers. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 83 
 
 The following are copies of the affidavits referred to in this communication : 
 
 Affidavit of Alanson S. Saxton, 
 
 I, Alanson H. Saxton, do solemnly and truly swear that the following are the low- 
 est prices at which I can purchase iu Soliugeii, Gennauy, and Sheffield, England, the 
 following numbers, patterns, and quality of pocket knives, viz ; 
 
 In Solin- 
 gen, in 
 
 marks per 
 dozen. 
 
 In Shef- 
 field, per 
 
 dozen 
 sterling. 
 
 Wo. 100 
 
 No. 125ii 
 
 No. 209 
 
 No. 14051 
 
 No. 265 
 
 N0.2IS6 
 
 No. 3114 X 
 
 No. 233 C 2 blades 
 No. 233 Iblade.. 
 No. 222 C 2 blades 
 No. 222 1 blade-. 
 
 No. 22522 
 
 No. 5008 
 
 No. 5005 
 
 No. 225.53 
 
 No. 3053 
 
 No. 1002 
 
 No. 2254 
 
 No. 2065 
 
 2.60 
 3. .'"lO 
 3.00 
 4.30 
 5.80 
 7. 00 
 
 18.60 
 6.40 
 4.00 
 5.60 
 3.80 
 3,04 
 3.04 
 3.44 
 3.92 
 
 19.60 
 4.25 
 6.10 
 
 25 6 
 
 4 2 
 
 6 3 
 
 6 3 
 
 The pocket-knives are the same knives as enumerated iu Table A, and which 
 are submitted with that table. 
 
 A. H. Saxton. 
 Sworn to before me this 6th day of April, 1889. 
 
 Jas. H. Goldbt, 
 Notary Public, Kings County ; certificate' filed tn N'ew York County. 
 
 Affidavit of Edmund B. Sears, of the Henry Sears Company, of Chicago, HI. 
 
 State of Illinois, 
 
 County of Coolc, City of Chicago : 
 
 Edmund B. Sears, of the city of Chicago, being duly sworn, upon oath deposes 
 and says, he can buy of American m,anufacturers pocket-knives an per samples .sub- 
 mitted under the following numbers, as marked on the blade of each sample, at the 
 following prices : 
 
 No. 109 ■ §0.90 
 
 No. 209 1.40 
 
 No. 1256 1.10 
 
 Nos. 265 and 2136 are too common to price, but outside valuation as they are made 
 would be^ 
 
 No. 265 $2.00 I No. 213G $2.60 
 
 Edmund B. Sears. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22d day of February, A. D. 1889. 
 
 [SEAL.] P. WaNDBRWICKBR. 
 
 Mr. Sears is the head of the firm The Henry Sears Company, of Chicago. 
 
 Affidavit of J. B. F. Champlin, of Cattaraugus Cutlery Company, Little Valley, N, Y. 
 
 Personally appeared before me, Josephus Michell, a uot.iry public iu and for the 
 county of Cattaraugus, State of New York, J. 1!. F. Champlin, who being duly 
 sworn according to law states that he is xjresident of the Cattaraugus Cutlery Com- 
 pany, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, ami carrying 
 
 No. 140.31 $1.67 
 
 No. 3114X 7.90 
 
84 EEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 on busineaa at Little Valley, Cattaraugus County, N. Y. The deponent further states 
 that the said Cattaraugus Cutlery Company has bought and can buythesame knives of 
 American makers at prices as follows : 
 
 Exhibit A (No. 100-2), large one-blade iron-lined knife, at $1.60 per dozen. 
 
 Exhibit B (No. 2254), large-two blade iron-lined knife, at $2.40 per dozen. 
 
 Exhibit C (No. 2005), medium brass-lined two-blade knives, at |2.:35 per dozen. 
 
 Exhibit D (No. 3053), large three-blade pearl knife, at |9 per dozen. Said knives 
 are American make. Further the deponent saith not. 
 
 J. B. F. Champun. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of March, 1889. 
 
 JOSEPHUS MiCHELL, 
 
 Notary Public. 
 Affidavit of Isaac W. Morton, vice-president of the Simmons Hardware Company, St. Louis. 
 
 State of Missouri, 
 
 City of St. Louis: 
 
 Personally appeared before me, Frank Wyman, a notary public in and for the city 
 of St. Louis, Mo., Isaac W. Morton, who being duly sworn according to law, states 
 that he is the vice-president and buyer of the Simmons Hardware Company, a cor- 
 poration organized under the laws of the State of Missouri and carrying on business 
 in the city of St. Louis, Mo. The deponent further states that the said Simmons 
 Hardware Company can buy of American manufacturers at this date the same knives 
 of American make at prices as follows : 
 
 Exhibit A, No. 140.51, $1.65 ; Exhibit B, No. 109, |1.09 ; Exhibit C, No. 1256, $1.15; 
 Exhibit D, No. 265, $2 ; Exhibit E, No. 22522, |1.50 ; Exhibit F, No. 5008, .$1.25 ; Ex- 
 hibit G, No. 3114X, 17.50, in tirst quality pearl, sample is second quality ; Exhibit H, 
 No. 5005, $1.70 ; Exhibit I, No. 22553, |1.90; ExhibitK,No. 209, $1.50 ; Exhibit L, No. 
 2136, $2.25, in ivory handle. 
 
 Said knives of American make being equal in quality, finish, size, and all other 
 particulars to the samples herewith submitted, and by the notary marked Exhibit A, 
 B, C, etc. ; and furthermore deponent saith not. 
 
 Isaac W. Morton. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this, the second day of April, 1889 ; and I further 
 certify that I am personally acquainted with the said I. W. Morton, and know him 
 to be the officer be represents himself to be, and that the samples of pocket knives 
 referred to above were by me duly marked Exhibit A, B, G. 
 
 Frank Wyman, 
 
 Notary Public. 
 
 We send with this communication a sample of each knife on Table A. ' We are 
 prepared to furnish, if wanted, the original affidavits of which the preceding are cop- 
 ies, and also the identical knives, that are covered by each affidavit. 
 
 It is perfectly clear from this exposition that the " Senate substitute" and amend- 
 ment thereto was based on gross misrepresentations, and that the "shoe is on the 
 other foot," and if anybody is entitled to protection it is somebody besides the Amer- 
 ican manufacturers of cutlery. 
 
 We therefore assert that the move to advance the tariff on cutlery was based on 
 a fraudulent misrepresentation of facts. 
 
 We assert that there is no good reason why there should be any advance in the 
 duty on cutlery, both pocket and table, and we are of the opinion there is good 
 reason for a reduction of the already excessive duty on the.ie g0"ds. 
 
 The claim for an advance of duty on guns was prosecuted with the same disregard 
 for facts, and at the present time we think wo need only insert the following letter 
 from Messrs. Herman Boker & Co., in reference to some of the testimony given on 
 these goods : 
 
 New York, January 4, 1889. 
 Hon. Z. B. Vance, 
 
 Waehiiigton, D. C: 
 
 Dear Sir: We are to-d,ay in receipt of the printed arguments of the American man- 
 ufacturers of shot-guns and revolvers, under date of December 3, 1888, and on page 
 3Q there is a statement as follows: 
 
 "Mr. LOVELL. I showed Mr. Parker a gun that cost us |8.83. I bought two hun- 
 dred and fifty guns in the New York market, and had them go to Bo.stou for $7. We 
 can not compete with a competition of that sort. It costs $8.83 to import the gun; 
 I bought it at $7. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 85 
 
 "The Chairman. Where did you buy it? 
 " Mr. LOVELL. In the New York market. 
 
 "Senator Hoar. The difficulty is occasioned by undervaluation in the New York 
 custom-house, is it not? 
 "Mr. LoVELL. I suppose so. 
 
 "The Chairman. Was it precisely the same gun ? 
 " Mr. LovELL. Exactly. 
 
 "Senator Hoab. Are you both an importer and manufacterer? 
 "Mr. LovELL. Yes." 
 
 We do not know whether Mr. Lovell, in making this statement, referred to thepnr- 
 ohase he made of us, but presume he did, as we sold his firm in Boston on October 6, 
 1888, sixty-three guns at $7 each, which cost us to import, not $6.B3, but $10.20, 
 thereby leaving us a loss of |3.20 per gun, and the reason of our accpting so low an 
 offer as $7 was for the purpose of getting rid of this, as we considered it, job lot, and 
 which Mr. Lovell, at the time he purchased it, knew to be the case. He did not 
 purchase two hundred and fifty guns from us, as he has it. He furthermore does not 
 mention that he very much hesitated about taking them at if7, as they were all 10 
 Ga heavy guns, which at this present moment are very undesirable owing to their 
 heavy caliber and heavy weights, and Mr. Lovell well knew that if they were 12 Ga 
 guns that he would never have bought them at the price he did ; we did, however, 
 put in two 12 Ga guns at the same price, and this cleaned out all we had of the so-called 
 back-action side-snap breech-loaders. 
 
 If Mr. Lovell can import that gun into Boston at |3.83 he certainly can do what 
 we can not, and when he states, in answer to the question of Senator Hoar if the dif- 
 ficulty is occasioned by undervaluation of the New York custom-house, "I suppose 
 so," he states something that ho knows not to be true. 
 
 As stated above, we do not know that Mr. Lovell directly referred to us in this 
 purchase, as the quantity he states does not correspond with the quantity we shipped 
 him, but we, in justice to ourselves, take pleasure in advising you of the above 
 facts. 
 
 There were a great many base assertions made hy the American manufacturers at 
 that hearing, which are simply monstrous, and we are bold enough to state that the 
 gentlemen forming that committee would not dare to make any such assertions to 
 parties who imported guns, well knowing that they would not (to use a common 
 phrase) " hold water." 
 
 We should not take any exception to Mr. Lovell's remarks were it not tlijit he 
 knew better, and knows better, and that the guns we sold him at this low price were 
 a job lot that we wished to get rid of, or, in other words, guns which virlually had 
 become obsolete in this market, principally owing to the heavy caliber and weight, 
 and furthermore to the cheaper article that is imported from the other side, which 
 takes its place. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Hermann Boker & Co. 
 
 We understand when Mr. Lovell was confronted with this testimony he acknowl- 
 edged that the guns referred to in his testimony were the lot purchased from Messrs. 
 Boker. 
 
 We give below protests against any advance in the duties on cutlery and guns 
 from the leading wholesale hardware houses in the United States. Many more 
 names could have been obtained if it had been thought necessary. 
 
 [Copy of telegram.] 
 
 Chicago, December llth, 1888. 
 To the Finance Committee, Washington, D , C: 
 
 We comprise the wholesale dealers of Chicago in guns and cutlery, and desire to 
 enter our protest against the proposed change in the tariff on these items. 
 
 Markley, Ailing & Co.; Wells & Nellegar Co.; Hortou, Gilmorc, McWiUianiu 
 & Co.; Randall, Hall & Co.; Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co.; A. S. See- 
 berger & Co.; Henry Sears & Co. 
 
 [Copy.] 
 
 Chicago, III., Decemher 10, 1888. 
 To the Senate Finance Committee, Wasliinijton, D. C. : 
 
 Gentlemen: We herewith earnestly enter our protest against any increase in the 
 tariff on pocket cutlery, razors, scissors, table cutlery, and fire-arms, regarding any 
 
86 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 increase of tariff on above-named items as a serious injury to tbe business industries 
 
 of the country. 
 
 Tlie Henry Sears Co., wholesale cutlery; Markley, AUiug & Co., 53 and 5o 
 Lake street, wholesale hardware and cutlery ; Chicago Gun and Cutlery 
 Co., 60 and 62 State street, wholesale guns and cutlery ; Wells & Nellegar 
 Co., 72, 74, and 76 Lake street, wholesale guns and cutlery; Randall, Hall 
 & Co., 104 Lake street, wholesale cutlery; A. F. Seeberger & Co., whole- 
 sale hardware and cutlery ; Horton, Gilmore, McWilliams & Co., James M. 
 Horton president, wholesale dealers in hardware and all descriptions of 
 cutlery ; Butler Brothers, wholesalers of cutlery and thoroughbred Repub- 
 licans. 
 
 [Copy. J 
 
 Philadelphia, December 10, 1888. 
 Hon. Justin A. Morf.ell, 
 
 Chairman Senate Finance Committee, Washingtou, D. C: 
 Dear Sir: Permit us to call your attention to the articles of pocket and table cut- 
 lery in the Senate tariff bill, now under consideration aud, we understand,^ before 
 your committee. The proposed change in duty on both these articles, especially on 
 pocket cutlery, will change the duty from 50 per cent, ad valorem to 50 cents per 
 dozen blades, and an additional 25 per cent, ad valorem. Upon examination you 
 ■win find that this is a decline upon some of the higher grades and fancy styles of 
 George Wostenholm & Son, Sheffield, England, aud Joseph Rodgers & Sons, Shef- 
 field, England, of their make of three and four blade knives; consequently discrimi- 
 nation in favor of the class of trade who can afford and are quite willing to pay for 
 a luxurious style and grade of pocket-knives ; but it discriminates vastly against the 
 poorer class 'of citizens, who, from a matter of necessity, buy the cheaper grade of 
 goods, many of them in order to pursue their own daily work. You will find upon 
 examination that this cbanije will make an average of from 50 to 100 per cent, ad- 
 vance upon the present cost, and in some cases over 300 per cent, on the original cost 
 of the cheap one aud two blade pocket-knives. 
 
 We feel to overcome this inequality an ad valorem duty will better cover all grades 
 of pocket-knives, and, with due respect, we respectfully suggest that the present rate 
 of duty, 50 per cent, ad valorem, will not be objectionable to the consumer, and is 
 sufQcient protection to the American manufacturer. 
 
 We respectfully ask your careful attention to this particular portion of the Senate 
 tariff bill. Will you not kindly give it more careful consideration ? 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Newhn, Knight & Co., 337 Market street; Biddle Hiirdware Company, 609, 
 511, and 513 Commerce street, Philadelphia ; Edw. K. Tryon, jr., & Co., 
 10 and 12 North Sixth street; W. H. & 6. W. Allan, 113 aud U5 Market 
 street; R. W. Truitt & Co., 16 North Fourth street; Smith-Seltzer Hard- 
 ware Company, 535 Market street, Philadelphia, Pa. ; Buehler, Bonbright 
 ■& Co., 427 Market street, Philadelphia; Lloyd & Snpplee Hardware Com- 
 pany, 503 Market and 4 and 6 North Fifth street ; Shields & Brother, 119 
 North Third street; Jas. M. Vance & Co., 211 and 213 Market street. 
 
 To the Senate Finance Committee, Washington : 
 
 The undersigned, embracing all the wholesale hardware houses of the city of New 
 Orleans, beg leave to present to your honorable body a most solemn protest against 
 so much of what is known as the "Senate tariff bill," now before you for discussion, 
 as increases the duty on cutlery and guns. 
 
 No citizens of this great Republic have a greater regard for the welfare of the work- 
 ingman than we. We have in our employ a very large number dependent for their 
 daily subsistence on their labor, and to them and all others similarly situated we 
 would be the last to do or conceive an injury ; but the duty on cutlery as given in 
 the pending bill will be of benefit to none. The manufacture of cutlery in this 
 country is iusufflcient to wholly supply its needs, and therefore the purchase ot foreign 
 goods is an absolute necessity. 
 
 In the bill the rate of duty on the lower class of goods, that which the working- 
 man is compelled to use, is praclically prohibitive, aud as the value of the articles 
 decrease so does the pro rata of duty largely increase. 
 
 With guns, a similar state of affairs I'xists. The guns manufactured in the United 
 States have nothing to fear from foreign rivals, Init crrtaiuly if a purchaser should 
 prefer one made ilscwhere to one made in this country, t-he law should not attempt to 
 intrrtere with his iireference. 
 
 In other words, we miiy say that any attempt by duties so large .as to practically 
 prevent the importation of certain articles into this country will not benefit the per- 
 sons employed in the manufacture of them here, but will have the effect of increasing 
 
fefi Vision of the tariff. 87 
 
 the price of suob articles to the poor consumer. To those peoj)le who purchase the 
 finest quality of guns and cutlery the pending bill affords no obstacle, as the duty on 
 these is comparatively so light as to be almost insignificant. 
 
 We trust, therefore, that your honorable body may reform the schedule affecting 
 cutlery and guns in such a manner as to prevent the duty being what it now appears 
 to be, not only prohibitive but likewise illogical and inconsistent. 
 New Orleans, December 26, ] 888. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 A. Baldwin & Co., Limited, A. Baldwin, President; Stanflfer, Eshleman & Co.; 
 Rice, Born & Co. ; Haolloway & Gardes ; TheH. HallerM'f'g Co., H.Hal- 
 ler, Pres. ; T. Generelly ; The H. & D. Folsom Arms Co., Geo. Folsom, 
 Mgr. ; G. Pitard & Bro. 
 
 St. Louis, December 10, 1888. 
 To the Senate Finance Committee, Washington, D. C. : 
 
 The undersigned, among whom are probably the largest importers of foreign pocket 
 and table cutlery and foreign breech-loading shot-guns, enter this as their earnest 
 protest a-gainst the passage of the Senate tariff bill, by which the increase of the 
 duties of this class of goods is contemplated to an extent that is extreme, that is un- 
 reasonably large, that is, in fact, so entirely out of line as to be unworthy of consid- 
 eration for a moment. This paper represents the signatures of every wholesale dealer 
 in the city of St. Louis, and is their most earnest protest against the passage of the 
 hill. We sincerely trust that you will use your best efforts to defeat the same. 
 
 Simmons Hardware Company, per E. C. Simmons, President; Hilger Hardware 
 Company, perE. Hilger; President; A. F. Shapleigh Hardware Company, 
 per A. F. Shapleigh, President ; Witte Hardware Company, per Otto H. 
 White, President :E. C. Meacham Arms Company, per E. C. Meacham, 
 President ; C. O. B. McClane ; Caruth & Byrnes Hardware Company, per 
 Daniel W. Caruth, President. 
 
 To the Honorable , Washington, D. C: 
 
 The undersigned, importers and traders in pocket and table cutlery and guns, 
 would most respectfully urge upon your honorable board that the proposed tariff 
 bill levies a duty on pocket and table cutlery and guns, so exorbitant that in its 
 effects it will amount to an absolute prohibition on all lower aud medium grades, 
 admitting only the higher grades, of which there is but a limited demand, and this 
 exclusively from the wealthy classes only. 
 
 The inclosed schedule, showing the actual duty levied by the proposed Senate 
 tariff bill, will clearly show that the duty on pocket cutlery would bo advanced from 
 its present duty of 50 per cent, to an average duty of say 1"25 per cent., and on some 
 grades as high as 330 per cent. The duty on table cutlery will be advanced from 
 35 per cent, at present, to an average of 75 ]per cent.; the duty on breech-loading 
 guns, from the present duty of 35 per cent, to an average of 175 per cent.; while the 
 duty on cheap guns would be advanced over and above 300 per cent. 
 
 The American manufacturers of pocket cutlery and table cutlery have, under the 
 prevailing tariff, made sucli great progress that of pocket cutlery but a very limited 
 amount can profitably be imported now; and in table cutlery, the American manu- 
 facturers control almost exclusively the entire American market, inasmuch as only 
 the higher grades, such as ivory and pearl handle knives, can be imported under the 
 tariff of 35 per cent. 
 
 Of guns, there are comparatively but few manufacturers in this country, and these 
 import the most valuable part of the gun — the barrels — in the rough from abroad. 
 A higher and exorbitant duty will not enable them to produce here the most essen- 
 tial part of the gun — the Ijarrels. 
 
 The effect of the tarifl', according to the Senate bill, on the items named, is clearly 
 to either to prohibit importation of these goods, of grades used by the great mass of 
 citizens, or, in sofae cases, to admit them only at an exorbitant cost, while the finer 
 grades, a luxury for the wealthy only, would be admitted as low, and in some cases, 
 at a lower cost than under the present duty. 
 
 While we consider the American manufacturer entitled to a fair protection, we 
 deny their claim to an unreasonable or prohibitive tariff; and, in accordance with 
 this sentiment, we must respectfully protest against the pas-^age of the tariff on the 
 items as proposed, and express the honestly -felt opinion that the tariflf on tbese arti- 
 cles, as now levied, does amply protect the interests of the manufacturer. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 A. A. Bennett; Powell Clement; The Pickering Hardware Company; Baudle 
 Arms Company, per Alex. Bandle ; Johnson Brothers; Kruser Bahlmann ; 
 B. Kittridge; The Pappenheimer Hardware Company, L. Pappenheimer, 
 President. 
 
'88 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The foregoing protests were sent as soon as it was known what the " Senate substi' 
 tute" proposed to do with guns and cutlery, and after the visit of the delegation from 
 the Wholesale Hardware Association, who left with the Senate committee au analysis 
 of the proposed rales. It seems a revision was made lowering the rates somewhat, 
 but leaving them quite :is obnoxious as before, and this revision of rates was not 
 announced until a day or two before the discussion in the Senate took place (January 
 20, 1889), so that no' one outside the committee had any information as to what 
 changes had been made. Senator Platt,.of Connecticut, stated on the floor of the 
 Senate chamber during the discussion (Congressional Record, January 20, 1889, page 
 1022): 
 
 "There was great objection made to the duty as proposed originally in the Senate 
 bill. It was made by jobbers ; it was made by merchants as well as importers ; but 
 I understand that except at the hands of importers there is no serious objection on 
 the part of American merchants and jobbers to the present proposed amendment of 
 the Committee on Finance." 
 
 It will be understood that the merchants and jobbers had not been given a chance 
 to know what the amendment was, and it will also be seen that their protests covered 
 the point against any increase of duties on cutlery and gnus over the present law. 
 We do not know it it is in contemplation to advance the duties on these good.o, but 
 we have thought it desirable to place a few facts before your honorable committee 
 hearing ou this matter. If it is contemplated to advance these goods, we shall ask 
 the privilege of a hearing before your honorable committee. 
 
 Very respectliilly,' yours, ' A. H. Saxton, 
 
 President Wholesale Hardware Association. 
 
 New York, Decemicr 2G, 1889. 
 
 ANVILS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF CLARKE FISHER. 
 
 Mr. Clarke Fisher, of Trenton, N. J., manufacturer of anvils, next addressed the 
 committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear here to defend an article 
 of manufacture which has never been submitted to Congress during the whole time 
 of Government. It is the first impl mcut known to mankind ; itis the anvil. Al- 
 though it is a very common article, it is very little known how it is manufactured and 
 how the necessity which requires protection originated. First it was composed of a 
 block of wood, which was used to hammer something out on. From that it came to 
 the simple block of iron. Now, (o meet the requirements of the age, it shouldhave a 
 hard steel surface, tempered, with as good steel as is required for a razor and as hard 
 as a file. The anvils useil in this country have always been made until recent years 
 in Gerraanv and England. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Made by Peter Wright? 
 
 Ml. Fisher. Peter Wright. The anvil it is made by first taking a large lump of iron 
 and forging it under a trip-hammer. Afterward it is taken to the forge, and a piece 
 of fine steel is heated in one forge and this mass of metal is heated in another, and then 
 the two metals are placed together and four strikers work the two together by pound- 
 ing ou it with sledge-hammers. This has to be ground and reheated until hard, and 
 if rhe job has been a perfect one in this work the steel remains and it is a complete 
 tool. On accouut of the high cost of labor of this mannfacturo in our country ascom- 
 liared with England and Germany there has noverbeen any duty sufficient to establish 
 the manufacture here. The duty on anvils, which is a piece of complicated work, 
 has been the same as on nuts and washers, 2J cents a pound up to 1883. In that year 
 the duty was reduced to 2 cents a pound and the importation increased correspond- 
 ingly, while these crowbars which ore a single piece of iron rolled and hammered, 
 with very little labor, rernainedat the same duty. .$500,001) worth of crowbars, nuts 
 and washers were iiiiptnteil in 1887 and :{;l,.''iOO,000 worth of anvils were imported at2 
 cenlsaponud. The only thing to in-even t their being imported altogether was one 
 or two small niaiinf.-icl nreis. Before these American niannfaetnrer.s attempted to 
 make them the entire importation was made abroad, and anvils sold at 18 and 20 
 cents pel- ponnd. Now wo have reduceil the selling price of anvils until the black- 
 smith geis bin anvil at fiom 9 to 12 cents a ponnd. In the Senate bill the tarriff is 
 left at 2 ci/nts, but dircelly afterwards you find a provision in which iron and steel 
 combined — wliieli is certainly au auvil — .shall receive 2.i cents per pound protection. 
 But the anvil, which is that identical thing has only 2 cents protection. This is evi- 
 denlly an inadvertence. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Anvils are nientioucd and they are covered under a specific clause. 
 
 Mr. Fisher. Precisely. But they are identically the same thing, as the provision 
 which provides that forged iron and steel combined shall receive 2.3 cents per pound 
 protection. 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIPP. 89 
 
 Mr. Bayne. The anvil is the highest representative of that class of work. 
 
 Mr. Fisher. An anvil comes nnder the head of "steel and iron forged and tem- 
 pered " also, like a piece of cntlery. All this work on cutlery is forged on the anvil, 
 and that anvil mnst be of equal valno. Yet it is put down at the same rates as nuts 
 and washers, which are turned out by the thousand tons with little or no manual 
 labor, whereas the anvil is almost all labor. - 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you import the materials to make the steel ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. No, sir. We formerly imported the best steel, but we are usins now 
 on the smaller and also on the larger sizes American steel. Steel costs .13 cents a 
 pound to put in that anvil. It is a higher grade of steel than that used in cutlery, 
 because, as any gentlemen can see, on account of the excessive striking of the black- 
 smith on the face of the anvil it must be able to stand that. The blacksmith's size 
 is about 150 pounds, and the steel on that is about that thick [illustrating]. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. About how many pounds of steel will that be ? 
 
 Mr. FisiiBR. About 16 or lb pounds ; 10 per cent. • 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Ten j)er cent, of 150 pounds would be steel ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. In the manufacture of these, unless the welding is perfect when the 
 final result of hardening takes place, on account of the difl'erence in expansion be- 
 tween the two metals, unless the temper of it is perfect, this anvil cracks straight 
 through and all your labor is lost, and it becomes scrap-iron. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What portion of the anvils in this country are imported, and what 
 manufactured here ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. About two-thirds of the anvils are imported. 
 
 Mr. Baynh. About one-third of the anvils are made here. 
 
 Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir ; made here ? 
 
 Mr. Bdfrows. Do you claim that we import a third and that two-thirds were 
 made here ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. No two-thirds were imported and one-third made here. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What does a good anvil sell for? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. The price in England for Peter Wright's anvils is about 6i cents. But 
 you can buy German anvils for 3 or 4 cents. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You mean in this country? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. In this country an American anvil sells for about 8 cents and the 
 English anvil sells for about 10 or 11 cents. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. We consume many in this country? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How does it happen that you get a smaller price than the English 
 anvils bring ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. Because there is an old idea that no anvil is good except an English 
 anvil. The English anvils ring and the American ones do not ; and the ringing has 
 been considered a test in buying !in anvil. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. From your statement is it necessary to increase the duty ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir ; becaue it will enable us to manufacture the same kind of 
 anvil in this country. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Yours are different from the English ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir. We make that request because the labor is so high it requires 
 a vast capital to go into it. But if we knew the duty was to be continued we could 
 get the whole manufacturing done here. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What duty would you suggest ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. If you put anvils among the forgings which pay a duty of 2.3 cents 
 that would be satisfactory. It is identically the same thing and certainly it is con- 
 sistent to put them among forgings of iron and steel. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. How much will it enhance the cost to the consumer? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. It will reduce it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. How do you get at that ? 
 
 Mr. FiSHi'.R. We will make a larger quantity and we will make it cheaper in large 
 quantities than in small. 
 
 Mr. MciliLLiN. If it reduces the price of the anvil, I do not see how it euables you 
 to manufacture more. 
 
 Mr. Fisher. Because we make more of them. We do not expect a great reduction . 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The difference is the price paid for the steel put in your anvils and 
 what the English manufacturer pays for the steel he uses. • 
 
 Mr. Fisher. He gets it cheaper over there. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Your experience is, then, that the English steel sells cheaper than 
 American steel in England as well as in America? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. It sells cheaper over there. If we buy the best English steel we have 
 to pay a little more th.in for American. We can get that for half a cent a pound less. 
 
 Mr. Cahlislb. You are speaking of imported steel ; but my question is this: The 
 English manufacturer of anvils gets his steel cheaper in England than you get Amer- 
 ican steel in America ? 
 
90 REVISION OF THE TARIFt^. 
 
 Mr. FiSHEE. I do not know about that. I do not know what they pay; I only 
 know about the labor. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. But you have bought English steel. 
 
 Mr. Fisher. I bought it here, not there. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. After taking the duty from it would not the price be lower than 
 American .steel? 
 
 in. FlSHEE. Perhaps a little. I think the duty is only 2 cents. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How long have you been in this business » 
 
 Mr. Fisher. This business was originally started in 1847— forty years ago. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. By you ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. By my father. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. But you have been connected with it ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How many other establishments are there in this country making 
 anvils now as far as you know 1 
 
 Mr. Fisher. I think there is a small one now in Illinois and there is one somewhere 
 in Connecticut. 
 
 Mr. Carhsli;. Making three? What causes the English anvil to ring and the 
 American anvil not to ring? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. Because it is made of a very low grade of iron — fibrous iron — and that 
 ringing of the auvil lias beeu the ruling test with the blacksmiths. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Does it require any more labor to make an anvil which rings than 
 it requires to make one which does not ring ? 
 
 Mr. FiSHEE. No ; it is the labor in both cases. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. There is no greater labor required in one case than in the other? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. I think I should say it is a higher grade of labor. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Which ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. The ringing iron. That is to ^ay, it requires men who have had longer 
 experif-nce — the men who do that work. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Would a person acquire that experience in a period from 1847 up to 
 tl)is time? 
 
 Mr. FiSUEE. He would have died before this time. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It is a mere matter of experience. 
 
 Mr. Fisher. No, sir; it is a matter of wages. We can not get these men, because 
 the men iu this country would want such excessive wages that we could not keep in 
 business. This business has come from one genei-ation to the other. A man does the 
 work his father did before him. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you think you could take a man and teach him to make them? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir. • 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How long would it take a man to learn to make them? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. I think they serve an apprenticeship of six or seven years. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the difference iu wages? 
 
 Mr. FisiiEU. In England they get 90 cents to fl.lO ; here they want |2.50 to $2.75. 
 
 Mr. "Carlisle. That same English labor which is requisite to make an anvil which 
 ring.s gets 'JO cents to §1.10 ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. And the same men here want |2.50 to .$3. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Suppose yon manufactured that kind of an auvil. Do you think 
 you could g't some of that skilled labor at the price you pay? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. Wo would try to apply machinery. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Y^ou do not want the labor, but you want the machinery. 
 
 Mr. Fisher. We want to pay the laborer wages to do the same work with the aid 
 of machinery. 
 
 Mr. Cai'.lisle. If you do your work by machinery and they do theirs by hand, 
 can you make a percentage of difference between the cost of the labor in one case and 
 the cost of pure manual labor in the <ither? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir. We hope to do this if we have encouragement to go into 
 this work. Tlien Ave will try to suxjcrsede, if possible, cheap labor, skilled labor, 
 with the aid nf macbimry. At present all we ask for is to give us the tariff as it was 
 before tbe reduction in luki, or, which is pretty nearly the same thing, to include anvils 
 in that pai.igr.ipb cf forgings of steel and iron comb'iued. If you will do that we will 
 ask nothing better, although it is a low duty. Here is a common nut [exhibiting it] 
 which is nothing but a piece of iron, and on that piece of iron the same duty as on 
 this rinvil. The duty has been sufficient to keep them out. 
 
 Mr. McMlixiN. It is ]irohiliitory. 
 
 Mr. FisiiEE. Yes, sir; we can make nuts cheaper than they can in Europe. 
 
 Mr. Cai;usle. There niu.st bo an uujust discrimination between the anvil and 
 the steel of which it is niiide in the niatl^er of duty. 
 
 M'-. FisuKR. I think so; and if you make it what we think is just we will he 
 entirely salisfieil. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do I understand you to say that there is a prohibitory duty on nuta 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 9l 
 
 and that -we make them cheaper in the United States than they do in England 
 to-day'? 
 
 Mr." FisHEK. Yes, sir. I bought nuts last year by the car load lots at 2f cents a 
 pound, and the iron alone was worth 1.9 cent. The same goods in England could not 
 he had for less than 3 cents. Tlioasauds of tons of these nuts are made in this coun- 
 try and none are imported here. Yon will find in every iron locality manufact^ies 
 of nuta, spikes, and washers. By looking at the list of importations you will find 
 that the importation of last yaar is something like a few thousand dollars. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. How many establishments do you say manufacture or have been 
 mannfacturing anvils ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. There have been about twenty to twenty-five. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. How many are left now ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. Probably none except our own. There may be some small ones which 
 make anvils for the miners of Colorado, which are made of poor material. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. How do you account for this falling off? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. There is no money in it. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. What do you mean ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. I mean to say they can not get a price high enough to pay for the 
 labor expended in making the anvils and for the material. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. What would be the effect of lowering the duty ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. That would be to get out of the business. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Why ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. Because we would be losing money, and the price of anvils would go 
 right up. That would bring the price right up again. 
 
 Mr. Borrows. Since you commenced tlae manufacture in this country the price has 
 gone to the lowest point? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. It was IS to 20 cents, and it has gone down until now the retail price 
 for our anvils is 8 cents and the wholesale about 5J. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Suppose the duty is increased so that the manufacture of them in 
 this country would be fostered ; would it chauge the price ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. It would not change the price ; but would simply make a greater mar- 
 ket. If anything the price would go down ; it would never go up. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That would employ more labor ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir ; it would, and give them good wages. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If other people went into the business here on account of the in- 
 creased duty why would not the etfect of the competition upon you be just the same 
 as the effect of the competition you now have? 
 
 Mr. FiSHEK. Because they are among our own people. It is like any other business 
 here. We have been in the business and understand the making of it, and our expe- 
 rience counts for something. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How would this continued competition among your own people pre- 
 vent its having the same effect as the foreign competition ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. I do not know how it is ; but it is so. In one respect we have an ad- 
 vantage in our experience ov^er a new business. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It might help you individually and the manuftictnrej's of anvils in 
 this country generally — that kind of legislation which benefits you individually to 
 the exclusion of all others. 
 
 Mr. Fisher. We do not ask that. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. The reason is it makes it a more prosperous country and increases 
 the demand for the article. 
 
 Mr. Fisher. It is better to have a hundred in the business than one. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. But people going into the manufacture of anvils do not make more 
 sale for the anvils. 
 
 Mr. Fisher. There are a great many anvils required and there are now shipped a 
 low grade of German anvils. It is of more interest to have a good anvil made here 
 than to buy a l)ad one from abroad. 
 
 Mr. McXliLLiN. You speak of the diminution of the price of anvils in the experi- 
 ence you have in the business from lei cents down to 8 or 9. Is it not a fact that by 
 the Bessemer process there has been a cheaper production of steel ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. No, sir. We have to use the very best of steel. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But the cost of making steel and iron has vastly diminished from 
 what it was at the time you spi'ak of? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. No, sir; the cost of crucible steel, which we use now, has not varied 
 over 2 or Scents a pound in twenty-five years. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But there has been a reduction? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. The reduction has been very slight, but still it is one. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Then you say you have introduced machinery into the anvil man- 
 ufacture instead of making them by hand? 
 
 Mr. FiSHEK. No, sir ; we make them all by hand. I said that in case we had suf- 
 ficient business to go into the manufacture by. machinery we would do so. 
 
92 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The reilnction in tlie price of steel is between 2 and 3 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Fisher. I do uot think it is over 2 cents. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Tliat will be '.''0 cents on an anvil. 
 
 Mr. Fisher. But our redaction on anvils has been nearly 150 per cent. 
 
 Mr. JIcMiLLiN. 1 embrace in my inquiry both iron and steel, and you say there has 
 been no great reduction iu the cost of iron. 
 
 Mr. Fisher. No, sir; I said iu steel. 
 
 Jlr. McMiLLiN. Your anvil is made iu a large degree of iron — nine-tenths of it. 
 Has theio not been a rerUiction of more than one-half in the cost of iron in the forge ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. No, sir ; iron sells for about $21 a ton. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But you know there has been a reduction in iron in the last few 
 years. 
 
 Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir; but the iron we use is an extra quality. It is not the com- 
 mcu iron. The iron fluctuations have not been so great in our business. That is not 
 all. The iron part is only a portion of the cost of the anvil. The great cost is for 
 labor. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I was asking mainly about the material. You sell it by the pound 
 and I was proposing to show that there was a reduction iu the cost of material of 
 which you make it. 
 
 Mr. Fisher. The reduction in the cost of an anvil would be very slight. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much reduction in the price of refined iron has there been in the 
 last twiiuty-five years — about how much 7 
 
 Mr. Fisher. I sujipose it is 30 per cent, cheaper than then. ♦ 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Then you think the imposition of duty upon iron has not increased 
 the price ? 
 
 Mr. Fisi-IER. Wo do not object to a duty on Iron. I think without the duty you 
 would not have any iron produced, because people would not embark in this iron 
 business. I Icnow 1 would not put in a blast-i'urnace. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. ?lave you any money in a blast-furnace? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. I have no interest. 
 
 The Chairman. You tliink if we were dependent upon foreign iron we'would pay 
 higher piices than now ? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. 1 know I bought Scotch iron a good deal higher, and* now American 
 iron has come in and reduced the price to a great extent. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLix. I thought you said there was very little reduction f 
 
 Mr. FisiiKR. I said foreign iron. I said it was Scotch iron, and by the American 
 manufacture of iron tliia Scotch iron is much lower. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. You arc inclined to think that if you increase the supply of any 
 article, the <I<',mand being the same it reduces the price? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. Always. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do thi>e foreign people counterfeit your anvils? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. The Germans send over the anvils marked "Trenton, New Jersey," 
 and we frequently get complaints from our customers about the goods. They do not 
 put our name on them, but they put " Trenton " on them, which is about the same 
 thing because we are the only manufacturers. If we get the duty we ask we will 
 want nothing more from you gentlemen. 
 
 Substitute for paragraph 429 in Senate bill the following — "Anvils or parts there- 
 of, of iron or steel, or of iron and steel combined, by whatever process made, or in 
 whatever stage of manufacture, 2.3 cents per pound. 
 
 TIN-PLATES. 
 STATEMENT OF "WILLIAM C. CRONEMETER. 
 
 Mr. William K. Cronemeyee, of Pittsburgh, Pa., next addressed the committee. 
 He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I come here to represent the Amer- 
 ican Tiu-Plate Association, the object of which is to try and foster the tin-plate in- 
 dustry, a thing whicli does not exist at the present time. The industry was killed 
 right from its start by a decision made by Secretary Featherstono in 1864. At that 
 time tliclaws impo.sed upon tin, or iron coated with tin, a duty of 2^ cents a pound. 
 It was (lecidcil by Secretary Feathoratonc that that did not mean iron plates coated 
 with I ill, but tluit tin-plates should be cl.assilied with tin in sheets and pay an ad va- 
 lorem duty at 1liat time of 15 per cent. An attempt was made several times to man- 
 ufacture tin-plates but very iinsuccessfnlly. The mannfaoturers who went into the 
 business at that time were very much misled by the high ijriees we hadto pay out for 
 the English tin-plale.s, and they could figure it out at a very good profit at thesd 
 
REVISION OP THE TAEIFP. 93 
 
 prices. Now, the firm with which I am connected is the United States Tin-Plate 
 Company in Pittsburgh. There were two corporations there that went into the busi- 
 ness of manufacturing tin-plates and were very successful for a year or two. 
 
 The Chairman. What year was this ? 
 
 Mr. Chonbmeybr. Ib73, 1874, and 1875 We were making a good profit. 
 
 Mr. Gear. There was a premium on gold thenf 
 
 Mr. Cronbmeybr. Yes sir. There was some premium on gold. At that time we 
 were making some money out of the business, and wben we had hardly got started 
 the price came down till the price got to $4.50 for some classes of goods, and that of 
 course knocked us out of the market altogether and we had to give up. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Will you state what the tin-plates sold for ? 
 
 Mr. Cronbmbybr. They sold for $12 and they came down to |4.50 ; besides our mill 
 there were two other mills started simultaneously. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. In what year was this selling for $12. 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. In 1873. We gave up the business in 1876, We were forced out 
 of it ; and we then engaged in the manufacture of sheet-iron of various kinds. lu 
 1879, when we were supposed to be entirely out, the price of tin went up to |9 or $10. 
 We immediately started again, and we had only scarcely started in than the price 
 went right down. Of course we investigated how that was shortly after we had 
 started, and we found out the importers when they learned we were making tin-plates 
 would put down their prices so as to kill us off; when they thought they had us 
 dead they would put all the prices up again. It was always just this way. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Have the producers in England an association t 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. A tin-plate association 1 I think they have. Yes, sir ; I am 
 sure they have. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. They authorized that scale of prices ? 
 
 Mr. Ceonbmey'ER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Have you been in the manufacture of this article since 1879 ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. We have in a small way. This is what 1 came here to say : An 
 argument has been made that we can not manufacture tin-plates 
 
 The Chairman. Tell the committee what a tin-plate is. 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir. I have samples here ; and I would like to demonstrate 
 just what a tin-plate is, and how it is made. 
 
 Mr. BuEEOwa. Are we manufacturing any in this country now ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. No, sir. There are no tin-plates manufactured in this country 
 at present. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much did we use ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. The consumption during the last fiscal year ending June 30, 
 1889, was 360,000 net tons. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Including terne-plates ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. And terne-plates. That is, we are consuming that amount of 
 sheet-iron. We think this industry in this country is hampered and interfered with 
 by this tin-plate tariff, so that sheet-iron manufacturers are really always in a 
 qaandry as to how to meet the competition on tin-plates. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Please state the diflerence between a terne-plate and a tin plate. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I think it would be a good idea for you to begin at the lowest grade. 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Here, then, is a piece of common sheet-iron. Sheet-iron like 
 this has a duty of 1.2 cents on the pound. This is wire gauge No. 26. 
 
 Mr. Flower. And the tin on it? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. It has not been prepared with tin. It is the common or black 
 iron. Now, here is a piece of charcoal iron that is pickled. This is a better grade 
 of iron. It is grade No. 23, pickled charcoal iron. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is the duty on that ? 
 
 Mr. Ceonemeybr. It is the same as the other. 
 
 Mr. Caelislb. It is subject to the same duty when pickled. 
 
 Mr. Cronemkyke. No, sir. That was the intention, as 1 understood, in the last bill. 
 I must correct myself there. This is No. 26, and pays a duty of 1.2 cents instead of 
 1.1 cents. This is a piece of soft steel, cold-rolled. No. 25 gauge. This is iron that 
 would come in at 45 per cent, ad valorem. It is identically the same article as this 
 [illustrating] but it comes in under a different class simply because it is given an- 
 other name. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Same as what ? 
 
 Mr. Ceonemeybr. About the same as the charcoal iron. It looks^the same and 
 works the same, and it is the same. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. There is a difi'erence between tlie duties all the way through be- 
 tween charcoal iron and other iron ? 
 
 Mr. Ceonemeybr. I believe there may be some classed with heavy plates, but not 
 on sheet-iron. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. There is a difference between steel and iron all the way through. 
 
 Mi. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir. There is a diiierence there simply because sheet steel 
 
94 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 lias come into the mariet lately, and was not provided for especially under, the last 
 tariff act. Thirty-five per cent, ad valorem is the duty. Here is some iron made at 
 our works. It is No. 34 cold-rolled tagger, seven one-thousandths of one inch thick. 
 That is something that requires the most skilled lahor to make. That piece there 
 pays 1-i cents. This is iron ore for which on the other sidi^ they probably pay 3 
 cents a pound, 30 per cent, ad valorem. That would he near nine-tenths of a cent. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is this iron or steel? 
 
 Mr. Crojjemeter. This is a piece of steel. 
 ' Mr. Flowek. How many do they require to the inch ? 
 
 Mr. Ckonbmbtek. Seven one-thousanths to each inch, that would be about 126 layers 
 to 1 inch ; 34-wire gauge, that is. Now, there is another anomaly there. When this 
 comes in it is made out of steel that only pays 30 per cent, ad valorem. When this 
 sheet-iron is made out of steel, as sheet-iron it would have the higher duty and it is 
 brought in for 4.5 per cent. So while the duty is 45 per cent, on iron it is only 30 per 
 cent, on steel. That is a thing that certainly should be changed. 
 
 Mr. Caklislb. What kind of iron is this? 
 
 Mr. Ceonembybr. This is an iron we can not get in the regular run of this husi- 
 ness. There are several ingredients in this iron which fit it for this business. 
 
 The Chairman. Does the steel pay less duty than iron ? ^ 
 
 Mr. Ceonembyer. It pays the higher duty simply because it was so decided. It is 
 commercially known as tagger's iron, and it pays when made out of steel 30 per 
 cent. There is a very large amount of this iron used in this country, and nearly all 
 of it is imported from abroad. 
 
 The Chairman. What are they for ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemrybr. For photograph plates, signs, show plates, etc. These ordinary 
 grades we can not make. If the tarifi' was properly adjusted it would come on 
 the sheet-iron list at li cents, and if we could get If on these light sheets we could 
 make the whole class and all this tagger's light iron. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You are protected by a patent on this particular grade V 
 
 Mr. Cronemeybr. It is not a patent. It is simply a secret we have got, which, of 
 course, we will have to keep to ourselves. 
 
 Mr. McJIiLLix. That is right. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Why do you call that tagger's iron? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeybr. I really can not say. We have a supposition that the reason 
 is because the word meaning to make tagger's is the German word which means 
 beaten plate. So I suppose that has some relation to it, because it is used as a tag for 
 certain things. After that iron has gone through these different processes it is pickled 
 and cold rolled 32-gauge. Still that is classed as tagger's iron. It is sheet-iron in a 
 finer form. This kind is put in at 30 per cent, ad valorem. This is iron as it is in 
 condition for tin-plate. That iron has been first rolled in the common ordinary way. 
 Then it is pickled with acid so as to take away all the iron oxide and to clean it. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. This pays one-fourth of a cent more duty than common tagger's 
 iron according to the law. 
 
 Mr. Cronbmbyer. Now, gentlemen, I believe that is the law, hut I have not heard 
 anything of the duty being imposed. It always comes as commercial black tagger's 
 and pays 30 per cent, ad valorem. It is boxed up in boxes. This is the way it is 
 boxed [illustrating]. It is thenready for dipping. After we clean it by acid we an- 
 neal it. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. What do you mean by annealing t 
 
 Mr. Ckonembyee. We put them in cast-iron boxes, air-tight boxes mostly, but we 
 use wrought-iron boxes for it now. We leave it sitting in a glowing hot fire for 
 about twenty-four hours, which makes it soft and ("liable. When we get through 
 with that process it is cold rolled. After that process we have to anneal it again a 
 second time. That annealing generally forms a very slight coating on this iron, and 
 this is taken off by dipping it in a bath of sulphuric acid. After it comes out of the 
 bath it is then rubbed off with palm oil and tallow, so that any acid that may be 
 upon it is taken off. Then it is dipped in a bath of molten tin and it gets covered 
 with tin. We then go further with it and dip it in another bath of tin, which is 
 called in the language of the workmen " second bath." This is best refined tin. It 
 is dipped in that and brushed off with the end of a brush uniformly all over, and 
 after that brushing it is again dipped in a bath of molten palm oil and it is there 
 rolled. It is rolled on horizontal rolls which take the sheet down one way and up 
 the other by the use of machinery. Two rolls take the sheet down and twobriugit 
 np. Then it is called finished tin-plate. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Which of- those processes do you call picj<]ing? 
 
 Mr. Ceonbmeyer. The cleaning of the idat'e by the use of acid. 
 
 Mr. Baynk. They go through that process and the plate which you hold in your 
 hand comes out? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeybr. This is the plate produced. [See plate marked A. P.] This is IX 
 tin. 1 believe I was asked if we have made any plates since that time I speak of. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 95 
 
 a 
 
 Wo have made some little plates just for demonstratiug aud showing it could be 
 made in this country, and because it has been said we could not make the iron, which 
 certainly was not true. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is the price of tin-plate ? You say it sold for |12; what is it 
 to-day ? 
 
 Mr. Gronemeyee. That same plate would bring about $7. It has gone up since 
 from $4.50 to $7. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you mean |7 in the foreign market ? 
 
 Mr. Ceonkmeyi:r. No ; in New York, duty added. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is that IX ? 
 
 Mr. Cronbmeyer. I am speaking of IC. This is only from $5.40 to |7. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is IX? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyek. One dollar to |1.50 higher, according to the market. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Where is this mill located? 
 
 Mr. Cronemby'ER. It is located iu Allegheny County, in McKeesport. This mill 
 we have has a capacity of 6,000 tons of iron per annum. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You said there were two others betwecu 1873 and 1876 ? 
 
 Mr. Crokbmeyer. Since that time there have been established mills for the manu- 
 facture of various kinds of iron, and we have about twelve mills fit to manufacture 
 iron for tin plates. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Where was the tin made which you hold in your hand ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. This was made iu England. [See plate marked E.] This 
 [illustrating] was made in Pittsburgh, in a little plant, just to demonstrate that we 
 could make tin plates. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. When was that made ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. In October of this year. If you gentlemen care to go to the 
 trouble to examine this English plate you will see it is the best grade. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You are an expert in the business? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. I have had fifteen years' experience in the business. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Which is the better plate ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. I do not want to say, sir, as I am making the plate; but I will 
 let any gentleman who understands tin plates give an estimate. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Why are the English plates of a lighter color thiin those you make? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. It is not a much lighter color. 
 - Mr. FlowI'.r. It looks so from here. 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. The difl'erence in color is only the kind of grease we use. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Have you completed your description of the method of manu- 
 facture ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemey'BR. I gave the last operation through which we put it, the rolling 
 process, the polishing rolls. They are simply rolls 6 inches in diameter, three rolls on 
 thetopandthreoon the bottom. Three are horizontal aboveand three beneath. They 
 are driven with gear, and they all run at the same speed. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. This is after the tinning ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir; after the tinning. They are turned through palm-oil, 
 and thus the tin gets the gloss. They would not be so glossy if they were not dipped 
 in palm-oil. They would have a dull color if they were not covered with the palm- 
 oil, which produces a gloss. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Would there be a profit in the business at |7.50 iu this country ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir ; if we have a guarantee that the price would not go 
 below $6.50 we would manufacture it. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Where did you get your tin from ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Block-tin ? 
 
 Mr. Flower. Did you get it In tliis country ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. We import the tin for the present. 
 
 The Chairman. It is free of duty now ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemuytbr. Yes, sir; and the price in New York for tin is always lower 
 than at Liverpool. 
 Mr. Flower. Is there any kind of tin obtained in this country? 
 Mr. CrOnemeyee. Mines are now being developed which promise good results. 
 Mr. Flower. Why do you not buy it hero ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. As soon as these mines are developed we will. As soon as you 
 give us a tariff on tin-plates, and enable us to manufacture tin-plates, we will cer- 
 tainly be developing tin mines hero. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You just said you had iirofit enough to make a profit on present 
 prices. 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. We could if you would gunraniy the price. Sinc<> we have 
 started in the business we are sure that just as soon as we do start the price will go 
 down. They will put the price down a certain amount and throw on tho market a 
 lot of their tin. I will tell you how they did: When we attempted this business here 
 before some importing houses sent their agents on tho track of our agents. When our 
 
96 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 agents went to a house to try and sell a lot of tin-plates, they woulcf send their agent 
 and make the price 25 cents less. In fact, they made the assertion that they would 
 sell tin-plates for 25 cents less than ours, no matter what the price was. Gentlemen, 
 this is the competition that this monopoly brougTit against us, and the competition 
 we have to contend against is one of the greatest monopolies that ever existed. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Are you familiar with the tin mines in the Black Hills ? 
 
 Mr. Crokembyke. Not very. But we have a little investigation going in regard 
 to it. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Being such old mines can they mine tin cheaper in the Cornwall 
 mines than in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. I am sure tin in the Black Hills is much cheaper than in "the 
 Cornwall mines, and it is nearer to the surface. They do not have to go down so far to 
 get the tin in the Black Hills. 
 
 Mr. BAYNE.'Tho proportion of tin on that sheet is comparatively small. 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir. On these sheets we put 6 pounds to the foot. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How will the relative value of the tin-plate compare with the price 
 of the sheet before the tin is put on ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeter. We put on 6 pounds, 20 cents ; and put 120 to the box. Then 
 we put on, in addition to the amount of tin, about one dollar's worth of labor to 
 bring that from the common sheet into a finished tin-plate. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Can we make as good sheet iron as England? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. We can do it as well as they can ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. And wo can cold roll it and anneal it as well as they can? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. We have all the facilities. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. We can import as good tin and make as good a product? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Can you make it as cheaply after you have fairly started? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. If we had the works running now we could. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Why don't you do it ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. We have done it twice, Mr. Flower, and we have twice lost onr 
 whole investments on it. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Did not the price go down abroad when it went down here ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. To some extent ; yes, sir. But the rule has been here that the 
 price of tin-plates has been a quarter of a dollar below the price we could make 
 hem for. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Now you say it is worth about |7. 50 per box, this certain quality, 
 this is the best quality, and the other is worth about $5. 50 ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. This is a special grade here, and the other has hardly any tin. 
 It is made of a common material, of iron, and made in a very slipshod way. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The best sells in the market, duty paid, at |7. 50 for one grade and 
 $5. 50 for the other. Is not the present price higher than last year ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. And for several years heretofore ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir ; about A3 to 40 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. There is what is called a boom abroad in iron and ore, to a certain 
 extent ? 
 
 Ml . Cronemeyer. Not so much here. We have to suffer on account of that boom. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Therefore, when the price went down here and you went out of 
 business the price did not rise immediately, did it ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. But very soon after it did go up. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. But it didn't go up until all the other prices were higher and its 
 productions went up ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. To some extent. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It just kept along with other things ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. It is more perceptible in tin-plates than in other commodities. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How soon after you went out of the business did they put the prices up ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. About six months, I think. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I presume you know the prices, as you are interested in this thing. 
 I presume you havakept yourself acquaiuted somewhat with the run of prices. Can 
 you get the i>rices from 1873 until the present time for tin-plates and furnish them to 
 the committee ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. I have not got them in my pocket, but they can be produced 
 here. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The prices abroad and the prices here, duty paid? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I will be glad if you will do so; and also state the times when yon 
 went out of business — each time you commenced and each time you went out. 
 
 Mr Geaji. Are not these tin-plates sold by agents in New York ? 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 97 
 
 Mr. Cronemetbk. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. BxjKROWS. I understood yon to say the foreign producers, through their agents, 
 followed your agents up and offered these tin-plates at 25 cents cheaper. 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. And in that way closed your industry upt 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir; it would not be a general decline, but they would 
 manipulate against us in that way. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. The price of tin-plates before the recent rise in prices was such that 
 you could not manufacture and sell them and make a profit t 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. We could make a small profit. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Such a profit as would justify you in engaging in the business? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes; but not on the prices before they rose. I mean at the 
 present state of the market. The market to-day is 33 per cent, higher than six or 
 eight months ago. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. In answer to Mr. Carlisle you said that the present prices are boom 
 prices. If they should decline to what they were before, could you engage in the 
 business and make a profit f 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. No, -we could not. It has always sold at about a quarter of a 
 dollar below its cost to us. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Since when did you go out of this manufacture f 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Since 1879. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Then at the prices from 1879 up to the recent rise you could not 
 make tin-plate at a profit If 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What was the price before this recent rise f 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. It ran from |12 to $4.50, and then it fluctuated between $4 and 
 $6 and $7.50, and as high as $9 in 1879. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Could you make that I C tin at $4.50? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. No, sir. The cost of making that tin-plate is about $5.50, and 
 that same tin they can make there for about $2.25 less ; in other words, the difference 
 in labor they pay for the same work is $2.25 to $2.50 in the different districts. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Will you state some uses to which tin-plate is applied? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. The uses are so varied and enormous that it would be difSoult 
 to state what all its purposes are. But it is used for kitchen purposes, dairy pur- 
 poses, canning meats, etc. There is a portion of the plate which is roofing-tin and 
 used for roofing houses. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the duty on the sheets which you use in making tin- 
 plates? What is the present rate of duty? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. On common I C tin the duty is 30 per cent. 
 
 The Chairman. I mean the sheet out of which you make tin. 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Thirty per cent, ad valorem. And if they get heavier than 29 
 gauge, it is 1^ cents per pound. 
 
 The Chairman. What gauge do you use generally t 
 
 Mr. Cronemeybr. Mostly 30 gauge. 
 
 The Chairman. That would be 30 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the duty on the tin-plate itself? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. It is 1 cent a pound, but if we take 28 gauge it is H cents per 
 pound; that is, on 28 gauge, the corresponding gauge of I X. 
 
 The Chairman. What would be the ad valorem equivalent on that tin. 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Twenty-five per cent. 
 
 The Chairman. Then the duty on the plate out of which the tin is made is higher 
 than the duty on the tin-plate itself? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Certainly. 
 
 The Chairman. There is no additional duty given for the additional labor in mak- 
 ing it into the tin-plate? 
 
 Mr. Ckonembybr. No, sir. When you go back to the raw material you will find 
 it higher in comparison than the finished article. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You made this one plate here? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You would not make any of these (referring to inferior plate) ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. How does the Senate bill suit you in regard to that industry? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. I think in the main it suits very nicely. I think those gentle- 
 men there have investigated the thing very thoroughly. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What would be the average ad valorem of the Senate bill ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. It would be about 50 per cent. There are different thicknesses, 
 from $1. 85 to $2. 15. ■ r 
 
 Mr. Bayne. The bulk of the tin made is of what gauge ^ 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. 28 or 30. 
 
 486 7 
 
98 EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. BA.TNB. What would the duty be on these two according to the Senate bill T 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. It would be $2.15 on the 28 gauge and on the 30 gauge also. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. So that the bulls; of the tin would be $2.1.5? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. The Senate biU includes the 30 gauge with the 28 gauge. All 
 below 25 is 1.4 cents per pound. 
 
 Mr. McMillan. What do you say the duty is by the Senate bill as proposed I 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. From $1.85 to $2.15. 
 
 Mr. McMillan. What wonld that be ad valorem f 
 
 Mr. Ckonemeyer. I can average that only about 50 per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMillan. It would be doubling the present duty J 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMillan. And on the other grades it would be more than doublet 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. A little more than double. It would be an equitable duty so as 
 to protect it as well as the crude material out of which the tin-plate is constructed. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Have you a statement of the comparative cost of a box of English plate 
 as compared with a box of American plate t 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Will you hand that to the stenographer so that he can have it printed 
 with your notes f 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. I have that, Colonel Bayne. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Will you furnish that to the stenographer if you can t 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir. Will you allow me to state what an enormous indus- 
 try this tin-plate would be if we ever have it at home ? I think I have mentioned 
 that there was during the last fiscal year some 360,000 tons of tin-plate manufactured. 
 This means about 500,000 tens of pig metal, about 500,000 tons of limestone, about 
 1,000,000 tons of coke, about 36,000,000 pounds of lead, and perhaps 1,000,000 pounds 
 of tin. So if this mine in Dakota or some other mine is developed we find the home 
 material right here. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How many men does it take to make this plate ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. I can describe it in this way : In a miU like ours — we have only 
 working four mills, in which we can produce about 4,000 tons in a year of these light 
 plates ; with 360,000 tons consumed it would take ninety mills. In our miU we em- 
 ploy about 225 men, which would show that it would take only in the tin-mills about 
 23,000 people. Again we come to the extra labor required in manufacturing pig 
 metal, getting the coal, getting the lead, tin, and lumber for boxing and the sulphuric 
 acid, and the amount of capital involved would be about $30,000,000. Of all these 
 men about 50,000 will support families — say 200,000 people — and 200,000 people wiU 
 supply money to other trades — the tailor, the shoe-maker, the butcher, and so on ; and 
 if all these people were together you would have a city nearly as big as New York 
 City. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Are the men employed in the mill now engaged in the finishing and 
 manufacture of sheet-iron f 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir ; we are making sheet-iron. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle The labor in the manufacture of tin-plates is quite a disagreeable 
 one on account of chemicals, I believe? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. No, sir ; that is one of the things people are greatly mistaken 
 about. It is the nicest kind of labor. You can go in any iron works and you will 
 find disagreeable elements attached. I would not be ashamed to have a lady go into 
 our tin works, and ladies would not be afraid to do some of the work assigned to the 
 women in our works, which is in the finisiiing department. They rub these sheets 
 off when they come from the bath, and they polish them with sheep-skins. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. But there are some parts of the work which are disagreeable to the 
 aborer employed, on account of the various chemicals and acids? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Not much so. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is it a healthy occupation T 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Just as much so and more so than a great many other indus- 
 tries. It is a great deal more so than making white lead and some other chemicals. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That is not mj question. Is it a healthy occupation ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. It is not injurious to them. They have to inhale a little sul- 
 phuric-acid fumes and the fumes of some palm-oil. They get used in a short time to 
 the smell of the palm-oil. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You say you made a little tin-plate lately at the exposition at Pitts- 
 burgh 'I 
 
 Mr. Cronemey-er. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You had employed a number of skilled workmen and workwomen t 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Did ladies and others visit that establishment? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 M 1 . Bayne. Have they ever complained about the offensiveness or anything there I 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 99 
 
 Mr. Ckonemeyer. Some of them of course felt a little smoke in their throats, but 
 the ladies -were there for hours, because the prooese was so interesting. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. If this industry were established in this country it would give employ- 
 ment to a great many men and women? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyek. Yes, sir. In England they have women to pickle the boxes. 
 They get wet feet and their dresses get wet, and we never employ women except in 
 the finishing process. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much would the increased duty afifect the prices of the common 
 household utensils ? 
 Mr. Cronemeyek. I cannot say how much. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Take a dozen pint-cups. That is a more familiar illustration. 
 Mr. Cronemeyek. I do not know about a pint-cup. These arguments have been 
 made against us in former years by the canners. To-day the cauners are on our side, 
 because they realize that when we can employ 500,000 people among the iron works 
 of Illinois, Pennsylvania, and in other States, the canners would have much better 
 trade from 500,000 people in tliis country than they would get from 75,000,000 people 
 in foreign countries, and that is the reason we are all on one side. 
 Mr. Bbbckineidgb. What kind of ore do you use to make plates ? 
 Mr. Cronemeyek. We do not manipulate our own ores, and we use mostly Bessemer 
 steel billets and charcoal iron. We can use very nicely a phosphorous ore. I might 
 say right there the nicest tin-plates I have seen made yet were made in Germany 
 from Bessemer steel. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. So far, what kind of pig have you used ? Bessemer pig ? 
 Mr. Ckonemeyer. We use regular forged iron — iron found right in the hills of 
 Pennsylvania. It is not a siiecially selected iron. It is a hematite iron that is found 
 in the Pennsylvania mountains, with a little Lake Superior ore, not necessarily Bes- 
 semer. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You say it is a composite iron? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyek. Yes sir. We use iron of ordinary quality, and of course it is re- 
 fined in a charcoal fire. It is reduced into a wrought-irou and run through a charcoal 
 fire. Of course the process is rather expensive, and the steel-plate has taken the 
 place of the charcoal-plate. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. In what form do you buy your iron ? 
 Mr. Cronemeyek. In the form of pig metal and steel billets. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That is the basis of your industry. 
 
 Mr. Ckonemeyer. Yes, sir. This is the basis on which we started. There are some 
 other manufacturers of sheet-iron who can manufacture tin-plates and probably the 
 iron to make the billets themselves. They have the hearth furnaces to make the 
 plates. In regard to your question about cans : One pound of tin-plate will make 
 three ordinary one-quart fruit cans, and if this additional duty asked for was put on, 
 it would not equal more than a third or half a cent a can on a fruit can or can of veg- 
 etables. On a dozen fruit cans of tomatoes, which sell on the market for probably 
 $1.25 a dozen, the difference would be only about 3 cents more, which would be about 
 $1.28 a dozen, and the consumer will never feel these three cents. We do not propose 
 to add the duty if we can get a little more and get a guaranty. 
 Mr. Burrows. You would expect the rate would be cheaper than now ? 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. I believe so. 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. It would be held there for years t 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. I do not know. It would be more than two years. After we 
 get fifty mills in this country and exchange our ideas we can reduce the price by the 
 use of improved machinery and methods which they never thought of in the other 
 countries. Yon would be surprised to see some of the tin-workers who come over 
 here. They know their business, but when you ask them why they do a thing in a 
 certain way they say, "Because my father did it, and my grandfather before him," 
 and therefore they think they have to do it the same way. I will offer here a piece 
 which I clipped from the Ironmonger of A-Ugust 10, to show you how they regard it 
 over there. 
 Mr. Carlisle. Where is that published! 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. In London. 
 
 [From the London Ironmonger, August 10.] 
 
 " The efforts which are being made in the United States to familiarize the people of 
 that country with the idea that tin-plates can and should be manufactured there are 
 well worthy of the sustained att ention of the manufacturers of South Wales and Eng- 
 land. The promoters of the home-made plan are exceedingly pertiuacious, and are 
 leaving no effort untried in order to achieve success. At an exhibition to be held at 
 Pittsburgh this autumn the process of manufacture is to be carried on in a practical 
 manner, a sum of nearly £1,000 being expected to be laid out on the plant for the 
 purpose. It is anticipated that by thus interesting the American public, and show- 
 
100 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 ing "how simple the business is," the way will be made easier for pushing a bill 
 through Congress next session, having for its object the imposition of much heavier 
 duties upon imported tin-plates. Should this scheme succeed then there is no doubt 
 that a great deal of American capital wiU be promptly embarked in the business, and, 
 sooner or later, the tin-plate trade will cease to be a monopoly of South Wales and 
 Monmouthshire. Nevertheless, we see no reason why the manufacturers of tin-plates 
 iu this country need grow disheartened or despondent. They have the advantages of 
 possessions, position for shipment, trained labor, and all materials on the spot. These 
 are very important points ; but, in addition, the Welsh makers have strong allies in 
 the United States, and, if the alliance is made the most of, we should have very con- 
 siderable doubts of the success of any application to Congress to increase the present 
 duties. But to insure that result the Welsh makers and their business connections 
 must not only watch but work, and work hard, to checkmate the advances of the 
 American ultra-protectionists." 
 
 The Chaiuman. Is there anything further t 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyee. I believe I am about through, for my part. 
 
 Mr. Caklislb. Does this manufacture of tin-plates require a high degree of skilled 
 labor, or which any person of ordinary intelligence can perform ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. Any person of ordinary intelligence could be trained in that 
 business in six months. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. In regard to dipping ; do yon nse women and girls for that f 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. No ; I would not like to see them doing that. 
 
 Mr. Carlisi^e. I am not speaking of proposing to see them do that. I am simply 
 trying to ascertain the grade and skill requisite tor the conduct of such a business. 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. It requires for each tin stack, each tin hearth, several skilled 
 men, and they must be very skilled men, and there is some kind of ordinary skilled 
 labor which will be paid from about |2.50 to $5 a day. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is none of it less than $2.50 ? 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer. There are some that get $1.75. These are the men that keep the 
 fires under the pits going and then watch it during the night. Of course they will 
 be a little less. 
 
 TIN ORE IN DAKOTA. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 8, 1890. 
 
 My Dear Sir : As your committee has under consideration the question of the 
 tariff upon tin plates, one of the facts for consideration is as to whether or not this 
 country is capable, in any considerable degree, of producing its own tin. 
 
 During the past summer I spent a short time in the tin regions of the Black HUls 
 of South Dakota, visiting over a hundred mines and well developed prospects in the 
 Harney Peak, or South Hills region, and in the "Nigger Hill," or North Hills region. 
 My purpose was to satisfy myself as to whether or not there was a supply of any 
 great quantity of tin in that country. 
 
 The geology of this region is peculiar, and the whole question of the quantity of 
 ore and the cost of mining is an interesting one. 
 
 The fact that the tin deposits had been well known for several years and yet no 
 tin had been produced for commercial use, except in small quantities, led me to in- 
 cline to the opinion that the ore did not exist in paying quantities. I wUl not go into 
 details, unless you should so request, but as the result of my persoual examination 
 of a large number of mines and prospect shafts I became fully convinced that tin ex- 
 ists in very great abundance iu both regions of the Black Hills. 
 
 Stream tin abounds in the creeks and the ore deposits are plainly exposed and trace- 
 able upon the surface. 
 
 A want of adequate capital and lack of knowledge of the best methods of extract- 
 ing the ore have prevented the successful operation of the mines heretofore, bnt 
 money is now being freely invested in the Harney Peak region and an extensive out- 
 put of cassiterite may soon be expected. 
 
 In considering the tin question, in my judgment, the committee will be safe in 
 doing so upon the theory that the mines of South Dakota will be able to supply our 
 wants in the near future, and, in time, contend with Malacca and Cornwall in the 
 markets of the world. 
 Yours truly, 
 
 John F. Lacky. 
 
 )Iiiii, William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Ways and Meant Cvmmitiee, 
 
SfittStON OF THE tABli'S*. 101 
 
 VIEWS OF WM. H. McFADDEN. 
 
 American Meter Company, 
 
 Philadelphia, January 4, 1890. 
 To the Ways and Means Committee, Souse of Representatives, Washington, D. C. : 
 
 Gentlemen : An intelligent consideration of our interests as manufacturers, and 
 
 the interests of those in our employ, demands that we should present the following : 
 
 Any duty on tin-plates, much more any increase of the same, makes it the harder for 
 
 us to compete with foreign manufacturers not only in the markets of the world, but 
 
 also in our own home market. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 Wm. H. McFabdbn, 
 
 Vice-President. 
 
 CRUCIBLE STEEL. 
 
 STATEMENT OP 'WILLIAM METCALP. 
 
 Mr. William Metcalf, of Pittsburgh, Pa., manufacturer of crucible steel, next 
 addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen bf the committee : I hardly know why I am here to- 
 day, except we received notice in the public papers the committee wished to hear 
 iron and steel men, and Mr. Swank, our representative, sent for us. So far as I am 
 familiar with the working of the tariff in connection with the steel business, in which 
 I have been engaged for twenty-one years, I can only repeat the well-known fact 
 that the development of the steel industry in this country has reduced the price of 
 steel to the consumer in all grades from 30 to 50 percent, under our protective tariff; 
 so that the consumer of steel, the farmer, the woodman, the carpenter, the mason 
 and everybody who uses steel tools are getting their tools that much cheaper now 
 than they did before we had the tariff on steel, so we could manufacture it in this 
 country. The home competition has developed the steel plants and steel industry in 
 this country to such a degree that we can make steel equal in quality and in many 
 ways superior in finish to any that is imported. We do not ask any favor at all from 
 anybody anywhere in the world in these matters, and the whole question is simply 
 reduced to one of wages. There is no more to be said about it on our part so far as 
 the manufacturers are concerned. If we had a prohibitory tariff the price of steel 
 could not advance on account of exceedingly sharp competition among ourselves, 
 and if we had no tariff at all we Would not care about the competition of foreigners, 
 except as to the question of wages we pay in this country. 1 can not give the com- 
 mittee any information on this point, because I know they are much more familiar 
 with the labor of Europe than I am. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you happen to have any figures t 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. I have the figures, but they are all in the consular reports sent me, 
 which I have read with great interest for years, and we certainly know that wages 
 are from 30 to 50 per cent, lower than they are here. 
 
 As to the quality of the work, I will just give you an illustration in regard to the 
 iron which is used in Mr. Fisher's manufacture of anvils. They said it could not be 
 made. We got him to try ours, and they are using our steel to-day, and they admit 
 that it is as good as the best English steel. This is an illustration of mechanical 
 work. We will not take a back seat for anybody in the world in regard to material 
 used in steel. When we first began business in this country there was no suitable 
 iron ore in the country to produce finished steel and for making iron. The finished 
 steel was made exclusively from imported Swedish and Russian bars. To-day we are 
 making iron in this country which is very cloa6 to the finest iron produced in the 
 world, and it has advanced largely in regard to purity. Take the most iierfect iron 
 imported into this country and compare the difference in quality in steel made now 
 entirely of American materia] and the iinest imported Swedish material. To-day we 
 are entirely independent of the foreign market. I do not know that I have anytliiug 
 more to say. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You say you have been engaged in the manufacture of crucible 
 steel for about twenty-one years? 
 
 Mr. Metcalp. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I understood you to say that since you began the price had fallen 
 from 30 to 40 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr, Metcalf. From 30 to 50 per cent. 
 
 Mr. CjCbubiji, This la the price on the kind of steel yoa make f 
 
-10^ REVISION -OP*THE«TAltirP. 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. And you mate the kind of steel Mr. Fisher uses in the manofacture 
 of anvils ? 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Did you hear his statement this morning that his father and him- 
 self (he succeeded his father) had been engaged in this business for forty-seven years, 
 aud there had been no materia! reduction-in the price of steel he was compelled to 
 use ? Do you concur in that statement ? 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. I did not hear his statement ; but he told me, and it still remains a 
 fact, that the steel he is getting from us to-day is just as good as the best English 
 steel imported into this country, and for less money. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Which can make it the cheaper of the two t 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. I believe they can. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You stated this fact, that the character of steel he uses has fallen 
 30 to 50 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. In the general market, yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You spoke of the rate of wages there being 30 to 50 per cent, 
 lower than here. 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. It is somewhere about that average. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you speak of the daily wage ? 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. I speak of the daily earnings, whether paid in daily wages or 
 weekly. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Have you figured upon that so as to show how many dollars 
 yon pay to turn out a ton of steel, and how many dollars they pay? 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. I have iu our own business; so far as I have been able to get the 
 facts of the cost at SbefBeld, and so far as I have gathered thom from consular reports, 
 the average difference in wages among the steel workers of Sheffield and this country 
 is 30 to 50 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That is not an answer to my question. My question was 
 whether that related to the cost of the product and volume of the wage per unit of 
 article. 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. Of course, it affects the cost of production. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I think it does, but I am trying to get some information from 
 you on this subject. 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. It affects it entirely, except iu so far as the comparison of plant 
 might come. If they have a superior organization and plant than ours in Sheffield, 
 then with lower wages we would bo beaten all the time. If our plant is superior to 
 theirs, with oven our wages we could beat. I think with the same wages they pay 
 in Shetheld we could beat them 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then your statement is you pay 30 to 50 per cent, more on our 
 wage account per ton than they do, also the same amouut per day ? 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That distinction is not generally observed in the statement of 
 wages. 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. I know it to be so in our own particular business. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Can you conveniently refer to these statements in the foreign 
 reports or otherwise, showing the difference iu the payment per ton, aud furnish it to 
 the committee? 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. I can hunt it up. I do not know that I can give the exact authors 
 now, as there have been several. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am not asking for it now; I am simply asking if you can 
 find it. 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I wish you would furnish it to the committee, and it will be 
 incorporated in your remarks. 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. Yes, sir, 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You spoke of reducing the price of steel to the consumers of 
 this country. Has there been any corresponding decline in the price of steel in other 
 countries ? 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. No, sir; I think not. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. lias the price been maintained iu other countries? 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. So far as I know the simi)le fact is, when the English had this mar- 
 ket they kept np the price of liest ax steel in this market, and it was not sold in this 
 country in any quantity for hiss than 14 or 15 cents before 1860. Just as good steel 
 sells to-day at 7 cents or less. This is one illustratiou. If we did not have the ad- 
 vantage of the tariff wo would be paying from 14 to 20 cents to-day. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What is it worth in New England? 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. About 7 cents; but if we had no steel-works it would cost from 15 
 to 20 cents. 
 
 Ml. BATirB,.Will you state .what has been thei general trend of the market in ref- 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 103 
 
 erence to iron and steel t Yon lia-ve been in tbe business twenty-one years. What 
 has been the trend of prices f 
 
 Mr. Mbtcalf. It has been down all the time, and the quality has been improving 
 ■when the trend of prices has been downward all the time. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Thirty years ago I recollect paying $16 a dozen for axes, and now you 
 can buy these axes for |6.50 to $7, and you get a better ax. That is owing to the 
 fact that in your marJiet you have reduced the price for steel and thereby reduced 
 the price to the consumer. 
 
 Mr. Metcau. Yes, sir ; and largely to competition among the makers ; so if there 
 ■was a prohibitory tariff we could not give you higher prices in this country, owing 
 to this competition. 
 
 Mr. Bkbckinkidge. Do you make steel used in agricultural implements t 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. Some, but not very largely. It is made in Pittsburgh and I think 
 three, four, or five of the Eastern States; probably a dozen altogether. 
 
 Mr. BRECKlNRrDGE. I have seen it stated upon the authority of some manufactur- 
 ers of plows a year or two ago, and I think about St. Paul, that there ■was a pretty 
 close agreement among the manufacturers of steel to move np the scale of prices. 
 Is that true I 
 
 Mr. Metcaip. As far as I know there is no association making steel that has gone 
 into it, and has not been for years. I think it is a fallacy. The fact is to-day, al- 
 ^ough there is a boom in England and here, the price of steel has gone do^wn in this 
 country rather thai: up, because the competition is so sharp ve are not able to main- 
 tain the prices. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Has there been a corresponding decline in England t 
 
 Mr. Metcau. It has been going up there. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you make steel directljf from ere T 
 
 Mr. Metcalp. We start ■with pig-iron. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And what kind of pig-iron do you use ? Bessemer ? 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. We usually consume the Bessemer grade and some finer grades. We 
 grade ores according to the quality of the material we wish to produce in the end. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you produce billet steel? 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. Yes, sir. I should mention as a fact that there is a grade of steel in 
 this country that is not protected by the tariff at all. There is a tariff on it, but it is 
 not protected. It is not in any large bulk, so it is not so serious an amount, and that 
 is fine drill rods and wire and fine wire steel used for making clock springs and 
 watch springs. On this the tariff is no protection at all, and very little of that steel 
 is made in this country now for this reason. 
 
 The Chairman. Is it almost ■wholly imported f 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. Yes, sir. We have made some of it in a small way. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Ho^w many workmen did you have in that plant ? 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. About thirty. It was especially fine work, and it is something in 
 the nature of cold rolled work done on tin-plate, but only finer. There is a very large 
 demand for it at every small manufacturers, such as sewing-machine work and that 
 sort of thing. That branch of the steel trade is not protected at all. When you get 
 a tariff on it of IJ or li cents a pound it is no protection. In main-springs of watches 
 and hair springs, where the steel is worth |315 a pound, that mainly represents labor. 
 Mr. Gear. Where does that come from t 
 
 Mr. Metcalf. We sell the manufacturers some wire and cold-rolled steel ; but it is 
 imported largely. We simply make it because we can still supply and sell it at cost. 
 It is a mere matter of pride with us. The tariff does not protect this at all. 
 
 WIRE RODS AND WIRE. 
 STATEMENT OF GEORGE T. OLIVER. 
 
 Mr. George T. Oliver, of Pittsburgh, manufacturer of ■wire rods and wire, next 
 addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentleman of the committee : I appear before you to-day as 
 representing the manufacturers of wire rods and wire, which also includes barbed- 
 ■wire fences and wire nails. I come more for tbe purpose of answering any questions 
 and giving any information I may have on this subject than for the purpose of mak- 
 ing a studied address. Our people were heard at great length last year by the Sen- 
 ate Finance Committee, and at the same time and on the same day the gentlemen 
 who were interested in a certain line of our goods were heard, and you will find in 
 the testimony taken before that committee a very full report of the arguments on 
 
104 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 both sides, and some very valuable statistics furnished pro and con. We are vel^ 
 well satisfied with the existing tariff arrangement on everything except npon what 
 we assume is raw material — that is, wire rods. As matters stand now we are very 
 fairly protected on that. There have been times in the last five years in which we 
 practically had no protection at all. In regard to wire rods we would like to be 
 placed exactly where the act of 1882 intended to leave us, that is, with a spe- 
 cific duty upon all rods not smaller than No. 5 wire gauge. That is a little smaller 
 than this lead pencil, and the specific duty is six-tenths of a cent per ponnd. On 
 wire smaller than 5 gauge we would like to have a duty imposed upon wire of like 
 gauge down to No. 9 at about 1 cent a ponnd. 
 
 The wire-rod industry, gentlemen, Is one that I think peculiarly appeals to yon, 
 from the fact that to a great extent, almost altogether, it is the legitimate oflfspring 
 of recent tariff legislation. Prior to 1883 wire rods used in this country were pro- 
 cured almost altogether in Germany. Under authority of decisions of the Treasury 
 Department wire rods before 1883 were admitted at an ad valorem duty of 30 per 
 cent., which made it impossible for the mills of this country to manufacture against 
 such a duty as that; and what little mcnufacturing there had been was practically 
 discontinued, and the tariff act of 1883 found us entirely dependent upon a market 
 3,000 miles away from our raw material, and this material is very bulky, considering 
 it is made of steel and hard to handle, and subjected us to almost endless inconve- 
 nience in the matter of importations. In the mean time the wire business, which 
 was practically a small thing, received an impetus by the invention of the barbed 
 fencing ; so perhaps 50,000 tons would cover the manufacture of wire up to about 
 1876. That amount has gradually arisen with the amount of the barbed fence busi- 
 ness and the more recent growth of wire nails, until I am not mistaken in saying 
 that during the year 1890 we will manufacture in this country not less than 500,000 
 tons of wire. For all this wire, which amounted in 1863 to about 150,000 tons, we 
 were dependent upon Germany for our supplies. When the tariff commission made 
 its report in 1883 it recommended a duty of a cent a pound upon wire rods, and that 
 was a small duty in comparison with other articles in the iron and steel schedule, 
 and when the matter came before the House some Representatives, who thought they 
 were doing their duty to their constituents by getting them cheap fencing, insisted 
 upon reducing it to six-tenths, about 3 per cent. less. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. This was in the Senate. 
 
 Mr. Oliver. I beg your pardon ; I have the original motion of the House. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The House bill was never passed at all. 
 
 Mr. Oliver. The original motion for a reduction came from the House. In the 
 conleience committee the House occupied that position, and insisted upon six-tenths, 
 while the Senate was willing to grant 1 cent a pound. 
 
 The Chairman. We passed that in the House. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. We never passed that bill at all. 
 
 The Chairman. That was simply an expression on the part of the House. 
 
 Mr. Oliver. We got the price at six-tenths of a cent, and we felt very blue in conse- 
 quence, as we supposed increased importations would have to come with an increase 
 'of business. But some manufacturers (first the Cleveland Rolling Mill Company and 
 afterward the Hart Steel Company, of Pittsburgh, and some other concerns) figured 
 the thing down closely, and rather than submit to the exactions of the importers and 
 to depend npon Germany for our material we decided we would buy all our materials 
 here, and we did it. The result was that where the price of No. 5 wire rods in 1883 
 was, as I recollect it, about $54 a ton, when we started our mill in the winter of 
 1884, about February, it was about the same. When we were ready to begin operat- 
 ing the mill in the summer of that year it had fallen to |45 very suddenly, because 
 they were beginning to feel the competition of the home mills, and as the mills in- 
 creased the price fell, until in the summer of 1886, with five or six mills running and 
 supplying nearly half the wire used in this country, they brought the price down to 
 |35 a ton. 
 
 That lasted for nearly a year, until the German manufacturers finally began a syn- 
 dicate for their own protection, and advanced the price to $40 a ton. In ttie mean- 
 time, owing to the importers succeeding in getting the customs duties admitting rods 
 smaller than No. 5 at a duty of 45 per cent, ad valorem, it is a grave question as to 
 whether it was a good law or not. I do not believe it was ; but, however, they im- 
 ported it at 45 per cent, ad valorem, and No. 6 rods were for a great part of the time 
 at $1, $2, and $3 a ton below the six-tenths of a cent a pound which was imposed by 
 the act of 1883 upon No. 5 rods; so the rods imported during most of the time were 
 No. 6 rods, and these were what we had to compete against. It has been all uphill 
 work, gentlemen, for us to build up this business, but we have done it. We do not 
 want any other conditions except that we want you to give us the same duty you 
 gave in 1883, when we had no mills. I promised the Senate committee in behalf of 
 the manufacturers that if this be done at the time we appeared before the Senate 
 committee we would supply about two-thirds of the wire in this country and 6er> 
 
REVISION Of THE TARlft'. 105 
 
 matiy would supply the other third. At that time, about a year ago, I promised the 
 Senate committee that there would not only be no advance in the price of wire rods, 
 except, perhaps, an advance in the price of raw material, but that mills enough 
 would be built to supply the whole country. That promise has been fulfilled to-day. 
 We have to-day in operation, or in course of construction, enough mills running to 
 supply 519,000 tons of wire rods. . We estimate the basis upon previous years. 
 
 The demand for barbed fencing the next year will be about 250,000 tons. For wire 
 nails it will be about 150,000 tons, and we think for other kinds of wire it will be 
 something less than 100,000, making half a million in all. It is an enormous business. 
 It has been the growth of a very few years. In the matter of wire nails alone they 
 have grown since 1B83. In 1883 wire nails were imported by two or three manufact- 
 urers in the country and sold at a quarter a pound. To-day the wire nail has al- 
 most superseded cut nails. We supplied about 2,000,000 kegs to the country this 
 year, and the prospects for next year are that it will not be less than 3,000,000 kegs. 
 Simply at the request of one man a duty of 4 cents a pound was levied upon wire nails 
 by the act of 1883. 
 
 Mr. Gbak. They are supplanting cut nails entirely f 
 
 Mr. Olivbk. Entirely; and it is all owing to that duty of 4 cents a pound. The 
 man never anticipated it — did not expect it. He wanted to manufacture wire nails 
 for the consumers here which were imported from Germany, but he found when he 
 got to manufacturing them in quantity that he could manufacture them as cheaply 
 as cut nails. 
 
 Mr, Baynb. How are they selling now? 
 
 Mr. Oliver. Cheaper than cut nails, the same nails to the pound. I do not say 
 this because I am interested in the wire-nail business, but looking at it I can not see 
 any way other than in five years the wire nail will run the cut nail out of the business. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the price of the wire nail now ? 
 
 Mr. Olivek. To-day the lowest price is $2.80. The lowest sale was $2.10 last 
 summer. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Was that the lowest price? 
 
 Mr. Oliver. That was the lowest price. That was $2.10, and the present price is 
 $2.80. 
 
 Mr. Gbas. At the time the selling price of the wire nails was $2.10 the selling 
 price of the cut nails was $1.80. 
 
 Mr. Oliver. Something like that. One dollar and eighty cents was about the 
 lowest price at Wheeling, I believe. 
 
 Mr. Batne. How is barbed wire as to price ? 
 
 Mr. Oliver. When we went into the barbed-wire business first, in 1881, the 
 farmers of the country were getting the cheapest fences they ever had or expect to 
 have for9 cents a pound for barbed-wire fence. I sold this last summer at $2.55, de- 
 livered in Chicago. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Two dollars and fifty-five cents per 100 pounds? 
 
 Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir ; $2.55 per ICO pounds. I do not claim, gentlemen, that this 
 reduction has been altogether the result of protection. It has been brought about 
 by competition; but I do say if you had not given us in the act of 1883 duty enough 
 to enable us to manufacture wire rods in this country we would have been paying 
 to-day $50 and $60 a ton to Germany for rods, because the volume would have been 
 so great we could not possibly handle it, and we could not supply this country with 
 the articles of barbed wire and wire nails. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you sell rods ? 
 
 Mr. Oliver. We do not, but their manufactures. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is their market value ? 
 
 Mr. Oliver. It is about $50 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the price of steel billets ? 
 
 Mr. Oliver. Thirty-seven dollars in Pittsburgh. Rods are a little high, as they 
 have gone up lately, but there are three very large mills just about to start up. 
 Steel billets have gone up at least $10 a ton, and billets we bought last May are $27 
 a ton at Pittsburgh ; we could not buy for $37 a ton now. That means an equivalent 
 of $12 or $13 in wire rods, taking the waste into account. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You do not make billets ? 
 
 Mr. Oliver We buy our billets. I think, gentlemen, I can safely say that any 
 reduction in the duty on wire rods will cripple and hamper the mills now in opera- 
 tion, because a falling off in their manufacture would turn some not so well fixed to 
 other uses, and it would inevitably advance the pricefor barbed- wire fence and nails 
 rather than reduce it. We are to-day giving the country the cheapest nails and the 
 cheapest fencing they ever have known, and I think it will be cheaper in tbe future. 
 It is so shaped that I made a statement to the Senate committee that on the basis on 
 which I figure, allowing a jobber's profit and a dealer's profit, it would be something 
 like 3 cents a pound to the consumer. It enables a man to fence 160 acres of land 
 with a fence four strands high for something like $94. I have the statement here. 
 
106 EEVISION OP THE TAEIPP. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. This is ontside fencing. 
 
 Mr. Oliver. This ia for around the farm. 
 
 Mr. Borrows. Your goods are delivered at Chicago ! 
 
 Mr. Olivbk. The wire nails are sold at the factory, and the fence is sold delivera- 
 ble at Chicago. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridgi. What countries are competitors in your lines of goods J 
 
 Mr. Olivkr. We have no competitors now. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do any other countries manufacture them T 
 
 Mr. Oliver. No other country manufactures harbed wire. There is one license in 
 England and one in Germany, but they are barred from selling in this country. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. England is also manufacturing wire rodsf 
 
 Mr. Oliver. But England can not manufacture them as cheaply as Germany, and 
 we are not afraid of England. 
 
 Mr. Brickinridqe. The point I am referring to more particularly is not their 
 ability to compete, but that they do manufacture. Now it is manufactured there f 
 
 Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And in Germany also t 
 
 Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. In France T 
 
 Mr. Oliver. France is not manufacturing any, but Belgium is. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is this line of manufacture engaged in in any other countries of 
 which you know t 
 
 Mr. Oliver. No, sir; Sweden manufactures some, but generally Swedish manufact- 
 ure is higher. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The barbed fence is still controlled, I believe, by patents T 
 
 Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How long have those patents to run? 
 
 Mr. Oliver. They have about two years to run. That is, the main patents expire 
 November, 1891. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. At the end of that time the manufacturing of what we ordi- 
 narily understand as barbed wire fence would be an open industry f 
 
 Mr. Oliver. It ia practically open now, because almost anyljody who wants a 
 license can get it as tlie royalty is only f 1 a ton, which is 5 cents a hundred, and it 
 does not trouble the manufacturer at all. In fact in Governor Gear's state the patent 
 has been declared invalid. We continue, however, to pay a royalty. It is one of 
 those things which does not hurt us, and which our customers appreciate, so we pay 
 it. Another reason why we want to manufacture our supply here and buy what we 
 use here is the fact that it enables men with smaller capital to engage in the business. 
 Where we have to depend upon the basis of supply across the sea, it is necessary to 
 have much larger capital because you have to buy your supplies so far in advauce of 
 your wants in order to secure a constant supply, and yon have to have an enormous 
 amount of money locked up in it, and that is why men have been able to build works 
 in this country and engage in the business of manufacturing wire since the rod mills 
 have started up in this country. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Would that apply to other industries? 
 
 Mr. Oliver. That would apply to steel-billots, to pig-iron and everything. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I did not understand whether you were asking for a higher duty on 
 wire or not ? 
 
 Mr. Oliver. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You are asking that no reduction be made on wire rods? 
 
 Mr. Oliver. We do not ask a reduction on wire rods. Wire rod is lower to-day in 
 proportion than any other article of its class. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What size wire rod do you roll f 
 
 Mr. Oliver. No. 5. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. From what size rod do you make wire fence? 
 
 Mr. Oliver. From No. 5. Perhaps some of you gentlemen of the committee do 
 not understand what a rod is. The wire rod yon naturally suppose is a straight rod 
 of iron. It originally was, but with the improvement in the manufacture it comes 
 first in the form of a billet. A billet is a large square, and that is rolled down to a 
 coil about 1,000 feet long, a little smaller than this lead pencil which I hold in my 
 hand. This is done in about 18 passes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And in what rolls ? 
 
 Mr. Oliver. About 125. We find more economy in rolling large coils. That is 
 rolled, heated, and taken to the wire-mill and there treated with acids, etc., and 
 then it is drawn cold to the diiferout size of wire. So a wire rod is really a piece of 
 wire. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It is drawn to the size needed for actual use ? 
 
 Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir. What we wish to say is that the Senate bill of last session, with 
 the exception of one or two amendments which some people engaged in the fine wire 
 ■business would like to have made, embodies what we think we are entitled to. Th» 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 107 
 
 Finance Committee of the Senate went over the matter very oarefnlly, and they 
 thoughtthey dealt with us fairly. If you in your wisdom see ft to do something on 
 the same line for us we will he very well satisfied. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you use the same rod for wire of 9, 10, and higher gauges T 
 
 Mr. Oliver. The making of the wire of the finer sort is done by annealing after a 
 certain number of drawings. The wire becomes so hard we can not draw it further 
 without annealing. We put it in the annealing pit and then we draw it down. We 
 draw it as far as Nos. 33 and 34, where the wire is as fine as a hair. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiK. I believe you said your competition came from Germany rather 
 than England ? 
 
 Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir ; what competition we did have. 
 
 ARGUMENT OP THE NEW HAVEN -WTIRE COMPANY. 
 
 New Haven, Conn., August 6, 1888. 
 To the Committee on Finance, United States Senate : 
 
 On behalf of the New Haven Wire Company, which is compelled to buy its raw 
 material in the shape of wire rods either of American or foreign mills, and of about 
 twenty other wire mills similarly situated, I respectfully ask that the duty on fence 
 and rivet wire rods of either iron or steel, when valued at 1| cents per pound or less, 
 be fixed at four-tenths cent per pound. The larger wire mills roll their own rods, but 
 prefer to sell the product of their rod trains in the shape rather of finished wire than 
 of rods; so that those wire mills which have no rod trains are forced to pay high 
 prices for their American rods or use the foreign. In either case the price is deter- 
 mined by the cost of the foreign rods here, so that a reduction in duty would inure 
 to the benefit of all these wire mills, whether they use foreign or domestic material. 
 These mills employ more labor than all the rod trains in the country, and have a ca- 
 pacity to produce more than half of the wire which the country consumes. Under the 
 tariff of 1883 their business has continually suffered at the hands of the mills rolling 
 their own rods, and they now need protection not against foreign competition, but 
 against the high charges of the American rod mills. 
 
 By the act of 1883 the duty on steel rods was fixed at six-tenths cent per pound on 
 No. 5 and larger sizes. Although there had been some rods smaller than No. .5 im- 
 ported, yet the bulk of the rods were No. 5 and larger, and no specific provision was 
 made for any smaller size. Such sizes, therefore, came in under the " omnibus clause," 
 as "manufactures of steel not otherwise provided for," at 4.5 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Prior to the act of 1883 all steel rods had come in under the omnibus clause at 30 
 per cent. The specific duty of six-tenths cent per pound was fixed by Congress after a 
 carefal hearing of all the parties in interest, and was then the equivalent of 35 per cent. 
 Soon after the passage of the act, however, the foreign values of Bessemer material 
 fell so that the ad valorem equivalent of six-tenths has never been less than 45 per 
 cent., but has at times equaled 60 per cent., and is now about 55 per cent. Coinci- 
 dent with this fall in values came an improvement in the processes of rolling rods 
 abroad, by which a No. 6 rod could be furnished at about the same cost as a No.'5, 
 and the bulk of the importations for the past four years have been of No. 6. These 
 have, as stated above, come in at 45 per cent., which is at the present time about 
 one-half cent per pound. 
 
 The request of Mr. George T. Oliver, of Pittsburgh, speaking on behalf of his com- 
 pany and other-American rod-makers, that the duty on all sizes of rods should be 
 fixed at six-tenths cent per pound is therefore in substance a request that the present 
 rates of duty should be advanced on the bulk of the importations from 45 per cent, 
 to 55 per cent., an increase of about nearly 25 per cent. 
 
 The consumers of wire rods, on the other hand, maintain that not only is there no 
 propriety of making any such advance, or, indeed, any advance, but that the present 
 rate of duty might be reduced without in any way crippling the American rod mills. 
 The present cost of American billets in Pittsburgh is $28 to $28..50 per tou ; of wire 
 rods $41 to $41.50. It is not disputed that a modern Garrett train employing 25 or 
 30 men has turned out 75 tons of rods in 11 hours, and at a cost, making all proper 
 allowances, of not exceeding $8 per ton. Assuming that its annual production was 
 only half that (or 75 tons daily when running double time), the margin of profit 
 w,onld exceed $100,000 per annum ; so that the train would nearly pay for itself dur- 
 ing the first year. This clear margin of $5 per ton is due to the present tariff; for 
 while the American mills now sell the greatc^r part of the rods used in the country, 
 they hold the price just below the cost of foreign rods with duty and inland freight 
 added, and the cost to the consumer is thus dependent closely on the duty, As the 
 
108 
 
 ftteVtSION of THE tAttrPP. 
 
 labor cost of each ton of rods thus rolled is less than $3, the need of any incfease of 
 the duty in order to protect the laborer is not clearly seen. 
 
 It is not necessary, however, to base any argnment on estimates of the cost of 
 rolling rods in this country. While all such estimates may be disputed, it cannot 
 be denied that the great increase in the number and capacity of rod mills in this 
 country since the enactment of the tariff of 1883 would not have taken place if there 
 was not a handsome margin in the business, and a margin furthermore that was 
 large enongh to stand some reduction in the tariff rate. In 1883 steel rods were 
 rolled at not more than five or six mills, and the total capacity did not greatly ex- 
 ceed 50,000 tons annually. There are now nine rod miUs in operation, and another 
 building, with an aggregate capacity of about 250,000 tons per annum. 
 
 The proportion of their product to the imports has steadily increased, so that it to- 
 day is more than half of the entire consumption of the conntry. (The importations 
 of wire rods during the first six months of 1887 were 69,432 tons; of 1888, 38,916 
 tons.) Surely an industry that has made such rapid strides under the present tariff 
 does not need any further legislative help, nor is it in a position where reasonable 
 reduction of the duty will inflict irreparable disaster on i t. 
 
 If the present duty on wire rods were halved, while the duty on billets is unchanged 
 the Pittsburgh rod mills could still sell their rods at a profit and keep foreign rods 
 out of that market ; while at the same time the sea-board wire mills, which are pre- 
 vented by inland freights from using American rods and are compelled to pay the 
 present duty on their foreign rods, would have some hope of life. It does not seem 
 unreasonable, therefore, to ask that a beginning in the reduction of duty should be 
 made, and four-tenths cent per pound is certainly an ample protection for the Amer- 
 ican rod mill. 
 
 The fluctuations in the price of rods have resulted in such variations of the ad 
 valorem rate of any specific duty that such a method of fixing the tariff should not 
 be longer followed. No one will pretend to say that Congress, when it fixed the dnty 
 in 1883 at the specific equivalent of 35 per cent., contemplated that within four years 
 that specific duty would by the mere fall in prices ri«e to 60 per cent. The market 
 values of these rods are well known both abroad and here. There is no chance for 
 any evasion of the tariff, as the records of the custom-houses show ; and it is sub- 
 mitted, therefore, that the will of Congress will be better observed throughout aU 
 future fluctuations by making the duty ad valorem than by adhering to a specific 
 duty. If the latter method is, however, preferred, it is suggested that ample protec- 
 tion to the American rod mills and some share of the necessary reduction demanded 
 by the condition of the American wire mills will be secured by making the duty fonr- 
 tenths cent per pound on all sizes of wire rods. 
 
 This is a higher rate ad valorem than was contemplated by Congress in fixing the 
 act of 1883, and leaves the American rod mills with about one-half of their present 
 margin of profit. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 The New Haven Wire Company, 
 By Samuel A. Galpik, Beceiver. 
 
 SLABS AND BILLETS FOR NAILS. 
 STATEMENT OP MR. A. W. CAMPBELL. 
 
 Mr. A. W. Campbell, of Wheeling, W. Va., next addressed the committee. He 
 said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have no set line of remarks to 
 make before the committee on the especial business that interests our people at Wheel- 
 ing. Several members of this committee who were members of the previous commit- 
 tee of ways and means will remember that the Ohio Valley Steel Association sent 
 representatives here two years ago to ask that in the formulating of a new tariff bill 
 what is known as soft steel should be classed as hard steel. They ask this for tie 
 reason there was no cause for the difference in the price. They pointed you to the 
 fact in English quotations of steel slabs and billets ; they were quoted as low or lower 
 than steel rails. In other words, it costs as much to make the kind of steel weengags 
 in manufacturing as steel rails, and therefore whatever measure of protection which 
 is given by Congress to the one steel should be given to the other. While steel rails 
 have $17 a ton protection, the makers of soft steel have 45 per cent., which at 
 that time was equivalent to about $8, and by reason of the undervaluation process 
 not more than $7. You will observe the year preceding as a result of that there was 
 an enormous importation of soft steel into this country. Now, we believe that Titl 
 
BEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 109 
 
 onr existing plants we could make all the soft steel required, whioh is now imported 
 from Germauy and other parts of Europe. 
 
 Wheeling has the largest cut nails manufactory in the country, where the bulk of 
 the cut nails used are produced. They are sold remarkably low, as was indicated to 
 you by Mr. Oliver. They are sold much less than wire nai^s ; and I wish to correct a 
 statement of Mr. Oliver's, where he said that the wire nail was a relatively cheaper 
 nail than the cut nail. That was because for the last year the gauge of the cut uail 
 was changed. In other words we give as many nails to the pound now as the wire 
 nail people, and we sell them at 50 cents to 75 cents cheaper. Now, Mr. Chairman, 
 making as we do one of the cheapest productions in the world, of course we should 
 have the advantages of raw material so far as proper legislation of Congress can give 
 it to us. We are always obliged to follow the steel-rail makers of this country. 
 They set the price and the time at which contracts shall be made and we follow them. 
 TA hen we go to the Lake Superior mine owners and buy ores, we are told that the 
 price is so and so, and that if we do not want it it will be taken by the rail-makers. 
 They fix the price for us and we have to bear it because of the excessive competition 
 which exists to-day in our production. The fact is, we have sold our product for the 
 last three years at less than cost. I do not believe there is to-day a nail mill within 
 my knowledge that has made any amount of money worth speaking of in that time, 
 
 Mr McKknna. Is that due to competition ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. That is due to competition of the nail men in one form or another; 
 the competition \\'ith the wire nail and the competition with our own cut naU estab- 
 lishments. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You say you reduce the gauge of the nail ; that has not reduced the 
 excellence of it f 
 
 Mr. Campbell. A test was made by the United States Government, at Watervliet 
 Arsenal, and they decided that the cut nail had a greater holding power than the wire 
 nail, and that it was a better nail so far as the holding power was concerned. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Was a test made between nails of the same grade f 
 
 Mr. Campbell. No, sir ; I can not say it was, but I believe that was made before 
 the gauge was changed. Butstill we have tested it for ourselves since. We take the 
 same gauge of wire nails and cut nails and we know as a matter of fact and experi- 
 ence and testing that the holding power of the cut nail is greater than the wire nail. 
 These are the nails used in this country, although the wire nail has made very great 
 inroads on the cut nail. There is nothing cheaper than nails. They are sold very 
 cheaply notwithstanding the different prices of slabs and billets. Slabs are the arti- 
 cle out of which these nails are made. The price of cut nails to-day is very weak 
 and very low in this country , so much so that, as I said, very few nail-makers within 
 my knowledge have realized the cost of production in the last three or four years. 
 
 The Chairman. What do you say about the Senate provision f 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Providing five-tenths of a cent a pound costing $11.20. That would 
 he entirely proper if you made it specific. I do not see any reason why we should not 
 have the same measure of protection that is given to steel, that costs no more to man- 
 ufacture. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. That is a specific dutyt 
 
 Mr. Campbell. That would not be a specific duty. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. I thought you said the Senate bill provided specifically five-tenths ol 
 a cent a pound. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. It was a specific duty of five-tenths. In the last session of Con- 
 gress, when this committee was hearing this case as individuals (there were no formal 
 hearings), several others and myself were here presenting to the individual members of 
 this committee the facts in this case, and in the majority report made by that com- 
 mittee we were given the same average protection as was given to steel rails, which 
 was $11. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What is the difference between a slab and a billet t 
 
 Mr. Campbell. A slab is a flat piece of steel, and a billet is a certain square 
 length. It is different. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The difference is in shape only t 
 
 Mr. Campbell. It is different in shape somewhat from the steel. We use our slab 
 for making nails. We make our own pig-iron, and out of the pig-iron we make our 
 slabs. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. If wire nails should come in and prevent your making the cut nails, 
 you could convert your establishment into a wire-nail factory. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. No, sir; not except by putting in an entire outfit. If we com- 
 mence a nail plant in this way, it would have to be an entire change of business. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are there establishments where all this machinery is made in Germany t 
 
 Mr. Campbell. I am not familiar with that, but there are German machines used 
 in this country. There are various kinds of machines used. 
 
 The Chairman. But it is mostly American now. 
 
110 EEVISION OF THE TAELFP. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. The majority report of the last Ways and Means Committee con 
 ceded the justice of onr plea. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. They conceded that whatever rate was granted to steel-makers 
 should be accorded to you ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes/sir; that is what we asked, and there was no division of senti- 
 ment among the members of that committee. The majority report of that committee 
 was in favor of it. There were a great many questions asked by the committee, 
 I was interrogated by Mr. Breckinridge and others here, and there was no division of 
 opinion at all as to the changes of this equalization and they thought we were entitled 
 to have it. 
 
 The Chairman. That is what you want nowf 
 
 Mr. Campbell. That is what we ask and then we will be entirely satisfied. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You say that will be satisfactory to you ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir ; we are not asking for any change in it unless the duty on 
 rails is changed. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You refer only to the slabs t 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Only on the slabs. All we ask is an equalization on that. 
 
 Mr. Cahlislb. Do you sell slabs and billets to other people or consume them your- 
 self? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. We consume our own slabs. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you make them for sale f 
 
 Mr. Campbell. No, sir. I represent mills that own steel works and that make 
 their own slabs, and that concern is mostly kept pushed in order to furnish slabs. 
 
 Mr. Cablisle. Then you desire to have the duty raised on slabs and billets, because 
 if it is not done your competitors in the manufacture of nails can procure their mate- 
 rial from abroad cheaper than you can make it yourself? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. We think not only that, but as I stated before, we feel that the 
 price of ores is re^iulated by other people than ourselves. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. This does not touch ores. 
 
 Mr. Campbell, The question of discriminating between the mines touches ores. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. How? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. We are not strong enough financially. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do steel-rail makers convert ore directly into rails without going 
 through any other form ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. It goes through the process of steel, and takes the rail shape as the 
 finished shape ; but while that is a rail it costs no more t6 make than a slab or billet. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Does it go through the form first of a slab or billet before it is converted 
 into a rail f 
 
 Mr. Campbell. It is converted from the blooms into a rail. The bloom is a billet, 
 hut in one sense the billet is a move further on. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. The bloom does not advance to the stage a billet does ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear, If you had a specific duty instead of an ad valorem duty, what would 
 be the etfect of increasing the tariflf ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. We were given |ill by the majority report of the last Ways and 
 Means Committee. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The result will be to increase the tariff $3 ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir, as the price is steady. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Not so much now? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. The price of slabs and billets in March, 1888, was 317 shillings, as 
 against 318 shillings for rails. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is the weight and shape of a bloom ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. The bloom is a round piece of steel in a formative state ready to be 
 rolled down into a billet or any other shape. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. About how much would a bloom weigh ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. I am not preparing it, but they have different sizes of blooms as 
 well as billets. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it in what is called pig-iron ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And it is of different length and size and weight t 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Wliat is the diameter of a bloom ordinarily? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. I really could not tell you, but the bloom is made 8 inches in diam- 
 eter, and many of them 12 or 10 inches in length. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Varying in that way? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. They make the blooms for these rails 30 feet long. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is about the weight and sh.ape of ahillet? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. At our works we do not make many billets ; we make mostly slabs. 
 A billet runs anywhere from two feet to two feet and a half, and as much in length) 
 and it runi from 4 to 5 inches in diameter. 
 
REVISION OP THE TAEIPP. Ill 
 
 Mr. BRECKrNRlDGB. It is something like a bloom, only on a smaller scalet 
 
 Mr. Campbeli.. The bloom is round, and they are rolled down. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridgk. Billets are made from blooms ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir ; we roll down the ingot to the billets and slabs. 
 
 Mr. Breckinrldge. Describe an ingot; what is the size and shape of itt 
 
 Mr. Campbell. The ingot is the material which first comes from the converter, 
 when it is poured into the flask. It is taken out and put into the reducing-rolls and 
 rolled down to a slab or billet. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you use the pig-iron T 
 
 Mr. Campbell. We put the pig-iron into the converter and turn the converter into 
 the flasks which gives the ingot. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you make pig-iron at all in the ordinary form of pig-iron in 
 your business t 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir; we buy the ore to make the pig-iron. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You make the slab and billet from the pig-iron? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Foixettb moved that the committee take a recess until half-past 1, 
 which was agreed to and the committee accordingly took a recess. 
 
 STRUCTURAL SHAPES OF IRON OR STEEL. 
 STATEMENT OF MR. F. J. BLADE. 
 
 Mr. F. J. Slade, of Trenton, N. J., next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I wish to speak to you not of any 
 proposed change in the duty on the material in which I am interested other than 
 that contained in the Senate substitute, but to call attention to a method of evasion 
 of the present duty which can be easily corrected. I speak with reference to the 
 clause in paragraph 130 of this bill : " Beams, girders, joists, angles, car-truck chan- 
 nels, TT) columns and posts, or parts or sections of columns and posts, deck and bulb 
 beams, and building forms, together with all structural ihapes of iron or steel, 1 cent 
 per pound." 
 
 The Chairman. What page are you reading from t 
 
 Mr. Slade. Page 114, section 130. Formerly these shapes were not specially 
 designated in the tariff act. They came in under the same rate of duty as is now 
 charged on iron not otherwise provided for, and many years ago, perhaps ten years 
 ago, they were especially mentioned and a duty provided and collected until quite 
 recently, when the question suggested itself to those interested in the importation 
 of them that they would do a little work on them and then bring them in as manu- 
 factures of iron not otherwise specified. Of course the committee are well aware 
 that where iron beams are used, such as a beam which carries a floor and used in the 
 construction of a building, that a few holes are required to bolt the beams in place. 
 It is not a manufacture to any extent, but it is simply made ready for use. 
 
 The collector of customs in a lot of beams imported at Boston collected, very prop- 
 erly, the duty provided by the act. The importer brought the case to the United 
 States court, and, to the surprise of everybody familiar with the use of these beams, 
 the decision of the collector was reversed and the articles were admitted as manu- 
 factures of iron at 45 per cent. The case has been taken to the Supreme Court, but 
 it may be years before it is reached. Now, it seems to me it is the manifest intention 
 of this section here to protect those articles. They are clearly enough defined, and 
 the mere fact that a man can punch a hole in a thing and bring it in at 45 per cent, 
 and then saw the hole »S if he does not want it, would amount to a little more than 
 five-eighths of a cent a pound, while the duty provided by this bill is 1 cent a pound. 
 It is a mere method of evading the duty, and what I have to suggest is simply this : 
 At the end of this paragraph to insert some such words as these: AJter the word 
 "steel," line 451, insert "whether any of the foregoing are plain, or have holes or 
 other work thereon." 
 
 Evidently the intention of imposing a duty was on the belief that the manufact- 
 ured article would be more valuable than the material unmanufactured, therefore 
 the ad valorem duty would be high enough on such a manufactured article. But in 
 this case the article is not increased in value, not more than one-tenth of a cent u 
 pound ; therefore, by rating it as a manufactured article, the duty is virtually set 
 aside. You might just as well strike out the other section, because there will never 
 be any such thing imported. They would simply come in as manufactures. 'That ia 
 all I have to suggest. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Forty-five jier cent, ad valorem is the rate of duty imposed upon 
 all manufactured steel not otherwise provided for. Do you not have a high enough 
 dnty upon this article of structural iron f 
 
112 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Slade. No, sir. And that ia tlie reason that in the specific dnty provided on 
 the manufacturing I spoke of it virtually only applies to beams. It is no rate for 
 the other at all. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What are these made oft 
 
 Mr. Slade. Rolled iron. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What remains to be done in this article which you say is now being 
 brought in under that general clause ? 
 
 Mr. Slade. The beams are fitted with holes so as to be bolted together. Then it is 
 completed by bolting. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Now, this article which you say was brought to Boston at 45 per 
 cent, ad valorem, what was its condition? 
 
 Mr. Slade. It had holes punched in it, and where one beam fitted into another 
 the end of the beam was cut and ready to be joined so it would be supported. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What remained to be done on that article before it was a finished 
 production f 
 
 Mr. Slade. Nothing. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I mean on these imported articles that came into the United States! 
 
 Mr. Slade. Nothing ; it is ready to go into the building. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Upon what ground would it be covered by the 45 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Slade. I do not know. It is held not to be a beam, as specifically described 
 here, or flooring, but it was a beam just as well as any other ; it had not changed a 
 particle. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What is the use for which that particular article was to be applied t 
 
 Mr. Slade . To put into a Government building at Boston — I do not recollect 
 whether it was the custom-house or post-ofBce — for floor purposes. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you manufacture structural iron ? 
 
 Mr. Slade. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I noticed in New York that the Potter building imported their iron 
 from Belgium, and I think it cost about $12,000 or 113,000 dollars alone to import 
 that structural iron. 
 
 Mr. Slade. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you not thinkyour combination, with all the other structural iron- 
 makers in the country, tends to increase the imports? 
 
 Mr. Slade. The imports are not much. 
 
 Mr. Flower. But the price of structural iron is very high. 
 
 Mr. Slade. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How much ? 
 
 Mr. Slade. The present price is three-tenths of a cent per pound. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How much does It cost more than the steel rail before manufactured f 
 
 Mr. Slade. I can illustrate that best by just calling attention to the diflfereuce in 
 the two. The steel rail is the cheapest article of manufacture there is, simply for the 
 reasou that it is manufactured in enormous quantities. The article is precisely the 
 same. The difference is there are thousands of tons of rails manufactured at one time, 
 and when the rolls are put in they can stay for a week, or at any rate for a long time, 
 and they roll a large quantity. The production of a steel-rail mill would not be 
 much at 200,000 tons a year. Our mill, which is about the largest in the United 
 States, has never produced 100,000 tons a year. I will show you the difference. In 
 the steel-rail business every thing is different ; they manufacture only that one article, 
 and so do that most economically. 
 
 Mr. Flower. There are no steel rails imported but what is the difference in the 
 set of rolls? That is all you have to have in your structural irou. 
 
 Mr. Slade. The steel rail is a bar of reasonable size. We have to use the largest 
 machinery and the most expensive machinery that is required in iron manufacture. 
 I do not think there is any exception to that. We have to run at times a beam of 
 24 inches. That has to go through the rolls with enormous pressure, necessary to 
 roll it out, and the pressure is enormously great as compared with the steel rail. There 
 is uo comparison between the two. But that is not the point alone. Then the 
 orders we get for these beams are little trifles — merely trifles; the order may be for 
 1 ton, or even less than 1 ton. An order for 1,000 tons is .in extremely rare order. 
 We can not roll it in the same way we roll rails. A thousand tons of rails can be 
 put into the mill and rolled out without a change. But an order for a thonsaud 
 tons of beams to go in a building is different. They will take them only a little at 
 a time, and probably it ■« ill take six months to get rid of the one order. Not only 
 that, but there are so many different sizes. It is a retail business, done with the 
 most expensive machinery. 
 
 Mr. Flower. But take a building like the World building, or the Potter build- 
 ing, or the Times building, those would not be retail orders ? 
 
 Mr. Slade. The trouble is, in a building like this you are likely to have a number 
 of different sizes and different lengths, and when it comes to rolling different sizes you 
 llivy* to change the rolls, and they come to you with a long list of the different si^ej 
 
EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 113 
 
 and lengths required. We think an order for a large building is no better than a 
 small one. 
 
 Mr. Gear. If you have different lengths and widths, you have to change the rolls 
 every time ? 
 
 Mr. Slade. Yes, sir. The only way is to combine one man's order with another's, 
 and make them all at the same time. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You can roll but one width and length of iron with one set of rolls t 
 
 Mr. Sladb. No, sir ; we can not. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You have to change the rolls t 
 
 Mr. Slade. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I know that this summer I found it pretty hard to get the stuff when 
 I wanted it, as you do not keep stock on band. 
 
 Mr. Slade. I suppose we carry one or two thousand tons, always more than one 
 thousand ; yet you can not find what you want and you have to keep cutting. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you meaa to say they cost more to manufacture ? 
 
 Mr. Slade. I mean to say more than double. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Does it cost treble f 
 
 Mr. Slade. No 
 
 Mr. Flower. If it costs treble you have got a pretty good profit on it. 
 
 Mr. Slade. Certainly we get fair prices, but not high prices. The steel-rail men 
 think they should have a measure of protection of $5 a ton on rails. We would not 
 ask you for anything better. 
 
 Mr. (iBAR. \Vhat are the size of your rolls? 
 
 Mr. Slade. Our largest trains are 26 inches in diameter. We can roll to-day the 
 largest size on that train. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How long does it take to change a train of rolls T 
 
 Mr. Slade. About a day. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What do you say the present prices are ? 
 
 Mr. Slade. The present price of beams — angles are sold at less — is 3^ cents a 
 pound. When I first engaged in the business twenty years ago it was more than 
 double that. We have reduced the price very much. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You mean in the net ? 
 
 Mr. Slade. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Flower. This combination of mills now enables you to keep one price all 
 over the country? 
 
 Mr. Slade. All the mills are not in it. 
 
 The Chairman. What do you mean by " combination," Mr. Flower? 
 
 Mr. Flower. It has been charged that a combination kept the price up for that 
 structural iron last year. I will not say this year, because I know these beams went 
 down some parts as low as 2f . 
 
 Mr. Slade. Two and eight-tenths Before that it was 3.3 in New York. And that 
 was reduced to 2.8. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I supposed from what I heard that there was a combination last year 
 by which they agreed to charge a certain price ? 
 
 Mr. Slade. There is not. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The reason I ask this question is I want to know if there is any extra 
 profit on this compared with the steel-rail business ? 
 
 Mr. Slade. It is a mere bagatelle in comparison with it. We do not feel the least 
 hesitancy in doing business. I have had more to do with that than any other man. 
 There is no reason why anybody should not go into a legitimate manufacture and 
 make a profit with his business. The whole question is whether the profit we get is 
 exorbitant or not. I have made up the results of our business for twenty years, and 
 it has not exceeded on an average 8 per cent, for that time. We are not paid 8 per 
 cent, this year. These are the exorbitant profits. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How many mills co-operate in this T 
 
 Mr. Slade. About twelve. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Any west of Chicago? 
 
 Mr. Slade. Not west of Chicago. There is one in Chicago. There are about twelve 
 millgnow. Originally there were fou'r. There is no dissatisfaction with the combination. 
 It is simply intended to secure a fair jjrofit, which we think we ought to have. Let 
 me just give the reason why a combination in a certain thing is justifiable. People 
 say the natural competition would fix the price at a fair profit. It would do nothing 
 of the kind, I can assure you. I can show you why it would not. That is nothing 
 but what people say. It is ridiculous. When a man who is engaged in the manu- 
 facture of an article has put his money into that plant be is subject to a large amount 
 of expense. There are repairs to the building, taxes, salaries, to enable him to keep up 
 the organization. Now, we will compete for work whether we get any part of our 
 money or not, and that is the best we can do. In other words, suppose an article 
 costs 2 cents a pound simply for coal and iron ; now, of course we will not sell below 
 that 2 cents, because we wowJd simply be giving our ^la'te^if^} away; we bad better 
 
 485 8 
 
114 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 keep it. We are entitled to have our expenses paid, but at any price between two and 
 two and a half cents, we will compete for work, and my experience is we compete 
 more eagerly for it under those circumstances than any other time, simply because we 
 would say we are going to try to reduce the loss of last year. Therefore it it not a 
 true but a misdirected competition. This thing is going on all through the country. 
 I know perfectly well that it has been advantageous to the trade. They do not make 
 the slightest complaint. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you advise coal men to go into a combination T 
 
 Mr. Slade. I advise them to look after their own interests. 
 
 The Chairman. How many firms are in this combination f 
 
 Mr. Sladb. Twelve. 
 
 The Chairman. Can you give the names of them ? 
 
 Mr. Sladb. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. "What are they t 
 
 Mr. Sladb. Carnegie, Phipps & Co., Phoenix Iron Company, the Pittsburgh Steel 
 and Iron Company, of Trenton 
 
 The Chairman. That is your concern t 
 
 Mr. Sladb. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Names are sometimes very hard to get, so call those over slowly to 
 the stenographer. 
 
 Mr. Slade. Jones & Lackland, limited, Pittsburgh ; A. B. Roberts & Co., Philadel- 
 phia ; the Illinois Steel Company, of Chicago ; the Colmnbia Iron and Steel Company, 
 of Pittsburgh; Passaic Eolling Mill Company, of Passaic, N. J. Then there are two 
 others, Springfield Iron Company and New Albany KoUing Mill Company. Now, 
 there are some mills not in the combination. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. One at Youngstown, Pa.? 
 
 Mr. Slade. I should have added there are works at Cleveland and Pittsburgh, Mr. 
 Oliver's, I think— the gentleman who spoke this morniug. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Are there any mills not now in it? 
 
 Mr. Slade. I have just mentioned two. They are coming up all the time. We 
 make no effort to stop new mills at all. We simply say to one another, let us charge 
 a fair price on this production. That is all the combination says, and we take the 
 consequence of a rise ot new works in compeiition. We never make any attempt to 
 put an individual off or keep anybody out. Mr. Oliver can tell you whether we 
 have done anything to prevent him from coming in. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You did not make any combination to reduce the price? 
 
 Mr. Sladb. Last year we reduced the price half a cent a ton. This year we have 
 advanced the price, but not as much as the raw material has advanced. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You have no combination to crush out other mills ? 
 
 Mr. Slade. Not in the slightest. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You could not crush them out if yon wanted to? 
 
 Mr. Slade. No, sir; we would simply crush ourselves. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Have you undertaken to put the price up yet ? 
 
 Mr. Sladb. No, because the otlicrs would come in. Capital is always seeking a 
 profitable investment and to do a profitable business, and if we did, it would cer- 
 tainly come in. 
 
 Mr. Gear. When you change your rolls, how many men does it take ? 
 
 Mr. Slade. I do not know how many men it takes, but perhaps it takes half a 
 dozen to change the rolls. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Have you any interest in limiting the production ? 
 
 Mr. Slade. No, not the slightest. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Are you afraid that a change in the tariff' duty would affect you in- 
 juriously 1 
 
 Mr. Sladb. We would die of starvation ; and we prefer to live and do this work we 
 have been doing fur the last twenty years, in increasing our mills and increasing the 
 product of this country. We do not expect to control the business ; we are simply 
 fighting to live. Other mills are coming in all the time. Those mentioned last are 
 getting ready to come in. We will go on with that and let things take care of 
 themselves. 
 
 The Chairman. Does the Senate bill propqse to reduce the duty V 
 
 Mr. Slade. It does. We had a consultation with the Senate committee last year, 
 and we were enabled here to get a reduction of a quarter of a cent a pound, which 
 was more than we thought we ought to have on foreign beams. Foreign beams can 
 come in under this duty. 
 
 The Chairman. It was IJ cents, and now it is 1 cent ? 
 
 Mr. Slade. Yes, sir. On the first draft of this Ijill it was 1.1 cents, and it is now left 
 at 1 cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the freight on a ton of beams ? 
 
 Mr. Slade. I do not know anything about that. That is all I have to say. I 
 niiri'ly want to show the paragraph which was clearly designed to cover these 
 Bhapcs. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 115 
 
 Senate substitute for H. R. 9051, section 198, insert after line 841: "Provided, 
 That the amount of duty levied and collected upon any such manufactured iirticle 
 or ware shall not be less than would have been collected upon the material or mate- 
 rials from which such article or ware is manufactured if it had been imported pre- 
 vious to being so manufactured." 
 
 COAL. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. GALPSHA A. GROW. 
 
 Hon. Galusha A. Grow, of Pennsylvania, next addressed the committee. He said: 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, as I may fail to make myseh. 
 clearly understood, I give you this statement, which' contains the conclusion to 
 which I aim, and which probably would be more interesting for you to consider than 
 anything I could say. The Senate's amendment last year to the House bill relative 
 to bituminous coal reads: "Coal, bituminous and shale, 75 cents per ton of '28 
 bushels, HO pounds to the bushel ; coal, slack or culm, such as will pass through a 
 half-inch screen, 30 cents per ton of 28 bushels, 80 pounds to the bushel." Slack is 
 the line part of bituminous coal, and culm is the fine dust of anthracite coal ; both 
 kinds are mentioned, but the culm is of no consequence, as all kinds of anthracite 
 coal is free of duty here and in Canada. The Canada duty on bituminous coal is 60 
 cents net ton of 2,000 pounds. The American duty is 75 cents gross ton of 2,240 
 pounds. So our duty is 7^ cents greater than the Canadian duty on a gross ton. 
 
 What is aimed at by the proviso I give you is that whatever reduction shall be 
 made in the duty on any kind of coal shall be on condition that Canada shall receive 
 our coal at the same rate of duty. 
 The Chaikman. Have, you read your proviso? 
 Mr. Grow. The proviso is this: 
 
 " Provided, That in case any foreign country shall impose any greater duty on bi- 
 tuminous coal when imported into said country from the United States than the duty 
 herein speciiied, then the duty on coal, when imported from such country, shall re- 
 main the same as fixed by the law in force at the date of the passage of this act." 
 The Chairman. What duty would you assess on coal ? 
 
 Mr. Grow. It would greatly benefit the coal industry of western Pennsylvania and 
 Ohio, and I do not think it would injure it in any other part of the country, to make 
 the duty about as follows in the proviso that I have indicated : 
 
 "Coal^ bituminous and shale, such as will not pass through a screen of IJ-inch 
 mesh, called lump coal, 45 cents per ton of 2,240 pounds. Eua of raiues, that is, 
 lump, nut, and slack together as taken from the mine, and slack, 30 cents per ton 
 of 2,240 pounds." 
 
 Whatever duty is made less than the present some such proviso should be at- 
 tached. Its practical effect of course could apply only to Canada, and but for treaties 
 with the most favored nations the proviso could be specifically applied to Canada. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is it your aim to increase the export to Canada or the import from 
 Canada? 
 
 Mr. Grow. To increase our export to Canada. Last year we exported to Canada 
 almost three times as much bituminous coal as we imported from all other countries. 
 The export to Canada of bituminous coal was 1,226,211 net tons, and we imported 
 from Canada 374,833 gross tons, of which 69,857 was from Nova Scotia and New 
 Brunswick; the balance was from British Columbia. In Canada, east of the Rocky 
 Mountains to about 100 miles west of Montreal, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and 
 Illinois supply the entire country with bituminous coal. East of that the supply is 
 mostly from Nova Scotia district. Three years ago the Grand Trunk supply at 
 Portland, in Maine, was furnished by the Cumberland and West Virginia mines iu 
 competition with Nova Scotia. 
 
 If the duty was what I indicate, or thereabouts, the States mentioned would supply 
 all the country in Canada west of Montreal with bituminous co.al, and Nova Scotia 
 would supply all east of Montreal and most of the State of Maine and probably 
 some in Boston. The American mines would supply all points where the cost of 
 transportation from the mine to the market is not greater than the cost from the 
 Nova Scotia mines to the same point. Canadian labor in Nova Scotia is paid less 
 than the labor in American mines, but they have more expensive mines to work, 
 which compensates in part for that. 
 Mr. Carlislh. How much difference is there in the price of labor? 
 Mr. Grow. About 25 or 30 per cent., I think. The duty should be high enough to 
 meet that, and that is all that is required. 
 
116 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Yon make a new classification and say, "run of mines, slack, and 
 culm." 
 
 Mr. Grow. Yes ; there are three kinds of bituminous coal, of different market value, 
 having the commercial names of lump, lump and nut, and slack. Run of mines em- 
 braces all three of these and is the coal just in the shape that it is taken out of the 
 mine. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do I understand yon to say there is now a duty on dust coal f 
 
 Mr. Grow. There is no duty on dust coal, which is the same as culm, for that is 
 anthracite, but ou slack there is, for that is bituminous coal. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But still the miner does not get pay for this coal at all. _ 
 
 Mr. Grow. In the anthracite region the miner is paid by the car, which is the same 
 as paying him for run of mines. In the bituminous region he is paid in some districts 
 for run of mines, in others for lump coal only, but his pay is really the same thing, 
 either way. Sixty cents per ton for lump coal is just the same, and is counted as the 
 equivalent of 45 cents per ton run of mines. It is the same thing to the miner either 
 way. In soft-coal mining the miner loads his own coal into mine cars. Hard coal 
 is mined run of mines and the miner is paid for a helper, who loads the coal. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That is anthracite, which is now freeT 
 
 Mr. Grow. Yes, sir. A duty would make no difference, for there is no other coal 
 to compete with it. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Except so far as soft coal comes in competition with it f 
 
 Mr. Grow. A duty would not affect that. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You say that the Grand Trunk Railway bought coal at Portland? Do 
 you know what they paid for that f 
 
 Mr. Grow. I do not remember now. It was three years ago. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Was it as much as 75 cents difference ? 
 
 Mr. Grow. I do not recollect what the price was. The Grand Trunk takes its sup- 
 ply for the eastern end of its road at Portland, and from the Nova Scotia region. 
 Along the line west of Montreal it takes mostly from Buffalo over the International and 
 Suspension Bridge, and for the western end at Detroit. Slack coal admitted at a lower 
 rate of duty would take the place of other coal to a certain extent. I would make 
 the duty on run of mines and slack 15 or 20 cents less than lump coal, for that would 
 be about the difference in market price, with the proviso that Canada must take our 
 coal at the same rate we charge on theirs. The Nova Scotia producers would not 
 probably want a reduction of the present duty. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Canada would not be apt to reduce the duty on coal. 
 
 Mr. Grow. Then the duty would continue the same as it is now. My proviso would 
 make the duty the same in both countries if there is any reduction. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Do I understand you that we mine coal cheaper in the United States 
 than in Canada ? . 
 
 Mr. Grow. In western Pennsylvania and Ohio we do, if you count all the expense 
 of the mine. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Why, then, do we want a duty on it t 
 
 Mr. Grow. On account of transportation. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Is the cost of produi;tion in the United States cheaper f 
 
 Mr. Grow. The points I have mentioned mine cheaper than in Nova Scotia, and 
 the coal at the mouth of the mine sells for less than it sells for in Nova Scotia. The 
 distance from the mine to the market adds to the selling price for both. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. That is not an inducement to put a tariff on their coal, because they 
 have the longer distance to go. 
 
 Mr. Grow. The distance, however, affects the selling price, and I would not admit 
 their coal unless they took ours at the same rate of duty. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. That is a reason for putting the tariff on coal up so they can not 
 come in. 
 
 Mr. Grow. If we put up our tariff to keep them out, they could put their tariff up 
 to keep us out and we should be the loser, for we export to them more than we im- 
 port. If their miners work for less wages than ours I would make the duty to meet 
 that difference. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN At least their miners must be more inefficient, for you say we mine 
 cheaper than they do. 
 
 Mr. Grow. TUey have more difficult mines to work. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. The only object of putting on the tariff is to compensate th» in- 
 creased cost in the United States. 
 
 Mr. Grow. Yes, and to secure a larger market. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. If the American has loss cost of production can he not afford to 
 pay higher wages than the Canada man ? 
 
 Mr. Grow. Yes; if both have the same cost of transportation to their gelling 
 market. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I understand you want to pnt a duty on coal for the purpose of 
 meeting the cUtt'ereiice between tJie cost of labor here aati in Canada ; that is iox Hm 
 
REVISION OP THE TAEIPI'. 
 
 lit 
 
 pnrpose of keeping up the price of labor in this cotmtry, and at the same time yon 
 B»y the labor in Canada will come here. 
 
 Mr. Grow. Yes; and if we have a aufifloient market to supply we can employ him 
 at our higher wages. But if the Canadian has only 100 miles of transportation to 
 market and the American has 500 miles, though tbe cost of mining was the same to 
 both at the mine, the Canadian would take the market. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. You do not mean to say the cost of transportation here and in 
 Canada has anything to do with putting a tariff on coal that remains here t 
 
 Mr. Grow. It has to do with the market price of the coal. The larger the market 
 for a product the cheaper it can be sold by reason of the greater quantity produced. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. Do you want the Canadian tariff reduced on coal ? 
 
 Mr. Grow. Yes, sir ; for by that we should have a larger area of territory to sup- 
 ply. But they will not reduce unless we do, and that is what my proviso is for. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. Why not throw off all the tariff and induce them to throw it off? 
 
 Mr. Grow. It is doubtful whether that could be done ; but so far as eastern Canada 
 and this country is concerned it would not hurt this country. But so far as impor- 
 tatious from other countries are concerned it might hurt our coal interest in other 
 States than Pennsylvania and Ohio. 
 
 The Chairman. How would it affect coal T 
 
 Mr. Grow. If there was no duty on coal between Canada and the United States I 
 think the Nova Scotia region would supply Canadian territory east of Montreal and 
 most of the State of Maine and perhaps some in Boston ; and Pennsylvania, Ohio, 
 and Indiana would supply all the territory west of Montreal to the Eocky Mountains, 
 We should supply 10 miles of territory to their 1. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You say we should take 10 miles of their territory to 1 of ours T 
 
 Mr. Grow. I think so, as far as the supply from Nova Scotia region is concerned. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How is it with British Columbia mines ? 
 
 Mr. Grow. They have large producing mines. How they compare with the Seattle 
 minesi do not know ; but a duty of about half the present duty, if reciprocal, would, 
 I think, be no injury to the soft-coal industry of the whole country. 
 
 Mr. Flowkr. You want the proviso so as to force them to give us as good terms 
 as we give them ? 
 
 Mr. Grow. Exactly so ; then a lower duty is just as well. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You say if we had free trade in coal we should occupy 10 
 square miles of their territory to their occupying 1 of ours? 
 
 Mr. Grow. Yes ; on the Atlantic coast. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you embrace the Washington trade in your statement 
 about the exchange ? 
 
 Mr. Grow. No, sir; I don't think that would be the case on the Pacific side. For 
 that reason, and also as to our importation from other countries, I think it well to 
 have a duty on coal, but less than the present if coupled with the proviso that I pro- 
 pose. But the proviso would be of no consequence unless the present duty is re- 
 duced. I will not take up the time of rhe committee further, but will furuish you 
 the statement as to the wages of labor and importation of coal as soon as I can pre- 
 pare the tables. 
 
 The following is the statement furnished by Mr. Grow after the hearing before the 
 committee: 
 
 Situminoua coal imported into Canada, hy their custom-house reports, for the year endifng 
 June 30, 1888, from the United States. 
 
 Provinces. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Valuation. 
 
 Ontario i , 
 
 Tons. 
 1, 212, 632 
 6,127 
 3,504 
 1,019 
 2,219 
 700 
 
 $3, 400, 618 
 21,110 
 
 
 Nova Scotia 
 
 10 199 
 
 New Bmnswick 
 
 6,703 
 
 
 5,356 
 
 British Columbia - -- - 
 
 5 981 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 ), 226, 211 
 
 3, 448, 965 
 
 
118 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Bituminous coal imported into the XXnited States year ending June 30, 1888. 
 
 From— 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Valnation. 
 
 Nova Scotia, New Brnnswick, and Prince Edward Island 
 
 Tons. 
 65, 368 
 4,489 
 
 $73, 825 
 16, 916 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 69, 857 
 304, 976 
 
 90,741 
 1, 335, 308 
 
 
 
 
 Total . 
 
 
 1, 426 049 
 
 
 
 
 
 332, 130 
 138, 722 
 29, 649 
 
 228, 961 
 354, 354 
 129,373 
 
 England . 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 400, 501 
 
 1,412,688 
 
 
 Total from all countries ..... ., 
 
 877, 504 
 
 2,846,741 
 
 
 Nova Scotia. 
 
 Northwest 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 Miners' pay for rnn of mine 
 
 Mnle drivers, per day 
 
 Track men, per day 
 
 Laborers, per day 
 
 Gross ton. 
 $0. 45 to $0. 55 
 
 . 70 to 1. 00 
 I. 00 to 1.25 
 1. 10 to 1. 35 
 
 Net ton. 
 
 $0.45 
 
 $1. 50 to 1. 75 
 
 1. 60 to 1. 65 
 
 1.30 to 1.60 
 
 Cape Breton miners' pay some less than I^ova Scotia; have not 
 been able to get precise figures. 
 
 Average valuation at custom-house of hituminous coal. 
 
 From the United States into Canada net ton.. $2.80 
 
 From Canada into the United States gross ton.. 3.80 
 
 From all countries into the United States do 3.24 
 
 Bituminons coal imported under reciprocity treaty from Nova Scotia, year ending 
 Jane 30, 1863, 282,774 tons, $757,094 ; year ending June 30, 1870, 243,683 tons; duty, 
 $1.25 ; year ending Juno 30, 1888, 69,857 tons ; duty, 75 cents. 
 
 Anthracite coal imported into Canada year ending June 30, 1889, 1,281,771 tons ; 
 valuation, $5,175,207. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 Importation of hituminous coal. 
 
 119- 
 
 Ports at wMoli mostly received. 
 
 Tear ending Jane 30, 
 1860; duty $1 per 
 ton (C. & N. No. 9, 
 page 430). 
 
 Te.1T ending Jane 30, 
 1868; duty $1.25 
 per ton (C. & N. 
 No. 10, page 60). 
 
 Tear ending Jane 30, 
 1888; duty 75 cents 
 per ton (C. & N. 
 No. 4, page 174). 
 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Valnation. 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Tal nation. 
 
 Tone. 
 
 Talaation, 
 
 
 157 
 
 22, 666 
 
 26 
 
 4,904 
 
 $234 
 
 92, 107 
 
 76 
 
 14,283 
 
 85 
 
 98, 870 
 
 30 
 
 2,460 
 
 366 
 
 615 
 
 $295 
 
 291, 454 
 
 222 
 
 7,929 
 
 719 
 
 1,470 
 
 85 
 
 27, 974 
 
 174 
 
 107 
 
 $153 
 
 72, 225 
 
 575 
 
 211 
 
 
 
 
 Fairfield 
 
 FallEiver 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2,247 
 49 
 
 
 Mobile . 
 
 1,728 
 842 
 
 7,168 
 
 1,207 
 308 
 
 3,602 
 
 164, 631 
 
 634 
 
 110 
 
 4,290 
 307 
 
 2,742 
 
 2,017 
 632 
 
 6,889 
 6,629 
 
 13, 405 
 1,888 
 
 699 
 
 14, 288 
 638, 692 
 
 805 
 
 662 
 8,906 
 
 631 
 4,474 
 3,655 
 
 895 
 
 323 
 
 1,364 
 
 5,105 
 
 1,712 
 
 583 
 
 1,712 
 
 145, 471 
 
 407 
 
 1,386 
 
 16, 201 
 
 4,052 
 
 12, 201 
 
 191 
 
 2,113 
 
 3,120 
 
 20, 373 
 
 8,313 
 
 1,169 
 
 8,313 
 
 466, 992 
 
 675 
 
 9, 253 
 
 51, 027 
 
 11,743 
 
 30, 467 
 
 374 
 
 97 
 
 New Bedford 
 
 
 831 
 
 438 
 
 JTew London 
 
 
 
 
 Jitev Orleans 
 
 299 
 
 22, 920 
 4 
 
 1,916 
 30,538 
 
 1,227 
 
 709 
 
 110, 250 
 
 « 
 
 7,110 
 
 51, 021 
 
 839 
 
 
 Norfolk 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Portsmouth . - 
 
 Providence 
 
 
 Philadelphia 
 
 5,724 
 
 21, 822 
 
 Kichmond 
 
 
 
 
 81, 279 
 
 1,527 
 
 6,408 
 
 14,613 
 
 129, 134 
 
 12,084 
 
 523, 005 
 
 243,547 
 
 
 4,603 
 459 
 
 11,788 
 958 
 
 7,946 
 6,048 
 
 20,626 
 11, 278 
 
 Salem 
 
 3 286 
 
 ■Willamette 
 
 45, 518 
 
 413, 7U 
 
 24, 675 
 
 1,787,867 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2,575 
 25, 575 
 
 7,748 
 108, 801 
 
 1,335 
 75, 102 
 
 6,393 
 298, 563 
 
 
 
 Total from all ports in the 
 United States 
 
 240, 697 
 
 839,334 
 
 396,128 
 
 1, 280, 824 
 
 877, 504 
 
 2, 846, 741 
 
 
 EeceiTed at Boston in 1888, 28,000 tons agaiast 99,«ee te»s in 1868. KeeeiTei at Neir Tort in 18S8, 
 23,000 toi^ against 145,000 tons in 1868. 
 
 Importation of bitumin*u4 coal. 
 
 Countries from which mostly 
 receiTed. 
 
 Tear ending Jane 30, 
 I860; daty $1 (C. 
 & N. No. 5, page 
 198). 
 
 Fear ending Jane 30, 
 1868; duty $1.26 
 <C. &. N. No. 9, 
 page 648). 
 
 Year ending Jon** 30, 
 1888; duty 76 cents. 
 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Valuation. 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Yaluation. 
 
 Tone. 
 
 Valuation. 
 
 Hamhnrg...... ..- 
 
 661 
 
 197, 996 
 
 18, 978 
 
 448 
 
 6,467 
 
 $2, 371 
 
 622, 785 
 
 116, 772 
 
 1,017 
 
 34,700 
 
 355 
 
 99, 058 
 
 5,768 
 
 1,084 
 
 227, 048 
 
 23, 708 
 20,650 
 
 $1, 266 
 
 347, 333 
 
 18, 321 
 
 2,797 
 
 660, 464 
 
 129, 172 
 69,219 
 
 
 
 
 138,722 
 29,649 
 
 $264, 354 
 120, 373 
 
 Scotland - 
 
 Canada 
 
 British North American Posses- 
 
 69, 797 
 
 304, 976 
 
 332, 160 
 
 61 
 
 80,7a 
 
 1, 335, 308 
 928 961 
 
 British North American Posses- 
 sions on Pacific 
 
 
 10,485 
 
 105 
 
 2,488 
 
 19 
 
 2,286 
 
 30,740 
 
 276 
 
 8,075 
 
 43 
 
 8,805 
 
 British West Indies 
 
 158 
 
 Prance 
 
 10 
 
 137 
 
 13, 222 
 
 4,664 
 
 24 
 
 345 
 
 51, 676 
 
 18, 523 
 
 
 
 44 
 1 
 
 102 
 
 GhiH 
 
 4 
 
 Peru 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total from all conntries 
 
 240, 697 
 
 839, 334 
 
 396, 128 
 
 1, 280, 824 
 
 877, 504 
 
 2, 846, 741 
 
 In view of the bituminous coal industry of the whole country, I would make about 
 the following rates for bituminous coal, with the proviso which I have indicated. 
 
 Coal, bituminous and shale, such as will not pass through a screen of l^inch mesh,^ 
 called lump coal, 68 cents per ton of 2,240 pounds. 
 
120 REVISION-OP »THE*TAEIFP. 
 
 Such as will pass through a screen of 1^ inch, but will not pass through a screen of 
 five-eights of an inch, called nut coal, 68 cents per ton of 2,240 pounds. 
 
 Such as will pass through a screen of five-eights of an inch, called slack, 34 cents 
 per ton of 2,240 pounds. 
 
 Kun-of-mines, that is, lump, nut, and slack together, as taken out of the mine, 34 
 cents per ton of 2,240 pounds. 
 
 Coal, having less than 10 per cent, of slack to the hundredweight, shall he con- 
 sidered lump and nut coal. 
 
 With this change in the duty northwestern Pennsylvania and Ohio would supply 
 in Canada, in addition to the territory which they now supply, a strip of country about 
 150 miles wide east and west, extending north across the whole of Canada, iuoludlDg 
 the city of Montreal. The local consumption of Montreal is about 500,000 tons of 
 bituminous coal a year. For the year 1889, ending with the close of navigation, there 
 was received at Montreal by water 328,000 tons and by rail 82,000 tons, making in all 
 410,000 gross tons. 
 
 The distance from Piotou and Cape Breton mines to Montreal by rail is over 700 
 miles; from Halifax to Montreal is 652 miles. From the mines of northwestern 
 Pennsylvania, through Buffalo to Montreal, is from 650 to 6a0 miles ; through Nor- 
 wood and Massena Springs, St. Lawrence County, N. Y., it is from 630 to 650 miles. 
 The distance from Halifax to Boston by rail is 726 miles ; from Baltimore to Boston, 
 325 miles. The distance from the Cumberland and Clearfield coal districts to Boston, 
 by Philadelphia, is from 450 to 580 miles. So the meeting points for market between 
 the Nova Scotia mines and the United States mines would be in Canada east of 
 Montreal, and, along the Atlantic coast, Boston, and points east of it. 
 
 The largest quantity of coal imported from Canada into the United States in any 
 one year under the reciprocity treaty, when there was no duty, was less than 250,000 
 tons. Last year, when the duty was substantially the same by both countries, we 
 exported to Canada three times the quantity of bituminous coal that we imported 
 from there, and, with the change in the duty which I propose, the existing difference 
 would, in my judgment, be greatly increased. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES F. MAYER. 
 
 Mr. Charles F. Mater, president of the Consolidation Coal Company, of Mary- 
 land, and of the Despard Gas Coal Company, of West "Virginia, next addressed the 
 committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. I have reduced to writing what 
 we propose to say upon this subject, which will probably be more concise than any 
 other way. If any gentleman of the committee desires to ask me any questions upon 
 this subject, I shall be very glad to answer them. 
 
 We beg to ask your attention io the serious consequences to the West Virginia and 
 Pennsylvania gas coal, and the Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia steam coal, 
 trades, if the present moderate, indeed, inadequate, impost duty of 75 cents per ton 
 is either reduced or abolished. 
 
 Since the birth of the country as a commercial power, the importance of developing 
 the vast deposits of steam and gas coals within the borders of the United States has 
 been recognized by the General Government, and such legislation as would most en- 
 courage this has been adopted. 
 
 In 1824 a duty was imposed equivalent to per ton . . $1. 68 
 
 The act of 1842 placed it at do 1. 75 
 
 This rate was continued until 1846, when it was changed to an ad valorem duty 
 
 of - per cent . . 30 
 
 Which, by a falling scale provided by law, fell in 1862 to do 24 
 
 It was then, in 1862, changed to per ton.. 1.00 
 
 In 1865 it was raised to do 1.10 
 
 In 1866 it was raised to do 1. 25 
 
 At which it continued until 1873, when it was fixed at the now existing duty 
 
 of per ton.. .75 
 
 The single exception to this general policy of the Government (apart from the spe- 
 cial exemption in the act of March 3, 1883), was made in coals from the British Prov- 
 inces, which were admitted duty free by the provisions of the reciprocity treaty of 
 1854, and so continued until the termination of that treaty in 1866. 
 
 This exception, it is claimed, was unfairly obtained by parties interested in provin- 
 cial mines; but be that as it may the owners of provincial mines, aided vigorously 
 by New England parties, who had become interested in that region, have persist- 
 ently worked ever since the termination of that treaty to get coal placed upon the 
 free list. 
 
 The special (and extraordinary) exemption referred to was that provision in the 
 act of March 3, 1883, by which " a drawback of 75 cents should be allowed on all 
 
EEVISION OP THE TAEIPP. 121 
 
 ■bittimiiions coal imported into the United States whioli is afterward used :for fuel on 
 board vessels propelled by steam which are engaged in the coasting trade of the 
 United States, or in the trade with foreign countries." 
 
 This act was secured by parties in our ]?acific States who had become interested in 
 the British American mines on that coast, and while the volume of coal that has 
 availed of this act on the Atlantic sea-board has not been large it has injuriously af- 
 fected the American steam coal trade. 
 
 It was after the termination of the reciprocity treaty, when provincial coals were 
 subjected to the same duty as all other foreign coals, that the rapid and extended de- 
 velopment of the great eastern bituminous fields of our own country commenced. 
 
 The extensive basins of Virginia and West Virginia have come into the market 
 only since that period, while those of Pennsylvania and Maryland — until then devel- 
 oped to but a limited extent — have expanded into extensive and important industries 
 employing millions of capital and thousands of hardy workmen, and aiding, perhaps 
 more than any single industry, in the rapid projection and extension of many most 
 important lines of railway. 
 
 Thelast census reports show, in the above three States alone, the amount of capital 
 to be $57,705,000 and the number of persons to be 41,000 actually engaged directly in 
 the mining of coal. These figures have increased largely since the census. 
 
 The rapid increase in the product of the bituminous coal mines of the United 
 States for consumption in the sea-board States is shown by the following figures: 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Product in 1865 1,989,^47 
 
 Product in 1874 4,566,495 
 
 Product in 1889, estimated 11,500,000 
 
 Extraordinary as has been this development in the production of native bituminous 
 coals, the decrease in price to the consumer has been equally remarkable, as will be 
 shown by the following table : 
 
 Prices of American steam coals. 
 
 [Per ton of 2,240 pounds.] 
 
 Tear. 
 
 At Baltimore. 
 
 At New York. 
 
 1876 
 
 $3.87 
 2.50 
 
 $5.40 
 
 
 
 
 In 1885 the prices were 25 cents lower than the quotations for 1889, the increase 
 being due entirely to an advance made in miners' and mine laborers' wages in 1886. 
 
 The course of prices as shown by the above figures is well worthy your special 
 attention. 
 
 Domestic competition alone has produced this regular and gradual decline in prices 
 and has furnished the american manufacturers railroads, and steamers their supplies 
 upon as advantageous terms as can be obtained in almost any part of the world — in 
 some cases at lower figures than prevail anywhere else. 
 
 Even the most extended strikes among the miners of our bituminous regions have 
 not advanced prices, so numerous are the sources of supply developed by the en^ 
 couragement heretofore given by the steadfast policy of the General Government. 
 
 In addition to the great advantages the development of our bituminous coal-fields 
 has secured to the American manufacturer, it has performed an almost equally im- 
 portant part in affecting the prices of anthracite coal — the great domestic fuel of the 
 Atlantic sea-hoard. 
 
 This anthracite coal, produced from a limited area in eastern Pennsylvania, was 
 until the development of oar bituminous fields the only coal (excepting a few thou- 
 sand tons of English gas coal) need for both manufacturing and domestic purposes 
 on the Atlantic sea-board ; and would of necessity have commanded far higher prices 
 had it continued to engross the whole market ; but from the time our American bitu- 
 minous coals have been largely developed, these latter have become very largely the 
 manufacturing and steam coals, confining anthracite coal mainly to domestic pur- 
 poses, allowing it thereby to fill that ever-increasing demand at moderate figures. 
 . The foregoing shows how eminently advantageous the development of our bitu- 
 minous fields has proven to the American manufacturer. The results to the producer 
 have been far otherwise. Since'1877 the mining of both gas and steam coals in our 
 eastern basins, for the supply of the Atlantic sea-board, has been absolutely unremu- 
 nerative to the operators. As a rule only a small royalty has been secured, with lit- 
 tle, if any, other return for the large amount of capital invested— barely sufBcient to 
 induce operators to persevere in anticipation of a better future and the hope that 
 the injustice done them by the tariff of 1873 would be remedied. 
 
122 EE VISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 In iUustratioD of this I bef; to submit the following figures; 
 
 Gat-coala from West Virginia. 
 
 Per ton. 
 Railroad freight from mines to Baltimore for shipment to New York and New 
 
 England |1,60 
 
 Shipping charges, insurance, and other terminals SJ6 
 
 Vessel freights to New Yorli - 1. 25 
 
 Actual cost of putting 1 ton gas coal on cars at mine 80 
 
 Total 3.91 
 
 Actual price of this coal in New York during 1889 4. 00 
 
 Profit and royalty to shipper 09 
 
 Maryland steam coals. 
 
 Per ton. 
 
 Railroad freights from mines to Baltimore for shipment to New York $1.25 
 
 Shipping charges, insurance, and other terminals 20 
 
 Vessel freights to Now York 1.10 
 
 Actual cost of putting 1 ton of steam coal on cars at mine 90 
 
 Total 3.45 
 
 Actual price of this coal in New York during 1889 3.50 
 
 Profit and royalty to shipper 05 
 
 The slight differences in shipping charges and vessel freights between gas and steam 
 coals arise from the different modes of shipment and points of delivery in New York 
 Harbor. 
 
 The several items of cost may vary in the coals of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and 
 West Virginia, but the results are alike unremunerative to all. 
 
 During the same period (1889) provincial coals sold in the Eastern markets at about 
 $3.25 for steam coals, and $3.75 for gas coals, affording to the provincial operators a 
 handsome return. 
 
 With this difference in price between the two coals, the market has been supplied, 
 in part from each source ; but make the difference as much greater as will result from 
 reducing the existing tariff or placing coal on the free list, and you largely increase 
 the consumption of provincial coals. The inevitable result of this must be a dimin- 
 ished output by the American producers, a consequent abandonment of work by some 
 operators in portions of the Eastern fields, and a check to this important industry, 
 which it will require years to overcome, when the ruinous result of the proposed 
 measure, if adopted, shall have been demonstrated. 
 
 Economical and prudent management has been of necessity the rule among our 
 operators. The wages paid to our miners has been only a fair return for their labor, 
 even at the advance of wages heretofore referred to. The transporter, as the forego- 
 ing figures will show, has been pressed down to, and in some cases under, the lowest 
 remunerative point. 
 
 Should any reduction be made in the present tariff, i t can not fail to affect the wages 
 of our miners and mine laborers, for in all other departments every possible economy 
 is being exercised. 
 
 The existing wages are ai low as they should be in this country, and for such labor, 
 the skilled labor which produces coal as it is known in the market, not the '■ raw ma- 
 terial," as the advocates of free trade persist in calling it. This term properly ap- 
 plies to the coal only in the ground, the value of it there being but a minute portion 
 of its cost as known to commerce. 
 
 The provincial mines are located near tide, none of them more than 25 miles dis- 
 tant, many of them from 2 to 6 miles ; in which latter case, their product is brought 
 from the pit's mouth in the mine cars and dumped directly therefrom into vessels. 
 Their coal is produced by labor costing little more than half what it costs in this 
 country, and is shipped here almost entirely in foreign bottoms, at much lower 
 freights than prevail for American coals, which must be shipped in American bottoms. 
 This remark as to cheaper freights applies, in a great measure, to the shippers of 
 English coals, who, though more distaut than the provincial mines from our markets, 
 have the advantage of frequently being able to ship their coals to this country in 
 lieu of ballast at nominal rates of freight. 
 
 The steam and gas coal mines of this country are located from 200 to 300 miles from 
 tide, and our product is mined, brought out, sent to tide, and shipped coastwise at 
 the higher prices paid for all classes of labor in this country. 
 
 The coal operator of our own country has been encouraged to invest his capital 
 under the Government's long established policy of a duty on coals. The operator of 
 the British provinces and his American associates have invested theii capital in th* 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 123 
 
 face of this established policy, and have no cause of complaint if that policy is con- 
 tinued. 
 
 Permit me, in this connection, to call your attention to another Tery important in- 
 terest which will be materially injured by a reduction in, or abolition of, the duty 
 on ccal, viz, that of our coasting vessels. 
 
 Late reports show that about live hundred vessels are mainly engaged in distribut- 
 ing coals along the Eastern Atlantic sea-board. 
 
 Seriously interfere, by the proposed legislation, with our production of coal for 
 Eastern trade, and it is not unreasonable to predict that our coasting vessels would 
 soon be in the deplorable condition of onr merchant marine engaged in foreign trade. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you not know that it is a fact that our coasting trade under 
 the law can not be interfered with? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. If you take the duty off and replace American vessels with provincial 
 vessels, you interfere with American vessels to that extent. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. What I was speaking of, foreign vessels can not engage in the 
 coasting trade. 
 
 Mr. Mayhr. It is not engaged in the coasting trade, but it is engaged in bringing 
 coal from foreign countries. Provincial coal comes in provincial bottoms, from my 
 experience for many years in the trade. 
 
 The following table, made up from official sources, shows the imports of bituminous 
 coal, and the revenue derived therefrom, for the years 1872 to 1885, inclusive. (For 
 the years 1883 to 1885 we have been able to obtain only partial returns.) 
 
 We have been unable to bring the table^ up to 1889, because of the limited notice 
 given of this meeting. 
 
 Statement of the imports of coal into the United States during tht fourteen fiscal years elid- 
 ing June 30, 1885. 
 
 Tears 
 ended 
 June 
 30— 
 
 Britisli North 
 American posses- 
 sions. 
 
 All other coimtriea. 
 
 Total imports. 
 
 Kate 
 
 of 
 duty. 
 
 Bnty 
 collected. 
 
 Average du- 
 ty reduced to 
 ad valorem. 
 
 1872 
 
 Tons. 
 257, 447 
 
 261,251 
 
 312, 666 
 181, 942 
 178, 421 
 174,015 
 265, 794 
 235, 920 
 269, 058 
 340, 062 
 295, 097 
 
 $608, 623 
 
 683, 292 
 
 1, 077, 464 
 697, 673 
 719, 238 
 693,911 
 924, 899 
 866, 192 
 882, 726 
 991, 69I 
 778, 217 
 
 Tons. 
 233, 184 
 
 194, 764 
 
 18,5, 462 
 259, 658 
 229, 432 
 323, 225 
 312, 663 
 255, 553 
 208, 459 
 337, 298 
 556, 237 
 
 $682, 583 
 856, 271 
 
 872, 961 
 1, 101, 024 
 
 8S8, 053 
 1, 081, 756 
 1, Oil, 288 
 
 858, 274 
 
 710, 779 
 1,017,423 
 1,411,081 
 
 Tons. 
 490, 631 
 
 456, 015 
 
 498, 028 
 441, 600 
 407, 853 
 497, 270 
 578, 457 
 491,473 
 477, 517 
 677, 360 
 851, 3tl4 
 722, 695 
 82'), 266 
 817, 918 
 
 $1, 291, 206 
 
 1, 539, 663 
 
 1, 950, 426 
 1, 708, 697 
 1, 607, 891 
 1, 775, 067 
 1,936,187 
 1, 724, 466 
 
 1, 693, 505 
 
 2, 008, 974 
 2, 189, 298 
 2, 085, 972 
 2, 658, 164 
 2, 593, 679 
 
 Per ton. 
 $1.25 
 C 1. 25 
 \ .75 
 .75 
 .75 
 .75 
 .75 
 .76 
 .75 
 .75 
 .75 
 .76 
 .76 
 .76 
 .76 
 
 $606, 329 
 
 1 369,989 
 
 369, 047 
 327, 536 
 300, 474 
 371,862 
 429, 634 
 364, 876 
 363, 863 
 489, 722 
 596, 791 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 1873 
 
 
 1874 
 1875 
 1876 
 1877 
 1878 
 1879 
 1880 
 1881 
 1882 
 
 19.00 
 18.28 
 18.86 
 20.86 
 22,26 
 21.26 
 22. 28 
 24.63 
 
 1883 
 
 
 1884 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 188.1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total.. 
 
 2, 771, 603 
 
 8, 923, 786 
 
 3, 095, 935 
 
 10, 492, 193 
 
 8, 228, 417 
 
 26, 653, 794 
 
 
 
 
 The above table shows that the importation of foreign coals is increasing rapidly, 
 that from 1873 (when the duty was reduced to 75 cents) to 1882 it has nearly doubled. 
 It also shows that on this increased quantity in 1882 the revenue collected by the 
 Government under the duty of 75 cents was not as much as the revenue collected in 
 1872 on little more than one-half the quantity when the duty was |1.25. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Where do these foreign coals come from f 
 
 Mr. Mayer. This article does not show it, but your reports of the departments do. 
 I heard the statement of Mr. Grow, which I beg to differ with. He stated that nearly 
 all the foreign coals imported into this country came from the Pacific coast. That is 
 not the case. Since the opening of the mines on Vancouver's Island the importation 
 into San Francisco has been quite large, but a considerable quantity of foreign coal 
 comes from the provinces. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do these coals come from eastern ports I 
 
 Mr. Mater. They come from Pictou and Cape Breton. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Do you believe the cost of producing coal in Canada is less than in 
 the United States t 
 
 Mr. Mayer. Very largely, sir. There wag a very interesting article appeared in the 
 Times 
 
 Mi. McKbnna. Are they more t 
 
'124 EEVISlON OP TflE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Mater. Now, Mr. Grow made a mistake. That is a matter too Well estab- 
 lished. You can get statistics for years, and you will find the British miner gets 
 about half. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. What is the cost of mining ? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. It is about half. These British miners get about half. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Mr. Grow stated it was 25 per cent, more in this country than in 
 Canada. 
 
 Mr. Mayer. It is a difference between |1.25 and $3.50. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Have you any actual experience in regard to the wages paid in 
 Canada ? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. Only from the reports. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you send coal to Canada to sell ? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Have you been there to inspect the mines ? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you know that Mr. Grow annually sends coal there and sells it 
 in the Canada market ? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. He does not sell coal to the British provinces ; he may sell coal to 
 Montreal, and I greatly question that. We have a large amount of coal exported 
 into Canada from the Western States. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Owing to what ? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. To the effect of the tariff upon coal at Atlantic seaports and its com- 
 petition with the British provinces. The Western States may supply coal to the 
 western portions of Canada because they can not get coal on account of the transpor- 
 tation from the St. Lawrence River and Quebec to the western portions of Canada, 
 as it is too expensive. If we had free coal it would not affect one single ton of coal 
 that goes into western Canada. 
 
 Mr. Brkckenridge. Have you figured the exports of coal as well as the imports? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. I have, sir, and the exports of coal from this country are not large. 
 There is no place to export from to the British provinces. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Mr. Grow gave us those figures. 
 
 Mr. Mayer. If you will pardon me, we have sent some cannel-coal to Great Britain, 
 but not a great amount. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I understand there is a combination. 
 
 Mr. Mayer. Yes, sir. If you will look into the matter you will find they are limited, 
 and no man who knows anything about coal will attempt to controvert it. British 
 cannel-coal can be put on board at the port of market at about 14 shillings ; that is, 
 $3.50. Now, if you will consider for a moment the shipment of cannel-coal to tide 
 by rail and there shipped by water to Great Britain, and figure that at f 3.50, you will 
 realize it is out of the question. The coal that has been shipped has been of a peculiar 
 quality. It has been the Breckinridge cannel-coal, which is an extraordinary prod- 
 uct, and not only used as fuel but for other purposes, what you might term the fine 
 arts, and for the manufacture of ornaments. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Is it used to light the streets of London ? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. That is not true, sir. There is no American, cannel or other coal 
 used to light the streets of London. In the first place, the streets of London are 
 lighted by two classes of light. They are using electricity and they are Bsing cannel- 
 coal, and also using cannel-coal for cooking. They can put this coal in Loidon for 
 some little more than it costs to put the coal on board at Baltimore, New York, or Phil- 
 adelphia. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is your judgment about what should be done with the tariff, 
 increase the present duty or let it remain where it is? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. I should say let it remain where it is, not because it is just to remain 
 there, but for the reason that the clamor for a reduction is such that if we put coal 
 where it ought to be it would raise 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Where ought it to be ? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. It should not be outside of $1.25. When you reduce the general tariff 
 you may then reduce us to $1. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. That is for the benefit of American labor ? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. That is the element to be considered? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. That is one of them ; there are a great many elements. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. The whole cost on board the cars in West Virginia is 80 to 90 cents ; 
 80 for one class and 90 for another ? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. Yes, sir, and the whole cost of production in Canada is a little over 
 a half— about 50 cents. On bo.ard cars in West Virginia it is 80 to 90 cents. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. If there is that difference, the difference between 80 and 50 cents, 
 30 cents, do you think there should be $1.20 to make up that difference ? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. I do, and I have good reasons for it. What enters into the cost of 
 American coal ? What makes American coal cost what it now does in the market t 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 125 
 
 Is it the cost at the mines t What good does coal do there f What good does coal on 
 the cars and dumped at the mouth of the mine dot Does it help anybody or do any- 
 thing t Take it where it becomes of use, that is, at tide. It goes over the railway • 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. Then it is the railway you want to protect, and not the labor ? 
 
 Mr. Maykr. Both, because the railway also employs labor, I am not defending 
 railroads ; they can take care of themselves. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. They can do that generally. 
 
 Mr. Mayek. I think it is fortunate they can. I do not know where any of ua would 
 be without them. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I simply wanted to see the object of your argument and see the 
 manner in which labor is included in it. 
 
 Mr. Matek. My object is this, gentlemen, and I am amiuerlthink, as I have been 
 
 in this business for twenty years. I want to get some money out of it. I want to 
 
 employ the labor I have now, and I would like to see them prosperous, and looking 
 
 as they do now, comfortably housed and clothed, and I do not want them driven to 
 
 ' where the British laborer now is. 
 
 The Chairman. A removal of the present tariff would have that effect t 
 Mr. Maybe. Without question. 
 
 Mr. Caklislb. When the whole cost of mining and putting a ton of coal on the 
 cars ready for shipment is only 80 cents, does it include all the cost of labor and the 
 use of the capital ? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. There is no capital there. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Does not anybody own the mine ? 
 
 Mr. Maybr. This is purely the money paid oiit for a ton of coal. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Suppose that is all labor ; wby is 75 cents on a ton necessary to pay 
 for the mere difference between the cost of labor here and in Canada ? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. You do not do that. I have stated that the provincial mines 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I am not talking about that. I am talking about this element of 
 labor. 
 
 Mr. Mayer. If you can not send coal to tide, what are you going to do about 
 labor. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I am talking about the labor employed in Ihe production of that 
 particular article. Of course every thing has to be shipped. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. I understand the price is to compensate the cost of production in- 
 cluding a fair encouragement to the capitalist to invest in that business ? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. We have very little of that, and I do not hope to have it. I do not 
 think we can look to this Congress for much compensation in that way. If we can 
 manage to keep our mines going and men employed, I think we will be doing well. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You think that will be a good beneficial tariff? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. I hope that will develop, but I have not seen it, and I have been here 
 many years. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I understand you differ with Mr. Grow about the exports of 
 coal. He stated that for the year ending the 30th of June, 18H9, our imports were 
 434,000 and odd tons, and our exports which you say were insignificant, were 680,000 
 tons. 
 
 Mr. Mayer. Did he tell you what kind of coal that was ? A great deal of it is an- 
 thracite coal. You do not want any tariff on anthracite coal, as that is sufficiently 
 protected. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I did not understand him to say that this was anthracite coal. 
 
 Mr. Mayer. I am quite sure it is. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I would like to ask you one other question. Do we not sup- 
 ply coal to Havana ? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does that come in competition with the provincial coal f 
 
 Mr. Mayer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If you can bring it to Baltimore and ship it to Cuba and ^rive 
 out the provincial coal, why can not you ship it to New York aud drive out the pro- 
 vincial coal T 
 
 Mr. Maybr. Because there happens to be between the United States and the West 
 Indies a large trade in sugar, and every vessel that goes to Havana with coal comes 
 back loaded with sugar. It is only in the last five years we have been doing much 
 in shipping to Havana. It has only been since we have been able to get this present 
 low figure that we have done so. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. So what you gain is a rebate between Baltimore and Havana? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. It is a drawback paid by the Spanish Government. It makes a draw- 
 hack on the port dues on every vessel that brings coal in. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. To American vessels only ? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. To all. 
 
 Mr. BRECKiNBWaE. Have we any advantage of the provincial veseels who carry 
 
 OQ»lf 
 
126 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Mayer. Our vessels go there with coal and bring back sugar, but the proyin- 
 cial vessels Uo not bring back su^ar. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The advantage is this, in having a return cargo, and the ad- 
 vantage of that return cargo enables us to supplant the provincial coaJ in the Havana 
 market. 
 
 ^ Mr. Mayer. Then there is another little advantage. They send coal into the in- 
 terior of Cuba upon flats, and they use lump coal, and they do not put the smaller 
 size of coal upon these flats. We have most of the large sizes of coal while the pro- 
 vincial mines have none. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are you able to give a money expression of the amount of that t 
 
 Mr. Mayer. No, sir; I could not well do that. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The advantage consists in these two items. 
 
 Mr. Mayer. No, sir ; our chief advantage is the fact that we have a return cargo. 
 There is also a trade in iron ore. Some of our coal vessels you refer to run between 
 the United States and Cuba with coal out and bring iron ore back. , 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. So you find the conditions of coal shipi^ing to Cuba in a pros- 
 perous condition 1 
 
 Mr. Mayer. I do not know it is in a prosperous condition. I do not think it is 
 near as prosperous as a few years ago. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Where we get a return cargo and they do not get a return 
 cargo, we are able to drive out provincial shipping ! 
 
 Mr. Mayer. We do not drive them out, but we take a portion of the business. 
 Provincial and English coals still come into Havana. 
 
 Mr Bayne. Did you say there was a drawback on iron ore there ? 
 
 Mr. Mayer. No, sir; I said that vessels going to Havana with coal on board, re- 
 ceived a drawback upon the port charges, which are very heavy, and they only get a 
 drawback upon that. I do not think we get anything on iron. Indeed I know they 
 do not give a drawback. The iron ore is mined there and they bring it to this 
 country. It is a comparatively new industry. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I understood you to say the other, but I misunderstood you. 
 
 The Chairman. The drawback is all our encouragement t 
 
 Mr. Mayer. That and the return cargo. 
 
 We beg to remind the committee of the fact that the bituminous coals of Pennsyl- 
 vania, Maryland, Virginia, and Weat Virginia, brought to tide, are used entirely for 
 steam purposes and the manufacture of gas, etc. ; they are not at all used for domestic 
 purposes. 
 
 Anthracite, which is duty free and has no foreign competitor, occupies entirely the 
 domestic fuel field, and will not in any way be affected by duty, or no duty, on 
 bituminous coals. Nor will the tariff on bituminous coals in any way affect the price 
 of this commodity anywhere but on the sea-board, for, owing to the cost of trans- 
 portation, no foreign coals are used 50 miles inland from tide. 
 
 If it is contended that the period has arrived when it has become necessary to make 
 a general reduction in our import duties, we beg leave to call attention to the fact 
 that .in 1873, when a general reduction of 10 per cent, was made, the reduction on 
 coal was 40 per cent. ; thus anticipating by sixteen years — on that article — the gen- 
 eral reduction which some now urge has become necessary. 
 
 We beg you to consider well if it is wise to disturb this important industry by the 
 proposed legislation, to check the growth and development which each year is adding 
 to the general prosperity; impair the prosperity of thousands now among us; do 
 injury to our coasting trade and inland transporters, when no cause for complaint 
 or demand exists for such action on the part of the consumer, whose true interests lie 
 in the continued development of our own coal-fields, and when the only good if (in- 
 deed it can be considered good) such action will accomplish will be to increase the 
 profits of the investors in the mines of the British Provinces; profits already three- 
 fold larger than accrue to those who are engaged in the working of our home coal- 
 fields. 
 
 Can Congress feel itself called upon after the injustice done this interest by the 
 tariff of 187.3, to abolish, or again make a reduction in the inadequate duty (an 
 average of about 20 per cent.) allowed it under the present tariff? We earnestly 
 urge your committee to relinquish all idea of doing so great an injury to so impor- 
 tant an interest, with nothing whatever to compensate for the infliction. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I would like to ask Mr. Grow a question. (To Mr. Grow.) If I under- 
 stood you, you made a statement that 1,168,351 tons of bituminous coal was exported 
 into Canada. Does that include anthracite coal t 
 
 Mr. Grow. I got these figures from the Bureau of Statistics and I got the imports 
 into this country from the report of the custom-house. 
 
 Mr. Mayer. I stand here to say this, that I know if you will look into it you will 
 find that includes authracite. 
 
 Mr. Gi;ow. There were three times as much anthracite sent ftom this country. I 
 got it from the Bureau of Statistica, 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 127 
 
 Mr. Mater. If you go and look it over you will find that. I think if you inquire 
 they will tell you what foreign port gets American soft cfjul. 
 
 Mr. Grow. This report is from the custonj-house report of bituminous coal exported 
 from this country into Canada. The other is taken from ]iiy own importation from 
 Canada. There was but 30,000,1 think, from the Nova Scotia regiuu, and 400,000 
 from British Columbia. 
 
 Mr. Caklislb. In regard to the difference in wages of labor here and in Canada, 
 how do you base that ? Have you furnished that ? 
 
 Mr. GrROW. Yes, sir; that I will give. We pay the miners so much a ton, all soft 
 miners mine by the ton in western Pennsylvania. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Did I understand you to say that basis was per ton 60 odd cents ? 
 
 Mr. GROVf . I will give it myself. I sell about 120,000 tons to the Grand Trunk 
 Line for fuel. Then for the last eight years annually there has been another contract 
 for 30,000 tons with auother company. That is why I say we take the Montreal mar- 
 ket away. Now, we pay the miners through what is called the Allegheny River sec- 
 tion to-day 60 cents for a ton of soft coal ; say it is 50 tents to the miner for lump coal. 
 
 The Chairman. Does he divide with assistants? 
 
 Mr. Grow. No ; in the hard region they do, but in this class of coal they do not. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Will you kindly have the information which you got from the prov- 
 inces stated in the same form ? 
 
 Mr. Grow. That is what I shall do. Now, we have mule drivers they pay 17 cents 
 an hour. They haul by the hour, and ten hours is a day's work. That is, the lowest 
 labor we pay is about f 1.40 to |1.60 cents a day. We pay the men who load the coal 
 tram |1. 80 a day. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. How much does a miner make t 
 
 Mr. Grow. It depends upon how smart he is. If he could get out about 4 tons a 
 day he would make $2.'S0 to |2.40, between $2 and S2..50. The miner has to load the 
 coal on the car in the soft-coal re j, ion. In the hard-coal region he has laborers to 
 help, so it comes to the same thing. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Does the cost of mining vary with the thickness and depth of the vein 
 in different localities ? 
 
 Mr. Grow. Oh, yes; it costs more in different localities where you have to raise 
 the mass and do a heavy tonnage business to gee the coal out. We are subject to the 
 miners. They fix their own prices and mine owners can not help themselves, and the 
 whole region has to pay them. AVhat I want to call attention to is the fact that I 
 got this from the custom-house reports of Canada, and I got the other from the Bu- 
 reau of Statistics. 
 
 The Chairman. In the statement Mr. Carlisle wishes you to make, you will put in 
 the price of labor. 
 
 Mr. Grow. I will send a statement including the mule driver, miner, outside labor, 
 and everything by the ton. 
 
 Mr. Mayer. The price paid for mining a ton of ore forms but a portion of the cost, 
 and the gentleman may have told yon, if he looked into it at all, that there is the ad- 
 ditional labor of hauling it, loading it, and all the rest, which would make up the 
 cost of a ton of coal to the cars, whereas in regard to wliat he sells to the Grand 
 Trunk Line the duty has nothing whatever to do. They can not pay for the trans- 
 portation and the coals can not come in. They can not afford to pay the water 
 freights to Quebec from the western portion of the State, so the duty has nothing to 
 do with it. It is a well-understood thing, and every experienced man is well aware 
 of that fact. 
 
 COAL AND lEON IN THE VIRGINIAS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF GENERAL J. D. IMBODBN. 
 
 General J. D. Imbodbn, of Virginia, next addressed the committee. He said: 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I find myself here to-day rather 
 unexpectedly. At no later day than yesterday at noon I received a letter request- 
 ing my appearance here to represent some very large interests in my own State, 
 and extending beyond it into the State of Tennessee, and perhaps into the State of 
 Kentucky. I want to say a few words, and as briefly as I can, upon the great im- 
 portance to all that section of country of retaining the duty upon coal and iron ores. 
 We feel that it would be a wise policy to increase that duty. The consumption of 
 iron ore in this country, as you have doubtless been told by gentlemen more familiar 
 with the subject than I am, is from 10,000,000 to 12,000,000 tons a year. Of that I 
 find the average importations for the last five years about 1,504,000 tons. This is a 
 trifle over 10 per cent, of what is consumed in this country. We have, sir, in our 
 
128 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 section of the country a vast development taking place now, and the discovery 0/ 
 almost unsuspected wealth which lies hidden in our valleys and our mountains opens 
 up to us amazing results in the near future. This question addresses itself very par- 
 ticularly to the wisdom of Congress to protect, not the manufacturer — to protect, 
 not the skilled laborer, but to protect an Immense mass of common labor. Take my 
 own State, for instance, and I will mention a few facts. You have already, doubt- 
 less, read these statistics. 
 
 Since 1881 investments have been made southwest of Lynchburgh to Tennessee, of 
 more than $40,000,000 in railroads, in the building of furnaces and towns, and open- 
 ing mines, etc. That line of investment is going on very rapidly. To-day there are 
 from 10,000 to 12,000 laborers at work in four counties of southwest Virginia with the 
 pick and shovel building railroads alone. The Charleston, Cincinnati and Chicago 
 Railroad, known as the three C's an3ong us, has from 3,500 to 5,000 men at work. The 
 Norfolk and Western Railroad on the Clinch River, running alongtheedge of the coal 
 fields for more than 100 miles, has from 3,000 to 4,000 men at work. The South Atlantic 
 and Ohio road, from Bristol, on its line, to Big Stone Gap, in the coal field, has about 
 3,000 men at work. The Louisville and Nashville, from Cumberland Gap to Big 
 Stone Gap, has a large force, and it looks like war times in regard to the trains you 
 meet, and the roads are cut up by excessive traveling and the large supply trains in 
 which capital is invested and labor has been employed to reach the crude raw mate- 
 • rial we have in these mountains. There are other lines now building in Tennessee 
 in the Cumberland range. From near the mouth of the Big Sandy to Middlesboro, 
 on the edge of Tennessee and lapping over into Virginia, the richest coal field upon 
 this continent is found, and a thousand square miles of it we have in southwest Vir- 
 ginia. I have the statistics which will prove this. 
 
 They are building railroads, as I have said, all through that section of country, 
 and projecting others to get into this great coal-field. They have tunneled the 
 mountain at Cumberland Gap to get to it, and the whole of this vast investment, of 
 this enormous amount of labor qow being employed, is to a certain extent rendered 
 useless if you place coal upon the free list. The Norfolk and Western road is now 
 the largest line shipping coal in the South. Their line last year carried off in round 
 numbers 2,000,000 tons from Pocahontas. They commenced in 1883 with 106,000 
 tons, and the industry has grown up to over 2,000,000 tons. Of this, 600,000 tons go 
 to Norfolk for ocean shipment. That goes to supply largely the cities, towns, rail- 
 roads, and steamers as far as our coast line extends. Take off the duty of 75 cents 
 and you stop that 600,000 tons a year of the shipment of Pocahontas coal. I have 
 heard it said in regard to that part of their business that their profit does not aver- 
 age 50 cents a ton upon it, and I believe it is true. I know they are carrying it to 
 the sea-coast as low as 3J mills per ton per mile, and they can only afford to do it from 
 the enormous amount they carry. Take off the duty and yon cut off the transporta- 
 tion of 600,000 tons of coal that supplies the States along the Atlantic coast. You 
 cut it off because it comes in competition with the Nova Scotia coal. You cut it off 
 because the mines in Nova Scotia are on the edge of the water, and the miners are 
 working under old ocean itself, and the ships are right above them to receive the 
 production of the mines. Hence the cheapness of getting it on board their ships. 
 Yet should it take the place of this 600,000 tons? In West Virginia the Chesapeake 
 and Ohio road brings to the coast about the same quantity. I have not been able to 
 ascertain accurately what they do haul. They think it is the company's business 
 and the public has no right to know anything in regard to it. They haul to the 
 coast, I judge, not less than 500,000 tons. Then we have 1,000,000 or 1,100,000 tons 
 of coal shipped for consumption along the coast and in the West Indies. 
 
 Where there is now activity in the construction of new lines of railroad into this 
 section, there was formerly a wilderness. It was not known until about 18H0 that 
 we had good coking coals in southwest Virginia. I may mention here with all due 
 modesty, that in February, 1880, I was the first human being that ever published 
 the fact, or ever discovered that we had a good metallurgical coal in southwest 
 Virginia. I spent six weeks of that winter in that region, and discovered it was 
 so and published the facts, and they are now known to the world, through many 
 others as well as myself. 
 
 Mr. Flower. In regard to the Pocahontas coke ; what is the quality of that ? 
 
 Mr. IMBODEN. It is of a very high character. I will tell you something in regard 
 to it. They are now shipping it as far as Chattanooga, in the State of my friend, 
 Mr. McMilliu, who sits on my right. It is hauled 423 miles by rail and delivered at 
 about $4.30 a ton. Mr. Chamberlain, of Chattanooga, tells rae, and I have published 
 that fact, that it is cheaper to him than coke made at Chattanooga at about half the 
 price. The Tennessee coal is admirably fitted for the grate and for steam, but not 
 for coke, for the reason that with the exception of a very little coal there 16 per cent. 
 of it is ash, whereas ours is only about 3 per cent. ash. That tells the story why 
 better iron and more is made with our Virginia coke. We are shipping also from 
 Pocahontas to Sheffield, still further down the Tennessee River five hundi'ed and oiA 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 129 
 
 miles from the raiues, where they have got coal within a few miles ; coal that answers 
 all ordinary purposes hut does not always make a good coke. It is a fact that there 
 are hut four points in the United States where the hest coke is made. Pennsylvauia 
 has two, the Connellsville and Cleartield regions, another one is in West Virginia on 
 the New River, which supplies the furnaces springing up between there and Staunton, 
 Low Moor, Victoria, Lougdale, and others, and the fourth is in southwest Virginia. 
 
 Mr. Flower. It is not exactly in connection with this, but I would like to have 
 you tell me the output of zinc in the uiiue in Virginia. 
 
 Mr. Imboden. I can not, for I do not know the details suffloiently well to tell you 
 what it is. I know better about the output of coal of this Pocahontas region, he- 
 cause I am in a position to know of that practically. You can get a good coke in Ken- 
 tucky, something that will grade 95 to 96 per cent, of fixed carbon and only 3 to 5 per 
 cent, of ash. I will say in regard to our Pokahontas and other southwestern Virginia 
 coals that they are of the higTiest grade, and make coke of from 96 to 97 per cent, of 
 fixed carbon. In that area of about 1,000 square miles the best coking seams are 8 feet 
 thick on an average, and at Pocahontas over 11 feet. Tbe United States Geological 
 Survey have honored me by naming the most persistent seam of the middle measures 
 after me — the Imboden coking seam. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How long is it and how wide ? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. The coal lies nearly horizontally, dipping about 20 feet per mile 
 from the extreme southeastern edge in Virginia to the extreme northwestern edge, 
 say for 5.') to 60 miles. Then it is in Virginia say 20 miles wide and passes under the 
 Cumberland and Black Mountains and Pine Mountain into many counties in Ken- 
 tucky. Hence it is that Kentucky has pushed her roads up Sandy and Kentucky 
 Rivers into these mountains, especially up tbe north fork of the Kentucky River. I 
 could name the counties, but it would take up time. I think that countrj' someday 
 will furnish coke almost exclusively to the whole Ohio Valley and as far northwest 
 as Chicago and that as soon as they make the roads into it. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I uuderstand you to say that coal is now shipped from your Virginia 
 coal fields in the Pocahontas district and sold in the West ludies, Cuba, and Central 
 America. Do you think if our people can ship free coal to the West Indies and 
 Central America and sell it they could not compete with Nova Scotia coal on their 
 own coast? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. No, sir ; for the reason that they come into a free field. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. We go into a free field. These countries would be free to us. 
 
 Mr. Imboden. They would be perfectly free to us ; but when you come to a ship- 
 ment of coal by rail and water we have got 400 miles of hauling to do, and they 
 probably have 10. 
 
 Mr.' Carlisle. You misunderstand me. You do actually carry that 400 miles hy 
 rail, and then by water transportation to Cuba. 
 
 Mr. Imboden. And that 75 cents enables us to do it. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That 75 cents does not protect Cuba and Central America from out- 
 side competition. 
 
 Mr. Imboden. Not at all ; but it enables us to go there with this coal, because of 
 the volume of business it does protect us in on our own coast, and enables us to 
 deliver it cheaper. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. But you carry it to the coast with all this long haul, and then you 
 carry it either to the West Indies or Central America and sell in those markets in 
 competition with the Nova Scotia coal, which, as you say, has advantage in wages. 
 
 Mr. Imboden. 1 will tell you the reason. The Pocahontas people could not do it ; 
 we, perhaps, could not do it if our own coast market was destroyed and oiir coal was 
 not better. I desire to call the attention of the committee to a document you will 
 find among the Senate papers four years ago ; I can not give the number of it. It 
 was a report made by a board of naval officers upon the best coal to be found in the 
 United States for naval purposes. They transmitted their investigations and experi- 
 ments to the Secretary of the Navy. In this report they give preference to the semi- 
 bituminous coal of south West Virginia over all other coal in the world for thirteen 
 reasons which they assign in coming to their final conclusion. They say it is the 
 finest coal on the globe for naval purposes for war vessels. This fact is in our lavor 
 in competing with Nova Scotia in supplying ocean steam coal. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you not get a drawback in the Cuban market in return charges ? 
 I think some one said that yesterday. 
 
 Mr. Imboden. I am not in the company and do not know. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you get a drawback exclusively? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. I can not tell you anything about that. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. We do not get a drawback to the exclusion of other people. 
 Mr. Imboden. Our people in Virginia and West Virgi7iia have become interested 
 very much in this question, and two years ago they held meetings in all that section 
 of country and solemnly protested against free coal. This we propose to put in, and 
 
 485 9 
 
130 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 I will sp.ud the priuted proceedings of tliese meetiugs to the chairman, to he filed with 
 the stenographer. I forgot to bring them this morning. 
 
 Now, consider the queBtiou of transportation over the Norfolk and Western Rail- 
 road to Norfolk. 'They have got to make the peoijle living along the line of this road 
 pay a certain amount of fixed charges to keep it up. It is one of the best managed 
 and best roads probably in the United States. They have spent an immense amount 
 of money on it. If you deprive thom of this coastwise trade in coal, as they urge 
 you should not do, and I believe the removal of this duty would do, they would still 
 have to earn a certain amount to pay fixed charges, and that would increase the 
 charges on every ton of agricultural products in that section of the country. If you 
 deprive them of 600,000 tons of coal transportation to the coast, they will have to 
 make it up on the farmer and the products of the country. That is the view of it 
 taken in that section of tLie country. 
 
 Now, a few words on the iron-ore question. That is a matter of more consequence 
 to a larger number than the other. It seems to be a singular physical fact, and just 
 within the last few years fully realized, and being verified almost weekly, that upon 
 the great granite rim of the ancient ocean on whose floor 40,000,000 of us live we find 
 high Bessemer ores, which extend over a large extent of several Southern States and 
 of those bordering on the lakes and to the Eocky Mountains, and thence down South 
 again until we find them in Texas and in northwestern Arkansas. It was not known 
 until recently that we had true Bessemer ores in the South, commencing in Virginia on 
 the great plateau which lies beyond the Blue Eid^e from the Atlantic in southwest 
 Virginia and North Carolina. Within the last three or four years we have found 
 enormous bodies of high-grade magnetic Bessemer ore — ore that is very low in phos- 
 phorus, and phosphorus is detrimental in making steel. I believe the allowable limit 
 is about .06. 
 
 Within the last two years they have found in Carter County, in your State [to Mr. 
 McMillin], the largest body of ore I have seen in the world, in a district about 8 
 miles long and 6 wide. I came from it last Friday, and have been part of two weeks 
 upon it. In some spots it was 600 feet, and in other places from 200 to 300 feet wide 
 as far as uncovered. An analysis of this iron shows that it is one of the best steel 
 ores in the world. That enormous mass of ore found in Carter County, Teun., he- 
 longs in part to an organization known as the East Tennessee Land Company. 
 They have recently published a big prospectus, in which they state that ioa small 
 section, which does not extend half a mile, they have 100,000, 000 tons in sight. The 
 manager of the Cranberry Company says he has 20,000 tons of ore to be delivered, 
 but can not get the railroad transportation to take it off. They want it about Chat- 
 tanooga and below. Three roads have been undertaken across the dividing line be- 
 tween Tennessee and North and South Carolina to reach large bodies of steel ore in 
 that direction. That is some 250 miles farther down South than where I am con- 
 cerned. Suppose you take the duty off of ores that are now being imported here. 
 What is to be the effect upon Tennessee? It will have the eifect of giving a little 
 over 4,000,000 tons to the Spanish and Cuban trade. Eemove the bars in the Ten- 
 nessee river so that steam-tugs can come up and that ore can be brought there in 
 successful competition wath the development in the mountains, where we are trying 
 to reach this ore. That, in my humble judgment, will be the eifect of putting the 
 ores upon the free list. It is going to destroy us. I will not dwell longer upon this 
 subject, as I do not want to take up your time. 
 
 I have remarked I was here to represent not skilled labor, but unskilled labor. 
 The truth is, to-day nearly all the mines in the South are worked by negroes. We 
 have to provide them with some kind of labor to enable them to earn a living and 
 support themselves. If the negro does not live upon the wages earned from his em- 
 ployer he will steal. But the negro will not steal if he gets a chance to make an 
 honest living. That has been my observation. I think they are the best labor 
 for some work in the world. I would not give to-day one hundred of them for an 
 equal number of the best unskilled men ever brought from Hungar.y, Italy, or any 
 other country in the world. They are tractable, industrious, and peaceable if they 
 are paid regularly and kindly treated. Now, anything that will deprive these peo- 
 ple of an opportunity to make an honest living by delving in the ground with pick 
 and shovel I think would be an injustice. That is all many of them are fit for. They 
 are fit for a certain class of work which they do and do well ; that is commou 
 unskilled labor. If we are protected against the bringing of Cuban ores into the 
 heart of Tennessee and Virginia we will have railroads in less than five years all 
 through their valleys. We are just fairly commencing in Virginia. There is now proj- 
 ected, to commence as soon as the frost is out of the ground, a 100- ton furnace at Bris- 
 tol, and as soon as these roads are opened, which will bo about next July 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. The Tennessee Coal and Iron Company alone make 1,000 tons every 
 day? 
 
 Mr. IMBODEN. 1 think they do. Then do not change this little duty. It does not 
 afl'ect the surplus revenue at all. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 131 
 
 The Chairman. What iiifluenofi, if auy, do yoa think the geueral system of pro- 
 tective duties has upon the South? 
 
 Mr. IMBODEN. I have been a i)rotectioni8t all my life. I first voted in 1844 for Mr. 
 Clay. I was a boy, but over tweuty-one, and voted. I say to yon to-day — gentliinieu 
 on this committee will difl'er from me — that if we had a fair and square electiim upon 
 that single question, without extraneous circumstauees, we would carry four out of 
 five of the Southern States overwhelmingly. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You believe, then, in developing American mines by American labor ? 
 
 Mr. iMBODEN. Yes, sir ; emphal ically. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Rather than bring in foreign ores and foreign labor? 
 
 Mr. IMBODBN. Yes, sir. Those have been mj' views always, and there are thousands 
 in my country who are adopting these views rapidly. One prominent man recently 
 said to me: "We feel that protection h.as been gool for the North, and we should now 
 have the benefits of it here on our industries." I think we now have more interest 
 than the North in the preservation of the Union in order to secure just and reasonable 
 protection. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You think, then, the labor gets a fair protection as well as the capital? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. Unquestionably. I wish to present simply an established fact in 
 regard to this matter ; In the mining and getting the ore out and delivering it at the 
 furnace, 80 per cent, of its value will be labor and 20 per cent, capital. That has been 
 demonstrated, I believe. Therefore, in this particular protection under consideration 
 there is %0 percent, of labor and only 20 per cent, of capital involved. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much does the laboier get per ton in mining that way ? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. If they work by the day, a dollar a day. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much do you average that to be per ton ? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. Taking the Cranberry mines, for instance, it is about 50 cents a ton. 
 A man will not take out more than 2 tons. They did once bring it down to 40 cents. 
 Previous to that it was 60 ; now they have got back again to about 50 cents. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do they pay a royalty to the owner of the mine ? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. Speaking of Cranberry, no; the mine owners sell the ore. Th.at is, 
 the owners of the mine work their own mines and sell the ore. They get $2 on board 
 cars for that ore, for what they sell. They smelt only a few tons a day at the mines. 
 
 Mr. Bkbokinridge. They get 2 tons and pay 50 cents a ton for the labor ? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. Yes, sir; and for the large capital invested the laborer gets 80 per 
 cent, benefit of the protection and 20 jier cent, is for the capital. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do they furnish explosives and all the tools ? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. Yes, sir. The company does. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. When it comes to a straight operation of simply excavating 
 the ore they get out about 2 tons per man per day ? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. Yes; that is about it. Sometimes there are places where it is 
 hard ore, and less is mined per man. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What do yon estimate to be the profit to the company or men 
 owning these plants ? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. I suppose they make from 50 to 75 cents clear, after paying interest 
 on the machinery, railroad, etc. I do not think they earn as a profit more than the 
 laborer gets for digging it per ton. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Where are the markets for these ores ? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. They are chiefly south. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. To -what points, principally, south ? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. To Chattanooga and below that. Hematite is abundant in Ten- 
 nessee. It is the richest State in the Union for these ores, yet they use aljout 25 per 
 cent, of the other in the furnaces for mixing. Some furnace-men say 100 tons "f 
 hematite ore will produce 20 or 30 per cent, more fluid metal from the same amount 
 of fuel if properly mixed with the magnetites. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. To reduce the matter as far as we can in regard to distance, 
 about what distance do yon people carry it ? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. To Chattanooga is 245 miles from the mines. How much further to 
 Sheffield, Mr. McMillin ? 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I do not know exactly, but I should say about 120 miles. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You stated if you had had a dift'ercnt state of affairs in Virginia last 
 fall, as I understood from your remark, that the election would have been different. 
 In other words, do you mean to say if the negro population was one-half the while 
 that State would have gone Democratic, or how? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. I did not moan to say that. I do not desire to allude to questions 
 of a political nature ; but you ask the question and I will answer it houestlj'. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you maintain the color line against your own sentiments? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. Here is the way I look at it. We are compelled to stand together 
 there, and we will have to maintain certain conditions to preserve our civilization. 
 The tarifl^ does not enter into that at all, for it is a local question. Thus, I voted 
 with extreme reluctance for tJie Pemocratic party in tjio last Presidential election, 
 
132 KEVISION OF THE TAKIFF. 
 
 but I Lad to do it. I could not help it. That free-trade messaRe of Mr. Cleveland's 
 made it very ^ard for nie to vote for him ; but there wore other, more important, 
 questions than the tariff with us which made it necessary for us to combine our- 
 selves. You will pardon me for answering your qnestion a little further. I should 
 not go on any further in answering you but for the action of your President, whom I 
 respect. The President has not yet selected for a representative of this great Gov- 
 ernment one single Southern man, as far as I know, at a foreign court. 
 
 Mr. McMillan. He sent one from Tennessee to Paraguay, which means food, clothes, 
 and esternjination. 
 
 Mr. Imbodkn. In the organization of this House I understand out of sixteen Rep- 
 resentatives from the South only one is a chairman of a committee of the House. 
 This shadows forth the answer I would make to the question why we can't vote for 
 Kepublicans of the kind the President and Speaker have no use for. On this question, 
 of protection, however, I am Republican, but on local questions I am Democratic. 
 
 Mr. Flowkk. I ask you this question : If the colored vote was one-half that of the 
 white vote in Virginia would you make that difference ? 
 
 Mr. Imbodkn. Yes ; I would make a decided difference, because I do not think the 
 colored brother should get control of any of the United States; under any circum- 
 stances he is not fit to govern. 
 
 Mr. MoKknna. We are thankful for receiving the approval of your judgment if 
 you can not vote with us. 
 
 Mr. iMBODEN. I think on general revenue questions the Republican party is nearer 
 right than the one I voted for, 
 
 Mr. Ely. It is claimed that the duty on iron ore ought to be removed so as to give 
 iron and steel manufacturers on the Atlantic slope a better chance for their raw ma- 
 terial. I would like to inquire of you if in your judgment the ores in Virginia are 
 accessible ; and consequently to the Delaware and Chesapeake Bays, and if you have 
 an adequate supply'of Bessemer ore ? 
 
 Mr. Imbodkn. I think I have given facts ei/ough to show that in Tennessee and 
 Virginia there are mines enough to supply the teuntry for a thousand years. 
 
 Mr. Ely I mean Bessemer ores. 
 
 Mr. Imboden. I mean Bessemer ores. We can put it on the coast and ship it. We 
 have these ores in places nearly all over the State. They have found a high grade 
 Bessemer ore in Surrey County, N. C. They have found there an immense body of 
 Bessemer ore, that is close enough to the coast ; all these furnaces could be supplied 
 from it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLrN. Can your road supply the demand of the South? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. No, sir. They will consume more than we can possibly put out, on 
 any one road. But more will be built. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you know it is a fact we are manufacturing at South Pitts- 
 burgh, Tenn., and Birmingham, Ala., pig-iron at a cost of less than IJIO.SO a ton? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. I am assured of it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLEN. Is it not a fact that with the jiroximity of the coal and iron to- 
 gether they will be enabled to manufacture it at about the present duty, which is 
 something under .$8 ? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Have you any information in regard to making Bessemer iron of 
 the Tennessee ores? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. No, sir. They have not yet made any Bessemer, but soon will from 
 the new mines of Carter County. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You alluded to the low price of manufactured iron. Have you not rela- 
 tively lower labor than the Northern States? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. I said that our average labor was |1. Now, iu the North you can 
 not get labor as cheap as that. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. On that subject, general, if protection gives hif;h wages, why is it 
 that wages there are not as high as in other parts of the countrj'? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. I do not want to discu.ss political questions, but if I had time I 
 would bo perlectly willing to discuss them with you; but that involves long debate 
 here to answer the question. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I will put it in another way. It is a fact that the same tariff laws 
 which it is claimed by some give high wages in one part of the country do not iu 
 another. In other words, our wages are not as high as in other parts of the country ? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. I do not think it is the tarift'. It is owing to the class of labor. The 
 negro lives for what you and I could not. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. Tliese tariff men say the tariff gives high wages. 
 
 Mr. Imboden. A dollar is supposed to be pretty high wages for tlie negro, and ho 
 will get along nicely upon it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Istlieni not a large excess of that labor? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr, Gear. A combination exists to a certain extent to depress that labor f 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 133 
 
 Mr. ImBODEN. On the contrary, I know personally that in the last six months it 
 was hard to procure that labor in tbe quantity required. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I do not think it is just to state, if it is stated, that there is any 
 comhinatlon or oppression of that labor or any wrong ossrcised to do it. 
 
 Mr. IMBODBN. On the contrary, onr labor is satisfied. It is trne the Pocahontas and 
 the Cranberry Companies have had once or twice a little trouble; but generally the 
 labor is contented and satisfied with its condition. 
 
 Mr. Gkar. What would the laborer do if he did not have this labor to perform ? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. They would have to go to stealing chickens, because the farmers 
 conld not employ them. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I want to know whether or not after these immense mines are devel- 
 oped and there is a great demand for labor the price of labor is not going up as in the 
 North ? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. That is my impression. I think that has been our experience in 
 Virginia. Judge Boiling can tell you better. He lives near my own county. I 
 think the labor has gone from 75 cents to perhaps $1.25, in many localities. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Does not this labnr engaged in these mines receive a much higher com- 
 peusation than they wonld on tbe plantations ? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. Unquestionably they do, and that is the reason they go to the mines. 
 You get a negro for $10 a month on the farm, and he can get twice that in the mines. 
 If you turn them loose now by allowing this ore to come in free of duty — this crude 
 material — these poor creatures will be turned loose upon the community without the 
 means of making a living, unless you invite them up to the North. I thank you, gen- 
 tlemen, for the time you have given me. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say myself, in this connection, the 
 price of labor differs in different parts of the South, just as the price for labor differs 
 in different parts of the North. In the planting lands East, which are nearly all held 
 in small farms, and are generally worn, there is a great surplus of labor, and that 
 labor is cheap. In the West, where there is an abundance of cheap and rich land, you 
 frequently give $20 and board for a man's wages ; and I have frequently paid the 
 negro workmen $2, $2.50, and $.3 a day in the harvest or picking season. It is a ques- 
 tion of local supply and local demand. 
 
 STATEMENT OP V7. H. BOLLING. 
 
 Mr. W. H. BOLLiNG, of Virginia, next addressed the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I must thank you and the com- 
 mittee for your indulgence upon this occasion, and I must acknowledge the courtesy 
 of the committee in permitting us to come before yon. I would have been here yes- 
 terday, when the question was regularly taken up, but I missed a connection, which 
 took me twenty-four hours to get here. I will endeavor to answer the question 
 which was asked in regard to the conditions of labor in Virginia. In the first pl.ace, 
 you must understand that this labor is crude. You can not rely upon this labor. The 
 labor is paid as much as it is worth ; and so far as the mining of coal is concerned, 
 it is paid for by the ton, and the colored man gets the same as any other man. You 
 cannot, however, rely upon these people. You have them employed to day and they 
 are gone to-morrow. They are a shiftless sort of people. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I am more or less familiar with 
 this question. Since the decision of Mr. Fairchild in regard to the duty upon foreign 
 iron ores we had this question before him and afterwards in the courts in Philadel- 
 phia in a suit brought therefor the purpose of recovering duties paid on importations 
 of ores, and a very singular fact grew out of that. These parties were importers of 
 ores and were not citizens of the United States, and this question was decided against 
 them. Very little while afterwards I found an agent in our country quietly going 
 through the country, looking at and examining the ores. I took some interest in it, 
 and found out who he was. He was the agent of one of the largest importers of 
 iron ores in the United States. I pushed up that information and found it was cor- 
 rect. Now, I further derived this information, that foreign ores have increased in 
 value. In the district in Spain where the best ores come from these ores increased 
 so much in value the importers see they cannot afford to bring them in any longer at 
 the same price and make money on them, so they are now seeking to find whether 
 we have Bessemer ores in southwestern Virginia and Tennessee, of which General Im- 
 boden has spoken to you. A gentleman told me in Philadelphia not long ago that 
 they could not afford to pay this 75 cents for a ton of iron ore, and that they must 
 look to some other place to supply their customers. 
 
 Now, the question is whether we are going to put 75 cents into the pockets of the 
 exporters of foreign ores, or whether to leave it here for our own people. 
 
 I will not trouble the committee to go over what General Imboden said, only to 
 add a little to it in answering the question Mr. Flower asked him in regard to tha 
 
134 REVISION Of the tariff. 
 
 Virginia zino mine. It is making 30 to 35 tons of spelter a day. That amonntsto 
 abont 100 tons of ore a clay, and I think the ore sells for about 33J cents. We are 
 working hard over there in southwest Virginia. We have mined and converted into 
 pig-iron and shipped to Pennsylvania about 200,000 tons of iron. The figures as I 
 have them are a little larger, but I think I have the figures accurately in regard to 
 the shipment of coal from that country. The Pocahontas shipped this year over a 
 million tons of coal. In answer to Mr. Carlisle's question, ''Can you not compete if 
 we take off this duty, and if these coals are a better quality, with foreign coal?" It 
 is only because of that enormous output of the mines that we are enabled to make 
 them at all. I know that the amount that is made upon this coal is below 50 cents, 
 and except for the very large quantities that are put out, it would be impossible to 
 work the mines and put it in a condition to ship it, but because of that large amount 
 of coal that is shipped over this Norfolk and Western Railroad, I know the fact that 
 our local freights have been reduced a little more than 50 per cent, and our passenger 
 fares a little more than 50 per cent. All that, of course, goes to add to the prosperity 
 of our country. I think it is unnecessary to detain the committee to repeat what 
 General Imboden said. 
 
 There is another view I desire to present to this committee, and I intended to cut 
 something from pamphlets which I have, but I did not do it. I had a letter which 
 came from the Union League Club of Canada. 
 
 The Chairman. Anything of that sort which you desire to add to your remarks 
 you may add. 
 
 Mr. BOLLING. Now, I am very much afraid I will be traveling over ground which 
 has already been gone over, for I was not here yesterday to hear what my associates 
 in this matter had to say. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Do not assume that we know all, but go ahead and state your views. 
 
 Mr. BoLLiNG. It is claimed on the part of this Commercial Union League Club — and 
 there is no question about it— that their deposit of Bessemer iron ores is much larger 
 and much superior in quality to the Lake Superior ores. Now, all along the Canadian 
 Pacific Railway for 100 miles these ores lie, and they say that with the 75 cents duty 
 upon them they can not afford to work them, but if we take off' this duty they will 
 have the whole American trade, and they can afford to mine these ores and send them 
 over cheaper than we can mine them in the Lake Superior district, because they are 
 superior to the Lake Superior ores, so they claim. If this duty of 75 cents a ton should 
 be taken off, the fact is these foreign ores are increased in value, increased in cost of 
 production, and the English capital that is seeking investment somewhere else will 
 go to Canada and build up Canada, put furnaces in it and steel plants and supply 
 America with the product of iron manufactured there. 
 
 Now, to continue it further. In regard to the largest importer of iron ores looking 
 to the South to find whether he can supply his customers, I know the fact that right 
 now there is a party of Englishmen that have agents in Southwest Virginia looking 
 around for the purpose of making an investment of several millions of dollars. Take 
 off that duty and yon relieve these people of that burden that is tipon them, and what 
 will be the result? They will goto Canada. They will not goto Southwest Vir- 
 ginia, because they say labor is cheaper there. The question was asked here this 
 morning, "What is the difference between the cost of labor iu England and Canada 
 and here?" The onlystatisticsthat Ihavehad access to are in the report of the bureau 
 of statistics of labor of Massachusetts. I think it is stated it ranges from 30 to 35 
 per cent. In other words, if you take a family composed of five persons, and if they 
 have the average number of children, that it would cost about $803 for a man to live 
 in that country and $517 in England, whereas when you come to the comparison of 
 the cost of living, the man in America saves 20 per cent., where the Englishman saves 
 5 per cent., and so he ever remains a pauper. 
 
 Now, here is another statement. It is stated in here, and these are facts given 
 here by the Canadian Parliament and gotten by the Bureau of Statistics, and not 
 controverted anywhere — Canada, as the committee may know, pays a bonus to any 
 man who makes a home there — it is stated here it costs over a million dollars a year, 
 and the result of that is that three out of four men bring over their families, get the 
 bonus, stay there a year, leave it and come back to America. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Except cashiers and lumbermen. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Have you stated what the bonus is t 
 
 Mr. BOLLING. I can not, but it is enormous, running into the millions. It is 
 stated here that three-fourtha of the people left and came to the United States. This 
 was stated in a speech by Mr. Cartwright, a member of Parliament, before the Ca- 
 nadian Parliament, and the speaker called upon the gentlemen to controvert it if it 
 wan not so. There is not a man living in the interior that has not some dear one liv- 
 ing in the United States. Now, they say, why is this ? This is what those speakers 
 said. If the Commercial Union wore right about this and they could get rid of this 
 duty, the people there s.ay they could build up their country. Mr. Cartwright said: 
 " Gentlemen will say it is owing to the severity of the climate. This is not so; w» 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 135 
 
 have the most productive climate in the world. AH farm products, cereals, cattle, 
 horses sheep, and everything of that sort — -no other country compares with it." And 
 understanding that, he says, "Wo have huilt these railroads and every single rail- 
 road is suhsidized. When it falls short the Government makes it up, and the 
 Canadian Pacific road lost nearly a million dollars this year, and the ores remain in 
 their pits." 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. They are under a protective system? 
 
 Mr. BOLLING. Yes, sir. He says that in the last decade that while Canada has 
 gained 10,000, Dakota has gained 500,000. 
 
 I always come with some hesitation to speak of the suhjeot to which I shall now 
 allude. I approach this question with no feeling of sentiment or of a hypocritical 
 kind, but I say this is an economic and social question ; it is not a political queatiod. 
 I think this question of protection to our industries is one of the most important fac- 
 tors in the solution of this question, which every thoughtful and experienced nian is 
 considering to-day. This question is the race question. For these reasons : I was 
 born and reared amongst negroes, and I am happy to say I counted those negroes, 
 and count them to-day, as my warmest friends. I come here to speak with no dis- 
 paragement of the negro race. They are people of whom much is lacking in many 
 respects, hut if they are properly treated I could tell you instances of fidelity and 
 trust imposed that would do honor to the head and heart of any man, and should live 
 in song and story, that have been performed by these people. 
 
 But we have those people there and the question for us to consider is, what are we 
 to do with these people, and how are we to make citizens of them ? Now, our own 
 State, seeing the necessity and feeling the necessity of giving a man a home — for a 
 man will not be a good citizen unless he has got something of a home, something 
 where he can gather his people around him and have a shelter for his family, and feel 
 that it is his own and belongs to him — so we have passed a homestead law in Vir- 
 ginia, and I say the Government should go further and pass a law leaving the little 
 personal chattels a man gathers around him free from tax also. I say this, gentlemen, 
 that farming does not pay in Virginia", and it does not pay anywhere in the South. 
 The railroads have brought us in close contact with this ^reat western country where 
 they can produce so much more than we can at so much less cost. Corn and wheat 
 and all the cereals are laid down to-day at the city of Richmond cheaper than the 
 farmers can produce them in south-western Virginia. These people can not be em- 
 ployed on a farm because the ordinary wages on a farm in Virginia are $10 a month, 
 and that is as much as the farmer can pay, and no man can live upon it. 
 Mr. McMiLHisr. He gets a home and food and a garden spot in addition. 
 Mr. BoLLiNG. Yes sir, they pay him $10 a mouth and furnish him bread and meat. 
 Mr. Breckinkidge. He keeps a pig and a cow. 
 Mr. BoLLiNG. Except for that I do not think he could live at all. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I know in my own State he keeps a cow and as many as a 
 half a dozen pigs. 
 
 Mr. Bolling. This is an economic and social question. The negro can not run 
 away from the South. There is nowhere for him to go, and he is going to remain 
 there. I think he will make a very valuable addition to our Southern society. 
 
 The development of which General Imboden told you commenced, you know, in 
 southwestern Virginia. Over 200,000 tons of ore were shipped and converted into pig 
 iron by the employment of these people. They get from ijl to $1.25 a day for min- 
 ing ores. They can make for that work from $1.50 to $2.50 and $3 mining coal, .ind 
 you have no idea what an addition it makes to these people. When one of these 
 men gets something in his pocket he invests it in a home and becomes a different 
 looking man from what he was before. He has got something at stake. He is in- 
 terested in the Government and in society, and this is done by the proceeds of his 
 own labor. We have found it out, and the people in the South employing this labor 
 have found it out that it gives so much more satisfaction, instead of having any stores 
 to put their money in their hands on Saturday and let them go and do as they please. 
 Instead of becoming idle and shiftless and remaining so, they now do well. They 
 can not make a living on the farms. They can not do more than barely live and 
 clothe themselves. 
 
 As soon as they get this money they go and buy a little home, and as soon as they 
 get this home you will find they cease to be politicians, as the politician is a'thrift- 
 less, ragged, good-for-nothing sort of a fellow. You will find in Virginia that it has 
 .been one of the greatest sources and elements and sources of strength in making them 
 citizens and a better people. I think if there is to be a solution of this question, we 
 must teach these people to help themselves and to get homes, as well in our State 
 legislation as our Federal legislation, and to support and sustain these people, because 
 we are all interested in it, one just as much as another. So I say, gentlemen, it may 
 be true — we will admit it for the sake of argument — that this tariff', as they s.iy, is 
 enlarging to a certain extent. If you have the power — I do not think it is established, 
 but concede it — then I think this question rises superior to all other questions, and I 
 
136 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 think we might let the masses suffer if we can benefit these few people. If we can 
 bnild up these people and mate them good substantial citizens and interested In the 
 Government, because the Government does not seek to harm them, then I say we ac- 
 complished much more and can better afford to pay a little more. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If you produce much misery to relieve a little, what is the 
 good? 
 
 Mr. BoLLiNG. I do not see the misery. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Your general proposition was to let the masses suffer. 
 
 Mr. BOLUNG. But I say the masses do not suffer. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That is not what you did say. 
 
 Mr. BoLLiNG. I say I do not admit that, but the suffering has got to be done. Ton 
 are a Southern man, and you know what we have got to contend with there. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I know it, but I do not agree with you as to the remedies. 
 
 Mr. BoLUNG. I am at a loss, and I do not know what the remedies are. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. So far as this point is concerned, you believe this would be 
 beneficial to these people in the mountains where they are mining. Now, we have a 
 large population, equally entitled to our care and regard, who live upon the sea- 
 coast, all along the eastern border, and along your market west of the mountains. 
 I suppose you will not dispute that the people west of the mountains can not be as- 
 sailed by any foreign competition of coal and iron ore. 
 
 Mr. BoLLiNG. I think they can. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Will you figure out how they can ? 
 
 Mr. BoLLiNG. I know the fact that iron ore was sold in this country as low as 
 $3.50. Now, take oft' that 75 cents, and if I was going to build a furnace I would not 
 put it in Norfolk. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I was talking of the market west of the mountains. 
 
 Mr. BoLLiNG. I thought j'ou said east of the mountains. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. No ; I was speaking of the market west of the mountains. 
 That in no instance is imperilled by foreign competition. For instance, we imported 
 last year something like 1,000,000 tons of ore. That cost $2 a ton at the foreign port; 
 say more accurately, $1.93. Now, that you see would be laid down here at $3.50. 
 
 Mr. BoLLiNG. I never estimated it at all. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I calculate it can be laid down at $3.43. Now, General Im- 
 boden states that that country sells the best quality of iron at |2 a ton at the mine, 
 and they say they transport it at less than 4 mills per ton per mile. Therefore even 
 at 4 mills per mile, it could be carried 300 miles and laid down at $3.20. When yon 
 have to go west, if you got iron ore free and paid $1.50 freight without any tariff it 
 would cost them still $3.43 on the sea-board. Now, you control by nature, by these 
 figures, the western markets and the successful growth of the immense West, and by 
 these very rates you control 30.0 miles to the east, while upon the sea-board they would 
 be handicapped by the 75 cents which is necessary to take before they can give these 
 people employment. How can you figure out it is just to the people living on the 
 sea-board, when you possess by nature the market 300 miles east and unquestionably 
 the whole interior territory, to impose that embargo upon people who have claims of 
 equal importance on the Government? 
 
 Mr. BOLLING. We can not control the market without the 75 cents. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You are doing it; your figures show it. These are your figures 
 and the actual prices paid for foreign ores. You say you do sell at $2, then you can 
 put it down within 300 miles for less than it can come here. 
 
 Mr. Bolling. Where do you get the seashore 300 miles ? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I was not proposing to carry yon altogether to the sea-shore. 
 
 Mr. Bolling. Where could we find any market for it ? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Now, you propose to lay New England, New Jersey, and the 
 whole of the remaining eastern section under a commercial embargo to give these 
 men employment there. 
 
 Mr. Bolling. The result of it would simply be that if you take off this 75 cents 
 you would stop up the mining operations of coal and iron both. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I take your own figures. You are selling this ore at $2 a ton 
 at the mine and ship it for less than 4 mills per ton per mile, and so you single out 
 men in the mountains 
 
 Mr. Bolling. We have got no market there for our raw material. We have to im- 
 port all our manufactured products. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. We are talking this moment about iron ore. To what point 
 do you market your iron ore 1 
 
 Mr. Bolling. We have to look to the shipping of pig-iron, which is a small pro- 
 portion of the ore. I do not know what per cent, is shii^ped to Baltimore and manu- 
 factured into charcoal plates. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Take the large proportio/i. 
 
 Mr. Bolling. It is all made into pig-iron in southwest Virginia. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And the rest ? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 137 
 
 Mr. BoLLlNG. It is shipped to Norfolk and shipped over to Pennsylvania, some to 
 Pittsburgh, some to Harrisburgh, and a great deal goes South and West. 
 
 General Imboden. The Pocahontas furnaces sell to Providence, R. I., also. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does 10 per cent, of the production of southern iron go North ? 
 I mean east of the Alleghanies? 
 
 Mr. BoLiriNG. Yes ; I think the Pocahontas iron-furnaces have shipped a good deal 
 North. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How does that compare with the total output we are produc- 
 ing in the South? My impression is we are shipping just about ten per cent, of that 
 to Pittsburgh and east of Pittsburgh, and 90 per cent, is marketed in the interior of 
 the country. That pig-iron can not be imperiled. 
 
 Mr. BoLLiNG. The Pocahontas furnaces are the only furnaces now, but there are 
 three or four more going up. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And they put out 2,000,000 tons of pig-iron in the whole South. 
 
 Mr. BOLLING. The whole of that goes East. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. And if we import 1,000,000 tons less under the 75-cent duty, how many 
 million tons would be imported if the duty was taken off? 
 
 Mr. BoLLiNG. I could not estimate it at all, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Would it not necessarily largely diminish the production in this 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. Bolling. I think it would diminish our present production very largely. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But you do not take the figures and show how it is. You 
 draw the conclusions without demonstrating them. I have got your idea, but I want 
 the proofs. 
 
 Mr. Bolling. This is the way I make the figures : If you could put iron ore at 
 Norfolk for $3.50 a ton you can put the Nova Scotia coals there. The man who puts 
 up a furnace can buy the coal cheaper than he can at Pocahontas. In that case it 
 makes it cheaper at the seaboard than we can possibly. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Can he go into the western and interior market and compete ^ith 
 you? 
 
 Mr. Bolling. We have no market West. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You are speaking this moment of a small locality, not of Ten- 
 nessee and Alabama. 
 
 Mr. Bolling. I think the argument applies to Tennessee and Alabama. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How far is Norfolk from you ? 
 
 Mr. Bolling. 332 miles. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You send iron ore there ? 
 
 Mr. Bolling. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That would enable you to put iron ore at Norfolk at $3.90, allow- 
 ing you 4 mills to the mile and $2 to the ton. Those are facts gathered from General 
 Imboden. The foreign ores are costing on the sea-board |3.43 a ton, without protec- 
 tion. Thus you are, by your own figures, 33 cents a ton cheaper there than the for- 
 eign ore free of duty. Now, as to your coal, statements show that we are exporting 
 this bituminous coal in open competition with Nova Scotia coals all the time. Wo 
 are sending so far as competing with Canada trade is concerned, into Quebec, Mont- 
 real, Manitoba, and the northwest territory of Canada, 469,000 tons. We are send- 
 ing to Cuba 139,000 tons, and many thousands of tons out over the sea to other com- 
 peting points, and certainly you could go to Norfolk, where you do not have such 
 competition. If you can take the facts and get an argument and give us the facts, 
 I would bo very glad to have it. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. They have a drawback in Cuba. 
 
 Mr. Bolling. But the same drawback is allowed to others. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is not the surplus of coal shipped? 
 
 Mr. Bolling. There is no surplus in this district, as they are consuming the ontput 
 of the mines. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it not a fact that if the tariff is taken off there will be a large influx 
 all along the northern line into this country. 
 
 Mr. Bolling. I think so. I know the fact that the blast-furnaces at Salem, Va., 
 and Pocahontas have wanted rates on foreign ores to be brought up there. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would not ores come in free from Canada and compete with ores that 
 are sent to the northern markets ? 
 
 Mr. Bolling. Certainly. These ores we claim would supplant southern ores en- 
 tirely. They say they can ship to Pittsburgh and Harrisburg cheaper than Lake 
 Superior ores can be shipped here. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would it not depress the eastern market for these iron oresf 
 
 Mr. Bolling. Yes. sir. 
 
138 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OP GENERAL J. D. IMBODEN. 
 
 General J. D. Imboden appeared before the committee again at the request of Mr. 
 Flower, who stated he desired to ask a few questions. 
 
 Mr. Flower. As you will recollect, we had a bill last year in regard to this matter. 
 Will you please state how much that bill left the protection on iron ore and how 
 much on coal ? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. I believe that bill as finally agreed upon left it exactly what we 
 propose now, 75 cents a ton. 
 
 Mr. Floweh. Then we did not propose to injure your industry f 
 
 Mr. Imboden. I would like to answer very briefly two questions for Mr. Breckin- 
 ridge. I understood him to say the duty of Congress was to help all the people, and 
 I admit that was the cry of all the people, those in the mountains as well as those in 
 the low-lands. I will say this, sir: In my judgment the "way to help the people 
 along the Atlantic coast in many States is for this Congress to repeal absolutely the 
 tobacco tax. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do they propose to take off the entire tax ? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. Not all of it — a part of it— nearly all of it. But it should he wiped 
 out. 
 
 The Chairman. I think if Mr. Flower could assure you that your interests are not 
 to be disturbed by gentlemen at his end of the table these speeches would not be 
 necessary. 
 
 Mr Flower. I merely brought this out to show what this bill did for that section. 
 
 Mr. Imboden. The great burden which rests on my own State in the country lying 
 east of the Blue Ridge is the tax on its agriculture. That is what the people are 
 groaning and growling about. They complain, and justly, that the whisky tax, as 
 well as that on tobacco, is very oppressive to them. They do not object to a whisky 
 tax imposed by the State, but when the Federal Government comes in and collects it 
 they object to it. I know a man living in the mountains, I was at his house in Mit- 
 chell County, N. C, and he had 2,000 bushels of peaches rotting under the trees, 
 which he could not sell, and dared not distill. He was oppressed. If that question 
 could be settled it would be a great relief to them. The question I want to answer 
 asked by Mr. Breckinridge was in regard to the West, respecting the free admission of 
 ore and coal. In the gentleman's own State there is a district of Bessemer ore, said 
 to be as large as any I know. You have very recently made this discovery in the 
 northwestern part of the State of valuable Bessemer ores. You can procure coke 
 from the coal mines in Virginia as soon as we complete the railroad down Chinch 
 Eiver in Tennessee, and we can haul at 2 mills per ton per mile — less than 30 cents a 
 ton — to water and carry it over and sell it to you at about $2.25 to $2.50 per ton de- 
 livered and build up your furnaces. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Sell what ? 
 
 Mr. Imboden. High grade coke. If you have this free of duty Cuba will come in 
 and meet this coke with her ores on the Mississippi River banks and it will kill every 
 ton of yours. You would never have a blast-fuin.ace in Arkansas. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The Mississippi River runs past Arkansas. 
 
 Mr. Imboden. The ore and coke would come together lower down on it than Ar- 
 kansas. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You only pass us by going several hundred miles out of your 
 way. The ore is brought in through the mouth of the Mississippi River. 
 
 Mr. Imboden. Exactly ; the mouth of the Mississippi River. 
 
 Mr. BREgKiNRiDGE. Long before it gets to the mouth of the river it passes Arkan- 
 sas 
 
 Mr. Imboden. Exactly. That kills your ores. Where you meet these free ores yon 
 are dead. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I do not see how you can make that out unless you run your 
 river up-stream. 
 
 Mr. Imboden. The Cuban goes up ; he does not go down to meet you. That splen- 
 did coke (if you take off the duty from Cuban ores) would kill the iron industry in 
 the Arkansas region, by using Cuban ores on the banks of the Mississippi away he- 
 low you. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Yon spoke of the Sewanee vein as a small supply. 
 
 Mr. Imboden. Comparatively, I meant it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLix. It is more than six times as large as the entire Connellsville region. 
 
 Mr. Imboden. In area, I know that. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And the iron ore is 5 feet thick and in sight for 30 miles. 
 
 Mr. Imboden. The area of it is probably ten times as large. I meant the thick- 
 ness, eto. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 139 
 
 Mr. McMtlLiN. Is it not 3i to 8 feet T 
 
 Mr. IMBODBN. I do not know whetlier it reaches 8 feet. You probably Icnowmore 
 about it than I do. 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What I -wish to state to you is, is it not shown by our reports 
 
 during twenty years that 
 
 Mr. ImboDbS. My personal investigation of that has been higher np. Mr. Breck- 
 inridge says tbis benefits a few people in the mountains. 
 
 Mr. Breckinkidge. I beg yonr pardon. I said to benefit the people in the mount- 
 ains ; not a few in the mountains. I do not admit, however, that it helps the masses 
 there. 
 
 Mr. IMBODBN. My impression was diiferent. In Virginia I will mention some of 
 the counties this affects: Clark, Page, Shenandoah, Rockingham, Augusta, High- 
 land, Bath, Roanoke, Botetourt, Bland, Tazewell, Smyth, Russell, Washington, Scott, 
 Wise, Diclsenson, Bnchanan, and Lee. These counties are all in the mineral belt. 
 East of the mountains you may comraenoe with Alberraarle, Nelson, Amherst, Henry, 
 Campbell, Bedford, Patrick, etc.; Floyd, Carroll, Grayson ou the Blue Ridge. 
 
 Mr. Gbar. You spoke of the transportation of coke at a low rate. That is mainly 
 by water. 
 Mr. IMBODEN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You would transport it in barges, and would float it down and tow np. 
 Mr. IMBODEN. Yes, sir ; as on the Ohio River- 
 Mr. Gear. You could keep on to the mouth of the river ? 
 
 Mr. iMBODEN. Yes, sir. Some reports of the chief engineer of the Monongahela 
 Navigation Company, at Pittsburgh, Pa., reachcid me in October, answering some 
 questions, and stated that over 4,000,000 tons of coal are floated on the Ohio Riyer 
 annually. They haul it at one-sixty-fourth to one-thirtieth of a cent per ton per mile. 
 That includes taking it down and bringing the barges back. The Tennessee River 
 will he in better shape, probably, than the Ohio. Colonel Barlow, in charge of that 
 ■work, has reported that a moderate appropriation would remove a few bars where 
 ■they run across the river. We could haul coal now and put it on the barges for 30 
 ■cents a ton, if our road was finished. 
 
 There is one other thing I omitted. In the last few months a syndicate of English- 
 men have come into the country and have located down near Middlesborough, Ky. 
 They have expended about four millions to create a great establishment there. They 
 have come and located there to help us make iron under our protective system. This 
 is a large wad of money in our part of the country. I do not know how it is regarded 
 in the North. They have put up a magnificent hotel and commenced furnaces, etc., 
 and the lots there sell for |200 a front foot. I thank you for your courtesy, Mr. 
 Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. 
 
 STATEMENT OP HON. L. E. McCOMAS. 
 
 Hon. L. E. McCOMAS, a Representative from the State of Maryland, next addressed 
 the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I desire to file with the commit- 
 tee a number of petitions signed by about 2,500 men, laborers and miners, protesting 
 against any reduction of the duty on coal, or any interference with it whatever by 
 thisCongress ; also, resolutions of meetings in the Maryland poal region. These peo- 
 ple heard of these hearings on coal, and here are the resolutions which they adopted. 
 (See resolutions and petitions appended.) 
 
 The first tariff (1789) imposed a duty on bituminous coal of 56 cents per ton ; in 
 1790, 84 cents per ton ; in 1794, $1.40 ; in 1812, $2.80. Reduced in 1816 to $1.40, it 
 was increased in 1824 to |1.68. The tariff of 1842 raised the duty to $1.75 per ton. 
 The tariff of 1846 reduced it to $1.30 per ton. To admit foreign coal needed in time 
 of war in 1861, the duty fell to $1 per ton, to be raised successively to $1.10 and $1.25 
 per ton in 1864. The tariff remained $1.25 per ton until 1873, when it was reduced to 
 75 cents per ton, which is 20 per cent, ad volorem to-day. 
 
 The bituminous coals of our sea-coast are alone affected by the duty. The infant 
 industry on the Pacific, the coals of Coos Bay and Newport in Oregon ; of Seattle, 
 Reuton, South Prairie, and Carbon Hill in Washington ; the Mount Diablo Mines of 
 California, and the otlier new mines just beginning to be worked in the same State, 
 compete with the Vancouver Islands coal, of which 300,000 tons were received at 
 Pacific coast ports in 1888. 
 
 On the Atlantic side, it is the bituminous coal mines east of the Alleghanies which 
 suffer from the competition with Nova Scotia and British ballast coals. Nearly all 
 of these mines have been opened since the termination of the reciprocity treaty 
 
140 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 ■with Canada. Their development since then has been marvelous. From the tahle 
 in Saward's Annual, 1889, this growth appears: 
 
 District. 
 
 Opened. 
 
 Clearfield 
 
 George Creek 
 
 Keeeh Creek 
 
 Blo.ssburg 
 
 Elk Garden 
 
 Pocalioutas 
 
 Chesapeake and Ohio 
 
 18C6 
 1842 
 188i 
 1H40 
 1881 
 1883 
 1877 
 
 169, 219 
 1, 193, 822 
 
 3, 389, 8C4 
 3, 106, 670 
 1,694,495 
 1, 106, 959 
 564, 397 
 1, 572, 372 
 1, 823, 514 
 
 The same high authority estimates the tonnage to tide water for 1888 to have 
 been 900,000 tons to Norfolk, 2,500,000 tons to Baltimore, 950,000 to Newport News, 
 2,000,000 to the Philadelphia loading ports, and 2,000,000 tons to the New York load- 
 ing ports. The gas coal and steam coal of Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, and 
 PeniiHvlvania would alone suft'er from a reduction of the duty. At their markets at Bal- 
 timore, New York, Boston, and Portland their coals are not sold for hearth fires. Sev- 
 enty-five cents per ton does not affect the price of bituminous coal west of the Alle- 
 ghanies. As it costs $1.25 per ton to ship the coal from the mines in the Alleghanies 
 to tide-water, a duty of 75 cents per ton is soon eaten up by a toll on coal transported 
 inland. Anthracite coal east of the Alleghanies is the coal of the domestic fireside, 
 and anthracite is free ; anthracite, whose owners have again and again combined to 
 lessen the output and raise the price, making a monopoly and a trust of the worst sort 
 out of a free-list commodity. The cry is, free fuel to a people whose fuel is free. To 
 reduce the duty on bituminous coal will not cheapen coal for the fireside. It wiU 
 paralyze an important industry and reduce the price of its labor. It will strike a 
 heavy blow at our coast-wise trade. It will give cheaper and better coals to English 
 steam-ship lines, and help English capital to delay the revival of American shipping. 
 Of the 2,000,000 tons sent to the New York loading ports in 1888, 1,000,000 went to the 
 foreign steam-ship lines. It will cheapen fuel to the great railroad companies of the 
 Atlantic sea-board, but it will not reduce their rates of freight. It will delight the 
 gas companies of the great cities of our Atlantic coast by adding still more to their 
 profits without cheapening gas to the consumer. 
 
 Coal is not a raw material, except in the bowels of the earth. A ton of coal is 60 
 per cent, labor. That labor is skilled labor of a high order. It involves more than 
 most avocations — courage, quick intelligence, self-sacrifice. It is fraught with pe- 
 culiar danger and hardship. Unskilled labor often impairs the mines, wastes the 
 coal, and coats many lives. 
 
 The people of the' Maryland coal region — a people I intimately know^are a com- 
 munity of a high degree of intelligence, a community of reading, thinking men and 
 women which is rarely equaled. Many of them in their youth mined coal in Nova 
 Scotia and Great Britain. Hundreds of them have told me of the scant reward of 
 their labor received in these competing mines ; and they are here by their represent- 
 atives to protest against the redaction of the duty, because it means a reduction of 
 their wages, now 50 cents per ton for mining coal. They are here to protest that 
 with a tariff on everything the miner wears, the tools he works with, and half of 
 what he eats, you ought not to abate the scant protection of 20 per cent, on the coal 
 of commerce, the product of his labor. 
 
 As shown by Mr. Mayer in his very able argument yesterday, continuous protection 
 has rapidly reduced the price of coal to the home consumer. 
 
 The Baltimore price in the past six years has been as follows: 
 
 1873 . 
 1876. 
 1880. 
 
 Per ton. 
 
 ...$4. h3 
 ... 3.87 
 ... 3.75 
 
 1882 , 
 1884 
 1889 . 
 
 Per ton. 
 ...$3.50 
 ... 2.70 
 ... 2.50 
 
 Surely the miners' wages are not too high. The stock of coal companies on the At- 
 lantic slope is uniformly below par and rarely yields any dividends. Already pro- 
 vincial .steam coals are sold at tido-water for |3.25 alongside of Atlantic slope steam 
 coals sold at $3.50, and provincial gas coals sold at $3.75 alongside of Atlantic slope 
 gas coals sold at $4 per ton. 
 
 The figures given by Mr. Grow are erroneous and misleading. In 1889 Canada re- 
 ceived but 4fJ7,534 tons of bituminous coal from the States. This is largely interior 
 coal traded where the eliort hauls overcome the Canadian tariff of 60 cents per ton, 
 while the coal for the Grand Trunk roads comes almost wholly from mines in the 
 States; and this will coutiuue under the tariff, because Montreal will always remain 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. , 141 
 
 more than 75 cents per ton distant from Nova Scotia. The export of bitumiDOUs coals 
 are mainly from the lake ports and by interior railroads to Canada. 
 
 I concede that if American syndicates be encouraged to develop Canadian coal- 
 fields nnder reciprocity by employing cheaper Canadian labor, you may strike a 
 heavy blow at the wages of coal miners of the interior. I submit the present tariff 
 can not affect them. Three hundred thousand men and boys labor in preparing for 
 market the 140,000,000 tons of coal brought to the mouth oi: the miues m the United 
 States. Women and girls do not dig this coal as they do the coal with which ours 
 competes at the Atlantic sea-boards. Eighty thousand of these miners and mine 
 laborers on the Atlantic, slope will protest against any redaction of this duty on bitu- 
 minous coal which will reduce the wages of each of them. 
 
 I protest, in their name, against the narrow and seliish argument of a few New 
 England manufacturers who ask protection for their products which they deny to the 
 products of their fellow-laborers 
 
 In the Forty-eighth Congress the Democratic majority of this committee put bitu- 
 minous coal on the free list. The clamor of their own party friends compelled them 
 to desist. 
 
 I assume that these wage-earners are safe here in the hands of their friends, the 
 majority of this committee. At this time a reduction of this duty would be a blun- 
 der worse than a crime. 
 
 Mr. BUBCKINEIDGE. Is there any anthracite coal outside of Pennsylvania f 
 
 Mr. McCOMAS. Yes, it has been found in Oregon and in Colorado and I believe 
 there is a mine in D.^kota. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It seems to have cropped out in unexpected places in the last ten years. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What proj)ortion of bituminous coal came to this country from 
 Canada? 
 
 Mr. McCOMAS. I can not tell you what came to this country. We have men here 
 of whom I shall shortly ask some questions, who have been miners of coal in England 
 and Scotland, but came here to better their condition and became prosperous intel- 
 ligent citizens. They are old men who have been coal miners, and have mined in 
 Nova Scotia, and can tell you all you want in regard to the condition of the miners 
 in those mines. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. You spoke of there being a combination in anthracite coal. Do 
 you believe that combination unduly enhances the price to the consumer of coal ? 
 
 Mr. McCOMAS. I believe so, but I only take that as an illustration. There has often 
 been a combination, pool, or trust m this anthracite business. If they should com- 
 bine for bituminous coal as in the anthracite pools, what would be the effect ? If 
 you withdraw the duty of 75 cents a ton you now have on coal, you will find that coal 
 which sells in New York for |i4 from this country, wil! be met by Nova Scotia coal at 
 $3.75. People will not pay more than the 25 cents diffc rence for the American steam 
 coals. The difference in the quality of the American steam coals is worth 25 cents. 
 
 In regard to a question asked here awhile ago about this Cuba business. When a 
 vessel goes to Cuba with coal, it comes back with sugar. We all know that Canada 
 can not consume the sugar that this country does. You can not send as much sugar 
 to Canada as coal to Cuba. We bring back sugar from Cuba aud to that extent only 
 we have an advantage over what we would have competiug with Nova Scotia coal 
 on our coast. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. How much coal goes to Cuba ? 
 
 Mr. McCOMAS. One hundred and fifty-four thousand tons, only. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. How many tons of sugar come in 1 
 
 Mr. McCoMAS. I could not tell you accurately, but more in weight than the coal 
 going there, the vessels are loaded with it. Then besides that we get a drawback on 
 their port charges. We sell that coal there and bring back sugar, but you could not 
 do that with Canada. 
 
 Now the coal which is going to Canada is largely interior coal for trade across 
 the border. The figures given by Mr. Grow are erroneous and misleading. In 1889 
 Canada received but 467,534 tons of bituminous coal from the States. This is largely 
 interior coal, traded where the short hauls overcame the Canadian tariff of 60 cents 
 per ton, while the coal for the Grand Trunk Eoads comes almost whoUy from the 
 mines in the United States, aud this will continue under the tariff because the mo- 
 nopoly will always remain more than 75 cents per ton destined from Nova Scotia. The 
 bituminous coals are mainly exported from the Lake Superior ports and by interior 
 railroads into Canada, and mainly the consumption of the Grand Trunk Railway of 
 coal it must use. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You think that Mr. Grow's statement was very likely in error. 
 
 Mr. McCoMAS. Yes, s.v. Mr. Grow's statement was that 1,168,000 tons were ex- 
 ported. The actual figures given me in tliis letter from the Bureau of Statistics show 
 that there were only 467,000 tons exported. 
 
 If American syndicates are encouraged to develop Canadian coal fields under re- 
 ciprocity by employing cheaper Canadian labor, I can see that you may strike a 
 
142 
 
 REVISION OF THE TAKIFP. 
 
 heavy blow at the wages of the coal miners of the interior. The present tariff can 
 not aSfect them. 
 
 In conclusion, let me repeat that the Forty-eighth Congress, a Democratic body, 
 put coal on the free list and also wool. There was a clamor in regard to both, so 
 they dropped coal and held on to the wool. They let go the black and played on 
 the white, which was bad. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinridgb. Where did you got that expression ? 
 
 Mr. McCOMAS. I got it from a newspaper. 
 
 Mr. Breckixridge. You must explain these technical terms. 
 
 Mr. McCoMAS. Not to a gentleman from Arkansas. 
 
 Mr. Chairnum anil gentlemen of the committee, let mo emphasize this; it woula ue 
 a disaster and ruin to these wage-earners, and it would lie a blunder on the part of 
 the RepubUcan party, worse than a crime to touch the duty on coal. Now, I will 
 ask that yon briefly hear some men hero who have been actually engaged in mining 
 coal. 
 
 Treasury Department, Bureau op Statistics, 
 
 Washington, December 27, 1889. 
 
 Dear Sib : I have the honor to state, in answer to your inquiries by telejihoue, 
 that the product of coal for the year 18^8, and preceding years, will appear in the 
 inclosed table from our statistical abstract. The data .iskod for 1889 are not yet ob- 
 tainable, as they are not made up for the year 1889. Table marked A shows the im- 
 ports of bituminous coal separately from the British North American Provinces, and 
 from all other countries. It also shows the average ad valorem rates of duty collected 
 on bituminous coal for each of the fiscal years 1882 to 1889, inclusive. 
 
 The questions as to the imports of bituminous coal from the British North American 
 Provinces are answered by table marked B, which shows these imports by provinces. 
 There are no data as to the particular ports from which the coal was imported. Table 
 marked C shows the imports of bituminous coal during the fiscal year 1889, dis- 
 tinguishing the imports into the Atlantic and all other ports of the United States. 
 AVe are not able to show the imports from Canada only by provinces. T.ible marked 
 A shows the data in queries marked 9 and 10, as to the exports from the United States 
 to Canada and anthracite and bituminous coal during the fiscal year 1889. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 S. G. Brock, 
 Chief of Bureau. 
 
 Hon. L. E. McComas. 
 
 A. — Slaiemenl showing the quantities and values of bituminous coal imported into the United 
 States during each year ending June 'M, Jrom 1882 to 1889, inclusive, showing separately 
 the imports from the British Korth American Possessions, and from all othco' foreign 
 countries ; also the average ad valorem rates of duty collected on bituminous coal during 
 each year. 
 
 
 Imported. 
 
 Tear ending Juno 30 — 
 
 -From tho Britisli 
 
 North American Poa- 
 
 sesaions. 
 
 From all otlior for- 
 eign countries. 
 
 Total. 
 
 1832 
 
 Tons. 
 290. 090 
 312,783 
 318,061 
 317, 209 
 312, 498 
 332, 942 
 374, 833 
 434, 741 
 
 Dollars. 
 778, 267 
 836,317 
 1, 007, 354 
 1, 074, 029 
 1,014,118 
 1,153,604 
 1,426.049 
 1, 842, 446 
 
 Tons. 
 
 501, 238 
 409, 912 
 
 502, 205 
 500, 049 
 .•ill, 863 
 573, 602 
 602, 671 
 721, 088 
 
 Dollars. 
 1,411.031 
 
 1, 249, 655 
 1,550,810 
 1,619,650 
 1,537,838 
 1,561,8.18 
 1,420,692 
 
 2, 086, 770 
 
 Tons. 
 851, 334 
 722, 69.5 
 820, 266 
 817,918 
 824, 361 
 906, 634 
 877, ,504 
 1, 155, 829 
 
 Dollars. 
 2, 189,298 
 
 1883 
 
 2, OSS, 972 
 2, 558, 164 
 
 1S84 
 
 
 2, 593, 079 
 
 1886 
 
 2,551,954 
 
 ] 8.^7 
 
 2,715,442 
 
 1888 
 
 2,846,741 
 
 Iti89 
 
 3, 929, 245 
 
 Domestic coal exported from the United States to the Dominion of Canada during the year 
 
 ending June 'JO, 1889. 
 
 Anttiraeite coal . 
 Bitnminoas coal . 
 
 Tons. 
 
 902, 635 
 467, 58i 
 
 Value. 
 
 $4,052,741 
 1, 304, 544 
 
ENVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 143 
 
 B. — Quantities and values of coal exported to the United States from each province of the 
 Dominion of Canada, during the year ending June 30, 1888, from the tables of the Trade 
 and Navigation of the Dominion of Canada, 1888. 
 
 ProvinceB. 
 
 Domestic. 
 
 Foreign. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Values. 
 
 Totol. 
 
 Domestic. 
 
 Foreign. 
 
 
 Tons. 
 
 1,463 
 
 92, 176 
 
 63 
 
 69 
 
 333, 788 
 
 150 
 
 Tons. 
 
 63, 571 
 
 64 
 
 3, 638 
 
 192 
 
 Tons. 
 
 63, 573 
 
 1, r)27 
 
 95,814 
 
 244 
 
 69 
 
 333, 786 
 
 150 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 11 
 
 10, 323 
 
 164, 645 
 
 223 
 
 409 
 
 1, 235, 801 
 
 338 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 161, 440 
 
 16 
 
 8, 7i!0 
 
 464 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 161, 461 
 
 10, 339 
 
 173. 305 
 
 O80 
 
 409 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Prince Edward Island 
 
 
 
 338 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 427, 700 
 
 07, 465 
 
 495,165 
 
 1, 411, 749 
 
 170, 040 
 
 1, 682, 389 
 
 
 C. — Quantities and values of hituminous coal importedfrom the provinces of Nova Scotia, New 
 Brunswick, Prince Edivard Island, Quebec, Ontario, and the Northwest Territory into the 
 Atlantic and all other ports of the United States during the year ending June 30, 1889. 
 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Value. 
 
 From the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward 
 Island into — 
 Atlantic ports 
 
 28,510 
 1, 127, 319 
 
 $21, 810 
 3,907,435 
 
 All other 
 
 
 Total 
 
 1, 155, 829 
 
 3, 929, 245 
 
 
 From the provinces of Quobec, Ontario, and tlie Northwest Terrilory into— 
 
 1,713 
 1, 154, 116 
 
 
 Al) nth*^r portt 
 
 3 924 631 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 1, 155, 829 
 
 3, 929, 245 
 
 
 From the province of British Columbia into— 
 
 404,518 
 751,311 
 
 
 
 2, 113! 203 
 
 
 Total - -- 
 
 . 1,155,829 
 
 3,929,245 
 
 
 Feostbcrgh, Md., December 24, 1889. 
 
 At a public meeting of merchants aud Luaines.s men liekl this day at the council 
 chamber to give expression to the popular opposition in this coal region to any inter- 
 ference with the present tariff duty on coal, the following gentlemen were on motion 
 elected officers : William Thomas, chairman; E. N. Michael, secretary. On motion 
 the chairman was authorized to appoint a committee of five gentlemen, himself to be 
 one of the number, to draught a paper expressing the sense of the people. 
 
 The chairman appointed Messrs. 6. H. Wittig, E. G. Colborn, D. F. McMullen, E. 
 N. Michael. 
 
 The following paper was reported : 
 
 Whereas it is understood that the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
 of Representatives will hear memorials, etc.,. of those interested in the production of 
 coal, on the 26th instant ; and 
 
 Whereas it is represented that the customs duty upon foreign coal is threatened 
 with abatement if not repeal by the Congress ; and 
 
 Whereas such action would produce incalculable disaster to the semi- bituminous 
 interests of this country ; and 
 
 Whereas the existing duty of 75 cents per ton upon foreign bituminous coal is 
 barely sufficient to enable the employing operators to maintain our coal in the mar- 
 kets of the country at such prices as will afford a reasonable rate of wages to their 
 employes; and 
 
 Whereas foreign coal, partially or wholly free of duty, moans correspooding or com- 
 plete paralysis of homo production, leas compensation for labor and loss of employ- 
 ment for laborers, and disaster to the many interests dependent upon the normal 
 rate of development : Therefore bo it 
 
 Eeaolvei ty this meeting of merchards and business men of lYostburgh, That in the 
 
144 EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 name of all our people we do hereby earnestly request our Senators and Representa- 
 tives in Congress to pass no act which, either in whole or in part changes the existing 
 customs duty u pou foreign coal ; and further 
 
 Beaolved, That we assure our Senators' and Representatives of our conviction that 
 all the benefits derived from the said existing tariff on foreign coal are in this region 
 liberally shared with the labor which digs and sends our coal to market. 
 
 Resolved, That a copy of this paper be laid before the Committee on Ways and 
 Means on the 2Cth instant ; and that our county and leading State papers be re- 
 quested to publish the same. 
 
 On motion unanimously adopted. 
 
 On motion adjourned. 
 
 Wm. Thomas, Chairman. 
 E. N. Michael, Secretary. 
 
 To the honorable the Senators and Bepresentaiives of the Congress of the United States : 
 
 The undersigned citizens of Allegany County, State of Maryland, respectfully rep- 
 resent to your honorable bodies that they are directly interested as miners and 
 laborers in the production and shipment of semi-bituminous coal from the George's 
 Creek (or Cumberland) coal region of this county, and that they believe any reduc- 
 tion of the current duty on foreign coal will work great harm to their home product 
 
 They also respectfully represent that the employers of labor in this region pay 
 liberally for mining and all work connected therewith, and that they sincerely be- 
 lieve that whatever benefit is derived by the coal interest from the present tarift' duty 
 on foreign coal is divided liberally with the labor which produces it in accordance 
 with the spirit and intent of the law. 
 
 So believing and so avowing, we respectfully pray your honorable bodies to con- 
 tinue the customs duty of 75 cents per ton on foreign coal. And, as in duty bound, 
 we will ever pray, etc. 
 
 [Hero follows twenty-eight petitions similar to the above, and signed by an ag- 
 gregate of twenty-five hundred persons.] 
 
 STATEMENT OF O'WEN HITCHEN. 
 
 Mr. Owen Hitchen, a miner, of Frostburgh, Md., next apjieared before the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Mr. McCoMAS. Yon are a practical coal miner ? 
 
 Mr. Hitchen. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McCoMAS. Where have you worked in the old country? 
 
 Mr. Hitchen. In Monmouthshire, Wales, and Pembrokeshire. 
 
 Mr. McCOMAS. Anfl in this conutry where? 
 
 Mr. Hitchen. In Slaryland, the George's Creek region. 
 
 Mr. McCoMAS. Y'on know the rates in Great Britain of work years ago, and you have 
 been over there several times since? 
 
 Mr. Hitchen. I was over there in 1875. 
 
 Mr. McOiiMAS. They are very muoli lower there than here? 
 
 Mr. Hitchen. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McCoMAS. Do you think it would bo possible for us to mine coal if the duty 
 was lessened at all ? 
 
 Mr. Hitchen. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How long is it since you first came to this country ? 
 
 Mr. Hitchen. Since 18.52. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are you an ordinary miner? , 
 
 Mr. Hitchen. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gkak. Do you say the wages arc lower in the other country than in this 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. Hitchen. The wages earned there were about 3 shillings a day. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Did you live as well in that country as you do here ? 
 
 Mr. Hitchen. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you wear as good clothes ? 
 
 Mr. Hitchen. I was a little proud aud I wore pretty good clothes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Was your house as well furnished ? 
 
 Mr. Hitchen. I did not have a hou.se. I came here to keep house. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Did you rent? 
 
 Mr. Hitchen. No, sir; I was a single man, aii d I married and came here to keep 
 house. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are the ordinary clothes a miner wears in that counti-y every day and 
 Sunday called as good as they are hero ? 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 145 
 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. In the part of England I came from they wear as good clothes in the 
 long run as they do here. That is many do ; some do not. 
 Jlr. Gear. Can you buy them a little cheaper. 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. Oh, very much. 
 Mr. Gear. You do not get such good wages 1 
 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. No, sir. When I came to this country they paid as high as 40 cents, 
 from 28 to 40, and by working hard I could earn $1.50. That is twice as much as we 
 were getting there. 
 Mr. Gear. You earn twice as much in this country ? 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much is that a ton ? 
 
 Mr. HiTCHEX. That depends upon the vein and how hard it is to work. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Take it as it runs, how much would it be ? 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. I should say on an average it would be |1 a ton. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much did you get ? 
 
 Mr. Kitchen. The miners get 3 shillings; sometimes less than 2 shillings. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Something like 2 shillings ? 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. From 2 to 3 shillings. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And ours get from 28 to 40 cents a ton ? 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it that same difference there now as far as you know ? 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. No; wages are better now than they were. But in regard to the 
 expenses of diiferent mines, we are digging coal 10 feet thick, and all with pick and 
 shovel and sledge. There we dig coal 3 feet thick. T went into a pit in 1885 which 
 I suppose was nine hundred and some feet deep. They were working one vein of coal 
 there's feet above and 3 feet below, and from 3 to 5 feet thick, and slate between it. 
 They were getting there 3 shillings a ton, 3 and 6 pence for some. 
 Mr. McKenna. How much is that a day 1 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. They dig it by the ton. 
 Mr. McKenna. How much a day do they make ? 
 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. Some make more and some less, but it is about 3 or 4 shillings a day. 
 Mr. Gear. It is .something over a dollar a day ? 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. Y'es, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you you know in regard to the mines in the Indiana district ? 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do yon know iu regard to Illinois ? 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. No, sir ; I am not acquainted with any of those. 
 Mr. Gear. The condition of the American miner is far better than the condition of 
 the English miner ? 
 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. There is no comparison. None whatever. As I said, our disadvan- 
 tage is we are so far inland and they have the coals on the sea-board. Twelve miles 
 is a long distance to transport. The foreign rate is 3 shillings, and royalty about 20 
 cents. It is all work and royalty. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. About 20 cents. 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. It is about |4.20 free on board. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is this about the average that the coal miners get in England ? 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. Yes, sir. I consider 3 shillings a day high wages. Just as Gen- 
 eral Imboden said in regard to the South. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Y(m consider that a good average output. 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. Yes, sir; it is good average wages. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am not speaking of wages so much as the output of coal. 
 Take a n ine running steadily, how much would it average ? 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. It has been as low as 2 shillings. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am not asking iu regard to money. I am trying to get at 
 the amount of coal an English miner mines per day. 
 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. That is wages ; because one man can dig in one vein more than an- 
 other man can in another vein, .and that average 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Pardon me, but you have got on the wages again. I will 
 simply have to come back to my original question, and we will have to begin over 
 again on this subject. You would call what you average in your output a fair out- 
 put for an English miner, the way your mines run. 
 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. Yes, sir; but what veins do you mean ? Do you meau the 2-shil- 
 ling veins or the 3-shilling — an open vein. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am trying to get at a general idea of what the English miner 
 gets out per day. 
 
 M. HiTCHEN. In England you know coal is very different from here, and in some 
 mines they can jrat out 2 or 3 tons and iu another only 1. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. In a mine where you put out 3 tons how much do they get? 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. Two shilling.>j a ton, which would be 15 to 18 pence, 
 Mr. Gear. Does the mine furnish the powder ? 
 
 485 10 
 
146 EEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. The workmen furnish the jjowder. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Then you have to pay out of your wages for the powder ? 
 
 Mr. HiTCi-lEN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. I do not exactly understand how much you get a ton. 
 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. Sometimes 1.5 pence to 3 shillings. There is a difference in working 
 coal. Sometimes vou get it where you can handle it a good deal easier and cheaper. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. How uinch would you get by that mining? Would you get a ton 
 a day ? 
 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. I will explain. Sometimes men get easier mines to dig; sometimes 
 thi'y are not so hard. 
 
 Mr. McKexna. That is true as to your other answer. 
 
 Mr. HiTCHEX. Just please state your question again, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKexna. You say you got from 1 shilling to 3. 
 
 Mr. HiTCHEX. No, sir ;'l said from 15 pence ■ 
 
 Mr. McKexna. To what! 
 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. To 18 pence and 2 shillings, and up to half a crown. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. How much would you get if the product of your work was only 1 
 ton? 
 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. About 3 shillings and 6 pence. 
 
 Mr. McKenxa. How much if you produced 5 tons? 
 
 Mr. HiTCHEN. It was in proportion. They aim to get the wages uniform. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JAMES M. SLOAN. 
 
 Mr, James M. Sloan, of Lonaconing, Md., next appeared before the committee. 
 
 Mr. McComas. You have been engaged in mining coal in the old country ? 
 
 Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McC'OMAS. And in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McComas. You have been in the mining regions of Glasgow, and you are 
 familiar with them there ? 
 
 Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McComas. Tell the committee briefly what you think would be the effect of 
 removing this duty of 75 cents a ton. 
 
 Mr. Sloan. I will endeavor to tell you. We have a population in our village of 
 about 6,000 people. 
 
 Mr. McComas. Where— Frostburgh ? 
 
 Mr. Sloan. Lonaconing, which is 8 miles below Flro.sthurgh. Onr community is 
 composed entirely of people from Euglaud, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and a few 
 from Germany. No Swedes, Italians, or Hungarians are there. Our people are possi- 
 bly unnecessarily alarmed about the abolition of the duty on coal, but when it was 
 known to us we had no hall to meet in, and we organized a meeting on the street on 
 Christmas day, in the midst of the boys popping fire- crackers. They asked us to 
 come down here and in our feeble way request you to make no change in the duty on 
 coal. This is a matter of butter and bread to us. It is a matter of dollars and cents. 
 If the duty is removed we will be obliged to leave, because we think our coal can not 
 1)6 put out against Nova Scotia coal after the duty of 75 cents is removed. If our 
 coal sells at 3^ and the profit is 5 cents, if there is any reduction in the tariff — there 
 has got to be a reduction somewhere — we believe the miners will be the ones to feel it. 
 
 We do not want to come to the schedule of Nova Scotia. When my father came to 
 America in 1837 it was to better his condition, which I think he did very materially. 
 He spent his entire life in the coal mines. We think we know something about the 
 eft'ect of the reduction of wages in the Scotch region. I knew families of sixteen liv- 
 ing in one room. Men live a little better in our region. It is an inevitable fact — at 
 least we think so — without being able to state any fine phrases — that if yon take off 
 this duty we have got to come to the Scotch and German standards. The miner can 
 make $2. ."lO a day for work. He can easilj' dig 5 tons at 50 cents, which is $2.50. 
 The driver is about 75 cents; the outside man |1. 90 and possibly the fireman $2, which 
 is a manifest difference of 2 or 3 shillings. 
 
 1 can possibly illustrate the way the Scotch miners live and the way we live. We 
 have more beef in our town in weight than we have flour. We have got a popula- 
 tion of 6,000 people, and it is a known fact that we consume more beef in that town 
 than Cumberland, with a population of 13,000 inhabitants. In order to illustrate 
 how much beef we use compared with Scotland I will tell you a story that a gentle- 
 man related to me two years ago. He was visiting in Scotland and this was what he 
 tobl me : "I talked with one of thi^ old miners and he said : ' The wages are not as 
 good as they might Ijc' I said: ' What are you getting?' He said ; 'Two and six.' 
 I said : 'That docs not give you much drink.' He said: 'Not much; but it would 
 get a little drop.' I said: 'How much — about a jiint ?' He said: ' No, about half a 
 
REVISION OF THE TAKIFF. 147 
 
 pint.' I aalied him what he would have to pay for a beef steak. He said : 'About a 
 shilling a pound.' I asked him if he got much. He said: 'We see it through the 
 shop windows and that is about as close as we get to it.' He said : ' If the parlia- 
 ment will take that d— d tariff off I suppose we could get a little steak.' " 
 
 I j ast want to ask you geutlemeu not to remove that tariff. We are satisfied. We 
 have our homes and families there ; we have good school houses and good churches. 
 We are a satisfied community, and we are satisfied you want to do what is right. 
 The miners are satisfied with their wages. Unfortunately by the destruction of the 
 Chesapeake and Ohio Canal we have not had good work, but that is not the fault of 
 the tariff. Possibly the canal will be refitted. We would not like to see our children 
 on the street and begging. This 7.5 cents is the only thing between them and the 
 condition of the negro. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JOHN FATKIN. 
 
 Mr. John Fatkin, of Maryland, next appeared before the committee. 
 
 Mr. McCoMAS. Are you a resident of the George's Creek region? 
 
 Mr. Fatkin. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McCoMAS. Have you been engaged in mining coal for several years ? 
 
 Mr. Fatkin. I have been in that region for forty years. 
 
 Mr. MoCoMAS. I believe you also worked in some of the Scotch mines ? 
 
 Mr. Fatkin. Yes, sir; I worked in the Albion mine quite a bit. 
 
 Mr. McCoMAS. If this tarift'of seventy-five cents, or even twenty-five cents, was 
 taken off what would be the effect upon the coal industry ? 
 
 Mr. Fatkin. I know it would affect ns some. I suppose the reduction would come 
 on the laborer — the miner. 
 
 Mr. McComas. Are the coal companies getting rich t 
 
 Mr. Fatkin. They claim they are not making anything. 
 
 Mr. McCoMAS. How do the wages paid in the Albion compare with those here I 
 
 What is the general percentage? 
 
 Mr. Fatkin. I do not recollect. I was just a boy ten years old when I worked 
 there. I know what my own wages were. I got 15 pence a day for keeping the 
 trap-door. 
 
 Mr. McCoMAS. And the same kind of work here is paid what ? 
 
 Mr. Fatkin. Seventy-five cents. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do they work the same number of hours ? 
 
 Mr. Fatkin. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you mean they give a ten-year-old boy 75 cents here for 
 that ? 
 
 Mr. Fatkin. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you belong to a labor organization 1 
 
 Mr. Fatkin. No, sir. 
 
 ENAMELED IRON. 
 
 STATEMENT OP JOHN P. OTTERSON. 
 
 Mr. John P. Otterson, of Allegheny City, next appeared before the committee. 
 
 The Chairman. Give your business and the location of that business. 
 
 Mr. Otterson. I am interested in the enameliug business. It stands pretty much 
 in the same relation to iron that the tin-plate business does, and I think it is affected 
 just the same way by the tariff'. We have been endeavoring — both the Standard 
 Manufacturing and the Star Manufacturing Company — to manufacture this enameled 
 iron ; but the history of the trade is, as fast as we make some market for these special- 
 ties in iron we find ourselves crowded out by foreign competition from the English 
 and German markets, principally in enameled signs, and we can not produce them 
 for less than 40 cents a square foot, while the English place them on the market in 
 competition with ours at 31 cents a square foot. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you remember what the duty is upon them? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. It seems the only duty that has been }ilaced upon it — there is no 
 specific duty — is 45 per cent., and that is placed on the iron itself. There is no duty 
 placed at all on the enamel. We think a special duty should be placed upon the 
 enamel in regard to specialties we manufacture, for which there is a large demand. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the additional cost of enameling? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. Three times that of the iron. 
 
 The Chairman. And the present rate of duty is on the iron simply ? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. There is nothing additional to that whatever. It coats about 
 three times the price of iron, and this is all skilled labor, 
 
148 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What duty do you think should be placed on it to be fairly pro- 
 tective ? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. I think there should be a duty of at least double what there is 
 now — twice wliat it is on the iron. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is the duty on the iron ? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. Forty-five per cent. 
 
 The Chairman. That duty is specific. 
 
 Mr. Otterson. I understand it is only ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. Bay^ne. What should the specific duty be? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. It should he on the iron l^ to 2 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you mean that on the enameled iron ? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. No, sir ; on the iron itself. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. The duty is fixed on that ? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What ought the duty to be on a piece of enameled iron ? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. It should go on the square foot in the sign business. It is a little 
 hard to figure by weight. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. It is a pickled iron. 
 
 The Chairman. Suppose we put a duty of a cent a pound on the iron. What 
 would you say ought to be the additional duty for the enameled iron? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. I should think 2 or 3 cents, because the price of enameling is so 
 much more than the iron itself. 
 
 The Chairman. You think we should put a duty of 1 cent a pound, and we ought 
 to put a duty of 2 cents a pound if the material is enameled ? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Is it more expensive to enamel iron than to make tin-plates? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. Yes, sir; it is about double the expense. 
 
 The Chairman. Will you state if this is a large industry or not ? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. The Standard Manufacturing Company, of Pittsburgh, are now 
 employing 225 men. Our own company has only recently been organized, and it has 
 been running about a year in a small way. 
 
 The Chairman. Will you state whether the consumption of this is very large? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. It is growing rapidly. 
 
 The Chairman. Is it very large ? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. It is very large now and it is growing very rapidly. 
 
 The Chairman. Is it used largely in houses for bath-rooms — bath-tubs ? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. For their closets and pipes ? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. Yes, sir ; enameling the inside of the pipes and sanitary work for 
 plumbers. 
 
 The Chairman. What are the principal uses outside the house- work? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. Outside of the sanitary work it is used for cooking-vessels. 
 
 The Chairman. And outside of that ? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. It is used for decorative purposes. We are about to introduce that 
 industry and manufacture wainscoting and tiling for the inside of public buildings. 
 We think we can make a large market for that if we get protection. 
 
 The Chairman. Your idea is that to be thoroughly protected the iron should pay 
 one cent and the enameled irons should pay three cents ? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. How do you sell that? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. We sell sign work at 40 cents a square foot. We can not manufact- 
 ure and sell at the prices at which those manufacturers will sell it without the help 
 of the tariff. I have papers in my pocket showing this was placed on the market as 
 low as iil cents by the German importers. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You say they are used for cooking vessels. Are they used for tin 
 pans, etc.? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The effect would be to raise the price on them, would it not? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. No; I do not know that that would be necessary if the present 
 prices are maintained. We can run on these prices. It is only in the market where we 
 are crowded out by the English people. There is a large field in the United States 
 to cover, and we are rapidly making this market, and just as soon as we get fairly 
 into it the English and Germans come in and reduce the prices. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The effect of the increase you propose, which is 300 per cent,, 
 would be to prevent a further reduction in the present prices on your goods. 
 
 Mr. Otterson. That is all. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. This has nothing on it now? 
 
 Mr. Otterson. There is a tariff on the iron, but nothing on the enamel. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridoe. Now you have 4.'') ceuts on the iron and 45 cents on the enamel I 
 
 Mr. Otterson. We can not import iron and pay that percentage, 
 
REVISION OP tHE TAiilPP. 149 
 
 GOLD-LEAF AND BRONZE, 
 STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES BRYCE. 
 
 Mr. Charles Brycb, cbairman of the Gold and Silver Beaters' National Commit- 
 tee, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, some months ago we had quite a 
 lengthy hearing before the Senate committee, and I presume the question is now be- 
 fore you. In order to facilitate and expedite matters, our secretary will submit a 
 statement which will cover all that ground, and then, if necessary, will answer any 
 questions. Mr. Radford will read the statement. 
 
 Mr. Radford read the statement as follows : 
 
 The honorable the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives : 
 
 Gentlemen: In accordance with your invitation to appear before you to present 
 our views upon the tariff question, concerning the articles of which we have refer- 
 ence, viz., gold-leaf, bronze or Dutch metal in leaf, bronze powder, we would pre- 
 sent the following statement : 
 
 (1) Last May we made statements before the honorable Senators, members of the 
 Finance Committee, which resulted in the Committee on Finance on presenting the 
 substitute bill to H. R. 9051 recommending an increase of 50 cents per pack on gold- 
 leaf and an increased duty on bronze powder (see pages 114 and 116 of said bill). 
 
 (2) We would rely on that statement and request that you peruse it so that we 
 may not occupy much of your valuable time (see pages 1 to 29, testimony talien by 
 the Subcommittee on the Tariff of the Senate Committee on Finance). 
 
 (3) We regret that the Senate committee did not see fit to recommend an in- 
 crease of duty on Dutch metal in leaf. 
 
 (4) We find from statements which we present, furnished by the Chief of the 
 Bureau of Statistics, that the increased importation of Dutch metal in leaf amounts 
 to nearly 25 per cent, during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889, as compared with 
 the fiscal year ending June 30, 1887. 
 
 (5) Copy of statement of Chief of Bureau of Statistics, Washington, D. C. 
 
 
 fRate3 of duty 10 per cent.] 
 
 
 
 
 Values. 
 
 Duties. 
 
 
 $135,372.00 
 151, 330. 00 
 170, 187. 00 
 
 $13,537.20 
 15, 133. 00 
 
 Tear ending June 30, 1888 
 
 Tear ending June 30, 1889 
 
 17, 018. 00 
 
 
 
 (6) As there is no Dutch metal in leaf manufactured now in the United States, 
 owing to the low rate of duty, which does not average an equivalent specific duty of 
 5 cents per 500 leaves, taking the diflferent grades of leaf. 
 
 (7) The rate of wages paid in Germany is as two to five as compared with the 
 TTuited States, and every leaf that is consumed in this country is manufactured in 
 Germany and imported here. 
 
 (8) It is a fact that nine-tenths of the value that is imported goes to Germany in 
 payment for metal leaf, is really lost to the home workmen, as the value of the metal 
 which is used in the manufacture of 500 leaves does not exceed 3 cents; at least 90 
 per cent, is consumed in labor. 
 
 (9) Whence it follows that it is a question of wages in the cost of production, 
 and that the protection being inadequate, the foreign manufacturers have the monop- 
 oly of the market in this country and we are powerless to prevent it. 
 
 (10) So small a duty as is at present imposed is not sufflcient to protect, the exist- 
 ing rate of duty is so small that the foreign manufacturer can undersell us, so that 
 10 per cent, ad valorem really protects the foreign workman at the expense of the 
 citizen. 
 
 (11) We have sufficient duty on silver leaf, and there is none imported, and silver 
 leaf is manufactured very extensively in the United States, and is sold at a reasona- 
 ble price, so that it will be an error to suppose that the users of Dutch metal leaf 
 will have to pay as much more for the article as the increased duty would amount to. 
 
 (12) Metal leaf of a quality equal to the best in the world can be manufactured in 
 this country sufScient to supi^ly all the demands of the home market, and to make 
 it compensating to manufacture it in this country. 
 
 (13) We therefore hope you will use every eifort to have the tariif so amended as 
 
150 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 to provide for a specific duty of 10 cents per 100 leaves on Dntcli metal in leaf, and 
 also the increase on noli leaf and bronze po wder tlaat was recommended by tile Sen- 
 ate Committee on Finance. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 Chaklbs Brice, Cliairman, 
 Edwin Radford, Secretary, 
 Francis T. Keelt, 
 National Tariff Committee Gold and Silver Beaters, United States of America. 
 New York, Decemler 26, 1889. 
 
 Mr. Bryce. We are prepared, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, if necessary, to give 
 you the methods adopted in our line of business in the preijaratiou of gold leaf, etc., 
 but it will take up valuable time, and we have no desire to consume time ; so, if it 
 is agreeable, we will submit our case. 
 
 ALUMINUM. 
 
 PiTTSBUEGn, Pa., Januarxj 9, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: It is extremely desirable that the met.al aluminum, which is now 
 npon the free list, should be placed in the regular metal schedule aud made 
 dutiable. 
 
 Aluminum is a silver white metal, very light in weight, high in tensile strain, and 
 non-oxidizable, that is, it does not tarnish under ordinary conditions. It is made 
 from prepared clay, or, more properly, from the alumina which forms the bulk of 
 ordinary conmiercial clays. Until very recently its methods of manufacture were 
 very expensive, and the metal was produced in but small quantities and at a very 
 high price. Within the last ten years it has sold as high as |1 an ounce, and until 
 about some three months ago it could not be purchased in this country at less than 
 ijO a pound. These prices made it impossible to use it for the purposes for which it 
 is well adapted. 
 
 Quite recently, however, as the result of new processes that have been invented in 
 thiscountry and elsewhere, aluminum is becoming much more common. Some three 
 or four manufactories have been established in this country, and others are coutem- 
 plated. The establishment of these manufactories has reduced the price of aluminum 
 from |6 a pound to $2 a pound, and to still further develop this business, the manu- 
 facturers request that the duty on aluminum shall be made as follows: 
 
 " On aluminum, including aluminum bronze, and all other alloys of which alumi- 
 num shall be the metal of chief value, except ferro-aluminum, wiieu in pigs, ingots, 
 or slabs, 7.5 cents a pound; on the alloys of iron and aluminum, known as ferro-alu- 
 niinunj, 50 cents a pound ; on sheets, jjlates, and all other manufactures of alumi- 
 num, %\ a pound." 
 
 The clay or alumina ont of which aluminum is made is chiefly imported. The 
 value of the aluminum is very largely dependent upon its purity, and one of the 
 largest elements in the cost of aluminum is the precautions which have to be taken 
 to keep the metal pure. The ore or the alumina for it has to be a chemically pure 
 product, as any impurities of silicon or oxide of iron in the ore will be found in the 
 aluminum metal, thereby decreasing its value. At present, as stated above, the 
 alumina used in this country is chiefly imported from Gernuiuy, and this is dutiable 
 at the rate of GO cents a hundred, while the metal made from it comes in free. 
 
 Large establishments are being erected in Europe, using the cheap labor and cheap 
 water-power of that grand division. A works bas just been erected at Schaffhauseu 
 at the Falls of the Rhine, and other works in .Switzerland. 
 
 It is, therefore, most earnestly requested, in view of the above facts, that aluminum 
 be dutiable at the rates given above. 
 Very truly, 
 
 Jos. D. Weeks. 
 
 Maj. William McKinley, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 151 
 
 MICA. 
 
 Judge Chipman, a representative from the State of Michigan, next appeared before 
 the committee and read the following telegrams : 
 
 Dethoit, Mich., December 25, 1889. 
 J. Logan Chipman, 
 
 House Bepresenfatires, Washington : 
 Committee appointed 26th for hearing. Labor hard against the attempt to remove 
 mica from free list. It is a household article and price should remain reasonable. 
 
 The Michigan Stone Company. 
 
 Detroit, Mich., December 25, 1889. 
 Hon. J. Logan Chipman, M. C, JVashinglon : 
 We earnestly protest against mica being removed from the free list. 
 
 E. S. Barbour, 
 President Detraii Slave Works. 
 
 Detroit, Mich., December 26, 1889. 
 Hon. J. Logan Chipman, Washington : 
 See Major McKinley and use your infliieuce to have mica lefc on free list. 
 
 Peninsular Stove Company, J. Dwyer. 
 
PRODUCTIOI^ OF DOMESTIC WOOL. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means, January 2, 1890. 
 
 The Chairman. I desire to inquire whether there is any gentleman present who 
 desires to speak in favor of free, wool or at reduced rates of duty upon wool. If so, 
 we will be glad to hear him at this time. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I do not think they understand, Mr. Chairman, that they have toLe 
 here until to-morrow ; that is the tree wool men. 
 
 The Chairman. To-day was assigned to the producers of wool ; to-morrow is set 
 for a hearing on woolen goods. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The reason why I say so is, I received a letter from Mr. Bennett, the 
 editor of the American Wool Reporter, of Boston, stating that they will be here the 
 3d day of January to represent manufacturers of wool who wanted free wool. 
 
 The Chairman. I understand from a gentleman here that the gentleman you refer 
 to is in town now but not in the committee room. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I suppose to-morrow was assigned for the manufacturers to 
 discuss their own interests from their own standpoint. 
 
 The Chairman. Yes, and for anybody interested in the duties on manufactured 
 woolen goods. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The tax on wool necessarily enters into the article, and a dis- 
 cussion on raw wool would be as pertinent to-morrow as to-day. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I think it would be better to have them all here now. If you send 
 a telephone to the JRiggs House you probably can find Mr. Beunett. 
 
 The Chairman. While waiting on Mr. Bennett, 1 have been handed a list of gen- 
 tlemen who desire to be heard to-day, and Mr. Wallace, of Missouri, is the first-named 
 on the list. Mr. Wallace, we will hear from you. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. O. H. WALLACE. 
 
 Mr. G. H. Wallace, of Fayette, Howard County, Mo., addressed the Committee. 
 He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee ; I must beg the indulgence of this 
 committee a little, for my voice is a good deal out of trim, or, rather, my breathing 
 apparatus. I will endeavor to speak as clearly and distinctly as I can. The subject 
 assigned me for presentation here this morning is, the importation of third-class or 
 carpet wools is diminishing the consumption of low-grade wools and reducing the 
 production of mutton sheep. 
 
 Here are two propositions. The first that foreign wools are taking the place of 
 the American product, and, secondly, the consequently lessened demand for domestic 
 low-grade wool is discouraging the production of the sheep on which it is grown, 
 and upon which the country must depend for its supply of mutton. 
 
 Proof of the first establishes the fact of the second proposi tion. The right and justice 
 of a specific duty — if laid for either "revenue" or "protection" — the wool-grower 
 readily understands, so far at least as tlie wnol is concerned. 
 
 He would ask that the duty be made so when wool is low and he needs protection 
 the rate may be higher, and when wool is higli in price'and protection is not needed 
 the rate should be lower. Specific duties secure this, while the imposition of an ad 
 valorem duty would bring about the opposite result. 
 
 What the wool-grower does not understand, is, why the classifications which now 
 exist in the law were inserted ? He believes if any difference is made, it should be 
 favoring the use of the better article and discriminating against th e poorer. The re- 
 
 153 
 
154 
 
 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 verse of this is seen in the present law, which admits into the country at a rate of duty 
 from one-fourth to one-eighth of that put upon good wool an article called " carpet 
 wool," more "coarse" and "brash," without the "life" or "elasticity" of good 
 wool, 'tis true — yet of such quality that under the stimulus of this difference of 
 from 7| to 15 cents per pound it is being used wherever aud whenever possible as a 
 substitute for good wool. This is not only au imposition upon wool-grower, but it is 
 a fraud upon the innocent consumers. Whatever passes the custom-house as wool 
 may be called " all wool" after passing through tlie processes of manufacture ; but it 
 is not good wool, as he is left to believe, and after a grievous experience he know 
 something is wrong, but does not know where to locate it, the wool-grower, with his 
 protection of "ten cents per pound," probable coming in for a large share of his 
 anathemas. 
 
 The wool-grower believes in protection by law — protection through the custom- 
 houses of the country to the American producer against ruinous competition from 
 abroad. Of the estimated 2,000,000,000 of pounds of the wool grown in the world it 
 is known that the United States consumes tiOO,000,000 of pounds, or 30 per cent, of the 
 entire production, and, as the wool-grower pays his share of the taxes and tolls of our 
 civilization and Government, he believes he is entitled to, and asks for, a fair and 
 reasonable opportunity to supply his own market. 
 
 Under " protection " from 1860 to 1883 he was gaining in production as fast as it 
 was possible under the laws of nature. The number of sheep in the United States ia 
 1860 had not only increased from 22,500,00 Oto 50,500,000 in 1884, but by consummate 
 skill and patient endeavor the amount of wool from each sheep had been greatly in- 
 creased. Wool growing was remunerative and the number of wool-growers was 
 steadily increasing ; not a State in the Uuiou but felt tlie beneficial effect, for the 
 census of 1880 discloses the fact that sheep were owned in every county in the United 
 States except thirty-four. 
 
 The enormous increase and general distribution of these domestic animals began 
 to make itself felt as a source of supply for meat food, aud from being consumers of 
 beef and pork only the people very generally began to iudulge in the luxury of good 
 mutton. The ready adaptability of the sheep in all ages aud climes and among all 
 people is well known, but the best results are obtained, as every owner of a "stud" 
 or " breeding flock" well knows, Iiy the expenditure of much time, deep study, pains- 
 taking care, and great expense. In fact, it is only in this way that our flocks of breed- 
 ing sheep, of either wool or mutton producing qualities, are obtained and maintained, 
 and thus they are too valuable for food. 
 
 The climate and soil have much to do in the production of wool, hence the States 
 of Vermont, New York, Ohio, and Michigan, with a few counties in the States of 
 Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky, were recognized as the home of breed- 
 ing sheep, and, together with the far West, as the wool-producing sections of the 
 country. Raising sheep for mutton only never has been and probably never will be 
 profitable in this country, the only exception to this being the raising of lambs uear 
 the large cities to supply a special demand. 
 
 We are not mutton eaters unless the price is low, hence it has been necessary to 
 combine the mutton and wool producing qualities iu the same animal as much aa 
 possible, and it is obtained by crossing the Cotswold or some of the Down breeds 
 upou what is known us native sheep, and these grow our common or quarter-blood 
 wool. 
 
 There are no official statistics as to the grade of wool grown in each State, hut as 
 the great centers of the wool trade where clips are collected, and from whence they 
 are distributed to the mills, the wools from Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, 
 Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, and Kansas, are generally 
 known as "quarter-blood" and "common" — it is estimated that 95 per cent, of the 
 wools from these States are of these grades, and it is these ten States which furaiah 
 the live-stock markets of the country with the bulk of their supplies for mutton. 
 None of tliem have ever been called wool growing States; yet the statistics of the 
 Agricultural Department published by the Treasury Department in 1888 give the 
 number of sheep iu these States in 1883 as 9,877,841, or about one million head for 
 each State, .and as the census of 1880 shows the flocks of these States average 
 about fifty head, there are two hundred thousand people directly interested in these 
 wool aud mutton producing sheep. The same authority gives the number of sheep 
 in these States iu 1875 as 9,439,200, showing that this grade of sheep under the law 
 iu force previous to 1883 but little more than held their own, evidence going to 
 show the wrong done by the low rates of duty on third-class wool even then. During 
 these last ten years, 1875 to 1883 inclusive, the Philadelphia xirico for quarter blood 
 and coniTiion wool averaged 'J'.) tents per pound. The following year the price 
 declined to 2:}J cents per pound, and the destruction of these flocks began. 
 
REVIStOlsr OF THE fAElPP. 
 
 155 
 
 The official figures for fhe years 1883, 1886, and 1889 are given for coraparison with 
 the amounts of third class wools imported in the same years. 
 
 1883. 
 
 1889. 
 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 Virginia 
 
 "West Virginia. 
 
 Hfeutucky 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Illinois 
 
 "Wisconsin 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Total.... 
 
 1, 803, 336 
 502, 262 
 684, 925 
 
 1, 000, 169 
 675, 478 
 
 1, 149, 906 
 
 1, 363, 677 
 497, 161 
 
 1,453,919 
 747, 008 
 
 9, 877, 841 
 
 1, 189, 481 
 
 463, 127 
 
 624, 912 
 
 903, 223 
 
 603, 780 
 
 1, 005, 653 
 
 1, 218, 800 
 
 467, 580 
 
 1, 285, 078 
 
 1, 190, 108 
 
 , 951, 797 
 
 935, 646 
 323, 000 
 427, 000 
 602, 000 
 626, 926 
 546, 000 
 730, 738 
 408, 478 
 816, 247 
 402, 744 
 
 5. 718, 779 
 
 The importations of third-class or so-called carpet wools for the same years are as 
 follows (see statistics Treasury Department) : 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1883 40,130,323 
 
 1886 79,716,052 
 
 1889 97,163,850 
 
 Cause and effect are here so obvious as to scarcely need attention to be called to 
 the fact. It is not my province here to prove, had suflicient protection been afforded 
 the American producer on this class of woo], against seuii-barbarous and slave labor 
 of the countries from which the most of it has been imported, we would to-day be 
 producing at least 75 per cent, of this enormous amount, but rather to show if pos- 
 sible what use has been made of this third-class wool. 
 
 When we make inquiry of the manufacturers of carpets, we find them singularly 
 reticent and an eflrort is being made by them to account for the whole amount by the 
 circulation of the letter of inquiry hereto attached ; butitisproba le thoy will prove 
 too much, for of the one hundred and eighty carpet mills of the Philadelphia dis- 
 trict, but twenty spin their own yarns. (See letter of LoriaBlodgettio the Treasury 
 Department.) Hence, when the spinner reports the number of pounds used in yarn, 
 and the weaver does the same in weaving, we will have a duplication of figures 
 which destroys the value of the returns. 
 
 At a conference of the growers, dealers, and manufacturers of wool, held at the 
 Riggs House in this city, January 15-17 inclusive, 1888, Mr. James Dobson, of Phila- 
 delphia, and Mr. Huston, of Hartford, in answer to the inquiry as to the probable 
 quantity of wool it was possible to use on the carpet machinery of the country, an- 
 swered about 60,000,000 pounds. lu a late interview in answer to the inquiry as to 
 the number of square yards of carpet manufactured in this country, Mr Huston 
 said, "Counting rugs, whole carpets, stair carpets, etc., about 60,000,000 square 
 yards." We have no doubt these two statements are approximately correct. In 
 support of them we have the testimony of Lorin Blodgett, of Philadelphia, formerly 
 of the Treasury Department, and a recognized authority in tliis particular branch of 
 the woolen industry, who, in the letter referred to, says : "The amount of new wool 
 consumed in the production of a yard of carpet I find varies greatly, running from 
 2 ounces to 2 pounds, the average not being over 1 pound. The highest claim I have 
 ever seen made by any practically competent man was by Mr. Fairbanks of the Bige- 
 low Carpet Company, who said, 'Some carpets require as much as 6 pounds of raw 
 wool per yard.' Raw wool means wool in the grease, which is equivalent to 2 pounds 
 of scoured. As carpet wools are imported at the same rate, either washed or un- 
 washed, we may safely assume they come washed, and attached hereto is a price list 
 of J. L. Bowes & Bro., of Liverpool, England, giving in red ink an estimate, verified 
 by four importers, of the per cent, of shrinkage iu the wools marked, by which we 
 see they are virtually scoured as imported." 
 
 It follows then that the statement of Mr. Huston is proven "60,000,000 yards" 
 "consuming 60,000,000 pounds." To be added to the amount imported is the amount 
 of domestic production. This has been variously estimated by Mr. Lynch of New 
 York and others at from 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 of pounds, and taking into consid- 
 eration the quantity of better qualities used for best carpets, the larger amount 
 is probably correct; but assuming the smaller amount as right, we h;ive a grand 
 total of over 112,000,000 to be accounted for 60,000,000 for carpets and 12,000,000 on 
 hand or "in stock"— an amount beyond the dealers' estimate — and still there are 
 40,000,000 pounds unplaced. 
 
156 REVISION OP THE TAEIPP. 
 
 In seeking finally where this enormous amount of wool has gone, I beg to assure 
 the committee we have found figures a very indefinite article. No one knows how 
 much they have used; no one denies using it; "experimented with it," "used a 
 little,-' " had to use some," "forced to use it altogether," and similar expressions 
 come from every manufacturer inquired of. 
 
 From the dealers in domestic wool we get more definite information. From 
 12,000,000 to 15,000,000 pounds of "quarter-blood" and "common" wool in 1883 
 and 1884 was taken by the manufacturers of jeans in Tennessee, Kentucky, and the 
 southern parts of Illinois and Indiana from the St. Louis market. To-day the 
 dealers of St. Louis find these mills fully supplied with this so-called carpet wool. 
 Mr. E. S. Hall, of the Chicago Wool Exchange, tells of all the mills in that section 
 being supplied by importers on the sea-board with this product of foreign labor, at 
 prices which are driving our " quarter " and " common " wools out of the market. 
 
 Mr. Consalus, of Troy, N. Y., two years since, said he was supplying the manufact- 
 urers of underwear in the Mohawk Valley with this imported third-class wool. The 
 "Cheviot" Mills of Rhode Island and elsewhere have been using it exclusively if the 
 importers are to be believed. For the past two years there have been displayed in the 
 windows of Mr. Wanamaker's store in Philadelphia " All wool pantaloons at $3.!i0 
 per pair," which were made from goods manufactured by John Gear & Co. of this 
 so-called carpet wool. The Henry Brothers, of the same city, manufacturers of 
 flannel underclothing, we are assured, use exclusively wool imported as third class 
 wool. If the importer of carpet wools is asked where he sells such wool, his answer 
 is "everywhere;" and it is everywhere, for even in the far-away wool-growing 
 State of Texas this " third class " wool has entered into possession of the only woolen 
 mill of the State. 
 
 We think we have demonstrated the fact that the importations of third-class wool 
 under the present law is diminishing consumption of low-grade American wools, and 
 reducing the production of " mutton sheep." In these ten States we are being driven 
 into the production of wheat, corn, beef, and pork, where already there is a surplus, 
 and a consequent decline in prices below the cost of production. We appeal to you 
 to put a stop to the importation of wool in this third class, which has brought this 
 destruction upon the food-producing flocks of the country, and thus restore prosper- 
 ity to the farmers of the laud by diversifying their agriculture. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Are you a raiser of sheep in Missouri ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I have been for thirteen years. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is the average of a sheep if yon feed them well ; eight years or 
 longer ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. There is a great deal of difference in the breeds, but I should say 
 from three to five years; not later than five years. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is the fleece on these quarter breeds on the average? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I can not give you that very well, not having raised many of that 
 breed, but I can on the other breeds. It is about five pounds in the grease. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Then I suppose each ewe drops one lamb ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. No, sir ; they do not average that. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How much will they average? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. They will average in this breed probably 85 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Then if you sold four-fifths of your lambs every year and killed one- 
 fifth of the sheep, you increase your flock and will have at the end of five years 
 young sheep right along ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. You asked me how many lambs would be dropped. I said 85 per 
 cent., but I should judge we do not raise more than 80, say 75, per cent. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Then if you sold all but 20 per cent, of those lambs, say every year, 
 andthatof your old sheep, say 20 per cent, ofthem, then your flocks would be all young 
 inside of three or five years. What would your lambs sell for in Missouri ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I live a good ways from the market. Near by the city of St. Louis, 
 where they have more demand for lambs, the lambs sell for a higher price in the 
 early spring and summer. 
 
 Mr. Flower. For how much ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. |2.50 to |4. The lambs in our country are worth 75 cents to 
 $1 and 11.25. 
 
 Mr. Flower. And your fleeces are worth how much on the average for the 5 
 pounds ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. This grade of wool has been sold at from 20 to 23 cents in the last 
 two or three years in the grease. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That would be about a dollar for a fleece ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Yes, sir; about that. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How many acres of land do you calculate to feed that flock? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. For what number ? 
 
 Mr. Flower. How many acres of land would you estimate would lake care of one 
 sheep, two or one * 
 
EE VISION OP THE TARIFF. 157 
 
 Mr. Wallace. There is a variation in regard to the quality of the land. At the 
 variation in the State I am living in, I presume 1 acre will care for one sheep. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Most all of Missouri will do the same thing. Does not all the land 
 do that there ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I do not think over half the State will do that. 
 
 Mr. Flower. One sheep per acre that would be ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Yes,' sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. In regard to the care of these sheep : Do you have shepherds and 
 dogs as they do in Europe ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. No, sir. We have our fields fenced and turn the sheep into the 
 fields. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you shed them at night ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Yes, sir; in the winter time. 
 
 Mr. Flower. If a farm was used just for sheep alone, does not a man have to take 
 care of it, or do you have fences ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. We have fences altogether in Missouri ; unless in the extreme south- 
 ern portion, on the Arkansas line. I am not thoroughly informed in regard to that 
 section. There is a good deal of Government land there. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is the land worth per acre ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Where I live ? 
 
 Mr. Flower. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. From $30 to $40. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. In what part of Missouri do you reside ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Three-fifths of the way up the river from St. Louis to Kansas 
 City. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How far from Sedalia ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Thirty-five or 40 miles. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Then you say your land is worth from |3.5 to $40 an acre? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. The best of it is. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I speak of the land you spoke of. What grade of wool do you pro- 
 duce ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Myself, individually, or the State ? 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Yourself. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. My own flocks have been the best wool-sheep. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What price per pound do you sell in the grease f 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I have sold it at from 15 to 27 cents six years ago. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What has been the average price in the last four years? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. It has been 15 to 18 cents for the last four years. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What has been the weight of the fleece from your flock — about the 
 average weight ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. That varies a little according to the year. It has run from 6i to 8 
 pounds ; the average is about 7 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. About what would the average fleece sell for 1 What would you 
 sell an average fleece, say six pounds, or whatever you call the average ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I should say $1.50 per fleece. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How many lambs do you sell out of your flock in proportion to the 
 number of your flock per year ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I sell no lambs ; I sell only old sheep, what I may have left. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What do you generally get for them on the average ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Four years ago I fed and fattened a fiock of Merino sheep, and sent 
 them to St. Ijouis and realized 47 cents a head, net. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What price would you have to sell your wool at to enable you to 
 make a profit in keeping sheep on land worth $35 to $40 an acre. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Following the business exclusively as a wool-raiser, and not any 
 other line of agriculture, I am not prepared to answer. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Can you estimate it? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. With sheep in conuection with other branches of agriculture by 
 their furnishing valuable manure and keeping land clean of brush, weeds, etc. You 
 know they eat food that no other stock will. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Sheep, then, are only valuable for their wool and meat in connec- 
 tion with other branches of farming ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Suppose you undertook to make the keeping of sheep profitable for 
 the wool and mutton alone, at what price would you have to sell your wool to enable 
 you to make a profit on land worth $35 or $40 an acre ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I would prefer to give the results of some papers read before the 
 State association for the last three years in order to ascertain the growers' view in 
 regard to the cost of raising wool. These papers were from six or eight different 
 wool-growers in the State, and they made the average cost of wool growing in the 
 Sfs-fe of jy^ssouri 20 cents per pound. 
 
158 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. And the average cost to produce the wool is 20 cents a pound? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Now, can you produce wool at that price, or say twice that price, 
 on laud worth $35 to $40 an acre ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Only in connection with other agriculture. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You could not speali in connection with other branches of agricult- 
 ure? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. No sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You have given the statistics! 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I beg your pardon, a moment. When ynu come to double that price 
 and make it 40 cents, I do not know but what I would like to raise sheep. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Are you certain of that? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I have not figured it out. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It costs you 20 cents to produce the wool, and so your profit would 
 be 2U ceuts per pound at 40 cents ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Taking the cost of that wool into consideration we take also the 
 other things I mentioned, the benefit the sheep are to the land. We estimate the 
 manure at so much. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You produce crops on your land also ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I endeaver to raise sufficieut coru to feed my stock. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You merely make one acre of land support one sheep ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. About that. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You do not raise sheep for the market? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You do not-produce crops for sale? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. No, sir; but in the regular rotation of crops we are obliged to raise 
 wheat to get a stand of clover. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You have given statistics showing a decline in the number of sheep 
 in certain States in the last few years. Will you tell the committee whether the 
 number of sheep has not increased during the same time in the States further west 
 where the lands are cheap, in Texas, Colorado, and other States in that part of the 
 country 1 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I think the official report on wool in the last report of the Agricult- 
 ural Department returns shows that in Montana and a few other points, withiu the 
 last six years, there has been a considerable increase. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If you have that report, you will please file it with the stenographer. 
 This is a public document. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Has there been an increase of flocks in Colorado, south of Wyoming? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. The figures show sheep have decreased in Texas. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Is it not true that sheep raised m that part of the country is mostly for 
 wool ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I do not know that I am qualified to speak in regard to that. I 
 have understood that Montana was raising good sheep. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Montana is, and sending them through Texas, Colorado, and Wyoming. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. The only way to determine that is by the market quotations, and I 
 think Texas sells wool about the same as we sell it in Missouri. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Is it not true Texas wool and sheep in regard to the breeds is lower in 
 wool than Missouri ; smaller weight to the fleece. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I do not think so. I think at the present time by the improved in- 
 troduction of Merino bucks they have increased the weight of the fleece until the 
 average is the same as Missouri. That is my information. I can not speak advisedly. 
 
 The Chairman. Missouri is a good way from Texas. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Yes, sir; I can not speak in regard to that matter. 
 
 Mr. Breckinkidue. You say the figures show the production of wool in the last 
 ten years has decreased in the Southern States as a whole. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I spoke more particularly in reference to the pa.st six years; not a 
 longer time than that. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Your statement then is for the last six years? Does not that 
 statement show that in the Southern States the production of wool has decreased? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I spoke particularly in reference to Texas and the country in the 
 western iiortion of the United States — that arid portion. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinkidge. You do not, then, pretend to assert that in the fourteen or fif- 
 teen .Southern States the production of wool has decreased ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. That is asserted in so far as these figures go. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You pretend to give the figures. I want to understand the 
 fact ; IS that or not your statement ? I do not renieTuber the figures, of course. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. The number of sheep in the Southern .States other than those I have 
 mentioned. I can not give the figures exactly. 
 
 Mr. BRiiCKLNltlDGE. Did you mention all the Southern Sta,tes? 
 
KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 159 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I mentioned a list of ten. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I understand you, then, to say that in ten Southern St.ites the 
 production of wool in the last ten years has decreased. Is that your statement ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace No, sir. 
 I Mr. Breckinridge. Please tell nie what your statement is. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. With your permissiou, my statement is as follows: "None of them 
 have been called wool-growing States, yet the statistics of the Agricultural Depart- 
 ment, published by the Treasury Department, in 186s, give the number of sheep in 
 these States in 18d3 as 9,877,841, or about 1,000,000 head for each State, and as the 
 census of 1880 shows the flocks of these States average about fifty head, there are 
 yOO,000 people directly interested in these wool and mutton producing sheep. The 
 same authority gives the number of sheep in these States in 1875 as 9,430,200, show- 
 ing that this grade of sheep under the law in force previous to 1883 but a little more 
 than held their own." 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. This is what you read before. 
 I Mr. Wallace. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then you do not say that in any of the ten Southern States 
 there has been a decrease of production by the method of enumeration you have just 
 given ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I would say this, that in this group of States I was arguing that the 
 article they produce has diminished. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am not trying to get at your methods, to get at your argu- 
 ment, but I simply wanted to find out what was your statement of the fact. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I simply group the States together that grow that grade of wool. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. In selling sheep on the hoof and hogs on the hoof, which has 
 the greater waste from oiafal ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I have always understood the sheep had, but I am not certain in 
 regard to the matter. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you know how it compares with beef? 
 
 Mr. V, ALLACE. I have always understood there was a greater loss in the killing of 
 sheep than in the killing of cattle. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are you prepared to give the committee a statemeut of the 
 coujparative value of the average product in any market like St. Louis, Kansas City, 
 Chicago, and New York of beef, pork, and mutton, taking the average of each ani- 
 mal? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. The best information I could give in regard to that would be the 
 States statistics in regard to the number of animals that exist to-day as compared 
 with five or sis years ago. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I was not asking the number of animals. I wanted to know 
 what each animal sells for. I am not asking about any speculative matter, but I 
 just want to know if you have got any information sucli as furnished daily by the 
 market records, such as can be acquired by any butcher who conducts a slaughtering 
 establishment, as to how much, for instance, beef of a certain quality will average 
 • per pound and how much mutton of the same grade will average per pound, so that 
 we may know which is the dearer food. I understand you to make the statemeut 
 that our people would not pay the same price for mutton as for beef and pork, and I 
 want to know if you have proof of your statemeut? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. The only proof is the general impression abroad in the land that 
 mlitton sells for less. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You have no market quotations? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. The retail market quotatious I have not given. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Nor the wholesale ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Now, anotlier question I want to get iuformatiou from you 
 about. What kind of sheep produce the best wool ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. That depends altogether upmi what use you make of the wocjI. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I suppose some very tine wools are short and some long, aud 
 that very fine wool enters into one use aud vry line wool goes iuto another, aud each 
 may be very fine wool of a different class. Tliat wool will bring a good price what- 
 ever may be its class. Now, do you not get your high-priced wools from your high- 
 blooded sheep ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. That has not been the case within the last four, five, or six years. 
 
 Mr.BRECKlNRlDGE. Are we getting fine wools from common sheep? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. We have got larger quotations ou the market for what is called 
 medium wool than for the finer breeds. I simply quote the figures, without reference 
 to shrinkage or anything of that kind. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridgk. This is not what I want. I want the facts. I understand you 
 to state that of late years you have been getting more money per pound tor a medium 
 grade than for the first aiiaiity of wool. Is that it ? 
 
160 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I believe that ia the case. I do not like to put myself on record 
 ■without having the figures, hut I say that is my impression, that our medium comb- 
 ing wool has obtained a higher price per pound than the finer grades of wool. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge.- That fact is a slight departure from the inquiry I first made 
 as to the kind of sheep that produced the best priced wool. My impression is that it 
 is the low and common sheep that produce the low and common wools, and that it 
 was the high-grade sheep that produced the high priced and fine wools. Is not that 
 generally true ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. That question, if I understand it, I could only answer by taking 
 other matters into consideration. There may be a certain demand this year for one 
 grade of wool, and a certain demand another time for a different grade, and of course 
 that wool is grown to meet the demand and of course it has the higher price. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I understand you to state to the committee now that in this 
 American market the high-priced wools are sometimes forced down to a lower price 
 than the medium or ordinary grades? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Medium combing wools. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is that true of the woolen market in London 1 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Allow me to ask you to repeat that, if you please. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. In regard to the demand for wool you spoke of, is it true in 
 London as well as in this country and in ihe woolen markets of Australia? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I do not know that I understand the (previous question. I think 
 probably I may have answered it somewhat differently if I quite understood it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I understood you to say in this country sometimes fine wools 
 brought no better price than common ordinary wools, and sometimes they did bring 
 a better price. Was that your statement f 
 
 Mr. Wallace. The wool grower looks on fine wool as a certain grade of wool ; 
 then combing wool is a different grade of wool. The different use of the same terms 
 might produce a different impression than was intended. When you say tine wools, 
 do you mean 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I mean wool, called fine wool, generally brings the higher 
 price. I mean wool of a better class, which it is generally estimated gives the best 
 results. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. We do not take that view of it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That is the idea I am trying to impart to you, and I would 
 like for you to answer that. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. If there is a fashion in the land that requires a coarser grade of wool 
 it would bring the higher price. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And the better grade of wool would bring the lower price? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Brkckinrldge. Now, is that depression in the better grade of wool inevitable 
 abroad as well as here ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Yes, sir. Fashions rule there the same as they do here. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You think, then, abroad as well as here fashion rules the prices 
 of the better grades of wool, and at times puts them below the ordinary grades of 
 wool. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Coarser grades. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Which would not ordinarily bring as much money. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I believe that is correct. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Now, you spoke of carpet wools being very much discrimi- 
 nated against in this country. Are they produced from those sheep which are suitar 
 ble for mutton sheep, food purposes, and most high in price? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. That is my impression. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If that be true, and the wool that comijetes with them from 
 semi-barbarous countries, do you mean to state to the committee that the sheep in 
 the semi-barbarous countries where you say the competition comes from are sheep 
 that make the most highly-prized mutton? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. No, sir ; I suppose the best mutton grown in the world is from some 
 of the finer English breeds, bred specially for that purpose. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do your breeds produce carpet wool? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. No; the combing wools. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What highly-prized mutton sheep produce carpet wools? I 
 ask this in this connection as you stated the importation of carpet wools was espe- 
 cially injurious to the production of mutton as a food i^roductiou and the develapmeut 
 of mutton sheep. Now, I want to know what highly-prized breed of mutton produce 
 carpet wocls. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. It does not discourage the production of sheep that grow carpet 
 wools in this couutry. It discourages sheep that grow low-grade wools, quarter- 
 brc.cl, which are used in the coarser grade of cloth. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That is not my question exactly. I want to know what a 
 valuable for mutton purposes aro f^rown that are proclucers of carpet wools, 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 161- 
 
 Mr. WAliACB. I understand simply by reading that the sheep of Central Asia and 
 Syria and Arabia are of that class. 
 
 Mr. Brbckinmdgb. I am speaking of.our own country here. We grow carpet 
 ■wools, and I don't want to go oat of that line of inquiry. 
 Mr. Wallace. It is only the better quality of wool. 
 
 Mr. BrbckinkidQB. I am asking you the name of the variety of onr sheep that 
 produce carpet wools t 
 Mr. Wallace. It is our quarter and common-blooded sheep. 
 
 Mr. Bkkckinridgb. Are those the sheep that are valued so highly for mutton pur- 
 poses f 
 Mr. Wallace. There are foreign sheep that furnish the better kind of mutton. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is that the class you raise t 
 Mr. Wallace. I grow those. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That is the class found in Ohio, Michigan, and Illinoig f 
 Mr. Wallace. In Ohio, Michigan, and including Illinois. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Therefore, these ordinary things do not apply to the sheep you 
 produce f 
 
 Mr. Wallace. It has an injurious effect upon them, because it destroys the demand 
 for fine wool which otherwise would exist. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. As this fine wool, as you have just stated, is sometimes abnor- 
 mally depressed, is it not probable that the introduction of inferior wools that can 
 be mixed with them would lead to our larger consumption instead of the striking in- 
 equality that you have j ust alluded to ? For instance, there is free cotton, and about 
 a million dollars of cotton is imported, but I have never heard that it was injuring 
 any grade of cotton but rather beneficial. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. The importation of a hundred millions of this third-class wool, equal 
 to a hundred and fifty millions of English wool, is one quarter of the entire wool 
 consumption of the United States, which, compared with a million pounds of cotton 
 
 and the growth of cotton in this country 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinridgb. The volume I know, but the application is in the same line. 
 
 However, not wishing to interrupt you, I will ask you from what 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. W-iUace evidently thinks the volume has something to do 
 with that, and he was about to explain that when you interrupted him. 
 Mr. Bbbceinkidgb. Continue, if I interrupted you, sir. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I have figures in this statement here showing a decrease of about 
 forty odd per cent, of these mutton-producing sheep in these mutton-producing 
 States. To use the term " abnormally reduced prices," I do not understand what 
 that means. I said reduced prices, and not that the depression was abnormal, as I 
 understand the word to mean, and I did not imply that. When there is a depressed 
 condition in the wool market the first sheep sold are those which will most readily 
 sell, and those are the mutton sheep. They, of course, would do that. They would 
 be consumed at any price ; they would be sacrificed and allowed to go. The sheep 
 that produces the broadcloth wool, the fine wool, is not a mutton sheep, because 
 there is not carcass enough there to make good mutton. 
 Mr. Gear. They weigh about 80 pounds, do they not ? 
 Mr. Wallace. Really it is very difficult to tell, but I should say it would be 80 
 
 pounds as a rule. When we sell them for 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is that ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Of course, some animals weigh more than that. I presume the 
 average is not over 80 pounds. When you send them to market there is some sale 
 for it. As I said, I sent some to market and realized 47 cents a head. I could not 
 keep them, as there was an overstock, and there was no demand for them as a wool- 
 growing sheep, and I was obliged to sell them, and I realized 47 cents. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is not the growing of mutton sheep a special business, in regard to 
 size, like Southdown and Shropshire? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Yes, sir ; I think such is the case, and the English are understood 
 to be a mutton-eatiug nation, and will have good mutton at good prices, 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you know the difference in consumption in England between 
 mutton and beef f 
 Mr. Wallace. No. 
 
 Mr. Bbeckinkidgb. In what part of our country do we grow theM aheep that 
 grow carpet wools ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. It depends altogether upon what breed and wool you are nsing in 
 the carpets. If you make a better carpet, you use better wool. 
 
 Mr. Bbeckinkidgb. I mean the ordinary use of wools for carpets ; I do not mean 
 the exceptions. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. What is ordinarily understood as carpet wool is coarse, hairy wool 
 from sheep that have been cross-bred with Mexican sheep, which they find along the 
 line of the Rio Grande. 
 
 485 11 
 
162 EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Brbckinribge. I understand taking carpet wools, such as are generally used 
 in making carpets, that the bulk of that produced in this country is from the State of 
 Texas. * 
 
 Mr. Wallace. And then they are making a better grade of carpet in which they 
 would use the wool from any of these ten States which I have mentioned. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. From what States do they buy the most wool they use to put 
 into carpets 1 I do not want the details, as I do not care to go into that ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I am sorry to say my statement here does not contain that and I can 
 not ascertain it from it. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How far do you live from the railroad in Missouri f 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Probably a mile and a half. There is a station there. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How far is that from St. Louis. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. One hundred and sixty-five or 170 miles. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You say the price of your lambs in St. Louis is $2.50 tolf4.00 apiece! 
 
 Mr. Wallace. No, sir. There is a difference in the way in which they are handled 
 on a farm. A man will nurse a lamb as he will a child and get it in a good, thrifty, 
 fat condition. It is a special production to supply a special demand. On general 
 farms where they are practicing diversified farming they can not give them that 
 attention. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Well, you are between St. Louis and Kansas City? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How far from Kansas City ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I presume two-thirds of the distance. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You say your land there is worth on the average $30 or $40 an acref 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Yes, sir ; in my section of the country. 
 
 Mr. Flower. There should be a pretty large amount of fine wool sheep raised 
 there ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. The fine wool sheep raise the worst mutton. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is the freight from Kansas City to Chicago? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I do not know. I never had anything to do with that business? 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is it inside of 30 cents? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I do not know anything about it and I can not tell you anything 
 about ir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. As I understand it, you have no statistics showing whether sheep 
 have increased in these States where land is cheaper than in New York, Connecticut, 
 and Wisconsin. You have no statistics showing whether the sheep have increased for 
 those States where the land is cheaper ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. There are gentlemen whom I perceive here from that section of the 
 country who can speak in relation to that question more particularly. I speak par- 
 ticularly of the question in regard to these ten States. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. In speaking of fine and other wools, do you mean when they are in 
 the same condition? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I speak of them being in the same condition, in the grease. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Do you mean to say that in the market the fine wools do not bring 
 any more than the inferior grade of wool ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I say that it will not bring as much as a lower grade of wool. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it not one reason that the tine grade of merino wools shrink much 
 more relatively, and therefore cost more money ? 
 
 Mr. McKenna. That can not be the reason, because I have asked him in regard to 
 the reason. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. When I speak of the condition, I speak of the ordinary term in the 
 grease. That covers the condition as it comes from the sheep's back. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Only the line wool shrinks more than the other? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. They wash it after it leaves the sheep's back, and the fine wool 
 shrinks more in the washing than the coarse wool. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You do not mean that in the market fine wool is not as good as 
 coarse wool, taking it in regard to price, talving it that way? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I do not know, but I suppose the law of supply and demand in the 
 market rules the price ol that, and a particular fashion will call for a particular grade 
 of wool. I speak now from a wool-grower's stand-point; in the grease, as it comes 
 from the sheep's back ; there will be .5 pounds of wool coming from a quarter-bred 
 sheep, and probably 7 pounds from a tine sheep. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. I tried to get it from our stand-point, but you will not come to 
 ours, so I must try to come to yours. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. I suppose the fashion has something to do with the price? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. So I have stated. 
 
 Mr. Burrows, The alpaca wool is the highest? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. You must ask the manufacturers. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. It is very coarse? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 163 
 
 Mr. Waliacb. I do not know, sir. • 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Has not the alpaca wool become very fashionable and advanced in 
 price about double t 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I could not tell yon, as I do not know. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. Does not the cost of wool, the finer grades of wool, sometimes in- 
 duce the making of fashions that enhances the price of the coarse, hairy wool? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I could not tell that. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLIN. You were asked in regard to the cost of lambs; is it not a fact that 
 those who do raise them for the market get from $2 to $3 apiece for the lambs, if it is 
 for the eastern market of your country ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. No, sir ; I do not know that. 
 
 Mr. BreCKINRLDGB. Do not you get them for the eastern market ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. They supply the demand, I know that, and often get high prices. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. That is so in my country. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That production is worth more than wool ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Yes; in that case. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Have you never calculated in those ten States you speak of the 
 difference of the necessity between the protection received by the wool-grower on the 
 wool and the protection he had to pay when ho bought his clothing or his cloth? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I do not suppose I have if I understand your question. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I will put my question in another form. Itisthis: Thatthere 
 are a given number of farms in these States. The sheep in these ten States will av- 
 erage so much per farm. These sheep produce so much wool, and that the tariff gives 
 a certain amount of protection, or seeks to give it ; but, on the other hand, when he 
 comes to buy his cloth there is a protection on the cloth and on the clothing to re-im- 
 burse the manufacturer for what he had to pay when he bought his wool to also give 
 him a measure of protection. Therefore the man who produces the wool is not the 
 only recipient of protection, but also the producer of the clothing. He receives in 
 one hand and pays out with the other. Have you ever made a calculation whether 
 or not these protected owners in these ten States receive as much as they pay out ? 
 
 The Chairman. That is discussed with great ability in the President's message a 
 year ago. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. I am glad the chairman has become a convert to the doctrine of 
 the late President. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I desire to know whether you have figured whether they re- 
 ceive as much as they pay on this single item f 
 
 Mr. Wallace. May I answer it generally f 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Yes, sir ; in your own way. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I will say that the wool-growers as a class 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I mean these ten States. You confined yourself to these ten 
 States. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I would say, as far my information goes, that these wool-growers 
 in these ten States are as an intelligent class of farmers as there are in the land, and 
 have studied the question 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Will you be kind enough to give me an answer on that point T 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I have studied the question, of course, and I have arrived at this 
 conclusion that protection to the wool-grower and protection to the maunfacturer and 
 protection to all labor in this country is absolutely essential to our success. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is that the answer you give to my specific inquiry ? You gave 
 that answer and the chairman referred me to the President's message. So I am left 
 between wind and water. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I answered generally. If yon ask me specifically, I assure you that 
 I think every manufacturer should have full and ample protection because that is nec- 
 essary to our success, as they are customers for our goods. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Have you ever figured to see whether or not you pay as much 
 as you receive ? Have you ever inquired on that point in your aggregate of ten 
 States ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I believe as farmers and wool-growers, that the benefit of 10 cents 
 a pound in wool is not taken away by what we pay as the result of protection to other 
 industries. I believe that is a specific answer of your question, is it nott 
 
 Mr, Breckinridge. Hardly. 
 
164 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. PRANK P. BENNETT. 
 
 Mr. Feank p. Bennett, editor of the American Wool Reporter, of Boston, next 
 addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 I want to make a slight amendment to what Mr. Wallace said before I begin. I 
 think it has never been true in the whole history of the country that fine wool in the 
 scoured state, ready for actual use, has sold lower than combing wool. I think I am 
 right about that. I do not think that has ever been true in the history of the country. 
 I may be wrong, however. 
 
 The Chaikman. Do you mean in the grease ? 
 
 Mr. Bknxbtt. No ; in the scoured state ready for carding. I think in the whole 
 history of the country it has never sold lower than medium wool. Perhaps I am 
 wrong, but as a fact it sells very much higher. And in regard to the carpet wool, I 
 think Mr. Wallace's point was that he would impose a duty not only upon some things 
 which can be produced in this country, but upon some things which never can be 
 produced in this country, and the reason why they ask carpet wool should be included 
 with other kinds of wool is that not only it might be produced to some extent herq, 
 but also that it takes the place of other wools. That is just the same as if we 
 should propose to put a duty on camel's hair that takes the place of something else. 
 I wish to state to the committee that in preparing the statement here of the signers 
 of these two petitions I wish to arrange them in connection, as many of these signa- 
 tures were handed in and many came in almost up to the day I came here. I wiU be 
 obliged to do that, and I will then hand it to the committee. 
 
 The CHAlRMA2>r. Very well, do that, and hand it to the stenographer. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I will do so in a day or two. 
 
 Mr. Caslisle. When you do that, will you state the extent to which these manu- 
 facturers are engaged in the business ; not only the number, but the extent of their 
 business t 
 
 Mr. Bennett. The amount of machinery, cards, etc., I do not know that. 
 
 Mr. Breckinkedge. And how they compare with the total output. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I will endeavor to prepare something of that kind and send it to the 
 committee in a few days. 
 
 At the suggestion of some members of your committee, and at the request of seve- 
 ral gentlemen whose business is seriously affected by the present illogical ratio be- 
 tween the duties upon raw wool and those upon manufactured goods, I appear be- 
 fore you mainly for the purpose of stating the facts in regard to two petitions which 
 are to be immediately presented to Congress, signed exclusively by men actually en- 
 gaged in manufacturing or dealing in wool and woolen goods. One of these petitions is 
 in favor of free wool, and has 530 signatures. The other is in favor of an ad valorem 
 duty on wool in place of the present specific form of duty, and has 206 signatures. It 
 has hitherto been a disputed point whether any considerable number of woolen manu- 
 facturers are in favor of a reduction or removal of wool duties. These petitions, 
 which are now to be presented in Congress, will of course be referred to the Ways 
 and Means Committee ; but as this will occur after the present hearing is concluded, 
 it has been suggested that some explanation ought to be made respecting these peti- 
 tions to-day. 
 
 Among the 400 signers of the petition for free wool are Mr. Moses T. Stevens, of 
 North Andover, Mass., the largest individual woolen manufacturer in the United 
 States; Mr. G. C. Silsbee, treasurer of the famous Middlesex Woolen Company, of 
 Lowell, Mass.; Mr. Arthur T. Lyman, treasurer of the great carpet mills, at Lowell; 
 Mr. Galen C. Moses, treasurer of the Worombo Manufacturing Company, the largest 
 woolen manufacturing establishment in the State of Maine ; Mr. Jesse Metcalf, one 
 of the largest woolen manufacturers and most influential citizens of Rhode Island; 
 Mr. James Kitchenman, a large manufacturer, and a leading Republican of the city 
 of Philadelphia, and one of the men who helped raise the celebrated Philadelphia 
 campaign fund in the last Presidential campaign. 
 
 The Chairman. You mention Mr. Kitchenman's politics. How about Mr. Metcalf f 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Mr. Metcalf to-day acts with the Democrats, but for many years he 
 acted with the Republicans. 
 
 Mr. Flower. He read the President's message. 
 
 Mr. DoAK. Mr. Kitchenman never was a Republican, and did not contribute any- 
 thing towards the Republican campaign expenses. He has been a life-long Demo- 
 crat. I know him very well. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you live near him ? 
 
 Mr. DoAK. Yes, sir; Mr. Kitchenman was a Democratic candidate for sheriff in 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. This Mr. Kitchenman ? 
 
 Mr. DoAK. Yes, sir ; this Mr. Kitchenman. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 165 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I am ready to stand corrected in regard to .luy error, bnt I am not 
 croinc to withdraw my statement in that particular. There may be two James Kitch- 
 enmans. 
 
 Mr. Howland Croft, a leading and well-known manufacturer of worsted yarns in 
 Camden, N. J. The astonishing feature of this unexpected list of names iu favor of 
 free wool lies not only in the character but in the number of the signers. It has 
 been hitherto asserted on very high authority that the only manufacturers in favor 
 of free wool are a few officers of large corporations, the number of whom does not 
 exceed ten. But this list of signatures shows that the rank and file of smaller man- 
 ufacturers are as willing to express their opinions in regard to wool duties as are the 
 great leaders of the trade. 
 
 Mr. William Whitman got up, I think a, year ago, in the city of Bostoi] and said 
 he could count on the fingers of his two hands, and I do not know but what he said 
 he could count on the fingers of one hand, every manufacturer in the United States 
 in favor of free wool. I did not think Mr. Whitman was exactly accurate in that 
 statement at the time. If he was, it shows to you gentlemen the enormous change 
 of sentiment since then, and the change I think must be recognized. 
 
 No effort has been made to ascertain the politics of the signers of these petitions. 
 Among the manufacturers who petition for free wool in New Hampshire, Mr. Chas. 
 J. Amidon, of Hinsdale, is a very influential Republican; Mr. A. W. Sulloway, of 
 Franklin Falls, is an intiuential Democrat of national reputation. 
 
 In the State of Rhode Island the total number of looms in woolen and worsted mills 
 is 7,461; and of these, manufacturers representing 4,085 looms, or considerably more 
 than half the whole number iu the State, have signed this petition for free wool. 
 But besides these mills which represent the 4,085 looms, several spinning mills con- 
 taining no looms, but which have in the aggregate 41 sets of cards, 15 combs and 54 
 knitting machines, have signed the petition for free wool. Among other signers 
 whom I have not mentioned in Rhode Island, are the celebrated Weybosset Mills, of 
 Olneyville, the equally well-known Lippitt Woolen Company, of Woonsocket ; the 
 Peacedale Manufacturing Company, of which Mr. Rowland Hazard is treasurer ; and 
 the great Atlantic Mills, of Olneyville, by Owen Brothers, agents. These Atlantic 
 Mills make ladies' dress goods, such as are made also by the Arlington Mills, of which 
 Mr. Whitman is treasurer ; and the Owen Brothers actually own a considerable share 
 of the mills which they manage. , There can be no doubt that this growing demand 
 for a revision of the tariff in the direction of reduced duties has had much to do with 
 taking Rhode Island out of the list of sore Republican States, and putting it into the 
 ranks of the doubtful; and I will confess right here that, as a Republican, one of my 
 reasons for engaging in the distribution of these petitions has been the hope that 
 this growing demand for a revision of the tariff in the direction of reduced rather 
 than of increased duties might be complied with and satisfied under Republican 
 auspices. 
 
 The signatures to these two positions, the one in favor of free wool, and the other in 
 favor of ad valorem duties, are from nearly every State and Territory iu which woolen 
 manufactories are located. A few wool-growers have signed the petitions, but they 
 were men who found them in neighboring woolen mills and signed them without 
 solicitation. I have no hesitation in saying that a petition for reduced duties upon 
 wool for the benefit of the manufacturers who furnish our domestic wool-growers 
 the sole market for their fleeces, would secure a great many signers among that por- 
 tion of our agricultural population concerned in the raising of wool. The signers of 
 these petitions do not believe that free wool means free goods. One of the most pros- 
 perous periods the woolen manufacturing industry has ever enjoyed in the United 
 States was from 1862 to 1867, and this prosperity was not due alone to the war, but 
 to the fact th.at the duty on raw wool was low, and the duty on manufactured goods 
 was high enough to afford our mills abundant protection and to bestow upon out 
 wool-growers theblessings of an abundant home market. During that period, Amer- 
 ican sheep husbandry expanded enormously, and in 1867 the number of sheep in Ohio 
 reached a total of 7,555,507 bead. Then came the increased tax upon wool in 1867 
 which continued unchanged until 1883, and with the exception of the single year 
 1868, the number of sheep in Ohio grew steadily smaller and beautifully less after that 
 date. In 1875 the number of sheep in Ohio had fallen to 4,100,288 head, under the 
 highest duties upon wool ever known. And now, when a little coterie of Ohio poli- 
 ticians stands iu the light of wool-growers and woolen manufacturers alike, and to 
 such proofs of the destructive influence of the high tax upon wool as we have just 
 presented replies merely with threats, we are certainly very sorry that they can not 
 be persuaded to take more reasonable ground. And, as one of the largest manufact- 
 urers and strongest protectionists in Philadelphia recently remarked, "I would 
 rather have four years of free wool, even with the risk of free goods at the end of that 
 time, than to endure another four years such as we have just been throusb." 
 
 The woolen manufaotnrers of the United States almost without exception to-day 
 are sore and discontented because the duties upon wooleu goods are in many cases 
 
166 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 lower thaa iipou the raw material of whicli they are made. The preamble to our 
 petition for tree wool emphasizes particularly that resolution which has been pre- 
 sented to you here to-day by Mr. Whitman. 
 
 "That the wholesale introduction into the United States of foreign wools in the 
 form of finished fabrics, thereby displacing American wool, which would otherwise 
 be consumed in American mills, is due to the nnjnst and illogical arrangement of the 
 tariff. While the imports of clothing and combing wools have not materially in- 
 creased, and the American production is materially decreasing of late years, notwith- . 
 standing the rapid growth in our population and the increasing per capita consump- 
 tion of wool by this increasing population, the quantity of foreign wool introduced 
 into this country in the shape of goods and yarns has increased to the enormous 
 total of 141,474,144 pounds in 1888, equaling 44 per cent, of our total home produc- 
 tion of wools of all descriptions. The wholesale market value of our annual impor- 
 tations of manufactured wool exceeds by nearly 50 per cent, the value of our annual 
 wool clip." 
 
 Our free wool petition further recites that: 
 
 "As the only civilized country in the world, so far as we are informed, which 
 levies a duty on raw wool, we ask that American industry may be relieved of this 
 unnatural burden, and that our domestic wool interests may now be put upon the 
 same wholesome basis as the cotton manufacturing industry with free raw material." 
 
 I come now to the petition for ad valorem duties, which has received 206 signa- 
 tures. It is headed by A. D. Jnilliard & Co., of New York, who are among the lead- 
 ing selling agents of woolen mills in the United States; and their signature is fol- 
 lowed by that of equally well-known merchants and manufacturers. I will call at- 
 tention only to a few of the 206 signatures. The Assabet Manufacturing Company, 
 which signs by T. Quincy Browne, treasurer, is the largest mill in the United States 
 making carded woolens. It is located at Maynard, Mass., and is a monument of suc- 
 cessful manufacturing enterprise. The signature of the great and deservedly fa- 
 mous Pacific mills, by Henry Saltonstall, treasurer, follows that of the Assabet, with 
 a foot-note to the effect that Mr. Saltonstall prefers to have the petition read that 
 " if any duty at all be imposed upon wool" it shall be an ad valorem duty. Other 
 signers to the ad valorem petition are the famous Harris Woolen Company, of Woon- 
 socket, E. I.; the Waterloo Woolen Manufacturing Company, of Waterloo, N. Y.; 
 Mr. W. C. Chapin, of the great Riverside and Oswego Worsted Mills, the largest 
 manufacturers of men's worsted suitings in the United States ; Thomas Lee & Co., 
 Philadelphia, wool merchants and stalwart protectionists. The believers in ad va- 
 lorem duties upon wool, however, are by no means confined to the signers of this 
 petition. One of the best-known protectionists and most experienced manufacturers 
 in the United States (1 allude to Mr. Thomas Dolan, of Philadelphia) has said to me 
 within a few weeks that "every intelligent man who knows anything about wool 
 must admit that the ad valorem is the only proper form of duty upon that material." 
 Mr. Dolan is only one of many manufacturers who are willing to be similarly quoted, 
 but who question, perhaps, the possibility of obtaining ad valorem duties, owing to 
 the hostility of some wool-growers. 
 
 Among the signers of our petition for ad valorem duties, Messrs. Dornan Brothers, 
 the well-known carpet manufacturers in Philadelphia, append a foot-note, saying : 
 "Providing the ad valorem is not iu excess of 20 per cent, on third-class wools cost- 
 ing under twelve cents per pound, and not over 40 per cent, on third-class costing 
 twelve cents and over." Our petition for ad valorem duties on wool does not specify 
 any rates, however, because any ad valorem duty which this committee might be 
 'ikely to report or Congress to adopt must be in the nature of a reduction, for the 
 following reasons : The present tax upon wool can not be ,iudged by the percentage of 
 duty paid upon the comparatively small quantities of light-shrinkage foreign cloth- 
 ing and combing wools brought into the United States. By that false method the 
 burden of the present tax uijon wool would appear to be only 49 or 60 per cent. But 
 the real burden is the ratio which the jiresent duty of 10 cents a potind bears to the 
 heavy-shrinkage foreign wools now entirelj' excluded from our ports. Upon these, 
 the great bulk of the clothing wools of the world, the duty of 10 cents per pound is 
 nearer 100 per cent than 50. It is because the gentlemen wlio were here yesterday, 
 pretending to represent the wool growers of the United States, know this, but do not 
 want the public to know it, that they fight so vigorously agaiust ad valorem duties 
 'in wool. But these men are no true friends of even tlie wool-growers, whom they 
 pretend to represent ; for while this 100 per cent, duty keeps the heavy-shrinkage 
 foreign wools out of the hands of our American manufacturers, yet the same wools 
 are taken by the foreign manufacturer and made into goods which are put into the 
 American market at duties of 60 to 70 per cent. The average ad valorem duty actu- 
 ally paid upon all the manufactures of wool of every description brought into the 
 United States in 1888 was 68.31 per ceut. 
 
 And right here 1 di'siio to call the attention of the committee to a very important 
 matter concerning which perhaps I may not be able to make my explanatiou asolear 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. ISt 
 
 as (he facta warrant. But it is this : The perceatage of duty on manufactured goods 
 may bo estimated for purposes of tariff legislation by the amount actually paid at 
 th3 custom-houses upon such goods as enter our ports, which was in 1888 68 per 
 ceut. ; hut the- percentage of duty upon raw wool must include not only the wool 
 whicli came in but that which was shut out, for when the duty upon manufactured 
 goods is high enough to exclude them from our ports they are shut out, and that is 
 the end of the matter. But when raw wool is excluded from our ports by a tax of 
 75 to 100 per cent., and is subsequently imported in the form of cloth at a duty of 68 
 per cent., it is evident that the full burden of the 75 to 100 per cent, duty upon the 
 wool is experienced by our manufacturers. 
 
 Some little time ago I was shown samples in Boston of Russian merino wool, such 
 as is well known in England under the name ol " Odessa," and was then quoted in 
 Liverpool at Sd. Our duty of 10 cents per pound was equivalent, therefore, to 83^- 
 per cent, upon such wool, and the duty upon worsted yarns made therefrom and ac- 
 tually imported into the United States at the same time aggregated but about 65 iier 
 cent. The "Odessa" wool, shrinlcing 70 per cent, and costing 6rf in the grease in 
 Liverpool, went into the hands of the foreign manufacturer at 40 cents per scoured 
 pound; but costing 6d in Liverpool, and adding 10 cents duty, together with freights, 
 commissions, etc., bringing it up to 24 cents, the scoured cost to the American man- 
 ufacturer would be 80 cents per pound if imported in the grease, or just twice what 
 it cost the foreign manufacturer. 
 
 This sample of ' ' Odessa " wool, which could not be imported except at a loss, while 
 the yarns made therefrom are being imported at a profit, afforded a very interesting 
 object lesson of the inefSciency of rigid specific duties upon wool, which fail to adjust 
 themselves to the movement of the market. Under the present system the duty of 
 10 cents per pound is equivalent to about .35 per cent, upon wool costing 29 cents per 
 pound, while it is equivalent to 100 per cent, upon wool costing 10 cents per pound. 
 The result is that the great bulk of fine and desirable wools of the world of heavy 
 shrinkage, like Buenos Ayres, North African, Russian merino, and a great deal of 
 Montevideo and Australian, are thrown into the hands of foreign manufacturers at a 
 low cost, and are subsequently sent to the United States in the form of worsted yarns 
 and goods which undersell the products of American mills, and force the latter to cut 
 down the wages of their help, or to shut down their mills, or even to go into hank- 
 ruptcy. 
 
 In a recent letter to the American Wool Reporter, Mr. Joseph Walworth, the vet- 
 eran wool buyer of the Pacific Mills, shows also the unsatisfactory relation between 
 the specific duty and the prices of those foreign wools which actually come into our 
 market in the raw state. His letter is as follows : 
 
 " Lower Pacific Mills, 
 " Lawrence, Mass., December 7, 1889. 
 
 " Dear Sir : Your two petitions were duly received and noted. I have signed the 
 one asking Congress to place an ad valorem duty on wool. I sign this petition, not 
 as an opjionent of free wool in the abstract, but so as not to antagonize the farmers, 
 and thmkiug it the best policy in view of our political situation. Still I know of no 
 other country which puts a duty on wool, and free wool, like many other good things, 
 is greatly to be desired. But if our desire for free wool should lead the farmers to give 
 us free goods also, our latter state would be worse than our present one, which is 
 bad enough. I think, however, the farmers, who are the rulers in this matter, would, 
 if they properly understood our position, be willing to give us an even and equitable 
 duty, namely, an ad valorem duty on all wools. 
 
 " Until a few years ago wools all over the world averaged a much higher price than 
 they have of late years. Kent wool in England, for example, a few years ago, was 
 always considered as safe as a gold dollar when it got down to 15 pence per pound, 
 but now it ranges at about ten pence per pound, and with our duty, as now estab- 
 lished, Kent wool at 15 pence = 30 cents per pound ; duty 10 cents per pound = 3:iJ 
 per cent, of duty. Kent wool at 10 pence = 20 cents per pound ; duty 10 cents per 
 pound = 50 per cent, of duty. So that now for several years we have had to pay 17 
 per cent, more duty on wool than formerly, and, as the farmers know by experience, 
 they have not improved their condition by it, and certainly the manufacturers and 
 spinners have suffered hy it, bnt the foreign manufacturers and spinners have liene- 
 fited by it; as witness the increased imports of foreign woolen and worsted goods 
 and yarns. 
 
 " With respect, yours truly, 
 
 Joseph Walworth." 
 
 Mr. A. D. Juilliard, of New York, who heads ourpetitioufor ad valorem duties, has 
 written as follows : 
 
 " A few years ago, while in Louden, I was shown a lot of Australian wool of fine 
 quality, but containing an uuusnallj largo [nopoi-liou of grease and dirt. It wasoi- 
 
168 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 fered at a correspondingly low price, but it was undesirable for shipment to this 
 country, because nobody could afford to pay ten cents per pound duty on so much 
 wastage. There was accordingly no American competition for this and similar lots, 
 and I subsequently learned that it had been sold for English account at two cents a 
 pound below its intrinsic value, through lack of such American competition. This 
 wool, sold under these circumstances, was to be made into cloth for the American 
 market to compete with our own goods. On the same day I was shown another lot 
 of very clean Australian wool which had been sold to one of onr large domestic mills ; 
 and the price of this lot had been run up by bidders for American account fully 2 
 cents a pound more than its intrinsic value, because it was, from its cleanness, a pe- 
 culiarly desirable lot for shipment to this country. In these two cases, the English 
 purchaser who made his wool into yarn or cloth for this market, ha]d an advantage 
 of 4 cents per pound in his grease wool, or 12 cents per pound on his scoured wool, 
 against the American mill that was to make the yarn or wool in this country. This 
 is happening every day in the year. To put the matter in a nut-shell, we are ruled 
 out of everything like a fair competition with foreigners In the wool markets of the 
 world, by the present specific rate of duty ; and the very fact that American pur- 
 chasers are excluded from handling these grades of wools, tends to cheapen them for 
 foreign account, and thus to give the foreign manufacturer a still further advantage 
 over us. For this reason we can not compete with them in certain classes of our 
 goods." 
 
 We are in favor of compound duties upon manufactures of wool because of the 
 greater difficulty of determining the values of manufactured articles than of raw mate- 
 rial. But the liability of ad valorem duties to encourage undervaluations can not be 
 seriously urged against such duties on raw material like wool, the value of which is 
 known all over the world, and is publicly reported in prices carried by every for- 
 eign mail. On this subject I received more than two years ago the following letter 
 from the late James Lynch, of New York, since deceased, but at that time one of the 
 most famous wool experts in the United States. He said : 
 
 "New York, December 9, 1887, 
 "Editor of the American Wool Heporter : 
 
 "The existing tariff law as to wool and woolens, and as administered by the 
 Treasury Department, is an exceedingly bad law, and ought to be changed. In my 
 opinion, the only just and equitable way in which duty can be levied on wool is ac- 
 cording to value, ad valorem. Let the rate be one, high or low ; it will be equitable; 
 it will appropriately fit the highest as well as the lowest classes of wool, whether in 
 the grease, washed, or scoured. 
 
 "Let the law apply only to wool as from the sheep, and — beyond washing or 
 scouring — not advanced or changed by any process of manufacturing. 
 
 "My consideration of the subject applies exclusively to the raw material, wool. 
 
 "As applied to wool, there would be no diificulty with the ad valorem tariff sys- 
 tem. Fraud could not be practiced by evil-disposed importers. Values are too well 
 known, as thoy prevail in all the markets of the world, by skiDed wool experts in 
 every importing city. Rigid revenue laws, strictly enforced, would effectually stop 
 fraudulent importations. 
 "Truly yours, 
 
 " James Lynch." 
 
 During the past year some of our largest mills, by purchasing a portion of their 
 ■worsted yarns abroad, have been able to keep looms in motion that would otherwise 
 have stopped. In the weaving, dyeing, and finishing of such goods employment haa 
 been given to a large number of operatives who would otherwise have been dis- 
 charged. But a corresponding amount of spinning machinery has lain idle. In 
 what way do you propose to relieve the yarn spinners who are thus idle? Can it be 
 done by taking yarns out of the present schedule and raising the specific duty from 
 12 cents per pound to .35 cents per pound, and from 24 cents per pound to 40 cents 
 per pound, as is proposed by the so-called "Senate tariff' bill!" I have the assertion 
 of leading manufacturers that unless a corresponding increase is made in the duties 
 upon goods, such a course would be likely to close the mills now dependent upon 
 foreign yarns. 
 
 The amount of ad valorem duty for which the American Wool Reporter has hitherto 
 argned has been 40 per cent, upon clothing and combing wools, and 20 per cent, upon 
 carpet wools ; but some of the signers of our petition prefer rather a single ad valorem 
 duty of 25 per cent, upon all classes of wool. And in conclusion, Mr. Chairman and 
 gentlemen of the committee, thanking you for the kind attention which you have 
 devoted to these crude and hastily prepared suggestions, I want to emphasize 
 strongly the fact that all of the signers of these two petitions, numbering 736 per- 
 sons, directly atfected by the wool tariff, ask immediate relief by such a revision of 
 
REVTStON Of tflE TAtJlPF. 169 
 
 dnties as Bhall make the tax upon the raw material less burdensome to manufact- 
 urers than it is to-day. 
 
 The Chairman. I do not know whether or not you stated your occupiitiouT 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I publish a newspaper ; the American Wool Reporter. 
 
 The Chairman. You are not a manufacturer or grower ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. No, sir ; I have undertaken the messenger work of circulating these 
 petitions and bringing them here. 
 
 The Chairman. These are the only two petitions you circulated? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Yes, sir ; these are the only two petitions. 
 
 The Chairman. Which do you favor ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Personally? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I do not see that that makes any particular difference. I am per- 
 fectly willing to say that I favor the ad valorem. 
 
 The Chairman. You would not be in favor of free wool ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I am naturally averse to radical changes of any kind. I should say 
 my own preference would be for the ad valorem. 
 
 The Chairman. About 20 or 25 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Forty per cent, on clothing wool and 20 per cent, on carpet wool 
 would be a reduction and overcome a great many difficulties which now exist. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you happen to know what the sentiment of the signers of either 
 one of the petitious or both would be touching a duty upon the finished product on 
 cloth or clothing ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I should say they would be averse to any increase in the duties on 
 both? 
 
 The Chairman. Would they he willing with free wool to have a reduction of duty 
 on the finished product ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. E could not answer that question positively, but I should assume 
 they would be, on the whole. Of course there are sortie things, like worsteds and 
 yarns, under the present condition which are not adequately protected. 
 
 The Chairman. If they had free wool, do you know whether the sentiment of the 
 signers of these petitions would be in favor of free cloth ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I should say not. I do not think any would be in favor of free cloth. 
 
 The Chairman. Will you state to the committee if the manufacturers had free wool 
 would it necessitate a duty on the cloth. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. T should say the necessities of the manufactiiring industry here are 
 dependent upon a duty on the goods. 
 
 The Chairman. For what reason ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. For many reasons; because of the difference in labor, which, of 
 course, is the reason mainly recited, and because so many new things originate on the 
 other side, where they have been in the manufacturing business for centuries, and 
 of course you realize that when new concerns are coming into the business they 
 damage the old ones, but the great fact that an old concern has the business gives it 
 au advantage. There is another reason why duty is needed; several reasons. 
 
 The Chairman. You think a duty would be required to maintain the present scale 
 of wages in this country against a cheaper scale on the other side. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I think it would. That is a debated point, but I think it would. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you think the same principle does not apply to the producers 
 of raw material while a duty ought to be given on the manufactured articles to make 
 up the difference in the cost of wages. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Of course a good deal can be said in regard to that. The wool- 
 grower is protected by cheaper land where wool growing is feasible in this couutry. 
 The duty practically adds nothing to it. I do not think the duty adds anything to 
 that. In regard to the rise and fall of the wool growing of Texas and Kansas, I think 
 the duty had nothing to do with it at all. The number of sheep increased a few 
 years ago to thirteen or fourteen hundred thousand sheep. 
 
 The Chairman. This is for what period of time ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I have not the years exactly in mind. It reached — perhaps Mr. 
 Green will remember — that was probably 1881 or leib2. It got up to about fourteen 
 hundred thousand. It is back to-day to four hundred thousand, and I do not think 
 the tariff had anything to do with that at all in Kansas. 
 The Chairman. Was it higher before 1883 or since ? 
 Mr. Bennett. It was higher before. 
 The Chairman. The number of sheep in Kansas ? 
 Mr. Bennett. I would not be able to answer that question. 
 The Chairman. Was it previous to 1883 or since 1883 ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I would not be able to answer that question. I know the sheep 
 there were incident to the development of the country. They were the pioneers In 
 that country. After they had fulfilled their function, th.it punly pastoral pursuit, 
 
170 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 then the oheep disappeared and other industries came in, and the number of sheep to- 
 day in Kansas is about four hundred thousand. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is it not a fact that as the land increases in value per acre the nnm- 
 her of sheep diminish and go to the cheaper lands ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. That is true with the exception of a few farm sheep. In fact, wool 
 growing necessitates a ranch and range. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I mean that the sheep industry carried on for the purpose of pro- 
 ducing wool diminishes in the States as the value of the land increases. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Unquestionahly. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. But the farmers keep about an equal number of sheep. 
 
 Mr. Bennett, I was very much interested in Mr. Wallace's remarks. Now, fancy a 
 man in Missouri, one of the loveliest countries ou the face of tbe earth, having 8,000 
 acres of farm land and kee]iiug 8,000 sheep, which is a sheep to an acre. If he keeps 
 a thousand sheep, which is a comparatively small number for some men, and if 
 Wallace had 8,000 sheep, he would have 8,000 acres. It seems to me it is ridiculous 
 with that high-priced land. Take the United States through, I think I make this 
 assertion without fear of contradiction, where the sheep have diminished the scale of 
 prosperity of the inhabitants has vastly increased. It is so with Texas, Kansas, 
 and New York State. New York used to keep great numbers of sheep in the lake 
 regions, but as those people grew more prosi)erou8 the sheep disappeared. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is not that because of the rise in the value of the farm lands for 
 other purposes ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Y''es, sir. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Y^ou made a statement that you thought it necessary to increase the 
 duty on yarns. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I am not clear about that. 
 
 Mr. Mills. I think you stated that. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I said the present inadequate rate between the duty on raw mate- 
 rial and the duty on worsted and yarns should be rectified, and I think it can be 
 rectified. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Do you propose to reduce the duty on wool ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Rather than increase it on the yarns. I think that would bring 
 about the desired result. 
 
 Mr. Mills. I was through one of the largest manufactories at Lawrence yesterday, 
 and the manager told me that he was not able to obtain foreign wools to mix with 
 the domestic wools ; that if the duty was increased on foreign yarns he would have to 
 close up the whole concern. I do not think it would be a beneficial measure to the 
 workmen, then, to increase the duty. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. This is an instance like the kind I allude to; where a man is buying 
 foreign yarns he is able to keep weaving and keep his spinning machinery going and 
 keep his men employed. I think it would be better for this country if that man 
 could always keep his spinning machinery in operation. If he can keep that iu 
 operation he would not only use foreign wool, but use a vastly greater amount of 
 domestic wool to mix with it than to-day. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Do you think it specially necessary to keep up the duty because labor 
 is cheaper on the other side of the ocean than here? How is the labor paid in the 
 factories — by the piece or day ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Many by the piece. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Do oar people make more by the piece or by the day than they do on 
 the other side of the water? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Unquestionably. 
 
 Mr. Mills. I was told yesterday by a gentleman at Lawrence that one operative on 
 the other side ran some four looms, while our operatives ran six. If they are paid 
 by the piece, it seems to me the high wages are because our people turn out more 
 work in the day than the people ou the other side turn out. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. That, of course, in some measure equalizes the wages; but we could 
 not comp(!te if you took off the duties. Then the labor would come iu competition 
 with the labor elsewhere. This, however, is a debated question. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Wh j' can not we compete if we can do the work cheaper than they can ? 
 If we can turn out a third more work than they, our work must be cheaper than 
 theirs. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I have always found a snC6cient answer to that in the fact that emi- 
 gration is all iu this direction. I run in connection with my business a labor bureau, 
 which I run because I was asked to. Every little while a man says he wants to go 
 back to the old country. It is a feeling of pride, and he wants to go back and show 
 how well he has done to his neighbors. 
 
 Mr. Mills. But he comes back when the imjiortations come in largely and the 
 Iirlces are high and the money is distributed all over the country and there is a de- 
 mand for tbat man's employment. 
 
 The Chairman. He comes here because he thinks he does better? 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 171 
 
 Mr. Bennett. He knows he does. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You spoke of the emigration to this country. Has not that been 
 sounder all forms and systems of tariff from the love of free institutions as compared 
 ■with monarchal forms of government, and that we have emigration whether there is 
 high protective duty or a low duty? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I have not the statistics in regard to the emigration. 
 
 Mr. McMiLUN. Is not that your knowledge F 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I have the general impression that the general policy of the country 
 is protective. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But what I am speaking of is, is not the tide of emigration turn- 
 ing to this country rather than from it under all forms of tariff laws. Back to when 
 the tariff averaged less than 15 per cent, was not the tide this way? Is not that the 
 history of the country ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. That is the history of the country, I think. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. So free institutions were worth something to the average man who 
 lived abroad ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I think the additional money liad something to do with that. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. You think our free institutions have no part in bringing these 
 people here as compared with mere dollars and cents? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I think they have something to do with it. 
 
 Mr. McMilxiN. I should say that man had reached a great depth of degeneration 
 when it did not. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is not the woolen yarn made in England from a peculiar wool, which, 
 owing to the climate, can not be spun here, and is that not used in our manufactures? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. 1 do not think there is anything in that at all as near as I have been 
 able to find out. Of course a manufacturer's opinion on that would be a good deal 
 better than mine. I do not think there is anything made over there that can not be 
 in this country as far as climate is concerned. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I mean in regard to climate and the spinning of it there ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I do not think there are any wools or worsteds that can not be made 
 here as well as there. 
 
 Mr. Batne. Do you know what the total production of woolen manufacture is in 
 the United States ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I have not the figures in mind. 
 
 Mr. Batne. It is a vast aggregate, though. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. The importations, I see, of woolen manufactured products for the 
 fiscal year ending June 30, 1889, amounted in value to $.'52,564,000. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Yes, that is the thing which is making the manufacturers, who are 
 suffering, discontented on account of it, and they are demanding this relief. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. That importation compared with the home production is relatively 
 small, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I think not. I think it is sufficient to give vis a great disturbance in 
 our market. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Could you approximate the total production of woolen manufactures 
 in the United States ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I can not; but probably there are gentlemen here who can. Even 
 if it was a thousand million dollars, and it is not anything like that 
 
 Mr. Mills. It is nearer $350,000,000. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Call it $350,000,000 ; then $50,000,000 would create a disturbance 
 in the market ; quite a disturbance in the market. It is worse than the old woman's 
 pound of butter, of which I presume you have all heard. When she had 101 pounds 
 the market only demanded 100 pounds, and that 1 pound depressed the whole market 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You are familiar with the total production of wool. It is about three 
 hundred millions? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. A little under that. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I see by the same report that importations of wool for the fiscal year 
 ending June 30, 1889, amounted to 126,487,000 pounds. The importation, of manu- 
 factured woolen goods amounts to about one-half, if Mr. Mills is correct in his hypoth- 
 esis, with the aggregate of three hundred and fifty milli,on8. If we import fifty-two 
 millions, and the imported manufactured product amounts to about a half, whereas 
 the importation of raw wools amounts to about one-quarter under that condition of 
 things, has not the farmer got a right rather to complain than the manufacturer ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. If you will allow me to call attention not only to the fact that the 
 grower suffers from these importations of raw wool, but he suffers very much u'ore 
 from the large quantity which is brought in here in the form of goods and because 
 the amount of wool which is brought in here in the form of goods is greater than the 
 amount brought in in the raw state. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. My proposition is (and these figures show it), that the total iraporta- 
 
172 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 tions of manufactured woolen products is |52,000,000; tlie total home production is 
 1350,000,000. That would make a total consumption of about |400,000,000 by our 
 markets here in one year. That would indicate that one-eighth of the total con- 
 sumption of manufactured woolen products is imported into the country while 
 seven-eighths are manufactured in this country, and when you apply the same prin- 
 ciple to the production of wool itself you find that the imports of wool are 126,000,000 
 pounds and the total production is about 300,000,000 pounds. Consequently the for- 
 eign competition is more severe with the wool producer by a million and a half 
 than it is with the manufacturer. Why do you say in view of that fact that the 
 duty should be reduced ? 
 
 Mr. Bbnnett. I can answer that question in this way: Suppose you should put 
 $1 a pound duty on that wool, and shut it out. What good will it do if you have 
 these goods coming in ? Suppose you put ^1 a pound on wool and shut it out, shut 
 out every pound of wool. What good, will that do if it continues to come in? 
 
 Mr. Bayne. But we have not shut out the importation of foreign wool, because 
 we imported 120,000,000 pounds last year. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. And if you do not import that the chances are you would not have 
 so large a consumption of the domestic wool. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I am simply taking from these facts the fact that according to my 
 information the farmer is entitled to as much protection as the manufacturer, and 
 he needs it. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. It wants to be logically and rationally adjusted. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. But it is not rationally and logically adjusted in the importation of 
 raw material when the importation of raw material is about one-fourth of the entire 
 consumption and when the importation of manufactured woolen products is about 
 one-eighth of the entire consumption. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. The amount of foreign wool which comes in in the form of goods 
 as I have already stated is vastly larger than the aTHouut of that whith comes in 
 the form of raw wool. Take the whole amount of raw wool imported, and when you 
 consider the fact that of that wool a large proportion is carpet wool, then the ratio 
 between the clothing and combing wool imported in the raw state and that imported 
 in the form of manufactured goods becomes still greater on the side of the manufact- 
 ured goods. The necessity of the grower is that be shall have a home market for 
 his production, not only for his wool but for every agricultural product. Where 
 wool is an incident in the development of the country it will be cheap under almost 
 any circumstances. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you not think free wool would interfere with the home 
 market? 
 
 Mr. Eennett. I am not prepared to answer that question. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you know that Australasia is becoming an exporter of wool? 
 
 Mr Bennett. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. Your reasoning has led you to this conclusion; if I did not under- 
 stand you correct me accordingly : Where wool is produced the industry is only fol- 
 lowed in connection with other pursuits. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I do not know that I could make that bare statement in just that 
 way, because there may be some tracts of country in which wool-growing will always 
 be a permanent pursuit. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. And this follows inevitably from your reasoning. You say it is a 
 pioneer industry which disappears owing to the advancement of better industries 
 and that it marks the progress of a country towards cultivation. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Yes, so far as the ranch sheep are concerned. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. It disappears from these States when a higher cultivation appears. 
 As soon as that country settles it will disappear from it and the tendency is to the 
 extinction of that inevitably ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is the highest price paid for rams ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I have not those figures in mind. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Are they not $2,000, $3,000, and maybe |4,000? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Yes, sir. We can beat the world on fine sheep without any tariff at 
 all. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. And fine production of wool? 
 
 Mr Bennett. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you think any business in this country established for the purpose 
 of producing fine wool will be driven out when such an extensive plant is required? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I do not understand the question. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. When the farmer pays as much as $2,000, $3,000, or $4,000 for his 
 choice rams, choice ewes, and produces here the finest quality of wool produced in 
 the world, do you suppose that any other farming industry would drive him out if a 
 sufficient protection be given to encourage the i)roduotion of that fine wool ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. My impression is that these higli prices for rams have been paid 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 173 
 
 more largely for exports to Australia and Montevideo and other points thin for herd 
 
 use. » , i. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Exports of whatT 
 
 Mr. Bbnnbtt. These rams to Australia and Montevideo. 
 
 Mr] Baynb. If we can succeed in exporting rams and getting good prices it will 
 be a good thing. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Bat the tariff has nothing to do with it, because we can beat the 
 world on these animals. 
 
 Mr. Batnu. We export them and therefore we do not need any tariff on them. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. As I understand it, the climate of Australia has some peculiar ad- 
 vantages for the production of certain desirable wool, but it has no advantages for 
 the production of the kind of sheep to beep up that wool, and therefore we supply 
 these merino rami to keep up the character of the Australian wool. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Do you know of any rams being exported to Australia at these prices, 
 say $2,000 or $3,000? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I imagine I could find instances. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. I am told no such thing has ever occurred. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I have not the things in mind, but I know that we hail a buyer from 
 Australia with great satisfaction. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do we get a rate on rams from abroad ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I do not know how the tariff is ou this. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Yon know that bulls and heifers sell for enormous prices. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. The breed of rams brought in from a foreign country is different 
 from the breed taken out. Ours are merino, and those taken out Southdown and 
 Shropshire. 
 
 Mr. LaFollette. What is the average price of land per acre in the countries from 
 which we chiefly import wool? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I could not tell you. 
 
 Mr. LaFollette. You stated in answer to a question of the Chairman that the 
 cheapness of the land in this country was something of a protection to the producer. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Protection to the farmer. 
 
 Mr. LaFollette. How are you able to make that statement when you do not know 
 the prices in the countries with which the farmer competes f 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I know our land is much cheaper than lands in England and on the 
 continent of Europe. 
 
 Mr. LaFollette. We do not import our wool from England. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Yes, sir, some. 
 
 Mr. LaFollette. That is not the country with which the producer in this coun- 
 try chiefly competes. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. They produce a good deal of wool in England. 
 
 Mr. LaFollette. They produce combing wool quite largely in England and Scot- 
 land, but that is not the wool with which the farmer in this country chiefly com- 
 petes. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I should say it is difiScult to give the prices themselves to answer 
 such a question as that. I should say there is as much English and Irish wool comes 
 into the market as there is Aiistralian wool. I may be wrong about that, but I should 
 think for many years there has been as much English and Irish wool imported as 
 Australian. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Do you think the small production of the woolen manufactures of this 
 country has prohibited the importation of woolen goods? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I think it would. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Do you think the small production of wool growing in this country 
 would prohibit the importation of wool ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. This is a principle I have endeavored to explain, that the wool is 
 absolutely good for nothing unless the manufacturing industry consumes it. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Do you not know the fact that the kind of wool we import is not the 
 wool that we produce here ; do you not know that there are various grades of wool? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. As I explained 
 
 Mr. Mills. Take the English wool, for instance, that you were talking about just 
 now. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I stated in regard to that that while the wool may not be of the same 
 kind as that which is produced here, yet it may displace the wool which is produced 
 here, so that I do not think the question can be decided. 
 
 Mr. Mills. I was told yesterday by a wool expert who was employed at a salary of 
 $10,000 a year to select wools, and he showed me wools which he said were imported 
 from Yorkshire, that some of t]je wools made a certain kind of goods that can not 
 be produced in this country at all, that some admitted of a lustrous sheen and gloss, 
 and that that kind of wool can not be produced in this country, and because they 
 could not get those wools they got other wools and mixed them. Tell me whether 
 that man was telling me the truth or not, 
 
174 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. It seems to me the answer to tliat is, we can not produce sufficient 
 quantities of certain kinds of wool at certain times to supply the demands of the 
 market. 
 
 Mr. M1LL8. Do we do it? Where is that wool produced in this country? That 
 man told me these wools were a diiferent class of wools from any grown in this coun- 
 try. Is that true or not? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. We produce some of the best combing wools in the world, and with 
 as much luster as is desired in every way. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Then there is no necessity in this country for the importation of that 
 wool at all. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Yes, sir, when the market turns that way. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Then it is not in competition with ours. We take in the entire con- 
 sumption of wool, and the wool-grower can not furnish it. Therefore there is no 
 competition. Answer that, if you please. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I should answer yes. and no to that question. I think it would be 
 better if the wool markets generally were to adjust themselves to each other in the 
 way I have indicated here, so that the American manufacturer would not be ham- 
 pered as compared with the foreign manufacturer. There is another answer to the 
 question, which I suppose would be the wool-grower's answer, and that is that the 
 tariff looks ahead to see what we would like to produce in tliis country, and to en- 
 courage the production in this country as far as possible of the wools that we 
 need. 
 
 Mr. Mills. But when you don't do it. Here is a demand for consumption right 
 to-day, and there is a season of great prosperity. The people have worn out their 
 old clothes and want new ones. They want wool clothes, and they want it twice as 
 much as some other country. How does that supply of a foreign country come in 
 competition with ours ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I think it would be of advantage to encourage our people to pro- 
 duce the things we need. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You do not think the protection of the wool industry has reduced 
 the price of wool? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. That is a matter of opinion. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. What is your opinion ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. My opinion is it has not raised it any. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You think a specific rate of duty or an ad valorem rate of duty 
 would increase the price of wool, do you ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. In a series of years ? 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Yes, sir; any number of years you choose to indicate. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I am not quite sure how the ad valorem duty would work as far as 
 the wool-growers are concerned. I do not think a specific duty would. It would 
 adapt itself to the conditions of the market. It constantly benefits the foreign manu- 
 facturer who wants to send goods. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. By getting cheaper material than the American manufacturer gets? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Yes, sir, and allowing him to send his goods into this country at a 
 lower rate of duty than wool. 
 
 The Chairman. And that cheaper material on the other side broiight here would 
 affect the price here? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. The price might be made higher here because of the demand for do- 
 mestic wool. 
 
 The Chairman. I understood you to say to Mr. Mills that we do not have to go 
 abroad to buy wool because we are not capable of producing the wool, but because at 
 times we do not have a sufficient quantity. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I think this country is not able to produce a sufficient quantity of 
 some kinds of wool. What is called fine delaine; I do notthinkthis country has pro- 
 duced a sufficient quantity of that. 
 
 The Chairman. Why not ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Because of this climate. It is produced in Ohio, Michigan, Wiscon- 
 sin, and Pennsylvauia, and v.e have a fancy it would be produced in Texas. We 
 think that we could get elegant fine delaine in Texas in five or ten years. 
 
 The Chairman. It is not because we do not produce the wool, but because we do 
 not produce enough of it. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Because we cannot. 1 know there is an idea throughout the United 
 States that Montana would give a kind of delaine wool, or it ought to. My impres- 
 sion the past year is that it ought 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Is it not inevitable from your reasoning that foreign production of 
 wool uecessarily competes with orrs and occasionally drives it out of the market be- 
 cause it is not produced under as favorable conditions and cannot be t That is the 
 tendency of your remarks. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I do not think it is the tendency of my remarks, because, as I have 
 «aid, it only applies to a portion of the wool. I do not know but what having easy 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 175' 
 
 access to our markets, these wools which are not produced here to a suJBcient extent, 
 and can not be produced here to a sufficient extent, may attract the attention of some 
 farm sheep-growers into the direction of a kind of wool which will be used and to 
 improve their fancy wool, and thus create that industry and develop it. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Can they do it in competition with such possibilities as Australia? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. For some kinds of wools, yes, sir. My impression is that we can not 
 produce medium wools here in competition with the world. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. Do you think the moderate quantity produced in Australia would 
 drive out the lesser quantities produced in these three or four States you have men- 
 tioned, control the market, and make it unprofitable to produce it? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I do not linow whether it would drive it out. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. I am only extending your proposition. Is it not the inevitable ex- 
 tension of your remarks that it would have that effect, not immediately, but that the 
 tendency is that way by these processes you have explained to us? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I could not give an affirmative answer to that question. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. As I understand you, you have said that the tendency is towards 
 diminution of the number of sheep kept in large flocks, the range and ranch sheep ; 
 but I do not understand you to say anything will occur which will diminish the sheep 
 kept by the ordinary farmer ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. At the same time that might increase with free wool, but without 
 free wool I should think it might not. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. As the lands rise in value, as improvements are made and other in- 
 dustries come in, you think the sheep industry on these large ranges and ranches 
 would be reduced ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. They will be reduced in any event also. The competition of higher 
 forms of agriculture will drive them out. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. They will disappear the same as cattle ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Much the same. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. But the cattle farmer as the land becomes more valuable, will keep 
 the ordinary sheep on the farm, and will continue to do so ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Yes, sir; of course. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You stated there was an exceptionally largo demand for the wool of 
 Montana ; was the crop short last year? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you know the reason of that ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. As I understand it, the quality of the wool was affected by the sea- 
 son. They tell me that in Montana you can take the fibers of the fleece of wool and 
 you can tell the exact spot in the growth of tlie wool where the sheep suffered from 
 drought. You find that in Australia in those places where they do not have even 
 seasons. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you know that year before last was an exceptional season ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I do not know about that ; I simply know the fact. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you know there is a vast amount of semi-arid country which is 
 adapted to sheep raising ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I do not know it. I know people are going to Boston to secure 
 farm mortgages for agricultural purposes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You said you did not know the value of the lands in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. No, sir ; I do not. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I believe you said that in your judgment sheep raising was the pioneer 
 industry ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You know that South America, the Argentine Republic, and other 
 southern countries are very large producers ; that the people have gone to raising 
 sheep. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I am not surprised to hear that, but I did not know that it was so. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You did not know that ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I did not know that, but I am not surprised to hear it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That is so. Do you know the fact that the climatic changes are ex- 
 tending also to Australia, as much as to that country, and possibly more so ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. Very likely. I know we fill out the principal supply of delaine 
 wool almost every year from Australia. These are facts. 
 
 The committee thereupon took a recess for half an hour. 
 
 The following are the petitions presented by Mr. Bennett : 
 To the honorable Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled : 
 
 The undersigned, being each and all of us engaged in growing, manufacturing, or 
 dealing in wool, respectfully petition that the duties on raw wool may now be re- 
 moved or greatly reduced for the benefit of our domestic wool growers and woolen 
 manufacturers alike. At a recent meeting of woolen manufacturers in Boston it was 
 
176 
 
 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 correctly stated "that the wholesale introduction into the United States of foreign 
 wools in the form of finished fabrics, thereby displacing American wool, which would 
 otherwise be consumed in American mills, is due to the unjust and illogical arrange- 
 ment of the tariff. While the imports of clothing and combing wools have not mate- 
 rially increased, and the American production is materially decreasing of late years, 
 notwithstanding the rapid growth in our population and the increasing per capita 
 consumption of wool by this increasing population, the quantity of foreign wool in- 
 troduced into this country, in the shape of goods and yarns, has increased to the 
 enormous total of 141,474,144 pounds in 1888, equaling 44 per cent, of our total home 
 production of wools of all descriptions. The wholesale market value of our annual 
 importations of manufactured wool exceeds, by nearly 50 per cent., the value of our 
 annual wool clip." 
 
 As the only civilized country in the world, so far as we are informed, which levies 
 a duty on raw wool, we ask that American industry may be relieved of this unnatural 
 burden, and that our domestic wool interests may now be pnt upon the same whole- 
 sale basis as the cotton manufacturing industry with free raw material. 
 
 Edwin Famell, "WooDSOcket "Worsted Milla, 
 
 Jesse Metcalf, agent Wanskuck Company. 
 
 George B. Nichols, of Nichols, Dupee *t Co. 
 
 "William B. Dupeo. 
 
 William J. FoUett, of G-eorge Follett & Co. 
 
 M. T. Stevens, of M. T. Stevens & Sons. 
 
 Kobert Eleakie, of Robert Bleakio & Co. 
 
 Henry C. Weaton, of Weston. Whitman & Co. 
 
 Henry Whitman. 
 
 William Farnsworth. 
 
 Eben Satton, of Sutton'8 N. A. Mills. 
 
 B. W. Evans, treasurer Blackstone Woolen Com- 
 pany. 
 
 Evans, Seagrave <fe Co. 
 
 Rowland Hazard, treasurer Peacedale Mauufact- 
 uiing Company. 
 
 Walter Stanton, of Converse, Stanton & Callen. 
 
 Henry Martin, of Martin, Lawrie & Co. 
 
 G. Z. Silsbee, treasurer Middlesex Company. 
 
 Noah Sagendorph, East Brookfield, Mass. 
 
 A, S. Morrison, Braintree, Mass. 
 
 M. Appel, New York, yams and hosiery. 
 
 R. Elmer Morrison, Braintree, Mass. 
 
 Arthur T. Lyman. 
 
 George Watson Beach, of Beach Manufactaring 
 Company. 
 
 Ibraham Morrison, Braintree, Mass. 
 
 Edw. W. Hooker, acting treasurer and secretary 
 Broad Brook Company. 
 
 T. B. Beach, secretary Beacon Falls Mills and 
 Power Company. 
 
 John W. Croft, of Howland Croft, Sous & Co., 
 Camden. 
 
 A. Priestley & Co., of Priestley Worsted Mills, 
 Camden. 
 
 William M. Ayres, of William Ayres & Sons, 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 George W. Patton Sc Co., 38 North Front street, 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 John Elliott, 1158 South Broad street, Philadel- 
 phia. 
 
 James Kitchenman, Huntington and Jasper 
 streets. 
 
 S. Wood & Ward, Howard and Lehigh avenue. 
 
 George W. Emlen, Third and Cumberland 
 streets. 
 
 Z. Talbot, treasurer HoUiston Mills. 
 
 J. B. Little, treasurer Bay State Felt Boot and 
 Shoe Company. 
 
 C- J. Amidon & Sous, Hinsdale, N. H. 
 
 Thomas RadcHffci, of Radcliffe Brothers, Biruiing- 
 ham, Conn. 
 
 Joseph Dews, treasurer Phoenix Woolen Com- 
 pany, East Greenwich. 
 
 Charles Dawson, Dawson Manufacturing Com- 
 pany, Holden, Mass. 
 
 F. W. Adams, Glendalo, Mass. 
 
 Walter Aiken, Franklin, N. H. 
 
 W. L. Swan, Athol, Mass. 
 
 Frank Bottomly, Athol, Mass. 
 
 A. H. Weaver, Stafford, Conn. 
 William A. Lomas, Colebrook, N. H. 
 
 Frank H. Colony, of Colony Brothers, Wilton, 
 
 N. H. 
 Fted Colony, of Colony Brothers. Wilton, N. H. 
 The. Bmascls Tapostry Company, New York. 
 
 B. B. Lyons, secretary Bruasefs Tapestry Com- 
 pany, N. Y. 
 
 Samuel L. Lyons, superintendent. 
 
 Jamea Anderson, Craftsbury, Vt. 
 J. H. Anderson, Craftsbury", Yt. 
 Joseph C. Eveleth, Hampden Mill, Me. 
 George W. Olney, Cherry Yalley, Mass. 
 
 E. D. Thayer, Worcester, Mass. 
 
 0- H. Perry, agent Middlesex Company, Lowell, 
 Mass. 
 
 0. Saunders, superintendent Middlesex Company, 
 Lowell, Mass. 
 
 A. A. Haggett, paymaster Middlesex Company, 
 Lowell. 
 
 Connor Brothers, Holyoke, Mass. 
 
 Ralph H. Damon, president Damon Manufactur- 
 ing Company. 
 
 George C. Moses, treasurer Worumbo Manufact- 
 aring Company, Bath, Me. 
 
 S. E. Lee, agent Vasaalborough Woollen Mills. 
 
 W. H. Reddick, superintendent, Yassalborongh 
 woolen mills. 
 
 H. Stursberg, jr., agent Germania Milla. 
 
 C. Fox & Co., Stafford Springs, Conn. 
 John H. Gahde, Canastota Knitting Mill. 
 J. H. Gahde, jr., Canastota Knitting Mill. 
 Eli Collier, Cherry Valley, Mass. 
 
 George H. Nye, Nye & Wait Carpet Compaoy, 
 
 Auburn N. Y. 
 William F, Wait, Auburn, N. Y. 
 William F. Gibbs, Auburn, N. Y. 
 
 1. L. Pearl <fe Co., Johnson, Vt. 
 J. A. Pearl, Johnson, Vt. 
 
 D. M. Read, treasurer Read Carpet Company. 
 C S. Read, president Read Carpet Company. 
 
 F. W. Read, secretary Read Carpet Company. 
 H. Oldroyd, Howell's, N. Y. 
 
 Joshua Oldroyd, Howell's, N. Y. 
 
 Byam Heaton, Howell's, N. Y. 
 
 Kent Woolen Company, Ceutreville, R. I. 
 
 George B. Waterhouse, treasurer, Centreville, 
 
 R. 1. 
 R. E. Waterhouse, superintendent, Centreville, 
 
 R.I. 
 
 B. F. Waterhouse, Centreville, R. L 
 
 Edward Prauker, treasurer Prankor Manufact- 
 uring Company, Saugus. 
 
 Owen Bros., agents Atlantic Mills, Providence, 
 R, L 
 
 Saxony Woolen Mills, Newburgh, N. Y. 
 
 J. A. Harrison, Newburgh, N. Y. 
 
 Michael Collins, Collinsville, Mass. 
 
 R. Berry, Vesta Knitting Mills, Providence. 
 
 George E. Boyden, Vesta Knitcing Mills, Provi- 
 douce. 
 
 C. L. Blanding Manufacturing Company, Provi- 
 dence, R. I. 
 
 Hudson River Woolen Mills, Newburgh, N. Y. 
 Lawrence, Webster & Co., Malone, N. Y. 
 J. F. Wright. Malone. N. Y. 
 
 E. W, Lawrence. Malone, N. Y. 
 
 F. A. Howarth, Oxford, Mass. 
 Andrew Howarth, Oxford, Mass. 
 
 Mt. Kineo Woolen Company, Gilbert, Me. 
 Charles M. Beach, treasurer Broad Brook Com- 
 pany. Broad Brook, Conn. 
 Edward Delabarre, Conway, Mass. 
 W. E. Delabarre tfcOo., Conwav, Mass. 
 F. A. Delabarre, Conway, Mass. 
 George W. Irvine, Conway, M»«a, 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 177 
 
 E. C. Reinhardt, Con-way, Maaa. 
 
 Ellison Tinltham, president Carolina Mills Com- 
 pany, Carolina, K. I. 
 
 Franklin Metcalf, treasurer Carolina Mills Com- 
 pany, Carolina, R. I. 
 
 P. S. " Peckliam, jr., of P. S. Peckham .t Co., 
 Washington, R. I. 
 
 Samuel H. Edes, proprietor Eagle Flauuel Mills, 
 Newport, N. H. 
 
 Benjamin Lucas, of B. Lucas & Co., Poqnetanuck, 
 Conn. 
 
 Samuel Lucas, of B. Lacas &. Co., Poquetauuck, 
 Conn. 
 
 Aaron Lucas, of B. Lucas & Co., Poquetanuck, 
 Conn. 
 
 Albert Stafford, of B. Lucas & Co., Poquetan- 
 uck, Conn. 
 
 George S- Kinot, agent Lamoille Mills, Fairfax, 
 Vt. 
 
 George Mabbelt, agent Central Falls "Woolen 
 Mills, B. L 
 
 Frank E. Seagrave, treasurer Central Fulls Wool- 
 en Mills, R. 1. 
 
 J. F. Phetteplace, president Central Falls (R. I.) 
 Woolen Mills. 
 
 Stephen 0. Metcalf, treasurer Steere Worsted 
 Mills. 
 
 Berwick Woolen Mills, West Fitchburg, Mass. 
 
 James McTaggart, West Fitchburg, Mass. 
 
 J)avid McTaggart. West Fitchburg, Mass. 
 
 Perseverance Worsted Company, Woonsocket, 
 K.I. 
 
 James H. Singleton, Woonsocket, R. I. 
 
 George F. Siugltjton, Woonsocket, R. I. 
 
 Robert T. Giant, East ErooktieUl, Mass. 
 
 Horace A. Kimball, Manton, R. I. 
 
 Richard Howard &, Sou, Apponaug, R. I. 
 
 Alexander Carmichael. Westerly, R. I. 
 
 The Matt«awan Felting Cooipauy, Matteawan, 
 N. Y., by H. G. Walcott. secretary. 
 
 The New York Felting Company, Matteawan, 
 
 N. Y. 
 Horatio Colonv, Keene, N. H. 
 J. B. Colony, Keene, N. H. 
 
 F. A. Faulkner, Keene, N. H. 
 George D. Colony, Keene, N. H. 
 John C. Faulkner. Keene, N. H. 
 
 W. F. Spink. Warwick Worsted Mills. 
 
 W. J. Reynolds, Silver Lake AVorsted Mills. 
 
 E. A. Hoagland, New London, Conn. 
 
 G. D. Workman, president Union Manufacturing 
 Company, Torrington. Conn. 
 
 Thomas Kitson, Stroudsburg (Pa.) Wo'den Mills. 
 W. M. Keith, treasurer Fort Ann (N. Y.) Woolen 
 
 Company. 
 Mahaffv Bros.'s Woolen Mills, Pulaski, N, Y. 
 Edward Murk, superintendent Detroit (Mich.) 
 
 Alaska Sock Company. 
 Arthur Brown, Jacob Brown & Co., Detroit, 
 
 Mich. 
 Jacob Brown, president Detroit (Mich.) Alaska 
 
 Sock Companv. 
 Benj. C. Potts, Rose Valley Mills. Mcrlia, Pa. 
 Patrick Cole, clothier and furnishing goods, 
 
 Georgetown, Mass. 
 E. Barry, merchant, Georgetown, Mass. 
 John J. Henderson of Pancer River Mills. 
 S. and G. Susholz. Schenectady, N. Y. 
 Geo. Follett, New York. 
 Samuel Barron, knit goods. 
 Theodore Barron, knit goods. 
 Max H. Strauss, knit goods. 
 James Scott, of Scott Bros. 
 v. H. Smith &, Co., New York. 
 E. Stuart, of Meohauicsburgh (Ohio) Woolen 
 
 Mills. 
 J. Mickle, of Mechanicsburgh (Ohio) Woolen 
 
 MUls. 
 G. F. Roby, treasurer Halifax Mills Goraxiany, 
 
 Lake Village, N. H. 
 Henry Tucker, superintendent Halifax Mills 
 
 Company, Lake Village, N. H. 
 L. W. Duncan, agent. Nutting, N. J. 
 Jacob K. Frb, Moravia, N. Y. 
 C. M. and G. P. Pelton, Pouglikuepgie, N. Y. 
 James lugalls, Methuen, Mass. 
 Joseph Hall, of Hall Brothers. 
 Uenjamm Hall, of Hall BrotUers. 
 
 485-— 12 
 
 George Hall, of Hall Brothers. 
 Chas. A. Dayton, superintendent of Hall Broth- 
 ers. 
 N. Everett Lucas, overseer of Hall Brothers. 
 Frank Hall, overseer of Hall Brothers. 
 Charles H. Bedent, overseer of Hall Brothers, 
 Wtwbosset Mills, Taft, Weeden & Co., agents, 
 
 Providi:iuce, R. I. 
 Persian Rug and Carpet Company, New York. 
 Robert Stuntz, Ne^ York. 
 Adam Bolleniin, New York. 
 Gustavus J. Poznauski, New Yoik. 
 Henry A. Francis, Worcester, Mass. 
 Frank S. Fay, Worcester, Mass. 
 Joseph H. Carpenter, treasurer Glendale Woolen 
 
 Company. 
 R. L. Whitney, .^-ecretary and treasurer Falls City 
 
 Jeans and Woolen Company, Louisville, Ky. 
 O. H. Hayes &. Co., New York. 
 Francis & MuUer, New York. 
 Hills & Davenport, New York. 
 Schoff, Fairchild &. Co., New York. 
 Geneva Wor;^ted Mills, by M. S. ITlman, treas- 
 urer. Providence. 
 Rockfellow & Sbepard, New York. 
 John Lunn. Philadelphia. 
 Eaterheld ^t Co.. Pekin Mills, Manayunk, Pa. 
 Jfinies Legg &; Co., Mapleville, R. 1. 
 W. R. Lawfer Sz. Co.. Allentown, Pa, 
 W. S. Woodman, Allentown, Pa. 
 Ref'ual Mills, Allentown, Pa. 
 J. H. Lawfer, Allentown. Pa. 
 H. C. Thacher, of H. C. Tbacher & Co. 
 T. C. Thacher, of H. C. Thacher &, Co. 
 Fred Hartley. 
 
 John Greer '&. Co., Philadelpbia. 
 Farnum & Roper, Providence, R. L 
 G. H. Falconer, New York. 
 Amnon P. Piatt, New York. 
 J. B. Mackinnon, New York. 
 Frank J. Primrose, New York. 
 Paiterton Bros., New York. 
 William Rvan, New York. 
 DoeRiver Woolen Mills, E. E. Hunter, secretary, 
 
 Elizabethton, Tenn. 
 C. H. Lewis, Bristol Woolen Mill, Tenn. 
 Powell River Woolen Company, Big Stone Gap 
 
 Mill, Tenn. 
 Franz & Pope Knitting Machine Company, Will- 
 . iam Pope, president, Bucyrus, Ohio, 
 ij. B. Cushing, director Bayley Hat Company, 
 
 Newburyport, Mass. 
 Alex. Caldwell, director Bayley Hat Company, 
 
 Newburyport, Mass. 
 William Ti. Johnson, director Bayley Hat Com- 
 pany, Newburyport, Mass. 
 John J. Currier, treasurer and director Bayley 
 
 Eat Company, Newburyport, Mass. 
 Fr. Uhrik, of B. Dhrik A:' Weed. Philadelphia. 
 E. B. Weed, of B. Uhrik i^AVeed, Philadelphia. 
 P. Iloutet, of B. Uhrik & Weed, Phil.'xdelphia. 
 
 A. W. Wittig, of B. Uhrik i^ Weed, Philadelphia. 
 Swenarton i: Kriser, New York. 
 
 Mills & Co., New York. 
 
 J. M. Valentine & Co., New York, 
 
 T. B. Snow, New York. 
 
 Rochester Knitting Works, Max Loweuthal, pro- 
 priotor, Rochester, N. K. 
 
 Alfred Bayliss, of Baylias & Crandall, Utica, 
 N. Y. 
 
 C. P. Crandall, of Bayliss &. Crandall, Utica, 
 N. Y. 
 
 Empire Scotch Cap Factory, Utica, N. Y. 
 
 S. Bradley A: Sons, Allegheny City, Pa. 
 
 Wm. Barker, jr,, of S.Bradley <fc Sons, Allegheny 
 City, Pa. 
 
 James A. Bradley, of S. Bradley & Sons, Alleghe- 
 ny City, Pa. 
 
 AVm. ILBradloy, of S. Bradley & Sous, Alleghe- 
 ny City, Pa. 
 
 E. B. Smith, of Smith & Peufield, Delhi, N. Y., 
 woolen mills. 
 
 L. J. RoBsnian, of Rosaraan Knitting Company. 
 
 B. F. Haigh, of Rossman Knitting Cotupany. 
 Wm. Oliver, secretary, treasui'(?r, and general 
 
 mannger Mississippi Mills, WoHson. Miss. 
 W. P. Sharp, of Home Knitting Works. 
 
 C. E, l^iiarp, uf tl(.)me KnUtiDg "Worlia, 
 
178 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 S. A. Sbarp, of nome. Kuittins "Works. 
 Jeflerson AVooleu Mills, by FraDk Stoppenbach, 
 
 nianaj^er, Jufl'ersou, AVis. 
 Eobert A. Allison, flecretary Jackson (Teun.) 
 
 AVoolen Manufactnrinj:^ Company. 
 "VP". T. Earnsbaw, aupcrintencient Jackson (Tenn.^ 
 
 "Woolon Manufacturing Co. 
 P. J. ]\Iiirray, niauager oil mills, Jackson, Tenn. 
 N. S. White, banker, Jackson, Teun. 
 Jno. Y. Keitb, wool raiser, Jackson, Tenn. 
 W. S. Small, farmer and sheep raiser, Jackson, 
 
 Tenn. 
 "W. P. Kobertson, merchant and planter, Jackson, 
 
 Tenn. 
 M. v. B. Exum, farmer and ■wool grower, Jack- 
 
 aon, Tenn. 
 Jno. W. Theuz, banker and farmer, Jackson, 
 
 Tenn. 
 Asbley Stonfield, sheep raiser, Jackson, Tenn. 
 Miles Standish, farmer, Jackson, Tenn. 
 Ence Douglass, farmer, Jackf^on, Tenn. 
 Manley Armfield, planter, Jackson, Teun. 
 J. C. G-ooch, Jackson, Tenn. 
 A. C. Treadwell, Jackson, Tenn. 
 Jnn. Goodrich, and one hundred others, Jackson, 
 
 Tenn. 
 D. CrowtliLT & Son, Gennantown, Pa. 
 Thomas P. Cope, jr., of Cope i!c Co., i*biladclphia, 
 
 Pa. 
 Alfred Cope, of Cope & Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 
 F. Ilaxcn Cope, of Cope <fc Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 
 Howland Crofr, of Howland Croft, Sons A: Co. 
 Smith Lightbottom. 
 Geo. Bustle, jr. 
 
 Michael Collins, Collinaville, Masa. 
 Christian Hess. 
 Isaac Keldon. 
 John Hammond. 
 Joseph B. Underwood. 
 A. Heillwell. 
 Benjamin Lobloy. 
 Joseph Lobley. 
 
 L. D. Kodibaugh, NewParis, Ind. 
 Claufle Neilson, New Paris, Ind. 
 AV. H. Reincehl, of AV. H. Eeincebl &. Co., Kead- 
 
 ing, Pa. 
 0. B. A7etherhold, of A7. H. Eeincehl & Co., 
 
 Peading, Pa. 
 
 0. K. Dclsart, of AV. H. Eeinojhl & Co., Keading, 
 Pa. 
 
 Montgomery Merritt, of Henderson, Xy., woolen 
 
 mills. 
 Jas. S. Alves, wool grower. 
 
 AV. S. Johnson, ofHender.son (Ky.) AVoolon Mils. 
 Paul J.Marrs, Henderson (Ky.) AVoolen Mills. 
 Jaraea K. Barich, Henderson (Ky.) Woolen Mills. 
 Dr. B. Alors, secretary Henderson (Ky.) AVoolen 
 
 Mills. 
 James Morning, superintendent Henderson (Ky.) 
 
 AVoolen Mills. 
 D. AV. Boone, subsuperintendent, Henderson 
 
 (Ky.) Woolen Mills. 
 
 A. N. Taylor, carder boss Henderson (Ky.) Woolen 
 Mills. 
 
 John Gust, spinner boss Henderson (Ky.) Woolen 
 Mills. 
 
 B. T.Linton, loom boss Henderson (Ky.) Woolen 
 Mills. 
 
 Pbiletus Beal, finisher Henderson (Ky.) AVoolen 
 
 Mills. 
 Edward Obredorfer, wool dealer, Henderson, Ky. 
 Gi-orge Metz, wool dealer, Henderson, ivy. 
 iForris Metz, wool dealer, Henderson, Ky. 
 ifann Bios. 
 
 Morris Baldauf. merchant. 
 Ed. Starr, clothier, Henderson, Ky. 
 Berry 6c Co,, dry goods merchants, Henderson, 
 
 Ky. 
 Scblesinger & Geibei, merchants, Henderson, 
 
 Thiinias Soaper, Henderson, Ky. 
 I- W. Levan, Pleading, Pa. 
 
 1. W. Le.van &l Son,l-te;tding, Pa. 
 
 A. Erskiiie. njauufiiclurerol'bl.'inkets, shawls, etc.. 
 Third :lij(1 Cumberland Mtreets,Philadclx»hia, Pa. 
 
 Thomas Duston, North Salem, N. H. 
 
 AV. V. Hewitt &, Co., Menayha (Wis.) Woolen 
 Mills. 
 
 Sliuttkwortli Bros., Amsterdam, N. X. 
 
 O. H. Nordstraw, South Side, Puuxatawney, Pa. 
 
 D. W. McAllister, overseer, Punxatawney, Pa. 
 
 F. AV. Cheney, agent, Atbens (Ga.) Mauufactur- 
 ing Company. 
 
 Kanawha Woolen Mills, Frank Woodman, pro- 
 prietor, Charleston, AV. Va. 
 
 A. J. Cameron & Co., of New York and Philadel- 
 phia. 
 
 C. B. Kobinson for Eeargrass Woolen Mills, 
 Louisville, Ky. 
 
 Lippit Woolen Company, by C. H. Merriman, 
 treasurer. Providence, ll. I. 
 
 Keedsburg AVoolen Mill Company, W. H. French, 
 manager, Reedsburgh, AVis. 
 
 The J. TuriieraudSons ManufacturingCompany, 
 Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 Joshua Turner, Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 John G. Turner, Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 A. K. AVein, Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 N. H. Turner, Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 0. F. Keatley, manager of the Keatley {Hosiery 
 Manufacturing Company, Galena, 111. 
 
 Stewart Bro. 6c Co., 1219 Temple street, Philadel- 
 phia, Pa. 
 
 James S. Cochran, Tenth street and Columbia 
 avenue, Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 liice. Beau £z Co., Manaynnk, Pa. 
 
 Fitzpatrick 6c Holt, Manayunk, Pa. 
 
 D. Levis Moore, Alpaca Company, Philadelphia, 
 Pa. 
 
 Thomas A. Pearce, Pennsylvania Hosiery Mills. 
 I). Edwards &r Sons, Ithaca, N. Y. 
 K. O.Edwards, Itbaca, N. Y. 
 
 D. D. Edward.-?, Ithaca, N. Y. 
 David Ell wood's Sons, Ithaca, N. Y. 
 
 C. H. Sanford, glover, Sandford &■ Sons, Bridge- 
 port, Conn. 
 
 H. B. Sanford, glover, Sanford & Sons, Bridgeport, 
 Conn. 
 
 E. G. Sandford, glover, Sandford &. Sons, Bridge- 
 port, Conn. 
 
 Charles G. Sanford, of Glover, Sanford &. Sons, 
 Bridgeport, Conn. 
 
 T. H. Sanford, of Glover, Sanford & Sons, Bridge- 
 port, Conn. 
 
 Glover E. Sanford. of Glover, Sanford & Sons, 
 Bridgeport, Conn. 
 
 Halfpenney, Campbell & Co. (Limited), Antes 
 Fort. Pa. 
 
 H. T. Doebing, manager Davenport AVoolen Mills, 
 Davenport, Iowa. 
 
 S. A. Jennings, president Davenport Woolen Mills 
 Company. 
 
 J. M. Eldridgc, stockholder in Davenport AVoolen 
 Mills. 
 
 AV. C. Wads worth & Co., wholesale dry (goods, 
 Davenport, Iowa, 
 
 Kobert Krause, jobber of woolens, Davenport, 
 Iowa. 
 
 N. Moritz 6c Bro., jobber of woolens, Davenport, 
 Iowa. 
 
 M. Neidemann, jobber of woolens, Davenport, 
 Iowa. 
 
 A. B. Haipke, manufacturer of knit goods, Daven- 
 port, Iowa. 
 
 August Steffin, jobber of dry goods, Davenport, 
 Iowa. 
 
 J. H. C- Petersen's Sons, dry goods, Davenport, 
 Iowa. 
 
 AV. D. Petersen, Davenport, Iowa. 
 
 H. F. Petersen, Davenport, Iowa. 
 
 Joseph Froehlich, dealer in woolens, Davenport, 
 Iowa. 
 
 Isaac Kothchild, dealer in woolens, Daveni^ort, 
 Iowa. 
 
 W. S. Kichter, director, Davenport (Iowa) Woolen 
 Mills Company. 
 
 I. H. Sears, Davenport (Iowa) AVoolen Mills Com- 
 pany. 
 
 L. M. Ficher, sheep-raiser. 
 
 A. Stratilok, dealer in dry goods, Davenport, 
 Iowa. 
 
 J. H. Hiuer, dealer in dry goods, Davenport, 
 Iowa. 
 
 John Dutton, overseer in woolen mill, Daven- 
 port, Iowa. 
 
 Janu^s AV. Itoliorlson, general manager Porter 
 Atnnufacturiug Company, Clarksville, Ga. 
 
 Jamoa AVilliamaou *!t Co., Gcxmautowu, Pa. 
 
KEVISION OF THE TA.KIPF. 
 
 179 
 
 "William Jameson, Germantown, Pa. 
 
 C A. Keynolds, KingPliillip Mills, Davisville.K. I. 
 
 "William F. Berry, preBident Forest Mills Com- 
 pany, Bridgton, Me. 
 
 J. F. 'Bralier, superiotendent FoiC3t Milla Com- 
 pany, Bridgton. Me. 
 
 Louis Kraemer & Co., Stony Creek Mills, Head- 
 ing, Pa. 
 
 W. W'ard, superintendent Kiversido and Oswego 
 Mills, Providence, R.I. 
 
 Seth Humphrey, Lower Merion, Montgomery 
 County, Pa., owner. 
 
 Chnrles Ohara, superintendent. 
 
 Mills & Co., l^ew York. 
 
 Swenarton & Kiser, New Tork. 
 
 J. "W. Dodge, president Dodge-Davis Manufact- 
 urinff Company. 
 
 H. C. Whipple, treasurer Dodge-Davis Manufact- 
 uring Company. 
 
 C. H. Proctor, overseer Dodge-Davis Manufactur- 
 ing Company. 
 
 H. Beckman, Northern Ohio Blanket Mills, Cleve- 
 land, Ohio. 
 
 Samuel Lea & Son, 1148 St. John street, Philadel- 
 phia, Pa. 
 
 M. H. HeynemaLj, of Heynemann & Co., San 
 Francisco, Cal. 
 
 Sig. Greenebaum, of Greenebaum & Co., San 
 Francisco, Cal. 
 
 J. K. Manury & Co., Philadelphia, Po. 
 
 J. K. Sullivan, dry goods, Oswego Falls. N. T. 
 
 Connell & Patterson, dry goods, Oswego Falls, 
 N. Y. . 
 
 Bennett & Stewart, dry goods, Oawego Falls, 
 N. Y. 
 
 Farrell & Son, merchant tailors, Oswego Falls, 
 N. Y. 
 
 H. A.mdursky, clothing, Oawego Falls, N. T. 
 
 J. C. O'Brien, dry goods, Oswego Falls, N. Y. 
 
 A. R. Nery, dry goods, Owego Falls, N. Y. 
 
 H. Rosenbloom, dry goods and clothing, Oswego 
 Falls, N. Y. 
 
 H. J. Peeples, clothing, Oswego Falls. N. T. 
 
 J. H. Lee, department overseer, Riverside and 
 Oswego Mills. 
 
 W. R. Hamilton, department overseer, Riverside 
 and Oswego Mills. 
 
 J. B. Phillips, department overseer, Riverside 
 and Oswego Mills. 
 
 J. H. AVilrton, department overseer, Riverside 
 and Oswego Mills. 
 
 R. Harrison, department overseer, Riverside and 
 Oswego Mills. 
 
 Charles B. Sheard, department overseer, Riverside 
 and Oswego Mills. 
 
 A. F. Williams, overseer, Riverside and Oswego 
 Mills. 
 
 Henry Pollard, section overseer, Riverside and 
 Oswego Mills. 
 
 Wright Mothara, section overseer, Riverside and 
 Oswego Mills. 
 
 Thomas G. Gill, section overseer, Riverside and 
 Oswego Mills. 
 
 Crossley Holmes, section overseer, Riverside and 
 Oswego Mills. 
 
 William Bower, aectiou overseer, Riverside and 
 Oawego Mills, 
 
 Joseph Bower, section overseer, Riverside and 
 
 Oawego Mills. 
 John Burns, section overseer, Riverside and Os- 
 wego Milla. 
 C. A. Van Leuvan, section overnoer, Riverside 
 
 and Oswego Mills. 
 C. H. McCafl'ry, aectiou overseer, Riverside and 
 
 Oawego Mills. 
 David Hartitran, section overseer. Riveraide and 
 
 Oswejro Mills. 
 Jamoa AYintcrs, overseer, Riverside and Oawego 
 
 Mills. 
 J. H. Fairguere, section overseer, Riverside and 
 
 Oswego Mills. 
 William F. Read. Victoria Mil], PhUadelpbia, Pa. 
 George Grayson »fe Co., Darby, Pa. 
 J. A. Buguey, superintendent Waumbeck Com- 
 
 panv, Milton Mills, N. H. 
 Carl Frescbel, of Kalamazoo Knitting Company, 
 
 Milwaukee. 
 L. L. Tabor, Kalamazoo Knitting Company, Mil- 
 waukee. 
 Louis H. Elbromer, Kalamazoo Knitting Com- 
 pany, Milwaukee. 
 George G. Granger, 22 Broad street, Boston. 
 
 Mass. 
 E. C. Caswell, of E. C. Caswell & Co., Blooms- 
 burgh, Pa. 
 J. M. Stavor, of E. C. Caswell &. Co., Blooms- 
 
 burgh, Pa. 
 John F. Hayle, carder for E. C. Caswell & Co. 
 
 Bloomsburgh, Pa. 
 C. W. McCaslin, spinner for E. C. Caswell & 
 
 Co., Bloomsburgh, Pa. 
 E. L. Caswell, boss weaver for E. C. Caswell &. 
 
 Co., Bloomsburgh, Pa. 
 George W. Yost, engineer for E. C. Caswell & 
 
 Co., Bloomsburgh. Pa. 
 Miles M. Bet. finisher for E. C. Caswell & Co., 
 
 Bioomaburgh, Pa. 
 Eliaa E. Shaeffer. weaver for E. C Caswell &. 
 
 Co., Bloomsburgh, Pa. 
 Joseph Ruckle, dresser for E. C. Caswell &. Co., 
 
 Bloomsburgh, Pa. 
 John Custred. weaver for E. C. Caswell & Co., 
 
 Bloomsburgh, Pa. 
 Daniel L. Jones & Co., Philadelphia. Pa- 
 Concord Woolen Mills, Nicqiack, Ga. 
 
 Porter Manufacturing Company, Clarkaville, 
 Ga. 
 
 SuUoway Mills, A. W. Sullowav, treasurer, 
 Franklin, N. H. 
 
 John S. Collins, Gilaum. N. H. 
 
 L. Farr Sc Son, of Ogden Woolen Mills, Ogden 
 City, Utah. 
 
 Enoch Farr, of Ogden Woolen Mills, Ogden City 
 Utah. 
 
 Newton Farr, Ogden City, Utah. 
 
 Ezra Farr, Ogden City. Utah. 
 
 J. D. Simpson, of Mayfield (Ky.) Woolen Mills 
 
 W. M.Wilson, of Mayfield (Ky.) Woolen Mills. 
 
 Harry Hendley of Mayfield (Ky.) AVooleu Milla. 
 
 William Smith, of Mayfield(Kv.) AVoolen Mills. 
 
 C. M. Russell, of Mayfield (Ky.) Woolen Mills. 
 
 Robert Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa, 
 
180 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 To the honorable Senate and Souse of Representatives of the United States of America in 
 
 Congress assembled: 
 
 The undersigned, being each and all of ns engaged in manufacturing or dealing in 
 ■wool and woolen goods, respectfully represent that the present rates and form of duty 
 upon "wool are hurdeusome and injurious to us and to everybody concerned in our 
 domestic wool manufacturing aud"svool growing industries. The present depression 
 in the wool manufacturing industry is due largely to the fact that the percentage of 
 duties on the manufactures of wool is less, iu many instances, than upon the wool 
 itself, thus giving the foreign manufacturer a distim t advantage iu entering the 
 American market, and we ask that a single ad valorem duty on ail classes of wool 
 may be substituted therefor. The values of foreign wools are a matter of common 
 notoriety at every auction sale in the world, and quotations are made every week by 
 all the leading dealers, and can always be determined with exactness by experts, 
 and the undervaluations arising from an ad valorem duty on wool would be less fre- 
 quent even than those arising from defective classification under the present specific 
 rates. 
 
 Under the present specific rates of duty we are precluded from purchasing many 
 desirablf. lots of foreign wools on account of their condition, and such wools, conse- 
 quently, go to foreign manufacturers at a reduced price and to our great injury. 
 
 A. D. Juilliard &. Co., New York. 
 
 Geor<i;e Campbell &. Co. , Philadelphia. 
 
 ThoiuasLee & Co., Pbilailelphia. 
 
 H. J. Libby & Co., Philadelphia. 
 
 Bacon, Baldwia ifcCo.. Ni'W York. 
 
 "Wendell, Fay & Co.. New York. 
 
 Assabet Manufacturing Company, by T. Quincy 
 
 Browne, treasurer. 
 J. W. Bnesiel & Co., Laconia. N. H. 
 Henry Saltonatall, treasurer Pacific Mills.* 
 Edward C. Damon, treasurer Damon Manufact- 
 
 urins Company, Westvale. 
 K. A. Colfj^lier. Dedham. Mass. 
 Everett Woolen Com])any, Great Earrington, 
 
 Mass. 
 Parley A. Bussell, Great Barrin^on, Mass. 
 George E. Kussell, Great Barrington, Mass. 
 Isaac Hahn, Providence, K. I. 
 National Braid Works, S. Barr, President. 
 Arthur Patfhett, Montgomery, N. Y. 
 William Crabtree. Montgomery, N. Y. 
 WilliatQ B. Tobey, treasurer North Berwick 
 
 Company. 
 George A. Pearce. Phoenix, R. I. 
 Joseph W. Pearce, Phcenix, R. I. 
 John Pearce, sr., Phreuix, B. I. 
 Natlianiel Winna, Phoinix, R.I. 
 Somersville Manufacturing Company, Somers- 
 
 ville, Conn. 
 K. Keeney, president, Somersville, Conn. 
 G. E. Keeney, treasurer, Somersville, Conn. 
 Charles F. Easton, president Providence Hosiery 
 
 Company. 
 E. Herzig & Co., New York. 
 J. Iv. Cilley &, Co. , New York. 
 Sullivan, Vail & Co., New York. 
 'LMnguP, House <fc Co., New York. 
 Deering, Milliken & Co., New York. 
 Leavitt & Mitchell Bros., New York, 
 Whitman & Phelpa, New York. 
 Kibbe, ChafTee &. Co.. NewY''ork. 
 Leland, Whitney & Co. , New York. 
 Case, Dudley &BateIle, New York. 
 Leopold Herzig, New York. 
 K. Eartol, New York. 
 H. Fucho, superintendent. New York. 
 W. E. I^Iyers, New York. 
 Louis Schlesinger, New York. 
 Wright Manufacturing Company, Lawrence, 
 ' Mass. 
 A. W. Stearns ^ Co., Lawrence, Mass. 
 A. W. Stearns, Lawrence, Mass. 
 C. Swift, Lawrence, Mass. 
 C. W. Stevens. Lawrence, Mass. 
 William Oswald, Lawrence, Mass. 
 Joshua Perkins, Nasonville, K. T. 
 J. J. Jarvifl, [Udprietor, Defiance, Ohio. 
 H. L. Powell, superintendent. Defiance, Ohio. 
 J. S. Wf3tl.My, Defiaure, (Jhio. 
 
 Germania Knitting Works, New York. 
 
 E. S. liockwell &Co., Tiffin, Oliio. 
 K. S. Douglass, agent Plymouth Woolen Com- 
 pany, Plymouth, Mass. 
 
 Detroit Alaska Snck Company. Detroit, Mich. 
 
 Jacob Browu & Co., Detroit, Mich. 
 
 Albert G. Gebba-dt. Park Pvivcr Mills. 
 
 George Keilley. Park Eivev Mills. 
 
 William Henderson, Park Ptiver Mill-s. ' 
 
 Patiii-k Holland, P;irk liiver Mills. 
 
 Joseph Brav, Georgetown, Ma^s. 
 
 Jarvia Ellis, of Pennsylvania Ches. Company, 
 DowniiigtoD, Pa. 
 
 William R. Branson, of Pennsylvania Ches. Com- 
 pany, Downington, Pa. 
 
 F. H. Irvin, of Pennsylvania Ches. Company, 
 Downington, Pa. 
 
 James Ellis, of Pennsylvania Ches. Company, 
 
 Dnwnini^ton, Pa. 
 Jarvis Ellis, jr., of Pennsylvania Ches. Company, 
 
 Downington, Pa. 
 F. Mulbauser & Co., Cleveland, Ohio. 
 S. & G. Susholz, Schenectady, N. Y. 
 Solomon Susholz, Schenectady. N. Y. 
 George Susholz, Schenectady, N. Y. 
 Richard W. Street, secretary of Amazon Hosiery 
 
 Company. 
 P. W. Driscoli, Michigan City, Ind. 
 George B, Fettig, Michigan City, Ind. 
 R. M. Hutchison, Michigan City. Ind. 
 Robert Sulton, Michigan City. Ind. 
 William Highgate, Michigan City, Ind. 
 E. Murdock. wool grower. 
 R. H. Calvert, wool grower. 
 Luke M. Flemming, wool grower. 
 T. E. Donnelly, wool grower. 
 A. P. Griffith, superintendent Amazon Hosiery 
 
 Company. 
 Bennett Spreucel, of Amazon Hosiery Company, 
 J. G. Leinbach &. Co., Reading, Pa, 
 H. C. Ball Company, Philadelphia, Pa. 
 Henry C. Ball, secretary and treasurer, Philadel- 
 phia, Pa. 
 Frederick Robinson, New Brunswick, N.J. 
 Thomas Ginnever, New Brunswick, N. J. 
 George Willis, New Brun.swick, N. J. 
 Charles A. Studeumund, New Brunswick, N. J. 
 John Logg, of Worceatei" (Mass.) Woolen Mill. 
 Dnrman Brothers, Philadelphia, Pa.t 
 Frank S. Prescott, of Prescott Bros., West Ep- 
 
 ]»ing, N. H. 
 Willis C. Prescott, of Prescott Bros., West Ep* 
 
 ping, N. H. 
 Gilday & Gillia, East Greenwich, N. Y. 
 H. H. Mase, Matteawan, N. Y. 
 Matteawan Manufacturing Company, Mattea- 
 
 wan, N. Y. 
 Maugi'e &. Avery, Boston. 
 Charles F. Pierce, Providence, R. I. 
 
 'Sir. SaltonstftU has signed a petition similar tu the above, except that the worrla "if any duty ho 
 
 imii'iMcd upon wool " were inaert'd in rlie fiftrt-ntb line brfbre tlm words " a single ad valorem duty." 
 
 t Providing the ad valorem is not in excess of liU per cent, on third-class wools CQQtiDg UH^CV 12 
 
 contH jitr poHHU, afld uot over 40 i>er (juut. ou tlJird pIws»j ci.'stici^ Iw oeuW aa^ yvyr. 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 181 
 
 Serome B. T'arnum, Providence, R. I. 
 
 Seed & Deuby, New York. 
 
 J. Koshland & Co., New Torlc. 
 
 Taylor Brothers, New York. 
 
 A.'Polbeimia. 
 
 Salter Brothers. 
 
 James S. Polheraus. 
 
 C. B. Day. 
 Edward H. "Wilson. 
 
 George Oberne & Co., CljicaEO, HI. 
 
 Belt, Butler & Co., New York. ^ 
 
 Racine Woolen Mills, Blake & Co., Racine, Wis. 
 
 Prescott Brothers, West Epping, N. H. 
 
 "W". M. Keith, treasurer Eort Ann Woolen Com- 
 pany, Fort Ann, N.Y. 
 
 Cautrell & Fanlkner, proprietors Tennessee 
 Woolen Mills, McMinnville, Tenn. 
 
 A. W. StelFan, secretary and treasurer Woolen 
 Company, Limited. 
 
 D.Dunn, superintendent Pennsylvania Woolen 
 Company, Limited. 
 
 Louis Rhell, Pennsylvania Woolen Company, 
 Limited. 
 
 N.Edward Loyer, Pennsylvania Woolen Mills, 
 Limited. 
 
 Theodore Sattler, Pennsylvania Woolen Com- 
 pany, Limited. 
 
 Arthur A. Chalker, Pennsylvania Woolen Com- 
 p?ny, Limited. 
 
 Joshua Heaton, Pennsylvania Woolen Company, 
 Limited. 
 
 Robert Anderson, Pennsylvania Woolen Com- 
 pany, Limited. 
 
 William J. Ennis, Pennsylvania Woolen Com- 
 pany, Limited. 
 
 E. V. Steffan, Pennsylvania Woolen Company, 
 Limited. 
 
 Andrew Kelly, Pennsylvania Woolen Company, 
 Limited. 
 
 Joseph Kyle, Pennsylvania Woolen Company, 
 Limited. 
 
 Alfred Thackery, Pennsylvania Woolen Com- 
 pany, Limited. 
 
 Georfie B. Waterhouse. treasurer Dundee Woolen 
 Company, Passaic. N. J. 
 
 Coulter, Rogers & Co., manufacturers, etc., Mnn- 
 cy. Pa. 
 
 Tallman Sc McCarty, merchants, Muncy, Pa. 
 
 Noble &Peterman, Muncy, Pa. 
 
 James Coulter, of Coulter, Rogers & Co., Muncy, 
 Pa. 
 
 Samuel Rogers, of Coulter, Rogers & Co., Muncy, 
 Pa. 
 
 George H. Rogers, of Coulter, Rogers & Co., 
 Muncy, Pa. 
 
 W. H. Bowen, of Coulter, Rogers & Co., Muncy, 
 Pa. 
 
 Alma Knitting Company, Alma, Mich. 
 
 S. F. Anderson, president Alma Knitting Com- 
 pany, Alma, Mich. 
 
 D. H.Dailey, yarn, Chester, Pa. 
 
 Richard Hey ife Son, blankets, Manayunk, Pa, 
 
 Wall &. Ireland, wool, Pliiladel7)hia. 
 
 Folwell Bros. & Co.. Philadelphia. 
 
 M. A. Fnrbnsh & Son, Philadelphia. 
 
 Charles J. Webb & Co., wool merchants, Philadel- 
 phia. 
 
 T. F. Halvey, wool merchants, Philadelphia. 
 
 George Buell, president The Buell Manufactnring 
 Company, St. Joseph, Mo. 
 
 Oriental Worsted Mills, by E, D. Browno, treas- 
 urer. 
 
 Brown & Driver. 
 
 M. M. Inman. 
 
 William C. Chapin, of Riverside and Oswego Mills, 
 Providence, R. L 
 
 Harris Woolen Company, by O. J. Rathburu, 
 
 president, Woonsocket, R. T. 
 Go wing, Sa,wer & Co., New York. 
 Waterloo Woolen Manufacturing Company, by A. 
 
 M. Patterson, Waterloo, N. Y, 
 Patterson & Greenougb, New York. 
 Tebbetts, Harrison &. Robins, New York. 
 James C. Cooley, of Knowei & Coolly, N.Y. 
 John A. Farusworth & Co., Saxton'.s River, Vt. 
 J. P. Alexander, of Farnsworth &. Co., Saxton's 
 
 River, Vt. 
 R. E. Smith, of Farnsworth & Co., Saxton's River, 
 
 Yt. 
 James Macnaughton (Wm. Macnaughton's 
 
 Sons). 
 Merced Mills, by A.Ingalshe, superintentendent, 
 
 Merced Falls, Cal. 
 Abe Roaenbloom, dry goods and clothing, Oswego 
 
 Falls. N. Y. 
 C. E. Choppell, dry goods, Oswego Falls, N. Y. 
 Dixon ife. Ferris, Oswego Falls, N. Y. 
 A. Hauna & Co., clothing, Oswego Falls, N. Y, 
 1). C. More &l Co., Oswego Falls, N. Y. 
 H. S. Mardiner, wool merchant, Oswego Falls, N. 
 
 Y. 
 A. F. Spitzli, assistant superintendent Riverside 
 
 and Oswego Mills. 
 C. K. Guile, overseer wool department Riverside 
 
 and Oswego Mills. 
 Miles Ellis, department overseer Riverside and 
 
 Oswego Mills. 
 Henry Rowland, overseer Riverside and Oswego 
 
 Mills. 
 J. M. Watson, overseer Riverside and Oswego 
 
 Mills. 
 John Pickles, overseer Riverside and 0.swego 
 
 Mills. 
 James Greenwood, overseer Riversideand Oswego 
 
 Mills. 
 Alexander Pitt, overseer Riverside and Oswego 
 
 Mills. 
 Harry Brown, overseer Riverside and Oswego 
 
 Mills. 
 Thomas Rayley, clerk Riverside and Oswego 
 
 Mills. 
 Samuel Andrews, section overseer Riverside and 
 
 Oswego Mills. 
 W. Beckwith, section overseer Riverside and Os- 
 wego Mills. 
 F. H. F. Balion, superintendent Riverside and 
 
 Oavrego Mills. 
 J. F. Willard, cashier Riverside and Oswego 
 
 Mills. 
 C. T. Currier, department overseer Riversido 
 
 and Oswego Mills. 
 Everett Knitting Works, Edward Dorsey, treaa- 
 
 uror, Manchester, N. H. 
 Phillip DoriT &. Son, Philadelphia. 
 A. M.Dodge, J. G.Clark, Clark & Dodge, Tilton, 
 
 N. H. 
 Joseph Walworth, Lawrence, Mass. 
 Samuel Walliu, Amsterdam, N. Y. 
 W, McCleary, Amsterdam, N. Y. 
 J. A. Howgate. 
 Howgate, McCleary & Co. 
 H. Heynemann, late president the San Francisco 
 
 Pioneer Woolen Factory, Ran Francisco. Cal. 
 Rio Yergen Manufacturing Company, St. George, 
 
 Utah. 
 Richard Bentley, superintendent St. George, 
 
 Utah. 
 Samuel ThoniMon's Nephew & Co., New York. 
 Wm. F. Perry, of Forest Mills Company, Bridg- 
 ton, Me. 
 
182 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 [From The American Reporter.] 
 
 To tlie Ways and Means Committee: 
 
 Having promised the Wiiya and Means Committee that we would send tLerii a 
 statement of the proportion of woolen machinery in the United States represented 
 by the recent petitions to Congress circulated by the American Reporter, we have 
 had a careful calculation made by one of the clerks in our office with the following 
 result: 
 
 "Boston, January 17, 1890. 
 
 "This is to certify that I ascertained from Dockham's Directory the number of 
 sets of cards represented by each of the signers of the petition in favor of free wool 
 headed by Mr. Jesse Metcalf, and the petition in favor of ad valorem duties headed 
 by A. D. Juilliard & Co. In the case of dry goods commission houses, I was par- 
 ticular to deduct any machinery represented by manufacturers already accounted 
 for. Some of the signers, as for instance braiders, knitters, and weavers, having no 
 preparing or spinning macliinery, are represented in this calculation by spindles, 
 looms, etc. Thus I found the total number of braiders 1,300, looms 2,429, hosiery 
 machines 1,004, combs 16.5, and spindles 80,948, and in addition thereto 2,374 seta of 
 cards. I am told that the I 300 braiders, 2,429 looms, 1,004 hosiery-machines, 165 
 combs, and 80,948 spindles would be in all equivalent to 996 sets of wool-cards. This 
 would make the total amount of machinery represented by the two petitions in favor 
 of a revision of the tariff in the direction of reduced duties 3,328 sets of cards. 
 
 "Geo. P. Elwell." 
 
 "Suffolk, ss.: 
 
 "January 17, 1890. 
 "Then personally appeared the above-named George P. Elwell, and made oath 
 that the statement above subscribed by him is true to the best of his knowledge and 
 belief 
 "Before me, Arthur H. Wellman, 
 
 " Justice of the Peace." 
 
 The total number of sets of wool-cards reported in Dockham's Directory is 7,915, 
 but the whole amount of wool machinery in the United States is probably equivalent 
 to 10,000 sets of cards. 
 
 All of the signers to oi\t petitions, whose names have already been printed in fall 
 in the Reporter, meant that there should now be a revision of the tarllf in the direc- 
 tion of reduced duties. But we are perfectly willing to admit, and have already 
 admitted, that some of them cai'e far less about any theory of tariff revision than 
 they do that the ratio between the duties upon wool and goods should be right. If 
 Congress should give the manufacturers a thoroughly protective bill, even with 
 higher rates of duty, at the present ses.sion, then the demand for free wool another 
 year would be weaker. But if Congress fails to give our manufacturing industries 
 such a bill, then a petition for reduced duties may be expected in the winter of 
 1890-91 which will surpass in foi'ce and magnitude anything of the kind which has 
 been attempted within a quarter of a century. 
 
 For ourselves we confess that we have no hope of permanent relief for our de- 
 pressed woolen manufacturing industry, .and for that portion of the wool-growing 
 interest engaged in farm sheep husbandry, except by a revision of the tariil' in the 
 direction of an entire removal of the duties upon wool or a substitution of ad valo- 
 rem in place of the present specific form of duty. The recent statement of president 
 Plillip L. Moon, of the great Washburn & Moen Iron Works, of Worcester Mass., 
 will apply equally well to the wool trade. Mr. Moen referred to the necessity of re- 
 ducing the duties on imported ores and Bessemer steel, and declared that the posi- 
 tion taken by himself and other Republican manufacturers is entirely consistent 
 with their previous records. "In Republican conventions for years," said be, "it 
 has been stated over and over again that the tariff' needed revising, and the point at 
 Issue has been as to who should be trusted with the revision — its friends or its 
 enemies. We have said all along ' Give us a Republican President, a Republican 
 Senate, and a Republican Congress, and we will remedy the faults in the present 
 tariff' laws,' and that is exactly what we are laboring for now." 
 
EEVISrON OP THE TARIFF. 183 
 
 STATEMENT OF J. F. GIBBS. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 Mr. J. F. GiBBS, of Greeley, Colo., president of the Colorado Wool Growers' Associa- 
 tion, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am to state a few facts eou- 
 cernins; the cost of raising wool in Colorado, the cost of marketing the same, and the 
 present condition of the industry there. 
 
 My ranch is situated in northern Colorado, about 80 miles northeast of Denver, on 
 the South Branch of the Platte River, about 50 miles south of the boundary line be- 
 tween Nebraska and Wyoming, about midway of the United States north and south. 
 The average number in our flocks is two thousand. Most of the wool-growers in our 
 vicinity own but one flock. We sometimes see statements of the prohts of the busi- 
 ness figured upon the basis of flocks of all youug ewes. There are no such flocks 
 there. In a flock of two thousand usually one-third are lambs or less than one year 
 old ; two or three hundred, or usually more, wethers ; and one thousand, usually less, 
 are breeding ewes. 
 
 I have seen 1,000 or more lambs accredited to 1,000 ewes — on paper. In 1,000 
 ewes of all ages out on the plains some die, some for some reason do not have lambs 
 at all, some refuse to own their lambs, some lambs refuse to suckle, some are still- 
 born. So that a gain of 700 in lambs is very unuusal in such a flock. Taking into 
 account the loss in old sheep throughout the year, a net gain of 600 is as unusual. 
 
 In the summary of expenses I give our herder $30 per month and $5 per month ad- 
 ditional for board. Thirty dollars is the amount I am now paying, and have paid 
 for some time. Some pay only $25. Some in Wyoming and Montana give $40. 
 Five dollars per month for board is less by $3 or |4 than is usually reckoned. I have 
 inserted $500 for hay and grain for horses and sheep ; this will keep two thousand 
 sheep one month,' but is generally enough. The amount necessary to cover these 
 items is increasing every year. We put up more hay — chiefly alfalfa — we buy more 
 grain, take better care of our sheep every way we can. No matter what the 
 winter may be, when the new season opens there is no old supply on hand. In the 
 statement I will now give you I shall include at first nothing for interest on sum 
 invested in the business — take no account of special or unusual losses by disease or 
 accidents. I will give only actual and necessary yearly expenses. 
 
 Statement of actual and necessary yearly expenses in running a flock of 2,000 sheep ire 
 
 Northern Colorado. 
 
 One herder, twelve months, at §35 per month |420 
 
 One farm hand, twelve months, at $35 per mouth 420 
 
 Two extras, two months each, lambing and shearing, at $35 140 
 
 Shearing, $150; sacks, $20, and twine, $5 175 
 
 Salt, two tons 40 
 
 Interest on improvements or loss in wear and tear 200 
 
 Support of owner and family - 1,000 
 
 Hay and grain for horses and sheep 500 
 
 Taxes 50 
 
 Total 2,945 
 
 If now we allow a credit of six hundred lambs, at $1.25 each, we reduce thereby the 
 balance of the account to $2,195, Six and one-half pounds of wool per head is bet- 
 ter than the average clip of the past, though the average is rapidly increasing be- 
 cause of the better grading of our flocks. This gives ua 13,000 pounds of wool, pro- 
 duced at a cost of $2,200, or very nearly 17 cents per pound. 
 
 This is the cost of the wool at the Colorado ranch; to get it sold at the sea-board re- 
 quires an additional expenditure of about 5 cents per pound. Every year previous to 
 this, I think, it has cost me not less than 2| cents for freight, the commission is 1 cent 
 per pound; storage, drayage, insurance, and interest on advance made by the com- 
 mission men usuaily raises these expenses to 5 cents per pound. Our wool then costs 
 sold at the seaboard 22 cents per pound. In a rough way 3 pounds of our wool 
 in the dirt and grease is reckoned as equivalent to 1 pound scoured. Our wools 
 scoured costs about 66 cents at the sea-hoard. 
 
 Suppose we allow the usual interest of 10 per cent, on our plants, the interest wn 
 have to pay, except where we pay more, thus would raise the coat of running such a 
 business to $3,200, as our plants coat us about $10,000. This would raise the cost nf 
 the wool in Colorado to nearly 25 cents; sold, at the seaboard, to nearly 30 cents, and 
 scoured to nearly 90 cents. 
 
184 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 We can not care for onr sheep as they ought to be anil secure anything for a rainy- 
 day at much less than 20 cents net. Every one is dcsirons — even the wool-grower 
 desires — to be put in the way of recovery in case of contingencies that may arise. 
 Some say, yon have free range and often no winter — you ouglit to be able to compete 
 with the world. We have other things free besides, among them free blizzards, free 
 hail-storms, free sleet-storms, lambing time, free prairie fires, fiee sand-storms to scat- 
 ter sheep even in summer time, free wolves, wild cats, and in places free bears and 
 mountain lions, herders, who are freest of all, free diseases, lilse scab and grub iu the 
 head. Sh^ll I explain some of these things more precisely ? 
 
 I am here to-day, not Mr. Wight, of Trinidad, who was clio.scn to come. I quote 
 from his letter written November 20 in reply to one written October 31, and less than 
 three days distant from his home, condensing and omitting, yet only to get precisely 
 ■what is wanted: "I had gone to the ranch before yours of the 31st came to hand; 
 h.ave been snowed in on the ranch ever since ; got home yesterday. Had one of the 
 worst blizzards the country ever experienced. Had twenty-five horses frozen to 
 death, and their herder. Loss in sheep so far nothing; but if winter continues 
 severe losses will bo heavy. My business requires my personal attention." One 
 day several years ago I saw a dense, black smoke across the river from my ranch 
 and lower down. When fully explained, it amounted to this: The prairie caught 
 flre, the wind was blowing strong, a flock of sheep in the path of the elements was 
 unable to escape them. Fifteen hundred sheep lay dead and died because their 
 mouths were so sore they could not eat. 
 
 A clond bursting at night near a corral in which sheep were penned for the night, 
 before the sides of the corral could be torn away or the sheep otherwise removed a 
 large proportion of three thou.sand were drowned. One summer's day a hail-storm 
 pa.ssed, stones of enormous size fell; one was weighed that weighed nearly sixteen 
 ounces. Roofs were broken ; boards splintered; one hor.se had his skull broken ; one 
 flock of sheep left a pile of tifty dead, and lost in all, in consequence of that storm, 
 one hundred and twenty. A winter's blizzard drove a flock of sheep over a railroad 
 embankment. Eighty dead were taken out afterwards. My own flock in seven 
 years has failed of reaching their corral at night three times; twice be.'sides would 
 have failed except for timely aid. Once they were lost in about a foot of snow, and 
 found 5 miles away. They were away that time six days. Had the wolves found 
 them mauy ofthem would have been away forever. Two lambing seasons I have 
 seen storms, lasting three days, in which scarcely a lamb dropped was saved except 
 where unusually sheltered. 
 
 I think now that a few facts will enable you to judge at once what must be the 
 present condition of the business in that country. Wool was sold iu Colorado this 
 year at l.'> and 16 cents, last year from 11 to 14 cents, the year before at about 15 
 cents. You can see that the interest on our investment has been a minus quantity. 
 That most of us have h.ad to support onr families on less than $1,000. Other facts 
 only add to the emphasis of these statements. There is hardly a man in the sheep 
 business to-day who for the last six years has been dependent ujion his flock for a 
 living. There have not been anj' important improvements made by such an one, ao 
 far as I know, in as many years, ill other sheep than the merinos have been forced 
 from the field, with only here and there an exception, in favor of tbe mutton breeds. 
 
 Ten years ago the coarse-wooled American sheep were abundant. The low duty 
 on carpet wool has driven them all from the field. They were the poor man's sheep, 
 good rustlers, good mothers, and prolific. They were the sheep for jdain lands where 
 there was no chance to put up hay for winter. Cut when 4-pound fleeces had to sell 
 at 10 cents per pound this breed of sheep had to go. One of the flocks of sheep nearest 
 me was held all through the fall and early winter, three or four winters ago, at $1 per 
 he,ad. As the spring opened they were sold at $1.65 per head. The wool on their 
 backs and the lambs to be expected from them would pay for them. But they were 
 not wanted. Many of us for years have continued in the business because we could 
 not get out of it whole. 
 
 An ex-presldent of our association said iu our last meeting that some of his neigh- 
 bors in the last Presidential canvass bantered him to bet on the election. Just be- 
 fore the election I told one o£ them, said he, that I was ready. "You have 25,000 
 sheep and so have I. If Mr. Cleveland is electeil you may have my sheep, provided 
 yon will surrender yours to me if Mr. Harrison is elected." He remarked in explana- 
 tion that he did not consider that be risked anything, but if he gained he gained the 
 whole. It Mr. Cleveland should be re-elected, he said, he did not consider his sheep 
 of any value. I tell you, gentlemen, thi; majority of us felt that in the last Presi- 
 dential election evciy dollar invested in sheep was staked upon the issue. 
 
 So far as I have been able to learn, .sheep raising in Neliraska and some adjoining 
 States is a thing of the ]ia,st. Sheep .are .still fed there in large numbers, but they are 
 not kept there as stock slice]!. A few years ago their docks were numerous. In 
 C'ohtradii IIm'. larger owners have reduced their unndK'rs in every possible way, many 
 of the snuiller owiu'.rs have bec^n forced out, all of us have gone through the last po- 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 185 
 
 litical change that they care to -with sheep on their liands. Others may step in, but 
 many of the older members of the fraternity h.ive had enough. 
 
 There are hundreds of thousands of acres of plain lands in Colorado that are now 
 vacant or soon will he. Some of it h.as been taken tip by ■wonld-be settlers, but the 
 rain supply is insufficient. The rauge-cattle business is doomed if for no other rea- 
 son because the watering places ha-ve nearly all been secured by individuals and 
 fenced. It requires three or four acres of this land to support one sheep, tliirty or 
 forty to support a cow or horse. It is good for nothing except for grazing until it 
 can be irrio-ated. Much of it can never bo irrigated. Refuse to protect the wool- 
 grower and much of this land will soon be given up, where it is not now, to the 
 coyote and prairie dog, to the jack rabbit and antelope. 
 
 i am at home in matters connected with the conduct of our business on the plains. 
 With other matters that will come uj) for discussion before you I know less. But in 
 this wool men are agreed ; that is, we must have reliefer go to the wall. It is as 
 general an opinion that manufacturers need protection as well as we, and we \yant 
 them to have it. 
 
 Mr. Bayjn'I!. How much does it cost to transport that wool to Boston ? 
 
 Mr. GiBBS. Two and a half cents. For years it has generally been higher than that. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. And the wool you sell at 11 or 12 cents a pound could be delivered at 
 Boston for about 13^ or 14 cents per pound ? 
 
 Mr. GiBBS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I want to talk to you a little about that weather yon have out there. 
 Is this actually true about the weather that you have stated ? 
 
 Mr. GiBBS. I have been there for ten years, and I ought to know about it. 
 
 Mr. Flowek. I have been there two or three times, and they give it a different 
 color, and say it is the only place in the world where consumption can be cured. 
 
 Mr. GiBBS. I will tell you in reference to that that you may bo there for three hun- 
 dred days in the year, and there is hardly a cloud to be seen from one end of it to the 
 other, but we have these blizzards all the same. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I found that out in Denver, but the inhabitants told me they never 
 had one before. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. E. N. BISSELL. 
 
 Mr. E. N. BisSELL, of Shoreham, Vt., next addressed the committee. 
 
 The Chairman. VVhat is your occupation ? 
 
 Mr. BissELL. I am a farmer. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. By the request of Hon. Columbus 
 Delano, president of the National Wool Growers' Association, I address you on the 
 cost of foreign wools comjjeting with American productions in American ports, and 
 shall confine my statements to New South Wales, Australia. I take this colouy, as 
 I am more conversant with this by personal observation and interviews with promi- 
 nent wool-growers that reside there. My personal observations were made in 1883, 
 my last interview was with Mr. Samuel McCanghey, of Connoug, Urana, New South 
 Wales, who visited Vermont in 1887 and 1888, and who made his headquarters at my 
 home when purchasing merino sheep to ship to Australia. His home farm is located 
 400 miles from Sydney. He owns 1,200,000 sheep, which graze on 3, .500,000 acres of 
 land ; 2,000,000 acres he owns, and 1,. 500,000 he rents of the government at 2 cents 
 per acre, the lease runmng in some instances thirty-five years, and all permanent 
 improvements made by him on this rented land is paid for by the government. 
 He estimates that on an average it takes 3 acres of land t« keep a sheep one year ; 
 and as they have no frost or snow during the year they require no hay or grain, and 
 his farm being inclosed in paddocks or fields containing 1,0U0 to 2,000 acres, he re- 
 quires no shepherd to herd his flocks. Mr. McCangliey has at different times in the 
 years past hired others to keep sheep for him, and paying i) cents per head for one 
 year's keeping; and at this price he claims that the person keeping the sheep clears 
 3 cents a head, as he rents the land of the government at 2 cents per acre, and it takes 
 oilly 3 acres to keep a sheep a year. Mr. McCanghey's sheep shear on an average 5 
 pounds per head, and it costs a trifle less than 2 cents per pound to grow wool in New 
 South Wales, when you hire them kept, or a trifle over 1 cent when kept on rented 
 land. The cost of transporting wool from Coonong to Sydney by rail is one-half cent 
 per pound. From Sydney to New York or Boston by sailing vessels the freight is 1 
 cent per pound, and by steamer from Sydney to San Francisco, and thence by rail to 
 our Atlantic sea-ports, costs 3 cents per pound, making the total cost of growing and 
 transporting wool a trifle less than .5 cents per pound. Of course this does not cover 
 the original cost of the sheep, shearing or baling the wool, wliich will not vary nnich 
 from what it would cost here. 
 
 With these plain facts I think it will need no argument on my part to convince 
 you that any lower duties on wool would bo ruinous to the wool-growing iudustrj' of 
 this country. 
 
186 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Mr. Bissell, you have sheep in Vermont? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. Yes sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. A good many of them ? 
 
 Mr. BissKLL. No, sir; not a large fiock, bnt a small flock of about two hundred. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How many sheep to the acre do yon average? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. I keep other stock. I have about sixty head of cattle and I have 
 about ten horses. I have four hundred acres, but I do not keep to the full extent of 
 the farm. 
 
 Mr. Bay'ne. How many sheep have you ? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. About two hundred. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Your farm in Vermont can supply more, probably, than lands in New 
 South Wales? 
 
 Mr. Bis.siKLL. Yes, sir; the land in New South Wales takes 3 acres to keep a sheep, 
 and the reason is the grass is cured during the wet season so as to stand during the 
 drought. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. So the conditions here in our country are more favorable than in New 
 South Wales? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. No ; I claim New South Wales is the best sheep country I ever saw 
 in my life. The land can be rented for 2 cents an acre from the government, and 
 there is no feeding of hay. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN.' The climate here, the winter, is against you ? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. Very much, as Ave have to feed six months of the year. 
 
 Mr. M(;MiixiN. There tliey do not feed at all ? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. No, sir; they do not even salt the sheep. They have a salt plant 
 there. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. They are even supplied with salt 1 
 
 Mr. Bissell. Yes, sir ; I call it a .salt plant ; I do not know the name for it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You were asked about your farm. Do you keep your sheep for 
 wool exclusively, or for selling the lambs, or selling the sheep for mutton or for 
 breeding purposes? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. My sheep are for breeding purposes. It is a stud flock. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. This is a flock to supply blood to other flocks. 
 
 Mr. Bissell. Y'es, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What do you sell your sheep at when ready for exporting? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. Until the last four years my trade has been the home trade, virtually, 
 but within the last four years my trade has been with Australia. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What do you sell for export ? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. From the Is't of .Inly, 1^87, to the 1st of April, 1888, I sold ninety- 
 nine to foreign trade. South America and Australia, amounting to $(i,280. For that 
 ninety-nine head it was a good deal lower price than I used to sell to tbe home trade. 
 I had sold my surplus sheep a,t .ftSo a head, but that was about 1883 or 1884. To-day 
 there is a good trade, but not quite as high an average. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinridge. You consider your principal business is the raising of sheep for 
 breeding purposes ? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What do you consider your competing country in this line of 
 business? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. There is no competing country. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is not Canada your competing country ? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. No, sir; they have no fine wools in Canada at all. They raise coarse 
 wools, and they do not compete with mine. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is not Spain a competing country in breeding sheep ? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. No, sir ; our sheep originated in Spain, but they are better sheep now 
 than those imported from Spain. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Neither England, France, nor Germany ? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I understand you to say this is the only country raising iine- 
 grade sheeji for breeding purposes? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. No ; they have finer wools in Germany, but they are not desirable 
 for crossing in Australia. The result of crossing the merino rams with Australian 
 ewes has been that without injuring the quality of the ewe it has increased the 
 weight. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. This is rather more in detail than my que.stion looked to. 
 My point is simply, do the South American people buy breeding rams from any other 
 country except America? 
 
 Mr. Bi.ssELL. YcH, sir ; from France and Germany. 
 
 Mr. BRECKiNiiiixiE. Then Franco and Germany are competitors with us forthe 
 raising cif sheep lor breeding purposes ? 
 
 Mr. iiissELL. Yes, sir. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 187 
 
 Mr. Breckinridgk. Do you oonaider tliey are more favorably situated for raising 
 breeding sheep than we are 1 
 
 Mr. BisSBLL. No ; they are raising a different class of -wool from what we are rais- 
 ing; that is, in regard to stud purposes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. So that they do not compete in your cla.ss? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Your breeding sheep are on the free list 
 
 Mr. Bissbll. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You have no protection on your main business at all ? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You are not asking for any ? 
 
 Mr. Bissbll. No, sir; not on live animals any more than we have now. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What does the fleece on your wool weigh per sheep ? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. They have averaged as high as 18 pounds, and in the last two or 
 three years back it has dropped to 16. I have not kept them as well as I used to. 
 Mr. Burrows. How do you send your sheep to Australia? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. By way of London. When I first began ehipiiing them I sent them 
 by way ot London. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. How do yon now 1 
 
 Mr. Bissell. By way of London. They are quarantined. They require .all stock 
 to be shipped from the port of London. They are inspected by the veterinary .'iiir- 
 geon, who examines the stock in Loudon to see if they are .all right. If not they are 
 slaughtered without compousation to the owner. When they arrive at Australia 
 they are quarantined for three months, and if they are not satisfactory they are there 
 slaughtered without compensation to the owner. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. I gather from what you .say that you have been in Australia ? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. You say wool can be produced in Australia aud shipped to this 
 country at 5 cents per pound ? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. To what market ? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. Boston, New York, or any Atlantic sea-port. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How is that * 
 
 Mr. Blssell. That is taking it at 3 cents a pound if it is shipped by sailing vessel. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. State if you can the total amount of wool imported. 
 
 Mr. Bissell. I am not acquainted with the statistics at all. I do not keep posted 
 on that subject. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Anybody can go to Australia and u,se Land ? 
 
 Mr. Bissbll. They can go there nnder the ([uarautine regulations. 
 
 Mr. Gear. But you could go there and lease the lands ? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The government will permit that I 
 
 Mr. Bissell. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Where do you buy your sheep — from whom in Austr.alia ? 
 
 Mr. Bissbll. I take sheep to sell there ; I do not buy there. But I can buy the 
 average grade of sheep there at $1 a head cheaper than here. But for our ])urpose, 
 the breetling purpose, of course these are stud flocks, aud it would make a difference. 
 
 The Chairman. How about fencing there ? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. The fencing is done mostly with wire fence ai;d iron posts. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is the quality of that wool ? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. It is fine in New South Wales. In Queensland thoy have mostly 
 the coarse wool. Victoria and Tasmania have fine wool aiid New Zealand has 
 coarse. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. They take your sheep ajd increase the weight in order to main- 
 tain the business. 
 
 Mr. Bissell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What does that grade of wool sell for in this market F 
 
 Mr. Bissell. I do not know exactly. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is your last observation made concerning it? I want to got 
 at about the price. 
 
 Mr. Bissell. Yon could get it better from wool dealers than from me, as I am not 
 posted. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You do not know what rate of duty it would t.ake to kee]) up 
 the present prices, provided that you assume the imposition of a tax won d enhance 
 the price? 
 
 Mr. Bissell. I do not know that I ex.actly understand your question. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I asked yon if yon knew what rate of duty would keep wool 
 at its present price in this country at the rate you have quoted, imported at the fig- 
 ures you have given the committee. 
 
188 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. BissELL. I can not tell ; it lias been depressed generally up to this present year. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You liiive omitted some items of cost. Will you supply them? 
 
 Mr. BissELL. I c.iu supply the cost of shearing sheep there. The average price is 
 fi cents a head for shearing. Thoy are not particular there about shearing the sheep 
 close. They say, "What wool we leave this year we will get the next." Conse- 
 quently they rarely shear tiieni smooth. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. I move we adjourn until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. 
 
 Tlie motion was agreed to, and thereiipon the committee adjourned until Friday, 
 January 3, at 10 a. m. ' 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 IMdaji, January 3, 1890. 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 STATEMENT OP HON. THOMAS H. CARTER. 
 
 Hon. Thomas H. Carter, a Representative from the State of Montana, next ad- 
 dressed the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee : I note with pleasure the presence 
 of niauj' persons qualitied by special study and practical experience to furnish tie 
 comnjittee with accurate data concerning sheep husbandry and tlie conditions neces- 
 sary to its succes.sfui prosecution in this country. Not feeling thus thoroughly 
 equipped, personally, I will at least have the merit of being brief, and will confine 
 my reinarlcH to the special locality from which I come. 
 
 The Rocky Mountain country, and p<artioularly the easterly slope of that chain of 
 mountains, is probably as well adajited to sheep husbandry, from the northern to the 
 .southern boundary of the United States as any section of country in the world. 
 There is a combination of favorable conditions there not ordinarily found. The 
 foot rot is not known in that high and dry country; the scab when imported is 
 very readily exterminated, so that our flocks are healthy, and the flock masters as a 
 rule have been successful and progressive. About one year ago, or probably it would 
 be fairer to state two years ago, we had some practical experience in the effects 
 which would follow a serious reduction in the tariff on wool. At the time the meas- 
 ure was pending before the House of Representatives to place wool upon the free list 
 our sheep men became apprehensive that the measure might become a law in so far 
 as wool was concerned; and the price of wool depreciating gave strength to this ap- 
 prehension, and in conseqnence many of the wool-growers of that country sold their 
 flocks at ruinous figures in some cases, and the sheep husbandry of Montana and that 
 Rocky Mountain country received a very serious setback. The better prices in the 
 last market season, however, gave renewed hope, and the industry is progressing 
 there again. The competition apprehended by the people of that country is one 
 which we could not meet successfully. 
 
 The best data we have been able to obtain indicates that the Australian can main- 
 tain his flocks at an average annual cost of about 9 cents per head, and the cheap 
 labor in Australia will average probably, at a high estimate, |7 per mouth per man. 
 I have heard it stated that this was an overestimate of the wages of that couutry; 
 but accepting this high estimate, together with the freight rates from Sydney to Bos- 
 ton and other points, it is instructive to compare the competition which free impor- 
 tation of wool would present to the people of the Rocky Mountain country. We pay 
 sheep herders .^ii.'iper mouth, and in many cases as high as |50 per month, bntlsetdown 
 $'i^^ as a reasonable average. Owing to the severity of the climate during certain sea- 
 sons of the year, one herder can not possibly care for more than two thousand sheep. 
 That is a very large flock for one man to handle. Further still, the climatic conditions 
 there existing require to be put up in the summer season hay sufficient to feed the 
 flock for at least three months in the winter. It is not always necessary to feed them 
 three months, but prudence dictates a preparation for that length of severe weather. 
 In addition to the pay of the herder the flock owner is compelled to hoard him. Heis 
 compelled in addition to pay for the shearing of the sheep. The interest on his money 
 invi'sted in the flock will average at least Ici per cent, in that country. Repairs and 
 use, of sheds constitute an item, while the driving or hauling of the wool from the 
 sheds to the station and the shipping of it is another. I have made some figures upon 
 the expense annually under the conditions there existing of a single flock of two 
 thou.sand head of sheep, not taking into consideration at all the value of the time of 
 the lloek owner. Herder's wages, at $'.^5 per nuuith, |420; his board, at an average 
 cost of Sir> per month, would be $180; 100 tons of hay put up, at an average cost of $5 
 per tiui, Ar.lKI; shearing 2,000 head of sheep, at an ave,r;i.ge cost of 7 cents per head, 
 would be $110; the t.axes, which average about 20 mills in that country, on the val- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 189 
 
 nation of $1.50 per head, whieh is the average in reference to sheep, would make the 
 taxes $60 ; iutereat on $13,000 (the value of 2,(J00 sheep iu that market), would be |000 
 ))er annum ; repairs and use of sheds would be at least $150 per aunum ; niarketiug 
 the wool would be at least $60. In addition there are various incidental expenses 
 connected with the prosecution of that Class of enterprise too numerous to give iu 
 detail, but which still in the aggregate make a considerable sum annually. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What does it aggregate ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. It aggregates about |'2,100 of cash outlay per annum. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. That includes interest on the money ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. That includes interest on the money at 10 per cent. This does not, 
 however, include the time of the individual owner of the flock. It will be seen from 
 this statement the expense, and I have endeavored to keep within the limit of a fair 
 average, it will be observed, I suggest, that uuless we have freight and other con- 
 ditions in our favor we can not compete on existing terms with the wool-grower of 
 Australia, who can maintain his flock at 9 cents a head per annum. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. In that 9 cents you have not embraced interest charges ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Noi- marketing ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. No, sir. I understand shearing is in addition to the 9 cents a head; 
 which will make 2 cents per head for shearing. That would place the Australian 
 wool in a marketable condition. It will be observed in the calculation here made I 
 add $60 for merketing the jiroduction, that is, hauling it to the railway station. 
 Having arrived at that point, I find from the published wool schedules of the North- 
 em Pacific and the St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Railways that we pay on 
 wool iu sacks, unoomj>ressed, at a minimum of 10,000 pounds from points in Montana, 
 taking Great Falls, which is about the center east and west of the wool producing 
 district of that Rocky Mountain country, |2 per hundred to Boston and common 
 points. Wool compressed would be $1.60. That would be a fair average from the 
 State of Montana. From the best sources of information at my command I have as- 
 certained that the rate from Sj duey, New South Wales, to Boston by sailing vessel 
 is 1 cent per pound, or $1 per hundred, and the freight has been as low as 85 cents 
 per hundred pounds from that point. It is probable that the rate from South Amer- 
 ican ports is lower, as the distance is much less, and the same mode of transportation 
 is available. I have not beeu able to procure accurate figures concerning freight 
 rates from South American ports. 
 
 I submit to the committee that the apprehension which was generally entertained 
 by the wool-growers of oar country while the measure commonly known as the "Mills 
 bill" was pending before the House, was well founded in fact, and that the passage 
 that measure or the passage of any kindred measure seriously reducing the tarifl" 
 on wool would elfectually and absolutely drive the people of our section of the United 
 States entirely out of the wool-growing industry. We have 3,000,000 head of sheep 
 in Montana, employing a considerable population and yielding under conditions which 
 give us 20 cents per pound for wool, a very fair remuneration to the individuals en- 
 gaged in that business and the capital invested. The remuneration, however, to 
 capital and labor is not extravagant, nor is it of such a character as will suffer a serious 
 reduction. The conditions that have heretofore existed have resulted in the building 
 up of that branch of industry in our country, and we are extremely solicitous that the 
 prosecution of this industry be not impaired, aud we know that any change of legis- 
 lation may injuriously atl'ect it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. While on the subject of capital involved there, do you not know 
 that the rate at which you have fixed the interest is above that which the law allows 
 to betaken in a number of States of the Union — I mean the 10 per cent, alluded to? 
 
 Mr. Carter. Yes, sir ; I believe that is trne ; I know it to be true ; but in Montana 
 parties may by contract designate any rate of interest. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You have estimated the capital invested in 2,000 sheep at $6,000, 
 which is $3 per head. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is that the average price of sheep in your country ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. That is about the average price. We sell with reference to the mut- 
 ton market at less than that sometimes. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What would be the average number of pounds of wool taken from 
 2,000 sheep in a year ? 
 Mr. Carter. Ten thousand pounds would be a fair average. 
 Mr. Carlisle. And for that you get 20 cents a pound ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. No, sir; we have not received that of late years; but "we received 
 somewhat more than 20 cents a pound last year. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Taking one year with another, what would be the average, say for 
 five years? Of course it is like wheat and corn aud everything else; sometimes it is 
 higher aud sometimes it is lower. 
 Mr, Carter, I am uot couversaut with the average fo;- five years past, as coudi- 
 
190 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 tions have been changing. I will explain the causes. Transportation in our country 
 by rail character is of recent date, and our sheep ranges have been more or less re- 
 mote from the railroad stations. The cost, therefore, of hauling by wagon to the 
 stations has frequently been as high as 1 cent per pound; but as railroads have been 
 coustructcd wagon freights have diminished. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is it usually sold at the station after being transported by the pro- 
 ducer himself or u.sually sold at the actual place of production? 
 
 Mr. Carter. It is usually sold at the station. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. To whom? 
 
 Mr. Carter. To the agents of the Eastern brokers and manufacturers. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do not these agents visit the ranges themselves and make the pur- 
 chases there? 
 
 Mr. Carter. They undertake to do that. They travel through the country. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are not the purchases contingent upon delivery at the station? 
 
 Mr. Carter. Yes, sir; in nearly all case.s. I will explain, Mr. Carlisle, that the 
 sheep are sometimes driven to the station and sheared at that point, and then driven 
 back to the range again. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. From your information, has the price of wool to the producer in 
 Montana during the last five years averaged 20 cents a pound ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. Yes, sir ; probably ; but I do not so state, as I have not carefully ex- 
 amined the average. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If it yielded 20 cents a pound then the income to the producer from 
 his wool would be $2,0"00 on 10,000 pounds, would it not ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. Y'es, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Yet, according to your statement, the expenses of a flock of 2,000 
 sheep, including nothing for the time of the owner and nothing for the incidental ex- 
 penses to which you referred, and which you could not enumerate, amount, according 
 to my addition, to 5;'2,140. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Yes, sir ; I think it amounts to more than that. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Then the meaning of your statement is the wool industry is not a 
 profitable one in Montana. 
 
 Mr. Carter. The wool industry, if dependent entirely upon the proceeds of wool 
 clipped, could not be maintained. We depeud upon the increase of the flock for com- 
 pensation to the flockmaster. The combined result of wool clips and increase of the 
 flock indicate total proceeds. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. We are looking now to the duty on wool alone. It does not pay to 
 produce sheep in Montana for tlie wool alone ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. I think not. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Have you a market for the lambs there? 
 
 Mr. Carter. There is a limited market for lambs, which are sold to butchers for 
 home consumption for the limited population around the mining camps. The exact 
 jirices I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Flower. They do not kill many of them, because they wish to keep the 
 flocks increasing ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. No, sir. The only heep we market are mutton — wether sheep. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The local demand for mutton is very limited? 
 
 Mr. Carter. Yes, sir; but we ship to Eastern markets. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. As the population is sparse ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. The population is sparse, and the flocks are distant from the centers 
 of population. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. They are distant from the cities? 
 
 Mr. Carter. They are sold to butchers as a rule at Helena, Butte, and other towns 
 and cities, and the butchers usually keep a small flock in the vicinity of the market 
 place. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Are you actually engaged yourself in producing wool? 
 
 Mr. Carter. No, sir. I have had considerable experience in the management of 
 the kind of business under consideration, as I have been a .stockholder in sheep com- 
 panirs tu some extent. T have had personal knowledge of a management of a band 
 of 20,000 head of sheep on one range in our country. In that case under the most 
 favorable conditions that I have known in Montana, where the sheep were pur- 
 chased at reasonable prices, with hay available in any abundance and sheds already 
 constructed, capital without any jiractical limit, the owner with an experience of 
 something over five years, this last season sold his entire flock of sheep with the 
 excei)tion of a few tlioiisaud and invested his money in cattle, finding that the sheep 
 business was not as profitable a line of business as the cattle-raising. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you not know that in every locality the people are going out of 
 the cattle business and into the sheep business? 
 
 Mr. Carter. That Las been in the last six or eight months. As I have heretofore 
 suggested, the price of wool has incnnised with the coufidonce of the country that 
 the present tarifl' duties will not be changed. 
 
KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 191 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you know the present price of the class of wool you produce iu 
 Moutana ? 
 
 Mr. Cartkk. I am not familiar with the present quotations in Montana; but I 
 will state that the prices received there ranged from 19 to 23 cents a pound last year. 
 Mr. Carlisle. Will you tell the committee whether these ranges are owned by the 
 company who own the sheep ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. The sheep men of Montana usually locate under the homestead, pre- 
 emption, or desert-laud law, what is known as a home ranch, which is about 160, 
 and sometimes it reaches as much as 640 acres. The larger tract is taken up under 
 what is known as the desert-laud law. That piece of land is selected with speoial 
 reference to its hay-producing quality. 
 Mr. Carlisle. And water? 
 
 Mr. Carter. Yes ; and water in the vicinity as well as the shelter of the locality. 
 The land-holding is limited so far as the actual ownership is concerned. 
 Mr. Carlisle. And they have free range from there ? 
 Mr. Carter. Yes, sir; free as the summer air. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It is entirely free. Now, I understand you to say with this free 
 range, which costs nothing, except the homestead, whatever that may cost, with an 
 average price of 20 cents a pound in the last four years, does not compensate the 
 wool grower. 
 Mr. Carter. No, sir. The wool clip alone has not paid a profit on the investment. 
 Mr. Carlisle. Now, if you take out entirely the |450 which you pay to the herder — 
 suppose that costs nothing ; that you do not pay the herder — and the whole cost of 
 shearing the sheep, could you still compete with the Australian wool-producer? 
 
 Mr. Carter. The individual who could send out his boys to herd the sheejj and in- 
 duce his wife to assist in shearing, practically doing .all the work necessary, conld, 
 of course, compete with any condition of affairs that would permit him to get asntH- 
 cient amount of flour to make bread to eat with his mutton ; but he would not do 
 that for the reason that an individual is not ordinarily willing to have his wife work 
 in sheep shearing. His sons could be more profitably employed, and he himself could 
 procure employment at other occupations that give him a fair remuneration. 
 • Mr. Carlisle. Of course I am not expecting that to be done. I am trying to tind 
 out what it is that prevents the sheep industry from lieing a profitable one to the 
 wool-grower in Montana. I want to know whether this labor cost of |450 a year for 
 the herder, and that which you pay for shearing over and above what is paid else- 
 where, or something less, which constitutes the difficulty in your way ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. It is a complication of causes and existing conditions which prevent 
 it. The labor is one of the causes of considerable significance. 
 Mr. Carlisle. Leave that out entirely. 
 
 Mr. Carter. The cost of living constitutes an item of significance, inasmuch as |15 
 per month for the actual supply sent to the herder is greater than would occur for a 
 man in South America. 
 Mr. Carlisle. Then your shedding. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Shedding is rendered necessary by the occasional storms of great 
 severity which sweep over that country. Then there is the fact of having to cut 
 hay. 
 Mr. Carlisle. Now, no tariff can remedy that, however high it may be. 
 Mr. Carter. I think it could. No law can operate to remove some of these causes. 
 For instance, it can not temper the climate or " temper the wind to the shorn lamb." 
 Mr. Carlisle. Nor can it get rid of the hay and sheds. 
 
 Mr. Carter. No, sir ; but it can reduce the price of putting up the hay. It will 
 induce increase of population and extension of the industry to such proportions as to 
 supply our domestic consumption and reduce the cost on an American scale of com- 
 petition. 
 Mr. Carlisle. How? 
 
 Mr. Carter. By a reduction of the cost of labor and living simultaneously. 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you think the tariff will reduce the cost of labor? 
 Mr. Carter. No, sir; I do not think it will reduce it, as the cost of labor in our 
 sparsely settled country is much in excess of the labor cost prevailing in a more 
 thickly populated section of the country, but with increase of population and produc- 
 tion in all branches of industry, the cost of labor and living will decrease. 
 Mr. Carlisle. I have no doubt of that. 
 
 Mr. Carter. We hope to have an additional population and greater diversity of 
 occupations. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. And when an additional population comes into that country, it 
 will be on account of the cultivation of this soil, which in a measure will diminish 
 these sheep ranges. 
 
 Mr. Carter. I beg pardon, however, for this suggestion. Our country is so re- 
 fflpte frojjj tJie sea-board that agriculturists will be at all times, I apprehend, depend- 
 
192 KKVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 ent upon tbe home market created by tire increase of population in the mining camps 
 along the mountains. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. For what ? 
 
 Mr. Caeter. For market for our wheat and potatoe.s and all the cereals raised in a 
 farming country. Until that j)opulation shall have been settled in these monntaius 
 ■we can not depend on the ordinary farming enterprise there. As a source of production 
 for export from the State, agriculture does not engage our attention. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Have not you got irrigation upon all the lands iu the cultivation of 
 crops of wheat, corn, and rye and whatever agriculture is produced ? Will not in- 
 evitably higher forms of cultivation take the place of tbe sheep industry? 
 
 Mr. Carter. It will. At present the herds are very large, and in some instances 
 controlled by a combination of capital. The number of shee]) will continue to in- 
 crease in that country under favorable conditions as the population of the, country 
 increases and the number of farms increase. Grazing land will be abundant after all 
 arable land is cultivated. That will be readily comprehended when I suggest that 
 approximately only about oue-fifth of the surface of the 146,000 square miles of 
 country within the limits of that State is considered capable of cultivation and raising 
 agricultural crops. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is the lowest altitude? 
 
 Mr. Carter. It will run down to 2,000 feet. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is the highest ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. On the mountain tops probably 6,000 feet. 
 
 Mr. Flower. And Helena itself? 
 
 Mr. C.vRTER. Forty-two hundred feet above sea-level. The average altitude will 
 range about 2,500 feet above sea-level. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Have you finished that statement ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. I was going to say, in view of the fact that only aliout one-fifth of the 
 surface can be successfully cultivated, leaving four-fifths for the range, it follows 
 that every farmer settling upon the one-fifth arable lands will desire to the fullest 
 possible extent a portion of the four-fifths remaining outside for stock range, and he 
 "will thprefore confine himself to the sheep industry largely. Cattle are now owned 
 by every farmer in Montana. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How much of the four-fifths which you spoke of as fit only for range 
 is unfit even for sheep raising 1 
 
 Mr. Carter. Not to exceed one-tenth part of the entire surface of the country is 
 unfit for grazing. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Four-fifths is not fit for cultivating and one-tenth of the whole is 
 unfit for ranging ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. That is upon the very top of the mountains, the sides aud the sum- 
 mits. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You have stated the point I was trying to get at. Would it be more 
 trouble for a man who cultivates a farm to produce wool from the sheep in connec- 
 tion with his other productions than it is for a man who has nothing but sheep on a 
 range ? Can not ho do it at loss relative cost to himself? 
 
 , Mr. Carter. I do not feel able without calculation and a good deal of reflection 
 to answer that question. 1 believe that making the growing, shipping, aud hauling 
 of wool a mere incident to agriculture might make the cost or the loss less perceptible, 
 and as giving greater variety to employment on the farm sheep raising would be prof- 
 itable and desirable. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That is to say, when this arable land is all settled, will not the peo- 
 ple be compelled to invest money not only in sheep, but in the land itself, of which 
 they now have the free use ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. It is quite probable. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. So yon have uot taken that into consideration in showing what the 
 future of sheep raising must inevitably be in that country ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. Under tlie present laws much of the surface of Montana can never 
 be regularly taken up in good faith and title acquired by individuals. Title to much 
 of the four-fiftlis of the surface to which I have referred will, under existing laws, 
 remain vested in the Government. 
 
 Mr. Cakli.sle. It can be taken now under the desert land law. 
 
 Mr. Carter. It can be taken, but tbe title can not be acquired, for the reason 
 water can not be placed upon the laud. It can not be taken under the desert laud law, 
 because the men can not get the water from the mountains to place upon the laud to 
 get it under cultivation. 
 
 Mr. Cahlislk. If the water can not be obtained, is it fit for grazing purposes. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Most assuredly. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. In connection with other portions where there is water ? 
 
 Mr. CAitncR. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carli.slio. Suii[iose people come along aud take uji all the laud under the laW 
 whove thy waturia, theu what ia to becowe of that other laml? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 193 
 
 Mr. Cajiter. That will call for the exercise of the most careful statesmtmship. 
 We hope that we can manage this. 
 
 Mr. Caelislb. We are all suppoaed to be statesmen, and you are one of them, and 
 I want to get your opinion about it. 
 
 Mr. Carter. I think I could not justly plead guilty to the soft impeachment. I 
 think our State legislature will take the necessary steps in regard to the exigenay 
 of our situation and provide the proper remedies for the purpose of preventing a 
 monopoly of the banks of the streams by freeholders. 
 Mr. Carlisle. By passing some water-right iaws in regard to the same ? 
 Mr. Carter. By passing some laws by which herds may go backward and forward 
 to the streams. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Unless that four-fifths grazing land is utilized for grazing purposes 
 what use would it be good for ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. Unless it is so utilized the grass growing upon that land would be a 
 positive menace and detriment to the surrounding country, as it would furnish a me- 
 dium through which prairie fires would be communicated all overthe country, which 
 would be very destructive to the property of individuals. 
 Mr. Bayne. It would be lost? 
 Mr. Carter. Unquestionably an absolute loss. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you think the preservation of the wool industry in Montana is 
 important to the agricultural interests of that State ' 
 
 Mr. Carter. I regard it as a matter of great importance to the continuance of the 
 general prosperity of that State. 
 
 The CHAIK.MAJJ. Let me ask you, if youhadno tariff at all upon wool, what would be 
 the effect upon the wool produced in Montana? 
 Mr. Carter. The wool production would be absolutely destroyed there. 
 The Chairman. It would wipe you out. 
 Mr. Carter. Unquestionably. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Does the AuEtralian wool and the Montana wool grade the same ? 
 Mr. Carter. I think that the Montana wool is what in known as high-grade wool, 
 that is speaking in a general way. The sheep have been graded up there so that the 
 Merino blood prevails now throughout the State very generally. 
 Mr. Flower. Is that the same as the Australian ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. I think that the Australian clips are to some extent what is known 
 as gloss wool. That is a small proportion of the production of that country, how- 
 ever, and that does not come in competition with us. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is there any wool in Australia that does come in absolute competi- 
 tion with you. 
 Mr. Carter. Yes, sir ; I think the bulk of Australian wool. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Have you an English trade paper of last year from which you could 
 state ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. I have not. I believe I would prefer to have some gentleman here 
 present who has made a special study of that question to answer it with the informa- 
 tion here given that the production of Montana is chiefly Merino wool. 
 
 Mr. Flower. One question more. You stated a new point, that Montana had con- 
 ditions for raising wool which were equal to any in the country. This is simply a 
 Western phrase as compared with Australia ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. I do not wish to be so understood. I will say this, that the health 
 of the flock is such that many of the couditions which ordinarily harass sheep 
 husbandry are eliminated entirely. The dryness of the climate enables the herder 
 to pasture on the lands through all seasons of the year, unless when the snow 
 falls very heavily. The hay, known as bnuch grass, cures on the stalk, so that the 
 grass seemingly as dry as a chip in February is still as nutritious standing on the 
 ground as that cut the preceding August and stacked. 
 Mr. Flower. And your cattle feed along on that grass in the fall? 
 Mr. Carter. Our cattle will fatten on it. If this weather continues I will guaran- 
 tee the cattle owners can drive in beef steers in the month of March from the range. 
 Mr. Flower. Are you acquainted with the Eastern snows in the winter? 
 Mr. Carter. Yes, sir. 
 Mr. Flower. Your snow is different? 
 
 Mr. Carter. It is different in this, th.<v,t it is a much drier snow than that which 
 falls it this low altitude. The lightness of the snow causes it to blow away in the 
 high winds in the winter season and these flocks find the grass upon the ground. 
 Mr. Flower. They can put their noses in the snow and feed on the grass below. 
 Mr. Carter. We regard a moderate amount of snow upon the ranges as a positive 
 benefit in the winter for the reason the streams freeze over and the snow aflbrds 
 water to the flocks. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What per cent, of the sheep in Montana are now held upon 
 what is known as the ranch system ? 
 
 485 13 
 
194 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Carter. All of the sheep of Montana are held under that system, I beheve. 
 A ranch in Montana would be a farm in Illinois. We use that term indiscriminately 
 as applicable to all farms or agricultural holdings. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. Have you a very large number of farmers now who raise 
 sheep as a mere incident to farming, as in the older States ? 
 
 Mr. Carter. No, sir, not a very considerable number. The amount of attention 
 required to carefully look after a large flock of sheep seems to make that a special 
 industry. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckineidgb. As I understand you, substantially, the sheep of Montana are 
 in possession of those who make a business of sheep-raising ; do nothing else except 
 that which contributes to sheep-raising. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Other lines of business and agricult ural enterprises connected with 
 the ranch are merely incidental to the sheep-raising. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Instead of the sheep being incident to other business? 
 
 Mr. Carter. Yes ; only in course of time the reverse will be the fact. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Such, I believe, has always been the experieuce of our States. 
 What is the average size of the ranch in general terms — I speak of the number of 
 sheep? 
 
 Mr. Carter. The average number of sheep would probably run about two bands 
 — about four thousand. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The average number is about four thousand sheep to the 
 range? 
 
 Mr. Carter. Yes, sir. There are some ranges with a greater number, and some 
 few that have only two thousand, and some fifteen hundred. I will say that in our 
 country there is no line of business so readily engaged in as sheep-raising, for the 
 reason the large owners are extremely anxious to divide their large bands by giving 
 them to a prudent and careful man on shares, and the herder of this year becomes a 
 sheep owner next year. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are the owners of the sheep generally residents of the State 
 or non-residents? 
 
 Mr. Carter. They are generally residents of the State, and live at the home ranch. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is no other considerable amount of outside capital invested 
 by companies or corporations that conduct the sheeji and wool business there? 
 
 Mr. Carter. I know of very few non-residents of Montana who are thus engaged 
 there. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Could you let the reporter have these figures so he can verify them, 
 or furnish them to him afterwards? Figures are sometimes very hard to get accu- 
 rately. 
 
 Mr. Carter. These figures I have used are approximations merely, and the reporter 
 has taken them down. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. For the keep of your sheep, that is, so far as the wages of the 
 herdsmen go, if they were gratuitous do you believe the ranch business would be 
 profitable with any amount of protection. 
 
 Mr. Carter. I do not know to what extent contributions would have to be made 
 to the business to offset the protection. I doubt whether the mere contribution of 
 the herdsman's pay would be sufiScient, considering all the contingencies connected 
 with it. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. A. E. SHEPARD. 
 
 Mr. A. E. Shepaed, of Marathon, Tex., president of the Texas Wool-Growers' Asso- 
 ciation, next addressed the committee. 
 
 The Chairman. Please state your residence to the committee and your "business. 
 
 Jlr. Shepaed. I am a wool-grower of Texas. I live at Marathon, in Euchel County, 
 formerly called Presidio County. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the subject assigned me by the pres- 
 ident is our ability to produce carpet wools and the cost of raising wools in Texas. 
 
 These wools may be produced (1) in Texas and other Southern States; (2) in the Ter- 
 ritories and southern California; (3) from the belly, skirting, and breech wools, from all 
 the coarse-wool sheep; (4) from the quarter-blood sheep, and (5) from the inferior long- 
 wool sheep. 
 
 This will be proved by at least four sources of evidence: 
 
 (1) Ofiicial evidence. 
 
 (2) Evidence of publications devoted to the interests of wool manufacturers. 
 (3. Evidence of eminent wool-dealers. 
 
 (4) Evidence of practical wool-growers who testify from experience. 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIPF. 195 
 
 CAEPKT WOOLS, OUKABILITY TO GEOW THEM IN THE UNITED STATES, AND COST OF 
 PEODUOING WOOL IN TEXAS. 
 
 These wools are represented in the United States by the native Mexican sheep, or sim- 
 ilar native sheep and their crosses. 
 
 Our competitors in these wools are the growers of southern Russia, South America, 
 Turkey in Asia and Europe, the British East Indies, and small amounts from other coun- 
 tries. 
 
 I say most assuredly that with suflBcient protection the United States can produce a 
 sufficient quantity of carpet wools to supply the carpet demands of this country. The 
 area upon which carpet wools can be grown profitably is nearly as large as the entire por- 
 tion of the United States east of the Mississippi River, and consists of Texas, New Mex- 
 ico, Arizona, Utah, southern California, and southern Colorado. 
 
 The region mentioned is peculiarly adapted to the raising or management of the coarse- 
 wool (native) Mexican sheep, chiefly in immense herds; the topographical and climatic 
 conditions being similar to those of foreign countries where carpet wools are produced. 
 Perhaps there is no sheep in the world so prolific, and that have the maternal instinct 
 so strongly developed as the Mexican sheep. They can be made to quadruple in three 
 years. I, myself, have raised 21,000 grade sheep in five years from 3,000 Mexican ewes, 
 averaging as high as 90 per cent, increase in ordinary years, while at the same time I have 
 not been able to raise over 40 per cent, of fine merino sheep, with the same climate and 
 surroundings. The Mexican sheep are especially adapted to the arid plains and table- 
 lands of the country that I have described, it notbeing suitable to the raising of cattle or 
 other stock on account of its great lack of water. 
 
 To keep on in raising of carpet wools we should use the native Mexican ewes, with rams 
 from Missouri, Kentucky, orScotland, of theCotswold, Shropshire, or other Down breeds. 
 As a considerable portion of the region named can not be irrigated for cultivation, and 
 is not well adapted to merino or full-bred long-wooled sheep, it must be utilized to pro- 
 duce the carpet wools, or run to waste. 
 
 We also have a class of people along the border of the United States next to Mexico, 
 extending from the Mexican Gulf to the Pacific Ocean, who are chiefly Mexicans, and 
 they run their sheep in large herds in a primitive way, and do not have the ambition of 
 the Americans to increase the wool-producing qualities of their sheep, and some of them 
 have large numbers which would serve as a nucleus for an increase in the growing of 
 carpet wools if the proper protection was granted us, so that the capital invested and 
 the labor employed in raising of carpet wool would be equally remunerative as the 
 same amount of capital employed in the manufacturing of wool or in raising the finer 
 wools of Ohio and Pennsylvania. If we can have this protection there is no good reason 
 why we can not raise all the carpet wool needed in this country. I quote from a speech 
 made November II, 1889, by Hon. Willam Lawrence, who says: 
 
 "It is practicable under proper fostering influences, and within a few years at most, 
 to raise all the sheep and to produce substantially all the wool we need. We have the 
 lands awaiting occupation for this purpose. From Mexico to the British possessions, 
 from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean, are millions of acres that can be used for 
 no other purpose and will be idle, uninhabited wastes unless so utilized. " 
 
 He further says: ' ' But can we raise all the carpet wools we need ?" I answer ' ' Yes, 
 all we need; soon and very soon." In this I am fortified by abundant evidence. The 
 Bureau of Statistics, in a recent elaborate, able, and instructive report on wool, etc., quotes 
 from Mr. James Lynch, of New York, a recognized authority on wool statistics, this 
 declaration: "It may be said that the coarse wools from any section maybe used for 
 carpets." The same report quotes with approval the statement of the profound and 
 eminent statistician, J. R. Dodge, "that the carpet- wool product of the United States 
 is almost exclusively the fleece of the sheep of Mexican origin, which are raised chiefly 
 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and certain of the Territories of the mountain region 
 country situated between the Mississippi Valley and the Pacific slope." 
 
 A well-informed authority says: "Even for carpet purposes one of the largest manu- 
 facturers (of carpets) claims our wool to be the best (for carpets) and worth more intrinsi- 
 cally, but the d^naild for cheap carpets (in price, not in wear) prevents him using it." 
 He then proceeds to say that even for the purpose of making the cheap and inferior car- 
 pets for such demand as there is for them, that 5, 000,000 pounds of this (inferior foreign 
 carpet wool; no more) may be a necessity; all the balance should be and can be raised 
 here, 
 
 Texas had in 1884, 35,000,000 pounds of wool, and in 1887, 25,000,000 pounds, a 
 shrinkage of 10,000,000 pounds in these years, or two-sevenths of her entire clip. 
 
 Texas had in 1884, 7,500,000 sheep, but on January 1, 1889, only 4,659,451, a decrease 
 of 3,000,000 — a decrease of six-fifteenths in five years, and this maybe attributed to the 
 
196 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 disastrous efifects of the change to the tariff of 1883, and to the stupendous frauds in im- 
 portations of wool-noils and wastes, etc. 
 
 It is a fact that fine merino sheep deteriorate in our southern climate, and do not as 
 a rule keep up the length of staple and fineness of quality, as they do in a more north- 
 ern climate where they are housed and fed in winter, and kept in a constant condition 
 of thrift the year round, being run in small numbers in pastures that can be changed 
 and renewed by frequent removals to fresh ones; the grain they consume is raised upon 
 the same farms with them, and the cost isnominal, while with us werun our sheep in large 
 herds, and at some seasons of the year they are likely to have poor forage by reason of 
 droughts in winter and spring, together with now and then a norther that sometimes 
 creates sad havoc with our flocks, and in consequence our sheep become thin in flesh, 
 and as a result, weak spots in the staple. Ifwehadtoimportcornto feed them it would 
 cost almost as much as they are worth, as the price of corn at my place is now from 75 
 to feO cents per bushel. The excessive railroad freights is the cause of this. 
 
 To keep up our flocks to the same standard of fineness, strength, length, and density of 
 staple production, we must annually import Northern and Eastern rams atalarge expense, 
 and in this way introduce new blood to replenish that which is being deteriorated by 
 climate and other causes. Owing to the depreciation of our business we have been driven 
 to use commoner rams, and have been raising for the last few years a quality of wool that 
 is being supplanted by the finer qualities of carpet wools (or by those wools that have 
 been imported under the name of carpet wools), which, together with ring wastes, are 
 supplanting and takingtheplaceof our short Texas wools, and where we used to selUarsie 
 quantities to the hosieries and jean mills we now sell but very little. So true is this, that 
 even Texas, in about the only mill in the State, situated at Waco, they are using to-day 
 imported third-class wools to take the place of the coarse medium wools that I used to 
 sell to the same mill ; and what is true in this case is equally so of many mills in Missouri 
 and elsewhere, the importing of clothing- wool as third-class wools, noils, and wastes under 
 the duties of 1883, has driven us sincethento try to grow the fine clothing wools of Ohio, 
 Pennsylvania, and other Northern States, but from my own experience and that of many 
 others in our section we find it impossible to grow these wools, especially in the sections 
 where our soils are of the chalky, alkali nature, for the dust of such soils invariably makes 
 the growth of fine wools coarser and harsher ; but in the central and eastern portion of Texas 
 they can and are growing fine wools and are coming into competition with the growers 
 of fine clothing wools, and if I am rightly informed, Ohio and those States adjoining her 
 are forced into raising the medium wools also, and thus the importer of clothing wools 
 as third-class wools comes in direct competition with the growers of Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
 and Michigan, as well as those of Texas and the Territories. 
 
 Whatwe need in Texas and the Territories is sufiicient protection to growthe medinm 
 or coarse clothing wools and the better or finer sorts of carpet wools (or in fact all the 
 carpet wools). 
 
 Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and the Western States and Territories should not be 
 forced to come in competition with Australian and similar fine wools, for the cost of 
 growing wool in Texas, which is nearer like Australia and other foreign countries that 
 are competing than any other portion of th-e United States, is from 15 to 18 cents onfine 
 wools. I have itemized figures to submit if necessary, and attach them hereto: 
 
 First cost of raising wool with 18,000 sheep, shearing 6 pounds each, producing 180,000 
 pounds of loool. Value of sheep, $2 2>cr head. 
 
 [By A. E. Shepard, at Iron Mountain ranch, Marathon, Tex.] 
 
 Eighty-six thousand acres of land leased at 4 cents per acre » $3,440 
 
 Twelve herders, at !{)21 per month, including board 3,024 
 
 One bossier, at $25 per month, including board 300 
 
 One foreman, at $75 per month, including board 972 
 
 One boy to pack water, salt, move camps, etc.,at$16 193 
 
 One man, $31, teamster and extra hand 372 
 
 One person, work in house, $25 252 
 
 My own labor and board • 2,000 
 
 Forty-eight extra men, $21, lambing fifteen days 1,512 
 
 Shearing twice a year, 3 J cents per head each time li26f 
 
 Ten extra men twice a year, $25 per month, shearing 399 
 
 Five hundred gallons sheep-dip, at $1.25 per gallon 625 
 
 Six extra men forty days, $25 per month and board 200 
 
 Six hundred sacks and seven hundred pounds twine for wool '^° 
 
 Interest on investment in sheep and horses, at 10 per cent .- 3,700 
 
 Grain to feed horses and rams ,-,- . ,. .^.~ '"' 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 197 
 
 Interest $20,000, cost of improvements, ct 10 per cent §2,000 
 
 Losses of sheep, at 6 per cent., 1,080 head, at§i 2,160 
 
 22, 979 
 Less 6,000 lambs, at SL each 6,000 
 
 16, 979 
 
 Coat of producing wool, 15|f cents per pound; cost of getting to market aud selling, 
 3} cents, or total of 19| cents per pound. 
 
 Cost of raising wool with 5, 000 sheep, shearing 7 pounds each, producing 35, 000 pounds wool; 
 value of sheep, $1.50 per head. 
 
 Twenty-fiye thousand acres land, 10 cents an acre, lease $2, 500. 00 
 
 Four herders, 5>25 a month each, including board 1, 200. 00 
 
 One foreman, $35 a month, including board 420.00 
 
 Shearing twice a year, 6 cents each time 600.00 
 
 Fifty sacks salt, $2.25 112.50, 
 
 Extra labor, etc i 250.00 
 
 Dipping twice 200.00 
 
 Grain for horses and rams 75. 00 
 
 One hundred and seventy-five sacks and 200 pounds twine for wool 100. 00 
 
 Freight on wool from ranch to Galveston, IJ cents 52.5. 00 
 
 Expenseof selling wool, storage, and insurance, 40 cents; 2| cents commission- 245. 00 
 Incidental expenses (cooking outfit, worm medicine, etc. , tar, repairs, wagons, 
 
 barrels, tents 2C0. 00 
 
 Losses of sheep, 10 percent 750. 00 
 
 Interest on investment, sheep and horses, 10 per cent 800.00 
 
 7, 977. 50 
 Less 1,500 lambs, at$leach 1,500.00 
 
 6, 477. 50 
 
 Cost of producing wool, 18J cents per pound. 
 
 Total cost of getting the wool to market and selling same is 31 cents per pound, or 
 total cost to market my wool of 18-J- J cents per pound. And to grow and market similar 
 wool in Menard County, 200 miles further east, is lOyjj cents per pound. 
 
 The cost of raising sheep in Texas of the class I have is from 90 cents to $1 per head per 
 annum, while in Australia it costs only 30 cents per head or 6 centsper pound, as sheep can 
 be kept in large or small numbers there at 9 cents t)er annum per head (and the average of 
 each sheep is 5 pounds of wool). It costs 2 cents per head to shearthem, and one-half per 
 cent, per head to get their wool from 500 miles inland to their ports of shipment, and 
 from one-half to 2 cents freight from such port to our ports, thus bringing the cost of 
 their wool to not more than 6 centsper pound, or, in other words, to no more than one- 
 third the cost of our better Texas wools. 
 
 Thomas Scott, a prominent wool-dealer of New York City, in a letter of December 
 31 to Hon. Columbus Delano, says: 
 
 "We can grow carpet wool; and in 1885, when coarse wools of Missouri, Indiana, and 
 Kentucky were at a low point, all the low edge of these wools were used in carpets, but 
 since then the large cheviot demand has taken all our coarse domestic wool and a large 
 amount of so-called carpet wool. And this .shows not only that we can produce the 
 carpet wools, but that the better class of imported carpet wools are in demand for cloth- 
 ing goods. Our wool-growers want a market for this ' skirting wool ' ; they do not want 
 the market of this wool ruined by the competition of foreign carpet wool." 
 
 Again, Professor Dodge, in a letter dated October 1, 1888, addressed to Hon. J. M. 
 Rusk, Secretary of Agriculture, says: 
 
 "With our sectional experience with improvement of farm animals in many sections 
 so painfully slow, there will long be a proportion of coarse wool suitable only for car- 
 pets. I know there are those who claim that such unimproved sheep are hardy, suited 
 to districts of scanty or rough herbage where neither English nor merino would thrive 
 or be profitable; they will also live and thrive under careless or neglectful usage, while 
 sheep bearing fine fleeces would decline and prove unprofitable under similar circum- 
 stances." 
 
 In another letter of Professor Dodge, dated November 11, 1889, addressed to Hon. 
 William Lawrence, of Ohio, after referring to cotton, etc. , says: ' 'Another important in- 
 dustry is the manufacture of wool, for which the South is well adapted. The farmer 
 
198 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 should pave the way by entering actively into wool-growing. In cotton-seed, field-peas, 
 winter forage, etc., the cotton States have the advantage of every other section of the 
 country for the combined production of mutton and wool from Cotswold and Down fam- 
 ilies or crosses between them and the native long-wooled sheep, now available in small 
 numbers. The price of good mutton in the markets of the cities and the rapid increase 
 in the numbers slaughtered are indicative of the possibilities in this branch of the in- 
 dustry. The grasses of the South, many of them peculiar to the region, are nutritions 
 and valuable, especially should this region undertake at once the supply of all the carpet 
 wool required by our manufacturers, which is now about the only foreign wool manu- 
 factured in the United States. Indeed, not an ounce of any sort of wool need be im- 
 ported ; there would be returned the profit on its manufactured cloth at reasonable price, 
 could be worn by all, and the money for the purchase would be retained in the country. " 
 
 Here, then, is abundant official evidence of our capacity to produce all carpet wools 
 needed under sufficient protection. 
 
 The general ground on which it is claimed our wool-growers will not raise carpet wools 
 is that they are produced by the native Mexican sheep, or native wild sheep in other 
 countries, producing a coarse, hairy, kempy wool of little value, and that improved sheep 
 can be grown more profitably. 
 
 In wool statements before Senate Finance Committee, January, 1889, page 100: 
 
 ' ' With a hundred million sheep, as we should have, with vast herds in Texas and the 
 Territories, the native sheep slightly improved, grazing without shelter the year round, 
 there will be a sufficient number of coarse sheep to produce all the coarsest carpet 
 wools required. ' ' 
 
 Also in the same statement (page 66) it was practically admitted by one of the largest 
 carpet manufacturers that the native carpet-wool sheep have all or nearly all been im- 
 proved by the admixture of merino or English blood. The statistics show that much 
 of the so-called carpet wool as imported is so valuable that it is difficult to distinguish 
 it from clothing wool. 
 
 The whole importation of the real native coarse and hairy carpet wool it is very hard 
 to get at, and I have no way to get at the exact amount, and the carpet wool our growers 
 would produce would be something superior to the foreign, and if a proper duty would 
 compel its use rather than the foreign neither the manufacturers nor the consumers of 
 carpets would suffer any loss. It would only be a substitution of a better article worth 
 all it would cost. 
 
 The evidence of one of the leading low-tariff papers devoted mainly to the interests of 
 manufacturers. The Boston American Wool Reports of September 19, 1889, says: 
 
 "Carpet wools are produced to only a slight extent in the United States, and it is 
 merely a question of opinion whether such wools might not have been grown here more 
 largely if the tariff had not discriminated in favor of merino wools and against the 
 development of every other breed of sheep, than the merino in all these years since 1867, 
 A few wealthy carpet manufacturers have been very powerful in shaping wool tariff legis- 
 lation in the United States during the last twenty-two years, and have so discriminated 
 as to secure their wool at a tax one-quarter as great as that enforced upon the raw mate- 
 rial of the cloth manufacturer." 
 
 A Philadelphia correspondent in the Boston American "Wool Reporter of September 26, 
 1889, says: 'We not only grow carpet wool in Mexico, Colorado, and parts of Texas, 
 but wherever one-fourth blood wools are grown, we have the breech and belly wool, 
 which is carpet stock, and the skins of the coarser grades of sheep are excellent for the 
 manufacture of fine gloves. For the last fifteen years our coarse-wooled sheep have 
 steadily kept decreasing, because of the low duty on the so-called carpet wools, the bet- 
 ter grades of which are used for clothing manufacture, taking the place of our home- 
 grown coarse wools. ' ' 
 
 It has been shown that we need and should have in the United States a hundred mill- 
 ion sheep. If we had eighty millions with the proper proportion of merino sheep to 
 produce merino clothing wool in the older States, with the long wool and superior mut- 
 ton sheep partly in all the States, but more largely in the Gulf States, with improved 
 merinoand quarter-blood sheep in Texas, the Territories, the new States, and on the Pacilic 
 Slope, the skirting belly and breech wools, with what is grown upon the Mexican sheep, 
 would produce all the carpet wool we need. The Southern States would produce short 
 wools, and the Northern States loiig wools. * * * 
 
 Twenty years ago long wools were raised in Colorado and New Mexico; fleeces ran 
 from 5 to 8 inches length of staple, and 7 to 10 pounds weight of fleece. 
 
 THE EVIDEJft:B OF PRACTICAL WOOL-GROWERS WHO CERTIFY FROM EXPEEIINCK. 
 
 Practical exoerience can not be mistaken. Carpet manufacturers, learned and useful 
 in their valuable industry, as they are, but when without actual experience in the wool- 
 growing industry can not have that full reliable knowledge which we must concede to 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 199 
 
 meu who from a practical experience certify that American wool-growers can, and 
 with fair and adequate protection will, produce all the carpet wools required in the 
 United States. To this effect I now present the testimony of such experts, men of in- 
 telligence and candor, aud who know whereof they certity. 
 I present this evidence as follows: 
 
 (1) Letter of S. J. Woodhnll, of December 2, 1889, an experienced wool-grower of 
 Texas. 
 
 (2) Letter of W. J. Black, also a prominent wool-grower of Texas. 
 
 (3) Letter of J. F. Gibbs, president Wool-growers' Association of Colorado, and a 
 prominent grower. 
 
 (4) Proceedings of a meeting of wool-growers of Menard, Sleicher, and Sutton Coun- 
 ties, Texas, held at Fort McKavett, Tex., November 30, 1889. 
 
 Ore of the largest wool-growers in Texas, living at a point 230 miles southeast of my 
 hornet, is Capt. S. J. Woodhnll, who, in answer to the question "Can Texas and the 
 Territories produce all the carpet wool needed in the United States ? " in a letter dated 
 at Spofford, Tex., December 2, 1889, addressed to Hon. William Lawrence, of Ohio, 
 says: 
 
 " Would give as my opinion that with proper protection Texas alone would be able to 
 produce and would produce all the carpet wool that there could be a demand for. The 
 tendency has been here more to a different class of wool, as the demand has not called 
 for carpet wools. With protection enough to ensure a fair price and steady demand, the 
 business would receive such an impetus as would place the supplying of the United 
 States beyond a shadow of doubt. After an experience extending over a period of twenty 
 years I am firmly convinced that this is the natural home of the carpet- wool sheep, and 
 that adequate protection would open up a great future for that branch of the industry 
 in Texas and the Territories. The only and sole reason that no more carpet wool is 
 raised here is that so much has been imported under fraudulent classifications as to de- 
 stroy the demand here at living prices. All of the material for the business is here, 
 needing only the certainty of returns for the capital invested that is now employed in 
 other business to induce men of capita] and experience to engage in it. In my opinion 
 two years after adequate protection is enforced will see Texas and the Territories pro- 
 ducing enough carpet wool to supply the demand of the United States and to spare. 
 These are my views and I believe the views of every intelligent sheep man north of the 
 Eio Grande, and if you can place them before the world in shape to win their recog- 
 nition you will be doing us an everlasting favor. 
 "I remain yours respectfully, 
 
 "S. .L WOODHULL." 
 
 Col. W. L. Black, in a letter dated Fort McKavett, Tex., November 15, 1889, ad- 
 dressed to Hon. William Lawrence, of Ohio, says: 
 
 "DeaeSir: Replying to your inquiry of the 6th instant, I beg to say that in my 
 opinion there is no doubt that Texas and the Territories can produce all the carpet wools 
 that are needed by our manufacturers. Indeed, I may say that the popularity that 
 mutton is assuming in the markets of our country will justify the raising of coarse- 
 wooled sheep, which in the past has been unprofitable to many of the older States. I 
 would remark that there is a belt of country in the border of the Rio Grande that is peo- 
 pled by a Mexican class of inhabitants who are carrying on very much the same state of 
 sheep husbandry as is followed in old Mexico. These Mexicans have large herds of 
 sheep and run them in their nomadic way, and are contented with a comparatively less 
 price for their wool. 
 
 "Without exaggeration, I think the election of a Republican protective Administra- 
 tion has added 1100,000,000 to the wealth of our nation in the advance of our sheep 
 alone, and I am convinced that it will take but a few years to recover from the fearful 
 losses that resulted from the unfortunate change in the tariff of 1883. 
 ' ' Very respectfully, 
 
 "W. L. Black." 
 
 J. F. Gibbs, president of the Wool-Growers' Association of Colorado, in a letter dated 
 at Greeley, Colo., December 1, says: 
 
 "DeaeSir: In answer to your question contained in your favor of November 22d, will 
 say that there are in our vicinity hundreds of thousands of acresof range now vacant, and 
 other hundreds of thousands of acres almost vacant, and which will very likely soon be 
 entirely so, where sheep of any and all kinds could he ranged, provided it could be made 
 profitable by a well-regulated tariff to do so. 
 "Youre, 
 
 "J. F. Gibbs." 
 
200 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Oq Novemlter 30, 1-89. since leaving my home, the wool-growers of Menard County, 
 Texas (a point 200 milesnortheast of myhome), have held a meeting and expressed their 
 appreciation of affaius as forced upon them by their practical experience, and I beg leave 
 to read you the preamble and resolutions unanimously adopted at that meeting: 
 
 "Whereas there is evident intention on the part of a certain class of wool manufac- 
 turers to demand free wool or low ad valorem duty on the same; and 
 
 "Whereas carpet manufacturers are endeavoring to convey the impression that our 
 country is not capable of raising carpet wools profitably; and 
 
 " Whereas the price of American wool is now governed to a large extent by the prices 
 current in foreign markets and our manufacturers are therefore not burdened with any 
 taxation except upon a comparatively small deiiciency existing at present in the Ameri- 
 can supply ; and 
 
 " Whereas the rapidly increasing demand for mutton in our larger cities will make it 
 possible in the future to produce the coarse (carpet) wooled sheep profitably: Therefore, 
 be it 
 
 "liesoh-fd, That we appeal to the wisdom of Congress not to repeat the sad expe- 
 rience that followed the change in the tariif of 1883, which resulted so seriously to our 
 industry, and is entirely responsible for the present deficiency in our wool product. 
 
 " liesoh-ed, That the arguments advanced by the few designing wool manufacturers and 
 wool dealers for free wool, or a reduction of the duties below a protective basis, are un- 
 true, and are prompted by a selfish desire to demoralize the wool Ijusiness of the United 
 States for their own selfish purposes. 
 
 " Senolred, That since the election of President Harrison, under an assurance of pro- 
 tection to American industries, there has been a return of confidence in the wool-grow- 
 ing industry and an increase in the value of sheep amounting to more than §50,000,000 
 in the aggregate. 
 
 "Benolvcd, That we strongly recommend the adoption of a scale of duties similar to 
 the tariff of 1867 : and it is our opinion that if such is adopted, and the tariff so amended 
 as to prevent the fraudulent importations of wool under the name of wastes and noils, it 
 will be but a short time before there will be a surplus in our wool product. 
 
 " Ee.iolveii, Tliat any reduction of duty below a protective basis, viz, 10 cents a pound, 
 or a change to an ad valorem system, will have a tendency to shake the confidence of the 
 wool-growers and would result disastrously to the wool industry. 
 
 ' ' Benvlred, That we recommend an advance in the tariff on worsted and worsted man- 
 ufactures to a point that will protect the American manufacturer: and we also recom- 
 mend that sheep pelts and goat skins and other incidental products of the sheep and 
 goat industry be taken off the free-list and restored to the tariff. Also that the duty ott 
 live sheep be advanced from the oresent duty, 20 cents ad valorem, to a specific duty of 
 SI a head." 
 
 I wish to show by the letters introduced and the preamble and resolutions read that 
 the wool-growers of the different sections of the country in our State agree with me in 
 the statement we can grow all the carpet wool needed in the United States if guaran- 
 tied an adequate protection with other industries. 
 
 Bdebank «& Babbitt, 
 Fort McKavett, ilenard County, Tex., December 2i, 1889. 
 
 Dear Sir: Replying to your favor of the l.'ith, asking what it costs me to grow wool, 
 I send you the inclosed estimate, which shows the cost to be 18 J cents a pound. Though 
 this seems high, yet it is really a very conservative estimate, as I have charged nothing 
 formy own services as manager, which shouldreally be included, and have only putthe use 
 of the land at 10 cents an acre, including improvements, which is less than land isleased 
 here at without improvements. I have and use for my sheep over 35,000 acres, but have 
 counted but 25,000. I have only valued the sheep at si. 50 a head, and have underesti- 
 mated all expenses rather than put them larger than they really are. I have figured the 
 cost of selling the wool and freight at just what it costs me, if wool is sold on arrival 
 at Galveston; but my wool has u.sually been held some months at my expense, and I 
 have to pay interest on freight, as well as increased cost for storage, insurance, etc. You 
 know enough about sheep-raising that you can explain this statement if anything is not 
 clear enough. Call the attention of the committee to the cost of freight in getting our 
 wool to market. It costs me 1 ' cents to Galveston, and then 60 cents per 100 pounds 
 or more to Boston, while wool from Australia or I/ondon can be laid down there for less 
 than a cent a pound. Hoping this statement will be of assistance to you and the wool- 
 growing industry, 1 am. 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 C. G. BUEBANK. 
 
 Capt. A. E. SiiEPAP.D. 
 
 Also, the average sheep do not shear 7 pounds, while expenses are nearly as great, 
 except in the case of very coarseshec]!, which class of wool can be raised very much cheaper, 
 as they can be handled in larger Hocks, and losses are not so heavy and increase greater. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF 201 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Did yon say you are a producer of wool? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. How many sheep have you ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. About eighteen thousand. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. How much land have you for a range? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Eighty-six thousand acres. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. What is that land worth per acre? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Two dollars per acre, Government land. By the way, I own alternate 
 sections and lease the other section, for 4 cents an acre, and in that I have figured my 
 own land at 4 cents an acre, the same as I pay for the alternate sections of the land. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. You have considered the use of the land at 4 cents an acre ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Yes, sir; in figuring the expense of raising wool. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. How many acres do you require to support one sheep ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. About 5 acres. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. Are you engaged in any other bu.siness at all ? 
 
 Mr. SHEP4.ED No, sir; only horses and a few cattle to supply the ranch. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. Are you engaged in this business on your own account? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I am, with the exception of my partner. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. It is not a corporation ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. Now, you have stated the wages which you say your part of the 
 country pay for the production of this carpet wool, and you say, notwithstanding these 
 wages, you can not produce it without ' ' sufficient protection, ' ' as you say in some places, 
 and "proper protection" in others. What do you consider a "sufficient" or "proper 
 protection?" 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Sufficient protection to make it remunerative to us to raise that class 
 of wool as to raise fine wool and nothing more. I mean that you should give us equal 
 protection to do that. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. What rate of duty do you consider a sufficient protection? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Enough to make the price of this wool equal to the other. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. What is that rate sufficient to raise it equal to the other ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. My carpet wool sold this fall at 11 cents per pound. My best wool 
 sold for 17J cents per pound, and it would require a duty of 7.] cents to make the carpet 
 wool equal and bring it to what the best wool sold for. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. In other words, you want a duty which will make your grade of wool 
 sell for as much in the market as the best wool ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I would like to see a duty on all wools; as much on these wools as on 
 the fine wools. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. Is it not your purpose and idea to impose a duty on the low grade of 
 wool which would enable you to sell that wool in the market for as much as fine grade 
 wool sells for? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I mean by this that the same duty should be upon every pound of 
 wool. 
 
 The Chaieman. In the same amount and in the same price for the fine wool? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If you do not mean the same amount, what do you mean by the 
 same duty? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I mean that the duty put on the wool should be the same per pound. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. Then if you had your way you would put the same rate of duty on 
 all cloth without regard to value? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I do not know anything about that. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. In other words, if I am producing an article worth $2 a pound and 
 you are producing an article worth 10 cents, you want to put on a duty sufficient to 
 make your article sell ibr as much as mine? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I think it is the duty of the Government to protect me in that industry, 
 and make it equally remunerative as all other industries and no more. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If it is not a remunerative industry a*i all, why engage in it? Why 
 not go into an industry that is remunerative? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. When I went down there in the sheep business in the spring of 1882, 
 I bought two thousand Mexican ewes at a very low price. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. What was the flock worth then? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Two dollars per head. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What is it worth now? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Just the same. I e.stimate them now at $2 a head. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. You say the Mexican sheep is a very hardy sheep, that is to say, it 
 can live on these arid lands, and that it can live on less than the ordinary sheep? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. To-day I can buy the same sheep for which I paid $2 a head at 6 bita. 
 
202 BEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is that the Mexican sheep? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. This sheep is mare prolific than the other and produces a greater num- 
 ber of lambs, and the mother takes better care of her offspring ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How many men does it require in your business to take care of 18,000 
 sheep ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I have twelve herdsmen for 18,000 sheep. I run 1,.500 to 2,000 to a 
 herdsman. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What do you pay your herdsman? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Fifteen dollars a month and about $6 a month to feed him. It costs 
 me about S21 a month. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What does it cost per sheep to shear them ? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. Seven cents a head for shearing. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Your -wool costs, laid down in the Boston market, about 19 cents? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. About 18.V. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What do you get in the Boston market? What is the price? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I do not know. I sold my wool at from 7 to 17i cents, about 4,000 
 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. When you speak of the cost of laying it down in Boston you are 
 speaking of carpet wool? 
 
 Jlr. Shepaed. No, sir; the wools I am now raising. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What was the cost of laying down the carpet wool ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. The freight would be just the same, also the commission. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Would it cost the same to produce the fleece? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What would it cost to produce the carpet wool? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. About 12 cents. I did not estimate that. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What did you say that would 'be at Boston? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. I could generally sell it at from 11 to 15 cents. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It would cost you 12 cents to get it there and you say you get 11. 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. That is all. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Then it would be a losing business? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Yes, sir; and it has been for the last four years. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you supply lambs and mutton for the market ? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. No, sir; I do not sell anything except mutton. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Your flock increases year by year ? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. I sell off the old ones and the bad wethers, as fast as they get old 
 enough to ship as mutton. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Will you tell me what rate of duty ought to be put on this wool ? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. I leave that to the better judgment of you gentlemen. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Well, what is your opinion? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. I have told you my own opinion. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. No, you have not. 
 
 Mr. Shepard. I beg your pardon. I think you could put 10 cents on all wools. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you think it ought to be 10 cents ? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. I do think so. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you think it ought to be 10 cents a pound duty on all grades? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Yes, sir; on all wools. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Your fiock was three thousand and odd when you began? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Just three thousand. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN". You have sold the aged sheep and wethers, and now it is eighteen 
 thousand ? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. It was worth at that time in round numbers $6,000, and it is now 
 ■worth $3t), 000? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. And yet the Government, by the act of 1883, has prevented you from 
 making money? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I do not claim that. In 188.'> we made money, and if I sold my wool 
 as well last spring I would have made money then. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. Selling oif your surplus fiock and selling off your wool during this 
 time, your flock is now worth six times as much as you gave for it ? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. That is true. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. Taking your whole business, have you lo.st or made? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I have made money out of the whole business, taking into considera- 
 tion what I have raised over what I have lost. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 203 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Texas would become a great State if wool was properly protected ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. It is a great State, but it would be more so. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. If we protected the industries of your State it would Ijecome a great pro- 
 ducing State? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Yes, sir; it would be a good deal better if we took good care of it, 
 which we are likely to do. 
 
 Mr. Bekckineidge. Do you sell a considerable number of the product of your flock 
 each year for mutton purposes? 
 
 Mr. ShkpAED. All that reaches the age of three and four years. 
 
 Mr. Bekckineidge. That would be what per cent, of the flock? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. About 25 per cent., maybe. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. It would run on an average 25 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. It will average about that. We lose some, and I suppose it would give 
 about 25 per cent, on the whole flock. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. Of course you have given figures which are the result of your 
 business. 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I have done the best I could. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. Wait a moment. Including all expenses of your ranch, and in- 
 cluding the products of your wool ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I have deducted the price of six thousand lambs which I raised in a 
 year. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. Have you allowed the proceeds of those sheep which you sold for 
 food purposes? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. No, sir. In fact, this year I did not sell any at all. I sold the ranch 
 to a party of gentlemen and they failed to comply with their agreement and paid no 
 interest, principal, or anything, and in the mean time they had said all the mutton them- 
 selves. I took the ranch back again and I found the mutton killed down too close, so it 
 left me without mutton to sell these last months, and I have not given these at all. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. Do you believe it is a logical presentation of the business to give 
 a demonstration which leaves out of your production 25 per cent, of the annual sale of 
 your flock ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. No ; that would hardly be right. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. That is what you have done. 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I have, left out other things, not quite that much in my estimate, I 
 had overlooked that until you spoke of it. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. I would be very glad if you would amend your statement in that 
 particular so as to include in your estimate all the expenses of producing wool and pro- 
 viding a proper allowance for the 25 per cent, which were sold for mutton purposes. 
 You need not go into it now, but see that it is incorporated and given to the reporter. 
 You are speaking of the carpet wool part of the business, you are not speaking particu- 
 larly of the other grades of wool ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. No, sir; the subject assigned me was carpet wools; that is, our ability 
 to produce them and the cost of raising wools. I raised about 4,000 pounds of this class 
 of wool. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. I understand the burden of your remarks to be that the carpet 
 wools are the only class that needed protection. 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. The burden of my remarks was that we could raise carpet wools if they 
 were properly protected. I claim they should be protected to the extent of other wools. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. You are not claiming that other wools are not properly protected 
 now ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. No, sir; I am not. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. Now, you have mentioned in connection with the carpet wool 
 industry the very large consumption of sheep as food product or mutton. 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. I interrogated some gentlemen yesterday about that but did not 
 get any definite answer. Are the sheep prized for mutton purposes the ones that pro- 
 duce carpet wools ? 
 Mr. Shepaed. Yes, sir; long wool; English blooded sheep. 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. Are they carpet-wool sheep ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Yes, sir; but they must be crossed with the Mexican sheep, I said. 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. I understand from yonr remarks that the carpet wool was gen- 
 erally a lower- priced wool. 
 Mr. Shepaed. That is true; it is the coarse, hairy wool. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. Then, when you grade up the sheep and bring it to the condition 
 of fine mutton, 3o not you also grade up the wool at the same time? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. The Shropshire is the class of wool which they deem fit to make car- 
 pet wool. 
 
204 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It is wool properly to be classed as carpet wool ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I am so told. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am only asking for your information. That grade of sheep is 
 also highly prized for mutton purposes ? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. Yes, sir; but I do not cJass the Mexican as a mutton sheep. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The question I asked was, when you grade up sheep so as to 
 make it desirable for food purposes, do you not also grade up the wool so as to put it 
 beyond the classification of carpet wool ? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. I do not think the sires of these are crossed on carpet-wool sheep. I 
 say, however, that when they are crossed with Mexican sheep, then we get this carpet 
 wool from them. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You do it to increase the weight of the others? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. We do it to make a long fiber, as the Mexican sheep has a long fiber, 
 so as to make it fit for these carpet wools. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You stated that wool declined after the passage of the tariff act of 1883 ? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That is so? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. Yes, sir; 1883 was the highest year. I think I got 23 cents a pound 
 for wool then. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What would be the effect upon the wool industry if the Mills bijl had be- 
 come a law ? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. We would have all gone out of the business. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You have stated that your flock increased from three thou.sand to 
 eighteen thousand? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. Twenty-one thousand, I said. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You bought land in 1878 and 1881? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. I bought land in the fall of 1881. I bought it at §2 an acre and some 
 at 45 cents an acre. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Your land Is worth double that amount now? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. I will take $2 an acre now for the whole of it. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is it not better than it was in 1878? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. I paid S;i for some of it five years ago. 
 
 Mr. Flower. And 4.5 cents for some? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What was the average? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. I sold some at $1 an acre. I sold 46 acres at f-l an acre. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What was the average cost at that time? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. About bits. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Yon expect to get a rise from this land? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. I ought to have it, but the fact is that lands have not gone up lately. 
 The State is asking $2 an acre for land that lies along mine. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How I'ar are you i'rom San Antonio? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. Three hundred and eighty-three miles. 
 
 Mr. Mills. How many acres of land did you say you had ? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. Eighteen thousand in my own tract. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Your land, yon say, is worth $2 an acre? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Mills. That is $36,000 in all. How many sheep have you? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. Eighteen thousand. 
 
 Mr. Mills. And they are worth how ranch ? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. Two dollars. I would take that for them. 
 
 Mr. Mills. That makes ?32,0U0 capital you have invested. 
 
 Mr. Shepard. I have 86,000 acres. I want to explain that. I own 46, 000 acres and 
 I lease from the State 41,000 acres. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Let us start back again. You own how much ? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. Forty-six thousand acres. 
 
 Mr. Mills. That is worth $2 an acre? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. So the State says. 
 
 Mr. Mills. I will take your statement. Eighteen tl:onsand sheep at $2 a head will 
 be $36,000. Then your capital is 8128,000. 
 
 Mr. Shepard. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Mills. You say if wool is put on the free-list, as proposed to be done by the last 
 Congress, that you would go out of the business ? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. I would. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Then you think the tariff which gave you 2^ and 5 cents duty puts that 
 mnch profit into your pocket ? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. No, sir; the tariff should be put at 10 cents on .all wools. 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 205 
 
 Mr. Mills. I am not talking about other wools now. I am talking about carpet 
 wools. 
 Mr. Shepaed. I do not raise carpet wool. 
 Mr. Mills. What kind of wool do you raise ? I thought you were talking about 
 
 carpet wool. 
 Mr. Shepaed. I am, because the subject was assigned to me. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Take the other branch of wool. You say the tariff protects you to "the 
 extent of advancing wool 10 cents a pound ? 
 Mr. Shepaed. I look at it in that light, sir. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Precisely. That 10 cents a pound is coming out of somebody's pocket 
 and going into yours? 
 Mr. Shepaed. I reckon so. 
 
 Mr. Mills. You are protected to the extent of 10 cents a pound on your wool, which 
 enters into the manufacture of woolen cloths. The people you are employing at $15 a 
 month are contributing that 10 cents a pound. 
 Mr. Shepaed. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Mills. You are taking that amount from those poor people who are not worth 
 $500 a year. You are asking and requiring Congress to levy this 10 cents per pound 
 upon these poor people in your favor, who are worth §128,000. 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. It is merely to have my business equal in remuneration with other 
 businesses. 
 Mr. Mills. You want to be equalized with what other people get? 
 Mr. Shepaed. Yes, sir; I want the same protection as the carpet men are having, the 
 manufacturers. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Do not you think it would be well enough to help these people who herd 
 your flock? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I wish you would help them and keep them from running off and de- 
 stroying the herds. 
 
 Mr. Mills. You are worth $128,000; do you think it is right for you to require us to 
 take these 10 cents from these poor people, which they pay on the goods they, wear and 
 pat it in your pocket? 
 Mr. Shepaed. I think it is just. 
 
 Mr. Mills. You say if we tooii oft that duty you would go out of business; so you 
 can only live by robbing these people. 
 Mr. Shepaed. I do not claim that. 
 Mr. Mills. That is what you say. 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I would say this: I would rob the better class of men who are able to 
 pay this, such as Congressmen and Senators, and such men. 
 Mr. Mills. "We have just been robbed. We do not care to be robbed any more. 
 Mr. Shepaed. I am a Democrat, and I voted for President Cleveland the first time 
 and would have voted for him the last time if he had not come out and selected the 
 wool-grower as the man to be ruined and slaughtered. 
 The Chaieman. You are a revenue Democrat. 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I do not know what you call it; I have not the language to express it. 
 Mr. Gear. What class of men do you employ as herders ? 
 Mr. Shepaed. Mexicans altogether. 
 
 Mr. Geae. If you did not employ them at $15 a month, which I think you say were 
 the wages you paid them, they would not be able to get employment? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. They would be laying around stealing sheep if I did not hire them to 
 take care of them. 
 
 Mr. Geae. Admitting that there be a slight increase on their clothing, the wages you 
 pay them enables them to buy them ? 
 Mr. Shepaed. They would not buy them otherwise. They would go half naked. 
 Mr. Geae. How much wool is in a Mexican's clothes ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Very little. They have a pair of pants, a cotton shirt, and a blanket. 
 Mr. Geae. They live on tortilla ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. That is the principal thing they live upon, except when they live on 
 us, and then they live pretty well. 
 Mr. Geae. How is tortilla made ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Tortilla is made of corn mixed up with water and baked. 
 Mr. Geae. It is a very cheap food ? 
 Mr. Shepaed. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Mills. It is these poor men you care for. You are not caring anything about 
 these capitalists? 
 Mr. Shepaed. I will not try to argue with you, as I am not capable. 
 The Chaieman. You and Mr. Mills can have a joint debate in Texas. 
 Mr. ShepAbd. I remember the gentleman now, but I was a little flustered at flr^t, Jf 
 
206 EEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 he comes out in our locality I will show Mr. Mills how we raise sheep; just what it costs, 
 and show that what I have said is exactly so. I think if all these gentlemen who are 
 making a study of these affairs would come out there and we could show you how we 
 run the business, you would understand it. I have seen in print a statement as to how 
 we are running our business and how we ought to and how we could do it. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. We do not dispute your statement about the costs, but the question 
 which perplexes me is whether it is the duty of the Government to tax the people to 
 enable you to make a profit in a business which you say is an unprofitable business. 
 
 Mr. Shepard. You can equalize us somewhat with the other industries. If our car- 
 pet manufacturers had free carpets, they would be affected and they would have to go 
 out of business. It is the same way with the clothing manufacturer. If it is to come 
 to that, I want to be put on the same footing and all of us go out together. 
 
 Mr. Cablisle. Do you think that in this country there could be a sufficient tax put 
 upon an imported article to keep it out ? 
 
 Mr. Shkpard. I am not conversant with other businesses to say that. 
 
 Mr. Bayke. He might reply, the sugar industry. 
 
 The Chairman. The fact is you want this protection because you have an unequal 
 condition of affairs to-day. 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chaieman. Because the price paid for labor to -day in this country compared 
 with the competing markets is very much higher. 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If you paid these laborers $15 or any other sum, could you stiU 
 compete? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I have not considered that. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. What is your judgment? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I have not considered that. I leave it for you gentlemen to do. You 
 have got the figures and I have not. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I think you can make that calculation very easily. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckineidge. You spoke of your desire to protect the interests of your labor. 
 Now suppose this committee adds to the 2.} cents per pound you get on carpet wool, 
 say Vi cents a pound, will you give your labor any part of that increase that we may 
 donate to you V 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I will give them employment, whereas, if you do not, I will have to 
 go out, and I can not employ them. 
 
 Mr, Beeceixeidge. I understood you to say that this precise amount, 7J cents, is 
 necessary to enable you to give them employment ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. No, sir; I did not say that, because I am not raising that. I am rais- 
 ing wool, for which I get 10 cents a pound duty. If the duty was lowered on that, so 
 that I could not raise it, I could not give the labor employment in that line of business, 
 and I would have to go into some other. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. Suppose in the increase you speak of we exceeded the amount 
 that is necessary to enable you to make this production, would you object to our insert- 
 ing a provision in the law by which the excess should be turned over by you to the wage 
 of the workman ? 
 
 Mr. Shbpard. I would not object to that at all, sir. 
 
 Mr. BEECEiNEiDGE. Would you, if that provision is not inserted in the law, give 
 this labor any parr of this extra benefit derived? 
 
 Mr. Shepard. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Beeckixridge. Then if you received any more than this which you ask for you 
 would not ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I would not have given him the $15 if I had not been forced to. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. What did you give him before ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Twelve dollars. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlK. Until when? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Until five years ago I was paying $10, and I raised it to $12; then I 
 raised it to $15. I had a quarrel with my neighbors because I did that, and they had to 
 do the same. 
 
 Mr. I;ayne. If your growth of sheep largely increased will it necessitate the employ- 
 ment of still more men ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I only had two herders when I started, and I run now about seven- 
 teen men all the time, with the exception of shearing time; that takes about sixty men. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. If the gro^vth of sheep in Texas was increased to three, four, and five 
 times what it is now it would neces-sitate the employment of three, four, and five times 
 as much labor? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. It would. 
 
 -■Mr. Bayne. Competition among workmen would increase their wages? 
 
EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 207 
 
 Mr. Shkpaed. It would. 
 
 Mr. Flowbe. Do you ever have any American labor? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Sometimes, but they are rarely good for much. 
 
 The Chairman. Why ? 
 
 Mr. Shbpabd. Because as soon as they get their stomachs full they get lazy and don't 
 want to work. We have to give them shoes and something to wear, but they are hard 
 sort of customers, and nine times out of ten they go off and leave the herds. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Are the farmers and wool-growers in Texas generally in favor of protec- 
 tion of their industries ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. So far as I have talked with them (the wool-growers) ; the farmers would 
 not have anything to do with it. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Without respect to party ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. I am glad you spoke of that very thing. I want to explain that ques- 
 tion to you. In the first election for President Cleveland, the precinct Encinal, south 
 of San Antonio, gave President Cleveland 200 and odd, and Blaine 11. Now, to show 
 what efl'ect the wool-growers had upon it. In the last election President Cleveland got 
 11, and Ml'. Harrison got 200 and odd. Now we are going to try that in some other dis- 
 tricts the next time. 
 
 The Chaieman. You want to be very discriminating in regard to the members you 
 leave out in Texas. 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. We are very discriminating in regard to the members we leave ali 
 home. 
 
 The Chaieman. Because there are some we want left with us. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Did not you try a little of the philosophy in the last campaign ? 
 
 Mr, Shepaed. Not as much as I now wish we had. There is another element which 
 entered in there, which is prohibition. We elected certain gentlemen largely on that 
 issue. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Had the Democratic party anything to do with that ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. No, sir; it was in favor of free whisky and free trade. 
 
 Mr. Mills. You have raised the prohibition question ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. Yes, sir; and that is what sent some gentlemen here to-day. 
 
 Mr. Mills. "What about Representative Lanham, who stumped the State for prohibi- 
 tion ? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. He is one gentleman. 
 
 Mr. Mills. He was a prohibitionist. 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. V/e did not try in that district, but in 1892 we will centralize the 
 wool industry and I will assure you gentlemen the next time we will try a little more 
 of this wool philosophy. 
 
 Mr. Flowee. Does your range run up toward Coraicana? 
 
 Mr. Shepaed. No, it does "not. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. In connection with this subject and as a sheep-grower, I beg leave 
 to lay before the committee two letters from Mr. Shepard on this subject. 
 
 The Chaieman. We will incorporate these in Mr. Shepard's remarks. 
 
 LETTBES OP ME. SHEPAED. 
 
 The following are the communications : 
 
 One of the largest and most sagacious wool-growers in the United States, Capt. A. E. 
 Shepard, of Marathon, Tex., president of the Texas Wool-Growers' Association, in a 
 letter addressed to William Lawrence, .January 16, 1888, says: 
 
 "I say, most emphatically, that with sufficient protection the United States can pro- 
 duce a suflScient quantity of carpet wools to supply the carpet mills of this country. 
 The area on which carpet wools can be profitably grown is nearly as large as the entire 
 portion of the United States east of the Mississippi River, consisting of Texas, New 
 Mexico, Arizona, Utah, southern California, and southern Colorado. The regibn men- 
 tioned is peculiarly adapted to the rearing or management of the coarse wool (native) 
 Mexican sheep, chiefly in immense herds, the topography and climatic conditions being 
 similar to that of those (foreign) countries where carpet wools are produced. 
 
 "Perhaps there are no sheep in the world so prolific and that have the maternal in- 
 stinct so strongly developed as the Mexican sheep. They can be made to quadruple in 
 three years. I myself have raised 21,000 grade sheep in five years from 3,000 Mexican 
 ewes, averaging as high as 90 per cent, of increase in ordinary years, while, at the same 
 time, I have not been able to raise over ,30 per cent, of fine merino sheep, with the same 
 climate and surroundings. The Mexican sheep * * * are especially adapted to the 
 arid plains [Wool Rep., XXXIX] and table-lands of the country that I have de- 
 scribed — it not being a country suitable to the raising of cattle or other stock on account 
 
208 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 of its great lack of water. To keep oa ia raising carpet wools we should use the native 
 Mexican ewes with Missouri or Kentucky Cots wolds, Shropshire, and some of the Down 
 rams. ' ' 
 
 CABPET-WOOL CLTS — THE AETIOLE FOE CAEPET WOOLEN" MANUFAOTUEEES CAN BE 
 PSOUUCED IN" THE SOUTHEEN STATES, BITT IT IS DEEDING PEOTEOTION, AND 
 "WITH OTHEE INDUSTRIES IS IN GEEAT DANGER — INTERESTING LETTERS FEOM OF- 
 FICEES OP THE OHIO AND TEXAS ASSOCIATIONS. 
 
 QtiAKEE City, Ohio, Decemler 11. 
 To the Editor: 
 
 I inclose your letter of Capt. A. E. Shepard, of Marathon, Tex., president of the 
 Texas Wool-Growers' Association, in reply to a letter from me in which I asked him as to 
 the probability of Texas growing carpet wool provided sufficient protection was afforded 
 by Congress, and also as to the adaptability of his State for the growing of such wools. 
 Captain Shepard was originally a grower of carpet wool, but the duty on this grade of 
 wool was reduced so low, first by law and then by evasions of duty and fraudulent prac- 
 tices in the custom-houses, that he was compelled to abandon his Mexican ewes and 
 change to the merino. He told me that when the tariff, plus foreign freights, was less 
 than freights from Texas to New York he had to abandon the growing of carpet wool. 
 The inclosed letter is timely, as an effort will be made in Congress to put carpet wool on 
 the;'free-list on the alleged ground that it can not be produced in this country. Captain 
 Shepard's high character and position entitles his letter to full credit and a wide circu- 
 lation. 
 
 W. N. CO"WDEN, 
 Secretarr/ Ohio Wool-Growers' Association, 
 
 Texas had, in 1884, 35,000,000 pounds of wool; in 18S7, 25,000,000— a shrinkage of 
 10,000,000 pounds in three years, or two-sevenths per cent. Texas had, in 1884, over 
 7,500,000 sheep, but on January 1, 1889, only 4,659,451— a decrease of .^,000,000. 
 
 Our competitors are raising wool in Australia, Russia, India, South America, and the 
 British colonies of South Africa. They grow their wools on lands whose market value 
 is very low, merely nominal, and on extensive ranges capable of grazing large numbers. 
 They pay for labor from $2 to $12 per month, and their laborers have few wants, and 
 live on the cheapest of food. In Australia sheep can be kept in small or large numbers 
 at 9 cents per head per annum. Texas, which comes nearer these countries in conditions 
 and surroundings, pays from $2 to $5 per acre for the land or a rental of from 4 to 20 
 cents per acre per annum for the using ot it, and pays labor from $15 to $30 per month, 
 with additional in food of from §6 to $10, and it costs over 50 cents per head per annum 
 to raise sheep in Texas. Under such conditions we can not compete with the countries 
 named without protection, and free wool means the decay, if not the extinction, of our 
 industry, and the first effect of this destruction of our industry would be to cause the 
 transfer of labor and capital now engaged in the raising of wool into other lines of em- 
 ployment; and if we must abandon our industry and suffer the loss of depreciation of 
 lands and capital invested we will have less money to procure the products of others, 
 and as a consequence a stagnation in the industries of those of whom we were getting 
 the necessaries which we could not raise ourselves. The tariff on wool prevents the for- 
 eign producer from destroying our industry. If this duty were taken off, the foreign 
 producer could send his wool into our ports at prices that would destroy us, and after 
 our industry was destroyed that part of the demand now supplied by us would be sup- 
 plied by them, and with this increased demand would naturally raise the price of wool; 
 but in the mean time we had been destroyed, and without any benefit to the consumers 
 or the manufacturers. We have been encouraged by the promise of reasonable protec- 
 tion, and the prices of our flocks have risen in consequence 20 per cent., and we ask that 
 this protection be continued. From the view I take of the situation it would seem wise 
 for our Government to encourage the industry by restraining the importation of foreign 
 wools, as our annual wool clip alone, regardless of the iiJi"itton produced, is of greater 
 value than either the gold or silver produced in the United States. Since 1884, on ac- 
 count of the reduction in the tariff in 1-^83, there has been a reduction of two-sevenths 
 in the production of Texas wools. 
 
 The value of this industry to Texas is to-day second only to cotton, and we utilize the 
 roughest and most arid parts of the State; in fact, those parts that can not be cultivated 
 to advantage and do not afford suflBcieEt food for the successful grazing of other animals, 
 and to destroy this industry means more to the people of Texas than they seem to think. 
 
 I have described only a very few of the reasons why we should not have free wool. 
 Manufacturers claim wool to be raw material. It may be to them, but to the wool- 
 grower it is his finished product, and has cost him more in proportion thag the finished 
 
REVISION OF THK TARIFF. 209 
 
 product-of the manufacturer, for in many instances it has cost him more to produce it 
 than he gets for the finished product, and why should not the grower be protected in his 
 product as well as the manufacturer? We claim that he should, and demand equal pro- 
 tection with them, and if we are forced to give up the tariff on wool, take it from every- 
 thing and let us stand upon the same plane, and not select us to be slaughtered for the 
 benefit of the foreign producers of wool. 
 
 It is claimed by the manufacturers that we can not raise carpet wools. I deny this 
 and say that Texas and the Territories of Arizona, New Mexico, southern Colorado, and 
 southern California, with proper protection, can raise all the carpet wool needed in the 
 United States. The portions of country I have named are better adapted for the native 
 Mexican sheep than lor any other sheep. They are more nearly like the foreign countries 
 that produce carpet wool than any other portion of our country. The climate and topog- 
 raphy of the country are suitable to that class of sheep, and, besides, those sheep are the 
 native sheep of those sections and thrive exceedingly well upon the rough mountains 
 and arid plains of those States and Territories named. They increase very rapidly. The 
 motherly instinct of the ewes is most wonderful, and I have known instances of over 
 100 per cent, being raised from them in one year, and 90 percent, is very common, while 
 from 30 to 45 is about all that can be done with fine merinos in the same country and 
 climate. There is also a certain class of people in those sections who would prefer to 
 raise that class of sheep to any other, as they need so little care and attention and just 
 suit the Mexican population along the fiio Grande. 
 
 It is stated by some that the whole battle of free trade centers upon fine wool, and this 
 is the truth. Now, it is not right or fair that the wool-grower who has invested his all 
 in this industry should be singled out to bear the brunt of the assaults of the free-traders, 
 as they are continually bringing them at a time when they will do us the most harm 
 (and that is about the time we are ready to put our clips upon the market). Thus by 
 their sinister predictions and onslaughts they affect the minds of the buyers and keep 
 them from investing as largely as they would otherwise have done. 
 
 Now, the wool-grOwers have a right to call upon those intere.sted in all other great in- 
 dustries to stand by them in this effort to crush us, for it is true, if free-traders succeed 
 and wool-growers are forced to succumb and go down, we will transfer the battle to 
 others and all fall together. 
 
 A. E. Shepard, 
 President Texas Wool-Growers^ Association. 
 
 Walnut, Tex., December 2i, 1889. 
 Dear Sir: I beg to inclose you copy of resolution, passed at last meeting of Bosque 
 County (Texas) Wool-Growers' Association. 
 Yours, etc., 
 
 Geo. B. Johnston, 
 Secretary Bosque Couniy Wool-Growers^ Association. 
 Capt. A. E. Shbpakd, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 We, the committee on resolutions, etc., beg leave to report: 
 
 Whereas a strong influence is being exerted to place wool on the list of free importa- 
 tions; and 
 
 Whereas such a measure if adopted would bring financial ruin to many and disaster 
 to all persons in the wool-producing industry of this country; and 
 ' Whereas wool bears the same relation to the wool- producing industry of this country 
 that manufactured cloth bears to the manufacturing industries: Therefore 
 
 Resolved, That we, as wool-growers of Texas, hereby express our thanks to the hon- 
 orable members of Congress of the United States who have labored to protect the inter- 
 ests of American industry, and more especially of the wool-growers; and 
 
 Resolved, That we petition the honorable Congress to retain the present rate of import 
 duty on wool and thereby assist in causing the wool market of our country to become 
 settled and stable; and 
 
 Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to the delegates who represent in 
 Washington the interests of the Texas wool-growers. 
 
 Signed by the committee. 
 
 485 14 
 
210 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 [Office of Howard Bland, breeder of thoroughbred Shorthorn and Hereford cattle, American me* 
 rino sheep, and Poland (.:hina hogs.] 
 
 Tayloe, Tex. , December 27, 1889. 
 Deae Sie: You will please find statement, and, based on 1,000 head, what it will cost 
 in Williamson, Tex. I have 7, .500 head of sheej) at this writing and think I know what 
 I am talking about, and 1 have not counted anything for feed. When we run two sheep 
 to the acre it cost us 2.5 cents per head lor leed. I hope Captain Shepard will be able 
 to help the poor sheep-men, for I thiuk they have been run over more than any other 
 cla,ss of men. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 ' HowAED Bland. 
 T. C. Feost, Esq., San Anloniu, Tex. 
 
 [Office of Howard Bland, breeder of thoroughbred Shorthorn and Hereford cattle, American me- 
 rino sheep, and Poland China hogs.] 
 
 Tayloe, Tex., Deccmier 27, 1889. 
 Deae Sie: Please find the following itemized account of expense, bill of 1,000 sheep: 
 1,000 sheep cost S2.50 per head, $2,500; interest on same, $250; 500 acres of land at 
 $20, $10,000; interest on same, .$1,000; herding same, $30 per month, twelve months, 
 $3fiO; shearing and marketing wool, 10 cents per head, $100 — $1,710, cost of running 
 1,000 sheep in Williamson County, Texas. 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 HowAED Bland. 
 T. C. Feost, Esq., 
 
 San Autonlo, 'Tex. 
 
 Received for wool of 1,000 sheep: 1,000 shear 6 pounds per head, 6,000 pounds, at 
 20 cents, $1,200. 
 
 Deduct that amount from cost of running sheep, the 1,000 sheep leave the grower 
 1510 behind. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 HowAED Bland. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OP G. H. WALLACE. 
 
 Mr. G. H. Wallace again appeared belbre the committee. He said: 
 
 IMr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have to say to the committee that 
 unfortunately Mr. McDowell is not present. He has forwarded a short letter and sam- 
 ples accompanying it, which he desires to be presented to the committee. 
 
 The following is the letter : 
 
 " Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Ways and Means Committee: I fully recognize 
 the importance of the work you are doing. We believe it wise, and we are thankful 
 that you grant the privilege to hear, at sundry times, representatives of the different 
 industries of the United States. 
 
 "The nation's prosperity depends upon the succe.ss of its indu.stries. 
 
 " It is not my purpose to present an e!al)orate paper upon this subject of fine wool 
 growing as an industry. I simply wish to (;ive my own experience as a practical fine- 
 wool grower for over fifty years. 
 
 " I served as an apprentice for three years under the teaching of William Brownlee, 
 who had a flock of over three thousand live hundred fine-bred sheep. In company with 
 him we spent -seventy days each year in examining sheep and wool, givingfuUten hours 
 each day, all for the purpose of making improvements of the animal and its wool. 
 Night and day, winter and summer, I have cared for his sheep. 
 
 "After finishing my apprenticeship I have kept of my own sheep over thirteen hun- 
 dred the choice of the Brownlee Hock, still improving sheep and fleece. If you will 
 look in the museum at Washington, D. C, you will there find from my flock the finest 
 sample of wool grown in the United States. 
 
 " If I were before you I would show a method of judging from the fleece to the fabric 
 by hiking between my fingers the end of some of the til)ers from sample and by aside 
 to side movement of the hand spin a fine, long thread without twisting the string or 
 thicad, using only one hand to do so. The value is, the felting properties of the wool 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 211 
 
 gives out the thread without mechauical help. There is, no wool in the world com- 
 pares with our fine-grown wool in luster, elasticity, strength, and fineness; all these 
 properties, the result of skill in breeding, shows not only in the fleece but more so in the 
 fabric. I have a suit made from my own wool, which was manufactured into cloth at 
 the Union Mills, in Connecticut. This suit shows higher luster and holds it color and 
 keeps its strength better than any cloth I ever wore. 
 
 ""We do not like, after so much care and cost in breeding up the highest point of 
 2 280 fibres to the inch, to have our wool classed us raw material. This point we have 
 reached, but it was finer thao we had a pacing demand. I mention this as proof we 
 can grow whatever kind of wool is required. 
 
 " I send with this some samples from my last year's clip. I also send sample of wool 
 tops that paid only 10 cents a pouud duty; 100 pounds will make 100 pounds of thread 
 or yarn; by Secretary's late decision now pays 60 cents; ring-waste is the same in an- 
 other form and should pay 60 cents. 
 
 "It is this that has helped to hurt the fine- wool growing so much. 
 ' ' Truly yours, 
 
 "John McDowell, 
 '^President Pennsylvania State Wool Growers' and Sheep Breeders' Association." 
 
 The CffAlEMAN. Are the samples marked so that we can identify them? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Yes, sir; the samples are marked Nos. 1, 2, and 3. 
 
 The Chaieman. Is that all ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. That is all, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flowee. I want to ask one question, Mr. Wallace. You stated here yesterday 
 that it took one sheep to an acre of land worth 135 or $40. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Thirty to forty dollars. 
 
 Mr. Flowee. At 6 per cent, interest that would be $2.40 per annum for $40. The 
 average would be $2.20 per acre for the interest on your land. Now you raise on that 
 sheep which are worth how much ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I think the average I gave yesterday was a small average. 
 
 Mr. Flowee. A dollar and a quarter ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. About that neighborhood. 
 
 Mr. Flowee. And the lambs |1? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. About that. 
 
 Mr. Flowee. That is $2.25. Now, what else do you get out of your sheep to make 
 np the interest on your land ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I believe I said yesterday we did not get it out of the sheep exclu- 
 sively, and it came back in the shape of manure, which enabled us to improve our crops 
 on a portion of the land, and that sheep raising was in conuection with the raising of 
 crops. 
 
 Mr. Flowee. Is your farm a wheat farm ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. No, sir; my system of farming is a diversified one. I raise crops and 
 stock of various kinds. 
 
 Mr. Flowee. You want a tariff duty enough on wool so you can raise and sell it at 
 a profit on $40 land ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I want the tariff duty on wool so as to enable me to raise that prod- 
 uct from the sheep in connection with other diversified interests so as to enable me to 
 live. 
 
 Mr. Flowee. That is as it should be; but you are raising sheep on $40-an-acre land 
 on which the interest is $2.40. You get $2.25 on your sheep, and you hope to get your 
 interest back. I can see that if you farm on that you can not make as much money as 
 in other parts of the United States where they have cheaper land. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. You put the interest on the land at $2.40 and the returns on the sheep 
 at $2.25, and you consider that the returns of the sheep will offset the interest on the 
 land. You have entirely omitted the expense of raising that sheep and taking care of it. 
 , Mr. Flowee. The cost of taking care of that sheep is how much ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Where we pursue a system of agriculture as it is followed in the sec- 
 tion of country I made reference to yesterday, the ten mutton-producing States, it is a 
 very difiScult matter to arrive at the exact cost of caring for that sheep. It is hard to 
 estimate. We employ men on the farm to make the hay crop. We have to make our 
 own corn crop, and some of the hay and corn is fed to the sheep and some to the hogs 
 and cattle. The farmer scarcely ever divides it up upon each individual animal, but he 
 takes the gross total. My expenses have been so much and returns so much. That is 
 the way in which a farmer gets his estimate. 
 
 Mr. Flowee. In Montana it costs $1 and in Texas 90 cents to take care of sheep, and 
 it would cost you $1 to take care of a sheep in Missouri ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. On the average. There was an effort made three or four years ago 
 by the State Wool-Growers' Association to arrive at a fair estimate of what the cost of 
 
212 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 raising wool in Missouri was, and they decided it was about 20 cents a pound, takingon 
 an average 5 pounds to the head. 
 
 Mr. Flowek. It wouh; lie $1 ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. For taking care of the sheep ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. That takes into consideration all the other expenses connected with 
 the agriculture on the farm. 
 
 Mr. Flowee. In Montana it costs 91 and in Texas it costs 90 cents, and you say it 
 costs 20 cents a pound to make wool in Missouri. Does it cost you ^l to raise a fleece of 
 5 pounds? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. This was the estimate arrived at by taking the diversified agriculture 
 of the farm into consideration. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You certainly do not piake much on raising sheep. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I believe I said so. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Unless by the manure they make they improve that land and bring it 
 back to wheat land again. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. I believe I said yesterda.y that they vrould consume weeds, etc., that 
 cattle would reject; that they would eat portions of the herbage that cattle would re- 
 ject, and that we had additional return ou the sheep's manure. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That will bring back played-out lands and make them fertile again. 
 
 Mr. Wallace. That will help to restore the fertility of the soil. 
 
 Mr. Flower. This sheep-raising is not an indnstr3' you keep wholly on your farms, 
 but you keep other farm stock ? 
 
 Mr. Wallace. Yes; diversified farming. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. ALBERT CHAPMAN. 
 
 Mr. Albert Chapman, secretary of the Vermont Wool-growers' Association, sub- 
 mitted the following statement : 
 
 The subject assigned me opens a wide field for argument and investigation and I must 
 assume at the start that the proposition is so evident as to need no production of proof 
 to sustain it. 
 
 Probably no gentleman in this room but that is clothed with wool grown on some of 
 the families of merino sheep, and if we extend our observation outside we shall find the 
 larger proportion of our people wearing clothing made from wool grown upon sheep of 
 the same breed, or from those that have more or less of that blood; hence, it is evident 
 that the merino, in some of its varieties of families or crosses, is producing the larger 
 portion of wool suitable for the manufacture of the greatest varieties of I'abrics suitable 
 for clothing most of our people, including ladies' woolen dress goods and cloakings, or 
 for the heavier cloths worn by the male portion of our population. 
 
 Therefore, in considering this subject the term ''merino" must embrace not only what 
 is known the world over as the Vermont merino, but all the subvarieties of the family 
 breed, such as Saxon merino and others, sheep that have been bred with a definite object 
 in view to produce wool of finer grade or longer staple than that produced by the average 
 merino that has generally been bred to produce the largest amount of wool without a 
 fixed purpose to produce that of any one of the qualities named or to produce a more 
 limited number or kind of fabrics used as clothing. 
 
 I regret that time has not permitted me to investigate the subject sufficiently to con- 
 sider it from the manufacturer's stand-point as well as from that of the wool-grower. 
 Several years since I heard the late Hon. John S. Hayes answer a wool-grower when asked 
 whatkindofwoolshallwerai.se: "Grow such wools as will best lurnish the largest 
 amount and give you the largest profit, and you will be sure to have a demand for it as 
 soon as you grow it in sufficient quantities to attract attention and invite invention to 
 construct proper machinery and design fabrics to use it profitably. ' ' This was evidence 
 to show there is or will be a demand for all the different grades or varieties of merino 
 wool, provided foreigners are not permitted to crowd producers out of our home market. 
 
 I assume the merino can and does produce a much greater variety of wool for the 
 production of the fabrics mentioned than any other breed, and some kinds of wool that 
 nn other breed can produce; and at the same time no other breed of sheep in the world 
 possesses such aptitude for the improvement of its fleece in any line or direction the 
 will of the breeder or the demands of the public may dictate at any time; nor is there any 
 other breed that has such power to produce improvement in the fleeces of other breeds 
 or so increased the value of such fleeces when they have been used to make crosses on 
 such breeds, at the same time always increasing the capacity of such crosses to produce 
 more as well as finer wool, fitting them for the production of a larger variety of fabrics 
 and enabling our wool-growers to produce all the clothing wools needed for our people 
 as well as a number of kinds of goods not properly enumerated under the head of cloth- 
 ing wools. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 213 
 
 The merino's aptitude to produce all varieties of clothing wool consists, first, in its ability 
 to thrive and prove hardy in all the difl'erent sections and climatic conditions of our coun- 
 try and in the excellence of its fleece for the diversity of its use, as already stated. These 
 excellencies consist mainly in fineness, different lengths of staple, in strength of fiber 
 in proportion to its size, and in its felting properties, fitting it for the finest broadcloths 
 as well as for the finest grades of ladies' dress goods and the better grades of worsted 
 goods for men's wear. The demand for such wools can not be supplied by any other breed, 
 nor can they be supplied in sufhcieut quantities as is demanded by a prosperous peo- 
 ple by the merino, and which is accounted for in the great hardiness of the breed and 
 its ability to thrive and adapt itself to a great variety of conditions, climatic and other- 
 wise, and especially in its superior ability to thrive, prosper, and preserve healthy con- 
 ditions when herded in large bands or flocks, which is not possessed by any other breed. 
 
 Most of the propositions I have laid down are self-evident to all who have given the 
 subject any thought or study, but they can very properly be emphasized by a few illus- 
 trations I will briefly give to prove them correct. 
 
 Taking excellence of fleece we will first consider fineness, although I presume the fact 
 will hardly be questioned that the merino, in some, if not all, of its families, produces 
 the finest wool of any breed of sheep, and that few or none produce what may properly 
 be termed coarse wool. "Youatt, "the English authority, gives the measurement of 
 fibre of fine at jIj; part of an iuch or less; of coarse at ^^^ part of an inch or more. 
 Later authorities give the standard as tjJ-,; part of an inch for coarse, and less than tjJjj 
 part of an inch for very fine. The Vermont Merino Sheep Breeders' Association have 
 havehaa a number of measurements of samples made by a competent microscopic expert. 
 These samples were from the fleeces of sheep shearing heavy fleeces, but not bred for the 
 purpose of developing superior fineness or quality, although the best breeders take that 
 quality largely into consideration when perfecting the improvement,s of their flocks. A 
 detailed statement of those measurements would be out of place here, and too tedious 
 for the consideration of your committee, but I will briefly refer to a few facts developed 
 by those measurements to show that merino is fine. Samples from fifty recorded Ver- 
 mont merino sheep were measured. Of all these only two were coarser than -^^-g part of 
 an inch; the other 48 were finer, while one ram, shearing 7 J pounds of thoroughly 
 scoured wool, produced an average of ^^V^ P^"^' of S'" i"''-£' from measurements of six 
 dilferent parts of the fleece, including the coarsest locks that could be found on him, 
 the very finest fiber from the finest part of the fleece measuring only 2 J^- „ part of an inch. 
 
 These experiments, as well as other competent and unquestioned authorities, fully 
 prove the aptitude of the merino wool and its tendency to do so even when bred for im- 
 provements in other directions, especially for large quantity of wool. 
 
 Another point of excellence to be considered is the various length of staple of the fleece 
 of the merino, adapting it to varied uses in manufacturing different kinds of fabrics used 
 for clothing. Some of the families of this breed are now bred for extra length ot fleece 
 and their wool is peculiarly adapted lor combing purposes. Ohio, West Virginia, west- 
 ern Pennsylvania, and Michigan are raising these wools in more or less quantities, breed- 
 ers in those localities aiming, many of them, to produce fine combing delain wools and 
 succeeding to such extent that their productions are quoted at the very highest prices 
 paid for wools in our markets at the present time. Tliese wools are used for the same 
 purposes as the combing wools of Australia, and by reason of their superior strength of 
 staple are much better adapted for making strong, durable fabrics than the foreign-grown 
 wooLs. They can be produced in much larger quantities than they are now if sufficient 
 surety is vouchsafed to the home-growers that they will not be displaced in our markets 
 by foreign wools by reason of their cheaper cost raised abroad. 
 
 The States I have named are not the only ones that can and do produce merino wools 
 of sufficient length of staple for combing purposes. A great deal of the heavy merino 
 wools of Vermont are now used by the manulacturers of knit underwear and hosiery. 
 Very little, if any, of these wools are so short that they can not be combed successfully 
 by the improved combs now used, yet wools less than 2.] inches in length are more prop- 
 erly classed as clothing wools, usually carded instead of combed. In all the States where 
 merino wools are grown a large portion of the fleeces are over the length stated. At the 
 public shearings of the Vermont Merino Sheep-Shearing Association there is each year 
 careful measurements made of the length of staple in its natural condition as shorn 
 from the sheep, and also of the fiber with the crimp drawn out. The fiber is increased in 
 length by this process at least one-third. Going over the reports for a number oi' years, 
 I find the measurements of the staple from five hundred and twelve sheep. Among 
 these there were one hundred and eighty-seven cases where the measurements of staple 
 were 2} inches or over, and about one-seventh of these exceeded 3 inches, while much 
 less than that proportion fell short of measuring 2 inches, the number in this class being 
 very small. This, again, was among merinos that were bred more for density of fleece 
 than for length of staple, the opinion among breeders of this class of sheep being gen- 
 eral that great density will give more wool than length of staple, and there is little 
 room for doubt but this opinion is correct. 
 
214 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 In no country has the merino reached such a high grade of improvement as a producer 
 of the largest amount of wool to weight of carcass or the individual sheep as in some 
 parts of the United States, and although in some instances this may have been carried 
 to such an excess as to impair somewhat size and constitution it is not generally the 
 case for the merino in its different families is the hardiest sheep upon which to grow 
 the wool to clothe our nation, and at the same time furnish a good wholesome meat to 
 feed our people. 
 
 You may be told by a few of the representatives of manufacturers that some varieties 
 of wool are not, or can not be grown in the United States in quantities suflicient to 
 supply their wants; among others, the very finer kinds of merino and Australian comb- 
 ing wools , but irom the growers' stand-point the same reason should be assigned for this 
 failure to produce that the manufacturers have from time to time given and urged why 
 they could not manufacture the several different kinds of fabrics, t. e., unequal foreign 
 competitors, that when the wool is grown or the goods manufactured there is no sure 
 demand for the home product because the cheaper product of the foreigner is permitted, 
 for want of sutlicient tarift' protection, to crowd the home product out of the home market. 
 
 Our vast nianufacturing industries have been built up by protection against such 
 foreign competition, and the growing of fine wool will increase in this country the same 
 as manufacturing has increased if we can be secured, from unequal competition from 
 abroad as they have been. 
 
 Unless this assurance of a home market for our product can be secured, the growing of 
 fine merino wool in this country will continue to decline as it has been for some years 
 past, and must be gradually resigned to Australia, South America, and other countries 
 that can produce it cheaper, but not of as good durable quality, and our greatest im- 
 provements in merino sheep gradually but surely go to assist those countries to destroy 
 the fine-wool-growing industries of our own. 
 
 Since 1883 the loss of sheep to our country has been eight to ten millions instead of a 
 gain of more than twice that number, as there should have, and undoubtedly would 
 have been had the same measures of protection been maintained that we enjoyed under 
 the tariff laws in force previous to that time ; but this loss of eight or ten millions of sheep 
 is only a partof what we are called to sustain of the many million of dollars yearly sent 
 abroad for the product we should be raising at home on the additional number of sheep 
 we should be raising had they been increasing at the same rate they were for the years 
 immediately preceding 1884. This loss in numbers has fallen almost wholly upon the 
 merino race of sheep, among the different families of these producers of our best clothing 
 wools; and the failure to multiply and increase the flocks of this most useful of all breeds 
 has fallen most heavily on those engaged in breeding stud flocks to improve those of the 
 West and Southwest. Hence Vermont has amost vital interest in whether growing merino 
 wool is to be encouraged or to be driven out of our own country, for upon merino sheep 
 must be grown the larger proportion of the clothing of our people, and on no variety of 
 the breed or race am wool be grown in so large quantities or so cheaply as on the Ver- 
 mont merino, and in this will be found the reason why Vermont always urges protection 
 to encourage the growth of the merino flocks of the United States. And yet did we not 
 fee] — indeed know — that the benefit to our country would be general and not benefit 
 Vermont alone, we should not be urging ample protection to wool before this present 
 Congress. 
 
 EesoluUoii of the Vermoni Merino Sheep-Breeders' Association. 
 
 OfiBee of Vermont Merino Sheep-Bnjedcrs' Association. L. W. Peet, president. Cornwall. V. Rich, 
 treasurer, liicliville. Albert Chupuian, sceretary, Middlebury. 
 
 MiDDLEJUiEY, Vt., January^, 1890. 
 
 The Vermont Merino Sheep-Breeders' Association, this 8th day of January, 1890, in 
 annual meeting assembled, do most emphatically enter our protest against the proposi- 
 tion of a few woolen manufacturers "to place wool on the free-list, and we insist that 
 the duties thereon shall be adjusted and maintained so as to furnish full and adequate 
 protection to that industry throughout the United States," and we also ask Congress to 
 so frame our tariff laws as to provide ample and adequate protection to all the manu- 
 facturers of honest woolen fabrics within our own country, and at the same time so as 
 to prevent fraudulent practices to evade duties, and so as to discourage the importation 
 of substitutes for wool, such as shoddies, cow's hair, etc, and especially to provide 
 against the importation of clothing wools at the cheap rate levied on carpet wools. 
 
 The secretary of this association is instructed to forward a certified copy of these res- 
 olutions to each of our Senators and JMembers of Congress from Vermont and to the 
 chairman of the Committee on Ways and IMeans of the House of Representatives. 
 
 Albert Chapman, 
 Secretary Vermont Merino Shtep-Breeders' Association. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 215 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM LAWRENCE. 
 
 Mr. William Lawrence, of Bellefontaiiie, Ohio, next addressed the committee. He 
 said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here as one of a committee ap- 
 pointed by the recent national convention of wool-growers in Washington, D. C, to sub- 
 mit some remarks as to some of the legislation which wool-growers generally believe to 
 be required by sound public policy and justice, and as to what they expect the present 
 Congress to enact. 
 
 To me has been assigned the duty of addressing you on the subject of duties on carpet 
 wools. 
 
 I think it safe to say that wool-growers generally believe that sound policy requires 
 that a duty should be imposed on so-called carpet wools, which will in due time enable 
 American wool-growers to produce all required for consumption in the United States. 
 
 I will endeavor to show that Congress, in the revision of the tariff laws, should im- 
 pose such duties on imported carpet wools as will in the near future shut out importa- 
 tions, and give the American wool-grower the exclusive privilege of supplying all re- 
 quired in our markets. For this purpose an imj)ortant inquiry is, how much wool is 
 required annually in this country, and what are the sources of supply? 
 
 The wool circular of .lustice, Bateman & Co., of December 2, 1889, says: 
 
 "The clip of the United States is estimated at 250,000,000 pounds, or a yield of 
 about ti pounds per fleece from 41,500,000 sheep. The imports of wool for the year are 
 estimated at 131,000,000 pounds, and the <iuaiitity of American wool in the grease that 
 would enter into the $5h,000,000 v/orth of imported Vyjoolen goods for the year 1889, if 
 made in the United States, would be about 175,000,000 pounds more, making a total 
 amount of wool consumed in the United States of ,556,000,000 pounds, or more than 
 double the whole product of the present American clip." 
 
 This does not include the imports of '' rags, shoddy, mnngo, waste, and flocks," ag- 
 gregating 8,662,209 pounds. This aggregitte is chiefly so-called " waste." 
 
 Mr. Grinnell, consul at Bradford, in his report to the State Department of March 19, 
 1889, shows that exports of so-called waste from Bradford and Liverpool to the United 
 States for a year will reacli about 8,919,944 pounds, of which 1,225,366 pounds are "gen- 
 uine salable product," and 7,694,578 pounds a swindling, fraudulent contrivance, man- 
 ufactured to evade our tariff laws. This waste, contrary to what you would suppose 
 from its name, and differing from what is real waste, "is a highly purified article of 
 scoured wool" (Wool Rep., 1887, p. xxii), worth in our markets from 50 to 62 cents 
 a pound, and 1 pound of it is the equivelant of 3 pounds — in fact .31 pounds — unwashed 
 merino wool. This importof 8,662,;209 pounds is the equivalent of more than 26,000,000 
 pounds of Ohio merino wool, and which is more than all the wool produced by the 
 4,000,000 sheep of that State. 
 
 The imports of wool for the fiscal year 1889 were: 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Clothing wools 29,226,317 
 
 Combingwools 6,869,871 
 
 So-called carpet wools 90,391,541 
 
 Total 120,487,729 
 
 Carpet wools, to a large extent, especially the higher grades, came in washed; so well 
 washed, that the average shrinkage in scouring would not reach 15 per cent., and these 
 wools were the equivalent of at least 100,000,000 pounds unwashed (see Senate Rep. 
 2332, part 2, first session Fiftieth Congress, p. 615; Bowes tt Bros. Liverpool Wool Cir- 
 cular November 20. 1889). Unwashed carpet wools shrink in scouring generally about 
 40 per cent. The shrinkage of unwashed American merino wools will average 66j per 
 cent. 
 
 I invite the particular attention of the committee to that. While this amounts to 90 
 percent, of carpet wools, I consider it equivalent to 180,000,000 pounds of unwashed 
 American wools. 
 
 The carpet wools soimported are thus the equivalent of 180,000,000 pounds unwashed 
 American merino wools, and the equivalent of 120,000,000 pounds of unwashed coarse 
 Territorial wools, such as are and can lie used for carpets, and with which wools the 
 foreign carpet wools directly compete. Thus it maybe said the importation of carpet 
 wools in the fiscal year 1889 are the. equivalent of 120,000,000 pounds unwashed American 
 wools, and the imports of carpet wools for the current year show a large increase on 
 the last. 
 
 The combing wools came in chiefly washed. Their average shrinkage washed is about 
 
216 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 ■ 20 per cent. ; unwashed about 40 per cent. Those wools were the equivalent of about 
 8,000,000 unwashed. 
 
 The wool supply as unwashed for 1889 may be thus stated : 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Domestic clip 250,000,000 
 
 Imported clothing wools 29,226,317 
 
 Imported combing wools equal . 8,000,000 
 
 Imported carpet wools, so-called, equal to competing America unwashed.. 120, 000, 000 
 
 Wool in woolen goods 178,000,000 
 
 Foreign rags, shoddy, waste, etc., say 26, 000, 000 
 
 Total .- 601,226,317 
 
 Or, in round numbers, 600, 000, 000 pounds, besides domestic rags, shoddy, etc. , probably 
 50,000,000 pounds. It will require all of 100,000,000 sheep to produce this amount of 
 wool, and these must be located in this country if we produce all the wool, and to the ex- 
 tent we do not our supplies must come from sheep in other countries. 
 
 It is conceded on all hands by protectionists that the duty under the act of 1883 on 
 some classes of worsted goods, as the law was administered under President Cleveland's 
 administration, has been in a large measure injurious if not ruinous to our manufactur- 
 ers; that it has largely increased the imports of such goods, and so of foreign wools in 
 them, and that increased duties are necessary to reduce importations and give the Amer- 
 ican market to home manufacturers. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Right there, if it will not interrupt you. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. No. 
 
 Mr. JlcMiLLiN. You spoke of a ruling during Mr. Cleveland's administration con- 
 cerning woolens and worsteds. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Worsteds alone. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLix. I am not distinguishing between woolens and worsteds. Was not 
 that the ruling ever since the tariff act of 1883, under both administrations? 
 
 Mr. Lawrexce. I am not advised. 
 
 Mr. MoMlLLlN. I think you will find it so. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. It has been changed. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlx. I just wanted to show you it was the ruling of both administrations. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. That is probably so. I am not commenting on the lact that it waa 
 during Mr. Cleveland's administration, but only that the result of the ruling, fromwhat- 
 ever source it came, has been ruinous to the worsted manufacturer. 
 
 No reason e.x;ists, if we adopt the policy of protection, why substantially all the woolen 
 and worsted goods required for consumption in the United States should not be manu- 
 factured here. The duty should be sucli as to shut out the foreign product while our 
 manufacturers charge only reasonal)le prices. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLix. What would you do for revenue; levy a direct tax or an income tax? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. I would give to the American producer the privilege of supplying 
 everything that can be .supplied in suHicient quantities to meet all our demands and at 
 reasonable prices, and if there should be other things on which we could not derive suf- 
 ficient revenue to run the Government, we have the whisky tax, tobacco tax, an inter- 
 nal revenue at about 8130,000,000 a year, which is rapidly increasing, and that, with 
 other sources of revenue, would run the Government. 
 
 Mr. CARLISLE. Would you fa^or keeping the tax on whisky, tobacco, and giving free 
 alcohol used in the arts? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir. 
 
 Jlr. Carlisle. Would you put a duty on tea and coffee? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. No, sir; I anr in favor of admitting, without any duty, those arti- 
 cles which can not be produced in the United States. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Are you in iavor of admitting sugar free? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Sugar does not I'all witliin the policy of a protective tariff, for the 
 reason that more than twenty years of protection have not been able to develop the in- 
 dustry suCBciently 1o supply all our wants. Now, if we could not develop the wool in- 
 dustry sufficiently to supply all our wants, then it would not fall within the policy of 
 the protective tariff. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. We have not done it in a hundred years. 
 
 Mr. L.AWKExi'E. I should (|ualify that remark a little and say if we could not de- 
 velop an industry to supply some particular class, we fail with that class, but still I do 
 believe that with a snflicient protective tariff we can produce every pound of wool used 
 in the United States and we will do .so in the near future, every pound requisite to sup- 
 ply the American wants. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. But still you do not answer my (jue-stion. Of course you are not evad- 
 ing it, I understand that. You say we should put on such duties so as to enable us to 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 217 
 
 manufacture everything in this country we are capable of producing to the full extent 
 of the American demand, which would cut ofl' every dollar received from the customs 
 duty. 
 
 Mr. Lawkence. Not every dollar. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Then you say you would take the duty off sugar because it is not suffi- 
 ciently produced in this country. 
 
 Mr. Lawbence. I would take off the duty from sugar so far as it is placed there for 
 merely protection purposes. 
 
 Mr. Caklislk. Then you would reduce it. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Yes, but I would \evj a revenue duty upon every foreign commod- 
 ity which we can not by protection sufficiently develop in the United States. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How about coffee and tea? You would put a duty on that and we 
 do not produce either ot them. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. As to whether it would be a wise measure, I think it is a little 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. But this is a legitimate inquiry, because you say we must pursue one 
 of two policies; and we do not produce either coffee or tea in this country. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. No. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Therefore, thej' would come within the scope of articles which in your 
 judgment should not have a duty levied upon them, 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. If it be necessary for levying duties upon articles which we can 
 not supply sufficiently 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. There are a few, consisting of trocical fruits and sugar, which now 
 yield $.50,000,000 or §60,000,000. You would reduce that? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. If I was driven to the necessity of putting a revenue on tea and 
 coffee, of course I would resort to whatever source of revenue would be neces.sary. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Would not your policy inevitably result in that? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. If ft be necessary to save the protective system and to sustain the 
 revenue system. So far as whisky is concerned, I would pile it on, not 90 cents, but 
 $1.50 agallon. I would pilj it on to the J'ullest extentthat we could enforce it. 
 
 Mr. McKexna. Is it not one of the criticisms of the present policy that it raises too 
 much revenue? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Yes. That is a bit of statesmanship of the last administration and 
 the same that preceded it- 
 Mr. Carlisle. And the next one, perhaps. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Perhaps ; but all the statesmanship has not been able to get rid ot 
 the surplus. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It does not follow that we are to have any revenue from the customs. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Not at all.' I do not ask that, but I do say that the agricultural in- 
 dustries are of such supreme importance that whatever may be the result as to the 
 others those industries should be favored bv protective duties if you adopt the policy at 
 all. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is not sugar an agricultural industry? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Yee; it is one thing which under protection we have not been able 
 to develop. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it not true that under the protection system of one hundred years we 
 have not produced on an average 10 per cent, of the sugar used in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Our people consume about 56 pounds of sugar per head, and I think 
 that we produce about 10 per cent, of the whole amount consumed. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Therefore it follows that that is a direct tax on the consumers. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir; and the duty on sugar, assuming we can not sufficiently 
 develop it to supply our wants, is a revenue duty and not a protective duty. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I understand that carpet wool after twenty years of protection is not 
 raised in this country sufficiently to supply its wants. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. The act of 1807, discriminating against the carpet wool industry. I 
 could give you some information here why that is so. The bill as it passed the House 
 in 1883 provided lor better protection for the carpet-wool industry than the act of 1867. 
 There were gentlemen in the Senate who were interested in the manufacture of carpets 
 and the importation of carpet wool, and they had enough influence to secure the reduc- 
 tion on the carpet- wool duty. And if you look at the report of the revenue commission 
 of 1876 — who was it signed by? 
 
 Mr. Mills. Wells? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. No; not Wells's report; I think it was Hayes. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. No; customs. In making recommendations for the tariff of 1867 
 the carpet wool was put at i! and 6 cents. That is, they recommended II cents on common 
 carpet wool of 13 cents and less in value, and 6 cents on wools over that, but that con- 
 templated double duties on washed wools at $3 and single duty on scoured carpet wools, 
 
218 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 and there was enough influence iu the Senate to strike out, or rather not adopt that pro- 
 vision, and the result was that act of 1867 discriminated against carpet wool. This 
 favored the foreign product and allowed carpet wools to come in washed at the same 
 rate of duty as the unwashed. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You would not object to that now if they came in for carpets. 
 
 Mr. Lawkknce. I should not object to it at all, because we can produce all the car- 
 pet wool required in the United States, and whatever we can produce in the United 
 States I am in favor of giving to the American people the privilege of producing rather 
 than giving that privilege to foreigners. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That is to say, you would have a prohibitory duty on articles which 
 you can not produce? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. That is what it means. I mean to be perfectly candid. Let me 
 qualify that as to these things which by protection we can not produce at reasonable 
 prices to supply the American wants. 
 
 Mr. McKexna. Bo you base your belief on the principle of supply and demand? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. I)o I understand from your remarks that you would take off the 
 duty on things we can not produce in the United States? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. On those things which we can not produce enough of to supply onr 
 wants I would not levy a duty for protection but for revenue purposes. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. When under your system should we commence to levy the duties ? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. "When? 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. After hovv' long au experiment? After trying it for how long a time? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. That would depend upon the industry. Some industries would re- 
 quire a shorter time and some a longer. 
 
 Mr. McKe.vna. When would you commence taking it off tin-plate, for instance? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. I would commence that slowly; because we can by sufficient en- 
 couragement of the production of tin supply our wants. I think. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You could not do that right away? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Nn. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. It would take some years to do it? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir; but you must commence. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Suppose yon have been producing for a hundred years, as iron and 
 steel, and find you are not producing all the country demanded, would you take off the 
 duty? 
 
 Mr. Lawrexce. I have stated my principle. My understanding, however, is that 
 we have supplied it to a very great extent. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. "We imported thirty or forty millions of steel and iron. 
 
 Mr. LawriiNCE. That is manufacturers' hardware, etc. Some of them, I understand, 
 are such articles as we do uot make to any large extent. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Hut can we make them? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. There are some particular articles requiring higher skill and great 
 capital, which we do not produce. "We imported last year probably in round numbers 
 half a million of carpets, but they were of a class of carpets which I understand were 
 very fine and valuable. They did not compete with any of our material or with any 
 of our products at all. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Because they were too expensive ? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir; they were such carpets as are used by men like "Vanderbilt. 
 
 Mr. Flo'WEr. It has been stated that in the States of Iowa, Texas, and two-thirds 
 of the State of Kansas they do not have enough rain-fall in the spring to raise corn, or 
 rather they do not have rain-fall enough to mature that corn, and yet sufficient rain-fall 
 to mature sorghum. Now, they raise a million aud a quarter to a million and a half 
 pounds a year of this carpet wool. "Which would you protect first, carpet wool or the 
 sugar which is made in Kansas? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. I have stated my principle. Sorghum is comjjaratively a new in- 
 dustry. If the sorghum industry will give reasonable promise that by adequate protec- 
 tion it can be developed to supply all our wants, then the duty on sorghum would be- 
 come a protective duty. 
 
 Mr. Flower. But this is a revenue duty. You can not put one-eighth of a cent a 
 pound on sugar unless you get a revenue, and it is a revenue duty. Now, under that 
 duty they will raise this crop. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. If they do, it will add vastly to our resources and wealth. If this 
 was a proper place to make a tarilf speech I would be very glad to do it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. I think you have made one. 
 
 Mr. Lawreni e. But I have been invited here by the National Convention of "Wool- 
 Growers of Texas to discuss two matters, but I will always cheerfully respond to any 
 questions. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 219 
 
 Mr. Bekckineidge. If you should have prohibitory duties upon articles we produce 
 here how would you raise the uecessary revenue of the Oi)vernment? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. I have endeavored to state that. There is a large class of articles, 
 for instance sugar, which we have not yet and can not be able for some time to supply 
 sufficiently to meet all our wants, and as to these articles we can raise revenue by rev- 
 enue duties. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. You would continue the tax upon sugar? 
 
 Mr. Laweknoe. Yes, sir; I would continue a revenue tax on sugar, not a tariff for 
 protection, but a tariff for revenue only. 
 
 The Chairman. If it would not interrupt you, there is a motion that we take a recess 
 for thirty minutes. 
 
 Mr. Laweence. There is nothing which will interrupt me at all. 
 
 Thereupon the committee, at 12.30, adjourned to meet at 1 o'clock. 
 
 AFTER THE EECESS. 
 
 The committee met after the recess, pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 Mr. LAWKEtfCB. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, up to the time 
 when the committee took a recess I had presented statistics showing the amount of wool 
 required for annual consumption in the United States. In answer to certain questions 
 propounded by members of the committee, I had also stated my personal individual 
 views as to what, to some extent, a protective tariff should be. I wish to say distinctly 
 that the duties which I am instructed by the National Convention of Wool-Growers to 
 ask on wool will not be at all prohibitory, and they will be only to a limited extent pro- 
 tective. I do not understand that the wool manufacturers, other than those represent- 
 ing the carpet industry, are asking for a prohibitory duty; but I do understand they are 
 asking for a protective duty. They speak for themselves, and I am heartily in ai-cord 
 with them for everything that they will ask for which will enalile them to supply the 
 whole American market with all manufactured goods for all American things which 
 they can supply at reasonable prices. 
 
 The duty on carpets has been .substantially prohibitory since 1867. The duty has 
 developed the carpet industry until we manufacture more carpets in the United States 
 than are made in all the world besides. . (See Senate Report No. 2332, first session Fif- 
 tieth Congress, part 2, p. 583; part 3, j). 1125. Wool statements before Senate Finance 
 
 ommittee, January, 1889.) 
 
 The carpet manufacturers practically have almost free wool, with a substantially pro- 
 hibitory duty on carpets. The total imports of carpets for 1889 were in value only 
 $730,513. The product of the carpet mills of the United States was, by one estimate, 
 70,651,500 yards, of the value of $46,801,900. Other estimates, perhaps more correct, 
 make the production about 60, 000, 000 yards. 
 
 The Boston American Wool Reporter, of September 5, 1889, says: 
 
 "The carpet manufacturers of the United States have had too many benefits during 
 the last twenty-two years to come forward at this time and ask that they be given their 
 law materials free, while retaining the duties on clothing and combing wools." 
 
 The duty on carpets and other woolen goods was fixed on the basis of an ad valorem 
 duty to compensate the manufacturer for the difference between the cost of American 
 and European labor, and a specific duty to compensate for the difference between the 
 cost of American and foreign wool, or in other words, for the duty on wool. And this 
 difference was computed, in the act 1867, on the theory that 3 pounds of unwashed 
 wool would be required to produce 1 pound of scoured wool. (Tariff statements before 
 Senate Finance Committee, January 18, 1889, p. 101.) 
 
 The carpet manufacturers can supply substantially all the carpets required in this 
 country. Protection which enables them to do so is wise and just. 
 
 And now I will present some of the reasons why duties equally protective should be 
 applied to carpet wools: 
 
 I. The wool-growers of the United States can, and under sufficient protection will, 
 , supply all the needed carpet wools, aud at reasonable prices. 
 
 This has been already proved by the unanswerable statements to the committee of 
 Captain Shepard, and I will not repeat the evidence he presented. 
 
 The whole theory and policy of a protective tariff is that American producers able to 
 supply at reasonable prices all of any given article required for consumption in the 
 United States should have the exclusive privilege of doing so. Why should we buy 
 wool from foreigners which can be produced at home? Why give employment to the 
 plains and prairies of Australia and Buenos Ayres while our own mountain sides and 
 hill sides are ready to be utilized, and fruitful grasses unused on our own prairies and 
 plains "waste their fragrance on the desert air?" 
 
220 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 AT MOST ONLY 60,000,000 POUNDS ANNUALLY REQUIRED FOR CARPETS. 
 
 One important inquiry in this connection is, liow much carpet wool is required? 
 
 In the printed proceedings of the hearing on the wool tariff belbre the Senate Finance 
 Committee, January 17, 1889, I find this: 
 
 "Senator Aldrich. Mr. Wallace [a Philadelphia manufacturer] stated to this com- 
 mittee at the conference here last January [1888] that the total possible amount of con- 
 sumption of carpets in a year, with the factories running full time, was 60,000,000 
 pounds. That statement was corroborated by Mr. Dobson, who was present. It was 
 also stated that the excess of 44,000,000 to 50,000,000 pounds was probably in store." 
 
 But a short time prior to this latter hearing one of the most reliable and best-in lormed 
 wool merchants, referring to some of the estimates of carpet wools used for carpets, said 
 they are made, in part, " by fi'^uriug the extreme capacity of all the machinery in the 
 country. * * * A. part of the carpet machmery has been standing idle, and [the 
 computations referred to] make no allowance for the shoddy and for cow and calf hair, 
 goat hair and other hair used in the manufacture of carpets, which come in free."* 
 
 One of the most eminent and accurate of experts and statisticians on the wool manu- 
 facturing industry, in a letter of November 15, 1889, on file in the Bureau of Statistics, 
 said : 
 
 "The importation of ' carpet wool ' is no guide to the quantity of wool used for carpets. 
 Thus the importation of 'carpet wool' for 18«7-'88 was 84,879,540 pounds, yet it is cer- 
 tain that one-half of that wool was actually used for clothing purposes. Again, a large 
 quantity of American and Mexican wool was used for carpets, and an almost equally 
 large amount of domestic and foreign waste was used for making filling yarns for carpets. 
 I have examined all these yarns under the microscope, with the frequent discovery of 
 yarns made wholly of redyed wool fibers [shoddj'].'' f 
 
 On this estimate the imported carpet wools required for the fiscal year 1888 were less 
 than 44,000,000 pounds, besides a portion of the domestic product. 
 
 In a letter of November 29, IKs'j, he says: 
 
 " All foreign carpet wools produce in combing a proportion of noils not used in carpet 
 making and sold for clothing purposes, not less than 15 per cent, and often more. Of 
 the recent importations so entered, it is known that large lots are used lor clothing 
 worsteds, and of the whole as entered, fully 25 per cent, is now used for other purposes 
 than carpets, including worsteds and noils, or filling wools separated by selection or 
 combing. * * * 
 
 " It is scarcely possible to account for the use of the vastly increased importation of 
 foreign carpet wool, 26,000,000 pounds of such wool only having been used in 1880. I 
 should infer from all the circumsta.nces that of the carpet or third-class wool imported 
 during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1M89, not less than one-fourth was used for cloth- 
 ing purposes, about half of this quantity coming from the combing mills as noils and 
 about half being used direct. * "'" * The summary of carpet wool imported, with 
 the domestic supply added, aggregates 100,000,000 pounds, but of the 90,391,541 pounds 
 imported 23,600,000 pounds may be assumed as having been or to be used for clothing 
 purposes." 
 
 On this basis of estimate the imported carpet wool required for 1889 did not reach 
 68,000,000 pounds. 
 
 The imports of so-called carpet wools for the fiscal years 1881 to 1883, inclusive, were 
 as follows: 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1881 42,385,769 
 
 1882 47,208,175 
 
 1883 40,130,322 
 
 Total 129,724,266 
 
 Average 43,241,422 
 
 Long prior to these years imported carpet wools, so called, were used in the manu- 
 facture of blankets and other goods. Estimating the domestic annual product of carpet 
 wools now at 10,000,000 pounds, the total supply for all purposes for these years aver- 
 aged 53,241,422, of which probably not over 40,000,000 were in fact used in the manu- 
 facture of carpets. 
 
 It is not probable that there has beeu any great increase since in the annual demand 
 or carpets. 
 
 * Letter to Williara Ln-wrenpe, of (J)liio, liy Tlieodore Justice. 
 
 tLorin Blodget, of Philadelphia, to Hon. S. G. Brouk, Chief of Bureau of Statistics. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 221 
 
 But the imports of so-called carpet wools were, for the fiscal years specified, as follows : 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1884 62,525,692 
 
 1885 50,782,306 
 
 1886 79,716,051 
 
 1887 83,472,499 
 
 1888 84,879,546 
 
 1889 90,391,541 
 
 Total 451,767,635 
 
 Average imports for six years 90,294,606 
 
 Estimated home product 10,000,000 
 
 Total carpet wool for fiscal year 1889 100,294,606 
 
 And if even 60,000,000 pounds of real carpet wool be required annually, there remains 
 an annual average for the last six years of at least 40,000,000, includiug the domestic 
 product of so-called carpet wool, used chiefly or largely in the manufacture of clothing 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Inasmuch as a great many persons have to be heard, some of whom will 
 be heard orally, I will ask you whether or not you have your remarks written ? 
 
 Mr. Lawkence. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You know we read over all this evidence 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. I was going to suggest I will read a little of this, and then incor- 
 porate my remarks. 
 
 The Chairman. What was your suggestion, Mr. Bayne? 
 
 Mr. Bayne. My suggestion was, as the judge has written up in a very elegant form 
 a very able argument, it should be printed so that we shall have access to it. My judg- 
 ment is that we should get at all the facts from the persons to be heard as much as pos- 
 sible. I prefer very much getting at the facts from the gentlemen here in regard to it. 
 Although I concede the judge makes a very able argument, I rather think we should 
 have the actual lacts before us. 
 
 The Chairman. Is it your suggestion that the judge have his remarks printed ? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. There are some things I would like to say orally. That is, such points 
 as this: Where I have evidence in regard to a proposition, as, for instance, the quantity 
 of wool used in the manufacture of carpets and made of so-called carpet wools imported 
 and used in clothing, I will state the proposition, reada little, and there areother propo- 
 sitions which I will give to the stenographer if it be agreeable to the committee, but 
 there are some things I prefer to say orally, if it be agreeable to the committee. 
 
 The Chairman. Do not understand that you may not make any oral statements 
 you wish. It is only that your manuscript which is written may be submitted to the 
 stenographer and be printed, and you may then proceed with any other statement you 
 desire to make in addition to your written statement. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I think Judge Lawrence understands that there are a large number of 
 persons here desiring to be heard, and we have no opportunity to give them a hearing 
 except this afternoon and possibly to-night. The main things we wish to get at are the 
 facts in regard to this matter, and we will argue the question later. We will use argu- 
 ment when we get to that point.' 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. If the committee desire it I would like to present a few points 
 orally in a condensed form from what I have written. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the pleasure of the committee ? 
 
 Mr. Flower (to Mr, Bayne. (Do I understand you to say these are not facts? 
 
 Mr. BAYNE. I did not say that. My facetious friend from New York misunderstood 
 me. I said that Judge Lawrence was arguing from facts to a very great extent. Of 
 course it is a very able argument, and in accord with my own views on the subject. It 
 would shorten the matter very much if he would eliminate the facts and simply state 
 them, and it would enable us to hear these gentlemen who wish to be heard this evening. 
 
 Mr. Beeckeneidge. I think Judge Lawrence's suggestion is very well. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. I would like to state to the committee that a good deal of the time 
 I took up this morning was in answer to questions put to me, and that I was driven 
 into the argument in defense of the protective policy. I will run over these now as 
 briefly as I can: Forty million pounds of so-called carpet wools were imported into the 
 United States, including ten million pounds of low-grade wools, and are used in the 
 manufacture of woolen goods. I am showing this to the committee for the purpose of 
 demonstrating the injury which the importation of carpet wools is doing to the wool- 
 growers of the United States. 
 
 It may be reasonably concluded that the utmost American demand for carpet wool 
 
222 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 does not exceed 60,000,000 pounds annnally. All this can be produced at most by 
 20,000,000 sheep. 
 
 I am endeavoring now to present my views in favor of protecting the wool industry 
 equal to that which is maintained on the carpet industry. Protection of the carpet 
 wools will give employment to more labor and capital and add more to the national and 
 individual wealth than the carpet industry. 
 
 II. The same policy which justifies a substantially prohibitory duty on carpets jus- 
 tifies a similar duty on carpet wools. 
 
 The production of carpet wools will give employment to more labor, more capital, 
 more people, and add more to our national and individual wealth than the carpet in- 
 dustry. The same reasons which will support the policy of permitting carpet wool pro- 
 duction to cease or remain undeveloped will require us to open carpet production to 
 the ruin of foreign competition. 
 
 The protective policy is beneficial alike to carpet manufacturers and still more so to 
 the whole people, whose agricultural and other industries are thereby promoted. But 
 a protective policy which will equally protect and develop the carpet-wool production 
 in the United States will result in tenfold greater advantages to wool-growers and the 
 whole people, who are consumers, than the protection afforded to the carpet industry. 
 Carpets are in some measure luxuries, entitled to less favor than agricultural industries. 
 The increase of wool and mutton by the full development of the carpet-wool industry 
 is entitled at least equal favor and protection with the carpet industry. 
 
 A protective policy which will add 20,000,000 to the number our sheep is wise and 
 beneficial. It will add to our tax duplicate, give employment to labor, to lands, increase 
 the mutton supply, furnish cheap meat food, benefit and enrich consumers, and add to 
 national wealth, independence, and power. 
 
 III. One objection to protective duties on carpet wool will now be noticed. It has 
 been urged by a prominent Kirpet manufacturer that if scoured carpet wools were re- 
 quired to pay as clothing wools do, treble duty, "it would simplj' increase the cost of 
 the ingrain carpets 10 cents per yard, ' ' that ' ' it would increase the cost of carpets 15 per 
 cent.," and that to imposeclothing-wonl duties on wools "improved by the introduction 
 of merino or English blood " " would .simply ruin the carpet industry. ' ' (Senate Report 
 No. 2332. first session Fiftieth Congress, Part 3, p. 1126, wool statements before Senate 
 Finance Committee, January, 1889. ) 
 
 The wool-growers do not ask the same rate of duty on wools that are really carpet 
 wools as on clothing wools, but duties relatively equal in proportion to value — protective 
 duties. 
 
 iSucb duties will neither injure the carpet manufacturers nor consumers of carpets. 
 They will not even temporarily increase the cost to the extent stated, and ultimately 
 and permanently there will be no increase. 
 
 First of all, if the carpet manufacturer has an adequate ' ' compensating duty ' ' on car- 
 pets, for the duty on carpet wools, he can not be injured. He has had such duty since 
 1867 to au unu.'sual degree — moreso than any other class of manufacturers in any woolen 
 industry. This, I think, was shown by Mr. Whitman before the Senate Finance Com- 
 mittee, in his statements January 18, 1889. (See Wool Statements, page 101, etc.) 
 
 The tariff of 1867 and 1883 were both constructed on the principle that the carpet 
 manufacturers were to have a compensating duty for the duty imposed on the wool and 
 an additional duty to compensate theiu for tne difference between the cost of American 
 and of European labor. My point is, if the carpet manufacturers have an adequate com- 
 pensating duty, which the wool-growers think they have, that any increase of duty on 
 carpet wools can not injure the carpet manufacturer, and I will be glad if some gentle- 
 man representing the carpet indu.stry, who deems it his duty while enjoying the benefit 
 of a duty on carpets to deny to the wool-growers duties which are protective, if he will 
 explain how it is that if he receives an adequate compensating duty on carpet wools how 
 he is injured by giving to the wool-growers an equivalent duty? That is my point. 
 
 Secondly. If the duty on carpet wools should permanently increase the cost of carpets 
 by the amount of the duty (as it would not, ud more than the duty on carpets increase 
 their cost by the amount of the duty), still the increased cost would not be on carpets 
 generally any such amount as stated. 
 
 I will only take one class of carpets for illustration — ingrain carpets— constituting 
 probably 06 per cent, of all the carpets made. Mr. Whitman's statement, as I understand 
 it, in relation to "compensating duties, " is based on an extract from the Revenue 
 Commission report of 1866, which is as follows: 
 
 " Ingi-aiii carpets. — The duty ontlie washed wools used in themanufactureof ingrain 
 carpet is 6 cents pi;r pouud, and on the unwashed wools 3 cents per pound. One hun- 
 dred pound.^ of the washed wools will make, on an average, 64 pounds of finished car- 
 puts: and of the unwashed, 32 pounds. Now, if we divide S6, the amountof duty paid 
 on 100 pounds of washed wool, by 64, the number of pounds of carpets which said 100 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 223 
 
 pounds of wool will make, the quotient will be 9.375 cents; showing that the duty on 
 the wool in the finished carpets is 9.375 cents per pound, which is equal to 0.585 cents 
 per ounce. Three dollars, the duty on 100 pounds of unwashed wool, divided by 32 
 pounds of carpets, gives the same result; we may therefore take the average amount of 
 duty on the wool in ingraiu carpets to be 0.585 cents per ounce. 
 
 ' ' Two-ply carpets ol standard quality weigh, on the average, 20 ounces per yard ; which 
 multiplied by 0.585 cents, the duty per ounce, gives 11.70 cents as the amount of duty 
 on the wool required for a yard of two-ply carpet. 
 
 "Three-ply carpets weigh, on an average, 26 ounces per yard, which, multiplied by 
 0.585 cent, the duty per ounce, gives 15.23 cents as the amount of duty on the wool re- 
 quired for a yard of three-ply carpet. 
 
 ' ' Tapestry carpets and carpets wrought by the Jacquard machine. The wools of which 
 these carpets are made consist, on an average, of one part of Canada combing wool to 
 four parts of Cordova, or other similar wool paying a like duty; the Canada wool being 
 required for certain colors. 
 
 " The duty on Canada wool is 12 cents per pound, andlO percent, ad valorem, which 
 is equal to 16.50 cents per pound, and as 2 pounds of wool are required for 1 pound of 
 worsted, it follows that the duty on the wool in the worsted amounts to 33 cents per 
 pound." 
 
 "The duty on Cordova and other suitable wools is 6 cents per pound; and as 3 pounds 
 of such wools are required to make 1 pound of worsted, it follows that the duty on the 
 wool in the worsted amounts to IS cents per pound. Now, as 4 pounds of this worsted 
 are used to 1 pound of the Canada, the average amount of duty paid on the wool in the 
 worsted used is as follows; 
 
 » Cents. 
 
 Four pounds of Cordova, etc. , worsted, at 18 cents per pound 72 
 
 One pound of Canada worsted, at 33 cents per pound 33 
 
 105 
 Per pound 21 
 
 "Average duty on the wool for 1 pound of worsted, 21 cents per pound, is equal to 
 1.312 cents per ounce. 
 
 "Tapestry Brussels carpets, of standard qualitj', require 9 ounces of worsted per run- 
 ning yard, which, multiplied by 1.312 cents, the duty per ounce, gives 11.80 cents as the 
 amoant of duty on the wool used for a yard of tapestry Brussels carpet. 
 
 "Tapestry velvet carpets, of standard quality, require 13.50 ounces of worsted per 
 running yard, which, multiplied by 1.312 cents, the duty per ounce, gives 17.71 cents 
 as the amount of duty on the wool used for a yard of tapestry velvet carpet. 
 
 "Brussels carpets, five-frame, of standard quality, wrought by the Jacquard machine, 
 require 19 ounces of worsted per running yard, which, multiplied by 1.312 cents, the 
 duty per ounce, gives 24.92 cents as the amount of duty on the wool used for a yard of 
 this kind of carpeting. 
 
 "Wilton carpets, five-frame, of standard quality, wrought by the Jacquard machine, 
 require 30 ounces of worsted per running yard, which, multiplied by 1.312 cents, the 
 duty per ounce, gives 39.36 cents as the amount of duty on the wool used for a yard of 
 this kind of carpeting. ' ' 
 
 The commission proceeded on the idea that it required 3 pounds of unwashed wool 
 or 2 of washed to make 1 of scoured, and that the duty should be in the then proposed 
 tariff, 3 cents on unwashed carpet wools, 6 on washed, and 9 on scoured. 
 
 Now, two things are to be .specially noticed: 
 
 (1) the carpets here spoken of are all new wool carpets. But in the same hearing 
 before the committee, Mr. Dobson, referring to the carpets made in the United States 
 annually, .said: 
 
 "If the goods herein mentioned should be manufactured entirely of wool, it would 
 require 175,526,390 pounds per annum, and the diftereuce between the 175,536,390 
 pounds of wool required and the importations of 85,000,000 is made up from substitutes 
 for wool. ' ' 
 
 That is, about one-half of all, including the best with nearly all wools, consists of 
 
 substitutes for wool — shoddy, cow, and calf hair — the substitutes in the cheapest costing 
 
 'about three-fourths of a cent a pound. " (Woolstatement'^, .January. 1889, p. 129-130.) 
 
 I am not criticising the value of carpets so made; they are good carpets, so made to 
 . furnish cheap goods. 
 
 According to these statements, if we assume that ordinary ingrain carpets are one- 
 third new wool, the duty would be on a yard of two-ply ingrain carpet a little less than 
 4 cents; if half new wool, a little less than 6 cents. 
 
224 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 An impartial and eminent expert and statistician* in a letter of November 15, 1889, 
 on file in the Bureau of Statistics, says: 
 
 "Generally the average of a pound of new wool for a yard of carpet may be assumed, 
 ranging as to details from 2 pounds to a few ounces. The large proportion of light- 
 weight ingrains and stair carpets, with the use of large quantities of broken-wool yarns, 
 reduces the average to a pound probably of new wool." 
 
 (2) The second matter to be noticed is that the plan of "compensating duties" in the 
 report of 1866, is based on the idea that it will require 2 pounds of unwashed wool to 
 make 1 of washed, and 3 pounds unwashed to make 1 of scoured wool. 
 
 It has been abundantly shown that the average shrinkage in scouring the great bulk of 
 washed imported carpet wools is less than 15 per cent. (See Justice, Bateman & Co. 'a 
 wool circular, December, 1887, Senate report No. 2332, part 2, first session Fiftieth Con- 
 gress, page 615; Bowes & Bro. 's, Liverpool, circular, November 20, 1889.) 
 
 Thus the alleged duty charge is again to be largely reduced, and the carpet manufact- 
 urers have had the benefit of a "compensating duty," ba.sed on ashrinkage for washed 
 wools of 36 per cent, in manufacturing, whereas the shrinkage in scouring is only 15 per 
 cent, and much of the loss in manufacturing leaves material valuable and available for 
 other manufacturing. It is not strange that the carpet industry has prospered, and every 
 wool-grower desires it should. 
 
 Now, on the basis of the revenue commission report, if the duty on carpet wool, valued 
 at 12 cents per pound or less, should be 4 cents unwashed, 8 cents washed, 12 cents 
 scoured, and if the washed wool should be defined to contain not less than 33 per cent, 
 foreign matter, the duty on a yard of two-ply ingrain carpet, one-third new wool, would 
 be about 5 cents. 
 
 And, on the same basis, if the duty be 4 cents on washed carpet wool, shrinking only 
 15 per cent, in scouring, the duty on a yard of two-ply ingrain carpet, one-third new 
 wool, would be less than 2 cents per yard. 
 
 This amount of duty can neither injure the manufacturer nor the consumer. 
 
 Again, referring to the alleged increjse of 15 percent, cost of carpets by an increase ot 
 duty, it may be said the duty, by the act of 1883, on carpets is 30 per cent, ad valorem 
 to compensate for the difference between the cost of American and foreign labor, and the 
 Senate bill increases this to 35 per cent. Why shall not 15 per cent, be allowed in aid 
 of agricultural industries as well as 35 in aid of carpet manufacturers? 
 
 The general public would be much more instructed il' they could be informed exactly 
 how much new wool there is in a yard of each variety of carpet, estimating not on the 
 shrinkage provided for in the Revenue Commission Keport, but on carpet wools as im- 
 ported. 
 
 The wool-growers are not responsible for the failure to give this information; and be- 
 sides, if it can be obtained, the wool-growers will unite with manufacturers in asking 
 ample "compensating duties." 
 
 No controversy over the amount of wool in a yard of carpet shall be permitted to drive 
 the wool-growers either from the purpose to ask sufficient duties for carpet manufact- 
 urers, or such duties on wools as will save the wool industry from destruction. 
 
 The report of the Tariff Commission of 1882 (page 28) shows that the act of 1867, by 
 protecting the wool industry and increasing the supply, had theultimate effect of cheaper 
 wool. It says: 
 
 "The wisdom which guided its promoters has found substantial vindication in the 
 growth of sheep husbandry during the past fifteen years. * * •* As a result of aug- 
 mented production the price of wools has been reduced to the consumer, while at the 
 same time the producer, by improving his stock, has been enabled to realize aa much 
 money from individual animals as he secured in former years. 
 
 "If we destroy our wool industry foreign nations, finding no competition here, will 
 dictate prices, and very soon we will pay dear, very dear, for our ruinous experiment." 
 
 The carpet tariff has brought cheaper carpets; a carpet-wool tariff will ultimately be 
 followed by like results. 
 
 If we are left dependent on foreign wool or carpets, with foreign combinations and 
 "trusts" beyond the reach of our laws, they will impose upon our people e-xorbitant 
 prices. 
 
 The request of the wool-growers for better duties is not a measure of hostility to car- 
 pet manufacturers, but only a measure of justice to themselves. The wool-growers ask 
 for carpet manufacturers protection to the full extent to which they ask it for the wool in- 
 dustry, and may justly claim their co-operation rather than opposition. 
 
 Increased duties will not injure any foreign market ibr American carpets. The Boston 
 Commercial Bulletin of January 14, 1888, very truly said: 
 
 "In brief, with the removal of all duties on wool, * * * we should not gain a 
 
 *Lorin Blodgett, of Philadelphia. 
 
BEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 225 
 
 cent's worth of foreign trale, for the other woolen- using countries, France, England, and 
 Germany, could still undersell us in foreign markets with the help of their cheap labor. 
 We should lose the fine-wool industry, which would be transferred to South America and 
 Australia, and we should also lose cheap mutton on which the farmer can to-day recoup 
 himself with the price paid for his protected wool." 
 
 But, if this were not so, the tariff laws provide for the refunding 90 per cent, of the 
 duties imposed on wool manufactured and exported, and sound policy requires that the 
 whole be refunded (Rev. Stat., 3019, 3020). 
 
 IV. Better protection on so-called carpet wools is necessary to increase and give pros- 
 perity to our wool industry, if not to save it from destruction. In other words, where we 
 ask for a du ty of 4 cents a pound on carpet wools to the value of 12 cents or less a pound, 
 when we ask for that, allowing the cheaper grade of two-ply ingrain carpets to be one- 
 ' third new wool, the duty on a yard of carpet so made would be only about 2 cents per 
 yard. 
 
 Mr. MoKenna. You mean that much extra to the consumer. 
 
 Mr. Lav^kenck. I mean, assuming that the cost of the product is increased by that 
 amount of duty, that then the increased cost to the consumer would be 2 cents a yard on 
 such a carpet. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would not that be an increased cost to the manufacturer? 
 
 Mr. Lawkbnce. It would increase the cost to the manufacturer and of course that 
 would increase the cost to the consumer. I purposely omit the tariff speech I would like 
 to make in Congress to prove that on wool, as on manufactured woolen goods, an ulti- 
 mate duty will not increase the cost of goods at all, because home competition will save 
 you at least from unreasonable charges, but if you abandon the protective policy and im- 
 port all these products from abroad, the result would be you open yourself to foreign 
 trusts, to your loss. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I suppose the basis of your argument considers it necessary that this 
 industry shall be abandoned. That must be proven iirst. 
 
 Mr. Lavstrenob. That is true. I say to you the effect of the act of 1883 has been to 
 vastly cut down the number of our sheep, and if we have free wool, the wool industry 
 would be practically abandoned in the United States. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Then you say the farmers in the United States would not keep any 
 sheep? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. I do not say they would not keep sheep; but the reduction would 
 he very great. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do yon think the farmer who has a flock of from forty -five to seventy- 
 five has diminished them at all ? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir; they have been diminished since the act of 1883. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Were they not diminishing to some extent before that? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. They were greatly diminishing before that. I have a suggestion 
 here in regard to that. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. According to your proposition, you think the addition of duty would 
 not increase the cost of the commodity to the consumer? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. It does not ultimately. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. If it does not increase the cost to the consumer, how would it im- 
 prove the condition of the wool-grower? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. In the first place, it would give the whole market to the American 
 producer. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Would it not enable him in such a case to charge a hisiher price? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. No; because itfollows that if we encourage the.se wool producers by 
 a protective tariff we will improve the breed of our sheep so that they will produce 
 much more wool than they do now. Let me say that thirty years ago the American 
 merino sheep did not produce an average of 2} pounds of merino wool. Owing to the 
 stimulus given to the industry by the act of 1867 we not only increased the number of 
 our sheep, but we increased their wool-bearing capacity from 2.} pounds to 6 pounds of 
 washed merino wool. I had one lot of sheep, six hundred, shorn last spring, including 
 two hundred crossed with Shropshire, which yielded a fraction over 6 pounds of washed 
 wool per head, and the great body of exclusive merino wool produces betweei 7 and 8 
 pounds of washed wool per head. Now, the tariff, by stimulating the industry, induces 
 the wool-growers to take better care of their sheep and improve tiieir qvinlity and their 
 wool-bearing capacity, and in that way, with sulistintinlly no more cost in keeping, we 
 improve our wool from 2J to (i pounds, and that is hnvv a protective tariff benelits a wool- 
 grower and enables him to furnish his production without ultimately increasing the cost. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. In England they have free-trade wool. Mas not substantially the 
 same progress been made in improving sheep in weight and fineness there as has been 
 made in this country? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. In England, as I understand it, they produce much mutton sheep; 
 
 485 15 
 
226 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 sheep weighing 150 and sometimes 200 pounds. Their primary object is not for the 
 wool, but to get mutton. 
 
 Mr. Caklislb. Have they not improved their sheep ? 
 
 Mr. Laweence. Yes, sir; but their desire is to get a meat supply. 
 
 Mr. Carlislb. That meat is freeV 
 
 Mr. Laweence. Oh, certainly. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. Are those Southdown sheep ? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Thebestmuttonsheepare the Oxforddown, Southdown, and Downs. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. Is the wool on that sheep substantially the same as the South- 
 down? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. For what purpose is the wool used ? 
 
 Mr. Laweence. It is called combing wool, and is used in tne manufiieture ot goods 
 that are produced from combing wools, delaines, and goods of that sort. When the act 
 of 1867 was passed merino wools could not be manufactured, but now by an improve- 
 ment in machinery we can comb merino wools and they go into delaines and goods of 
 that sort. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. The question I wish to ask you is, if it is not a fact that you ask for 
 an increase of duty in order that the farmer may get a better price for his wool ? 
 
 Mr. Laweence. It is in order that the farmer may make the wool industry more 
 profitable. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN". By getting a better price for his wool ? 
 
 Mr. Laweence. The first effect will be to increase the price, but by improving the 
 quality of the sheep and the capacity to produce more wool, we can make as much 
 money ultimately without increasing the price at all, and if you will look at the Tariff 
 Commission's report of 1883, on page 28, you will see that the Tariff Commission report 
 that lact, that under the tariff of 1867 the price of wool has absolutely been reduced, 
 and yet the indnstry has been made more profitable to the farmer, although the price 
 has been reduced. If he has improved sheep, with the capacity to produce more wool, 
 it will be more profitable to him without raising the price. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The effect would be to increase the price of the wool? 
 
 Mr. Laweence. My friend will excuse me now 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. Would it or not ? You are a very candid man. 
 
 Mr. Laweence. The first effect would be to increase the price. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Hence the price at which it would go to the manufacturer would be 
 increased, and he would increase the price on his manufactured product? 
 
 Mr. Laweence. That would be the first and temporary eftect. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And that would necessarily increase the price at which he would sell 
 to the consumer? 
 
 Mr. Flowee. In your proposition 
 
 The Chairman. Have you finished your answer to Mr. McMillin? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. I would say the ultimate effect, however, would be to give the con- 
 sumer cheaper wool and cheaper goods for the reason I have stated, and for the addi- 
 tional reason which I will now state. There can not be any trust or combination among 
 the wool-growers of this broad land which will extort from the consumer, but if you 
 destroy the wool industry and put this into the hands of the foreign wool-grower, you 
 enable them to combine and organize a trust and extort and put the prices just to suit 
 themselves. If you look at the report of our consul at Odessa, made to the State Depart- 
 ment, he says there is now a combination among a few dealers in southern Kussia, by 
 which they control the whole wool crop of southern Russia, and if we do not produce wools 
 to compete with them in the United States, and will leave our people to the mercy of 
 such a state of affairs as th.at, they would extort and put up the prices vastly higher 
 than they could be by American production. Another thing let me say to you. As 
 I have said, you can not control these foreign trusts, because they are not amenable 
 to law, but you can control trusts in the United States. Let me illustrate how a trust 
 can be organized by importers, which you can not control. Some years ago a particalar 
 shawl became the fashion in the United States. It was A. T. Stewart, with that fore- 
 sight which characterized him, who sent agents to Europe to negotiate for all that class 
 of shawls they could get in Europe. Having the whole supply, he doubled the price, 
 and every lady who bought one paid twice what was paid the year before. That trust 
 was not under your control, and so it will be with the wool production. There can be 
 no trust among the American wool-growers. Let me say one thing further; I do not 
 presume to discuss the policy of a protective tariff, but I am simply answering questions 
 put to me by these distinguished gentlemen, whose kindness I appreciate and whoa9 
 que-ilions I am ve(|V happy to answer. 
 
 Mr. Fr.owER. Do you want to get in this question now? 
 Mr. MoKenna. You mean you want to get it in. 
 
EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 227 
 
 Mr. Flowbe. I certainly do. You stated we ought to raise the tariiJ to a prohibitory- 
 point on woolen goods. Would not that induce the woolen manufacturers to form a 
 
 trust? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. I think I did not say that. If you were to put a tariff on manu- 
 factured woolen goods which should be so high that when we begin to extort or demand un- 
 reasonable prices, foreign goods would Ije kept out uuder such an arrangement, we could 
 form a trust; but my idea of a protective tariff is this: First ascertain the costof making 
 a yard of a certain article in the United States, the cost of the wool, labor, and capital; 
 then ascertain the cost of making a yard in Europe, the cost ol' the wool, labor, and cap- 
 ital. You will find that the cost in Europe is considerably less than in the United States. 
 Now I would impose a duty which would compensate the manuiacturer for the difference 
 between the cost of the labor in the United States and the cost of the labor in Europe; 
 for the difference between the cost of the capital in the United States and the cost of cap- 
 ital in Europe; for the difference between the cost of machinery in the United States and 
 the cost of machinery in Europe; and I would put on such a duty as would exactly make 
 them correspond. In other words, I would compensate the American manufacturer for 
 the difference. Then I would add to that, say 5 per cent, more, in order to prevent the 
 foreigners from selling for a time at a sacrifice for the purpose of crowding out our manu- 
 facturers, and in order to prevent the foreign manufacturer, when there was an overstock 
 on hand, from unloading on our people here and breaking down our manufacturers. I 
 would erect a barrier just so high that the American manufacturers could live and pros- 
 per, and make a reasonable profit, so that when they attempted to extort or organize a 
 trust, then ibreign goods should come in to say " thus farshaltthou go and no farther." 
 We prefer that our American citizens and friends shall prosper rather than our enemies 
 abroad. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Your system contemplates a protection of capital as well. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You suggest that the imports are insufiiciently taxed at pres- 
 ent. You want to go beyond and add, we shall under no circumstances prohibit im- 
 ports. What is your gauge? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. As a general rule, whenever I see imports coming in in considerable 
 quantities, that ought to be taken as evidence the tariff is not high enough. There may 
 be exceptions to the rule, as for instance when the foreign manufacturers have an over- 
 production; that would not be evidence necessarily that our tariff is inadequate. I have 
 been seeking to avoid giving my individual views of what is the policy of protection, 
 and endeavoring to limit my remarks as well as you distinguished gentlemen would allow 
 me to do so, to the wool-growers whose interests I represent, and in whose interest I 
 shall speak, (or I am a wool-grower. 
 
 My distinguished friend, the editor of the American Wool Reporter, of Boston, said 
 there was a little coterie of Ohio politicians who were pressing this demand for protective 
 duties on wool, as though the merits of the men who were pressing it had anything to 
 do with the merits of the proposition itself. I belong to the Ohio Wool-growers' Associa- 
 tion. It has a large membership, and in all that membership there is not one politician 
 nor one man who desires any office. I believe I am the only politician alluded to. I 
 have not beeu a candidate lor any office since I went out of Congress on the 4th of March, 
 1877. I was appointed to one office, the First Comptroller of the Treasury Department, 
 which I refused to accept, and only finally concluded to accept at the urgent solicitation 
 of President Hayes and Mr. Sherman. I held that office four or five years until Presi- 
 dent Cleveland came in. He did not want me and I did not want him, and we mutually 
 parted good friends. Am I a politician, who have not been a candidate for an office in 
 thirteen years? Mr. Delano, who retired from the office of Secretary of the Interior un- 
 der President Grant's administration, an office which he held longer than any other 
 Secretary, has not been a candidate for any office since then. Is he a politician? Here 
 is Mr. Hai'pster; let me exhibit him. He was advertised recently in a free-trade Phila- 
 delphia paper as a lawyer from Ohio and a politician. He never read a law book in his 
 life; he never was in.side of a court-house, unless summoned as a witness or a juror; he 
 has never been a candidate for any office in his life, and he has been a farmer all his life; 
 yet he is one of the gentlemen designated as belonging to "a little coterie of Ohio poli- 
 ticians." One thing I would invite the attention of my frioiid, the editor of the Wool 
 Reporter, to. He said he was acting as a messenger to distribute petitions for free wool 
 and petitions for ad valorem duties, and he believes, after a good deal of hesitancy, in 
 the ad valorem duty. There is one thing you can not hire an American wool-grower to 
 do — yon can not hire him to circulate petitions for a political policj' which he does not 
 believe to be wise. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does not that gentleman believe his policy to be wise? 
 
 Mr. Lawreni;e. I understood him to say he was circulating petitions for free wool 
 and for an ad valorem duty both, He stated that he preferred the ivd valorem duty. 
 
228 EEVISION OF THE TAKIPF. 
 
 Mr. Beeokineidge. Did he not state that he considered either one wise, but one 
 wiser than the other ? 
 
 Mr. Laweence. I did not so understand him; but if so, they can not both be wise. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidgb. Both might be wiser than the present system. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. If he is willing to circulate petitions for two diiferent things, so 
 well and so good. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. Do you not represent different men who have different ideas of the 
 rate to be imposed ? 
 
 Mr. Lawkknce. Undoubtedly; but I think I have given my own pretty definitely. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. So did he. 
 
 The Chairman. You do not represent any man in favor of free wool? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Not a man in favor of free wool. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Will you please state something of the manner in which the 
 Wool Growers' Association is organized? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir. Everybody in Ohio who is interested in the wool indus- 
 try who will pay $1 a year to cover expenses, can become a member of the Ohio Wool- 
 Growers' Association, and if he does so he will be in admirably good company. 
 
 Mr. Beeokineidge. How many have paid that dollar? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. I do not know the number, but there is a very large number; a 
 very respectable number. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidgb. Can yon not approximate it? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. I really could not. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. Have you got something like ten thousand? 
 
 Mr. Laweenoe. No, sir. We all know the body of men representing any industry 
 leave to a comparatively few men the duty of taking care of that industry. It is so with 
 all the great manufactures in the United States. A lew belong to their associations, and 
 still fewer take any active interest in it, and present their wants. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. Therefore, you are only authorized so far as your active mem- 
 bership is concerned to speak for comparatively few people? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. From my connection with the wool-growers of the State 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am speaking of your direct connection with your association, 
 who by direction actually and expressly authorized you to speak. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. There is a vast number of wool-growers in Ohio who do not belong 
 to the Wool-Growers' Association, yet who sympathize with and believe in the policy 
 which some of the active members of the association indorse and ask for. 
 
 The Chairman. Is it not a fact you have been requested to present this matter to 
 the Committee on Ways and Means by the national convention of wool-growers? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. From the 2d to the 9th of December of this past year, 1889, the 
 national convention of wool-growers met in this city. I have been appointed as one 
 by the convention to present the views of that national committee to this Committee on 
 Ways and Means. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How many States do you represent? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Thirteen States and Territories, with my State. 
 
 Some One. Fifteen it is. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Fifteen, then. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. How many delegates were in that convention ? 
 
 Mr. Laweence. I do not recollect the number, but they were not large. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. How did those delegates get their credentials ? 
 
 Mr. Laweenoe. They were generally appointed by their State conventions. 
 
 Mr. Beeckineidge. In mass meeting of the people, as they are usually appointed to 
 political conventions ? 
 
 Mr. Laweenoe. No, I think not, and outside of political meetings in election time, 
 I am not aware that the men who favor free trade have held any conventions to send 
 delegates here to represent their views. That is not the way those things are done. 
 
 The imports of carpet wools are equal to one-fifth of the total consumption of all wools 
 in the United States and equal about one-half of our total wool clip. If it is wise to 
 secure four-fifths by protection to American wool-growers it is wise to secure all. If 
 the duty on carpets was so low as to permit the import of one-fifth of all our people re- 
 quire, thus taking 20 per cent, away from the present product of our mills and making 
 the imports equal 20 per cent, of our product, the carpet manufacturers would complain, 
 and justly so. 
 
 The manufacturers of woolen and worsted goods Justly complain that the imports of 
 such goods were last year $52,564,942, custom-house value, though it is a much less per 
 centum of the total consumption than is carpet wool of our product. 
 
 Are not agricultural products, of which wool is one, entitled to equal favor with those 
 of woolen-manufacturing industries? 
 
 The President's able message .justly declares that "the protective principle should be 
 maintained and fairly applied to the products of our iiirms as well as of our shops." 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 229 
 
 The wool industry is almost the only branch of agriculture which can be directly and 
 generally advanced by protective duties. 
 
 We ask for protective duties to enable us to increase our product and supply all wants 
 as fully as protection enables carpet manufacturers to supply all wants. For this we 
 will contend, and the contest will never end until this result is reached or our common 
 industries together perish with free trade or its equivalent — duties so low they will not 
 protect, but only destroy. 
 
 Under the act of 1883 our product of carpet wool has declined more than one-half, and 
 the whole wool industry has declined. Statistics show as follows: 
 
 Year. 
 
 Number of 
 sheep in 
 United 
 States. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Wool, 
 pounds. 
 
 1883 ... 
 
 50, 626, 626 
 43, 599, 079 
 
 8119,902,706 
 60, 040, 369 
 
 300 000 000 
 
 1888 
 
 265, OOO, OOO 
 
 
 
 
 Mr. Mills. If you will notice the report of the statistician in the Agricultural Report, 
 he makes the wool report larger than you have given. 
 
 Mr. La WHENCE. I do not recollect what he makes it. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Mr. Bond, of Boston makes it about 330,000,000 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir. Mr. Bond, of Boston, is an eminent gentleman, but he 
 does not have half the opportunities to ascertain the number of sheep in the United 
 States. Professor Dodge is the statistician of the Agricultural Department. 
 
 Mr. Mills. They all seem to differ some. 
 
 Mr. Laweence. They differ some. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Two hundred and eighty-five million pounds Dodge gives as the product 
 for last year. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Yes; but that has been gradually going down. I have here a dia- 
 gram showing the effect on the wool industry by the legislation proposed, the effect on 
 the prices of wool. I leave this with you so that you can examine it at your leisure. 
 It shows when the Morrison tariff reduction was reported to the House they began to go 
 down. When the Morrison reduction bill was defeated wool began to go up. When 
 Mr. Manning's free- wool report was made to Congress wool began to go down; and when 
 President Cleveland's free- wool message was sent to Congress wool began to go down, 
 and went way down. When my friend Mr. Mills's bill — for he is my friend, as I esteem 
 him very highly 
 
 Mr. Mills. It is reciprocated. 
 
 Mr. Laweence. I was with him in Congress. When his bill passed the House wool 
 touched the lowest point. This is all illustrated by this diagram. When the hostile 
 attitude of the Senate towards the bill was seen, wool began to go up; when Mr. Harri- 
 son's election occurred it went up, and when you pass a good wool-tariff bill here it 
 will go still higher. 
 
 Mr. Mills. The consumer will have to pay more for his woolen goods ? 
 
 Mr. Laweence. For a time. It will be temporary. If the woolen clothes cost a 
 little more, the people will have more means to buy them. If the Increase had gone 
 on as it had been going on since the act of 1867, and if the act of 1883, so far as the wool 
 industry is concerned, had never been passed, instead of having 43,000,000 sheep now, 
 we would have had 73,000,000. 
 
 Mr. Flowee. The Republicans did that for you in 1883. They passed that bill. 
 
 Mr. Laweence. That reminds me of an anecdote. It is said that the Republicans 
 passed the wool-tariff act of 1883. Undoubtedly, I suppose, they are responsible, and 
 I think they made a mistake. The act was passed on the 3d of March, 1883. We had 
 an election in Ohio that year. The Democratic party held their convention and Issued 
 an address to the people, and stated the Republicans had passed the reduction tariff 
 bill of 1883, and while the policy of protection prevailed In the United States the wool- 
 growers ought to have the full benefit of it more fully than any other industry, and 
 thereupon the people of Ohio, believing they were sincere and honest in it, elected a 
 Democratic governor. 
 
 The Chairman. They discovered their mistake afterwards? 
 
 Mr. Laweence. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. They have rectified it again now. 
 
 Mr. Laweence. But not on the wool question. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLIN. Campbell, I believe, stood with us on the wool question last year. 
 
 Mr. Laweence. The election In Ohio went off on other points. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Did you not run him as governor because he was not very sound? 
 
 Mr. McMillin. No; we ran him because he was sound. 
 
230 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Laweenoe. Now, gentlemen, I will return to my notes. 
 
 With "full and adequate protection" our flocks would now have included nearly 
 100,000,000 sheep. 
 
 The importation of carpet wools not only prevents our wool-growers from having as they 
 should 20,000,000 sheep producing improved carpet wools, but they threaten the speedy destruc- 
 tion of our merino and combing wool industry. 
 
 This is fearfully proved by three facts: 
 
 (1) At least one-third of alt the so-called imported carpet wools are now being used in the 
 manufacture of clothing goods, thus (1) supplanting Americanwool, and (2) reducing its price 
 to the level of the relative foreign value of the carpet wools. I'here is no longer an American 
 price for wool as there is for carpets, unafected by the foreign price. The foreign price of 
 carpet wools not only fixes the price of our carjjet wools, but all of our wools. 
 
 Time will not permit me to state in detail the evidence on these propositions, but I 
 will lay before the committee some evidence in support of them. 
 
 Imported carpet wools, the equivalent of at least 40,000,000 pounds of unwashed low 
 grade American wool, such as is shorn from the best class of mutton sheep, is being used 
 annually in American clothing goods. 
 
 The exact amount is not material. It is the fact that so-called carpet wools are used, 
 and the certainty of an increase of such use in consequence of the daily inventions and 
 improvements in woolen- working machinery proves the existence of the evil, and the 
 imminence of its increase. 
 
 Here are some of the evidences : 
 
 Messrs. Justice, Bateman & Co., in their circular of October 1, 1889, say: 
 
 "One not engaged in the sale of low grades of American wools, such as are known as 
 one-quarter blood and common, can not realize the extent to which carpet wools are 
 being used for clothing purposes, to the exclusion of the low grades of domestic. One- 
 quarter blood wools that brought from 29 to 31 cents in .June, are now difhcult to sell 
 at 26 to 27 cents. In canvassing the mills with samples of American one-quarter blood 
 wool, the fact is revealed that in almost every direction the better grades of carpet wools 
 are being used for clothing purposes. The descriptions most used are Bagdad, East 
 India, selected portions of Turkey, Syrian, and Persian wools. It is the custom abroad 
 to sort out the better grades of these carpet wools, such as are suitable for clothing pur- 
 poses, ship them to America and enter them at the carpet rate of duty, the coarsest por- 
 tion being left in Europe and resold there. The large use of these wools in clothing 
 causes American one-quarter blood wools to be neglected, and the decrease in the sheep 
 in the United States during the last lew years has been almost exclusively in those 
 yielding coarse wool ; they are what are known as mutton sheep, and the decrease in 
 these flocks is thus also decreasing the food-supply of the United States." 
 
 I find the following in the New York Tribune of October 19, 1889: 
 
 ' ' Robert Bleakie & Co. , manufacturers, at Hyde Park, Mass. , openly declare their 
 desire that clothing, as well as carpet wool, should be made free. Alter arguing and 
 occasionally threatening for some months in favor of free wool, the American Wool Ee- 
 porter of September 2(i publicly asked Mr. Robert Bleakie, as a manufacturer especially 
 competent and trustworthy, to testify whethey any wools imported as third-class or 
 carpet wool are used to displace first or second class wool iu the manufacture of cloth 
 for clothing purposes. His reply may have been a surprise, for he says : 
 
 " 'In reply, I will state that I am satisfied that many millions of pounds of third- 
 class or carpet wools are used in making cloth for clothing purposes. Three years ago 
 the firm of Robert Bleakie & Co., of which I am a member, placed upon the market a 
 line of Scotch cheviot goods made from domestic clothing wool. We were surprised to 
 find goods similar to ours offered and sold by Philadelphia manufacturers at prices less 
 than the cost of our goods at the mill. Upon investigation, we discovered that the Phil- 
 adelphia goods were made from the fine edge of carpet wool ; that is to say, the finer sorts 
 had been taken from the carpet wool, and the beautiful cheviot goods, for making which 
 Scotland is lamous, had been degraded by the substitution of cheaper wool to reach a 
 price satisfactory to the buyer of cloth. We were obliged simply to withdraw the goods 
 which we had made from our domestic wool, and follow the example of our more enter- 
 prising competitors, some of whom I know to-day are making a business of producing 
 clothing goods, usiu'.; nothing but carpet wool. Our firm has used of these carpet wools, 
 during our last run on cheviots, about 150,000 pounds, equal for cloth-making pur- 
 poses, to over 200,000 pounds of Georgia wool, owing to its lighter shrinkage.' " 
 
 Without quoting further in my remarks, I submit herewith a collection of evidences 
 to the same point. The total imports of all wools of all kinds were, for the fiscal years 
 stated only, as follows: 
 
 Pounda. 
 
 1839 9,898,740 
 
 1849-.-- 18,695,294 
 
 1859 — 26,282,955 
 
 1869 - 49.230,199 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. ' 231. 
 
 And in those years much of it came unwashed. In 1889 the so-called carpet wools 
 alone were equivalent to 120,000,000 pounds unwashed low-grade American wools. The 
 danger is enhanced by other considerations. A recent number of the American Econ- 
 omist says: "The world's consumption of wool has more than doubled since 1866;" but 
 "the production has increased still faster. The consumption is now estimated at about 
 1,600,000,000 pounds; but the production is mikoned to approximate 2,000.000,000 
 pounds. Within comparatively few years the merino and mixed flocks in the Argentine 
 Eepublic have grown to nearly if not quite 100,000,000 sheep, about two and one-half 
 times the present number in the United States. Tliis rapid increase is alone sufficient 
 to account for the decline in the price of wool, affecting the whole world, and the United 
 States no less than other countries." And see Vol. XIX, No. 2, p. 131, Bulletin of 
 National Wool Manufacturers' Association. 
 
 The result of the present low duties will be that imports will deprive our wool-growers 
 of the privilege of producing the wools needed for carpets, and supplant the use of our 
 clothing wools, and diminish the mutton supply from coarse- wool sheep, and cause an 
 overproduction of cereals, to impoverish our lands and bring general disaster to all our 
 industries. 
 
 Without reading at length I lay before the committee additional evidence, as follows: 
 
 EVIDENCE THAT IMPOETBD ^-CALLED CAEPET WOOLS ARE USED IN THE MANU- 
 FACTURE OF CLOTHING GOODS. 
 
 George William Bond has said that " in 1 886 the imports were large, and as again cheviot 
 goods were ruling the market, undoubtedly some of the third-class wools were used for 
 this purpose. " (Senate Report No. 2332, part 2, first session Filtieth Congress, p. 594; 
 Wool Report, 1887, p. Ixiii. ) 
 
 I have a letter from a prominent well-informed gentleman (Theodore Justice) on the 
 subject of the low estimates of ca,rpet wool used in the manufacture of clothing goods, 
 in which he says; 
 
 "American carpet wools are of the better class, and of course they compete with for- 
 eign carpet wools of the better class, such as are used for clothing purposes. We send 
 you a sample of the better class of East India [washed] carpet wool, which shrinks only 
 13 per cent. It is admitted at the same duty as unwashed, but owing to its exceedingly 
 light shrinkage is practically scoured, as laid down in the rejected wool schedule which 
 the wool-growers submitted at Washington. We are selling this wool to Kentucky and 
 Tennessee for manufacture into Kentucky jeans, and many hundreds of thousands of 
 pounds of it are being imported, and none of it that we know of is going into carpets, 
 but is being used in the manufacture of clothing. * * * Sixty per cent, of the finer 
 grades of what are imported as carpet wools are used for clothing purposes. This takes 
 in only such as pay 5 cents per pound duty, washed and unwashed. * * * The 
 carpet wool imported in 1887, that paid 5 cents per pound duty, was 19,685,714 pounds 
 (Wool Reports, 28, etc. ) ; 60 per cent, of thid would be about 12,000,000 pounds. And, 
 as the American carpet wool is at present used almost exclusively for blanket and cloth- 
 ing purposes, it makes in round numbers 32, 000, 000 pounds of the so-called carpet wools 
 which are used for clothing purposes. ' ' 
 
 And, referring to some of the estimates of carpet wools used for carpet purposes, the 
 letter says they are made in part "By figuring the extreme capacity of all the ma- 
 chinery in the country * * *. A part of the carpet machinery has been standing 
 idle and [the computations referred to] make no allowance for the shoddy, and cow and 
 calf hair, goat hair, and other hair, used in the manufacture of carpets, which come in 
 free." 
 
 Justice, Bateman & Co., in a letter September 17, 1889, to the "United Question 
 Clubs of Massachusetts, ' ' says : 
 
 "There is a decided objection to the removal of the duty on carpet wools, if there is 
 any propriety in having any duty upon any kind of wool. Carpet wools, such as are re- 
 quired for the manufacture of the finer grades of carpets, are also capable of being used 
 for clothing purposes. * * * The latter takes the place of low grades of American 
 wool. Every American wool-dealer to-day, in his efforts to sell quarter-blood, and com- 
 mon American wools, which are such as are produced from mutton sheep, finds his efforts 
 to sell these wools thwarted by the use, in a large number of the mills, of the better 
 grades of carpet wools, which are being used for clothing purposes. Scarcely a mill is to 
 he found that formerly used quarter-blood and common American wool but which dur- 
 ing the past year has used more or less ofthe bettergradeaol carpet wool aflsub.stilutes, 
 and as a consequence American quarter -blood wool is unsalable. It is being crowded 
 out of use by carpet wools to a rapid degree. ' ' 
 
 "Therefore, if the duty were entirely removed, the competition of carpet wools 
 would be even more severe, and the decrease of mutton sheep would he more rapid than 
 at present. The decrease in the clip of the United States since the tariff was reduced in 
 
232 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 1883 has been almost exclusively in the quarter- blood and common grades of wool, snob 
 as are the product of mutton sheep grown mostly in sections of the United States east of 
 Missouri River. This decrease in the production of American wool has been the direct 
 effect of the use of carpet wool in clothing mills. With the harm already done before us 
 we can easily foresee how disastrous would be the effect upon the American wool indus- 
 try by a still further removal of duties. " 
 
 The American Economi-st of September 20, 1889, says: "The purpose of the wool- 
 growers is topreveot the importation of the finer kindsof carpet wools, which are in fact 
 largely used for clothing, and compete disastrously with our domestic wools." 
 
 Justice, Bateman & C'o.'s wool circular, October 1.5, 1889, says: " The evidence multi- 
 plies from day to day that the better grades of foreign carpet wools are being used for 
 clothing purposes to such a degree as tolowerthepriceof whatareknownas coarse Ameri- 
 can wools, such asone-quarter blood and common. There has been a greater decline in this 
 grade of wool since July than in any other quality, and while the low price of one-fonrth- 
 blood wool is leading manufacturers to take hold of it more freely than heretofore, it is 
 still hard to sell any large amount, because of the use of carpet wools in its place, and 
 this must continue .so long as foreign carpet wools are so much cheaper than American. 
 The carpet wools in many cases cost when scoured very little more than one-fourth- 
 blood American wools in the fleece." 
 
 The wool circular of Justice. Bateman & Co., Novepiber 1, 1889, says: 
 
 "The scoured wool imported as waste, and the clothing wools which are selected from 
 the best grades of what are legally classed as carpet wools, are depressing the price of 
 American wools. Manufacturers have learned how to make very salable goods out of 
 these so-called carpet wools, and it is not likely that they will cease to use them until 
 they are brought up by increased duties somewhat nearer to that of low grades of Ameri- 
 can clothing wools." 
 
 A second important fact is that there is practically and substantially no longer any wools 
 known originally in 1867 as carpet wools — the '^coarse, hairy, kempy wool" of ike native wild 
 sheep. The native sheep hy domestication and culture without any crossing with merino or 
 English blood becomes combing and clothing wool. And nearly all in foreign countries have 
 been and are being improved by crossing, so that now much of the so-called carpet wools can 
 not be distinguished from clothing wools. 
 
 In support of this I have to say: The imports of so-called carpet wools for the fiscal 
 year 1888 and 1889 were as follows: 
 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Average 
 
 value per 
 
 pound. 
 
 Duty. 
 
 1888 
 
 54,703,172 
 
 19, 618, 968 
 
 .385,028 
 
 3,462 
 
 $5,515,570 
 
 3,506,520 
 
 67,335 
 
 993 
 
 Cents. 
 10.8 
 17.9 
 17.5 
 28.7 
 
 Cents. 
 2i 
 
 1888 
 
 5 
 
 
 7i 
 
 1888. do 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 Total, 1888 
 
 74,710,620 
 90,391,541 
 
 9,090,418 
 10,417,190 
 
 
 
 Total 1889 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Of the imports of 1888, it is certain that the wool valued at 17.9 and 17.5 cents per 
 pound was wool adapted to the manufacture of Clothing, over 20,000,000 pounds, but so 
 well washed as to be the equivalent of 40,000,000. 
 
 The character of this so-called carpet wool may be determined from a comparison with 
 the custom-house value of the imported clothing and combing wools. 
 
 The imports of these wools for 1888 and 1889 with the custom-house value were as 
 follows: 
 
 Year. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Custom- 
 house 
 value. 
 
 Average 
 
 value per 
 
 pound. 
 
 Clothing wool ; 
 
 18N8 
 
 23,039,679 
 29,226,317 
 
 $4,541,242 
 5,971,246 
 
 Ce7Us. 
 19.71 
 
 1889 
 
 20.43 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 20.07 
 
 
 
 
 
 Combing -wool: 
 
 1888 
 
 6,639,528 
 6, 869, 871 
 
 $1,330,665 
 1,586,079 
 
 23.59 
 
 1889 
 
 23.08 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 23.33 
 
 
 
 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 233 
 
 This statement shows that in 1888 of the carpet wool importerl, in round numbers, 
 20,000,000 pounds, was of the custom-house value of about 18 cents per pound — to be 
 exact 17.9 cents — while the average custom-house value of the clothing wool imported 
 in 1888 and 1889 was only 20.07 cents, a difference of but a triSe over 2 cents; and of 
 the combing wool only 23.33 cents, the latter mostly fleece-washed. 
 
 That is the kind of wool which is classed as carpet wool which competes with our 
 clothing wool, fixes its price, and supplies its place, driving our wool-growers out of the 
 business. 
 
 And this washed carpet wool, 20,000,000 pounds is the equivalent of more than 
 40,000,000 pounds of our washed merino wool, because of the difference in shrinkage 
 in scouring. 
 
 In the administration of the tariff laws these improved wools — wools having a visible 
 admixture of merino or English blood — have been admitted as carpet wool, though so 
 much improved as to be good merino clothing wool. The Boston Journal of Commerce 
 of August 24, 1889, says: 
 
 "The custom-house authorities at New York have of late held an importation of 
 500,000 pounds of Valparaiso wool, entered as third class or carpet wool, on the ground 
 that it contained too much fine wool for a third-class classification. It is asserted that 
 a similar wool has recently been received in Boston, part of the same clip, and was passed 
 with even more fine wool. The New York custom-house officials hold the fine portion 
 of the wool subject to 10 cents a pound duty as clothing wool of the first class. If the 
 retention of this wool is because of the existence of fine wool in it, as we are authentic- 
 ally inlbrmed it is, it is clearly contrary to law. The quality of the wool, whether it 
 be coarse or fine, has nothing to do with its classification. The wool tariff is a blood 
 tariff, and so has been maintained since 1867, * * * though at times denounced by 
 Henry S. Randall and other prominent wool-growers. There is no claim, we believe, that 
 this Valparaiso wool has any English or merino blood in it * * * or that it is any- 
 thing but native Chilian wool." 
 
 An editorial says that this is the claim of the distinguished and able woolen-goods pro- 
 tectionist, G. W. Bond, in a letter dated January 16, 1869, to Hon. Hugh McCulloch, 
 then Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 As a matter of fact, the native flocks have been improved by crossing with English or 
 merino blood, though it may not be possible to detect it. The logic of this is that if the 
 native sheep are so improved by breeding that their wool has ceased to be carpet wool, 
 but is good clothing wool, fine in quality, it must still be admitted at a nominal duty. 
 A well-informed wool dealer in Philadelphia, Theodore Justice, in a letter September 
 2, 1889, says that he and another dealer were called to the custom-house to give expert 
 opinions " on a lot of medium wool entered as carpet wool. We pronounced it medium 
 unwashed clothing wool; other experts pronounced it carpet wool." 
 
 It was passed as carpet wool on the opinions. He then says: " It turned ont to be a 
 'sort ' off of the ribs of some Turkey [carpet wool] fleeces of the finest part of the fleece. 
 It went into a clothing mill." 
 
 The Boston American Wool Reporter of September 5, 1889, says: "We believe it would 
 be possible to persuade the wool-growers to favor ad valorem duties upon wool if coupled 
 with a rectification of the present abuses in connection with carpet wools. ' ' 
 
 In the discussion before the Senate Finance Committee on the 18th of January, 1889 
 (page 100), I find the following: 
 
 "Mr. Whitman. I was asked a question in relation to the quantities of wool used 
 in different kinds of carpets. 
 
 "But before proceeding with that I wish to make one statement. If you will refer to 
 the reports of the United States revenue commission for 1865 and 1866, on page 432, 
 you will find the following from the representatives of the wool-growers at that time: 
 'In the class of very coarse wools — carpet wools — such as Donskoi, Cordova, and Val- 
 paraiso, the United States could unquestionably produce them in their greatest perfec- 
 tion were it profitable for us to grow them. But it is not usual to raise rye on land 
 which will yield an equal amount of wheat. ' 
 
 And again, on page 439: " The duties named in draught of bill on the coarse hairy car- 
 pet wools, which compete with none grown or which can be profltably grown at present 
 in the United States, are proposed for revenue purposes only.' 
 
 "That report was signed by Mr. Henry S. Randall, president of the National Wool- 
 Growers' Association at that time. 
 "Mr. Delano. How long agowasthat? 
 "Mr. Whitman. In 1866." 
 
 The only wool then recognized as carpet wool was "coarse hairy." 
 
 That wool was of the class described in the Wool Report (page xiv) as follows: " The 
 
 mouflon (Ovia aries), the parent stock from which our sheep is undoubtedly derived, and 
 
 which is still found in a wild state upon the mountains of Sardinia, Corsica, Barbary, 
 
 Greece, and Asia Minor, has a very short and coarse fleece, more like hair than wool." 
 
234 EEVISIOK OF THE TARIFF, 
 
 The Wool Report (page xli) quotes from Professor Dodge the statement that the ca^ 
 pet wools ' ' are represea ted in the United States only by the (native), Mexican sheep 
 which are the foundation of a large proportion of the ranch flocks, but so improved by 
 repeated crosses as to furnish wool of the merino type, much of it of high grade." 
 
 The same report quotes with approval the statement of the eminent statistician, J. E. 
 Dodge, " that the carpet- wool product of the United States is almost exclusively the 
 fleece of sheep of Mexican origin, which are raised chiefly in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, 
 and certain of the Territories of the mountain region of the country situated between 
 the Mississippi Valley and the Pacific slope." 
 
 And the Wool Keport (pages xiv, xv) referring to the mouflon {Ovis ones), says: 
 ' ' The wool of the sheep has been surprisingly improved by its domestic culture. * * 
 * When this animal is brought under the fostering care of man, the rank fibers gradu- 
 ally disappear, while the soft wool around their roots, little conspicuous in the wild an- 
 imal, becomes singularly developed. The male most speedily undergoes this change, 
 and continues ever afterwards to possess far more power in modifying the fleece of the 
 oflspring than the female parent. The produce of a breed from a coarse- wooled ewe and 
 a fine- wooled ram is of a mean quality between the two, but half-way nearer that of the 
 sire. By coupling the female thus generated with such a male as the former, another 
 improvement of one-half will be obtained, affording a staple three-fourths finer than 
 that of the grandam. By proceeding inversely, the wool would be as rapidly deterio- 
 rated. It is, therefore, a matter of the first consequence in wool husbandry to exclude 
 from the flock all coarse-fleeced rams." 
 
 Thus the carpet-wool sheep of 1867, by domestic culture, has ceased to be what it once 
 was — really a carpet-wool sheep. 
 
 But in addition to this the native carpet- wool sheep have been improved in every car- 
 pet-wool-producing country from which our imports come. 
 
 On the 17th of January, 1889, at the hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, 
 Mr. Dobson, a leading carpet-wool manufacturer of Phildadelphia, appeared to resist an 
 increase of duties on so-called carpet wool. He had specimens of carpet wool, among 
 them those of the worst class of imports. 
 
 And here is, in part, what was said: 
 
 "Mr. Dobson. In this pamphlet that I find on the committee table from the national 
 delegate convention of wool-growers I see they propose section 343, as follows: 
 
 " 'Class 3. Carpet wools, such as Donskoi, native South American, Cordova, Valpa- 
 raiso, native Smyrna, and including such wools of like character as have been here- 
 tofore usually imported into the United States from Turkey, Greece, Egypt, Syria, 
 and elsewhere, excluding such as have iDeen improved by the introduction of merino or 
 English blood.' 
 
 ' ' Now, that section contains the phrase ' English blood. ' You can find a trace of that 
 in every one of these wools. There is not a class of wools that I have produced to you 
 in which I can not show you a trace of English blood. Consequently, if that phrase 
 should be left in, it would lead to endless litigation and trouble. You could not tell 
 what duty you would have to pay on your wools when you imported them." 
 
 The Boston Wool Reporter of September 19, 1889, says that at the conference of wool 
 manufacturers in Boston on the 17th, "it was openly admitted also by several of the 
 most prominent manufacturers present that the wool-growers have a grievance in the 
 matter of carpet wools." 
 
 And the Reporter, in discussing the subject of free carpet wools, says: "The objection 
 to this course would be very serious inasmuch as with free carpet wool and taxed cloth- 
 ing wool, the trouble at the custom-house in classilying wools which are very near the 
 dividing line between third [carpet] and the higher classes would soon be very great. 
 Improvements in blood would be made in the regions now growing carpet wool, and 
 thus increase the difficulty of classification." Even without any " improvements in 
 blood" there will soon be no dividing line between carpet and clothing wool. 
 
 A third impoHant proposilion resulting from lohat has been said is that there should te hetter 
 protection on the so-called carpet wools. With the present lorn duty the foreign competition, 
 yet in its infancy, is rapidly growing and threatens to increase its destructiveproportions. Already 
 it has changed the styles of goods, until coarse xoool goods are in denumd for men, women, and 
 children; they clothe the lioing and furnish the casket with burial clothes for the dead. Tin 
 objection is not so much to the fashion, as to the source of supply of wool. 
 
 The importation of the low grade of carpet wools in large amounts will be rainonsto 
 the clothing-wool industry. With the improvements in machinery they can and will 
 be made into cloth, sometimes called negro cloth, and thus supplant coarse and quarter- 
 blood American wools. William H. Grundy, a prominent and candid manufacturer of 
 yarns at Philadelphia, stated last evening at a meeting of manufacturers that in the 
 last fifteen months he had used 250,000 pounds of imported low-grade carpet wools, pay* 
 ing only a duty of 2] cents per pound, in the manufacture of yarns sold for the purpose 
 of being knit into stockings and socks. The same wool will, of course, make yarns to 
 
BEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 236 
 
 be woven into cloth. If low grade of carpet wools be admitted at a duty of 2} cents the 
 business of manufacturing yarn and cloth will go on, and every mill west of the Alle- 
 ghanies engaged in making stocking yarn from American wools will be closed. I warn 
 the friends of the wool-grower, the friends of "Western and Southern manufactures, the 
 people of the West and South against this danger. 
 
 That is why we are asking a duty of 4 cents a pound on low-grade carpet, wool. They 
 are being manufactured into clothes and are supplanting our cross and quarter-blood 
 wool all through the market. That is why I appeal to those of our Democratic friends 
 who do not believe in the policy of protection, and ask them whether it is not just, if 
 this policy must prevail, that they may not properly say to-day that the wool-growers 
 need the benefit of it as well as the manufacturers of woolen goods. Now, that is what 
 we ask, and I have presented some reasons for it. 
 
 The average custom-honse value of imported carpet wools, of the lowest grades, "ex- 
 eluding charges in the last port or place whence exported," was, in 1888, 10.8 cents; the full 
 importer's value was in many cases, about 12 cents. Now, a duty of 4 cents per pound 
 on such wools is 33 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 The average ad valorem duty on all imported dutiable goods is 47 per cent. Why shall 
 our wool industry be discriminated against ? The Senate bill proposes an ad valorem 
 duty of 35 per cent, on carpets. Why shall not wool-growers have an equal duty on 
 carpet wool ? 
 
 The average custom-house value of imported carpet wools of the better class, "ex- 
 cluding charges in the last port or place whence exported," in 1888, was 17.9 cents; 
 inclusive of such charges, 19.4 cents. 
 
 A duty of 8 cents per pound on these is a fraction over 41 per cent, ad valorem. The 
 average ad valorem duty on all dutiable imported manufactured goods is 47 per cent. 
 Why shall not wool-growers have the same measure of protection as manufacturers? 
 And especially why not on thiJi class of wool, confessedly competing with our American 
 clothing wools? The tariff law has so discriminated against the American production 
 of carpet wools that the product is now only about half what it was twenty years ago. 
 It is now ' ' an infant industry, ' ' requiring for a time even greater protection than an estab- 
 lished industry like that of carpet manufacturing. The duties I have mentioned are in 
 fact not sufScient. 
 
 There should be better protection on carpet wools. I express my own opinion when 
 I say the duty should be at least 4 cents per pound on strictly carpet wools of the value 
 of 12 cents per pound and less, and 12 tents on scoured. On wools valued over 12 cents 
 per pound the duty should be at least 8 cents, and treble on scoured. 
 
 The duty of only 4 cents proposed in the Senate bill of January, 1889, on such washed 
 carpet wools as are worth 12 cents or less, is the equivaleot of about 2} cents on un- 
 washed wool. The proposed duty of 8 cents is the equivalent of only about 4} cents on 
 unwashed. Yet the same bill concedes a necessity for 11 cents on clothing wool which 
 experts find difficulty in distinguishing from the carpet wools. 
 
 Wool-growers recognize the necessity for a tariff bill making a uniform duty of 11 
 cents, or even 10 cents per pound upon unwashed wool and hair of all classes, with 
 washed wool dutiable at double the rate charged on unwashed, and scoured wool dutiable 
 at three times the rate charged on unwashed as necessary to put the American wool in- 
 dustry on a healthy basis. 
 
 This contemplates a law with rates of duty effectual to give protection to the extent 
 of the specified duty — not rates partially nominal. 
 
 This is necessary to secure the rapid increase of flocks, to give us within a reasonable 
 period of time sufficient wool product to supply all American wants. Such a form of 
 duty would dispense with the present complicated classifications, and form a sure basis 
 for determining the proper duty on all classes, which can not now be always attained. 
 It would also remove the possibility of undervaluations, now so frequently occurring. 
 Bat under existing conditions the wool-growers do not now insist on such duties. They 
 only ask such as will arrest the decline of the wool industry and start it on the road to 
 a healthful growth. 
 
 The necessity for increased duties is shown by the wool circular found in Senate Docu- 
 ment No. 2332, part 2, first session Fiftieth Congress, p. 615. A similar table for 1888 
 is as follows : 
 
236 
 
 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 8 
 
 s 
 
 e 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 is 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 '8881 '^inf HI S9p^d :3ai)3d 
 -moo JO e[00iU, poinoos u3p 
 -joj pu« nBoijacay jo ibod 
 TigaALiaq 9Qnaj3j^ip ^upBix;^ 
 
 •8881 '^inf 
 '?)ua3 ujisoo 'painoos oSjajoj; 
 
 *3J3'B}[ilijqe JO '%U90 19^ 
 
 "8881 
 *^[iif 's()UQo ui aoiJd oJStajo^ 
 
 «£■£ 
 ■a us 
 
 ■Som 
 
 fl E^ © 
 
 f>H 
 
 •888X*^inf 
 '□opncj UI )uajjno saoud 
 JO [aA3{ 9xii qovai o) Xj'Bsea 
 -oau «iqd[apBnqd: n? saoaag 
 UI pun'od jad sjuoo ui aaipad 
 
 •888T*^nif 'uopuo^ni 
 sap«j3 auijadnioo jo e[oOM. 
 pdjnoasjo eieeq aqi uo 6»)«ig 
 pajtu£t ^qi "T lOOAv joj saouj 
 
 •jOOAi QBoiJacuy '^eoo pajnoDg 
 
 •aSB^iuijqs JO *iaao X9^ 
 
 ■£88t JO ?OB jaij«; 
 Japan 'ggSI *Anf 'Biqd[apB 
 -liq(j ui ooudia2jj«ai aSBJOAy 
 
 CO-V* (O Ifl ' 
 
 ^MO-^fr-iC-JOOtNCOrHt^OJrH -tah- j 
 
 I rH 1-1 pH i-H 1-1 r-l —I — 1 iH iH « O lO (D t-OS 
 
 ««c5MCOCi3«o5c^o5Mc5<NCO§5cOMCOeONCOo5OTMc5M«S 
 
 CO eO Oi 00 N IN M CO C5 CO O >H 00 "«11 O O CO CO CO CO -W « «5 m a TO CO 10 
 
 ■5 e 
 
 
 
 Q.'O'O 
 
 gd« - 
 a So 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 t0C0ir5C0TtlC0<0"*t0(DO"^r-(l0C^C0C0-VC0— 1<D'^C»W'WID 
 
 C<l'WOOi-il0iC^OO'^<0iOC<tC0OlOO'-'«)O«ONOOO00N 
 
 iTjiTjiCOCOiOM-^^-VHC^-t'-^lOlO'ViO-ViO 
 
 SQiftor^cciooiooooo'TfoooaDi/jcoor^t-iiooincocoio 
 
 lOtDl>«r^C0l>'VI>OlC0N0ClC0C^OC0lOC-1^cDC-1C01OQ0r~-C0Q0 
 
 cfl-O C 
 
 £ =* a 
 
 O 03 
 
 ° 2 
 
 CO 
 
 3-2 
 
 © >.= ' 
 
 o o a a § 
 ;3J3 sag 
 
 a a fl a %H 
 
 a a .2 ~ a 
 
 ea Otj ID o 
 o »' oj ffl 1; 
 
 c a B a g 
 ctatctc 5 
 
 a a a a a e--ja 
 llis^|^a-^-§S|p„ 
 
 IP 111111=--' sl 
 
 aaaaaacacSSjosoo 
 ,oj3,oj3 - - p^ - _«a a oZ^ 
 ^^^> pooooaaeeS 
 
 (^<«^^ bObCtoyiljtO O O O !*■ 
 
 g 9 S gooooo K S S S s 
 
 mrnxBlBGao a°^T «' 
 asaoa^^^^^>k>>>iC^rn 
 
 .^.^.'^.'^ a i S S 'k'^'^'i'A S 
 
 o a 
 ■a S 
 
 CO <» 
 
 Sa 
 
 aaa 
 
 3 3 3 
 
 M M 
 EnfH 
 
 .0 
 
 .a 
 
 5 SI 
 fl.a« 
 
 •" i- tic ^ C . . 5 
 
 hi B-s 6 . 
 
 oooooaeS 
 .aja^AACiB 9 
 aeiaacc^^.t 
 
 '^'^_" CB Bj Ol 
 
 -CO '^'0-3 C>- t» > 
 
 use tTuuMSfM--^ 
 
 a a a2-S~-5-S.SBBB 
 Enmnnaaaaa^^^ 
 
BEVISION: OFSTHE tTABIFF. 
 
 237 
 
 SSi-tHH«MrHrHr-l-HrHHi-ir-4i-t 
 
 .^91 'hawM -4«~^ -M -M 
 
 eoNCOcocowcocoNeoeccoco 
 
 tO!fl(OtO(P(D«eOOCOCO«M«MeO 
 ini-llOlflSlO<0'0'-HOO<00(0«5r-( 
 
 100iiOlO°OQO'(M'*f-'lflL'3uMfMniOOJ 
 
 1033 
 
 S2 
 
 o M 
 
 -la „ 
 
 J oi ' ■ ■ • • * 
 
 .5^ ; ; i : •■= 
 £ tifl6 o o o o"? 
 
 « ¥ i i i : : liO 
 
 ■^^ 
 
 :PQ 
 
 
 
 HiHWMi-lF^iH-HrHiHi-li-li-li-lrH-H 
 
 -a a 
 aa 
 
 SB 
 
 ► H^Sao 
 «^ oj b ° a 
 
 . O 0! 
 ■.J3 V 
 
 C C d 
 « oj jj « 
 
 ■3-a "-^ : 
 
 O O to w-a 
 
 o oja5 o 
 •?■? i i'fi 
 
 ■^ {fl <fl !« c(- tfl <y 
 (3 S d d 53 s e8 
 c C ■=! C (- fl H 
 
 ■o g 9 o o 
 
 -O N N N N N N N 
 
 o "t^ "^- i i! '^ *: "1 
 
 O <J <^ <3 -al <ij <J -< 
 
 , ^ -5 -o 'd 'd -o "O 'O 
 'jaj-ccflcofl 
 
 |sa.3'Sag>;=BagsBfl = 
 ISl'gaS-si-sggggggg 
 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 a 
 
 s 
 
 a 
 S 
 
 •a 
 
 r 
 
 J, 
 
238 EEyisiON" OP the takiff. 
 
 With these free-trade prices and without better protection the business of producing 
 these wools must perish. 
 
 The rate of duty which I have mentioned as necessary, Indeed, can scarcely be said to 
 be sufficient. It is certainly no more than "full and adequate." 
 
 The wool-growers have a right to expect it. The Presidential and Congressional elec- 
 tions of 1888 indorsed a platform of principles favoring a protective tariff, and promising 
 to the wool industry, byname, "full and adequate protection." 
 
 A failure to give this measure of protection will be a breach of or inability to fulfill 
 the promise of that platform. There are those in Congress and out of it who do not be- 
 lieve in this policy. But as the general policy of protection is inevitable, at least for a 
 time, those liepre-ieutatives in Congress having agricultural constituencies may well 
 unite with those who believe in the policy of protection in securing for our agricultural 
 industries the full measure of its benefit. 
 
 In 1883 the Democratic party, in Ohio, issued a campaign document in which it was 
 said: 
 
 "The wool-producing interest in Ohio has a perfect right to demand of the United 
 States Government — 
 
 " (1) That it shall receive as much consideration and encouragement as are shown to 
 any other interest whatever. 
 
 " (2) That as protection, by means of taxing importations of raw wool, has thus far 
 proved highly beneficial to the farmers of Ohio, as evidenced by the continuous increase 
 in the numbers and values of their flocks, this protection shall not be withdrawn as long 
 as a protective policy is pursued by the United States. 
 
 " (3) That if any discrimination be made in favor of particular industries as against 
 others, this discrimination should not be against the wool-producing industry, since it 
 has enjoyed the encouragement of the National Government for but a short time, since 
 1867, and is not now in a condition to do without it." 
 
 Better protection for wool-growers is absolutely necessary to preserve the protective 
 policy. The farmers are the most numerous class of those engaged in industrial pursuits. 
 When they find adequate rewards for their labors and when they prosper all other in- 
 dustries prosper; when agricultural industries suffer, all others suffer. Give the farmers 
 of the United States the privilege of supplying all the carpet wool, and they will become 
 prosperons and be enabled to buy largely more of carpets and of all other manufactured 
 goods For some years past the larmers have not enjoyed the degree of prosperity which 
 their labors merited, and as a consequence farms and lands, in many if not most of the 
 States, have generally depreciated in v.alue from 10 to 30 per cent., when such results 
 might have been averted. The same depression will continue unless its causes be re- 
 moved. The chief cause of these evils and the consequent injuries resulting to those en- 
 gaged in other pursuits is found in the reduction by the act of Congress of March 3, 
 1883, of the duties on wool, on worsted goods, and some other articles of manufacture, 
 and the failure to provide such duties as would have given to American farmers, me- 
 chanics, manufacturers, and laborers the exclusive privilege of supplying by their labor 
 and skill every product of the field, the forest, the mine, the factory, and the shop, 
 which they could have produced at fair prices and in sufiScieut abundance to supply all 
 American wants. We have been importing articles, the product of foreign labor, to the 
 value of 8200,000,000 annually, most of which should have been produced in the United 
 States, thereby giving largely increased employment to labor and capital at home, rather 
 than foreign countries. 
 
 A leading periodica], professing rather than teaching principles favorable to wool- 
 growers, is devoting much of its space to the statistics of Western farm mortgages and 
 the opportunities for profitable investment in them, with urgent appeals for lower duties 
 on wool, the effect of which will be to increase the number and size of the mortgages. 
 
 The mortgages will diminish in size and number with better protection on wool, and 
 without this the agricultural States, the new States, with their ranches, the agricultu- 
 rists generally, can not continue to support the protective policy. If only one wool- 
 grower in every ten retired from the business in consequence of inadequate protection, 
 in the States of New York, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Oregon, Montana, and Wash- 
 ington — with possibly Colorado, Nevada, and California — the political complexion would 
 change in those States, and they would speedily arrange themselves on the side of free 
 trade. Then with this class in control of Congress we should consider that protectiou 
 to the manufacturers of wool was resting upon very uncertain ground, and that business 
 would be in a much more hazardous condition than it would if protected by a Congress 
 which was dominated by protectionists from wool-growing States, as it is to-day. 
 
 The protectionists now in Congress have a bare majority. " Si.\ty three districts are 
 represented by narrow margins of less than 1,500 j)lurali:ies each, nauiely: Ten districts 
 under 100 plurality; tweutv-five districts under 500; forty-nius districts under 1,000; 
 ^»nd fifteen districts from 1,000 to 1,500. " 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFl". 239 
 
 With these evidences of the necessity for adequate protection, and as to what its 
 measure should be, the appeal of the wool-growers is made to Congress in the hope that 
 it will not be made in vain. 
 
 I am instructed to ask for duties on carpet wools as prescribed in sections 347 and 348 
 of the Senate bill, with a slight change, as follows: 
 
 "347. Wools of the third class, the value whereof, at the last port or place whence 
 exported to the United States, including charges in such port, shall be 12 cents or less 
 per pound, 4 cents per pound. 
 
 '■ 348. Wools of the third class, the value whereof, at the last port or place whence 
 exported to the United States, including charges in such port, shall exceed 12 cents per 
 pound, 8 cents per pound." 
 
 In the Senate bill the words are found "excluding charges in such port " in fixing the 
 value of carpet wools. 
 
 This mode of reaching a valuation is liable to abuse and opens the door wide for fraud. 
 The charges in the port whence exported are a part of the cost and value of wools. 
 
 It is alleged that low-grade carpet wools, costing 6 J pence, equal to 12^ cents, have 
 been billed in foreign ports, and the additional one-eighth made up in port charges to 
 bring wools within the lowest carpet wool duty. Wools costing even more may be thus 
 reduced in importers' valuation, and thus the law evaded. 
 
 It is alleged that the practice is to include as ' ' charges in the last port or place whence 
 exported" the transportation expenses from the interior to the seaboard, because they 
 were paid at such place, and so are called charges in the port. 
 
 It is alleged that the cost of washing carpet wools is sometimes added as charges in the 
 port of export. These are all items entering into the value of the wool, and the duty 
 should be imposed on the real value. 
 
 The " charges in the last port" are explained in the report of Consul Heenan, of 
 November 4, 1887, to the State Department, as follows: 
 
 ' ' Appraiser McMuUen also requested that information be furnished on the following 
 points: 
 
 " 'Third. The true market value of Russian wools shipped to the United States, it 
 being understood that under the existing practice invoices of such wools from the Black 
 Sea ports contain a long list of alleged non-dutiable charges which are claimed to have 
 been incurred at the last port or place whence exported to the United States. In some 
 cases these charges will run as high as 18 per cent, of the value of the wool, and seem to 
 comprise every item of outlay that has been made on the wool as originally bought in 
 the grease, to advance it to its condition as shipped. ' 
 
 "The suggestions of the appraiser concerning quotable market values of Russian 
 wools of various qualities at the ports of Odessa and Taganrog, and other places at dif- 
 ferent seasons of the year, as to whether there are sufBcient sales and quotations of such 
 wools, both to American and foreign account, at the points named, in their ordinary 
 marketable condition. The custom at Black Sea ports in buying and selling by gross 
 instead of net weight, etc., are also given under this third heading. 
 
 " The true market value of Russian wools shipped to the United States includes the 
 price paid for the wool in the grease and all subsequent charges, of whatsoever na- 
 ture, incurred in preparing the wool ready for shipment. The following charges should 
 then be allowed: In the case of the wools shipped from Rostoff, the lighterage, town, 
 and river dues should be allowed. When the wools are shipped from Odessa, the only 
 charges incurred are town duesand the carting to the steamer. 
 
 "Except on American account, wools are never invoiced with a long list of charges, 
 such as are found in the invoices sent from Odessa and Rostoff-on-Don to the United States. 
 The custom is to sell wool at a stated price per pood, baled, and the numerous items of 
 charges in the consular invoices from South Russia may be set down as an attempt to de- 
 ceive, and is done for the purpose of defrauding the United States (iovernment. All of 
 these so-called charges, with the exceptions noted above, are part of the market value of 
 the wool, and should not be allowed as a separate and non-dutiable addition to the price 
 per pood given in the invoice, but should be included in that price. 
 
 "I have been informed by shippers that the wool sold to American customers is, as a 
 rule, sold at a fixed price per pood, which price can always be ascertained by dividing 
 the number of poods into the sum total of the invoice, including the commission. 
 
 "One of the largest shippers of wool to the United States informed me that lie 
 never assumes any risk in the matter of high or low duty, and furtlicniiore stated 
 that he was usually instructed from the American side how to niiiko out his invoice. 
 Another shipper informed me that many of the so-called nou-dutiable charges, in- 
 cluding the commission, were in reality a part of the value of the wool, and tho only 
 reason why they were made a separate item from tho price named per pood was be- 
 cause the United States laws classified such chargps as non-dutiable, and that this 
 cJassification often enabled these wools to enter the United States at Jow-duty limit.. 
 
240 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 " In dispatch No. 52 to the Department, dated October 4, 1886, I wrote as follows: 
 
 " ' It will be observed that Mr. Martin, in his reply to Messrs. Yeames & Co., says : 
 
 " ' I can not undertake to certify yonr consular invoice prices for wool as being the 
 market value, for Ihe simple reason that they are never oifered for sale, nor have 
 they ever been sold in this market.' 
 
 "This answer of Mr. Martin gives the key to the whole situation. There is no 
 market price for this wool at Eostoff, as I pointed out in my report (No. 28). BqI; 
 why ? Simply because a conspiracy prevents it. These shippers and exporters have 
 been permitted for years past to enter wool into the United States pretty much on 
 their own conditions. Any cost price, so that itdid notreach the high-duty altitude 
 suited these men, and they were, and are still, given carte blanche as far as ' charges' 
 are concerned. They usually have but little difficulty in accommodating these 
 charges to their cost price, and vice versa. 
 
 '"I have purposely avoided in all of my previous dispatches this question of charges. 
 1 am not even yet prepared to take up the question in its entirety, because 1 find 
 that my time is fully occupied with following the invoice prices given and keeping 
 myself posted on routine matters pertaining to the wool trade. I have discovered 
 enough, however, about these charges to know that they are an abuse that should be 
 investigated thoroughly and then exposed. I greatly fear that for this season, at 
 least, I will not be able, nor do I thiiik that it would be advisable, to give the sub- 
 ject much prominence; but I believe that it will be possible to present a detailed 
 statement which will enable the United States authorities to correct an abuse which 
 is yearly defrauding the United States Treasury of thousands of dollars.' 
 
 " The charges usually given in the invoices from Odessa and Eostoff-on-Don are 
 about twelve in number, and I will redeem my promise of last year and take these 
 charges in detail and explain what they mean. These charges are as follows : 
 
 " (1) Brokerage. 
 
 " (2) Eeceiving. 
 
 "(3) Cartage. 
 
 "(4) Shipment. 
 
 "(5) Sorting. 
 
 "(6) Packing. 
 
 "(7) Wrappers. 
 
 " (8) Iron hoops. 
 
 " (9) Lighterage. 
 
 "(10) Ghirlatax (river dues). 
 
 "(11) Town tax. 
 
 " (12) Establishment. 
 
 "(1.3) Petty charges. 
 
 "(14) Weighiug. 
 
 "(15) Bill brokerage and stamp. 
 
 " The list is truly a formidable one, and as deceptive as it is lengthy. 
 
 " BROKERAGE. 
 
 " This item of charges is usually supposed to be paid to a class of men who are 
 known as brokers. The service which these brokers render the wool-shippers is 
 simply to tell them where certain parcels of greasy wool can be bought. 1 have no 
 desire to depreciate the value of the service which these wool-brokers are said to 
 render, but I feel that it is my duty to state that the shippers, one and all, regard 
 these brokers as very disreputable characters and men not to be trusted. However, 
 the shippers of wool from south Eussia to the United States seem to have no difSculty 
 in dealing with these brokers. If the question was of sufficient importance, it would 
 be interesting to investigate as to how many of these shippers there are who ever 
 pay one cent to a broker. I know at least of one case where a shipper of wool to the 
 United States bought wool without the intervention of a broker, but, 1 failed to dis- 
 cover the omission of " brokerage " from his invoice. But admitting that, the shipper 
 does pay this brokerage, it is utterly absurd to permit such a charge to be separated 
 from the market value of the wool. If it is really incurred by the shipper, then it 
 should be included in the market value. 
 
 "As to the Eostoft'-on-Don and some of the Odessa shippers, they are, in fact, really 
 manufacturers of the wool as shipped, because they buy the wool in the grease and 
 make the product presentable for market. At Eostoff-on-Don this brokerage, in the 
 case of the so-called washed white Donskoi wools, is always paid on wools in the 
 grease. 
 
 " RECEIVING. 
 
 "This item in the charges is just .nboiit as reasonable and legitimate as if the ship- 
 per were to insist upon the United States Government allowing the jitieep Bomucb 
 « ■ -1 . 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 241 
 
 per head for carrying the wool until it was clipped. I have explained in the first 
 part of this dispatch how this receiving is done, and it is only nesessary to say that 
 it consists in the reception of the greasy wool by the shipper at his washery. If such 
 a charge is not a part of the market value of the wool, it will he very difficult to 
 understand what it is that goes to make up a market value. 
 
 "cartage. 
 
 "This item of cartage is an honest and a fair charge when it is incurred. I will 
 explain : At least three of the washeries at Rostoft'-on-Don are situated on the hanks 
 of the Don River, and the barges which carry the wool to the steamers lying in the 
 Tagonrog roadsteads can come alonsrside. Even in this case, as a matter of course, 
 some little expense is necessarily incurred and should be allowed, but this expense 
 should be regulated according to the circumstances of the case. 
 
 " SHIPMENT. 
 
 " I have no doubt that the shippers of wool from south Russi a to the United Statas 
 or their American customers will be able to present some good reason why this 
 charge should be allowed, but I have been unable to discover the difference between 
 the items of cartage and shipment. 
 
 "sorting. 
 
 "Sorting is the process by which the different qualities of wools (washed) are sep- 
 arated from one another. The fleece is separated from tlie shorter pieces ; the white 
 wools are separated from the colored ; the various colored wools are again separated 
 according to their value, and thus it goes on ad ivfimtum. That this charge for 
 ' sorting' was ever admitted by the United States authorities as non-dutiable seems 
 absolutely incredible. That the wool would have a market value if it remained in an 
 unassorted condition is true ; that it has a diiferent and a greater market value when 
 it is ' sorted ' can not be denied. 
 
 " The sorting is part of the manipulation necessary to bring the wool into the con- 
 dition as shipped, and is a part of the market value of the wool. 
 
 "As washed wools in Russia are always sold in bales, and never loose, it is rather 
 extraordinary to find such an item as the packing given as a separate and non-duti- 
 able charge. The packing is a part of the market value of wool, because before 
 the washed wools are ever offered in the market for sale they are always packed and 
 haled. 
 
 "WRAPPERS. 
 
 " This item is objectionable as a non-dutial)le charge for the same reasons as those 
 given for the ' packing,' and forthe additional reason that the shipper in his invoice 
 gives the gross weight alone, and bases his price per pood on tliis gross weight. The 
 wrappers are a part of this weight, and are charged for in the price per pood. The 
 shippers have enjoyed the privilege of including the charge for wrappers in their in- 
 voiced price per pood for wools, and, as this price has ranged from seven roubles to 
 fifteen roubles per pood, they have reaped the beueht of having the wrappings enter 
 the United States at the invoiced price of the wool, thereby in many cases enabling 
 wool to enter at low-duty limit that would havepaid the high duty had the net weight 
 been taken. 
 
 " Not satisfied with this fraud, the shijipers again entered the charges for wrappers 
 as a separate and non-dutiable charge. 
 
 "I have thus far dwelt on what the shippers have accomplished, and it must be 
 admitted that these shippers are capable of accomplishing a great deal — in their pe- 
 culiar line. 
 
 "I trust, however, that the impropriety of allowing two frauds to be perpetrated 
 under one heading will not be permitted to continue. 
 
 "iron hoops. 
 
 "It is with these hoops that the hales are hound and rendered suitable for ship, 
 ment. 
 
 "The remarks made in oonneotioti with the wrappers are doubly applicable to the 
 'iron hoops.' 
 
 485 16 
 
242 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 " LIGHTEKAGE. 
 
 "From Eostoff-oD-Don 'lighterage' is a proper charge, but when it appears in the 
 invoices sent from Odessa it should never be allowed. 
 
 "GHIRLATAX, OR RIVER DUES. 
 
 " This a proper non-dutiable charge on Eostoff-on-Don invoices. 
 
 "town tax. 
 "This is also a proper non-dutiable charge, at the rateof one-half copeck per pood. 
 
 " ESTABLISHMENT. 
 
 " This is rather a singular charge. It means the payment of clerks, overseers, etc., 
 at the wasberies, and it may be also at the ofiBces of the shippers. Perhaps, if 
 through some accident the item of commission failed to appear on an invoice, it 
 might be thought advisable to consider whether or not the establishment charge had 
 any claim to be listed as non-dutiable, but ev'en in that event I would be compelled 
 to state that the establishment charge is as much a part of the market value of the 
 wool as any other charge named. If it is necessary to keep up such an establishn^ent 
 to prepare wool for the market, common sense, if not common honesty, should have 
 prevented these shippers from ever introducing such a charge into an invoice as a 
 separate and non-dutiable charge. 
 
 "petit charges 
 
 simply means that the shipper requires this amount to make up the sum total of his 
 invoice. Even if such charges ever do occur, their place is in the market value of 
 the wool. 
 
 " WEIGHING. 
 
 " I feel confident that it is unnecessary for me to dwell on this charge, beyond stating 
 that it belongs strictly in the market value. 
 
 "bill brokerage and stamps. 
 
 "This is a charge that but seldom appears on an invoice, and is one which should 
 not be allowed as non-dutiable. 
 
 " The item of ' commission,' which is always found in the invoices of wool shipped 
 from south Eussia, manifests a degree of elasticity that requires some explanation. I 
 have endeavored to obtain some sort of explanation, and have questioned diiferent 
 shippers, but with no very satisfactory result. This commission varies from 1^ per 
 cent, to 4| per cent, in the invoices. 
 
 " J have been informed by shippers that a commission of 4 per cent, is never paid 
 on wools shipped from south Eussia. I have also been told that 2 per cent, is con- 
 sidered a fair commission, and that it is the sum usually paid. 
 
 " I have been informed by parties who bny and ship wool to English and French 
 houses that the commission paid is never above IJ per cent. 
 
 " It is unnecessary to dwell very long on this item of commission. I would advise, 
 however, that when the commission charged is over 2 per cent, the surplus be added 
 to the invoice price per pood. 
 
 "Many of the shippers of wool from south Russia to the United States assert that 
 they are the owners of the wools which they ship, and that they sell their wools at a 
 fixed price per pood. In the case of these shippers, it seems to me that no charge 
 such as commission should be allowed. If they are the owners, and buy and sell this 
 wool on their own account to American purchasers, it is highly improper to permit 
 them to charge a commission on their own goods. 
 
 "The Russian wools at the ports of Odessa and Taganrog always have a quotable 
 market value, and sufficient sales are made of such wools, both to 'American and 
 foreign account in their ordinary marketable condition,' to warrant the quotations. 
 
 "At Odessa very little difiSculy ever exists in obtaining quotable market valuesfor 
 the various Eussian wools. At Eostotf-on-Don. or at Taganrog, however, a determina- 
 tion has always been inanifestBd on the part of tbe shippers to prevent the recogni- 
 tion of a quotable market value for the so-called Douskoi washed wools. 
 
KE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 243 
 
 "A member of a firm who have been shipping wool to the United States for many 
 years informed me that a market price always exists at Rostoff-on-Don for the Dou- 
 slioi washed wools, bnt the interest of those who ship ou commission and the Ameri- 
 can importer demands that the existence of a quotable market value should not be 
 admitted. 
 
 "In writing 'market valne' I do not wish to be understood as attaching any very 
 great importance to the correctness of these quotable market values, because these 
 quotations are very apt to be too low. I simply desire to show that such quotations 
 can always be obtained. 
 
 " The Rostoff shippers or the American importer have rendered this question of 
 market value for the Donskoi washed wools a very easy one to deal with, owing to 
 the action of the United States consular agent at Ro8toff-on-Don*(who is also a ship- 
 per of wools to the United States) certifying, or proposing to certify, a market value 
 for the Donskoi wools which would be 1 ruble and 50 copecks higher than his previous 
 'cost-price' certificates on wools worth 11 rubles and 50 copecks a pood. 
 
 " The Rostoff shippers would never have aterapted to deny that a market price ex- 
 isted for the Donskoi washed wools if they had not been instructed to do so by their 
 American customers. A. wool merchant said to me that it was to the interest of the 
 American importer that no light should be thrown on the Donskoi wool trade, and he 
 added that he believed that corrupt means must have been employed, else these dis- 
 puted and troublesome questions would have been set at rest many years ago. This 
 same shipper also remarked that it was always a matter of surprise to him why Mos- 
 cow wools were allowed to enter the United States with so little trouble, while the 
 wools shipped from Odessa and Rostoff were always the recipient of so much unnec- 
 essary attention." 
 
 I am instructed to ask that carpet wools be defined as follows : 
 
 "Sec. 34:3, Chap. III. — Carpet wools are defined all such wools, coarse, hairy 
 kempty, not produced ia the United States, as are required in the manufacture of low- 
 grade carpets and coarse blankets only, and which have no admixture of merino or 
 English blood, immediate or remote." 
 
 The purpose of this definition is to prevent the practice of importing as carpet or 
 third-class wools such as may be used for clothing and combing purposes other than 
 for carpets. 
 
 In the wool report of the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics for 1887, page xli, carpet 
 wools are described as "hairy and kempty." These are oflicial descriptive terms. 
 
 The wool -growers ask that carpet wools be defined so that there can be no doubt 
 as to what kind they are. 
 
 In the custom-house at New York are samples of the three classes of wools under the 
 tariff acts of 1867 and 1883, plaeed thereby authority of the Secretary of the Treasury. 
 I understand that all samples of carpet wools deposited under the act of 1867 come 
 within the definition as proposed, but that the samples now on deposit include good 
 clothing wools as carpet wools. Provision may and doubtless will be made to 
 supply proper samples from time to time in all custom-houses, and as the carpet-wool 
 sheep of .any country become improved, either by domestication or admixture of 
 merino or English blood, the wools from such sheep and such country should be placed 
 in the class of clothing and combing wools in accordance with the fact. 
 
 The object of that is to shut out or to limit the importation under this low duty of 
 'ii cents apound, which, with the small shrinkage on carpet wools, would be nomin- 
 ally^! cents a pound, but which is not much over 1 or 1^ cents on the basis of un- 
 washed competing American wools. In other words, the nominal duty of 4 cents on 
 foreign carpet wools is not equivalent to more than 1| cents of competing grades 
 of American carpet wools. They shrink much less than the foreign wools. Then 
 we ask another important provision. 
 
 I am instructed to ask for a provision as follows : 
 
 " Sec. 343 a. Carpet wools which have been sorted, and the better portions selected 
 and imported, shall be subject to duty as clothing wools." 
 
 A little explanation will show the necessity for this provision. 
 
 A lot of wool recently imported at Philadelphia was entered as carpet wool at a 
 duty of 2| cents per pound. It was good medium wool. It had no characteristic to 
 distinguish it from any other good clothing wool. Experts were called into the 
 custom-house who pronounced it to be medium unwashed clothing wool — dutiable 
 under the present law at 10 cents per pound. Asa matter of fact it was wool selected 
 from the ribs of Turkey in Asia sheep ; it was sorted from the finest portions of the 
 fleeces. These sheep fall within the geographical description of carpet-wool sheep 
 in the tariff law, being from sheep in Turkey, and so it was admitted as carpet wool 
 and went to a clothing mill to be manufactured into good clothing goods. 
 
 This is one of the recent inventions to evade proper duties and secure good cloth- 
 ing wool at a duty so low as to be nominal and ridiculous. 
 
 It is manifest that this new dodge, this practical swindle and evasion of the law, 
 is, should be effectually prevented in future. 
 
244 EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 And now why should any manufacturer oppose any one of these provisions ? Why 
 should any manufacturer oppose any r:ite of duty prescribed in the Senate bill ? The 
 bill provides or should provide ample but reasonable "compensating duties" — with 
 such compensation the manufacturer can not sufl'er by any reasonable rate of duty on 
 ■wool. 
 
 It may be fairly presumed that wool-growers better understand the duties needed 
 on wool than others generally can. 
 
 To this comm.ttee and to Congress the wool-growers appeal for such legislation on 
 this subject as I have proposed, and relying on the merits of our cause we hope the 
 appeal will not be in vain. 
 
 Speaking for myself I will never consent to any less protection for wool-growers 
 than such as will be-furniahed by the provisions I have submitted. The Senate bill 
 gave duties of 4 and 8 cents, and I will consent to no compromise which will give 
 less. 
 
 I lay before the committee the following : 
 
 I. Resolutions of the Ohio Wool-Growers' Association, adopted at Columbus Sep- 
 tember 4, isea. 
 
 II. Resolutions adojited by the Farmers' Congress of the United States at Mont- 
 gomery, Ala., November 14, 18b9. 
 
 III. Proceedings of the National Convention of Wool-Growers, at Washington, D. 
 C, December 2 to 9, inclusive, 1889. 
 
 IV. A diagram showing the effect on the prices of wool of (1) the " Morrison tariff 
 reduction bill," reported in Congress; rJ) the defeat of the bill; (3) of Secretary 
 Manning's report in favor of free wool; (4) of President Cleveland's message on wool; 
 (5) of the passage of the Mills tariff bill ; (6) of the passage of the Senate substitute for 
 the Mills bill, and (7) of the election of General Harrison to the Presidency. 
 
 V. A statement explanatory of said diagram and of others accompanying it. 
 
 VI. A discussion of the tariff on wool and evasions on the law, by William H. B. 
 Thornton. 
 
 I lay before the committee the resolutions of the Ohio Wool-Growers' Association, 
 adopted at Columbus the 4th of Sejitember, 1889. I ask that they be printed, for the 
 information of the committee : 
 
 I. — Resolutions unanimously adopted by the Wool-Gkowees' Association of 
 Ohio, at Columbus, Septembee 4, 1889. Resolutions offered by Hon. Co- 
 lumbus Delano. 
 
 Whereas the National Association of Wool Manufacturers has called a meeting of 
 its executive committee and others engaged in the various branches of wool manu- 
 facture to be held in Boston, September 17, 1889, " for the purpose of maturing and 
 uniting upon a satisfactory schedule upon wool and woolens, to be recommended to 
 Congress in connection with the proposed tariff revision ;" and 
 
 Whereas the secretary of said association has offioially notified the president of 
 the National Wool-Growers' Association of such meeting, by letter dated August 29, 
 1889, and in doing so has requested the president of ihe Wool-Growers' Association 
 to inform the Association of Wool Manufacturers whether the wool-growers' organi- 
 zation is " prepared to accept any change from the rate of duty upon second class and 
 carpet wool, which are fixed in the tariff bill that passed the Senate at the last ses- 
 sion ;" adding, " if such be the case, no doubt it would be found mutually advan- 
 tageous to arrange for a joint conference just prior to the meeting of the manufact- 
 urers ; " and 
 
 Whereas said letter further states that there is" a wide-spread and thoroughly or- 
 ganized movement for free raw material now in yirogress among New England manu- 
 facturers, certain to be pressed upon Congress," "in view of which it will be difficult 
 to keep manufacturers of woolens in line for rates of duty upon raw material which 
 will prove to many onerous, and, in the case of carpet manufacturers at least, will bo 
 strenuously opposed if an attempt is made to incorporate such rates into the law, 
 etc.:" Therefore, 
 
 Resolved, That the wool-growers of Ohio are surprised, and very much regret to 
 learn, that the manufacturers have undertaken to determine the rates of duty on both 
 wool and the manufacture thereof without reference to the wishes of wool-growers, 
 and our astonishment is increased when we reflect that wool-growers are informed 
 that their opinions are not asked, unless they will agree to accept a reduction of 
 rates on second class and carpet wools as they stand in the Senate bill passed at the 
 last session of Congress. 
 
 J!eHolved, That this meeting regrets the existence of the " wide-spread and thor- 
 oughly orgiuiized movement in New England for free raw materials" which seems to 
 mean free trade for the great industries of agriculture and the West, and protection 
 for New England mauutacturers ; but the danger of this can not coerce us to consent 
 to a reduction of the rates of duties on second-class and carpet wools as fixed in the 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 245 
 
 Senate bill at the last session. These duties are now too Ion', and if changed ought 
 to be increased, at least so far as relates to carpet wool. 
 
 Besolved, That we are in favor of full and adequate protection to all manufacturers 
 of wool. We will hereafter, as heretofore, aid, when able to do so, all efforts to secure 
 such protection, and we will leave manufacturers to determine their own schedule of 
 duties, hnt we repudiate their right to dictate the rate of duties on wool, and when 
 this right is asserted and accompanied by an expression of the danger of free raw ma- 
 terial, we deem it fit to say, that in our opinion free raw material will soon be followed 
 Tay free trade and free goods. 
 
 Besolved, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded by the secretary of this 
 meeting to the secretary of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers. 
 
 Besolved, That the president of the National Association of Wool-Growers be re- 
 quested to call a delegate meeting of the wool-growers of the United States, to be 
 held m Washington, commencing on the day when the next Congress convenes, 
 whether it be a regular or called session. 
 
 Hon. William Lawrence oifered the following declaration of views, plans, and ob- 
 jects of the Ohio wool-growers, which were unanimously adopted: 
 
 The farmers, including the producers of mutton and wool in Ohio, recognize the 
 fact that the people of the State are divided in opinion on the policy of protection to 
 American industries. In view of this we do not now and here seek to promote the 
 views of any political party on this subject. But agricultural industries are so ex- 
 tensive, giving employment to more capital and people than all others combined, 
 that if the former be not prosperous the latter can not be. And in view of this, many 
 of the farmers who do not favor the policy of a protective tarift' for industries gen- 
 erally, or those resiiectively giving employment to a small number of persons and a 
 small amount of capital, yet believe that our tariff laws should be so framed as to 
 exclude imports of any product which can be supplied by American farms and ranches. 
 Others among farmers there are who believe in the policy of protection for all indus- 
 tries which thereby can be made to supj^ly all American wants at reasonable prices. 
 Still others there are who believe in a tariff for revenue only, regardless of its effect 
 on American industries. And there are besides some who are opposed to all duties 
 whatever. 
 
 We do not now or here seek te discuss the wisdom or advance the success of any of 
 these classes of opinions. 
 
 But there is a common ground upon which all farmers, including wool-growers, can 
 stand, which favors no political party, aud which is alike just, jiracticable, and nec- 
 essary. And that is, while the policy of a protective tariff is maintained, the prod- 
 ucts of American farms and ranches shall share its benefits as fully as the most fa- 
 vored of all our industries. 
 
 While the policy of protection prevails, the members of Congress who approve it 
 are in honor and jtistice bound to aid in securing this object. 
 
 While this policy prevails members of Congress who do not approve it, yet know- 
 ing its continuance for a time inevitable, can by vote and speech aid the farmers to 
 share its benefits. 
 
 If there be found among manufacturers some so selfish as to demand protection for 
 the carpet industry but not for wool-growers ; some to demand protection for other 
 woolen and worsted manufacturers, but not for wool-growers, the real friends of the 
 farmer in Congress can compel all such to give the same measure of protection to the 
 one as to the other; to give farmers the same benefit of legislation as manufact- 
 urers—no more, no less. 
 
 In view of these principles and facts, the wool-growers of Ohio, in common with 
 all the farmers of the State, give expression to their jiurposes iu the following re- 
 
 Besolved, That while Congress maintains the policy of a protective tariff, the far- 
 mers, including wool-growers, demand that their products shall be as fully protected 
 as the most favored of the manufacturing industries. 
 
 Besolved, That while as now a protective taritt' is maintained which substantially 
 prohibits the importation of foreign carpets, and many other articles of manufactured 
 goods, and if an etfort be made to change the Senate tariff of last session on this sub- 
 ject, we demand that the duties on mutton, sheep, and wool shall be so increased as 
 to equally prohibit the importation of mutton, shee]), and of wool of every kind 
 which can under protection be sufficiently produced at fairly remunerative prices in 
 the United States, to supply all American wants, including the Ijetter class of car- 
 pet wools, especially as carpets are luxuries, entitled to less favor than farm and 
 ranch products. 
 
 And we demand that no tariff law be passed, and no change made in the tariff re- 
 lating to wool and woolen goods, which does not give this measure of ample protec- 
 tion to the wool industry. 
 
 _ Besolved, That if protection to this extent is denied to the million of wool-growers 
 m the United States, we call upon them to assert their power at the ballot-box and 
 
246 REVISION Of THE TAftlPF. 
 
 otherwise to right the wrongand injustice of discrimination against them. And if 
 they fail in this, the woo! and mutton producing industries will be so crippled, that . 
 they will be in a large measure, destroyed; but they will not perish alone, and all 
 interested in protection should not fail to recoguize the peril to our industries. 
 
 Resolved, That the wool-growers in the Udited States are called upon to support 
 the nomination of no man for President, Senator, or Representative in Congress who 
 will not, to Ms utmost ability, aid in carrying out the objects of the foregoing reso- 
 lutions. 
 
 Resolved, That we call upon the President and Secretary of the Treasury to enforce 
 in letter, spirit, and purpose the rulings and instructions of the latter and his assist- 
 ants, of March 22, March 26, June 7, and July 24, 1889, by which scoured wool worth 
 from 50 to ti2 cents per pound under the false name of tops, waste, and soiled laps, 
 etc., are required to pay the duty fixed by law of 30 or 60 cents per pound, according 
 to condition. Value and facts, not fraudulent name should determine the duty. And 
 if custom-house officers do not faithfully perform their duties we demand their re- 
 moval. 
 
 And whereas it is alleged that half a million pounds of Valparaiso clothing wool 
 is now at the cnstom-house in New York claiming admission as carpet wool, audthat 
 " similar wool has recently been received in Boston, part of the same clip (and was 
 passed as carpet wool through the custom-house) with even more_^»e wool," — Boston 
 Journal of Commerce, August 24, 1889. 
 
 And whereas it is being claimed that " the quality of wool, whether it be coarse 
 or _/inf, has nothing to do with its classification, » » » and that the wool tariff is 
 a blood tariff," which means that the wool of native South American sheep must be 
 admitted as carpet wool, even though improved by breediug, to be equal to our terri- 
 torial clothing wool. Therefore 
 
 Resolved, That we demand that the Secretary of the Treasury will reject such un- 
 just and absurd construction of the tarift' laws, and that Congress be requested, iu 
 revising the tariff laws, to definitely and clearly provide that quality and value as 
 well as blood shall determine the classification of carpet wools. 
 
 And whereas at a special meeting of the National Wool Growers' Association, 
 held at Columbus on the 29th day of July, 1889, the Hon. Columbus Delano, presi- 
 dent of the as.sociation, was "requested to appoint a committee to attend at the 
 nest session of Congress" to represent the wants of wool-growers; and a committee 
 was also appointed "to proceed to Washington and present the proceedings of that 
 convention to the President and Secretary of the Treasury, with such considerations 
 connected therewith as may be deemed proper." Therefore 
 
 Resolved, That the first-named committee be requested to present the foregoing 
 resolutions to the proper committees of Congress, and that the other above-mentioned 
 committee be requested to lay them before the President and Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury. 
 
 The Tariff Plank.— Full Text of the Resolutions Adopted bt the Far- 
 
 mbus' conguess. 
 
 The following is the full text of the resolutions relating to the tariff as adopted by 
 the National Farmers' Congress at Montgomery, Ala., Thursday evening, November 
 14, 1869. They were prepared by Hon. William Lawrence, of Ohio, who strongly 
 urged their passage as they were reported on favorably from the committee : 
 
 The Farmers' Congress of the United States recognize the fact that the people are 
 divided in opinion on the policy of protection to American industries. In view of 
 this, we do not now and here seek to promote the views of any political party on this 
 subject. But agricultural industries are so extensive, giving employment to more 
 capital and people than all others combined, that if the farmer be not prosperous the 
 latter Ci.n not be. And in view of this many of the farmers who do not favor the 
 ]iolic3' of a protective tariff for industries generally, or those respectively giving em- 
 ]iloyment to a small number of persons and a small amount of capital, yet believe 
 tli:it our tariff laws should be so framed as to exclude imports of all products which 
 can be supplied by American farms and ranches. Others among farmers there are 
 wbo believe in the policy of protection for all industries which thereby can be made 
 to supply all American wants at reasonable prices. Still others there are who he- 
 lievc. iu a tariff for revenue only, regardless of its effect on American industries. And 
 there are besides some who are opposed to all duties whatever. 
 
 We do not now or here seek to discuss the wisdom or advance the success of any oi 
 these classes of opinions. 
 
 But there is a common ground upon which all farmers, including wool-growers, 
 can stand, which favors no political party, and which is alike just, practicable, and 
 necessary. And that is, whUe the jjolicy of a protective tariff is maintained the pr'>' 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 24? 
 
 ducts of American farms and ranches shall share its benefits as fully as the most 
 favored of all our industries. 
 
 While the policy of protection prevails the ihembers of Congress who approve It 
 are in honor and justice bound to aid in securing this object. 
 
 While this policy prevails members of Congress who do not approve it, yet know- 
 ing its continuance for a time inevitable, can by vote and speech aid the. farmers to 
 share its benefits. 
 
 If there be found among manufacturers some so selfish as to demand protection for 
 the carpet industry but not for wool-growers; some to demand protection for other 
 woolen and worsted manufactures, but not for wool-growers, the real friends of the 
 farmer in Congress can comjiel all such to give the same measure of protection to the 
 one as to the other ; to give farmers the same benefit of legislation as manufacturers — ■ 
 no more — no less. 
 
 In view of these considerations the Farmers' Congress adopt the following: 
 
 Besolved, That while Congress raaiutaius the policy of a protective tarifl', we de- 
 mand that all farm products shall be as fully protected as the most favored of the 
 manufacturing industries. 
 
 Besolved, That while as now a protective tariff is maintained which substantially 
 prohibits the importation of foreign carpets and many other articles of manufact- 
 ured goods, we demand that the duties on mutton sheep and wool of all kinds sliall 
 he 80 increased as to equally prohibit the importation of mutton sheep and of wool of 
 every kind which can under protection be sufficiently produced at fairly remunera- 
 tive prices in the United States, to supply all American wants, including the better 
 class of carpet wools, especially as carpets are luxuries, entitled to less favor than 
 farm and ranch products. 
 
 Besolved, That the tariff on wool imported to make carpets should at least be as 
 high as that imported to make coats. The same policy which will secure cheap 
 cloths will secure cheap carpets. 
 
 Besolved, That if protection to this extent be denied, we call upon the farmers of 
 the United States to assert their power at the ballot-box and otherwise to right the 
 wrong and injustice of discrimination against them. If they fail in this, the wool 
 and mutton producing industries will be so seriously crippled that they will be in 
 a large measure destroyed, and farmers will no longer have any interest in protec- 
 tion for the manufacture of woolen goods, but will insist that it shall have no larger 
 measure of protection than is accorded to the wool industry, including every kind 
 ofwool. 
 
 Besolved, That the farmers of the United States are called upon to support the 
 nomination o fno man for President, Senator, or Representative in Congress who will 
 not to his utmost ability aid in carrying out the objects of the foregoing resolutions. 
 
 Besolved, That we favor commercial treaties which will discriminate in favor of 
 those nations which accept silver as legal tender money as well as gold, and against 
 those which have demonetized silver. 
 
 The vote on the adoption of these resolutions, after a two hours' debate, was taken 
 by States, and stood as follows: 
 
 Ayes — Colorado 5, Florida 2, Illinois 28, Idaho 2, Indiana, 10, Iowa 15, Kansas 11, 
 Kentucky 7, Maine 11, Michigan 18, Ohio 24, Pennsylvania 33, Missouri 4, Rhode 
 Island 6 ; total, 170. 
 
 Nays — Alabama 12, Florida 4, Georgia 15, Indiana 7, Kentucky 7, Texas 14, Mis- 
 souri 18, North Carolina 11 ; total, 89. 
 
 Extract from the Minutes op the National Meeting op the Wool-Growers 
 OF THE United States, held at Washington, D. C, December 3, 1»89. 
 
 Organization. — Columbus Delapo, presideut ; J. T. Eich, Michigan, vice-preaident ; C. H. Beall, 
 West Virgiuia, treasurer; Geo. H. Wallace. Missouri, secretary; John McDowell, PenngyKania, \V. 
 L. Black, Texas, E. N. Bissell, Vermont, executive committee. 
 
 The meeting was called to order at 2 p. m., December 3, in the red parlor of the 
 Ebbitt House, by the Hon. Columbus Delano, president of the National Association 
 of Wool-Growers, who briefly stated the reasons which had decided him to issue the 
 call for the meeting. 
 
 On motion, Columbus Delano was elected chairman, and George H. Wallace, of 
 Missouri, secretary of the meeting. 
 
 The following States and Territories were represented by delegates : 
 
 Hon. Columbus Delano, president National Association; Hon. J. H. Funston, Kan- 
 sas; Hon. T. H. Carter, Montana; Hon. George H. Wallace, presi<leut Missouri As- 
 sociation ; N. H. Gentry, secretary and treasurer Missouri Association ; N. W. Wilson, 
 Missouri; Judge J. K. Aldeman, Mis.souri; Hon. T. R. Stockdale, Mississippi ; Hon, 
 George W. E. Dorsey, Nebraska; Hon. W. J. Connell, Nebraska; Hon. David Cossitt, 
 
248 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 president New York Association ; Hon. H. F. Bartine, Nevada ; Hon. David Harp- 
 ster, president Ohio Association ; Judge Win. Lawrence, Oliio Association ; Hon. 
 John McDowell, president Pennsylvania Association; Hiram Young, Pennsylvania 
 Association; John J. Saviors, Pennsylvania Association ; D. M. Campsey, Penosyl- 
 vania Association ; Hon. A. E. Shepard, president Texas Association; E. N. Biesell, 
 Vermont Association ; Hon. S. S. Eookwood, Wisconsin ; Col. C. H. Beall, president, 
 West Virginia. 
 Thirteen States were represented. » » » 
 
 Address of Hon. Columius DeJano, president of the National Wool Growers' Association, 
 before the National Delegate ll'ool Growers' Convention, in Washington, D. C, December 
 2, 1889. 
 
 DOES VfOO'L MERIT PROTECTION? 
 
 Both food and clothing are indispensable to civilization. In the order stated they 
 are required, and the demand for thetu is imperative. 
 
 They should be produced .it home, not jiurchased from abroad, when the people 
 who consume them have facilities for their production. 
 
 Necessity alone can justify their importatiou. 
 
 Wool is an important factor in fabrics used as clothing in the United States, [t 
 constitutes a part of almost all our garments, and in many is the only material em- 
 ployed. 
 
 Our climate, habits, and fashions unite in making it necessary for clothing pur- 
 poses. 
 
 Is it wise to purchase a commodity so generally used, and so necessary for health, 
 happiness, and comfort f 
 
 Suppose the nation involved in a war, foreign or domestic, of serious dimensions, 
 like that for example of the late rebellion ; suppose our commerce embarrassed as it 
 was at the time referred to ; suppose our demand for wool no greater than it then was, 
 and suppose free trade had destroyed .sheep husbandry and turned over to foreign na- 
 tions the production of our wool, and we may be able to appreciate the folly, if not 
 the crime, of attempting to put wool on the free list. But this higher and excep- 
 tional reason for producing all the wool needed for consumption in the United States 
 must not be made so prominent as to obscure the reasons which make its production 
 a necessity at all times. 
 
 The exigencies of war serve only to increase and strengthen the arguments for pro- 
 ducing at home an article which is absolutely necessary for the comfort, happiness, 
 and health of our people in peace or war. 
 
 A nation that can not produce its food and clothing, or that can not profitably do 
 so, may be justitied in purchasing these articles, but to do this without such neces- 
 sity is unwise and impolitic. 
 
 This leads me to consider the practicaliility of producing the wool we require for 
 domestic consumption. On this suljject there is quite too much writing and speak- 
 ing without adequate or correct information. The production of wool is practicable 
 everywhere in the United States. The New England States were among the first to 
 encourage the production of fine-wool .sheep. If our sheep be increased to a hun- 
 dred million, as they should, these States will fiud a new demand for all the breed- 
 ing .sheep they can produce, adding vastly to their wealth and resources. Wool is 
 only one of the considerations which support sheep husbandry in Vermont and other 
 States, and the superior stud flocks of those States have supplied the wants of breed- 
 ers everywhere west of the Hudson River, and have enabled growers to produce that 
 superior quality of wool quoted as X and XX, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Her breed- 
 ing sheep have been sent abroad purely for breeding purposes. But everywhere west 
 of New England .slieep husbandry is desirable, and almost everywhere its utility is 
 not restricted to raising breeding sheep, for it rests upon several other important con- 
 siderations. 
 
 The rolling lands in all the States that produce grass, even if they are not valua- 
 ble for tillage, make excellent grazing for sheep. Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and 
 eastern Ohio furnish well-known illustrations of this important truth. Such lands 
 are fertilized by pasturing sheep, so as to render them, when not too hilly, valuable 
 for the production of gram, and thus is established that useful system of rotation of 
 crops by which fertility is preserved. 
 
 The importance of grazing sheep upon lands that produce our cereals can only he 
 appreciated by practical men, or by those who are intelligent and candid observers. 
 Rotation in crops is becoming more and more important in the production of grain. 
 The exhausting effect of too much plowing and sowing, and the speed with which 
 the Great West, even to the Pacific Ocean, is being brought under cultivation and 
 overworked will soon render it necessary to rest these lands; and this can best be 
 done by the fertilizing influence of sheep grazing and a systematic rotation of crops. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 249 
 
 The man Vho asserts that the Mississippi Valley generally is not adapted to the 
 production of wool, or that sheep husbandry is not calculated to advance its agri- 
 cultural prosperity, is not well informed, or has not intelligently considered the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 Let us now leave the New England States, the Mississippi Valley, and the Pacific 
 coast, and consider Texas, Colorado, and the Territories, their necessities and ca- 
 pacities. 
 
 In this extensive region our wools for carpets, blankets, and the coarser kinds nf 
 clothing should be grown. The extent of this vast region is not appreciated by our 
 people, and its capabilities for advancing our civil and social systems are not under- 
 stood. 
 
 Without irrigation there is no agriculture practicable in this almost unlimited do- 
 main. Exceptions to this statement may exist; but they are too insignificant to re- 
 quire notice. The precious metals will in time be exhausted, and, in the future, the 
 demand for food may lead to important agricultural production where irrigation is 
 practicable. 
 
 Still there will remain immense arid, waterless, and treeless plains, fit only for 
 grazing purposes. If this region is not used to graze sheep and cattle it is a mieibr- 
 tuue that its original occupants, the Indians and buffalo, have been expelled from it. 
 This portion of our country, if used at all, must be devoted to raising cattle and 
 sheep. Those who reflect already see that the demand for meat food, at home and 
 abroad, is not equal to the productive capacities of this region under the energetic 
 activities of Americans. 
 
 A "free-trader" or importer of carpet wools may claim that the United States can 
 not produce all the wools we require, but he can not support his claim. The section 
 of country under consideration, as a rule, is elevated, mountainous, and uniformly 
 dry. It is a natural home for the sheep required to produce the variety of wools un- 
 der consideration. 
 
 The ease and rapidity at tending any change desired in the length or qualityof 
 fiber, in growing wool, is not generally understood, and this fact leads to misunder- 
 standing, and often to misrepresentation. Producers have only to be informed what 
 the habits of our people and the fashions of the hour demand, and, given the control 
 of the home market, they will respond at once to its requisitions. 
 
 Influenced by the legislation of 1883, wool-growing languishes throughout the 
 United States, especially in the region under consideration, and without relief it 
 must soon perish. Let me verify this statement. 
 
 In Texas, the wool clip of 1883 was of the value of $9,228,234; in 1887 its value 
 was $5,016,674 ; showing a loss of |4,211,560, being a reduction in value of not quite 
 one-half in four years. Is it desirable to extinguish the industry best adapted to this 
 vast section under the cry of " free trade" or "free wool"? Who will be benefited 
 hyapolicysounwi.se? None except foreign nations. I have not before me statis- 
 tics from Colorado or the Territories; they will, however, corroborate what I have 
 before stated in regard to Texas. 
 
 Our annual consumption of unwashed wool is about 600,000,000 pounds, including 
 the quantity imported in goods. 
 
 The domestic production for 1887 did not exceed 265,000,000 pounds. 
 
 John L. Hays, LL. D., estimated the domestic clip at 3i:0,000,000 pounds for the 
 year 1883. 
 
 Thus it appears that under the influence of the act of 1883 our annual clip has been 
 diminished in amount, say, 55,000,000 pounds. It should have increased at the rate of 
 over 2 per cent, annually, to keep pace with the natural growth of the country. 
 
 This rate of increase in four years gives 8 per cent, on the production of 1883, which 
 equals 25,000,000. Had not the act of 1883 been passed, our clip in 1887 should have 
 reached 345,000,000 in place of 265,000,000 only. It would have largely exceeded this 
 had the increase equaled the rate of increase during the four years preceding 1883. 
 Why shall we permit our grazing lauds to become a desert waste, in the region re- 
 ferred to, and onr labor to go unemxdoyed, and by so doing render it necessary to 
 purchase onr wool from the colonies of Great Britain or other foreign countries ? 
 
 If it be asked why the wool-growers need protection, 1 answer: 
 The American producers can not compete with countries where no winter feeding 
 and but little summer attention .are required, and where labor is also cheap, unless 
 their industry has protection. 
 
 How has manufacturing reached its perfection and magnitude? By legislative 
 aid, which secured control of the homo market to American producers. 
 
 Without this aid where would this industry be to-day f It is now .an important 
 element in our economy, but its future still demands and deserves the fostering care 
 of the Government. 
 
 Are skill and labor more meritorious while directing looms and spindles than while 
 engaged in developing the resources of nature in the field of agriculture? 
 The first maybe an easier occupation, but is the latter less noble or useful? 
 
260 
 
 EteViSION of THE TARIFF. 
 
 Land is the primal source of all wealth, and he who increases its prodnctiona and 
 employs labor in developing its dormant wealth and capabiliiies is a worthy citizen 
 even though he is neither a statesman nor a scholar. ' 
 
 Let the nation give to wool-growers a little of the aid already given to manu- 
 facturing Industries, and you will soon see all the wool used in this country, for any 
 purpose, produced by American people. 
 
 Important statistics, showing the necessity of protection in order to preserve our 
 wool industry, have benu furnished by Justice Bateman & Co., of Philadelphia. 
 
 I will briefly refer to these, to show that without protection wool growing must be 
 abandoned, because of its competition with foreign wools, costing so much less than 
 the cost of production here. These statistics show the price of wool in Philadelphia 
 for December, 1887, under the tariff of 1883, the per cent, of shrinkage, and the 
 scoured cost. Also the foreign price in December, 1887, the shrinkage, and the 
 scoured cost. Also the difference between the cost of American and foreign scoured 
 wools of competing grades in December, 1887. It is thus demonstrated that washed 
 combing wools, competing with the American product, were, in London, December, 
 1887, cheaper than in Philadelphia by 13 to 22 cents per pound on a scoured basis, 
 the average being 17 3-5 per pound. 
 
 Washed clothing wools were cheaper by 14 to 27 cents per pound, the average be- 
 ing 21|: cents per pound on a scoured basis. 
 
 The same ratio of difference is found in regard to the cost of unwashed combing 
 and clothing wools for December, 1887, on a scoured basis, between London and 
 Philadelphia. Wools competing with Territorial wools, during the same period, 
 were cheaper on a scoured basis in London than Philadelphia by amouuts ranging 
 between 7 and 25 cents per pound, the average being 16 cents and a fraction. 
 
 These facts furnish a sure basis for estimating the price of our wools when pro- 
 tection is abolished. If "free wool" is forced on the country, the two columns of 
 figures here produced from the calculations of Messrs. Bateman & Co. will show 
 those who examine this subject, what the grower obtained in Philadelphia in Decem- 
 ber, 1887, for his wool under the tariff of 1883, and what he would have obtained 
 under "free trade" prices: 
 
 WASHED COMBING WOOL. 
 
 Prices in Phila- 
 delphia, Dec, 
 
 1887, under 
 tariff of 1883. 
 
 Free-trade 
 prices on the 
 
 basis of the 
 
 cost of scoured 
 
 wools. 
 
 Ohio and Pennsylvania fine delaino M.XX 
 
 Obi.i and l^ennsylvania medium, three-eighths to one-half blood. 
 Ohio ami Pennsylvania one-quarter blood 
 
 24i 
 27J 
 20 
 
 WASHED CLOTHING WOOL. 
 
 Oliio and PennaylTania XX and above choice , 
 
 Ohio and PenDsylvaiiia XX aod above average 
 
 Ohio aud Pennaylvauia XX coarse, one-quarter blood- 
 
 Micliigan and New York fine delaine 
 
 Michigan and New York coarse 
 
 32 
 
 18i 
 
 30 
 
 13 
 
 37 
 
 20 
 
 32 
 
 18 
 
 36 
 
 20 
 
 UNWASHED COMBING WOOL. 
 
 
 2.1 
 29 
 27 
 
 17 
 
 
 22 
 
 Coarse combing 
 
 Wi 
 
 UNWASHED CLOTHING WOOL. 
 
 Fine nnnierchantablo XX. 
 
 Fill'' XX choice and above 
 
 Pine X and above average 
 
 Coarse unwashed X one-quarter blood, choice, 
 
 24 
 
 14 
 
 23 
 
 13i 
 
 21 
 
 13 
 
 28 
 
 15 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 251 
 
 The above are simply examples of each class taken from Messrs. Batemau & Co.'s 
 tables, and submitted to them for correction. They demoastrate the injustice and the 
 great outrage upon the most important industry in the United States conuected with 
 agriculture which will surely result from placing wool on the free list. 
 
 It must be presumed that nothing but misrepresentation or palpable mistake could 
 have persuaded the late President to commit the serious error he made on this sub- 
 ject by recommending free wool. 
 
 I have omitted figures in regard to the free-trade price of Territorial wools simply 
 on account of want of space. Their price on the same basis of calculation is pro- 
 portionately reduced. 
 
 No further argument is needed to prove, beyond controversy, that "free wool" is 
 death to this industry, and none who prefer the interests of this nation to those of 
 foreign nations will fail to regret so serious a blow to our wool-growers, and to the 
 nation at large, as free wool will inflict; and none but those under influence of per- 
 sonal interests or traditional prejudices and preconceived opinions will fail to admit 
 that the attempt to put wool on the free list is an "economic blunder ." 
 
 To those who favor free trade as our true policy I address no protest against " free 
 wool." From their stand-point they are right. 
 
 Free trade and no protection, or protection and no free trade. To " this complex- 
 ion we must come at last." 
 
 In this small space lie the germs of our future policy and the " fittest will survive." 
 If it be free trade, let ns have it as a system, pure and simple, without the adultera- 
 tion of duplicity, under the name of " incidental protection." 
 
 Revenue is easily obtained without protection. Establish duties so low as to open 
 our markets to our friends abroad, and they will cheerfully do our work and pay all 
 the duties we need for revenue for the privilege of owning our markets. Let us then 
 be frank and honest, and adopt one system or the other, and abandon methods that 
 are neither. By protection it is as easy to reduce revenue as it is to increase it by 
 non-protective duties. 
 
 Protect American industries, and give them control of our own market, and thus 
 reduce imports and customs duties. Reduce duties so as not to protect American in- 
 dustries and give control of our markets to other nations, and you will have a surplus 
 revenue from customs and foreign fabrics for our people. 
 
 Let us do one or the other, and have an economic policy that is entitled to an honest 
 and correct name. 
 
 A " tariff for revenue" with "incidental protection" is a delusion and a fraud. 
 
 It is often an argument used by "free-traders "to accomplish indirectlj what they 
 dare not attempt directly. 
 
 Protection is per ae beneficial or injurious. It must stand or fall on its merits, and 
 by its fruits it must be judged. It should be adopted or rejected as a system. No 
 tariff for revenue merely can be adjusted to an equitable or correct system of protec- 
 tion. All efforts to do this have failed. They have either given no protection, or 
 have protected some industries, leaving others equally meritorious to perish, or some 
 so inadequately as to languish and slowly die. The injustice of such legislation, and 
 the general dissatisfaction resulting from it, are well understood. 
 
 We need a national policy on this subject, honestly named. 
 
 If protection, let it be general and uniform, embracing all American industries that 
 can be profitably pursued by our people. Experience has demonstrated that when 
 the home market is given to American products, competition soon reduces prices to 
 the minimum cost of production, and this experience illustrates the wisdom of Alex- 
 ander Hamilton's policy of protection, inaugurated during the infancy of our Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 The wealth of a nation consists in the difference in value between what it produces 
 and consumes. 
 
 At the end of each year it will be richer or poorer by the excess or deficit in the 
 value of its productions, when compared with what is consumed. In this respect its 
 condition is precisely like that of every family, community, or corporation, or indi- 
 vidual. 
 
 Give, then, to the United States a wise, economic policy, that will stimulate to ac- 
 tivity our looms, spindles, furnaces, forges, anvils, as well as all other instruments or 
 implements connected with our various and useful industries, and thus giveincreased 
 activity, more employment, and better wages to all laboring classes who are ready to 
 unite in promoting a general prosperity, and we shall soon develop our various and 
 inexhaustible resources. 
 
 By such system one industry will aid in supporting another, and we shall not be 
 compelled to purchase from other nations ; for our production will exceed our con- 
 sumption, and we shall increase in wealth, prosperity, and happiness. 
 Attest : 
 
 Geo. H. Wallace, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
252 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 December 4. 
 
 The committee on resolutions and address to the people of tlie United States 
 made the following report, which was nuanimously adopted : 
 
 Whereas the importation in the last iiseal year of woolen goods of the custom- 
 house value of |58, 000, 000 was ruinous to the industries and interests of American 
 citizens; and 
 
 Whereas the manufacture of goods of this value from American grown wool 
 would have made a home demand for 175,000,000 pounds of wool : Therefore 
 
 Resolved, That the proper development of the wool industry requires that such pro- 
 tection shall be given to wool manufacturers as will enable them toproduce at rea- 
 sonable prices all the woolen goods required for consumption in the United States; 
 and as wool-growers we ask of Congress the enactment of such tariff. 
 
 Eesolved, That with suf33cieutly protective duties the wool industry of the United 
 States can, and will in due time, be developed to such an extent as to produce at 
 reasonable prices all the wool required for consumption in this country. This would 
 add 60,000,000 to the number of our sheep, furnish au abundance of cheap mutton 
 food, increase wealth to share the burdens of taxation, give employment to millions 
 of acres of land now unoccupied and waste, diversify agricultural industries, make 
 a demand for additional hay and grain for sheep, make new demands for labor in 
 many forms, and vastly enlarge the wealth and resources of the country. 
 
 Eesolved, That the vfool-growers ask of Congnss such legislation as will give to 
 the wool industry that "full and adequate protectiou" promised in the platform of 
 principles sanctioned by the American people in the elections of 1888. Unless this 
 protection is furnished to the wool industry as fully as to the most favored of the 
 manufacturing industries, the wool-growers thus denied the "eiiual protection of 
 the laws" can not be expected to support a policy from the benefits of which the 
 farmers of the United States are excluded, and thus the iodustrial and commercial 
 interests of the whole country sacrificed. 
 
 And whereas petitions to Congress are being circulated and sigued by some, bat 
 only a small portion of the " leading manufacturers and merchants" — the latter 
 presumably importers — in the New England States, asking that "the duties on raw 
 wool may be removed or greatly reduced," while others ask for " a single ad valorem 
 duty on all classes of wool," the effect of which if adopted would be to increase im- 
 ports and diminish home production: Therefore 
 
 Eesolved, That if it shall become the policy of manufacturers to demand free 
 wool, aud if this shall be sanctioned by Congress, the wool-growers of the United 
 States will thereby find the wool industry of this country destroyed, and will be 
 driven to demand that the duties on all woolen aud worsted goods, ineludiug carpets, 
 shall also be removed. 
 
 And whereas it is understood that a very few of the carpet manufacturers are mak- 
 ing an effort to induce Congress to reduce the carpet wool duties prescribed by the 
 tariff bill which passed the Senate of the United States January 22, 188'J : Therefore 
 
 Eesolved, That this convention relies upon the good judgment of the great body 
 of carpet manufacturers to oppose any such effort, the results of which would bo ru- 
 inous to the wool iudustry ; would be a declaration of hostility to tliis industry ; a 
 failure to give it the " full aud adequate protection" demanded by the public judg- 
 ment as rendered at the last Presidential election, aud will meet the uuanimous dis- 
 approval and condemnation of the wool-growers of the United States. The wool- 
 growing industry should not be sacrificed, nor is this necessary, to secure adequate 
 jtrotection to the carpet industry. 
 
 The duties and provisions of the Senate bill passed January 22, 188'J, are not in all 
 respects satisfactory to the wool-growers of the United States, aud do not, as we 
 think, sufficiently provide for the necessities of this iudustry. Nevertheless, we will 
 accept its provisions, provided no ch.anges are made iu it detrimental to the wool 
 industry. If such changes are made, the wool-growers will take such action as in 
 their judgment is deemed right and proper. 
 
 Eesolved, That the wool-growers ask that iu any tariff law which m.ny be enacted 
 provisions shall be made which will secure the honest aud faithful execution of the 
 law, and among them the following: 
 
 (1) To define washed and scoured wools. 
 
 (2) To impose increased duties on fieeces of wool imported in any other than the 
 natural condition of such fleeces. 
 
 (3) To impose increased duties on " round lots" of imported wool, in which valu- 
 able clothing and so-called carpet wools are mixed with inferior grades of carpet 
 wools, leaving the aggregate dutiable only at the lowest rates. 
 
 (4) To prevent and puuish undervaluations. 
 
 (5) To i)revent evasions of the law by admixtures of wool with shoddy and other 
 inferior articles. 
 
 (ti) To prevent the importation of clothing and combiug wools under the name 
 of carpet wools. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 253 
 
 (7) To prevent and punish other frauds on the hiw. 
 
 Besolved, That inasmuch as tobacco is oueof the agricultural products of many of our 
 States, and is mauiifactiired aud consumed by a large portion of the people, and the 
 internal-revenue tax thereon, which origiuat.ed as a war necessity, is no longer 
 needed by the Government, and is an unnecessary burden ou this branch of agri- 
 culture, this tax should be iuimcdiately abolished. Congress, outside of the District 
 of Columbia aud the Territories, has no power to impose internal-revenue taxes in 
 the nature of a police regulation, and merely as such. That power belongs alone to 
 
 the States. 
 
 J. #**### 
 
 To the People of the United States: 
 
 The National Convention of Wool-Growers, at its session in Washington, D. C, 
 December "Jd to 9th inclusive, 1889, appointed a committee charged with the duty of 
 addressing you, and the following is submitted for that purpose: 
 
 Congress is now in session, and it is the right aud duty of every citizen, by letter 
 and otherwise, to ask its members to provide such legislation as will best secure the 
 common interests of all the people. The farmers are the most numerous class of those 
 engaged in industrial pursuits. When they tind adequate rewards for their labors 
 and when they prosper, all other industries prosper; when agricultural industries 
 suffer, all others suffer. For some years past the farmers have not enjoyed the degree 
 of prosperity which their labors merited, and as a consequence, farms and lands in 
 many, if not most of the States, have generally depreciated in value from 10 to SO 
 per cent, when such results might have been averted. The same depression will con- 
 tinue unless its causes be removed. The chief cause of these evils and the conse- 
 quent injuries resulting to those engaged in other pursuits is found in the reduction 
 by the act of Congress of March 3, 1883, of the duties on wool, on worsted goods, and 
 some other articles of manufacture, and the failure to provide such duties as would 
 give to American farmers, mechanics, manufacturers, and laborers the exclusive privi- 
 lege of supplying by their labor and skill every product of the held, the forest, the 
 mine, the factory, and tlie shop, which they could have produced at fair prices and 
 in sufficient abundance to supply all American wants. We have been importing arti- 
 cles, the product of foreign labor, to the value of $'200,000,000 annually, most of which 
 should have been produced in the United States, thereby giving largely increased em- 
 ployment to labor and capital at home, rather than in foreign countries. The Presiden- 
 tial and Congressional elections of 1888 indorsed a platform of principles, favoring a 
 protective tariff, and promising to the wool industry by name "full and adequate 
 protection," aud the President's message emphasizes this pledge by wisely declaring 
 that "the protective principle should Ije maintained and fairly applied to the prod- 
 ucts of our farms, as well as of our shops." The wool iudustry is almost the only 
 brauch of agriculture which can be directly and generally advanced by protective 
 duties, but this benefit results in prosperity for every other agricultural industry. 
 Wheat, corn, oats, beef, pork, all are depressed in price because of overproduction. 
 But with a suthcient protective wool tariii', our flocks of sheep would be vastly in- 
 creased to supply wool which we are now importing from foreign countries, and this 
 increase would make a demand for corn which in some localities, as in portions of 
 Kansas and Nebraska, is being consumed as fuel; it would make a demand for hay; 
 it wonld give employment to a portion of the lands now unprotitably employed in an 
 overproduction of wheat. Thus, and otherwise as will be a little more fully shown 
 hereafter, the revival of our w(i(d industry and its proper full development wonld 
 restore prosperity to the wliole country. 
 
 In securing adequate protection for this industry the wool-growers ask the aid and 
 co-operation of those engaged in every other industrial pursuit. The protective 
 policy is a system, extending to all industries, in support of which all should unite. 
 The wool-growers have a right to ask for their iudustry protection to the full extent 
 of the most favored of the manufacturing industries, and they will not tamely sub- 
 mit to a system which ignores their rights. This is a Government " of the people, 
 by the people, aud for the people." It is a Goverumeut in which the ballot is wielded 
 to secure results, and the farmers will not sacrifice manhood, duty, and interest by 
 supporting any system from the benefits of which they are excluded, nor will they be 
 deterred from respectfully expressing their wishes by speech and through the press, 
 nor from asserting their power in the nomination of candidates for office by any un- 
 founded intimation that such honest expression, or exercise of power, will place 
 them in a threatening attitude. They ask only for their industries the same benefi- 
 cial legislation which they ask for others, aud a failure to do this would be a crime. 
 These remarks are justified by the fact, which we can not ignore, that a very few of 
 those engaged in the carpet industry are insisting upon the admission of so-called 
 carpet wool, suitable for the manufacture of clothing, at rates of duty so low as to 
 threaten the ruin of the wool industry of this country, and are asking for duties on 
 carpet wool so low as to deprive American wool-growers of the privilege of supply- 
 ing it. 
 
254 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 If such wool must be bought in foreign countries, carpets will be bought there also. ■■ 
 Carpets are in some measure luxuries entitled to less favor than the production of 
 ■wool or of clothing goods. The number of persons engaged in the carpet industry is 
 few, compared with the number who would directly and indirectly find employment 
 in producing the wool required in the manufacture of carpets. It is neither good 
 statesmanship nor justice to sacrifice the many for the few, whose interests would in 
 no degree be promoted by such sacrifice. And such sacrifioe will inevitably result in 
 free carpets. Those who ask for lower duties on other forms of wool, if they could 
 obtain them, would secure the destruction of the wool industry as effectually as by 
 direct free trade. Whenever duties are below the protective point, the destructive 
 point is reached. Such low duties would inevitably result in similar duties for 
 woolen clothing goods, and with similar results, not only because of the alienation of 
 a large body of people from their chief interest in the protective policy, but because 
 it would be an abandonment of the policy itself. When its unity is broken, the 
 system must perish. Ad valorem duties on wool will invite fraudulent undervalua- 
 tions and give the least protection when most needed, and can not be tolerated. The 
 president of the National Association of Wool Manufacturing, William Whitman, 
 esq., in his able published letter of November 22, 1889, has fully demonstrated the 
 danger of abandoning the protective policy for wool-growers, and judiciously said of 
 manufactures and wool-growers that they have " interests that ought to be friendly 
 and co-operative, as they have been and can be with all that it involves." And more 
 than this, the whole country will share the benefits of the protective policy as a 
 system. This may be readily seen. The injudicious reduction by the tariff act of 
 1683, of duties on wool, and on worsted goods, and the rulings of the Treasury De- 
 partment under President Cleveland's administration, hostile to both wool-growers 
 and wool manufacturers, rendered the wool industry unremunerative, resulting in a 
 reduction of the n umber of sheep in this country from 50,626,626 in 1884, to 41,500,000 
 sheep now. For the fiscal year 1889 the imports of wool in the form of woolen goods 
 were equal to 160,000,000 pounds unwashed wool; the imports of wool, 126,487,72i) 
 pounds, equal to about 180,000,000 pounds unwashed ; the imports of so-called wastes 
 etc., were 8,662,209 pounds, equal to 24,000,000 pounds unwashed wool, making a 
 total of imports of 364,000,000 pounds, while our domestic wool clip was only about 
 250,000,000 pounds, making a total of wool consumed of 610,000,000 pounds unwashed 
 wool. We need, and under sufficient protection, will soon have, 100,000,000 sheep 
 ■with which we can supply all the wool required by the wants of all our people. The 
 48,322,331 sheep in the United States in 1886 required for pasturage and the produc- 
 tion of grain and hay at least 24,000,000 acres of land, equal to more than all the cul- 
 tivated and pasture lands of a State like Indiana. An addition of 50,000,000 to our 
 sheep would utilize 30,000,000 additional acres of land now in part idle, and in part 
 giving an overproduction of wheat and corn ; it would give employment to 180,000 
 men and boys, many of them now without employment; it would distribute annually 
 in wages to them $45,000,000 ; it would add to our tax lists to share the burdens of 
 taxation in value of sheep $100,000,000 and in enhanced value of idle lands utijized 
 $60,000,000 ; it would enhance the value of every acre of arable and pasture land in 
 the United States ; it would make a demand for half a million sheep-shelters and give 
 work to every idle carpenter in the land ; it would give employment to a multitude 
 of men to clear, fence and cultivate lands ; it would increase freight for railroads and 
 steamers, and business for wool-buyers; it would increase and cheapen the supply of 
 mutton, and rich and poor in cities and country would alike rejoice in the blessings 
 of abundance. Increased profits to wool-growers, and all securing employment from 
 the wool industry, would enable them to build houses, buy goods and groceries, pat- 
 ronize colleges, schools, and churches, and thereby promote morality and orderly 
 government. This increase of the wool industry would preserve the fertility of our 
 farms now being impoverished by excessive cultivation ; it would reclaim lands par- 
 tially worn out and fast becoming wastes; it would utilize mountain sides and hill 
 lands for pasturage and restore more than •the prosperity of other years, under a better 
 protective system. All this is practicable. 
 
 That sagacious manufacturer, Mr. Whitman, has declared that "the American 
 staple wools are better adapted for the fabrication of satisfactory clothing for the 
 American people than any other wools grown." We can produce them all. It has 
 been said that as yet a very small amount of foreign wool is needed to mix with ours 
 to secure a particular luster to one unimportant class of goods. But we could afford 
 to sacrifice the style for great public interests since it is not demanded by utihty. 
 But even this is not necessary. American wool-growers by proper sheep breeding can 
 soon furnish every needed style of wool. And they can soon supply every pound of 
 carpet wool required for American use and utility. The eminent statistician of the 
 Department of Agriculture, Prof. J. R. Dodge, in November, 1889, in referring to the 
 wonderful capabilities of the Southern States, said : " Especially should this region 
 undertake at once the supply of all the carpet wool required by our manufacturers. 
 * * * Indeed, not an ounce of any sort of wool need be imported." 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 255 
 
 A. E. Shepard and W. S. Black, of Texas, among the most intelligent and experi- 
 enced of the wool-growers, declare that Texas alone can supply all the needed carpet 
 wools, and that with adequate protection the whole will be supplied at reasonable 
 cost. M^ith a hundred million sheep, of all the varieties our people will have, the 
 "skirting" and "breech wool" would supply most of the needed carpet wool. The 
 evidence in support of all this can bo multiplied abundantly, and ou this subject 
 wool-growers are better qualitied to decide than the most intelligent manufacturers. 
 Without "full and adequate protection" the wool industry will substantially be 
 destroyed. The chief of the Bureau of Statistics under President Cleveland's ad- 
 ministration said that without such protection "it is idle to talk aboutraising sheep 
 * * * to compete with South Africa, Australia, and South America." Australia 
 now has about 100,000,000 sheep, and the Argentine Republic nearly an equal num- 
 ber. In those countries sheep require but little if any winter feeding, and the cost 
 of pasturage is merely nominal, and of labor nearly equal so. 
 
 The reduction in the number of our sheep since 1883 proves that without better 
 protection we can not continue to grow wool to any considerable extent. It would 
 occupy too much space to quote the figures showing the custom-house value of im- 
 ported wools, but these prove that without better protection we can not compete with 
 such wools. And the custom-house value does not show the extent of the competi- 
 tion, because iu clothing wools as imported it will require about one and a half 
 pouuds of our unwashed Merino wools to produce as much scoured wool as one pound 
 of Australia clothing wool, iind of combiug and carpet wools, imported as they are 
 washed at the single duty rate, it will require much more of our unwashed, or oven 
 washed wools, to produce a scoured pound than of the foreign competing wools. 
 
 The same reasons which require protective duties to enable our citizeus to produce 
 all other protected products operate as to the wool industry. Those who demand in- 
 adequate duties for wool strike a blow at every other industry. We are fighting the 
 battle for the men who mine iron ore and coal, for pig-iron and coal, aud lead and 
 copper, and every one of the manufactures of these metals, and of clay aud wood, 
 and leather, and manufactured clothing, and we have a right to ask the co-operation 
 of these industries in sustaining a policy which is a uuit. 
 
 The Senate tariff bill, which passed that body January 22, 1889, proposes to increase 
 the duty on clothing wools only 1 cent per pound. The average custom-house value 
 of the cheapest unwashed clothing wool imported in the fiscal year 1867 was 26.39 
 cents per pound, with a duty of 12.90 cents per pound. The average value of the 
 best was 37.81 cents, with adutyof 15.78, besides which thegold premium wasequiv- 
 alent to additional duty. The Senate bill only proposes 11 cents per pound duty on 
 the present low custoru-house valuations of wool, which is not our prices, but foreign 
 values. The proposed duty will admit large amounts of foreign wool. The Senate 
 bill proposes to increase the present duty only 2 cents per pound on combiu"' wool 
 aud to admit it washed at 12 cents. This probably does not exceed a duty of 8 cents 
 on unwashed combing wool. When the act of 1867 was passed, foreign combing 
 wools could scarcely be said to compete with our wools. The imports for the fiscal 
 year 18B7 were only 150,302 pounds more, and duties on this wool would largely in- 
 crease the number of our best mutton sheep, increase the home supply of this wool, 
 and result in many advantages to the people ; under a duty as proposed in the Senate 
 bill foreign wool would be largely imported. There is no more reason for importing 
 this wool than for importing the worsted goods into which it is made. 
 
 The Senate bill proposes to make the duty on washed carpet wool of the custom- 
 house value of 12 cents aud under 4 cents, an increase of a 1^ cents; on wool over 
 12 cents value, 8 cents, an increase of Scents. These are insignificant sums, equal 
 probably to less than 2 aud 4 cents ou unwashed. An official letter of November 29, 
 1889, on file in one of the Departments, by an eminent expert, discussing the amount 
 of wool used in making a yard of carpet, says: "Generally the average of a pound 
 of new wool for a yard of carpet may be assumed, raugiug as to the details from two 
 pounds to a few ounces." Another letter of November 15 says of wools used in 
 1887-'88: "A large quantity of American and Mexican wool was used for carpets, 
 and an almost equally large amount of domestic and foreign waste was useil for 
 making filling yarns for carpets." Estimates submitted to the Senate Finance Com- 
 mittee, in January, 1889, made the amount of wool larger, based on carpets made with 
 all new wool, without reference to those largely composed of shoddy, cow and calf 
 hair. Much of the domestic and imported carpet wool is used for clothing purposes. 
 The letter of November 15 referred to says: "the importation of 'carpet wool' in 
 1887-'8 was 84,879,540 pounds; yet it is certain that one-half of this wool was actu- 
 ally used for clothing purposes." The New York Tribune of October 19, 1889, quotes 
 the testimony of Robert Bleaklie, an eminent manufacturer, who favors free wool, 
 who says he is "satisfied that many millions of pounds of carpet wools are used 
 in making cloth for clothing purposes." We can produce much additional evidence 
 in support of all these statements. The imports in the last fiscal year of 90,391,54:( 
 
256 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 pounds of carpet wools, equal to 150,000,000 pounds of unwashed, is one-fourtli of our 
 total consumption of wool. 
 
 The character of this wool may be seen from its custom-house value. The average 
 custom-house value of the clothing wool imported in 1888 and 1889 was 20.07 cents 
 per pound, while the custom-house value of the better class of carpet wools was 17.9 
 cents, yet the foimer unwashed paid a duty of 10 cents, the latter washed only 5— 
 and all was equally available for clothiug purposes. The Senate bill proposes to 
 make the duty 11 cents on unwashed clothing wools and only 8 on washed carpet 
 though a pound of the latter will yield jirobably 40 per cent, more scoured wool than 
 will the clothing wool. This low duty on carpet wool used for clothing purposes is 
 the greatest wrong, most ruinous to our wool industry in the whole system. Its im- 
 portation supplants our clothing wool, fixes its price, and threatens destruction to 
 our industry. A few of the carpet manufacturers, with duties nearly prohibitory on 
 carpets — the most protective given to any hxrge industry — ask a reduction of the du- 
 ties of the Senate bill. To this wool-growers will never assent. It would destroy 
 the wool industry. It would soon subvert the whole protective system. To Con- 
 gress, to the new States with their ranches, and to all the people we appeal to avert 
 this calamity, and give to all our industries — agriculture equally with others— the 
 f'-.U measure of a protective policy which will make the whole country rejoice in 
 abundance and prosperity. 
 
 William Lawrence, of Ohio, Chairman. 
 
 E. N. i!issELL,.of Vermont. 
 
 A. E. Shei'ard, of Texas. 
 
 H. YouxG, of Pennsylvania. 
 
 N. H. Gentry, of Missouri. 
 
 T. H. Carter, of Montana. 
 
 J. D. Taylor, of Ohio. 
 
 » » # it # it « 
 
 The following gentlemen were requested to serve, in answer to the call of the pres- 
 ident of the association, as a corniiiittee to present the interests of tbe wool-growers 
 to Congress: Judge William Lawrence, Ohio; Hon. John McDowell, Pennsylvania; 
 Capt. A. E. Shepard, Texas; Hiram Young, Pennsylvania; E. N. Bissell, Vermont; 
 Hon. J. T. Eich, Michigan; Albert Chapman, Vermont; Hon. George L.Converse, 
 Ohio ; J. H. Kirkpatrick, California ; Hon. David Harpster, Ohio ; Hon. Cliarles Crane, 
 Utah; Hon. Davis Cossitt, New York; Hon. C. M. Clay, Kentucky; A. W. Camp- 
 bell, West Virginia. 
 
 Captain Shepard, of Texas, offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That the President of the United States is respectfully requested to cause 
 an investigation to be made as to the qualifications and competency of appraisers at 
 the custom-houses of the country, and to make such changes, if any be needed, as may 
 be required to secure a faithful and efficient administration of the laws. And this 
 convention respectfully asks that in selecting appraisers men bo appointed who are 
 thoroughly and practically well acquainted with wools in all their various forms, and 
 who will have the courage to prevent frauds in importations. 
 
 December 9. 
 
 * * * On motion of Judge William Lawrence it was unanimously voted to hold 
 the annual meeting in June next at the city of Galveston, Tex. 
 
 On motion of Captain Shepard, the chairman appointed the following as a com- 
 mittee to present in person to Benjamin Harrison, the President of the United States, 
 the resolutions adopted : A. E. Shepard, chairman, Texas ; Judge Wiliam Lawrence, 
 Ohio; Hon. John McDowell, Pennsylvania; E. N. Bissell, Vermont. 
 
 Diagrams. 
 
 Diagram No. 1 on the accompanying sheet gives the prices for Ohio wool in Janu- 
 ary, 1884, and shows the effects of the tarilf reduction of 1883, as well as the fluctua- 
 tions which have taken place down to the present time. The notes at the foot of 
 diagram No. 1 show the period at which the most prominent events occurred, which 
 were having the most direct local influence on the American wool market, some of 
 which facts axe very significant. It will be observed that prices took a downward 
 tendency after the subject of free wool was first broached by Secretary Manning in 
 Dec(-niber, 1880, in his annual report at that time. The Pre,sident's free- wool message 
 in the following December greatly accelerated the downward tendency to prices 
 
u 
 
 0. 
 
 i8S4 ISSS iSSS ' 18S5- 
 
 XS88 
 
 2 
 
 u 
 
 
 E 
 a 
 
 -z. 
 
 -> 
 
 UJ 
 
 
 0. 
 
 >- 
 
 
 > 
 
 -5 
 
 6 
 < 
 
 UJ 
 00 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 2! 
 
 6 
 o 
 
 >- 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 > 
 
 < 
 
 ui 
 
 >■ 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 cj 
 
 UJ 
 
 >■ 
 
 < 
 
 > 
 ■ra 
 
 UJ 
 U- 
 
 < 
 
 D- 
 
 < 
 
 > 
 
 < 
 
 LLl 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 C5 
 
 Z3 
 
 1- 
 
 LU 
 GO 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 >' 
 
 o 
 
 6 
 
 UJ 
 Q 
 
 >- 
 
 <- 
 
 — > 
 
 >- 
 
 'CO 
 UJ 
 
 < 
 s 
 
 C:: 
 
 0- 
 
 >- 
 
 < 
 
 UJ 
 
 Z3 
 
 3 
 
 
 1- 
 a. 
 
 UJ 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 > o 
 
 O UJ 
 
 <: 
 
 UJ 
 
 
 _I 
 
 fl. 
 
 >- 
 
 UJ 
 
 z 
 
 >- 
 
 —J 
 
 -a: 
 
 a. 
 
 UJ 
 f-O 
 
 1- 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 2: 
 
 UJ 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 40 
 
 
 ' 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 40 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 89^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 % 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 89» 
 
 S9 
 
 
 V 
 
 <.^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'Sn 
 
 
 >\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 k 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 39 
 
 3&A 
 
 
 
 
 %' 
 
 = 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iF'WLJ. 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 38S 
 
 88 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^'^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '**% 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 v 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ( 
 
 / 
 
 38 
 
 37)i 
 
 
 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 V 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 |ttxl 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 V- 
 
 ■<.— 
 
 
 
 />■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 It 
 
 
 37;* 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 , i 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'r- 
 
 <>- 
 
 -<>- 
 
 --;, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H f 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s«^ 
 
 
 /^ fc 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 37 
 
 86'^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 f 
 
 »>s=^ 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 s>- 
 
 H 
 
 5 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 am 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 ^'^'^ 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 * : 
 
 
 
 7""""""""" 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 ii, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 36 
 
 SBJi 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 -o— 
 
 ■\ 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 f 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^J 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 9 6 
 
 8. 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 k 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 35^2 
 
 SB 
 
 
 I 
 
 / 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 /~ 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 t 
 
 u 
 
 
 \ 
 
 \'; 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 / 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 j 
 
 / 
 
 f 
 
 35 
 
 34^2 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 ^J 
 
 K®E1 
 
 K 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 / 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 // 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 H-\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 34a 
 
 34 
 
 / 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 \J 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 1 T" 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 34 
 
 33/r 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i , 
 
 
 
 *»■ 
 
 ,^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 f, 
 
 '7 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 i- 
 
 
 
 
 
 V, 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *( 
 
 k 
 
 ^ 
 
 -<i 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 3315 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 J/ 
 
 
 
 
 
 *^ 
 
 -=^- 
 
 "*< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 ■M 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 33 
 
 3S,% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 / ^ 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \t'| 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 »i, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 32/2 
 
 32 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i». 
 
 '-■ ° 
 
 i. 
 
 
 A 
 
 i- 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 if 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 yj 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 32 
 
 3\'/t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 V. 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 } ^ 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 H 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 31/2 
 
 31 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'fc- 
 
 -c> 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u|2 
 
 
 \^ 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 S£ 
 
 P 
 
 
 
 
 
 31 
 
 30% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 ^Q 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 30)^ 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0-; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V. 
 
 -^ 
 
 sl 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 29J4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 -o«^ 
 
 
 
 h^ 
 
 
 \ 
 
 k 
 
 
 l^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^a 
 
 
 
 
 
 Z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *§rt 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 13-1 
 
 
 
 
 29/£ 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 ~o=- 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 2: 
 < 
 
 
 29 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 «/ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 v.^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 da 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 £^^ 
 
 
 i 
 
 If" 
 
 < 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 29 
 
 
 
 is 
 
 1 D 
 
 
 
 28^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -„. 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^3p 
 
 l£i 
 
 2 
 
 54 
 
 
 
 
 28!i 
 
 OHIO & PA. XX AND ABOVE, WASHED, CHOICE. 
 <■■ OHIO A. PA. MEDIUM WASHED CLOTHiNG. 
 -o OHIO It. PA. COARSE WASHED CLOTHiMa 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 Table showing the increase in the number of Sheet) in the United States, under 
 the Tariff of 1867 -from 1880 to 1884— and the decrease that followed, as a conse- 
 quence of the reduction of the duties upon wool and woolens in the Tariff of 1883. 
 
 The production of Scoured Wool in Australia during the last 27 
 
 years, 
 
 
 
 QUANTITY. 
 
 1 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 2 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 60 
 
 2 
 
 ^ 
 
 » 
 
 
 r- 
 
 
 S 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 2 
 
 
 1 
 
 s 
 
 § 
 
 
 OT 
 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 240. 000. 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 
 j> 
 
 
 230. 000. 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 ^ 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 220. 000. 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 210. 000. 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 200. 000. 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 190. 000. 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ISO. 000. 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 170. 000. 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ./> 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 160, 000. 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ISO. 000. 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 140.000.000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ISO. 000. 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ./ 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 120.000.000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 110.000.000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 r 
 
 i^^' 
 
 .^■.t^^ 
 
 <E 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 1 100. 000. 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 90. boo. 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 ■JS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 so. 000.000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 70. 000. 000 
 
 
 
 
 U- 
 
 ,./ 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 60. 000. OoO 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 so. 000. 000 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 40. 000. 000 
 
 &> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 80. 000. 000 I 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 ^L. 
 
 
 ! 
 
 ^.-^ 
 
 — 
 
 
 _- 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 Diagram showing the comparative value of the leading xkgricultural 
 Products of the United States for 1885. 
 
 ARTICLES 
 
 VALUES 
 
 AGRICULTURE 
 
 CORN 
 HAY 
 
 WI-IFj\T 
 COTTON 
 
 OATS 
 POTATOES 
 
 WOOLJ 
 
 DOLLARS 
 
 335.675,000 
 .189 753.000 
 270,320.000 
 269.989,81.-! 
 1 73.632 OOC 
 78.1E>4 000 
 
 77. noo.ono 
 
 -W.OOO.OOO 
 
 
 
 .1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 13S5 
 
 1RftR 
 
 
 No, 3. 
 
 No. 4. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 257 
 
 which had heeu started by Secretary Manning, -which movement was again aggra- 
 vated by the Increasing certainty of tlie passage of the Mills bill through the House, 
 and the" lowest point which prices touched after the subject of free wool was first 
 introduced by tbe present administration was immediately after the passage of the 
 Mills bill by the House of Representatives, last July. After the passage of that bill 
 by the House, and until the attitude of tlae Senate toward it was kuown, in the 
 month of August, the markets were greatly demoralized. No signs of relief were 
 visible until August, when confidence was partly restored bj' the publication of the 
 fact that the Senate would undoubtedly rejeet the free- wool feature of the Mills bill, 
 and would substitute the present Senate bill, wliich not only proposes to correct the 
 present abuses of the tariti' of 1883, but slightly iucreases the duty upon wool. 
 
 Diagram No. 2. 
 
 This diagram shows the increase in tbe number of sheep in the United States 
 under the tariff of 1867 until 1884, when the eflect of its repeal was first felt, and 
 shows the decrease which followed as soon as wool-growing bugan to feel the inju- 
 rious consequences of the reduction in the tariff in 18s3 on wool and woolens. 
 
 Diagram No. 3. 
 
 This diagram shows the increase in scoured pounds in the clip of Australasia be- 
 tween 1862 and 1888. The weight in the grease or iu the conditiou in which it is 
 usually marketed is more than double the scoured figures given in this diagram, as 
 the average shrinkage is more than one-half. In round figures the amount of wool 
 produced in Australia is 240,000,000 pounds scoured, or 500,000,000 iu the grease. 
 
 Diagram No. 4. 
 
 This diagram shows the relative importance of the wool-growing industry of the 
 United States in comparison with other agricultural products in the year 1885, when 
 the decliue had just begun and when tbe clip was near the largest. 
 
 We are indebted to Colonel Switzler's admirable report to the Treasury Depart- 
 ment on wool and manufactures of wool for many of the figures given above. 
 
 Table showing the decrease in production of American wool in the year 1888 as compared 
 
 loith 1884. 
 
 Numberof sheep in the United States in 1884 50,500,000 
 
 Number of sheep in the United States in 1888 41,500,000 
 
 Decrease in number sheep in United States five-years' clip 9, 000, 000 
 
 Average weight per fleece pounds . . 6 
 
 Decrease in pounds of wool raised in 1888 as compared with 1884 54, 000, 000 
 
 Imports of wool of all kinds in 1888 120,000,000 
 
 Imports of wool of aU kinds in 1883 70, .500,000 
 
 Excess in importations of wool in 1888 over 1883 49, .500, 000 
 
 Importations of worsted cloths in 1888, estimated $6, 000, 000 
 
 Importations of worsted cloths in 1883 963,689 
 
 |5, 036, 311 
 Estimated 3 pounds wool in grease per yard, or if — in value pounds . . 3 
 
 Excess of importations of wool manufactured into worsted cloths in 1888 
 
 over 1883 $15,103,933 
 
 Total imports of worsteds, inclnding^arus, for the year 1883 |1,397, 053 
 
 Estimated imports of worsteds, including yarns, iu 1888 $8,000,000 
 
 Estimated increase over 1883 $6,000,000 
 
 At 3 pounds of wool in tbe grease for each dollar in value would be 
 equivalent to an excess of nearly 20,000,000 )iounds of wool in the 
 grease imported in 1888, in the form of worsted goods and worsted 
 yarns pounds.. 20,000,000 
 
 485 17 
 
258 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 The Tariff on Wool — An Exposure op Schmidt's Taele, giving the Percent- 
 ages OP Duties — The Loop-hole has not been in the Taripp, but in Delib- 
 erate Frauds— The Country Needs a Specipic and Ad Valorem Duty 
 Combined por Protection — To Wool-growers. 
 
 To the Editor: 
 
 A " table " as to the percentages of duties, on a scoured basis, paid by American 
 consumers of foreign wooln.has been compiled by Mr. Henry Schmidt^ of Philadel- 
 phia. By this " table, " which has been published in different parts of the country 
 and commented upon fayorably by that portion of the " press " which is constantly 
 advocating lower duties on wool, the great Philadelphia importer tries to mislead the 
 public at large by the treachery of figures. He would have all who are not cognizant 
 with the workings of the " tariff system " to believe that consumers of imported wools 
 really were paying the sky-sorapia;; duties advanced by his " table, " when in reality 
 it is not so. His system by which ho gets the percentages of duties on a scoured 
 basis is simply theoretical in every manner and form, and is a falsification of practi- 
 cal facts as recorded in the Treasury Department for the last twenty-two years. I 
 therefore, for the benefit of the manufacturer, the producer, and merchant, present a 
 "table" of statistical truths, which on close examination will show some startling 
 facts. 
 
 It is a " table " compiled from the best sources and highest authorities of two con- 
 tinents, consequently defies contradiction. The facts and knowledge presented as 
 regards the correct percentages of duties paid by the consumers on a scoured basis 
 lift the flimsy veil of deception practiced by theorists so long, and finally drag away 
 the cobwebs whose spiral strands have tried to throttle truths. 
 
 Now let us see what facts in practice show. But before I go into this subject mi- 
 nutely, which I intend to do, let us take the amount of wools of all classes imported 
 since 1867 and see how much scoured wool can be found that paid a scoured duty. 
 According to the Bureau of Statistics of the Treasury Department about 1,500,000,000 
 pounds of the three classes of wool have been imported into the United States from 
 June 20, 1867, to June 30, 1889; one-thousandth part of this amount, or about 1,500,- 
 000 pounds only, paid a scoured duty. 
 
 Here I would like to ask the gentleman from Philadelphia, before going farther 
 into this subject, through what hole in the statute was sifted the millions of pounds 
 of noils, which are scoured wools; the millions of pounds of so-called wastes, which 
 are scoured wools (in disguise), and the millionsof pounds of scoured wools that have 
 entered our ports and have not paid a scoured duty. The country would like to know 
 what hole in the great tariff sieve was so widened as to admit the millions of pounds 
 of scoured wools under a misconstrued classification. Whohasgot the benefit of these 
 rascalities? Certainly the grower did not ; neither did the manufacturing interest 
 as a whole, or the merchant. The finger of retribution points to a few, and the time 
 is not far off when the West will voice its sentiments in language that will put a stop 
 to this mockery of onr tariff system. 
 
 By a close examination of the documents issiied by the Treasury Department 
 through the Bureau of Statistics we find facts in practice, not theories: 
 
 First. Of the 262,639,905 pounds of wools imported from June 30, 1867, to June 30, 
 1888, of the first class, or clothing wools, only 551,390 pounds paid a scoured duty. 
 These wools averaged about 35.9 cents per pound in the grease, washed and scoured, 
 delivered in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, duties jiaid, which represented the 
 choicest and lightest shrinking fine wools raised in the world, one of the features be- 
 ing to rob the tieece of its original character by tearing off the skirts, breeches, neck 
 pieces, and anything of an inferior or defective quality. This gave to the American 
 importer or consumer "all body wool," which is the best and most valuable part of 
 the fleece, and consequently worth more to the manufacturer by at least 10 cents per 
 pound on a scoured basis than if imported in its original shape as shorn from the 
 sheep. The average co.st, therefore, on a scoured basis to the American consumer 
 importing these wools for the twenty-one years ending June 30, l£i88, was 59.1 per 
 cent, more than it cost the foreign consnmer. 
 
 Wools of this class imported to-day, according to the highest authorities, taking 
 the choicest and average Australian, New Zealand, and Montevidean wool, the aver- 
 age percentage of cost on a scoured basis between the American and European con- 
 sumer would only be about 47.2 per cent., instead of 67 per cent, as Mr. Schmidt's 
 "table" shows. 
 
 Second. Of the 212,765,337 pounds of wools of the second class, or combing wools, 
 imported from June 30, 1867, to June 30, 1888, only 40,381 pounds paid a scoured 
 duty These wools averiiged, delivered in New York, etc., about 37.7 cents per 
 pound, and being washed so clean that the average shrinkage was only about 20 per 
 cent., or, in other words, the cost thoroii.^hly scoured to the American mannfactnrer 
 w!is only about 47 cents per pound ; which made the diff'eieuce, on a scoured basis, 
 of the percentage of cost between the American aud European consumer 56,6 per 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 259 
 
 cent, for the twenty-one jears ending June 30, 1888. On wools of this class imported 
 during the mouths of July, August, and September of this year— such as Kent 
 ■wethers, Lincoln hoggetts, Shropshire hoggette, Down togs, Irish hoggetts, Irish 
 wethers, super Irish hoggetts, cheviots, Canadian combing, Down matchings, the 
 average percentage of cost between the American and European consumer was only 
 50.4 per cent., instead of 104 per cent, asgiveu by Mr. Schmidt. Under this class the 
 statute that was created to foster the worsted industry, which in 1867 was then in its 
 infancy, now robs the producer and all those who handled American wools out of their 
 rights. 
 
 Washed wools of this class only pay the duty of unwashed wool ; consequently, all 
 wools selected for the American marliet are so thoroughly cleansed that they are 
 nearly scoured. In many instances these wools are so clean that they are used by the 
 manufacturer without rescouring, and are admitted by the millions of pounds under 
 a duty of 10 cents a pound. Wools that should be entered in many instances in the 
 first class are often smuggled in, under a misconception, of the second class. 
 
 In this class wrong classification reigns supreme. When the statute was framed it 
 was only intended that strictly washed combing wools, classed as such in 1867, should 
 be admitted, and not wools that can be combed on account of the great improvement 
 in machinery in the last twenty years. Is it not a wonder American medium wools 
 are on the decline and have proved such an unprofitable investment for the last sev- 
 eral years to all who have touched them ? The misconstruction (of wools) in this 
 class is certainly bad enough without, a "table" misrepresenting the percentage of 
 cost (on a scoured basis) being published to mislead the public. When a gentleman 
 of intelligence will so miscoustrue real facts by making a ditt'erence of 56 per cent, so 
 as to help on a scheme for lower duties, it is high time that some one exposed those 
 fallacious theories and made clear to all this falsification of figures by substantial 
 facts. Examine carefully wools imported under the second class in the "table" I 
 present, and learn the truth. 
 
 Third. Of the 916,030,193 pounds of so-called carpet wools imported under the third 
 class from June 30, 1867 to .Tune 30, 1888, only 447,027 pounds paid a scoured 
 duty. These wools averaged, delivered in New York, etc., in the grease, washed and 
 scoured, about 18.3 cents per pound ; the average shrinkage being about 18 per cent., 
 or 22.3 cents per pound scoured, the difference in the percentage of cost on a scoured 
 basis being only 37.6 between the American and European consumer, while during 
 the months of .July, August, and September of the present year the percentage of the 
 scoured cost was only 34.4. 
 
 Such wools are imported into the United States as Bagdads, East India, Donskoi, 
 Scotch (white highland), etc., under the classification of carpet wools ; millions of 
 pounds of stock (yearly) are admitted nearly scoured, and in many instances so well 
 scoured that they are used by large corporations in the manufacture of woolens and 
 worsteds without rescouring, at a cost of less than 28 cents a pound, ready for the 
 cards, to take the place of wools that should pay a scoured duty under the first and 
 second classes. 
 
 No wonder large corporations importing so-called (only washed) carpet wools, but 
 who manufacture not only carpets but also plushes, woolens, and worsteds, can offer 
 No. 26 worsted yarn to American consumers at 02 cents per pound, which costs 72 
 cents per pound if made out of American wools or honestly imported foreign stock. 
 The third class, as interpreted by the appraisers, is striking a blow of injustice at 
 all who raise or handle medium and low medium wools. 
 
 _ Think of scoured stock at less than 28 cents per pound to large American corpora- 
 tions, openly admitted under a duty of 5 cents per pound, or 17.8 per cent. , to be used 
 in competition with wools of the first and second classes. 
 
 Is there no remedy whereby justice shall assert itself, and give to the producer his 
 rights under the statute ? This cankerous evil that is well known to exist in the car- 
 pet schedule is eating out the vitality of American industries ; that is, it is fast de- 
 stroying what little confidence is left among a large proportion of the woolen and 
 worsted interests, as well as deranging the intrinsic values of wools handled by mer- 
 chants and produced by the American grower. 
 
 A few only derive a benefit from this wrong and corrupt classification of stock, 
 millions of dollars in the last few years having b een added to their fast-increasing 
 wealth, which, plainly speaking, has been stolen from the pockets of the people. 
 
 Mr. Schmidt says nothing about the percentage of duties on a scoured basis of wools 
 of the third class. Why ? 
 
 Fourth. Under the classification of rags, shoddy, mungo, waste, flocks, etc., 
 20,81.5,754 pounds were imported from June 30, 1867, to June 30, 1883. According to 
 the Bureau of Statistics, this stock was valued at |9,941,286.42, or 14 cents per pound 
 (foreign cost). Duties paid on this stock during the sixteen years ending June 30 
 1883, were 11,956,681.16, or 66 per cent. If all this stock in this schedule came in 
 under proper classification during the period mentioned, what has it done since 1883? 
 Let us see. From June 30, 1883, to June 30, 1888, 22,758,883 pounds were imported, 
 valned at |8,79(*,005, or 38.5 cents per pound (foreign cost), on which duties were 
 
260 EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 collected for $2,275,883.30, beiDg only 27 per cent. Look at these startling facts. 
 Call it swindling, robbery, or misconstruction of the tariff system— it makes but 
 little difference — some one has pocketed the profits accumulated from this wholesale 
 thievery, at the expense of the grower and all who handle American wool. 
 
 Think of it, for sixteen years up to June 30, 1883, rags, shoddy, and all refuse in the 
 art of manufacture, the average foreign cost per pound was 14 cents, the percentao-e 
 of duty being 66 per cent., while for the five years ending JuueSO, 1H88, the average 
 (foreign cost) for what was claimed to be the same class of stock increased very 
 nearly three times in value, or 38.8 cents per pound, at the same time only paying a 
 duty of 10 cents per pound, or 27 per cent. 
 
 The Schmidt "table" leads the public to believe that so-called ring waste, lap 
 waste, carbonated waste, etc., pays a duty of 154-J per cent., when in reality the very 
 so-called waste, which is scoured wools of the first class in disguise, is being smugo-led 
 in through this big loop-hole in our tariff system, and instead of paying 154| per cent. 
 as "his table" shows, they are paying less than 27 per cent., and scoured wools at 
 that. 
 
 This misconstruction, either done through ignorance or tempered by rascality, has 
 caused some of the most glaring frauds to be committed under the statutes. Millions 
 of pounds of scoured wools, entered as refuse waste under a rag and shoddy classifi- 
 cation, whose foreign cost is valued at 38.8 cents per pound by the Treasury Depart- 
 ment, which is a higher value than for any wools imported of the three classes in the 
 last twenty-two years (taking the average cost of all wools imported), and still tliis 
 stock under the name of so-called waste, composed of all the purest and perfect fabric 
 of wool, is admitted fraudulently under a rag duty in total contradiction of the in- 
 tentionti of the framers of the statute. Again, Mr. Schmidt in his table tries to hood- 
 wink intelligence by stating that top is paying a duty of 102J per cent. This I pro- 
 nounce as a false conception of the real facts. 
 
 Let us see what the records show. For the last twenty-one years ending June 30, 
 1888, only 41 pounds of this class of stock, valued at $55, has been imported into the 
 United States, which paid a duty of 60 cents per pound, or 47 per cent, instead of 
 102| per cent, as Mr. Schmidt would have the whole country believe. Top undis- 
 guised has been admitted in large quantities in the last several years; everyone 
 conversant with the matter knows this to be a fact. Tops (broken up\ top laps, 
 roving laps, slubbing laps (all frauds), came in and comes in mixed witli so-called 
 ring waste, and in many instances in their original shape under a rag classificatiorf; 
 stock valued at 42 to 50 cents per pound (broken up, to deceive, but not injured), 
 only paying a shoddy duty of 10 cents a pound, or 20 to 24 per cent, ad valorem, in- 
 stead of 154 per cent., according to the Schmidt "table." Is there not a reason why 
 the wool-growers are disgusted, and are intrenched at Washington to fight for their 
 rights during the present session of Congress 1 
 
 Is there not a reason why the American merchant handling wools produced in his 
 own country should be dissatisfied with the manner in which the tariff schedule has 
 been and is being miscocsfcrued ? Have they not a right to demand justice from the 
 party who under the dome at Washington was placed there to right these wrongs? 
 
 The time has come for action. I, therefore, place before the great wool interest of 
 the country a "table" carefully compiled, showing the scoured cost of foreign wools 
 as used by the American consumer as well as the weak points in our present tariff sys- 
 tem. It represents a true picture how the merchant operating in the home market 
 and the producer of American wools have been defrauded by wrong classifications 
 and misconstruction. 
 
 The "table" shows another feature, and that is, a "specific" duty alone does not 
 properly protect, for when wools are advancing abroad it narrows the limit of cost 
 between the American and foreign consumer, while on the other hand an ad valorem 
 duty fully protects on an advancing market abroad, but loses its protective princi- 
 ples on a declining one. 
 
 A simple ad valorem duty means next to free wool — American industries subject to 
 European disasters. It means the wool-grower and merchant at the mercy of Eu- 
 rope's surplus. With an ad valorem duty (only) to protect the producer of wool or 
 the manufacturer of goods (for what is good for the goose is good for the gander) 
 both eventually would be driven out of the home market. If the manufacturer can 
 not live under an ad valorem duty, the wool-grower certainly can not. 
 
 Under an ad valorem duty a surplus of wools in Europe in any one year would 
 cause a quick decline abroad, tbo outcome of which would be to glut this country 
 with foreign stock at a very low cost, causing ruinous losses to all who had purchased 
 American wools. This is not protection. For the merchant and grower as well as 
 the manufacturer indirectly would be at the mercy and caprices of Europe's shrewd 
 operators. The price of our wools would be made in the continental markets. Ras- 
 cality that is practiced now under our present nystem would pale before the robberies 
 that would be committed under an ad valorem duty. What the grower wants is tlie 
 same system of iirotection granted to the mauufactuii'r, and that is a specific and ad 
 valorem duty combined — no proper protection can exist without both. ■ 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF, 
 
 261 
 
 The tariff system of 1867 is conclusive evidence of this fact. Better a lower or spe- 
 cific duty in conjunction witli an ad valorem duty than either separate, for neither 
 by itself protects. Petitions are now going to Congress signed by many corporations 
 In the East and West — some advocating free wool, while others ad valorem duties. 
 
 It is well for those who have signed the latter petition to study this question care- 
 fully—for they are digging their own graves if they thinli; it means protection. What 
 the country wants is a tariif system with all the loop-holes plugged up where fraud 
 of any kind can enter. A system that will properly protect the manufacturer of 
 woolens, worsteds, and carpets, as well as the producer of wool. Each industry 
 should have ample protection under the statute. No one interest should be sacrificed 
 to build up another. In presenting this "table" of the true percentages of the scoured 
 cost that the American consumer pays more than the foreigner, I have at the same 
 time tried to open up to the public mind the system by which frauds have been and 
 are being continually committed at the expense of the people's pockets. I also give 
 for the benefit of all interested in this matter the average percentages of duties per 
 pound from June 30, 1887, to the mouth ending Juue 30, lb86, on balmorals, blankets, 
 clothing (ready made), cloths (woolen), hats (wool), flannels, knit goods, shawls, 
 yarns (woolen and worsted), etc., imported into the United States. At the same 
 time I reserve a column for Mr. Schmidt's misleading " table." 
 
 The student of political economy and the public at large, after comparing both, 
 can draw their own inference as to why a Philadelphia importer of all classes of for- 
 eign wools, so highly respected for integrity of character, should so antagonize facts. 
 
 William H. B. Thornton. 
 
 A table for the producer of ivool, the merchant and manufacturer, compiled by Mr. Will- 
 iam H. B. Thornton, of Chicago. 
 
 [Givins the amounts of wools and wastes imported from June 30, 1807, and the average percentage of 
 cost on a scoured basis between tlio American and foreign consumer; also the average ad valorem 
 duties paid on waste and goods as compared "with a misleading "tat)le" published by Mr. Henry 
 Schmidt, of Philadelphia, Pa. :] 
 
 • 
 Total amounts of wool in the grease, 
 
 6 
 ft 
 
 2 
 a 
 
 a 
 a 
 o 
 ft 
 
 
 H 
 
 |1 
 
 Is 
 
 
 -S 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 o o 
 ■a - 
 g.9 
 
 1- 
 
 1-1 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 d 
 o 
 
 TO 
 
 -A 
 
 TO ft 
 
 o o 
 
 11 
 
 washed and scoured, also raga, 
 
 
 
 ft_03 
 
 n S 
 
 
 ■as 
 
 "ga 
 
 gS-S 
 
 -d 
 
 ft* 
 
 shoddy, waste, etc., imported into 
 
 O/ 
 
 ^ 
 
 o a 
 
 gS^ 
 
 
 £g 
 
 1° 
 
 S.L.S 
 
 Vi 
 
 ^%u 
 
 the United States from June 30, 
 
 O 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 a 05 
 
 §1 
 
 SB 
 
 <r 
 
 q-" <i> 
 
 1867, to June 30, 1888. 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 TO o 
 
 >« el "m 
 
 Z"^^ 
 ^•3-a 
 
 
 I'sg 
 
 
 o 
 
 I 
 
 'S 
 
 o 
 
 
 ;i8 
 
 a o'5 
 
 g 
 
 a 
 
 2 
 
 .2 « 
 
 25| 
 
 2 o'p 
 
 .s|i 
 
 fl ?; p 
 
 ® O rt 
 
 p.fc 
 
 •S* s 
 
 ."gg 
 
 lis 
 a a 
 
 
 g 
 
 l> 
 
 gtSS. 
 
 Sg^ 
 
 
 %e 
 
 ?5P 
 
 %%^ 
 
 ss 
 
 ■%%< 
 
 
 h 
 
 ■< 
 
 "l 
 
 (3 
 
 'I 
 
 <( 
 
 •A 
 
 P 
 
 <i 
 
 & 
 
 First class (clothing wools). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total amount imported in the grease, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 washed and scoured, from the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 month endiuff June 30, 1667, to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 the mouth ending Jane 30,1888: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Iiithegrea3e...poands-.258, 693, 103 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "Washed do 3,395,412 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Scoured do 551,390 
 
 22,0 
 
 11.8 
 
 Est. 
 35.9 
 
 60 
 
 51 
 
 46 
 
 73.2 
 
 59.1 
 
 
 
 Total do 262,639,905 
 
 
 Valued at $59, 373, 144. 53 
 
 
 Duties collected 30, 992, 997. 86 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average foreign cost of different 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 kinds of wool of this class in the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 months of July, August, and Sep- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tember, 1889, and the cost to the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 American consumer (scoured) : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Australian (Port Phillip) superior... 
 
 30 
 
 12 
 
 43.5 
 
 44.9 
 
 61 
 
 61.2 
 
 88.7 
 
 44.9 
 
 
 
 Australian (Port Phillip) average... 
 
 26 
 
 10 
 
 37.5 
 
 44.2 
 
 66 
 
 69.6 
 
 85 
 
 44 
 
 
 • 67i 
 
 Australian (Port Phillip) super 
 
 20 
 
 10 
 
 40. 5 
 
 30.0 
 
 63 
 
 61.7 
 
 80.1 
 
 30.5 
 
 
 
 Australian (Port Phillip) cross- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 breeds 
 
 29 
 
 10 
 
 40,5 
 
 39.0 
 
 40 
 
 48.3 
 
 67.5 
 
 39.7 
 
 
 
 Australian (Adelaide) 
 
 24 
 
 23 
 
 10 
 10 
 
 35.6 
 34. 5 
 
 47.9 
 50 
 
 52 
 67 
 
 60 
 03.4 
 
 73.9 
 80 
 
 47.1 
 49.8 
 
 
 
 Australian (Sydney) 
 
 
 iNew Zealand superior, 
 
 28 
 19 
 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 
 39.5 
 35.5 
 30,6 
 
 41 
 
 47.9 
 
 00 
 
 52 
 56 
 57 
 
 68.3 
 
 53 
 
 41 
 
 82.3 
 
 81 
 
 71 
 
 41.1 
 
 53 
 
 61 
 
 
 
 New Zealand avoraiie ■. 
 
 
 Montevideo superior 
 
 
262 
 
 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 A iahlefor the producer of wool, the merchant, and manufacturer, etc. — Coutinued. 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 11 
 
 §1 
 
 
 o 
 
 13 
 
 o a) 
 
 o o 
 
 -5 
 
 4i 
 
 B 
 
 
 Total amounts of wool in the grease, 
 washed and scourea, also rags, 
 
 a 
 p 
 o 
 
 
 a* 
 
 ii 
 
 o 
 u o 
 
 
 
 Ph 
 u 
 o 
 
 p< 
 
 1 
 
 o S 
 o 
 
 "St; 
 
 ^ o o 
 
 o s a 
 
 o n « 
 
 a 
 i 
 
 13 
 
 -4 
 si 
 
 if 
 
 shoddy, waste, etc., imported into 
 
 Ph 
 
 t>i 
 
 ■sa 
 
 U D tn 
 
 
 n- 
 
 P< s, 
 
 O 
 
 WpS f- 
 
 the United States trom June 30, 
 1867, to June 30, 1888. 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 O 
 
 y3 
 
 3 
 
 -a i- CI 
 
 1 
 
 ■2 
 
 is 
 
 8^ 
 
 "■2 
 
 
 1-2 2 
 
 Hi 
 
 
 O 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 4i O 
 
 
 .a 
 ® 
 
 ll 
 
 ® a 
 
 
 
 u o 
 
 1! 
 
 m-o 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 t" a 
 
 > 
 
 g3 
 
 gip 
 
 ail 
 
 > a 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 <i 
 
 <l 
 
 P 
 
 < 
 
 <) 
 
 <1 
 
 a 
 
 < 
 
 Jl 
 
 Second class {combing wools). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total amount imported in the grease, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 washed, and scoured, from the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 month ending June 30, 1867, to the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 month ending June 30, 1838; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 In the grease and washed, 
 
 pounds 212,724,950 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Scoured pounds . . 40, 381 
 
 
 
 Est. 
 
 
 Est. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total do..-- 212,765,337 
 
 
 Valued at $51, 533, 473. 68 
 
 24.2 
 
 12 
 
 37.7 
 
 56.2 
 
 20 
 
 30 
 
 47 
 
 .16.6 
 
 
 
 Duties collected 25, 546, 754. 25 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average foreign cost of different 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 kinds of wool of this class in the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 months of July, August, and Sep- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 teraher, 1889, and the cost to the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 American consumer (scoured): 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 22 
 21 
 
 10 
 10 
 
 83.5 
 32.5 
 
 52 
 65 
 
 23 
 18 
 
 28.5 
 
 27 
 
 43 
 40 
 
 60 
 48 
 
 
 
 Lincoln, hoggets 
 
 \ i()4i 
 
 
 22.5 
 
 10 
 
 35 
 
 50 
 
 2S 
 
 30 
 
 48 
 
 60 
 
 
 
 Down, teg's 
 
 26 
 21 
 21.5 
 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 
 37. .5 
 32.5 
 33 
 
 44 
 55 
 53 
 
 22 
 16 
 
 18 
 
 33 
 25 
 26 
 
 43 
 39 
 40 
 
 54 
 66 
 64 
 
 
 
 Irish selections, hof^gets 
 
 
 Irish selections, wethers 
 
 
 
 
 
 33.5 
 
 52 
 
 16 
 
 20.1 
 
 40 
 
 54 
 
 
 
 Cheviots 
 
 26 
 
 10 
 
 37 5 
 
 44 
 
 24 
 
 34 
 
 42 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 Canada combing 
 
 23 
 
 10 
 
 34.5 
 
 60 
 
 17 
 
 30 
 
 49 
 
 40 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 37.5 
 
 
 24 
 
 .34 
 
 49 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 Third class (carpet wools). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total amount imported in the grease, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 washed and scoured, from the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 month ending June 3C, 1867, to the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 month ending June 30, 1888: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 In the grease and washed, 
 pounds 915,589 166 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Scoured pounds.. 441,027 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total do-..- 916,030,193 
 
 
 Valued at $122, 690 708. 88 
 
 
 
 18.3 
 
 38 5 
 
 18 
 
 16.2 
 
 22.3 
 
 37.6 
 
 
 
 Duties collected .... 32, 84K, 260. 33 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average foreign cost of different 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 kinds of wool of this class iu the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 months of July, August, and Sep- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tember, 1889, and the cost to the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 American consumer (scoured) : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Blok. 
 
 Bagdad (best) 
 
 17 
 
 6 
 
 23.6 
 
 29.4 
 
 16 
 
 20 
 
 28 
 
 40 
 
 
 
 
 22.5 
 
 18 
 
 17 
 
 15 
 
 18 
 
 5 
 5 
 6 
 5 
 5 
 
 29 
 
 24.5 
 
 23.5 
 
 21.5 
 
 24.6 
 
 22.2 
 27.7 
 29.5 
 83.3 
 27.7 
 
 10 
 ]0 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 
 25 
 20 
 20 
 18 
 21.5 
 
 32 
 27 
 27 
 25 
 29 
 
 28 
 35 
 35 
 40 
 35 
 
 
 
 East India Candahar 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bcotch (white Highland) 
 
 
 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 263 
 
 A table for the producer of wool, the merchant, and manufacturer , etc. — Continued. 
 
 Total amounts of wool in tlie grease, 
 ■washed and scoured, also rags, 
 shoddy, waste, etc., imported into 
 the United States from Jane 30, 
 1867, to June 30, 1888. 
 
 i 
 
 £ 
 
 a 
 
 13 
 
 n 
 
 
 O 
 Ph 
 
 u 
 
 P' 
 
 *o 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ■s 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 cd 
 "3 
 
 <o 
 
 Pi 
 
 a. 
 
 1 
 t> 
 
 ■A 
 
 If 
 
 n S 
 p « 
 
 o - 
 
 oS 
 ® 9 
 
 '4-1 
 
 © - 
 
 < 
 
 °1 
 
 Is 
 
 © © 
 
 a 
 © o . 
 
 flgg 
 p ©T 
 
 a! 
 -9 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 p 
 
 s. 
 
 11 
 
 OH 
 O J 
 
 o 
 
 O (D 
 
 1^ 
 ?£ 
 S§ 
 
 — 1 ^ 
 O " 
 O 
 
 11 
 
 §1 
 gs . 
 
 O rt © 
 
 t- (D d 
 
 °5 
 
 o a . 
 
 O * « 
 CD ._ O 
 
 o P 
 
 ^p 
 
 ®-^ "S 
 §£& 
 ggS 
 
 C O r- 
 
 1 
 
 P 
 i 
 
 a 
 
 p 
 
 .11 
 
 o P 
 
 « 03 
 
 gp 
 
 1 
 
 <D 
 bJO 
 
 It 
 
 as 
 
 ^ d 
 
 II 
 III 
 
 nl 
 
 |§^ 
 
 Saga, shoddy,mungo, waste, and flecks 
 (woolen). 
 
 Imported into the United States from 
 the month ending June 30, 1867, to 
 the month ending June 30, 1863: 
 
 Total amount ., . . .ponnds 20,815.764. . 
 
 Vftlnptt flt $3 941 286 42 
 
 14.1 
 38.6 
 
 42 
 33.5 
 33.5 
 46 
 
 9.4 
 10 
 
 30 
 30 . 
 
 30 : 
 
 10 
 
 Est. 
 
 
 £s(. 
 
 
 
 
 66.5 
 27 
 
 82.6 
 21 
 
 23 
 
 47 
 
 64.62 
 69.79 
 68. 67 
 71.17 
 59.33 
 69.78 
 61.65 
 64.83 
 68.45 
 
 68.31 
 
 
 Duties collected. ^ . . . .$1,956,681.16 
 
 Imported into the TTnitfid Slates from 
 
 the month ending Jnne 30, 1883, to 
 
 the month ending Jane 30, 1889: 
 
 Total amount.. pounds 22,758.883. 
 
 Talued at $8, 799,005.00 
 
 Duties collected $2,275,883.30 
 
 Average foreign cost of so-called 
 ■wastes, and cost to the Ameiican 
 consumer in the months of Jaly, 
 August and September, 1889: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 154J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Broken tops, top laps, roving laps, 
 stubbing lap should pay a duty 
 same as tops — hut how much has 
 ever done so 1 It is imported with 
 ring waste, and pays a duty of 
 about . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tops (in other than ordinary condi- 
 tion). Only 41 ponnds has been im- 
 ported from the year 1867 to the 
 month ending June 30, 1888. That 
 has paid a duty of 60 cents per 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 102J 
 
 WooleTuind worsted {manufactures of). 
 
 Average percentage of duties paid 
 from the year ending June 30, 1887, 
 to the year ending June 30, 1888: 
 
 Balmorals 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cloths (woolen) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 67i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Enit goods 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Shawls 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 80 
 
 All manufactures of every descrip- 
 tion not elsewhere specified 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 That brings me up now to tlie provision which I am rlirected to ask of the commit- 
 tee to prevent frauds in the importations of wool. I will endeavor to abbreviate as 
 much as possible and omit as much as possible. The first provision to which I ask 
 the attention of the committee is "provision to prevent frauds on unwashed and 
 BCQQred wools." 
 
264 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The Chairman. Will it make any clifFerence for you to have that printed ? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. No, sir. We ask that a provision be made to reqnire statistics of 
 ■wool to be given the Treasury Department. I will state in a moment how this is. 
 The present statistics of wool show the imports of clothing wool and combing wool 
 and all grades of carpet wool. That is classed as wools unmanufactured. That is 
 put under the head of unmanufactured wool, and 8,000,000 pounds of miscalled waste 
 come in worth 50 or 60 cents a pound, 1 pound of which is equal to 3 pounds of un- 
 washed merino wool which makes it equal to 25,000,000 pounds. This is not included 
 in the imports of wool at all. It is not included among the imports of wool, and the 
 general public are kept in ignorance of the fact that 25,000,000 pounds of wool come 
 in which does not get in that report. These noils are included with wool. They are 
 not separated, and they are just called wool. We ask for a provision for noils. 
 
 The Chairman. Does the Senate provision cover the case f 
 
 Mr. LAWEE^'CE. No, sir; it does not. 
 
 The Chairman. How is your provision ? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. It is substantially the same as the Senate provision, but changed 
 in the rate. I have given this upon the authority of Geo. William Bond, and I par- 
 ticularly invite your attention to it. We ask a provision to prevent frauds by the 
 importation of round lots of wool. That is all explained here. The importer 
 will buy a quantity of wool of a given value, and he will find he can put into a bale 
 a package of wool of more value which he will bring in and pay the whole dnty on 
 the lower grade, .and in th.at way he gets in v.aluable wool. We ask that that be 
 remedied. 
 
 We ask a provision to prevent admixture frauds. They will mix wool with wool 
 waste. Mr. Thomas Lee, of Philadelphia, was in London not long sinceand he found 
 men there who were going into the business of mixing waste with wool and swindling 
 the revenue laws of the United States by that mixture. We ask that that swindle be 
 stopped. The ring-waste swindle you are all familiar with. 
 
 Here are specimens of ring waste [exhibiting same] coming in at 10 cents a pound. 
 Mr. Wallace told you how this wool came in. 
 
 These are the provisions in brief which we ask of you gentlemen. Here are speci- 
 mens of wool [exhibiting] which are imported at 2i cents duty and specimens im- 
 ported at 5 cents duty. They are good clothing wools and they are ruining the wool 
 industry of this country. 
 
 Mr. Flower. [Holding up sample] That is waste ? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Yes, and that is a swindle. That [picking up another sample] is 
 California scoured wool which sells in the market at 48 cents. Ring waste worth 62 
 cents comes in at a dnty of JO cents, and California scoured wool, selling at 48 cents, 
 is used to adulterate that foreign ring-waste. 
 
 Mr. Flower. [Holding up another sample.] This is wool ? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Yes. 
 
 I thank the gentlemen of the committee for their courtesy. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. LAWRENCE. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence filed the following argument which ho prepared to read to the 
 committee. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here as one of a committee 
 appointed by the National Wool Growers' Convention, which was held in Washing- 
 ton in December, to ask that certain provisions be inserted in a law revising the 
 tariff which are believed to be necessary to secure an honest administration of the 
 tarift' law, to carry out its real purposes, and prevent evasions. 
 
 Some of these provisions will be stated, with reasons in support of them. 
 
 I wish to say in the outset that all the provisions we ask are deemed vital, and that 
 in the opinion of the convention, whose representative in part I am, no one of them 
 can be surrendered or omitted without irreparable ininry to the wool industry. 
 
 These provisions are not presented for the purpose of securing a compromise, bntin 
 the hope and belief that these inherent merits and absolute necessity are so palpable 
 that they will commend themselves to the approval of this committee and of Con- 
 gress. 
 
 These provisions are not all we desire ; they are not all we believe we might prop- 
 erly ask, but we recognize the fact that .any measure which will limit or reduce im- 
 portations will encounter opposition, and in view of that only such provisions are 
 now insisted upon as will command the assent of all who are ready to concede to 
 wool-growers legislation necessary to save the wool industry of this country from 
 ruin. 
 
 washed and scoured wools. 
 
 The recent national convention of wool-growers asked that any tarifi^law that 
 may be enacted shall " define washed and scoured wools. " 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 265 
 
 T>ie wool report of the Bureau of Statistics for 1887 (p. xxv) says : 
 
 "Tub-washed wools and cross-bred sheep generally yield from 80 to 90 per cent, of 
 scoured wool. Scoured wools, as usually manufactured or as scoured for sale, yield 
 from 85 to 90 per cent, of scoured wool in re washing. 
 
 The wool-tarifif acts of 1867 and 1883 provide for duties on untvaslied, washed, and 
 sconred clothing wools and on combing or carpet wools scoured, and those not scoured. 
 That is, the duty on combing and carpet wools is the same washed or unwashed, 
 but it it is treble on scoured. 
 
 Immense frauds on the revenue and on wool-growers in this country have been per- 
 petrated by the importation of practically scoured wools as only washed wools. 
 
 The necessity for a definition of washed wool is shown by the report of the United 
 States consul at Odessa, made to the State Department, November 4, 1887, on the con- 
 dition of the wool trade between south Russia and the United States, in which he sums 
 up his conclusion thus : 
 
 " First. That the wool trade between south Russia and the United States has been 
 carried on for twenty years greatly to the detriment of the revenue of the United 
 States. 
 
 "Second. That all the wool shipped from south Russia to the United States is the 
 property of three or four American importers. 
 
 "Third. That these importers, in combination with the shippers, have contrived to 
 prevent the recognition of a market price for the so-called Donskoi washed wools at 
 ' Rostoffon-Don. 
 
 "Fourth. That all of these wools are, and ever have been, scoured wools. 
 
 "Fifth. That these wools have in many instances succeeded in entering the United 
 States at low-duty limits ("21 cents), others again at high duties (5 cents), when all of 
 them should have paid duty as scoured wool. 
 
 "Sixth. That the fraudulent designation of these wools has benefited the Ameri- 
 can importers, and has been a corresponding loss to honest wool merchants and the 
 United States Government. 
 
 " Seventh. That the loss will exceed $10,000,000 can easilv be demonstrated. 
 
 " Eighth. That this loss will reach between .f 15,000,000 and $20,000,000 is very prob- 
 able." , 
 
 The accuracy of this report is confirmed by a letter from Thomas Scott, at one time 
 merchant appraiser of wools in the New York custom-house, but now a wool merchant 
 in New York, dated December 21, lad8, and addressed to the Hon. Columbus Delano, 
 president of the National Wool Growers' Association, as follows : 
 
 [Thomas Scott & Co., succeasors to Dike Broa., wool commission merchants. 129 Duane street.] 
 
 New York, December 31, 1888. 
 Hon. C. Delano, 
 
 President Wool Growers' Association, Columhus, Ohio : 
 Dear Sir: I notice that there is to be a meeting, early in January, of wool-growers 
 for the purpose of consultation on the tariif. When the tariff of 1867 was made the 
 argument was used that the country grew but little carpet wool; so duties were 
 made to discriminate in favor of that grade, as you well know. » » * However, 
 we can grow carpet wool, and in 1885, when coarse wools of Missouri, Indiana, and 
 Kentucky were at a low point, all the low edge of those wools was used in carpets, 
 but since then the large cheviot demand has taken all our coarse domestic wool 
 and a large amount of so-called carpet wool. 
 
 As I say, we can grow carpet wool In all States, but particularly in all Southern 
 States, also Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, which States grow coarse wool very 
 successfully. The present tariif makes carpet duty 2^ and 5 cents per pound, while 
 combing and clothing wool pay 10 cents per pound. That is not the worst of it. Cus- 
 toms decisions have always favored carpet wool, and all carpet wool has been ad- 
 mitted, whether unwashed, washed, or scoured, at the one duty of 5 cents per pound 
 when valued at above 11-J cents per pound ; and East India wool, shrinking not more 
 than 5 or 10 per cent, has been so admitted for twenty years ; also Donskoi wool of 
 Russia has been admitted in a scoured state at 5 cents per pound duty for twenty 
 years. There are, as you know, many large scouring establishments (called washing 
 in Russia) grading, scouring, and shipping to the United States. 
 
 Bagdad, Egyptian, and many other Mediterranean wools are so admitted. The 
 custom laws on carpet wools say clearly, duty on scoured, treble, but the large carpet 
 mills and carpet- wool importers have had the ear of the Government for twenty years, 
 and will continue to hold their position unless the wool-growers are extraordinarily 
 strenuous about the matter. At least one-half of all the carpel wool imported is entirely 
 washed or scoured, and yet it gets thr'ough at the one rate of duty — not so with clothing 
 wool, although you know of that miserable subterfuge on the ring-waste matter. 
 There are establishments which advertise to manufacture and furnish American 
 markets with ring waste, etc. Also a large amount of skin wool or pulled wool taken 
 
266 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 from River Plate sheep-skins in England, almost a scoured -wool, as it only loses 15 
 to 18 per cent., is annually imported, which is also a practical plan of smuggling. I 
 am very familiar with all thoHe things, and would like, if I had time, to attend the 
 meeting at Washington. I have been merchant appraiser here many times in Scotch, 
 English, and Donskoi wools. I know well about the abuses here and elsewhere, and 
 they are numerous. 
 
 * * * Are the carpet mills and the carpet-wool importers to rule, or are the 
 growers to get their rights? » * » xhe carpet mills have grown immensely in 
 wealth, and they are always ready to spend money to hold their fort. 
 
 Senator Manderson, of Nebraska, is well aware of the extent of my knowledge of 
 these matters. 
 
 Truly, yours, 
 
 Thomas Scott. 
 
 It is time that the law shall so plainly specify what are washed and scoured wools 
 that these frauds may cease. 
 
 It was in view of these considerations that the wool-growers at one time insisted 
 that wool containing less than 15 per cent, of impurities should be deemed scoured, 
 but they have taken the lowest average stated in the Wool Report. 
 
 There is manifestly a necessity for some definition. When we take that most favora- 
 ble to manufacturers we think it should be accepted. 
 
 The act of 1867, the act of 1883, and the Senate bill, all contain the classification of 
 scoured as to all wools — clothing, combing, and carpet. They all provide treble duties 
 on all scoured wools. 
 
 We were told in substance in the hearing before the Senate Finance Committee in 
 January, 188J, that the distinction between washed and scoured carpet wools had 
 long since disappeared in practice. 
 
 This confirms the report of the consul at Odessa and the letter of Thomas Scott. 
 It shows that no sufficient effort has been made at the custom-houses to find out what 
 was scoured. 
 
 Whv should the distinction disappear in practice when it has not disappeared from 
 the tariff law? 
 
 It has been because of the frauds upon the law that it becomes necessary to define 
 scoured wool. 
 
 We have been told it is impossible to execute the law as to scoured wool ; impossi- 
 ble to tell what is scoured wool. Then a definition is necessary, and with the science 
 at our command in this country there is no difficulty in ascertaining what wools fall 
 within the definition and what not. 
 
 The law has been executed as to scoured clothing combing and wools. The Wool 
 Report, pages 17 to 28, inclusive, gives for successive years, 1867 to 1886, inclusive, 
 the pounds of unwashed, washed, and scoured clothing wools, the pounds of comb- 
 ing wools not scoured and scoured, and there is a faint showing of scoured carpet 
 wools, but they have substantially disappeared from the custom-house books. 
 
 Theodore Justice, in a letter December 16, 1889, in referring to the shrinkage of so- 
 called tvashed imported carpet wools, says : 
 
 " Washed Donskoi wools as usually imported shrink less than 10 per cent. The 
 best East Indies, such as Candahar and Vicaneer, shrink from 10 per cent, to 15 per 
 cent. These are practically scoured. For the other grades you will see by the in- 
 closed tables the shrinkage of the best foreign wools — such as are usually imported— 
 taken from Messrs. J. L. Bowes & Bro.'s circular, Liverpool, of November, 20 [1889 j. 
 Bowes's circular is considered the best wool circular in the world." 
 
 Washed and scoured wools are explained in the report of Consul Heenan, of Novem- 
 ber 4, 1887, to the State Department, as follows : 
 
 " I also send you copy of a letter from Mr. George Fernan, a competent and reputa- 
 ble expert, not interested in the Donskoi trade, as to the commercial character of 
 wools containing 38 per cent, of pure wool fibers," etc. 
 
 Mr. Fernan's letter, or rather a copy of it, is made an inclosureinthis dispatch. 
 
 I quote from Mr. Fernan's letter : 
 
 "Wools containing 88 per cent, of pure wool fiber and from 2 to 6 per cent, of grease 
 associated with mechanical impurities are considered in England and on the Conti- 
 nent as scoured wool, irrespective of the process by which it reached such condition. 
 The term scoured applies to the condition of the wool, and the process by which this 
 condition has been procured does not alter that general term." 
 
 Mr. Fernan's views are in direct conflict with the views of the Treasury Depart- 
 ment, as expressed in its decisions during the past twenty years. Mr. Fernan claims 
 that " the term scoured applies to the condition of the wool," etc. 
 
 The Treasury Department holds that it applies to the process by which the woof 
 was brought into such condition. It is fortunate, in the case of these Donskoi vpoofs, 
 that from whichever stand-point a decision be taken the wools must be considered as 
 scoured. With the question of the amount of pure wool fiber which these DonsKej 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 267 
 
 washed wools contain, sufficient evidence has heen produced to show that they are as 
 clean as the best chemically-washed wool, and* on that point I will not dwell any 
 further, but I submit that, be the amount of pure wool fiber in these wools what it 
 may if the decisions of the Treasury Department during all of these years have been 
 correct, then under these decisions, and irrespective of the cleanliness of these wools, 
 I claim that the so-called Donskoi washed wools are, and ever have been, scoured 
 wools. 
 
 Quotations on carpet ivools from J. S. Soives ^ Bro.'s Lioerpool circular, November 20, 
 
 1889. 
 
 English. 
 
 Importers' es- 
 timate of 
 shrinkage. 
 
 Eaat IndiaCandahar, best of white — 
 
 East India vicaneer, first white 
 
 East India eoria, first white , 
 
 Bagdad white washed, superior 
 
 Karadi white washed, average 
 
 Smyrna white unwashed, average 
 
 Cordova white unwashed, average... 
 
 Egyptian washed white, extra 
 
 Donskoi white washed. Cam berg , 
 
 Georgian first clip B O, washed white 
 
 Aleppo unwashed white 
 
 Salonica unwashed white, fine , 
 
 9J 
 
 II* 
 
 8| 
 64 
 6 
 6i 
 Hi 
 
 Cents. 
 19 
 23 
 23 
 ]7 
 ]3 
 10 
 11 
 23 
 17 
 12J 
 
 9 
 Hi 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 10-15 
 10 
 10 
 20 
 20 
 
 50-55 
 
 60-55 
 
 10 
 
 8-10 
 
 20-25 
 50 
 
 50-55 
 
 (For other statements of shrinkages see Senate Eeport 2332, Part 2, first session Fiftieth Congress 
 page 615; and Part 2, pages 583-617.) 
 
 Thns, of five of the enumerated varieties the average shrinkage is only lOJ^ per cent. 
 and of all the washed it is Hi per cent. It will be seen the unwashed shrinks in 
 Bcouring an average of about 52 per cent. 
 
 Thus a duty of 4 ceuts per pound on the five varieties mentiouedof so called carpet 
 wools if washed is the equivalent of less than 2.2'2 ceuts on uuwashcd, and is only 
 the equivalent of 1.46 ceuts per pound on unwashed merino wool shrinking one- 
 third in scouring. 
 
 A duty of 8 cents is only the equivalent of less than 4.44 cents per pound on un- 
 washed carpet wools and 2.92 cents on merino clothing wool. 
 
 To call this protection to American wool-growers is simply absurd. 
 
 It is to be assuroed that the classiKcatiou of wools into unwashed, washed, and scoured 
 has a purpose, and this should be made effectual in the administration of the law. 
 It may be said that the carpet wools costing 12 ceuts and less are not generally 
 washed, but Bower & Brother's circular shows that some are washed wools. 
 
 A much larger quantity of those that are washed are quoted in the same circular 
 only slightly above 12 cents, so that a small decline in the price of such washed wools 
 would bring them below a value of 12 cents and would thus admit washed wools at 
 the lowest duty of only 4 cents. 
 
 Most of the low-grade carpet wools are imported unwashed, because by so doing 
 the scoured cost to the American manufacturer is much less than if the same wool 
 was imported scoured at three times the duty on unwashed. This is shown by the 
 last column of the wool circular found in Senate Report No. 2332, part 2, first 
 session, Fiftieth Congress, page 615, and part 2, pages 583-617. 
 
 A copy of the circular is hereto appended. 
 
 Some of the better grades of carpet wools are imported unwashed for the same 
 reasons, but much of it is imported washed. 
 
 William H. B. Thornton, a well-informed wool dealer, in an article in the Chica^'o 
 Inter-Ocean of December 28, 1880, says : 
 
 "Third. Of the 916,030,193 pounds of so-called carpet wools imjiorted under the 
 third class from June .30, 1867, to June .30, 1888, only 447,027 pounds paid a scoured 
 duty. These wools averaged, delivered in New York, etc., in the grease, washed, and 
 scoured, about 18.3 cents per pound ; the average shrinkage being about 18 per cent., 
 or 22.3 cents per pound scoured, the difiereuce in the percentage of cost on a scoured 
 basis being only 37.6 between the American and European consumer, while during 
 the mouths of July, August, and September of the present year the percentage of the 
 Bcoured cost was only 34.4. 
 
 "Such wools imported into the United States as Bagdads, East India, Danskoi 
 Scotch (white highland), etc., under the classification of carpet wools; millions of 
 
268 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 pounds of stock (yearly) are admitted nearly scoured and in many instances so well 
 scoured tliat they are used by large corporations in the manufacture of woolens and 
 worsteds without rescouring at a cost of less than 28 cents a pound ready for the 
 cards, to take the place of wools that should pay a scoured duty under the first and 
 second classes. 
 
 "No wonder large corporations importing so-called (only washed) carpet wools, 
 but who manufacture not only carpets, but, also, plushes, woolens, and worsteds, can 
 offer No. 20 worsted yarn to American consumers at 62 cents per pound which costs 
 72 cents per pound if made oat of American wools, or honestly imported foreign 
 stock. 
 
 " The third class, as interpreted by the appraisers, is striking a blow of injustice at 
 all who raise or handle medium and low medium wools. 
 
 " Think of scoured stock at less than 28 cents per pound to large American corpora- 
 tions, openly admitted under a duty of 5 cents per pound, or 17.8 per cent., to be used 
 in competition with wools of the first and second classes. 
 
 " Is there no remedy whereby justice shall assert itself and give to the producer his 
 rights under the statute? This cankerous evil that is well known to exist in the 
 carpet schedule is eating out the vitality of American industries, that is, it is fast de- 
 stroying what little confidence is left among a large proportion of the woolen and 
 worsted interests, as well as deranging the intrinsic values of wools handled by mer- 
 chants and produced by the American grower. 
 
 "A few only derive a benefit from this wrong and corrupt classification of stock, 
 millions of dollars in the last few years having been added to their fast-increasing 
 wealth, which, plainly speaking, has been stolen from the pockets of the people." 
 
 It must be apparent that the great body of the caxpet wools have been imported in 
 a condition, purified beyond what the law intended as washed wool, but at the low 
 rate duty of only washed. 
 
 The danger goes beyond this. What lias been done as to carpet wools will soon he 
 done with clothing and combing wools. Thus the duty intended by the law will dwin- 
 dle down to a half or less of what the law intends. Fraud in the importation of wool 
 is fast becoming a science. It is dangerous — in fact monstrous — to leave the cus- 
 toms officers tlie decision of the question what is washed and scoured wool without a 
 definition in the law. A definition can be more safely administered than otScial dis- 
 cretion. Washed and scoured wools can be better determined by rule or definition 
 than without it. I can conceive of no reason for objecting to a definition except to 
 aid fraud. 
 
 "Washed wools shall be such as have been washed on the sheep's back, and wools 
 cleansed in any other manner shall be deemed scoured wools. " 
 
 The necessity for some definition-must be apparent. Speaking for myself, I believe 
 an additional definition should be given declaring that all wools which contain less 
 than a specified per centum of yolk, grease, dirt, or other foreign matter should he 
 classified as scoured wool and pay duty accordingly. If objection be made to the 
 definition given, those objecting should supply a better one. 
 
 The Senate bill, section 34.3, defines " class three carpet wools," and adds the words, 
 "and including all such wools of like character as have been heretofore usually imported 
 into the Umted States from Tarhey, Greece, Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere." 
 
 The words "as have been heretofore usually imported into the United Slates " are un- 
 necessary, and may be used to cover frauds, by reason of the improvements of the 
 breeds of sheep in the countries specified in the present classification of carpet wools. 
 Such improvements have been made by the introduction of merino or English bloods 
 immediate or remote. The migration of the English people into the East Indies car- 
 ried with it sheep of English blood, so that the Candahar and Vicaneir and other East 
 India wools, which are now so largely imported as carpet wools, are in point of fine- 
 ness superior for clothing purposes to the many well-known varieties of Enghsh 
 breeds, such as the Lincolns, Cotswolds, and Scotch highlands, and so great has been 
 the improvement in the former Cordova carpet wools by the introduction of merino 
 blood, that although Cordova wools are mentioned iu the present law as carpet wools, 
 it is alleged that it is difficult any longer to obtain any large supply of real carpet 
 wools in that country So the words in section 345, "as now and heretofore prac- 
 ticed," should be on'.itted for the same reason. 
 
KEYISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 269 
 
 ^ 
 
 •i88X 'J9qaiao3(i 
 at SQpBjS Sai^odiuoa jo e[00Ai 
 pgjnoos nSiojoj yae aeaiaauiv^ jo 
 ijeoD aaadi'jaq Oi>a9a90!p Baijeis^ 
 
 •i83t 
 'J9qui903(i 4803 pajTioos aSlQJO^ 
 
 ■oS'EJ[auqg 
 
 ^ 
 
 e 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 09 
 
 "1 
 
 
 H 
 
 "S- 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 £ao 
 
 
 CvOO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 s: .•> 
 
 
 H 
 
 -w ^ 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 (H 
 
 S S 
 
 u 
 
 n 
 
 ss 
 
 <n 
 
 Q 
 
 '^^. 
 
 i 
 
 S 
 
 » s 
 
 H 
 
 ■ §■« 
 
 
 
 
 2;s 
 
 M 
 
 *H 
 
 (D 
 
 m 
 
 .2 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .s§ 
 
 1-5 
 
 3 
 
 w « 
 
 
 
 s » 
 
 
 (fi 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 S'^ 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 ^ « 
 
 
 H 
 
 « s 
 
 
 ^ ? 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 Ph 
 
 
 1 „ 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 §"^ 
 
 
 hI 
 
 
 
 <> 
 
 s> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pq 
 
 
 
 05 
 
 
 
 P4 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 > 
 
 
 'i88t 'Jteqcaaoad 'oaud nli^joao^j 
 
 3 CMC^ (M(M C 
 
 J3 
 
 — 
 
 -s 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 q 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 &: 
 
 ?. 
 
 a 
 
 
 tt 
 
 ft 
 
 5 
 
 ss 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 &a 
 
 "ieSI -laqni^oaQ; 'nopnoi 
 HI (jaaaano eaoud jo pAay aq^. 
 
 ui saoaag: nr panod jad QnqooQ; 
 
 ^ 
 
 '1881 'J9qLU909(i 'ttopaoT; at 
 eaptuSSniiodcuoDjoepo^paiiioos 
 JO eisBq 'oq; no eo:;Tj:ig paimn 
 aq^ ni \ooja joj: eaoud epBji-aoiji; 
 
 •%soo pgjnoog 
 
 •agBi[auqg 
 
 ■S88T JO %ov jjiJE^ 
 japttti 'i88T 'Joqcaaoa<x '^[qdpp 
 
 ■''^U'lJ til 9Dud J.^qjBOI 9SBJ9AY 
 
 
 
 -3 -5?? 
 
 
 ' P-^ : 3 
 E3 db w d 
 
 SS^ft 
 
 * - P- o 
 
 O o 
 fl &1 <» 
 
 " (J ■'^ ■" — '^ 
 
 oS.2 3 ig.Sl 
 
 .o o o ■* 1- 
 
 0:1 M (N O) c- -* c 
 
 9£ 
 
 .a 
 
 ® o 
 a o 
 
 3a 
 
 ^ a 
 p Si; 
 
 oj w rt 
 
 00 
 
 O fee 
 
 2 =« 
 
 gg 
 I- 
 ■9 ° 
 
 Si: 
 
 a a. a 
 
 n fl (4 
 2-2 n 
 000 
 
 
 a°'S'§ig 
 
 so® rt;- '^ 
 
 :'3 t!- 
 
 MM« a S^-^-^^ 
 ,3 g.s.s « o o g o- 
 
 t- t- t- t- t- E: t: E: fe oja 
 
 goSSgoag = i-g 
 
 tJ'a'^'a'O 9 S 9 S" d 
 "gaaaa?t?c?ra)-« 
 
 (3 rt rt cs c; .r- ■" "H .^ 2 '^ 
 .y .S .=!.-=. .^ cj o o o o p 
 
 jia ^ , q jq fl ^:: z; a i::: ja '-; 
 
270 
 
 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 ■i88T 'Jsqni909(j 
 at e9pi3j9 Sni^edtnoi) .jo eioodi 
 P9JI10D9 aSjojbj pnB u^Du^niy 
 JO ^rioo uosAijoct eoa^iojgip 3ai:^eixa; 
 
 a 
 o 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 <3 
 
 •iSSI 
 'J9(|ra909(i qe09 p9ino99 nSioio^ 
 
 •93BllIIUqg 
 
 *i88t 'J9qni909Q '90ud tiSpao^ 
 
 6 
 
 d S i=' ^ 
 ■r:; S O <3 
 
 r: o '-I -"^ 
 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 ®^ dH Of§ 
 ^,5 c3 rt 3 
 
 ■L881 '-13(101909(1 -nop 
 
 qoBai 0} i^jBBes on 'BtqdTapBittu 
 ni 89398^ u\ pnnod jod 9nTp9(j 
 
 v. 
 
 'i88T 'J9qra908(i 'nopno^ ui 
 e9pcj3 Smiedcooo JO H{OOAi pajnoDs 
 JO sisuq ''^^% no sai&jg pajmfi 
 
 <dJ\% U\ lOOAi JOJ B90ud 9pEJq,-09IJ 
 
 •:jsoo pajuoog 
 
 •93'B5[auqg 
 
 *S88T JO (JOB jgtj^i 
 jopan '2,881 'J9qni909(i 'i!iqdi9p 
 -Bjiq,! \i\ 90ud :j.9J[a'Bai 9Sbj9ay 
 
 ^ 
 
 2'^ 
 
 ^ .iT-U 
 
 g g M^ 
 a " fe a 
 
 rs V ^ ^ 
 
 o |> 
 
 St? ,- 
 
 ^ ^ '-' <y w -tj 
 
 M « _•§ g .g 
 
 ^sisi 
 
 f- 
 
 lilt 
 
 - J S o 
 S ® o 2 
 
 ^ J o J) ca ffl 
 S S ta S a S 
 
 aa^f=5S 
 
 S 3 S 2 3 9 
 a pi f3 s fl g 
 
 © O © QJ^^ 
 
 n3r3 
 o o 
 
 -2 "^ 
 
 ^J3 
 
 a a'^ 
 o o s 
 
 5 ° == 
 
 oj <p a 
 
 Cl °* 
 a D P 
 
 ■aj 
 •g . o 5 
 
 fl '•9-S 
 
 O . d « 
 "V ■«■« 
 
 gigs 
 
 HS?, 
 
 ■S5 ■»'»■ 
 3 s« ; pg 
 5^ iS .o«i 
 
 a 9 o « M^fi 
 o 3 » o flS 
 
 s^^ 
 
 flfl 
 
 a 
 
 3 s ^ 
 J i ^ n a 
 
 .-H .^ .rH .r- ^ ^J ^ Q Q O 
 
 ffj £C « m ^ £ 
 
 c3 rt cS re J^ d) 
 
 (c so w tn^ij 
 
 fl p fl Bio ffl 
 
 t3 rt cs n « d 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 271 
 
 
 fffl ^ eo-* -^lO O O 0-* to (0<0 W 00 (D -^ ^ fO (C O O (D OJ O to (O (O (D O O W O r- (D to «0 O « 
 S CO (N CO CO C^ W* TT CO CQ 03 CO C-J « CO 03 CO W CO ■* CO CO M M CO CO CO CO -ip ■* CJ"V^ CO CO CO CO d 
 
 ea to (O OS ift O 003 00 in <B CD<0 O 00 t> O (O (O t- » (O to CO O !0 (O CD CO 0000 O 0000 to to to to to 
 
 lo iS (Htomt-Hi-itscoknm>aLniHtotDm tai-itocooinr-iT-i>oiAiOiotoco<HCO'SLO u? lo lo ih 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -tn 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 » 
 
 « 
 
 ssss 
 
 »coP5in to to to oiMMin in m in co to to oo oo to to to to co co ^ co to to 
 
 tc 
 
 tc 
 
 tc 
 
 Ol 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ts o ■ 
 
 
 
 ' o 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "i 
 
 
 
 
 ■ ^1 
 
 
 
 y ■ 3 
 
 
 
 u d 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 h 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 :M-S 
 
 ' o 
 
 ^^S : 
 
 
 i.» 
 
 
 «. o O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 lis o. 
 
 ■ a 
 
 ■= «> ; 
 
 
 
 ^ aj &«> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ft.S (o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 : a bc 
 
 
 
 
 o e- o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -d 
 
 
 
 :i5^ 
 
 '3 
 
 ■52 : 
 
 ^3*^:3 
 
 ^<fl^-a 
 
 
 ^3 
 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 ^-^33 
 
 
 
 
 ,i2 
 
 
 
 
 Ihs '=' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 1^ 
 
 
 
 'III 
 
 
 
 -S © a 
 
 
 Bagda 
 East I 
 Monte 
 d 
 
 t: 
 
 ■t; 
 
 
 East 1 
 Monte 
 Monte 
 Monte 
 
 1= 
 
 t: 
 
 t; 
 
 
 o CO 00 — o to M o Tj< Tt< CO ■* lO in t- w> c 
 
 
 rilOOJlOOOt-t-t-t^lOrH-^O^IO 
 
 :? ^ 
 
 ^^*MWnt>*'+*-• 
 
 0> M 00 <D 
 
 ^ 
 A 
 
 s s 
 
 a B 
 
 _ o ;^^ 
 
 3 o 
 
 fi-Sfl 
 
 I 
 
 " i! f «. 1, . w 
 bi o i a fl -=i 
 p\q S 5 o o 
 
 -5 — J3 i) 3 « 
 
 2 s ■'J rt H-^ 
 b- rt a ° o a 
 
 0^0|5£££ggg-= 
 
 e,-a„-p='ooo5 = a 
 
 a" a" a" 
 
 a a 3 
 
 §3". 
 o«a 
 
 <D rt o 
 
 , a aj g 
 
 ;fl^ a 
 
 o o o 
 
 rt 5d ™ 
 
 
 "c 
 
 5 
 
 c 
 c 
 
 
 9 t. O rt" 
 
 a' 
 
 ! (0 O 
 
 t> -■" 
 
 ;g|i|a^^: 
 
 w w 
 
 ■a ■a 
 
 rt ""^ ffl — ' KJ i'. uu i.lt m ai 3j n, 
 
 f'iaa 
 
 o: tc 93 
 
 f^ M M 
 
 0, © a> 
 
 H be be be 
 
 g g a a <s 
 
 saaa| 
 
 a. 3 
 
 a^: . 
 3 S ® 
 
 a s «' »-"? 3'^f".2?a«° 
 p55a|ig|Eg5^ 
 
 ags«aaa«gaggg 
 
 °°-5-S'9-3'2'3aBaa3 
 
 M'r-a a 
 Ims a 
 
 g a 
 
 p 
 
 o 
 
 'E 
 
 <1 
 
 <J 
 
 
 
 q 
 
 a 
 
 ty 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 MS 
 
 
 
 a a = 
 
 o or 
 
 D O O « 
 
 fl rt rt X 
 
 - M fn y 
 
 3 O O^ 
 
 
 fe o fe 3 
 ®-S o^ 
 
 o ® o 
 o-^o 
 O O 
 
272 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 FIGURES FOR WOOL-GEOWEKS TO STUDY— SUGGESTED BY THE PEBSIDBNT'S MESSAGE. 
 
 The table preceding shows a comparison of the values of all grades of foreign and 
 domestic fleeces and a comparison of the valnes of foreign and domestic scoured wool. 
 It also shows what would be the price iu Philadelphia for each grade of American 
 wool on the present basis of valnes iu London in the event of the removal of duties 
 on wool as recommended in the President's message. 
 
 The first column of figures on the left contains the average price for each grade of 
 American wool at this date in Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. 
 
 The second column contains the percentage of shrinkage in scouring the various 
 grades of American wool, and the third column shows the scoured cost of the same 
 to the manufacturer here. 
 
 The fourth column shows the free- trade price for each grade of American wool, or, 
 in other words, it shows the price which would have to be accepted for domestic 
 wool, on the basis of present values in London if the duty were taken off. 
 
 The fifth column shows the decline in cents per pound in fleeces which must occur 
 to domestic wool to reduce it to the free-trade level. This column also shows the 
 actual amount of protection in cents per pound which the different qualities of do- 
 mestic wool now have. 
 
 The list of foreign wools on the right-hand side of the paper enumerates some of 
 the qualities which compete with domestic wools named on the same line on the left- 
 hand side. The first column of figmes to the right of the foreign list is the foreign 
 price in cents in London. The last column on the extreme right shows how much de- 
 cline would have to take place in the value of domestic scoured wool to reduce it to 
 the London basis of value to-day. 
 
 This last or ninth column is also the difference in cents per pound between the 
 scoured cost of American wool and the scoured cost of the corresponding grade of 
 foreign wool in London, and is the actual amount of protection which the American 
 wool-grower now gets on scoured wool when it is imported in the unwashed condition. 
 This same column is interesting as indicating how much protection the American 
 manufacturer needs on his goods to overcome the dift'ereuoe in scoured cost of wool in 
 favor of the foreign manufacturer, not taking into consideration the additional pro- 
 tection which he needs to oft'set a difference of over one hundred per cent, between 
 the wages of European and American mill labor. 
 
 This comparison of the difference iu cost of foreign and American scoured wools 
 throws much li^bt upon the cause of the present depression in the woolen manufactur- 
 ing business, which depression seems to be the principal cause of low prices for Amer- 
 ican wool. 
 
 It is maintained that the amount of protection which the manufacturer receives 
 is the limit of the actual protection which the wool-grower receives, for the reason 
 that the manufacturer must buy wool low enough to enable him to compete with for- 
 eign goods. If the duty were taken oft' of goods and kept upon wool, American wool 
 would decline until the American manufacturer could buy it at a price at which he 
 could compete with foreign goods made by operatives who received less than half 
 the wages paid to the same class of operatives in America. Therefore, in revising 
 the present tariff law, the higher the duties which the wool-grower can induce 
 his Representative in Congress to put upon woolen goods, the higher will be the price 
 which he will receive for his wool, and legislation of this kind more directly affects 
 him than any increase of duties upon the raw material. When the agricultural in- 
 terests permitted the heavy reduction in the tariff on worsted goods in 1883, they 
 struck the severest blow at the wool producer. It is important that the grower 
 should immediately have his Representative in Congress correct the abuses of the 
 wool schedule by shutting out such scoured wools as now come in under the head of 
 waste; by making washed wools of all classes pay double the duty on unwashed, 
 and scoured wools of all classes pay three times the duty on unwashed; and make 
 such changes in the carpet-wool schedule as will prevent the importation of clothing 
 wools under the disguise of carpet wools. Yet these changes are of minor importance 
 in comparison with that of raising the duty on worsted goods to the present level of 
 other woolen goods so urgently and forcibly recommended asau act of simple justice 
 by the Secretary of the Treasury in his message to Congress. This recommendation, 
 coming as it does from an administration which favors free trade in many articles, 
 shows the unfairness of the working of the worsted clause in the tariff law of 1883, 
 and if growers can secure nothing else at this time, this correction, suggested by the 
 Secretary of the Treasury, would be an enormous gain to the producer of wool. 
 
 STATISTICS OF IMPORTS OF WOOI.. 
 
 The wool-growers ask that a new aei-tion be adopted, as follows: 
 'ib'il. The st.atistics of imports i)ublished by the authority of the Deijartment of the 
 Treasury, and those reported to Cougress by that Department, shall specify in detail 
 ind in connection with the imports of wool, the different classes, amounts, and val- 
 ues of wools, rags, shoddy, luuugo, waste, llocks, noils, and other materials, with the 
 duties collected thereon. ' 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 273 
 
 The reasons for this provision can be- readily stated : In the volumes of Commerce 
 and Navigation, the wools imported with these classed values and duties thereon are 
 given under the head of "Wools — unmanufactured." Noils are included as wool, 
 without any separate statement, as to material, amount, value, or duty. 
 
 George William Bond estimated that our imports of noils in the four years ended 
 July 1, 1883, probably amounted to 10,000,000 "pounds of scoured material, equiva- 
 lent to about 30,000,000 pounds of wool in the grease." Yet this is included in the 
 statisticsof imports as only 10,000,000 pounds of wool (Senate Eep., No. 2332, Part 2, 
 tirstsession Fiftieth Congress, page 586). Wool-growers and the public have a right to 
 know how much of this material is being imported to supplaut American wools and 
 reduce their price, both by competition and as furnishing a standard for the cost of 
 clothing material. It is now covered up and the public are misled and deceived. 
 
 Then the volumes of Commerce and Navigation do not show the imports of "rags, 
 shoddy, mungo, waste and flocks," under the head of unmanufactured wool, butuuder 
 the head of "manufactures of wool," etc. Yet all these articles supplant wool and 
 aid in fixing its price. They are covered up and do not appear as wool imports. Even 
 the Wool Report of the Bureau of Statistics, of 1887, and ttie imports of wools fur- 
 nished the Senate Finance Committee do not show these articles (Senate Report No. 
 2332, Part 2, first session Fiftieth Congress, p. 592). 
 
 The public are thus kept uninformed of the full measure of these articles, which 
 are in fact wool. 
 
 For the fiscal year 1889, the import of so-called "rags, shoddy, mungo, waste, 
 and flocks " aggregated 8,662,209 pounds. How much of each class does not appear. 
 But there is evidence that nearly all of these imports consist of so-called " waste." 
 Mr. Grinnell, consul at Bradford, in his report to the State Department of March 
 19, 1889, shows that exports of so-called waste from Bradford and Liverpool to the 
 United States for a year will reach about 8,919,y4'4 pounds, of which 1,22.5,366 pounds 
 are " genuine salable product," and 7,694,578 pounds a swindling, fraudulent con- 
 trivance, manufactured to evade our tarifl' laws. This waste, contrary to what you 
 would suppose from its name, and ditfering from what is real waste, " is a highly 
 purified article of scoured wool" (Wool Report, 1887, p. XXII), worth incur markets 
 from 50 to 62 cents a pound, and 1 pound of it is the equivalent of 3 pounds unwashed 
 merino wool. This import of 8,662,209 pounds is the equivalent of 26,000,000 pounds 
 of Ohio merino wool, .and which is more than all the wool produced by the 4,000,000 
 sheep in the State. Thus the equivalent of 26,000,000 pounds of good merino wool is 
 imported as nominally, only about 8,000,000 pounds, and the general public are kept 
 uninformed of the full extent of imported wools. 
 A provision such as we have asked for seems to be just and necessary. 
 
 NOILS. 
 
 The bill which passed the Senate January 22, 1889, provides, " 352. Noils shall pay 
 the same rate of duty as the washed wools or hair/rom which they are made." 
 
 The effect of this under the bill is, that noils from clothing wool would pay 11 cents 
 per pound, from combing wool 12 cents, from carpet wool would be either 4 or 8 cents ; 
 but no man could tell which, because it would be impossible to determine the value 
 of the wool "from which they are made." 
 The Wool Report, XXIV, says : 
 
 " Noils is the name given to the short fibers, knots, broken fleeces, and tangled fibers 
 combed from wool usually scoured. They are carded and mixed with longer iibers for 
 clothing purposes. Sometimes long noils have been bought by worsted spinners to 
 recomb, a percentage of top being obtained by the second process of combing, the 
 first process having failed to remove all of the long fibers. This was more frequently 
 the case with old-mshioned machinery." 
 
 The National Wool Growers' Convention, of January, 1889, asked that the woi'd 
 "scoured" be substituted for " washed,"and wenowask the duty be fixed at 33 cents, 
 the same as on scoured clothing wools. 
 
 Among the reasons I present the following: The duty should be uniform, because it 
 is impossible to ascertain the kinds of wool from which they are made. 
 
 George William Bond, of Boston, is an eminent expert, and equally eminent as the 
 advocate of legislation in the interest of manufacturers, but in his letter of September 
 16, 1889, said, that " whether it is expedient to attempt to make all wools free, is to be 
 considered." (Bulletin of Wool Manufacturers, vol. 19, p. 328; see Senate Report 
 2332, Part 2, first session Fiftieth Congress, 586; Wool Report of 1887, p. Ivi.) 
 Yet he admits that noils should pay the same duty as first-class scoured wools. 
 In his statement before the Senate Finance Committee in 1888, he said : 
 " If you will refer to the columns in the wool circular which I submit herewith, 
 you will find that the imported wools entered for consumption during the four years 
 ending with the 1st of July, 1883, show that during those years there were about 
 10,000,000 pounds less of wools of the first and second classes than there were in the 
 four succeeding years. 
 " There have, however, been during that period imported into this country a large 
 
 485 1§^ 
 
274 REVISION OF THE TARIFi. 
 
 amount of wool "wastes of qualities not anticipated by tbe framers of the tariffs of 
 ld67 and lfb3, amounting, jiossibly, to 10,llOO,OUU pounds of scoured material, equiva^ 
 lent to about 3U,0UU,0li0 pounds ot wocl in the grease ; and of noils I can not tell the 
 exact aniduut, but ^iiobahlii as much more. 
 
 " A very large projiurlion of tliese, I have reason to believe, have been erroneously 
 passed as third-class wools. This it is not necessary to assume to have been fraudu- 
 lently so passed by our customs officers, inasmuch as I hold it to be no easy matter 
 to discriminate between the noils made from many of the third and first class wools. 
 
 "I have myself, I think, given as much attention to this subject as any one, and 
 have repeatedly, when called upon by the appraisers, found it difficult to decide from 
 which class they have been combed. 
 
 "As most of these noils have been used for clothing purposes, I think it would be no 
 hardship to impose a duty on all noils, as of the first-class scouredivooJs, all of them at 
 the present time having heen made from wool which had alreadif been scoured, though hav- 
 ing, a portion of them, a small quantity of oil, barely sufficient to prepare them for 
 immediate use for the cards. A portion of these noils are undoubtedly used for car- 
 pets and blankets, but this amount is so small compared with the quantity of wool 
 used for these fabrics that the loss of them will be of little consequence to those who 
 are engaged in their manufacture." (Senate Report No. 2332, Part 'J, first session, 
 Fiftieth Cungress, page 586.) 
 
 The statistics of commerce do not show the imports of noils; they are simply in- 
 cluded in the imports of wool. Bat here is the evidence of Mr. Bond that noils equal 
 to 30,000,(100 pounds of wool in the grease came in, in the period stated — morethan the 
 whole wool crop of Ohio for a year. And "most of these have been used for clothing 
 purposes." 
 
 These noils are valuable, as may be seen from John L. Bowes & Brother's Liverpool 
 (sircular. 
 
 It would be no misfortune if tbey should not be imported at all, just as it would 
 be no misfortune if we should import neither carpets nor woolen goods of any kind. 
 
 Finally, if noils are left dutiable only as washed wool the door will be open for 
 fraud, bribery aud perjury. "Long noils," pure scoured wool, 1 pound making as 
 much cloth as 3 of unwashed merino wool, will come in as carpet- wool noils at a duty 
 of 4 cents, equal to ouly IJ cents on such meriuo wool. They will be manufactured 
 for import just as ring waste is so manufactured. (See Report of Consul Grinnell 
 at Bradford to State Department, March 19, 1889.) The finer grades of carpet wools 
 will yield at least ]."> per cent, of " noils" and about 85 per cent, of "top." The noils 
 are a species of fur, finer than the top, aud in the process of combing the noils or bot- 
 tom is removed, being a short separate fiber from a distinct root, It is proper to 
 add that in the process of combing there will be a slight loss, so that the top will not 
 quite reach 85 per cent. 
 
 UNDERVALUATION FRAUDS. — CARPET WOOLS UNDERVALUATION FRAUDS. 
 
 In this connection I invite attention to House Executive Document No. 101, first 
 session. Forty-eighth Congress, February 19, 1884. 
 
 I also iuvite attentiou to the report of Thomas E. Heenan, United States consul at 
 Odessa, Russia, made to the State Department November 4, 1887, on the condition of tbe 
 wool trade between south Russia and the United States, which concludes as follows; 
 
 " In conclusion, I beg to state that this report will show — 
 
 " First. That the wool trade betweeo south Russia and the United States has been 
 carried on for twenty years greatly to the detriment of the revenue of the United 
 States. 
 
 "Second. That all of the wool shipped from south. Russia to the United States is 
 the ])roiierty of three or four American importers. 
 
 "Third. That these importers, in combination with the shippers, have conspired 
 to prevent the recognition of a market price for the so-called Donskoi washed wools 
 atRostotf- n-Don. 
 
 " Fourth. That all of these wools are, and ever have been, scoured wools. 
 
 " Fifth. That these wool^ have in niauy iustances succeeded in entering the United 
 States at low-duty limit (2| cents), others again at high duty (5 cents), when all of 
 them should have paid duty as scoured wools. 
 
 " Sixth. That the fraudulent designation of these wools has benefited the American 
 importers, and has been a coriesponding loss to honest wool merchants and the United 
 States Government. 
 
 " Si;venth. That this loss will exceed .^10,000,000 can easily be demonstrated. 
 
 " Eighth. That this loss will reach between $15,000,000 and'|20,000,000 is very prob- 
 able. 
 
 "Ninth. That a market value for the so-called Donskoi washed wools exists at 
 Rostott'-on-Don. 
 
 " Tenth. That the charges in the invoices of wool shipped from Odessa and Rostoff 
 arc fal^e, and are introduced for the purpose of defrauding the revenue. 
 
 " Eleventh, That the commissions charged are never paid as commissions. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 275 
 
 " Twelfth. That the legitimate and proper charges have been excessive. 
 
 " Thirteenth. That the gross weight in an invoice has caused great loss of revenue, 
 and has been successfully practiced for many years. 
 
 "Fourteenth. That the interests of the United States require the permanent clos- 
 ing of the Rostoflf consular agency." 
 
 It is of course understood that the custom-house valuations of wool are not the 
 values in this country, but the lower foreign valuations. 
 
 It seems only reasonable that the whole foreign valuation be the basis on which to 
 impose duties. Provision should be made to guard against undervaluation. 
 
 MUTTON SHEEP. 
 
 The wool-growers ask that better protection be imposed on sheep imported for 
 other than breeding purposes. 
 
 For the ten mouths ended October 31, 1889, such sheep imported were 158,427 of 
 the custom-house value t« $734,437, or of $4. 68 per head. For the corresponding ten 
 months of 1888 the number imported was 292,428, ef the custom-house value off 832, 540, 
 or $2.85 per head. The average value per head for the two periods is $3.76. A duty of 
 $1 per head is only equal to 27.599 per ceut. ad valorem. These sheep come with 
 wool on them which pays no duty. The duty on such sheep by the act of 1883 is 20 
 per cent, ad valorem. The Senate bill proposes a specific duty of 50 cents per head. 
 The ad valorem duty on carpets proposed in the Senate bill is 35 per cent. The pro- 
 ducers of mutton are entitled to protection as fully as carpet manufacturers. 
 
 The wool-growers ask for an ad valorem duty of 30 per cent, with a proviso that the 
 duty shall in no case be less than $1 per head. 
 
 A large amount of wool is pulled from the pelts of the imported mutton sheep, 
 and this wool pays no duty, except as it is or may be covered by the insignificant 
 and inadequate duty of the live imported sheep. This duty is even inadeauate as a 
 duty on the mutton alone, practically leaving the wool free. 
 
 ROUND LOTS OF WOOL. 
 
 A letter dated March 2, 1889, from one of the most prominent wool merch.'ints of the 
 State, though not the city of New York, says : 
 
 "I inclose you Bowes & Brother (Liverpool) wool circular. You will notice the 
 market value of wools in London of class 3 (carpet). Now, India wools, worth from 
 7 to 10 pence, if purchased separately, have to pay a duty of 5 cents per pound, but 
 the importer will buy a round lotot these wools, valued from 3 to 10 pence per pound, 
 at a price that does not average above 12 cents per pound, nor exceeding the low-duty 
 rate (2^ cents), and thereby defraud the revenue of 2-i cents per pound on 20 or 30 pei 
 cent, or more of the whole amount of the invoice. This is practiced the same way 
 with wool#and various classes of carpet stock." 
 
 In the tariff statements before the Senate Finance Committee September 13, 1888, 
 the testimony of a prominent manufacturer, Mr. Houston, was as follows : 
 
 " I have heard of instances of wools being imported under the third class and 
 stopped at the appraiser's office because they contained wool which belonged to the 
 other classes— first and second. There has been a good deal of litigation under such 
 circumstances. I have imported, for instance, black-faced wool — third-class wool — 
 understood as sach, and known to be such. I have been notified by the appraisers 
 in Boston that there was wool of the second class in that lot ; but there was no fraud 
 or corruption or anything of that kind in the case. The appraisers stopped the 
 wool, and, under proper circumstances, the wool was examined, and fleeces were 
 found belonging to the third class and others belonging to the second class in small 
 proportion; and under the practice of the Government in such cases, where there is 
 no attempt to defraud at all, the high duty of 10 ceufs has been assessed on the sec- 
 ond class, while the third-class wool pays the third-class duty. Such cases are rare, 
 but at the same time they have been frequent enough to show that the classification 
 of the wool is insisted upon at the custom-houses, and it is dangerous for anybody 
 to undertake to import under the head of third-class wool wool belonging to any 
 other class." (Senate Report, No. 2332, part 3, First session, liftieth Congress, 
 p. 1136.) 
 
 These evidences prove that the better class of carpet wool has been imported with 
 lower grades at low-grade duty, and that even clothing and combing wools have 
 been imported as carpet wools in the same fraudulent mode. Yet the average value 
 per pound of a "round lot" maj bring it within the low carpet- wool duty. 
 
 The (Boston) American Wool Reporter of September 19, 1889, refers to " The Val- 
 paraiso wool imported some weeks since by W. R. Grace & Co. to order of the Lowell 
 Carpet Company and Bigelow Carpet Company, and says that at the custom-house 
 the examiner, after a thorough examination of the entire invoice, comprising 1,43G 
 teles, set aside 229 bales as dutiable at 10 cents per pound [as clothing wool] and of 
 the remaining 1,207 bales he estimated that 10 per cent, of the wool was fine. * 
 ' * The appraiser finally decided to class'ify the entire invoice as fine wool 'm order 
 to take the c[ue9tion before the collector," 
 
276 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 I see nothing in the law to reach this fraud and there is abundant evidence that 
 perjury will not be wanting to perpetrate it. (House Ex. Doc. 101, Forty-eighth Con- 
 gress, first session, February 19, 1884.) 
 
 One of the resolutions of the National Wool Growers' Convention held in Washing- 
 ton, D. C, December 2 to 9, inclusive, asks for a provision in the tariff law : 
 
 "(3) To impose increased duties on 'round lots' of imported wool, in which valu- 
 able clothing and so-called carpet wools are mixed with inferior grades of carpet 
 wools, leaving the aggregate dutiable only at the lowest rates." 
 
 We ask that a provision be inserted in the tariff bill as follows: 
 
 Sec. — . If any bale or package of wool or hair specified in this act imported as 
 of any specified class, or claimed by the importer to be dutiable as of any specified 
 class, shall contain any wool subject to a higher rate of duty than the class so speci- 
 fied, the whole bale or package shall be subject to the highest rate of duty chargeable 
 on wool of the class subject to such higher rate of duty. 
 
 ADMIXTUEK FRAUDS. 
 
 The National Wool Growers' Convention of December, 1889, resolved, 
 
 "That in any tariff law which may be enacted provision shall be made; (5) To pre- 
 vent evasions of the law by admixtures of wool with shoddy and other inferior art- 
 icles." 
 
 It is manifest that some good wool may be mixed with shoddy, that so called 
 "waste" and other articles more valuable than wool may be mixed with wool, and if 
 imported in these and other forms the real purpose of the law may be evaded. 
 
 While enacting a law, which it may be hoped will be stable and just, it is impor- , 
 tant that it be made as perfect as possible. 
 
 I present reliable evidence of the necessity of some provision on this subject. 
 
 The Boston American Wool Eeporter of December 26, 1889, contains the following 
 from one of the most prominent wool dealers in the United States : 
 
 "KING WASTE. 
 " [Keply to L. Eenant.] 
 
 "Philadelphia, Pa., Vecemler^l, 1689. 
 
 " Mr. Editor : In reading your issue of December 12, I notice an article in regard 
 to ring waste, by L. Eenaut, agent. While I was in London, England, last February, 
 I was dogged almost to de.T,th for ten days, by a party who wanted me to go in part- 
 nership with him to doctor and prepare wools to be imported into the United States 
 to take the place of our fine Ohio wools. In order to do this we would have to mix 
 in so-called ring waste to defraud the Government of the United States and the wool- 
 grower. * 
 
 "In mixing the waste with the wool top, which is being done every day, they mix 
 from 1 to 2 per cent, of ring waste and then term it all ring waste, thereby bringing 
 in 95 to 97 per cent of pure wool top, which is worth from $1.10 to |1.20 per pound, 
 at the rate of 10 cents per pound duty, which ought to pay at the least 60 cents per 
 pound. Now, Mr. Eenant, if he is a judge of his business, ought to know ring waste 
 ought not to be admitted at less than 30 cents per pound duty under the present 
 tariff rates. No manufacturer would make ring waste purposely, but there is a cer- 
 tain amount made during the process of spinning and drawing. But the man who 
 buys fine wool-to manipulate, so as to bring it in as ring waste, purchases the waste 
 and mixes it with the best broken wool top, and then palms it off on the United 
 States Government as ring waste. 
 ' ' Yours, truly, 
 
 " Thos. Lee." 
 
 We ask that a section be inserted in the tariff law as follows : 
 
 Sec. — . That if any bale or package be imported as, or be claimed by the importer to 
 be, shoddy, mingo, flocks, wool of any class, or hair, specified in this act or other ma- 
 terial, and such bale or package contain any admixture of any one or more of said 
 materials, or of any other material, the whole bale or package shall be subject to 
 duty at the highest rate imposed upon any article in said bale or package. 
 
 RING WASTE AND OTHER WASTES. 
 
 Immense frauds on the revenue and on wool-growers have been perpetrated by the 
 importation of so-called wastes. Some of these imported at 10 cents per pound duty 
 are worth 60 cents perpound in American markets, and even more. Scoured California 
 clothing wools are being sold at 4.^) cents per pound and are used as an adnllerant 
 for foreign wastes in the manufacture of clothing goods. 
 
 The Senate bill pro])c)ses a duty of 30 cents per pound on wastes. A duty less than 
 this will not give adequate protection. It is at least doubtful if it is sufficient. This 
 is submitted to the committee. 
 
 I append for information the protest of the Philadelphia Wool Merchants' Associa- 
 tion on this subject. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 277 
 
 PROTEST OP THE PHILADELPHIA WOOL MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION AGAINST THE 
 CLASSIFICATION AS "WASTE" OF SO- CALLED RING WASTE AND OTHER SCOURED 
 WOOLS. 
 
 The following papers were read before Asaistant Secretary of the Treasury Fair- 
 child, at Washington, January 28, 1887, and copies filed with him, together with the 
 samples referred to : 
 
 Philadelphia, January 5, 1887. 
 
 To the Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C. : 
 
 The Philadelphia Wool Merchants' Association respectfully and earnestly protest 
 against the classification of so-called ring waste, thread waste, or garnetted thread 
 waste as " waste," as such classification defeats the intent of the law aiid virtually 
 admits to our ports scoured wool at one-third of the intended duty. We, therefore, 
 urge that all such stock imported as so-called ring waste, thread waste, or garnetted 
 thread waste, now paying a duty of 10 cents per pound, be hereafter classified and 
 made dutiable the same as scoured wool, for the following reasons : 
 
 (1) So-called ring waste is scoured wool, and can, with little or no preparation, be 
 used in the production or manufacture of goods, the same as other scoured wools, 
 without rescouring and without requiring any mixture of any other material. 
 
 (2) The class of stock in the intent of the law classed as "waste," is merely refuse 
 from the cards or other machinery, and not adapted for using again in manufacture 
 without the admixture of good malerial, in the same manner as shoddy or mungo are 
 used {vide sample No. 4), while so-called ring waste is scoured wool— a direct portion 
 of the "top," free from any extraneous matter — and can be used as scoured wool 
 without further washing, and by itself alone without any mixture with other ma- 
 terial. 
 
 (3) We urge the classification of so-called ring waste as scoured wool to prevent 
 foreign manufacturers converting into the class of "waste" (paying only 10 cents 
 per pound duty), the product of worsted machinery in the shape of this so-called 
 ring waste, thread waste, or garnetted thread waste, which is again used the same 
 as the original scoured wool. 
 
 (4) We urge the classification of so-called ring waste as scoured wool on the same 
 argument as was used by ybur Department in the decision in the case of J. Basch & 
 Sons, July 13, 1883 (34684). This is a parallel case for the same reasons then named 
 by the Department, to wit : The following principles are laid down. This article 
 most pay the same duty as the wool from wliich it comes. It comes from wool that 
 has been scoured, and the duty should be assessed upou it at the rate imposed by law 
 as scoured wool, and is not dutiable under the schedule of woolen rags, mungo,waste, 
 etc. 
 
 (5) That your decision of April 29, 188.'j (9693), of the Hockauum Company, classi 
 fying wool waste imported per " Roman," January 28, 1885, as scoured wool, also ap' 
 plies equally to this so-called ring waste, exactly as it did to that case, being made 
 of scoured wool. The value of this so-called ring waste in Liverpool per late quota- 
 tions is 24 pence, or about 48 cents; the price of Australian "tops" is also quoted the 
 same. Surely it is not the intent of the law that an article so valuable and useful 
 was to be classified and made dutiable the same as woolen rags, shoddy, mungo, etc. 
 
 (6) That the so-called ring waste shall be classified as scoured wool, for the reason 
 that it is a portion of the " top," free from any extraneous matter, and is the" cream 
 of the wool, surtable as before stated for all purposes and uses to which other scoured 
 wool can be applied. 
 
 (7) Noils are unquestionably now properly assessed at the same duty as the wool 
 from which they are made. Therefore, as this so-called ring waste is the cream of 
 the wool and as valuable, if not more so, for manufacturing purposes than noils, we 
 claim that in justice this so-called ring waste should 1 ikewise be classified as the 
 scoured wool from which it is made. 
 
 (8) We hold that so-called ring waste should pay the same duty as scoured wool 
 for the reason that, as before stated, the quoted market value of so-called ring waste 
 now in Liverpool is equivalent to that of " top," from which it is produced, showing 
 clearly that it is of equal value in manufacturing. The quoted market value of said 
 " tops " at this date is 24 pence, and which is now assessed at a duty of 60 cents per 
 pound, while the quoted market value of so-called ring waste is the same, or 24 
 pence, and which is now assessed at only 10 cents per pound duty. 
 
 Who should there be such a wide discrimination when this so-called ring waste can 
 be used for the production of " tops," or other goods? Surely, if not really dutiable 
 the same as "_tops," it should be assessed at least at the same duty as other scoured 
 wools. 
 
 (9) We, therefore, urge the Department to forbid the classification of any articles 
 of so manifest value and nse as so-called ring waste, thread waste, or garnetted thread 
 waste as " waste," which is merely an inferior refuse, classed with woolen rags, 
 shoddy, mungo, etc. 
 
 Sample No. 1. Scoured Australian wool. 
 
278 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Sample No. 2. Scoured Australian wool in partial process of manufacture, known 
 as Australian "top." 
 
 Sample No. 3. So-called ring waste produced from scoured " top." 
 
 Sample No. 4. Waste named within the meaning of the tariff law, being something 
 of little value, such as "woolen rags, shoddy, mungo, waste, and flocks." 
 
 Sample No. 5. Thread waste, made of scoured worsted wool now admitted at 10 
 cents per pound duty. 
 
 Sample No. 6. Gametted thread waste, now admitted as " waste" at 10 cents per 
 pound duty ; returned from thread waste, like Sample No. 5, to scoured wool, at a 
 cost of 3 cents per pound. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. Georgk H. Sheble, 
 
 William M. Coaxes. 
 Samuel Lee, 
 
 C(mimiUee. 
 [Copy.J 
 
 CoNSHOHOCKEN, January 19, 1887. 
 The undersigned is president and treasurer of the Conshohocken Worsted Mills and 
 
 what is known as the French system of manufacturing 
 worsted yarns : am perfectly familiar with what is 
 called ring waste, how it is produced, and to what 
 A \ uses it can be applied. The production of this ar- 
 
 ticle, when made in the regular course of aiming to 
 produce all the yarn possible, will not exceed 1 per 
 j,j^ cent, of tho amount of roving used. The machinery 
 
 — ^ could be so arranged as to produce it in any quantity. 
 
 What wo produce ourselves is again used, the same 
 as if scoured wool, and can be used by woolen manu- 
 facturers the same as other scoured wools and with- 
 out any further manipulation or preparation other 
 than in the condition in which it is now imported 
 except removing the thread, which is a small expense. 
 1 have made sketch showing how made, which shows 
 that a mill can make ring waste and nothing else if 
 price warrants it. I also inclose sample known as 
 tops, roving and ring waste of our own manufacturing. 
 The roving passes between A and B and then to the 
 spindle, being twisted into yam from rolls to spindle. 
 If end to spindle breaks, theu the roving (without 
 twist) passes over roll B to roll C, winds around it, 
 forming ring waste. Roll C is detachable aud is cleaned of waste whenever any 
 quantity has formed. 
 
 George Bullock. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before me this 20th day of January, 1887. 
 
 [seal.] Morris R. Bockius, 
 
 Notary Public. 
 [Copy.] 
 
 Providence, R. I., January 20, 1887. 
 To whom it may concern : 
 
 This is to certify that the Providence Worsted Mills have recombed all the ring 
 waste, so called, made by two sets of French machinery for the last two years, and 
 have never sold 1 pound classing it ae waste. It has all been put into top again, as 
 wo class it — equal in value to scoured wool ; and have carded, combed, and put into 
 top, ring waste, so called, that has been imported by other parties, and can comb it 
 successfully without putting it through the garnetting process. 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 Providence Worsted Mills, 
 Charles Fletcher, 
 
 Treasurer. 
 [Copy.l 
 
 Philadelphia, January 18, 1887. 
 The undersigned is a manufacturer of worsted and woolen yarns, and has been en- 
 gaged in the business some years; is familiar with the articles called "ring waste" 
 and " garnetted thread waste," and desires to state that the same can be used in the 
 production of woolen goods, wit^hout further manipulation or preparation, the same 
 as other scoured wools are used. Wm. E. Montague, 
 
 Howard and ¥orh Streets. 
 Sworn and subscribed to this 21st day of January, 1887. 
 [seal.] Joseph P. Cobb, 
 
 Notai-y Public. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 279 
 
 [Copy.] 
 State of Pennsylvania, 
 
 CiUj of Philadelphia, s . Philadelphia, January 19, 1887. 
 
 The undersigaed has been siiperiuteudent of the Gloumore Worsted Company, of 
 this city, for the past three years, and previously engaged in the bnsiness of worsted 
 yarn spinning in England; is familiar with the bnsiness in all different branches and 
 systems, and asserts that the production of so called ring waste would be but a 
 very small percentage of the amount of scoured wool used, if the machinery was 
 run with the object of making all the yarn possible from the wool used, and also 
 that the machinery of the French system of spinning can be so arranged as to pro- 
 dace a large amount of said so-called ring waste ; is perfectly familiar with this ar- 
 ticle of so-called ring waste, and asserts that it can be used in manufacture of woolen 
 goods and without any manipulation or prepar.afcion (except simply picking out any 
 little thread that might be in it) just the same as any other scoured wool. 
 
 [SEAL.] Robert Exley. 
 
 Sworn and subscribed to before me this 20th day of January, A. D. 188". 
 [SEAL.] James F. Neall, 
 
 Magistrate of Court No. 20, in and for the City of Philadelphia. 
 
 supplementary. 
 
 Philadelphia, January 5, 1887. 
 
 In regard to the classification as "waste" of this so-called ring waste, thread waste, 
 and garnetted thread waste, as stated in article No. 2: 
 
 The tariff act of 1867 (the wording of whicli is the same as the present act of 1883) 
 puts under one classification "woolen rags, shoddy, mungo, waste, and flocks." The 
 act was passed immediately after the close of the late war, and the intent was to in- 
 clude in one classification only such articles as were refuse or of inferior uses to what 
 good material (like scoured wool) could be applied. It includes shoddy and mungo, 
 which are made of woolen rags torn np and reduced to fiber, although nothing like 
 what the fiber of the original wool would be. This material is used by mixing a 
 portion of it with good wool and making goods of inferior character. We are all 
 probably aware of the discredit "shoddy," or shoddy articles, were held in during 
 the war; the word was in a manner a synonym for what was ill-made, poor quality, 
 or worthless; and it seems no more than natural, with that idea fresh in the minds 
 of the public, to have classed shoddy, mungo, waste, and flocks all in one class, as 
 we may say, of refuse matter, and the intent andspirit of thelaw, in simply using the 
 ■word "waste," was that it was to embrace only poor refuse material, and not to lie ap- 
 plied to any such material of value and use as this so-called ring waste, thread waste, 
 orgarnetted thread waste; calling such "waste" is a misnomer, and it is not, we claim, 
 either the intent or spirit of the law that thej' should be so classified; if it was, the 
 phrasing of the senti-nce of the law above quoted would bo more direct and specific. 
 
 In regard to article 3, to prevent foreign manufacturers converting into the class 
 of " waste" the product of their machinery, etc. : 
 
 This article of so-called ring, waste is, we are advised, produced largely in France 
 and Germany on what is known as the French system of worsted spinning, claimed 
 as an improvement on previous systems, whereby inferior wools can be used to ad- 
 vantage, and wools combed of much shorter staple than can be by other systems. 
 The wools used for this purpose are known as Montevideo, Buenos Ayres, and the 
 shorter stapled wools of Australia. We are informed that, working with the view of 
 producing all the yarn possible from the wool used, there would not be produced, of 
 this so-called ring waste, an amount exceeding 1 per cent, in weight of the amount 
 of scoured wool used. We are also informed that the importation of this material to 
 this country the past year was in round numbers 4,000,000 pounds. Now, accord- 
 ing to this, to produce it legitimately, it would require the enormous amount of 
 nearly 1,000,000,000 pounds of raw wool, taking an average shrinkage of 58 per cent. 
 to produce scoured wool, to make such an amount of so-called ring waste legiti- 
 mately, this shrinkage of 58 per cent, in the raw wool being a moderate estimate for 
 wools of the class used; they shrink, in scouring, from 55 to 02 per cent., and some 
 lots even more. It has been asserted to us that manufacturers in France and Ger- 
 many were running their mills to produce this article to a large extent — much greater 
 than could be done if produced legitimately iu the regular course of the yarn busi- 
 ness; and we are also advised and assured that positively this can be readily done. 
 One of the special agents of the Treasury Department, at New York, called upon us 
 a few days since inquiring if we had any positive information about this matter, as 
 he had been told the same story ; and he also advised us of there now being large 
 amounts of this material imported into Now York, and also very little wool coming 
 there outside of carpet kinds. We have no means of positively proving this assertion 
 about the manufacture of this article abroad ; but it looks very probable, when we 
 consider the enormous amount of wool required to make the amount reported as ia.- 
 poi ted last year, if made regularly and legitimately iu course of manufacturing; and 
 
280 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 the prospects are tliat the importation will be very largely increased, if no change is 
 made in the present classification. Our inference is, that it is being made for export 
 to this country. The foreign manufacturer of woolen goods can get his scoured wool 
 at home much cheaper than by buying this so-called ring waste at present quota- 
 tions ; but it comes here now under the ten-cent duty, and is much cheaper than any 
 scoured wool we can produce here, and will further exclude the importation of raw 
 wools unless stopped by proper classification and proper assessment of duty. 
 
 Wo annex a table showing the cost in England and cost laid down here in raw 
 state, and also coat of same wools scoured here and also scoured in England, of such 
 wools as are used in this French system of manufacturing, with the English circular 
 attached as a voucher for quotations and shrinkages of wool. The cost of the scoured 
 wool in England is in each case less than the quoted market value of what is called 
 ring waste. In J. L. Bowes & Bros'. Liverpool circular of December 18 (one of the 
 largest wool brokerage firms in England), in their quotations of ring waste and gar- 
 netted waste, they say " duty 10 cents, but some uncertainty," showing that our Eng- 
 lish brethren have their doubts, also, about the present ruling. 
 
 George H. Sheble, 
 Wm. M. Coates, 
 Samuel Lee, 
 
 Committee. 
 
 Statement showing the cost of wools such as are used in the French si/stem of worsted spin- 
 niiiff, showing cost, scoured, here and also in Enqland, quotations and estimates of shrink- 
 ages, from TVedelcind 4' Wilson, London Circular, December 18, 188ti. 
 Montevideo. 
 
 Superior, yielding 43 per cent, scoured wool 9rf^29^ cents, costhere 68-i%- scoured. 
 
 In England, cost 9d.=18 cents, yield 43 per ceat.=41-iS|fj scoured. 
 Montevideo. 
 
 Average, yielding 40 per cent., 8(i=27J cents, cost here 68f scoured. 
 
 In England, yielding 40 per cent. 9d. = 16 cents, cost, England, 40 cents scoured. 
 B. Ayres. 
 
 Superior, yielding 38 per cent., T^^SGJ cents, cost here 70 cents scoured. 
 
 In England, yielding 38 per cent., 7^ = 15 cents, cost, England, 39| scoured. 
 Sydney. 
 
 Average, yielding 40 per cent., 8^ =28| cents, cost here 71J scoured. 
 
 In England, yielding 40 per cent., 8-J- = 17 cents, cost, England, 42^ cents scoured. 
 Adelaide. 
 
 Average, yielding 37 per cent., 7^ =26^ cents, cost here 71/jgj scoured. 
 
 In England, yielding 37 per cent., 7^ = 15 cents, cost, England, ify^^ scoured. 
 
 For lower grades, of which in importation of ring waste some little comes with the 
 fine, we estimate, on very best wools, to produce it : 
 Fort Philip. 
 
 Half-bred fine yielding 60 per cent., 12^(J. = 37 cents, cost here 61^*0% scoured. 
 In England, yielding 60 per cent., 12|d. ^25 cents, cost, England, 38-]^'^ scoured. 
 New Zealand. 
 
 Half-bred good yielding 57 per cent., lid. =33-} cents, cost here ^S-^^hs scoured. 
 In England, yielding 57 per cent., lid. = 22 cents, cost, England, 38i^,ft scoured. 
 The quoted m,irked value of ring waste in England on same date as above, Decem- 
 ber 18, 18c6, is 24(f., or 48 cents. 
 Published by order of the association. Charles M. Hill, 
 
 January 26, 1887. Secretary. 
 
 -r' SKIRTED WOOLS. 
 
 A practice has grown up by which Australian clothing wools, and perhaps some 
 others, are imported skirted ; that is, with the belly, neck, and breech wool removed, 
 thus giving added value to fleeces so imported. Such unwashed fleeces will not 
 shrink in scouring more than about 50 per cent., while unwashed American merino 
 will shrink 66 per cent. By this skirting process a duty of 10 cents per pound on un- 
 washed wools becomes only the equivalent of 7.032 cents. 
 
 And this is shown by another fact. For a series of years the Philadelphia prices of 
 Ohio and Dondon merino wools have been generally 3 cents per pound less than that 
 fixed by the London cost of Austrial wools plus the duty of 10 cents. In other words, 
 the duty of 10 cents in practice has only been the equivalent of about 7 cents. All 
 this may be seen by refereDce to the Liverpool and American wool circulars and prices- 
 ourrent. 
 
 The rate of duty of 10 cents on combing wools which are admitted washed at that 
 rate is the equivalent of less than 7 cents on unwashed. These rates do not give 
 "full and adequate protection " to tbe wool industry. 
 
 There are many modes in which the tariff law has been evaded, but it is not deemed 
 necessary to consider them further, but leave to the judgment of the committee the 
 determination of the provisions proposed and such other as may be deemed necessary. 
 
REVISION OP THE TAElFP, 281 
 
 STATEMENT OF ISAAC N. HEIDELBERG. 
 
 Mr. Isaac N. Heidelberg, in behalf of the wholesale clothier manufacturers, made 
 the following statement : 
 
 For the first time in history a delegation representing the wholesale clothing in- 
 dustry of the United States appears before a committee of Congress and respectfully 
 asks that recognition be extended to them, and that the industry which they repre- 
 sent should not be allowed to suffer in the formation of a new tariff act ; but that the 
 same protection which is granted to kindred manufactnriug industries be given to 
 them so that their business will not suffer iu the future, as it does at present, by a 
 tariff act which no doubt intends to adequately protect, but which fails in important 
 points to do so. 
 
 Previous to the tariff of 1883, ready-made clothing for men's wear paid the same 
 duty as the material from which it was made, while ready-made clothing for women 
 and children was protected, if made wholly or in part of wool, at 5 per cent, ad va- 
 lorem above the material, the duty at that time being 50 cents per pound, plus 35 
 percent, on all woolens; and on women's and children's manufactured garments 50 
 cents per pound and 40 per cent. When the tariff act of 1863 was adopted it provided 
 for a duty of 35 cents per pound and 35 per cent, on woolens worth less than 80 cents 
 per pound, and 35 cents per pound and 40 per cent, ad valorem, on woolens costing 
 over 80 cents per pound ; and the duty on ready-made woolen clothing for women and 
 children was fixed at 45 cents per pound and 40 per cent, ad valorem ; so on garments 
 the material of which cost less than 80 cents per pound, the manufacturer of ladies' 
 and children's cloaks and other garments made of wool was protected to the extent 
 of 10 cents a pound and 5 per cent, ad valorem, and if the Value of the material was 
 over 80 cents, his protection was 10 cents per pound. 
 
 At that time Congress saw fit to protect the manufacturer of ready-made clothing 
 for men's wear to a slight degree, but to a very slight degree only. The act above 
 alluded to provided for a duty on ready-made clothing for men's wear, if made wholly 
 or in part of wool, of 40 cents per pound plus 35 per cent. Now, if the garment was 
 made of a material costing under 80 cents a pound, the manufacturer was receiving a 
 protection of 5 cents per pound ; but if the material cost over 80 cents per pound, the 
 domestic manufacturer received 5 cents a pound protection while he had to grant 5 
 per cent, reduction in duty to the foreign manufacturer ; or in other words an induce- 
 ment in the shape of an ad valorem duty of 5 per cent, less was exacted from the for- 
 eign manufacturer of ready-made garments than what the domestic manufacturer 
 had to pay to the Government if he desired to make his garment from the same ma- 
 terial. That is how the tariff has stood and stands to-day, so far as it affects cloth- 
 ing made wholly or in part of wool. With your permission, we should like to dwell 
 for a few moments upon the duty on garments made from other materials ; for in- 
 stance, a silk jacket made in Japan, and for which was paid only a few cents for the 
 making, is admitted under the present tariff at the same rate (50 per cent.) as the 
 material of which the jacket is composed. 
 
 The same thing applies to a linen duck vest made in England, where it is an ac- 
 knowledged fact that labor on ready-made clothing can be procured for a mere pit- 
 tance, the made vest is entered at the custom-house at the same rate as the material ; 
 and this same example applies to every garment not made of wool. The object of 
 exacting a higher rate of duty on the made garment is not only to protect the manu- 
 facturer, but more especially to protect the American laborer ; under the same state 
 of circumstances the American manufacturer does not need and ought not to ask and 
 should not receive any protection ; but it is not necessary to say to you that the con- 
 ditions prevailing here are not the same. No person, no matter how prejudiced he 
 may be, but will acknowledge that labor exacts and receives a far larger compensa- 
 tion in this country than in any other country in the world. This being the fact, and 
 in order to continue paying the present rate of wages, the domestic manufacturer 
 absolutely requires the protection which it is your intention, no doubt, to grant him. 
 Our motive in appearing before you is to give you the information which it is neces- 
 sary for you to have, in order to arrive at a conclusion satisfactory to yourselves and 
 to those interested. 
 
 We require an increase of duty on the ready-made garment in excess of the duty 
 on the material from which it is composed for the following reasous ; 
 
 First. The larger cost of labor, which in our line amounts to not less than 100 and 
 oftentimes 200 per cent.; for instance, if a coat cost, say, $2.50 to make here it could be 
 made in Europe for $1, so while we pay $1.50 more or 150 per cent, additional wages 
 we are protected in that additional outlay to the extent only of 35 per cent. The re- 
 lation which the item of labor bears to the entire cost of the garment varies in the 
 different styles and grades, but we can confidently say will amount to not leas than 
 20 per cent, and often 30 and 35 per cent. 
 Seuond. As previously stated the present law makes the specific duty on woolens, 
 
282 EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 35 cents a pound and on manufactured garments 40 cents a pound. This disorimina^ 
 tion is right and should be at least maintained, if not increased, for the reason that 
 for example, we import 50 yards of woolens weighing 16 ounces to the yard, or 50 
 pounds to the piece. From this piece of goods we can cut thirty garments which will 
 consume the 50 yards less the cuttings and scraps, which is always a very large item ■ 
 hut these thirty garments will not weigh more than, say, 45 pounds, the balance being 
 the weight of the scraps, so while we pay duty on 50 pounds the buyer of foreign 
 manufactured clothing pays only on 45 pounds. The justice of this claim has been 
 recognized in the present tariff, the Mills bill, and iu Canada where the duty on 
 woolens is 7| ceuts per pound, and 20 per cent, ad valorem, and on manufactured 
 ganuents 10 cents per pound, and 25 per cent, ad valorem. But curiously this im- 
 portant point was entirely overlooked in the formation of the "Senate tariff bill ' 
 the features of that bill being that woolens worth over 60 cents a pound should 
 pay 40 cents a pound, and 40 per cent, ad valorem, and that woolen clothing 
 should pay 40 cents a pound, and 45 per cent, ad valorem, but woolen cloaks for 
 women's wear sViould pay 45 cents a pound, aud 45 per cent, ad valorem. That there 
 should be this discrimination in favor of goods for women's wear we can only attribate 
 to the fact that the men's clothing interest has never made known its position and 
 its requirements, aud we are therefore present for that purpose. 
 
 The question now arises what duty should be placed on ready-made clothing, 
 whethsr composed of wool, silk, or cotton, that will be equitable to all. We ask for 
 an increase of at least 10 cents a pound specific duty on the ground, as before stated, 
 of our having to pay on increased weight. We ask an advance of 25 per cent, addi- 
 tional in the ad valorem duty in excess of the duty on the material of which the 
 garment is made, whetljer wool, silk, or cotton, on the ground that in order to be 
 able to continue paying the same satisfactory rate of wages that we are now paying 
 to our hands we must know that the product of foreign labor can not be entereij into 
 competition on a more favorable basis than the same garments can be produced here 
 with domestic labor : and as the clothing industry is one of the largest in the land, 
 and as the number of people employed in it reaches into very large figures, we feel 
 confident that the matter as presented will receive the attention at your hands that 
 it deserves. . 
 
 Eespectfully submitted. 
 
 Wholesale Clothing Association. 
 
 memoranda. 
 
 If woolens pay 35 cents a pound and 40 per cent., we ask a rate on ready-made 
 woolen clothing of 45 cents a pound and 60 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 If cottons pay 40 per cent, ad valorem, we ask for a duty on cotton clothing of 65 
 per cent. 
 
 If linens and Union linens pay 35 per cent., we ask for a duty on clothing made of 
 these materials of 60 per cent. 
 
 If silk material pays 50 per cent., we ask for a duty on garments made of that 
 material of 75 per cent. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JOHN T. RICH. 
 
 Mr. John T. Rich, president of the Michigan Merino Sheep Breeders' Association, 
 next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I come before you representing 
 the Michigan Merino Sheep Breeders' Association, aud in that connection our needs 
 and situation are almost identical with the average wool-grower of Michigan. 
 Michigan in some respects differs iu the farming industries from what are known as 
 the Western States. I am not aware of any farmer in Michigan who raises exclu- 
 sively one product, with the possible exception of the fruit-growers in the fruit belt, 
 which is raised upon laud that for some reason is practically worthless for other pur- 
 poses. Now, our land is what would be generally considered in the farming portion 
 of the State as fertile land. It is good land, cleared up with buildings on it, and the 
 buildings are in the main comfortable ; but as I said before, there is no other produc- 
 tion which we can raise at a profit alone. I do not know of a farm in Michigan which 
 can be devoted entirely to wheat, entirely to grass, entirely to the raising of pork or 
 corn or sheep. All our business there is what is known as mixed farming in the broad- 
 est sense of the term. Wo have to raise wheat because it is necessary to increase our 
 revenue to a certain extent. It is used as a medium to grow seed clover. The prac- 
 tice has been to sow a crop and with it clover, which becomes necessary. Now on 
 these farms we keep some cattle, some sheep, some hogs. If you vary the proper 
 proportions of that you have almost no profit, or a loss. Now, for the past few years 
 our cattle have been excessively low. A few cattle have been sold in Buffalo fori 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 283 
 
 cent per pound. So you can imagine what p)-ioes were with us. The wheat yield of 
 last year in bushels was fairly light. It was sold anywhere from 65 to 75 cents per 
 bushel. 
 
 In this farming country of Michigan the sheep have cut a very important figure. 
 Our flocks are small, ranging from twenty-five and thirty sometimes, up to two and 
 three hundred. I have a flock of two hundred, which is unusual. They are almost 
 a necessity to our farming country. When sheep fail, or any farmer fails to keep 
 sheep, it is useless for him to look for prosperity. He is having a hard time. Since 
 the depreciation iu wool, farmers have been, in some oases, getting rid of sheep be- 
 cause they do not think they pay, and the general amount of sheep in the State has 
 been decreased from another cause. My own sheep in Michigan are merino; but we 
 have these Cotswold rams. We passed a temporary revenue law which has afforded 
 some relief, as these lambs are raised and sold at $2 per head, and are usually sold to 
 butchers. Another class buy grain, feed, and sell in the spring, which makes some 
 revenue; but the difficulty with this class of business is that the eutire crop of 
 lambs go to market. So far as the sheep go, they represent about what the mule 
 does and other animals; they do not perpetuate themselves. So thedirect result is 
 that there is never a surplus. Our people desire that we shall be substantially pro- 
 tected in the interest of the farmers of Michigan. I belong to an association which 
 raises merino sheep, which is a distinct association. In regard to the other class, the 
 conditions are almost identical. We ask that you give us substantially what has 
 been asked by other people — asked in the interest of the wool-growers here. I will 
 submit the resolutions passed by our association and will not detain you longer. 
 
 The committee on taritt' reported the following resolutions as indicative of the 
 position of the association on legislation upon that subject: 
 
 Resolved, That the wool-growers of Michigan will not agree to any reduction in the 
 preeenc tariff on wool or woolens ; and earnestly urge and demand of the proper offi- 
 cers who have the interpretation of the law under control, to so define it that there 
 shall be no opportunity allowed for foreign wools, in any form or under any name, 
 manufactured or otherwise, to be admitted as an article of commerce, except in con- 
 formity with, and in the spirit and letter of, the law when so interpreted. 
 
 Besohed, That we will indorse any honorable and any amicable arrangement 
 whereby the interests of the manufacturer and wool-grower shall alike be benefited. 
 
 Sesolved, . That such legislation as shall be necessary to check the fraudulent under- 
 valuation of foreign wools an d woolens shall be insisted on from Congress in any fut- 
 ure revision of the tariff. 
 
 These resolutions were adopted unanimously. 
 
 VIEWS OF ANDREW KULL. 
 
 Whatever the beliefs and requests among wool-growers and manufacturers may ap- 
 pear to you to be as set forth by their various representatives and memorials, allow me, 
 a wool-grower at this time, and during eachof more than twenty-five years past, to re- 
 spectfully submit : 
 
 (1) That the tariff of 1867 on wool and woolens was the result of the joint recom- 
 mendation of both industries. 
 
 (2) That the act of 1867 has been a damage and a detriment to the wool-grower, 
 and to the manufacturer of wool. 
 
 (3) That the act of 1883 remedied nothing. 
 
 (4) That the price of wool has continually declined until the industry of wool- 
 growing, so necessary to the highest degree of agriculture, has become a tit subject for 
 caricature, equaled only by the deplorably impotent condition of our wool manufact- 
 urers, while at the same time imposing onerous burdens upon the people, presenting 
 a spectacle to behold — a people largely wearing shoddy — and two twin industries 
 going hand in hand to destruction through their greedy, selfish obstinacy for ag- 
 grandizement that came not, as each one of you well know, or can readily learn. 
 Please allow me to direct your attention to the protective legislation of France in ' 
 favor of wool-growers, that likewise resulted in a depreciation of the home product ; 
 to the placing of wool upon the free list in England in 1844, with the result of 
 doubling the number of her sheep in thirteen years and sending the price of wool up 
 higher than ever before; to the wool industry in Australia, increasing from 770,000 
 sheep in 1830 to 3,360,000, in 1840, to 10,140.000 in 1850, to 29,870,000 in 1860, to 51,- 
 294,000 in 1870, to 65,915,000 in 1882, and to 78,918,000 in 1887; to the wool industry 
 iu the United States, increasing from 19,311,374 in 1840 to 21,723,220 in 1850, to 22, 
 471,275 in 1860, to 28,477,951 iu 1870, to 35,192,074 in 1880, to 50,626,626 in 1884, to 
 44,759,314 in 1887, with a further shrinkage probably to 40,000,000 at this date. 
 
 This should call forth serious reflection on your part, not so much upon the mere 
 «urface matter thus presented as upon the shifting of sheep husbandry from the 
 farm to the ranch, to wit: The number of sheep in Ohio fell from 7,688,845 in 1868 
 to 4,302,904 in 1870, a loss of over 3,385,000, and of which loss she had only recovered 
 
284 REVISION OP THE TAEIFP 
 
 260.007 in 1887. Comparatively equal losses have been suffered by other States, thus 
 ■working an incalculable loss to the farmers, directly traceable to the tariif on wool 
 of 1867. 
 
 To the fact that within a large area of the United States wool can be produced as 
 cheaply as elsewhere in the world. 
 
 That within this fact lies the only possible need of a tariff on wool that by a good 
 paternally Governmental policy could be recognized, looking to atone in part for a 
 portion of our country's unfriendly climate, with six months of winter handicapping 
 the wool-grower. 
 
 Should it be found desirable to occupy some middle ground between the present 
 tariff on wool and free raw material for wool manufacturers, some benefit and im- 
 provement will no doubt accrue over the present system by changing to an ad va- 
 lorem duty, of say 20 per cent., on all washed wool worth 25 cents per pound and up- 
 ward; on unwashed, 18 cents per pound and upward, all other wool to come in free. 
 Our past history amply vindicates this view. For an example, take the four years 
 1857 to 1861, when, under a low duty, Ohio washed fleece sold on an average for the 
 four years at 56 cents per pound in the city of Boston, beiug over 6 cents per pound 
 higher than for any four consecutive years under the tariff of 1867. 
 
 It therefore follows, in conclusion on this point, that if there is any possibility to 
 our country of being benefited by a wool duty, it lies in such a duty as will diversify 
 the industry. 
 
 Let it be borne in mind that in the prosperity of our wool manufacturers lies also 
 the prosperity of our wool-growers. 
 
 That our tariffs on wool acted as an actual benefit to foreign manufacturers of 
 wool and a corresponding detriment to our own is plain in the single fact that for- 
 eign wools selling here in 1866 and 1867 at 18 to 20 cents per pound in the grease 
 fell to 8 cents per pound to foreign manufacturers, while being increased in cost to 
 our own. 
 
 Further, that it is not possible for our manufacturers to make cloth that will snc- 
 cessfully compete with foreign makes unless they have like wools to make them of, 
 and that the tariff as it now stands works a great wrong to our manufacturers that 
 can be totally eradicated only by placing wool upon the free list, and giving them 
 thereby an opportunity to get the wools they need for whatever purposes free of duty. 
 
 Care should, however, be taken not to come under their seductive influences that 
 may lead you to believe in the willingness of the American people to everlastingly 
 pay enhanced prices for wool fabrics. 
 
 An eye must be kept open to that subtlety which so elegantly drew the wool over 
 the eyes of the greedy grower. Still, this was not so remarkable, considering the 
 confirmed stupidity against which it was expended. Wool-growers, men with their 
 eyes open to see, who have seen the price of wool go down farther and farther under 
 a tariff of never less than 20 cents on the washed pound, until the industry is on the 
 verge of ruin to all but ranchers or mutton growers, and who still demand more pro- 
 tection to still further depress our people, our national pride, and the wool-growing 
 industry are not longer worthy the consideration of Congress. 
 
 In my humble opinion the only right thing to do is to give our wool manufacturers 
 all their raw material free of duty, wipe out their compensating duty, and reduce 
 their protective duty to a 25 per cent, basis or less. 
 
 Then place a duty of $1 per pound on every pound of rags that shall be imported, 
 and make it a criminal offense for our shoddy manufacturers to use the same rags 
 more than five or six times over. 
 
 Finally, let it be resolved for gushing patriots that patriotism without national- 
 ity enough to wear home-made goods and stand up for home industry is like an 
 empty husk — a deception and a fraud. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Andrew Kull, 
 Lake Geneva, Wis. 
 
 ACTION OP WISCONSIN ■WOOL-G-ROWBRS. 
 
 Mr. La Foixette. I offer at this time for the consideration of the committee in 
 this connection the following resolution from the Wisconsin State Wool-Growers' 
 Association : 
 
 " Whereas it has become known that certain tariff revisions are about to be made 
 at the present session of Congress; and whereas the reduction of 1883 has proven 
 most disastrous to the wool iudustry, not only in our own State, bat throughout the 
 country : Thcirelore 
 
 " Jtesolved, That the State Wool-Growers' Association of Wisconsin fully indorse 
 the resolutions relative to wool only passed December 4, 1889, at the national meet- 
 ing of wool-growers held at Washington, D. C. 
 
 " Henry Hutchinson, President. 
 " F. H. Greene, Secretary. " 
 
EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 285 
 
 MANUFACTURERS OF WOOLEN GOODS. 
 STATEMENT OF JAMES DOBSON. 
 
 Mr. Jambs Dobson, of Philadelphia, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee : When I came here to-day I did 
 not expect to hear such a violent tirade against the carpet manufacturers as came 
 from the lips of my distinguished friend Judge Lawrence. It is altogether uncalled 
 for and I think anjustiflable. He has been here ; he has got the records to go to and 
 has gotten his information. He has certainly made misstatements heie so far as the 
 character and uses of carpet wools ars concerned. We are users of carpet and other 
 wools to the extent of about 50,000 pounds per day, otherwise 15,000,000 pounds a 
 year. Our carpet industry consumes practically 6,000,000 pounds of that. The bal- 
 ance we use for cloths, worsteds, and blankets. He made a statement as emanating 
 from me that only 60,000,000 pounds of carpet wool could possibly be consumed by 
 the carpet manufacturers of the United States. I say in the presence of all these 
 gentlemen that this statement is not true ; that in the convention in 1888 of the wool- 
 growers and manufacturers I then said casually that the consumption of carpets alone 
 would be about 75,000,000 yards. Subsequently Mr. Fairbanlis, who is here, has been 
 to the trouble to estimate, and finds it is rather over that. Mr. Bond, whom he has 
 been quoting as a statistician, for whom I have the highest regard, says he cannot 
 iind any more than 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 pounds of carpet wools are used in the man- 
 ufacture. We have been manufacturing carpets of all kinds and all kinds of woolen 
 goods for over thirty years. Wools of a third class have always been used for low 
 class woolen cloths, and always will be used, and when they are imported to-day and 
 used for other than their legitimate purpose they are simply used as an adulterant . 
 for wool to make a cheaper fabric. That is the use of carpet wools. He quoted Mr. 
 Garnet as using 250,000 pounds. Why did he use it? Simply because the price of 
 domestic wool was so high he had to do so to give work to the hands in his mill, 
 otherwise he would have it to stop. Mr. Garnet is here and he can confirm or deny 
 that as he wishes. 
 
 In reference to the importation of this wool, so far as I can see — and I will take the 
 doubtful class — I can not see how that could possibly pay us for the manufacture of 
 other than carpets. It would not exceed in a year over 15,000,000 pounjls. Then we 
 import annually of other unwashed wool about 14,400 bales, and these bales will weigh 
 350 pounds each, which gives us 500,000,000 pounds of wool. Then in regard to the 
 Bagdad wool and the Persian wool, 80 per cent, is colored, and only about 20 per cent, 
 white. The balance is black, gray, and all kinds. When we come to the Turkey 
 wool it is the same quantity identically — 15,000,0u0 pounds. Now, for every pound 
 of this wool possible I give the benefit and put it in. Now, how in the name of com- 
 mon sense can a man with intelligence tell it is ruining their industry? That is 
 really absurd. There is no man, I do not care who he is, that will go further in the 
 protection cause than we wiU, but we do not want to be hounded for years, as we 
 have been by the wool-growers and wool-dealers. We are tired of it. We will stand 
 to the front with you and do our duty as men and manufacturers, but we do notthink 
 you ought to come here aiid traduce us in the manner in which you have done. If 
 we are to have free trade let us have it pure and simple, and we will take our chances 
 with the wool-growers ; but you should not introduce here resolutions or amendments 
 of the existing law which would prohibit the importation of any carpet wool, so you 
 can not import it. There is no place here where carpet wools grow. He comes here 
 with the belief that it ought to be classified at 10 cents a pound. He does not tell 
 you the whole story. He ought to have said this : That if that fleece had come in in 
 this inferior condition it would have been entitled to come in at 2^ cents a pound. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, this is the fact: In England there is a class of men called wool- 
 staplers, who make it their duty to take a fleece of wool and divide it into diiferent 
 grades for the purposes and uses to which it is put. These other articles in which 
 this enters I know nothing about. In regard to our manufacture, of which he speaks, 
 I say to-day it is an outrage— I say it is an outrage upon the carpet manufacturers 
 that we should have to sufter as we have suff'ered. In other words, he comes and tells 
 you that we have had the benefit of protection for twenty-three years, and we ought 
 to take a back seat and let somebody else have something. We admit that we hava 
 had protection, and prior to 1872 the carpet industry of the United States was simply 
 bound up by letters-patent in the hands of certain people. No Brussels or tapestry 
 carpets could be made here because of those patents. Upon the expiration of the 
 patents look at the expansion of the industry. That is what made the carpet indus- 
 try. Now, he says that we can not possibly — I quote from Mr. Lawrence's newspaper 
 correspondent — although Ihave respect for Judge Lawrencelhave not any respect for 
 Lorin Blodgett's statement, because it is totally devoid of truth— that we could not 
 
286 KE VISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 possibly use more than 40,000,000 pounds of wool. I stated before Mr. Lawrence when 
 I made the statement before the Senate committee that with the carpet machinery we 
 could put in use it would tal<e substantially 174,000,000 pounds to keep them supplied 
 and that statement I think you will find in the report of the Senate committee. Now' 
 all we ask is that carpets be put on the same level that other gentlemen in the wool 
 cloth manufacture are put on. We ask nothing more, and 1 think it is unjustifiable 
 for them to come here and talk about industry that has made such progress as this 
 has. Look around you and you can not find an industry that has reduced the price 
 of the product to the amount that we have. In 1872 an ingrain carpet which cost 
 $1.70, to-day nets us 47 cents. Suppose we put this at 8 cents a pound; 8 cents a 
 pound would be 16 cents a yard duty on this carpet. We put 37 cents in that fabric 
 before it is finished. Take 16 from 37 and it leaves 21 cents, and we have got to pay 
 the labor and the cost of manufacturing. It will increase the cost and there is no 
 question about it ; it must naturally increase it. 
 
 Will these vast plains to which he has been alluding raise this wool? You have 
 had twenty years' experience, and have you raised it ? No ; I say you do not raise 
 it, nor can you raise it, nor will you raise it, simply because you can take the land 
 and put other sheep on it that will net you $1.50 every time, whereas if they com- 
 pete with semibarbarouB countries they would only get 25 cents. Now, what prac- 
 tical and common-sen8« man would uot rather take and feed a sheep and realize $1.50 
 than to take and feed the same sheep that will realize 25 cents? Again, he says that 
 this is a coarse, bairy wool, and he says we do not need anything else. I say we do 
 need other wool. Look at the Axminster carpets on your floors, which require a fair 
 grade of wool. We can not carry on our industry without it. If you contine it to 
 such wools as you now use you drive out of existence the present industry, and I for 
 one most solemnly protest aga.mst anything of the kind. 
 
 I thank you, gentlemen, for the attention you have given me, and if I have said 
 anything which has wounded my friend's feelings I apologize. I said just what oc- 
 curred to me, but I do not desire to withdraw anything I have said. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there any gentleman present who desires to be heard on the 
 manufacture of woolen goods, cloth, etc.? 
 
 STATEMENT OF "WILLIAM -WHITMAN. 
 
 Mr. William Whitman, president of the National Association of Wool Mannfac1> 
 urers, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee : How much time are you going to 
 give to wool manufacturers ? 
 
 The Chairman. How much time will you want, Mr. Whitman? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. It is pretty late in the day, is it not? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I think we would be willing to meet to-night. 
 
 The Chairman. We do not want to limit the manufacturers at all and we will give 
 you all the time desired. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Can you be heard in two hours ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I think very likely I could get through in that time. I have a 
 pretty bad cold, and I suppose you willall wish it was worse, so you would not have 
 to listen to very much more, and I wish it was so that it was not necessary f r me to 
 inflict anything upon you. I shall be obliged to depend upon my associates for nearly 
 all the evidence that I will present to you. 
 
 I appear here as president of an organization which is called the National Associa- 
 tion of Wool Manufacturers, and T will begin by presenting to you a memorial, and 
 I will read the memorial. 
 
 A Memorial to the Ways and Means Committee of the Fifty-first Congress, 
 
 PRAYING FOR A REVISION OF THE WOOL AND WOOLENS SCHEDULE OF THE TARIFF 
 LAW, PRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOOL MAN aFAOTHBERS, JAN- 
 UARY 3, 1890. 
 
 To the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives : 
 
 At the annual meeting of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, held in 
 New York, October 2, 1889, the following preamble and resolution!! were uuanimously 
 adopted as expressive of tlie sentiment which prevails among its members regarding 
 the necessity for prompt action on the part of Congress in the revision of that portion 
 of the taiift'law which relates to manufactures of wool, and the nature of the modi- 
 lications in the existing law which are demanded to restore prosperity to this sufi'er- 
 iug industry. 
 
 Thosi' resolutions have been submitted to the woolen manufacturers of the country, 
 and a large numJer of respouses have been received. The siguutuiea of those wh" 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. "287 
 
 have affirmatively approved the resolutions are attached to this memorial, together 
 ■with the number of sets of woolen machinery which they severally represent. The 
 latter "will aggregate nearly 3,500 sets of machinery. Had time permitted ti personal 
 canvass of the manufacturers this list would have been indefinitely extended. We 
 entertain no doubt whatever that the National Association represents the views of an 
 overwhelming preponderance of the machinery actually engaged in the wool manu- 
 facture in the United States. 
 
 At the same time it is not denied that there exists a counter sentiment amoug man- 
 ufacturers which favors free wool, instead of the compensating duties on manufact- 
 ures of wool necessary to overcome the disadvantages of the wool duties. The names 
 of all manufacturers who have notified the National Association of their preference 
 for free wool are attached to this memorial for the information of the committee. 
 It has come to our knowledge also that other manufacturers have attached their 
 names to petitions praying Congress that wool may be put upon the free list, and also 
 that the wool duties maybe made ad valorem instead of specific. When due allow- 
 ance is made for all the machinery fairly represented by the signatures to the free 
 wool petitions, the undersigned are of opinion that they will be found to include 
 but a small percentage of the actual wool-manufacturing capacity of the United 
 States, certainly not to exceed 10 per centum, which represents the full measure of 
 the opposition among manufacturers to the position of the National Association. 
 
 Entertaining this belief, and speaking for a great industry which h&s suffered as no 
 other has by reason of ill-considered and improperly adjusted reductions in the com- 
 pensating duties made in lt)83, and which can not develop to the requirements of the 
 country until these unjust and unfortunate discriminations are removed from the 
 law, the signers of this memorial respectfully pray that your honorable body will 
 give all due weight to the statemenis contained in the resolutions annexed, and re- 
 port to Congress a revised tarifi' bill in accordance therewith. 
 Respectfully submitted in behalf of the executive committee, 
 
 William Whitman, 
 
 President. 
 S. N. D. NOKTH, 
 
 Secretari/. 
 I will not read the resolutions. 
 
 The Chairman. You can give them to the stenographer to be printed. 
 (See resolutions hereto appended.) 
 
 Mr. Whitman. In the first resolution the association takes the position, not to 
 attempt to fix the duties upon wool, but to leave that to the committee without re- 
 marks or comments. I may say, however, that the prevailing sentiment among the 
 manufacturers connected with our organization is a preference for the maintenance 
 of duties on wool as they now are. They would prefer not to have the duties on wool 
 increased. In saying, however, that we have no disposition to attempt to guide the 
 committee in arriving at a wool duty, I wish to be distinctly understood that we cer- 
 tainly oppose any attempt to so restrict the importation of foreign wool as to make it 
 practically impossible to do it. I do not know it is necessary really to say anything 
 about it, because I do not believe any committee of Congress would undertake to so 
 restrict the importation of wool to any greater extent than any other class of mer- 
 chandise, any attempt to restrict by limitations, whatever they may be, as they were 
 not read to the committee, and I do not know what Mr. Lawrence had in his mind. 
 So I am not aware what changes the representatives of the wool-growers propose in 
 the law. I believe no schedule of rates was read, and I am therefore unable to speak 
 in regard to the wool duties ; but I want to be put upon record as a representative 
 of the National Association that it would be a most unwise thmg to undertake to place 
 upon the importations of wool restrictions which you would place upon no other com- 
 modity. 
 
 Now, another thing. It will be absolutely impossible for us to manufacture the 
 goods the people of the United States want unless we do import wool. It has been 
 truly stated that the quantity of wool grown in this country is totally insufficient to 
 clothe the American people. The wool-grower tells us the x'roduction of American 
 wool can be so increased as to meet all the wants of the people, but in the mean time 
 what are we going to do? In that connection I wish also to state that the carpet 
 branch of our association is more especially opposed to an increase of duties upon 
 wbol. That branch of the organization, however, will seek an opportunity to pre- 
 sent to you at some later period their views. The wool manufacturers of the country, 
 I believe I can fairly speak for the country, have placed themselves upon record in 
 the first resolution as favoring such rates of duty on the raw material wool as will 
 enable the American grower to continue to produce a sufflcieut quantity of such 
 wools as he can grow to advantage for the consumption of the American manufacturer. 
 We recommend to your consideration any legislation that will prevent frauds upon 
 the revenue. We are just as a.ixious that the importers and users of the foreign wool 
 should be placed upon an equal basis as we are that the imported goods should be 
 
288 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 placed upon an equal basis. Anything that can he done to prevent frauds upon the 
 revenue will receive our hearty support. 
 
 Now in the absence of knowledge in regard to the rates of duty which have been 
 suggested to you by the representatives of the wool-growers, and not knowing what 
 rates of duty you may finally determine to place upon wool I am unable to present 
 to-day a fixed rate of duty upon manufactures of wool, but we have arrived at a 
 principle of adjustment which we can recommend to you, and which we hope will be 
 embodied in any law you may recommend to Congress. The principal of adjustment 
 is this : It requires 3i pounds of foreign wool in the grease to make 1 pound of yarn • 
 therefore the compensating duty on yarns should be the duty imposed on wool multi- 
 plied by 3i. Upon the cloths it requires 4 pounds of wool to make 1 pound of finished 
 cloth ; therefore the compensating or specific duty to be imposed upon the cloth 
 should be the same as the wool duty multiplied by 4. On clothing the specific or 
 compensating duty should be the duty upon wool multiplied by 4^. The reason for 
 that increase is to cover the waste and loss in the manufacture of clothing. We can 
 therefore only present the case to you to-day and go no further than to give certain 
 principles of adjustment, leaving it entirely to the committee to place upon wool a 
 protective, but not a prohibitory nor restrictive duty. In other words, to place upon 
 wool a duty which will commend itself to the average fair-minded protectionist of 
 the United States. 
 
 The Chairman. Restrictive in what sense ? 
 
 Mr. Whit.max. Restrictive in regard to the conditions of importation. 
 
 Mr. McK*NXA. Have you figured in any way how much that will be? Do not 
 you think it will be restrictive and not prohibitory ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. You mean in regard to the duty on woool ? 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. No ; we have not gone into that, for as I said, we didnot come here 
 to make an argument for a lower duty on wool, nor for a higher duty on wool. We 
 are satisfied with the duty as it now is. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Would it be protective if it is not restrictive ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes ; it would be in the sense in which I use it. When I use the 
 word " restrictive " I do not want to surround the importation with such difiiculty 
 that a man would not know what the wool would cost him if he imported it. We 
 have also arrived at another principle which we think ought to be applied, and which 
 we feel is absolutely necessary for you to apply in the woolen tariff. That is, that a 
 higher protective rate of duty be imposed upon cloth than upon yarn, and upon 
 clothing than upon cloth. The tates we ask you to place upou these articles are as 
 follows : Upon yarn 40 per cent., upon goods 50 per cent., upon clothing 60 per cent. 
 
 The Chairman. Are you asking for an ad valorem rate or do you speak of the spe- 
 cific equivalent? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. This is ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The ad valorem method is what you have in mind t 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. These are in addition to the duties on wool? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. These are what we call the protective duty. In other words (I have 
 repeated it often but I will repeat it again), we want you to place manufacturers in 
 the same position they would be in if we had free wool. We have got to pay this duty 
 for the wool. We can not help it if we import it. Place us m the same position we 
 would be in if we had free wool, and then accord to us the fullest rate of protective 
 duty. 
 
 The Chairman. That is to say, if you had free wool you would still want the 40 
 per cent, on yarn ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes ; and the 50 per cent, on cloth, and the 60 per cent, on clothing. 
 Now, the subject of fine clothing and cloths will be presented by some other person. 
 I will also state to the gentlemen here whom I have not met before, that I am a 
 manufacturer and quite extensively engaged in manufacturing. Sometimes I have 
 been taken lor a German student or a minister of some kinder denomination, and! 
 would not like to have you in error in that regard. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. I suppose you have given a good deal of study to this matter, and 
 could be called a student of that. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I have been studying it since 1878, and what I may know is at your 
 service. 
 
 Mr. Mills. You propose, then, to increase the present duty? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes, sir. We have introduced in the first instance a paragraph 
 which is intended to cover wool in the semi-manufactured condition and at rates as 
 follows : "All wools and hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals which have been 
 advanced up in process of manufacture beyond the washed or scoured condition, not 
 otherwise enumerated or provided for in this act, shall be subject to the same duties 
 as are imposed upon manufactures of wool not specially enumerated or provided for 
 in this act," This provision is contained iu the Senate bill. It baa been found neo- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 289 
 
 esssry to insert a provision of this kind to prevent frauds. For instance, tops, which 
 Is a manufacture of wool, as had been brought in is admitted as scoured wool. 
 Therefore almost any simple manufacture of wool might be construed to be scoured 
 wool; so a provision of this very kind is necessary, which includes every process of 
 manufacture between the scoured wool and the yarn, and protects these people who 
 have large quantities of machinery adapted to the preparation of wool. 
 Mr. Gear. What percentage of the expense, might I ask, was that? 
 Mr. Whitman. Theexpenseofmakingtops, Ithink, in round numbers, is about half. 
 Mr. Beeckinhidge. Between tops and yam. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Tops are one-half the expense. That varies according to the fine- 
 ness to which the yarn is spun. Tbe next provision that we offer is the 
 following: "Woolen and worsted yarns made wholly or in part of wool, worsted, 
 the hair of the goat, alpaca, or other animals, valued at not more than 50 cents 
 per pound, 30 cents per pound ; valued at more than 50 cents per pound, 38 cents 
 per pound; and in addition thereto upon all the above-named yarns 40 per 
 centum ad valorem." We ask for an equivalent of three and a half times the duty on 
 wool and 40 per cent, ad valorem. This paragraph is also in the Senate bill, and we 
 suggest a change in it. In the Senate bill there is a dividing line of value. We ask 
 that that dividing line of value be abolished ; that on all kinds of woolen and worsted 
 yarns there be put one rate of duty, a rate that shall cover tbe highest and the lowest. 
 We ask this for two purposes. One is to prevent frauds. If there is any one thing in 
 the tariff law that induces frauds it is a sliding scale of values. We also ask it for sim- 
 plicity's sake. If there is but one rate there will be less inducement to fraud aud tbe 
 collection of the revenue will be very much simpler. The nest clause is as follows: 
 "354. Woolen or worsted cloths, woolen or worsted shawls, and all manufactures 
 of every description made wholly or in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the goat, 
 alpaca, or other animals, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, valued 
 at not exceeding 40 cents per pound, 35 cents per pound, and in addition thereto 35 
 per centum ad valorem ; valued at above 40 cents per pound, and not exceeding 60 
 cents per pound, 35 cents per pound and 40 per centum ad valorem ; valued at above 
 60 cents per pound, 45 cents per pound and in addition thereto 40 per centum ad 
 valorem. 
 The Chairman. That is the Senate provision T 
 
 Mr. Whitman. That is the Senate provision . Now, we ask you there to make one 
 single rate of duty. It is going back to the law of 1867. This paragraph embraces 
 the great bulk of the woolen importation of the country exclusively of dress goods. 
 Therefore in this particular paragraph if the sliding scale of values is retained, there 
 is an immense opportunity for undervaluation aud defrauding the revenue, and at the 
 same time to diminish our protective duty. There is not a dissenting voice among us 
 in regard to the abolition of these sliding scales. They are prolific of all our trou- 
 bles. Make it for oi*ce and for all what it pretends to be and hold the officers of the 
 law up to the execution of the law, and we will not be overwhelmed with foreign 
 importations, which during the fiscal year 1889 reached the market value of nearly $2 
 per capita of the United States. There were imported last year at the wholesale mar- 
 ket selling values of the United States not less than $110,000,000. The foreign value 
 was something like $52,000,000, and the duties and profit and carrying charges brought 
 it up, and the rest of the manufacturers of this country have had to bear up against 
 that overwhelming importation, only a part of which can be expressed in figures. 
 The decline in values has been very great. Why, the average decline in values from 
 1887 to 1889 was 9 cents per pound, a change ot value from |1.03 to 94 cents. It is 
 not at all surprising in view of these facts why wool-growers come here and complain 
 of the condition of their industry. 
 
 I came here without i>remeditation and without arrangement, therefore I am 
 obliged to say some things a little out of order. One of the thoughts that ought to 
 be foremost in your minds, gentlemen, is to piwtect the wool-grower through a fully 
 compensated manufacture, so that the manufacturers in the United States can make 
 goods instead of importing them; so that he can employ the people in his own country 
 instead of giving employment to the people of other countries ; so that he can keep 
 the money in his own country instead of sending it out to other countries ; so that he 
 can make a market, the only tangible market within the reach of the wool-grower. 
 
 The woolen manufacture of this country during my connection with it has has al- 
 ways been afraid, somehow or other, to ask adequate protection. I complain just a 
 little of Mr. Lawrence in one regard — perhaps not complain — but the tenor of his argu- 
 ment was that the carpet men had greater protection than the wool men. The same 
 argument has been used over and over again in all my dealings with these gentlemen. 
 They seem to have a feeling that the goods we produce are just a little more protected 
 than the wool is protected. Now, do not understand me as objecting to the protec- 
 tion of wool. I think my views in that regard are almost too well known for me to repeat 
 them, but the more protection you give the manufacturer the more you keep out for- 
 •ign goods and the more encouragement you give, and the less revenue you will get, 
 
 485 19 
 
290 EEVISrON OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 and the greater ability at liome to pay taxes. I will not weary you on this point 
 longer ; but let me state, assuming the duties suggested by the gentlemen who rep- 
 resent the wool gi'owers, to be right and proper, in order to make this particular thing 
 valuable to him, in order to make this operative you must give us the protection 
 we need. Then, .again, there has always been a sort of feeling of hostility to the wool 
 manufacturer in regard to duties as compared with other branches of the manufactnr- 
 ing iudustry. There is not a branch of textile industry that requires so high a rate 
 of duty as the woolen industry of this country It has not prospered as it ought to 
 have prospered for that very reason. The industry in which I am more especially en- 
 gaged is the manufacture of dress goods and is about equal to about four-teutbs of the 
 whole importation of the United States. I do not like to get into figures, but there are 
 many more foreign dress goods imported than there are made here, and they wiU be 
 imported unless the law is changed. The importation is something immense. 
 
 Mr. Breokinkidge. Is there not in some instances a less tax on the finished product 
 than on the raw material ? 
 
 Mr. Wputman. No, I do not think so, if I understand your question. 
 
 Mr. Breckinbidgb. The worsted men complain of some matters of that sort. I 
 understand you to say in your particular liue of business yon have a greater com- 
 pensatory duty than the actual duty contemplated by the present law, and it is not 
 in your opinion sufficiently protected? 
 
 Mr. Whitmai^. We have not enough duty on the goods. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. In addition to tbe compensatory duty, andboth are inadequate? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. So far as the effect upon the manufacturer here is concerned it 
 would be unimportant whether the duty imposed is part specific and part ad valorem, 
 or all imposed in one form, the duty is inadequate. 
 
 Mr. Breckustridge. As I understand you, you say the compensatory duty in your 
 case is inadequate, and of course that encroaches upon what is meant to be protected, 
 and in your opinion leaves a margin that is not sufficient ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You think that is an undervaluation? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. If I am mistaken correct me. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Very large indeed. Take, for instance, worsted yarns. If you will 
 refer to the evidence (it was all published) which was presented to the Finance Com- 
 mittee of the Senaxe, it will be seen how that particular industry has suti'ered dur- 
 ing the last five years. It has grown with a wonderful growth. I have been a man- 
 ufacturer of worsted yarn in New Enghxnd. We have made dress goods and sold 
 them for several years, and we can not make any money on them. I do not believe 
 any yarn-spinner has been making any money. 
 
 The Chairmajs'. State the particular trouble at that point. 
 
 Mr. AVhitman. The trouble is that the worsted yarns came in under a schedule 
 where there was a sliding scale. They came in at a rate of duty where the specific 
 rate was wholly inadequate and depressed the American prices. 
 
 The Chairman. It was more because of a defective clause in the tariff law than un- 
 dervaluation by the importers? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes. The next clause in the Senate bill is No. 3,5.5. We ask to 
 have it abolished, as all these goods would come in under the term "all manufact- 
 ures of every description made wholly or in part of wool, etc." We want that abol- 
 ished, first, for simplicity, and, secondly, to avoid trouble in regard to undervalua- 
 tions and frauds. We would say that all heavy woolen goods should be placed at 
 one rate of duty and be uniform. This feature will undoubtedly be eularged upon 
 by others who will come after me. 
 
 The next two paragraphs in the Senate bill relate wholly to dress goods, coat- 
 lining goods, and every description of light goods. It is an immense industry and it 
 is suffering really more bj' foreign competition than any other branch of the textile 
 industry, I have framed two clauses to take the place of those in the Senate bill, 
 which I will read: 
 
 "Women's and children's dress goods, coat linings, Italian cloths, bunting, and 
 goods of like description composed wholly or in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the 
 goat, alpaca, or other animals, and not otherwise especially enumerated or provided 
 for, 12 cents per square yard and in addition thereto 50 percent, ad valorem: Pro- 
 vided, Tbat all such goods weighing over 4 ounces per square yard shall pay a duty of 
 cents per pound and in addition thereto 50 percent, ad valorem." 
 
 "Women's and cbildren's dress goods, coat-linings, Italian cloths, and goods of 
 similar character or description of which the warp consists wholly of cotton or other 
 vegetable material and the remainder of the fabric is composed wholly or in part of 
 wool, worsted, the hair of the goat, alpaca, or other animals, 8 cents per square yard 
 and in addition thereto 50 per centum ad valorem: Provided, That all such goods 
 
 weighing over 4 ounces per square yard shall pay a duty of cents per pound and 
 
 in addition thereto 50 per cent, ad valorem." 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 291 
 
 That clause is put in to provide for what is known as cotton warp, which means 
 where the warp is made of vegetable material and the filling or weft made of wool 
 or a similar thing. We ask for the abolition of the dividing line, so we say that upon 
 all cotton- warp dress goods one single rate of duty shall be imposed. 
 
 Then the next clause is to cover what is known as all-wool goods, an industry that 
 in so far as relates to the worsted part of it has been begun since 1883. Wool dross 
 goods, of course, have been made in the United States almost from the beginning of 
 the wool manufacture; but what are known as all-wool worsted dress goods, such as 
 cashmeres, serges, and kiudred goods, are made in England, France, and Germany. 
 We import more of that particular class from France than from any other couutiy. 
 The wages on the continent of Europe are about one-tliird the wages in the United 
 States — understand that I am speaking of the wages in factories. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You are speaking of the wage per day ? 
 Mr. Whitman Daily earnings. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are they paid by the day, or paid by the piece, or by some 
 pick measure ? 
 Mr. WHiTiMAN. Both ways; there is no rule about it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Where they are paid by the piece — or I believe it is frequently 
 termed by tbe "pick" — do we pay three times as much per pick as they do ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I do not think we do ; but our weavers earn at least three times as 
 much. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How do our payments compare per pick ? 
 Mr. Whitman. I do not know. The iiroductive capacity of the power loom in for- 
 eign countries is fully as great. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am not speaking of that. I am speaking of the payment 
 per pick, whatever it may be, whatever the capacity of the loom, let them be using 
 the same loom. My inquiry is, how much would we pay a weaver per pick on that 
 loom, and how much would they jiay in England or France per pick for that loom ? 
 Mr. Whitman. I can not give an accurate answer to that, because I have not 
 looked into that jiarticnlarly. The price of weaving varies very greatly with the 
 kind of fabric that is being woven. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Take fabrics of the same kind. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Take, for instance, one of these wool fabrics I am talking about. If 
 it is upon a plain loom in foreign countries, they usually attend to two looms, and 
 the speed of the looms is just about the same as here ; therefore, the output per loom 
 is practically the same. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. This is so nnich per loom, and not the price per "pick." 
 How many looms will one man take care of? 
 Mr. Whitman. Some mills run two and some three. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Four in some? 
 Mr. Whitaian. Hardly. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And this is a class of goods Avhere tbe foreign mill will run 
 two looms to the hand, and we will run about two to the hand? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes, sir. I think as a general rule our operatives produce rather 
 more than they do in foreign countries. I suppose that will run up to 10 per cent. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Inasmuch, then, as there are some cases where the number of 
 looms run per hand vary in the two countries, and inasmuch as the payment is in 
 large part by the pick and not by daily wages, is it not entirely misleading to give 
 the daily earnings as constituting the cost of production ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Let me answer your question by stating the case in another way. I 
 said that the daily wages here were equivalent to three times those on the continent. 
 It is possible that a greater amount of production in weaving may be obtained from 
 a given amount of labor and a given number of hours of labor. 
 
 Mr, Breckijtridge. From a given amount of labor j'ou mean a given number of 
 hands ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. And given hours of labor. Now, the American production averages 
 over and above the foreign production, and that comes in to reduce the cost of pro- 
 duction. What I mean is that we make a greater anvouut, but our men earn a larger 
 
 amount of money, which goes to explain 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Right there. Does not that work economically in the cost of 
 production to the producer per yard? He gets a larger output from the same plant. 
 Therefore it makes it in favor of our cheaper production of that at a higher wage. 
 Mr. Whitman. It modifies it to some extent. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Now, inasmuch as the wage per " pick" has not been given at 
 all can not you compile for us and furnish to the stenographer a statement of the earn- 
 ings per week and the earnings ])er yard on a given piece of cloth in this country as 
 compared with the earnings of those in England? 
 Mr. Whitman. I could, but it would take a long time. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And any other figures which would give us any information on 
 the wage question. 
 
292 EEVISION OF THE TAKIFF. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I think I could get that. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you use jacks in spiuuing yarns f 
 
 Mr. Whitman. No. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What do you spin with? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I spin cotton as well as wool. In spinning wool we use what ia 
 known as cop spinning. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do they use the same in England? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Running at the same speed, will you turn out in this country more prod- 
 uct than in England? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. In spinning I should say the product would be about the same in 
 both countries. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The element of dilTerence is in wages? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you use the same looms for the same fabric in your mill 
 that they are using in France and England? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. No. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are our looms any better than theirs ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. That is a disputed point. I have an American loom, and we tbink 
 it is the best loom in the world. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You think it is more economical to use than other looms ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. May I ask what loom you use ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Well, I would be perfectly willing to tell you that in private, but 
 I would hardly like to advertise the maker of the loom publicly. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I presumed your mill was open and gentlemen could go there and see 
 the name of the maker. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Any one can see it. We have nothing to reserve. Manufacturers 
 do not agree about which is the best loom ; one thinks one loom is best and another 
 thinks another loom is best. Our place is a large one, and I calculate to have every- 
 thing in the world that is good for anything. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Do you think the difi'erence in the proportion of wages in the 
 United States is three to one or two to one ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I said the wages would be about one-third the wages of the United 
 States. ^ 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You have said there might be some calculation which would modify 
 that probably by reason of the superior output in the United States? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Will you get it? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. It might reach 10 per cent., possibly no great consideration. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. This is all the modilication you would make? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes, sir; I do not know of any other. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. I want you to be very sure, because we are met by this question 
 continually. You gentlemen come and say you need this protective tariff on ac- 
 count of the difference in wages. Some gentlemen say it is one thing and some gen- 
 tlemen say it is another. Other gentlemen say notwithstanding you pay the same 
 wages you get more product from the wages and I want you to make tbat very clear 
 now and forever. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. If I see on reflection that my testimony should bo modified in that 
 regard I shall communicate with the Chairman. My judgment is it would not ex- 
 ceed 10 ]ier cent. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Ten per cent, in favor 
 
 Mr. Whitman. In favor of the American system. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. In the proportion of three to one as far as wages are concerned. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Three to one, or one-third of the wages paid in the United States. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do they regulate the output by a combination of looms among the 
 wi'iivcrs in France and England? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. (jEAR. In this country ? 
 
 Mr. WiUT.MAN'. No, sir. 
 
 The Chair.max. Bo they have less waste and imperfect goods on the other side than 
 on this ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Ido not think there is any difference in that respect. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinkidge. My nuder.standing of your statement then is that apart from 
 this possible 10 per cent, tliat if the labor cost in a yard of cloth in France and Eng- 
 land say was 2 cents, m this country, the labor cost per yard for such cloth would be 
 6 cents. Is that correct ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. With the moditic^tion I have submitted of about 10 per cent. I 
 think that would be a fair way to state it. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinkidge. Thou we have not then any advantage except the 10 per cent.) 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 293 
 
 and probably by having longer hours of labor and running additional labor ; but if 
 we run the same looms and turn out the same amount per loom that would only bo 
 one-third as much per pick as we pay. Is that correct ? 
 
 Mr. WHlTMAif. Yes; that would be right. I would like to say right there 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Do not get the thing into a confasion. I wish you to state distinct- 
 ly whether if we pay more wages we have a full compensation in the greater amount 
 of production or not ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. We do not ; most decidedly not. 
 
 Mr. McKbiwa. And your answer is that in superiority of production it is about 10 
 per cent., but the difl'erence in wages is one to three more ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. No ; it would be one to two more. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. I expect you are better in percentage than I am. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I have not had a good opportunity to know what it is lately. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. But you mean it is three times as much here ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. That applies, so far as your knowledge extends, to the cloth and 
 dress goods industry ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes. There can be no question but what a given amount of labor 
 and a given amount of machinery will produce as mnch ; and 1 think it will produce 
 10 per cent, more in this country than it will in any other country on the face of the 
 earth. So that the legislation which we ask for is not to provide against inefficient 
 machinery nor misapplied labor. Labor in our factory is applied as skillfully .as it is 
 in any country in the world, and will produce greater results; and these greater re- 
 sults do not begin to compensate the difference in prices or anything like it. I com- 
 pute the gain at 10 per cent. Further, there is nothing new in the world to-day in 
 the production of worsted dress goods that I have not got in my mill. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. This is the iinished cloth ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes; audit can be made here without any additional expenditure 
 for a given amount. I hope I make myself clear. I understood you to say 
 
 Mr. McKenna. I did not say that, because you are making yourself clear. I want 
 to clear up this disputed proposition through you. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I did not so understand you. Shall I go on with my previous state- 
 ment? 
 
 The Chairman. You may proceed. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. This provision provides for all-wool dress goods other than cotton- 
 warp dress goods. I will tell you what happened. I was very largely instrumental 
 in 1883 in securing the all-wool dress-goods provision in that act. I wanted them 
 to give us 15 cents, as it used to be, but they cut it down finally before the com- 
 mittee got tbrongh with it, or before the bill was signed, to 9 cents. Nine cents 
 was not an equivalent for the duty on the wool. It was a great deal better than 
 we had before. When we started to make these goods the foreigner mixed in 
 about 3 per cent, of cotton in the warp in this all-wool goods and seat them over to 
 this country, and it went through the New York custom-house at a low rate of 
 duty. It was just 3 per cent, in the warp ; none in the filling ; so it is equal to 
 just li per cent. The case was brought before the courts and the circuit court 
 decided in favor of the importer. It has now gone to the Supreme Court, so I 
 want to provide so that the foreign manufacturer can not evade the law in just that 
 way. Another thing. We find they weave a little cotton in, sometimes running 
 longitudinally and sometimes crosswise, or filling, as we call it. This they color in 
 the piece. In some cases there would not be 5 percent., some cases 10 percent., 
 and some cases 15 per cent. That came in at a low rate of duty and competed 
 with ns. The market for anything fancy, of course, is temporary ; but in the case 
 of these all-wool goods it is permanent, because 1^ per cent, of cotton would not ma- 
 terially injure the goods. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Did not Mr. Fairchild, by a ruling, correct one or both of these 
 importations on the conclusion it was frauduhmt ; that it was not put there really 
 to mix, but to deceive ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Mr. Fairchild ruled against the importation. I think he ruled in 
 accordance with the law. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I expect he did. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I think so. I am not, as yon can see, in very good trim, and if I 
 should deem it necessary to send in a printed brief embodying what I have said, at 
 some future time, I presume I would have a right to do so. 
 
 The Chairman. Certainly, you can add anything to what you have said to-day. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. There is one other industry to which I wish to call your attention. 
 In the Senate bill, on page 63, paragraph 371, "endless belts, or belts for paper or 
 printing machines, 20 cents per pound and 30 per cent, ad valorem." We think this 
 is a glaring wrong. There is not any reason in the world why these endless bolts 
 should not pay as high a duty as other things. We ask to have that eliminated so 
 that they will come in onder the general provisions of mauafactures of wool. la 
 
294 KEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 regard to the carpets, I can say nothing, because the carpet people are not in accord 
 with the duties that have been suggested by the representatives of wool. They will 
 argue their own cause, and Mr. Dobson has already made a statement. I will leave 
 the other matters to those who come after me. 
 
 Mr. Breckixridge. If it is not interrupting you, I would like to ask yon what, in 
 your opinion, would l^e the effect on the prices of all grades of wool grown in this 
 country, of better quality than what are known as ciiipet wools, if carpet wools 
 camels' hair, cows' hair, and fibers that are used as adulterants for the purpose of 
 mixing with bette'r grades of wool, were admitted free? Do yon believe it would 
 decrease the price of othi-r grades of wool — the higher grades f 
 
 Mr. Whitmax. Admitting carpet wool — — 
 
 Mr. Breckixi;idge. Carpet wool, cows' hair and camels' hair we do not produce 
 here, and are mixed more or less with wool. Let the tariff', of course, remain upon 
 all wools except carpet wools. 
 
 Mr. Whitmax. And admit carjiet wools free ? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Yes, sir. Do you believe it would lead to a more liberal de- 
 mand for tlie better grades and the maintenance of the higher price? 
 
 Mr. Whitmax. No, I do not. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you believe it would lessen the demand for the better 
 grades of wool iu this country ? I am not .speaking now in general terms of free wool; 
 I am speaking upon the supposition you continue the present rate of taxation upon 
 all wools except carpet wools. 
 
 Mr. Whitmax'^. I think the admission of carpet wools free would have the effect to 
 depress the price of wools akin to them. 
 
 The Chairman. Are they made and used to displace the others? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I do not understand so far as the carpet wool is concerned. I 
 .am willing to grant that it would lower the price of carpet wool proper, but what 
 of that can not be logically classed as carpet wool? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I should be opposed to free carpet wool and dutiable wool for thia 
 reason : I think it would discriminate too much in favor of the very lowest kind of 
 goods. 
 
 Mr. BRECKiNitiDGE. Are we consumers to a very great extent of the kind of goods 
 that would be made out of carpet wool ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. We are immense cousnmers of all low goods. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I do not mean of carpets ; I mean clothing. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Well, I do not believe that a very large amount of carpet wool is 
 used in the manufacture of clothing. I mean an average large amount. T?here is no 
 kind of wool you can not put in cloth in some form or ntlu-r. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. As a buyer df wool and a manufacturer of goods you are, I 
 presume, able to represent intelligently what the discount and proliable effect may bo 
 on the market prices. I understand you to say we import clothing and cloths, a great 
 many millions in excess of what we grow in this country and produce. We also im- 
 port quite largely of clothing wools — combing wools. Now, if carpet wools were ad- 
 mitted free, would it not lead to the larger manufacture of good cloths which would 
 embody some carpet wool and additional amounts of better wools? 
 
 Mr. WiliTjrAN. I do not think it would have that effect. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you think it would depress the price of our better wools? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I think it would have a tendency to depress the price, but not of 
 what I would call our better wools, but those akin to carpet wools in grade. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is there any difficulty in the classification of wools by ex- 
 perts ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I think there is. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I think it was stated to the contrary by wool men who 
 talked of experts. For instance, I know in the mattci- of cotton, there are many 
 varieties of cotton, and yet no man who passes as a classor could be imposed upon 
 for a moment. I h.ave been told that such was equally true in the matter of wools. 
 Are they classed with alisolutc accuracy by what you call a woolclasser? 
 
 Mr. Whitjian. I think they are classed fairly accurately. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are you familiar with the classilications of cotton ? You use 
 tliem in your mill, 1 believe. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. We do. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you believe the classification of wool is done as accurately 
 as the classificiitiou of cotton ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I do not think it is possible to classify wools with the same degree 
 of accuracy as rcittou. 
 
 Mr. B];kckinridge. I have heard it stated by those who are considered experts 
 that it is done. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I am a buyer of cotton and I unc long staple cottou and comb it. I 
 iind a good d(.'al of inaccuracy in tlie classing of cotton. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is that on the part of the classcrs ? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 295 
 
 Mr. Whitmau. Yes. There would be less opportunity for variatiou of judgment in 
 cotton than in wool, but a man's mind is not capable of doing any of that kind of 
 work with any degree of mathematical accuracy. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You mean in cotton, too ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes ; cotton. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are you your.self a judge of cotton? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I would not like to call myselt au expert. I think I manufacture 
 perhaps the best cotton that is grown in the Uuiteil States, ranging from Florida cot- 
 ton to the cotton that comes from the Mississippi Valley. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It is really the buyers who are imposed upon by fraud ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I think it is both. I do not think it is possible to fix a standard 
 for the United States. It is a movable standard, and it is not like the standard they 
 have in France. They have been at work a long time to get that accurate. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I do not know about the French standard, but I do know our 
 own to be minutely accurate. If you add free wool can you enlarge your market by 
 sales to foreign conutries ? 
 
 Mr. Whit.maN. Oh, no. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. ) believe our sales of woolen goods now are nominally not 
 over half a million a year abroad? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Practically nothing. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But under no circumstancfs, I understand you to believe, would 
 woolen manufacturers be al)]e to extend the sales into the foreign markets ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Under no circumstance would free wool enable us to make any im- 
 pression upon the foreign markets. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Or fn^e anything else? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I would like to confine my answer to things I know about. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Of course I do not expect you to go beyond that. I only ask 
 you about those things which enter into your Imsiness. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I am a nmuufacturer of cotton, using, as I told you before, from 
 the sea-islaud cotton down. I suppose last year I have been oue of the largest im- 
 porters of cotton yarn instead of ex]iortiug it. I impoiteilfor my uumufacture about 
 40,000 pounds of what is known as fine yarns. 
 
 The Chairman. Free wool would increase the prices to the American grower. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I should hardly think so. 
 
 The Chairman. Did you call our attcMition — I beg your pardon for inquiring — to 
 the paragraph of all-wool dress goods? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I did do so and read and spoke in regard to it. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do yon import any woolen yarii ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. No ; I do not. 
 
 Mr. Flower. There is some wool yarn spun in England and imported to this 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. A great many have been importing them, but I think they have 
 been making no money on it. 
 
 Mr. Flower. They claim that the peculiar climate there makes them spin better, 
 and makes these yarns more perfect. 
 
 Mr. Whitman, That is all nonsense. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Why do our manufacturers import them ? 
 
 Mr. WniT.MAN. Because the tariff law and the condition of the market have oper- 
 ated so that a certain class of worsted yarns could be imported at a less price than 
 we could afford to make it. 
 
 Mr. Flower. These are woolen yarns used for goods made in New England and in 
 Maine. They are spun in England first, because the duty is very low. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I do not know about that particularly. I can only answer in a 
 general way, but I am absolutely correct about that. I can state from my own 
 knowledge, without any shadow of reservation, that the tariff on w^orsted yarns for 
 the past few years has been such that certain numbers of worsted yarns could be im- 
 ported at a less price than any American manufacturer could afford to sell them for. 
 Mr. Flower. Do you know of a mill just being started at Utica where they are 
 using entirely Australian wools ? 
 Mr. Whitman. I know myself it is an old mill. 
 
 Mr. Flower. It is a new industry, liut it is an old mill. These are worsted yarns. 
 Mr. Whitman. I know that very well. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are the yarns you import made at all iu this country 1 
 Mr. Whitman. Some of them. I make them myself sometimes. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do other manufacturers make them? 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes ; similar yarns. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do others manufacture similar yarns that could be used for 
 the purpose for which you import these yarns ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman, They are made liere aud can be made here, but they do not care to 
 make them under the present tariff law. 
 
296 REVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 
 
 Mr. Brkceinridox. They are very fine yams T 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. They have not engaged In manufacturing yet, and you think 
 it would not be possible for them to do so under the present rates of taxation t 
 Mr. Whitman. I think not. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If you had free wool would it greatly increase, in your opin- 
 ion, the sale of your products in this country if your manufactures were cheapened 
 by free wool J 
 Mr. Whitman. Is that the full question t 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That is the full scope of the question so far. 
 Mr. Whitman. That would depend upon what accompanied free wool. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Well, with what you call full protection. 
 Mr. Whitman. Leaving the law on the goods? 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. If you leave the law on the goods just as it now is and give ns free 
 wool — I am trying to see if I can not condense my answer in a small compass. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Your answer might be " yes" or "no." You mean you are try- 
 ing to condense your thoughts into a small compass. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I want to answer you intelligently and not evade your question at 
 all. I do not know whether you are with me or against me. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That should not control your answer. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I think you will admit I have answered you as if you were with me. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am a Democrat, and you know what that means. I do not 
 want to deceive you. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. If you give us the present duties on goods and give us free wool 
 there can hardly be any question but what it will stimulate the production. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Why ? By giving a larger consumption ? 
 Mr. Whitman. No ; because it would give us an opportunity to displace foreign 
 production that is now used here. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It would be a certain amount of foreign importations that are 
 now used here ; and would it not also lower the price of the article, without taking 
 anything from your laborer, and enable you to increase your sales ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I think that the first effect of free wool would be to diminish the 
 price of wool in this country. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Then its next effect would be to discourage the wool industry, and 
 that is an industry — -as I was born on a farm I can speak from a little knowledge, but 
 not very much — the effect would be to discourage the farmer, and he would kill off 
 his sheep. The moment we begin to take from the world's product any particular 
 amount of wool the effect of that would be to raise the price in foreign countries. I 
 think that is clear. Then the probability is that wool may be no cheaper free than 
 it is now. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That is your line of reasoning as lo the probable effect of free 
 wool upon the home market T 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. So far as the foreign market is concerned I assume that it is 
 important for the manufacturer here to be on an equality with his competitors m 
 what he pays for raw material, at least he should not have to pay more. I under- 
 stand you, then, to hold that with free wool you have no idea that our manufacturers 
 of woolen goods would ever be able to make foreign sales ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. That is out of the question. Foreign trade in woolen goods is ut- 
 terly out of the question. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then so far as that is concerned you would look upon the in- 
 dustry as an industry that must be perpetually maintained by protection ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Not necessarily. I could not answer that question, for I do not 
 know. So long as the price of labor in the United States is much greater than it is 
 in other countries, and so long as the people of the United States live so much better 
 than they live in other countries, why, it must necessarily follow, except in some 
 specialties, where other affairs control their production, that to compete with foreign 
 countries in our own market we must have a protective tariff. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. To compote with them we must have a tariff? 
 Mr. Whitman. In our own country. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Can you explain to the committee why it is you think we will 
 have trouble, when with foreign trade we get a larger range of consumption? As I 
 understand, you do not expect your line of business will ever be able to compete with 
 this international trade, and yet we find that other businesses in which labor seem- 
 ingly enters as much as yours, such as manufacture of cotton, enjoy a good foreign 
 trade. 
 Mr. Whitman. It is pretty small. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Some mUls ship altogether abroad. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 297 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Very few. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But some do. 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Some ship every potind of their product tbere. The leather 
 business enjoys a good foreign trade. Other classes enjoy it, such as the manufacture 
 of locomotives and agricultural implements. Why is it now everybody in these lat- 
 ter articles when they are handicapped l>y a tax can compete, and in your business 
 with free raw materials you can not compete at all ? Can not you help give us a 
 a cargo for the ships it is said we are going to subsidize ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. There is no country iu the world that uses woolen goods to any ex- 
 tent except where they manufacture them. Now it would be like sending coals to 
 Newcastle. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does not the Argentine Republic use woolen goods T 
 Mr. Whitman. Not to any degree. They use cotton. 
 Mr. Gear. Near eight millions. 
 Mr. Whitman. I do not remember. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do they not in parts of China ? 
 Mr. Whitman. They use nearly all cotton; also in India. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Now I see on the shipping list from New York and from Bal- 
 timore exports of cotton goods from Now York to Glasgow and English ports. If we 
 got Sonth American and Australian wools as cheap as England do you believe we 
 could not sell any goods in England? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. They hold the market there all the time. We could not compete 
 with them on their own soil. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. We do in cotton. 
 
 Mr, Whitman. With Great Britain, on her own territory ? 
 Mr. Breckinridge. We ship there. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. For every dollar shipped to their territory there are $10 taken away. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It is against us. of course. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. For every dollar of cotton goods shipped to Great Britain there are 
 $10 of cotton goods taken from them. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I do not dispute that, and it does not conflict with my in- 
 formation that they do consume more or less of cotton goods of American manu- 
 facture. 
 Mr. Whitman. In Great Britain ? 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. My mill can make more goods than all the American goods con- 
 sumed by our export trade with England. 
 Mr. Bbeckinridgb. That would not be a great deal. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. No ; there is not a large export. We are large exporters of stuifs 
 in this part of the United States. Where we have such overwhelming natural ad- 
 vantages we can not help ourselves. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. We export largely to England of agricultural implements, and 
 yet with all these advantages we should not export woolen goods. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. 1 know we do export agricultural implements. You had better be- 
 lieve that if we could export we would do it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. My reason for asking you is that you are well informed in tlio 
 business. It you had some similar position in regard to your raw materials — which 
 is not the case with clocks, locks, etc., which we nevertheless export pretty largely 
 all over the world — but if you had free raw material where labor does not enter so 
 much in as in these more finished articles, why is it you could not export ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Labor is the great element with us. It is utterly out of the question 
 for ns to export woolen goods to foreign countries. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You stated in reply to Mr. Breckinridge recently that the first effect of 
 free wool would be to diminish the value of the American wool. 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And that the second effect would be that the American wool-grower 
 would go out of the business ? 
 Mr. Whitman. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Gear. If that was tne case would not the gener a1 result be to largely enhance 
 the foreign wool and compel you as a manufacturer to pay an increased price? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I think the destruction of the American clip, which is about one- 
 seventh of the whole, would enhance the price of wool in foreign countries. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. As we are giving notice from good sources here, our farmers may rec- 
 ollect this and hold to their sheep and wait for a rise. I think that would be a pretty 
 good thing in that line of business. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. If the stenographer will take down the all-wool dress goods para- 
 graph, which I supposed I had read, I will be much obliged. You can not fix the 
 duties on these dress goods too high. 
 
298 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 EBSOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOOL MANUPACT- 
 
 0EEES, OCTOBER 2, 1889. 
 
 Whereas it is the sense of the people that a revision of the tariff is necessary at the 
 approachina: session of Congress ; and whereas it is demonstrated by six ■ years of ex- 
 perience nnder the existing tariff that the prosperity and development of the woolen 
 mannfactnre of the United States require important modifications in the wool and 
 woolens schedule, therefore 
 
 1. HesolrerK That the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, adhering to the 
 attitude it has consistently held since its organization, and having in mind the proper 
 protection of the American wool-growing industry, leaves to the wisdom of Congress 
 the determination of the rates of duty which should he applied to the raw material 
 wool, for the jmrpose of enabling the American grower to continue to produce a suf- 
 ficient quantity of such wools as he can grow to advantage for the consumption of 
 the American manufacturer. We do not demand lower rates of duty on our chief 
 raw material wool, nor upon other materials used in the fabrication of our goods, nor 
 upon the machinery we employ. 
 
 2. Resolved, That the Forty-seventh Congress, in the tariif revision of 1883, ignoring 
 in many instances the principle of adequate compensation, reduced the specific duties 
 upon the manufactured product so far beyond tlie reduction in the duties on wool as 
 to de.stroy their compensatory character. In consequence steadily increasing impor- 
 tations of certain classes of goods are ilooding a market which wise legislation would 
 enable the capital and machinery employed in the woolen manufacture of the United 
 States to exclusively occupy. 
 
 3. L'esolved, That after struggling for 6 years under legislation which thus discrimi- 
 nates against them, the woolen manufacturers of the United States demand of Con- 
 gress a revision of the tariff, in which there shall in every instance be placed upon 
 the manufactured product the full amount of the specific duty necessary to compen- 
 sate whatever rates of duty public policy may require to be imposed upon the raw 
 material. 
 
 4. liesohed, That apart from the specific duties — which are not protective to the 
 manufacturer, but simply compensatory, being necessitated by the duties upon raw 
 material, the woolen industry is entitled in addition thereto to the highest degrees 
 of protection. To an extent unknown in any other industry the woolen manufacture 
 includes an almost endless variety and form of product, and employs everything 
 known in the arts, embracing, besides all the other fibers, coal, dye-stuffs, chemicals, 
 and oils in infinite variety, iron in all its manufactured forms, and the most complex 
 and expensive machinery, upon all of which the highest rates of duty are paid by the 
 American woolen manufacturer. He employs the most skillful, the best educated, 
 and the most expensive labor in America, and the amount of labor value in his prod- 
 uct is larger than in any other textile industry. Competing with rivals who pay 
 labor ono-half, and on the continent of Europe one-third, of American wages, he is 
 entitled to a protective duty sufficient to overcome these manifold disadvantages. 
 That he does not possess under existing laws. 
 
 5. Betolved, That while the duties on wool are specific in form, and thus become 
 more highly protective to the grower, with a fall in the price of the raw material, 
 tlie manufacturers' protective duties are ad valorem, and have become less and less 
 protective as values have tended downwards. While the importations of woolen 
 goods have trebled in quantity In the last twenty years, they have only increased in 
 value about 90 per centum, so that the existing duties afford nearly 20 per centum 
 less protection than was deemed necessary for the development of the industry when 
 the rates of 1867 were fixed. In view of this fact the National Association demands 
 of Congress an increase in certain of the ad valorem duties. 
 
 6. liesolred. That the protection now accorded is still further reduced by systematic 
 undervaluations in customs' invoices, the only effective remedy for which is the 
 •adoption of the single rate of duty as applicable to each paragraph of the woolens 
 schedule. The amount of the importations of goods rightfully entitled to entry at 
 the lower rates of duty is so inconsiderable that the retention of the system of mini- 
 mums is equally valueless to the consumer as an element in the cost of clothing and 
 to the Government as a source of revenue. On the other hand, as an incentive to 
 frauds upon the treasury and as an embarrassment to our manufacturers, the system 
 of minimnnis is an unmixed evil, the abolition of which will simplify and purify the 
 collection of the revenue and promote and stimulate the woolen manufacture. 
 
 7. Resolved, That thewholesale introduction into the United States of foreign wools 
 in the form of finished fabrics, thereby displacing American wool which would other- 
 wise be consumed in American mills, is due to the unjust and illogical arrangement of 
 the tariff' herein described, and is a condition which this association predicted must 
 follow, when the existing schedule was adopted against its protest. It demonstrates 
 that no rates of duty upon wool are or can be protective of the American grower in 
 the sense and to the end contemplated by our tariff system which are not accom- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 299 
 
 panied by corresponding duties, compensatory and protective, upon the manufactured 
 articles sufficient to enable the American manufacturer to hold the home market. 
 While the imports of clothing and combing wools have not materially increased, and 
 the American production is materially decreasing of late years, notwithstanding the 
 rapid growth in our population and the increasing per capita consumption of wool by 
 this increasing population, the value of the importations of manufactures of wool for 
 the fiscal year 1889 was $52,681,482.56. Calculating three and one half pounds of 
 greasy wool to each dollar's worth of goods, they represented the enormous total of 
 184,385,189 pounds of foreign wool introduced iuto this country in a single year in 
 the shape of goods and yarn, equaling 57 per centum of our total home production 
 of wools of all descriptions. The wholesale market value of our annual iniportatious 
 of manufactured wool exceeds by nearly 50 per centum the value of our annual wool 
 clip. This emphatic evidence of the failure of the present duties to protect the wool- 
 grower is due to the failure to correspondingly protect the manufacturer, by whose 
 prosperity alone can a prosperous sheep husbandry be maintained. 
 
 8. Eesolved, That this association strongly approves the administrative sections of 
 the Senate tariff' bill, the most important features of which were originally jjroposed 
 and formulated by this body, and are necessary for the prevention of undervaluations 
 and frauds in importations. 
 
 9. Resolved, That the action of Secretary Windom in correcting the erroneous 
 classification of worsted cloths was an act of justice long delayed, required by an 
 intelligent interpretation of the statute and necessary for the preservation of one of 
 the most promising branches of our woolen industry. 
 
 10. Besolred, That in asking adequate protection at the hands of Congress, the 
 National Association of Wool Manufacturers is not seeking to foster an artificial in- 
 dustry, alien to soil, climate, or other natural conditions. On the contrary, it is 
 conceded by free-traders and protectionists alike that a given amount of labor and 
 machinery in the woolen industry in the United States will produce results in excess 
 of those achieved in any other country. It is as natural for us to manufacture our 
 own clothing as to grow our own food; and under well-devised laws we may do all 
 of the one as well as the other. 
 
 11. Eesolved, That the increase of the duties upon wools used exclusively in the 
 maunfacture of carpets, amounting to sixty per centum, proposed in the Senate bill, 
 can not stimulate the American growth of the coarse, low grade wools now cultivated 
 only in semi-barbarous countries, and commanding less prices than the better wools 
 grown to better advantage by our farmers, and at no additional cost, everywhere in 
 the United States. On the other hand, such duties must seriously cripple the one 
 branch of the woolen manufacture which has been enabled to fully supply all the de- 
 mauds of the home market at greatly reduced prices to the consumer. 
 
 12. Resolved, That the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, speakiugfor a 
 great industry which has suffered as no other has from the constant agitation of the 
 tariff duties affecting it, solemnly and emphatically protests against making that 
 industry any longer the football of politics. In no session of Congress since the 
 tariff' of 1867 was impaired has the woolen manufacturer been exempt from the 
 loss and damage engendered by attempted modifications of the woolen tariff, never 
 in the interests of a larger development of the industry. Industrial prosperity 
 is impossible under such conditions ; and the woolen industry, more than any other 
 known, is susceptible to conditions so calculated to destroy stability. Whatever de- 
 pression has marked the industry in the past has been largely due to this cause ; and 
 so long as it continues to exist similar depressions must continue to recur. 
 
 13. Itetolred, That the memljers of the National Association hereby pledge thetii- 
 selves to resist any revision of the tariff which fails to recognize the needs and the 
 welfare of their industry as herein set forth. 
 
 STATEMENT OF T. C. SEARCH. 
 
 Mr. T. C. Search, of Philadelphia, next addressed the committee. lie said: 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am liere to represent the Manu- 
 facturers' Club of Philadelphia, and in doing so I shall be, as far as I know, in har- 
 mony with the gentleman who preceded me. I shall possibly reiterate very consid- 
 erably wljat he has said. 
 
 At the last agitation of the tariff, which was during the preparation of the Senate 
 hill, and even before that time, the manufacturers of Pliiladelpbia had arranged 
 among themselves and had printed a schedule which they thought should he applied 
 to the compensatipg duties or as a compensatory duty tor t-he duty on wool. That 
 schedule has for the first time been presented to the public to-day, because for the 
 first time it has been before the committee in time to have it properly considered and 
 properly agreed upon. The manufacturers of Philadelphia are not at all opposed to 
 a duty upon raw material, nor are they particular as to the amount of that duty upon 
 
300 REVISION OP THE TARIPP. 
 
 the raw material. They 'believe that is a matter which can safely be left to this com. 
 mittee of Congress to fix, because they helieve it entirely possible that the compen- 
 sating duty upon the manufactured goods can be made in such a manner as to fuUy 
 protect us in the use of that material. We go a little further than that in regard to 
 the wool duties, and say we believe it is for the best interests of this country that 
 there should be a duty on wool. Onr reasuiis for making that statement may be em- 
 braced in this statement, that we believe in the protection of all classes of industry 
 where they come in contact with foreign competition, as far as it is possible to pro- 
 tect them. They believe that the wool-grower is compelled to use a high-priced labor 
 in the jiroduction of the raw material. They believe that that high-priced labor, 
 while it may not be in volume as much as used in the manufacture, yet it has been 
 enhanced iu price for what they do use and to as great a degree as the labor we em- 
 ploy ourselves. Therefore we think it is right that they should be protected in the 
 employment of that labor, so that they may grow these wools in this country as far 
 as possible. 
 
 To make this point a little more clear, I will go back to my own experience and 
 tell yciu what I know about that point of agricultural labor. I was brought up on 
 a farm. I worked on a farm until I was twenty-two years of age, and I took all the 
 hard knocks that belonged to it; and I suppose I grew up pretty strong under the 
 influence of those hard knocks. My father was a farmer, and I recollect very dis- 
 tinctly he used to pay for the best laboring niau he had in his employ $100 per annum 
 and board. I recollect it very distinctly. I also recollect the time when he was com- 
 pelled to pay $110 in order to retain the services of that laborer, and it made a sensa- 
 tion iu the community because he had to do so. Now I have a brother engaged in 
 farming to-day, iu Pennsylvania, and I know this, that to-day he is paying for a man 
 no better than that man I spoke of $240 per year, and boarding him, as we call it. 
 That shows how much labor has advanced in these latter days, and it shows the 
 reason, in my mind, why the agricultural community needs protection wherever pro- 
 tection can be applied, as in the case of the wool-grower, I have reason to believe 
 that what I Lave stated to yon in regard to the increase of wages which we manu- 
 facturers know has taken place in our business as well — I have reason to believe that 
 what is true of our locality is true of the whole of this country of laborers of all 
 kinds, and applies to every man, woman, boy, and girl, that we employ in our manu- 
 factures ; believing that as I do, and as the association which I represent does, we do 
 not have any hesitation in saying we believe the wool-grower ought to be protected. 
 "We believe also that as he knows more of the measure of protection needed to do his 
 work, just as I think we know what measure of protection we need to carry on and 
 prosecute our work more than other people who are not engaged in it. We are per- 
 fectly willing to leave the statement of that whole question between the wool-grower 
 and Congress, and say that they have the moral support of our association that they 
 should be sustained. 
 
 Now, having made that point, the thing is what do we want ? It has been stated to 
 you by Mr. Whitman. For the first time we can come to you and lay down what we 
 consider might hereafter be used very judiciously and practically as the law, when 
 we say for every cent per pound on unwashed clothing wools and wools of the first 
 class, for our yarn industry, our home yarn manufacture exclusively, we need three 
 and one-half times that amount of protection. Whether the wool-grower gets from 
 you 10 or 20 cents, three and a half times that protection is necessary for us. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you make a pound of yarn out of 3^ pounds of wool ? 
 
 Mr. Search. That is the idea. I wish to state a little further on so you may see 
 wo are on the safe side, that the duty on scoured wool to-day is 30 cents a pound. 
 The expense contingent on getting that wool here is probably 2 cents a pound. That 
 means 2 cents a pound on the scoured wool. If it was unwashed wool from a for- 
 eign port shipped to our country it would cost from 1| to 2 cents extra duty on the 
 unwashed, which would enhance the duty on the scoured wool, and pays 5 or 6 cents 
 a pound. Therefore 36 cents a pound is three and a half times the duty on wool that 
 sells for 10 cents. That is the reason for it. Shorn of every other idea which might 
 obscure it, plainly stated, that duty on scoured wool is 30 cents a pound. The duty 
 upon the wool that I get seoured would be 35 or 36 cents. 
 
 So I say that we are not transcending the bounds of common justice if we come 
 here to make this statement to you as we have done to-day. Going a little further 
 than that, we know there is an average loss from yarn in the cloth. I know when I 
 send a pound of my yarn to the manufacturers (some of whom are here to-day who 
 use my yarn), I know they can not possibly get a pound of cloth out of that pound 
 of yarn. It is impossible for them to do that. There is a loss, and a loss in other 
 operations. I send them a pound of yarn, and the first thing they do is perhaps to 
 dye the yarn in the condition in which we are sending them to-day. They wiUtake 
 them off on spools, and in the spooling there is a loss which amounts to more than 1 
 )>er cent., and in many cases in the dyed yarns, some colors much more than that; 
 but it is at least 1 per cent., and in the spooling of these dyed yarns there is a ten- 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 301 
 
 dency to break the thread and make ends, all of which is so much waste, which is 
 worth very little. After putting them into the loom there is still further operation 
 and loss in the loom and waste. After you get the cloth made, it goes through the 
 shearing and finishing, all of which involves loss in weight of the material which we 
 have sent to the manufacturer. This loss in weight has been pretty fairly investiga- 
 ted by the memhers of our association, as well as the individual members of the na- 
 tional association, and they are fully agreed that no less than four times the value of 
 the pound of wool should be considered in that case. And this is the reason we come 
 hefore you, and ask that four times the duty on iirst-class wools he applied to the 
 manufactured article. When we get the clothing made, you can readily understand 
 that when you take a pound of cloth and endeavor to get out of it a pound of cloth- 
 in<'' there is a very great wasteof course. It is impossible to go through a pound of 
 clothing, all the ins and outs for the sleeves, for the backs, all operations connected 
 with the trade in making these garments, without a loss. They have figured down 
 that a duty required to compensate those people is four and a half times the wool 
 duty. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, we think that might almost pass into history as a law so long as 
 protection is given to the wool-growers. For every penny given to them, you should 
 make these rates applicable to us, and then no matter what may happen you will be 
 in the right position, and we can live. To do o\'er again the wrong that has been 
 done us since 18H3, I can not impress it upon you too strongly. Immediately after 
 the law of IS'^.^ was passed I commenced a sort of pilgrimage to try and see if 1 could 
 not get rectification. At that time we were apparently prosperous. We had not yet 
 got into the trouble we are in to-day. Why ? Because goods of less than 60 cents a 
 pound could come into this country for 18 cents a pound. Yarn could come in here 
 for 18 cents a pound, and you ask me to pay the wool-grower 10 cents a pound for 
 unwashed or 30 cents a pound on scoured, making this 35 or 36 cents on every pound 
 of yarn. It threw us into a swamp at once. As soon as it was found out by our 
 friends across the water, that this thing was unequal in its operation, we had such 
 a struggle that I do not think any industry passed through that is living to-day. 
 They did put these goods in at 18 cents a pound, and we bought similar material, 
 identical with it, and paid 35 or 36 cents a pound for it. What has been the 
 result! Do you believe we could make money ? Not at all. The result has been a 
 positive loss right straight along for the last three years. That loss has gone to a 
 very considerable extent, and it has gone so far recently that manufacturers have 
 their paper on the financial market scrutinized to an extent they never knew of be- 
 fore. Statements of their ability to pay have to be pinned on the application to the 
 public. What has been the result ? You know the history of our industry and those 
 which are kindred to it. Within these last six months jjarticularly the wrecks of the 
 firms that have gone down strew the whole country on this side of the mountains, in 
 the section where these industries are principally engaged in. 
 
 Now, whatever may be the existing state of things, we have decided on the ratio 
 of computation which we think should go into the law of the future. When the law 
 was passed I was down here and I took it up, and after reading it over I said, "This 
 will never do"; but they did not believe me. They did not know ; thej' did not 
 have the experience. I tried to have this condition of things avoided, but I could 
 not do so. In this case we have made a very close computation. It has been a rea- 
 sonable computatiou straight through, and we think it is ecjually just to every- 
 body. If you give the wool-grower a duty, you should give duties on the manufact- 
 ured and clothing goods in the ratio we have giyen. 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you favor an increase on the wool duties 1 
 
 Mr. Search. I do not object to having what the wool men ask for to-day. We can 
 get along if our compensating duty is fixed right. I do not think it will make a par- 
 ticle of difference to us. I think it will not interfere with our business a particle. It 
 will cost perhaps a little more, but very little more. 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. That increases the cost to the consumer ? 
 
 Mr. Sbarch. To that extent, it is true, but it is very little. Now, as to the cost of 
 labor. We have been through an investigation of this labor business pretty exten- 
 sively, and we have agreed among ourselves, and as has been stated by Mr. Whitman 
 very forcibly, tJiat the yarn industry should be given 40 per cent, and the cloth in- 
 dustry should be given 50 per cent., and the clothing industry be given 60 per cent, 
 that it will enable the different industries to use the production. 
 
 If our production is good for anything it is good lor something, and the man who 
 makes the cloth ought to be able to use it. He can not use it unless he has an ad- 
 vantage over the foreigner in protection, because he pays upon that, recollect, addi- 
 tional labor, and that additional labor should be protected in order that he may put 
 it there. After he has made the cloth the clothing man is exactly on the same basis. 
 Unless the man is protected who used the cloth he can not use it. We think, there- 
 tore, these contingencies are settled by this schcilnlc, and if it is Tised we will be in 
 very good shaye. Now, then, I take it this way : When gentlemen get together tp 
 
302 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 pass a law, if tliey can af;ree upon a basis upon whicli that law is to he based and 
 upon the very best data ihe manufacturer has to give, it is a very simple thing for 
 them to place the necessary protection they may need. But I have heard it stated 
 here in the lialls of tlie House, "when there was a l^asis that was admitted as a basis 
 by the legislators — at least some of them — and wbeu an effort has been made to pat 
 a knife in hero, and liere, and here, it is to see if he could not find some places where 
 he could shear thnt thing off in some particular without seeing or knowing whether 
 it was the propi'r point, or taking into consideration its effect upon the dependent 
 interests. 
 
 Now, section 353-} of the Senate bill would make that clause read as follows : 
 
 " Woolen or worsted yarns made wholly or in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the 
 goat, alpaca, or other animals, the duty on unwashed wools of the first class, three 
 and a half times the duty on unwashed wools of the first class, and in addition thereto 
 45 per cent, ad valorem." 
 
 It would make the section following that read lil^e this : 
 
 " Woolen and worsted cloths, woolen and worstcid shawls, and all n'anufactures of 
 every description made wholly or in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the goat, alpaca 
 or other animals, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, four times the 
 duty on unwashed wools of the first class, and in addition thereto 50 per cent ad 
 valorem." 
 
 It would make clause 358 read as it reads in the clause exactly, only instead of 45 
 cents a pound it would be four and a half times the duty on unwashed wool of the 
 first class. Then we might j)ut the 60 fiercent. ad valorem. In section 359, the part 
 which refers to "cloaks, dolmas, jackets, talmas, etc.," would be exactly the same 
 thing. We can say that is a clear statement of the case as we make it up. We be- 
 lieve that to be strictly and entirely right and just, and it is because it is so we ask 
 it. We ask that with the understanding, gentlemen, that this is right from these fig- 
 ures. There ought not to be a fraction of any per cent, shorn off so long as labor is 
 what it is in this country to-day. 
 
 iMr. Breckinriugb. This is not the rate of the present compensatory duty ? 
 
 Mr. Search. Not at all. The compensatory duties are not compensatory. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinridge. You are aware the present compensatory duties were stated 
 by those who represented the woolen manufacturing industry at the time these duties 
 were laid to be fully compensatory, and that they were compensatory for taxes on 
 wool ? 
 
 M-T. Seaech. In the present duties ! 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Search. I am not at all aware of it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You are aware that it was stated in their official communica- 
 tious at that time — I cannot turn my hand to it at the moment — that they said these 
 duties were entirely compensatory for taxes on wool ? 
 
 Mr. Search. No, sir; I have no idea that tbey said any such thing. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are you not aware that they put that as a compensatory tax? 
 
 Mr. Search. I am, but not as we ask for it at all. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You do not mean to say that the present law has suiBcient com- 
 pensatory conditions in that regard. But it is or ought to be compensatory. 
 
 Mr. Search. Oh, no. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It might not be amiss to have you explain that point a little. 
 All the older members of the committee are aware that these representations, according 
 to official documents of the woolen mahnfaeturers at the time these taxes were laid 
 and in 8ubsei|uent hearings here, held that this was entirely compensatory for taxes 
 on wool. [To Mr. Search.] It might be well for you to show just exactly how it is 
 the present rates you suggest are necessary. 
 
 Mr. Search. 1 thought 1 had made myself clear in saying the basis should be the 
 three and a half rate. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You stated it as a conclusion, but you did not state the proofs. 
 
 Mr. Sk.arch. I thought I did. I stated this, if you will recollect, that the scoured 
 wool duty to-day is placed at 30 cents a pound, and on unwashed wool 
 
 Mr. Brkckinkidge. I am not disputing that proposition. I am only callingatten- 
 tioii to the discrepancy in regard to what is now considered a compensatory tax, and 
 which you generally jiropose as a rate. 
 
 Mr. Search. Certainly, there is a large difference thers. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridgts. The reason for this discrepancy or increase has not been ex- 
 plained, only the plan has been given to us. I agree with you that the tariff should 
 have a higical and rational rate of adjustment. 
 
 Mr. McKenxa. He gives his formula, and from that deduces there should be so 
 much compensatory duty. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. My point is, the statement he makes in regard to compensatory 
 duty is quite different from the amount, as stated here before by the manufacturers, 
 that entered into a pound of product, with no explanation of the difference. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 303 
 
 Mr. McKknna. It just happens in regard to this end of the table, where many of 
 lis have not been members of the committee before, we do not know what was done 
 previous to this time as to the relative amount of compensatory duty, lie is only 
 giving his conclusions, which lead him to fix this compensatory rate, and we can com- 
 pare the statements afterwards when we take the matter under ccnisideratiou in en- 
 deavoring to arrive at a proper compensatory rate. [To the witness.] Have you 
 concluded your remarks? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I wish to say that it suggests itself to me that inasmuch as I 
 discussed the discrepancy between the two statements, it might not be amiss for him 
 to explain why he thinks he is right and the present law wrong. 
 
 Mr. Search. I will explain it again, and in explaining I will merely reiterate what 
 I have already said. I said the duty to-day on scoured wool since 18t>9 — I believe a 
 very much longer time — has been three times the duty on unwashed wool, and you 
 are aware that yarns and cloths are made of scoured wool. Three times 10, which is 
 the duty to-day, is 30 cents, and 30 cents being the duty on scoured wool, how can we 
 take a pound of that wool and put it in the yarn for less than three and a half times 
 the rate on wool.? 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinridgk. But that is not the point at all, and I have no dispute with you 
 on that question, but it is purely as to the fixing of this compensatory rate. 
 Mr. Search. Yes, sir, it has been wrong. 
 
 Mr. Breckixeidge. Wherein is it wrong ? You may have a higher tax on the raw 
 production than the finished product. The result of that would be that yon want to 
 increase j'our protection on the finished product. 
 Mr. Search. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Bkeokinkidge. But the present compensatory duties have been stated, so far 
 as the mere compensatory part of them is concerned, as being adeiniate. 
 Mr. LaFollette. He declares that to be inadequate. That is what he said. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. He speaks of 4 pounds of wool going into a jjound of product. 
 We have been told here that 3 pounds was the maximum. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. We will have to take the gentleman's statement, and if he con- 
 tradicts anybody else, that will be a matter of subsequent consideration. 
 
 Mr. Search. The tariff of 1867 was based upon the same statement I am making 
 to you now, about four and a half times the wool duty being necessary to protect 
 their industries. It was in the tarifi:' of 1867, and it was changed in Ititi'.j. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If I misunderstood you, proceed with your argument. 
 Mr. Search. I would say there was some oversight on the part of airj)arties con- 
 cerned, because, if you will recollect, that fall after the passage of this law of 1883 
 all wools were much higher than they are to-day. The duties upon goods and yarns 
 were not supposed to reach 60 cents for this material at all. They were never sup- 
 posed to go into the 60-cent schedule. Eighty cents was sapposed to be the lowest ; 
 yet I recollect when the present law fixed it at 30 cents a pound and 35 per cent. , be- 
 tween 60 and 80 to-day, it fixed 24 cents a pound and 35 per cent ail valorem. That 
 24 cents I fought with all the power in me ; we said 24 cents was not compensatory ; 
 we never dreamed that we would go into the 60 cents limit, but the reduction came 
 and they dropped into that class. That 24 cents was wrong. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am aware of these inequalities. 
 
 Mr. Search. That ought to have been at that time not less than 30 and above, at 
 3.5, what I am asking to-iay. We had under the 1867 tariff 35 per cent, protection ad 
 valorem. The price of material fixed under that tariff made 35 per cent, ad valorem, 
 better for protection labor purposes than 50 [ler cent, is to-day, which we ask for. 
 There is quite a valid reason why you should raise that ad valorem. If you can find 
 that our import has in anywise decreased, then you can have a reasonaljle right to a 
 lower rate of ad valorem to meet them. But when you find the statistics do not bear 
 you out in any such assumption, what is the right and wise thing to do ? Raise the 
 ad valorem protection. Why ? So as to regulate and enable us to make our product. 
 That is what we ask. Now, we are looking to have something like they have in 
 France apply to this country. What we ask for to-day we ask for because we think 
 it is wise, and we ask it to keep our production on a par with othiT countries. 
 
 France seeks out her manufacturers and gives them a duty which enables them to 
 compete against the world and even against themselves, and that is what I think 
 our people ought to do here. You ought to consider that the manufacturing industry 
 of this country is an industry that requires a labor worthy of preserving and build- 
 ing it up. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Is not the rate imposed by our Government on the woolen fabrics 
 higher than France ? 
 
 Mr. Search. Not at all. I can tell you the French rate very near in American 
 currency. It comes within a few fractions. 
 The Chairman. State it if you please. 
 
 Mr. Search. Yarns that are No. 20 and better in France are protected by a 4-cent 
 rate of duty specific, where we are obtaining here simply an ad valorem. This goes up 
 
304 EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 to 80 yarn, and there it is 11 cents a pound. On the quality which our cloth manu- 
 facturers are making here, the French tariff says if they weigh 12 ounces or lees they 
 shall be 19 cents. The heavier the goods they do not cost so much, and they do not 
 asl'C so much. Goods of, say, 16 ounces, would pay 14 cents. When yarns are dyed 
 out of France and you attempt to bring them into France, there is an extra 1^ cents a 
 pound put on them. If we had time to formulate a specific tariff, it would be the best 
 taritf the country ever had. Forty per cent, sounds big to a great many people, but 
 it does not convey much meaning. And it would be much better if absolutely stated 
 in dollars and cents. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. We are only required to legislate for two years. 
 
 Mr. Search. Now, gentlemen, I want to refer to some other alterations made in 
 the Senate bill, and say they have our sanction. 
 
 "Top yarns." We believe we have suffered as much by that as by any other one 
 thing. I was over in England at the time,andaraan approached me overthere whom 
 I knew in a business way quite well. He said to me, "Why will you not under- 
 take to sell this waste on your side. I am in a position to furnish you with the 
 material. I am in a position to get it at first hands, and you (jught to go into it be- 
 cause you can get it into your market at 10 cents a pound, and you can reap a good 
 reward for it." I said to him, "It is contrary to the genius of our law," and I de- 
 clined absolutely to have anything to do with it. Notwithstanding that, I have 
 seen it come in through the custom-house, and you may see in almost every ship-load 
 that material landed here for very much less than I could buy wool and make the 
 same things. 
 
 Mr. Breckixeidge. Where is that produced ? 
 
 Mr. Search. On French machinery. I do not know that I can tell you. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is this [picking up piece of sample]? 
 
 Mr. Search. This is thread waste, This article of waste is made only upon French 
 machinery. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is that made as a direct product or is it waste ? 
 
 Mr. Search. When I was in England a gentleman told me he was making this as 
 a direct product, and asked me to undertiake to sell it, which I declined. It is made 
 as a direct product on French machinery. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. It is really a waste on some machines. 
 
 Mr. Search. It is a waste to that degree. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is that made as a direct product for the purpose of coming in 
 nnder the law? 
 
 Mr. Search. Yes ; that is the purpose especially. It is very difficult for me to de- 
 scribe this article. It would be impossible for me to undertake the thing without 
 your going through my mill and my showing it to you. If you would give me the 
 opportunity, I would take pleasure in showing you the machinery put in there in 
 the last three years. As I told some gentleman last night I had never been sorry but 
 once, and that was when I put this machinery in my mills under the present law, 
 because the outlay was enormous. It is possible for me to make the product as 
 cheaply as any one, but I have been discouraged at every turn. If any gentleman 
 should come to Philadelphia, which is not so far away, I will be glad to show him 
 the entire business, and how it is done. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Has there been any increase in the plants of the woolen indus- 
 try in any parts of the country ? 
 
 Mr, Search. No, I should say not. I increased my own, as I said, about four years 
 ago. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. In what section of our country has the closing of mills been 
 less marked ? 
 
 Mr. Search. As far as I can understand, I suppose it has been in Providence, R. I., 
 and Philadelphia. 
 
 Mr. Brh;ckinridge. In what sections of the country has the increase of woolen ma- 
 chinery been most extensive 1 
 
 Mr. Search. I think it has been very slight. I can think of no great building of 
 woolen mills in the time I speak of. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. There has been no marked increase in our country? 
 
 jNIr. Search. No, sir. 
 
 Sir. Breckinridge. No increase in the West? 
 
 Mr. Search. Not materially. I think the thing has been in a position where those 
 pcnple who have made increa,se8 have regretted it. 
 
 Ml-. Breckinridge. But the depression has been more marked in the East than in 
 the West? 
 
 Mr. Search. I do not know that it has. Now, there is another point. Section 353, 
 which says, " All wools and hairof the alpaca, goat, or other animals which have 
 liceu advanced by any process of manufacture beyond the washed or scoured condi- 
 tion, not otherwise enumerated or provdcd for in this act, shall be subject to thesame 
 duties as are imposed upon manufactures of wool not specially enumerated or pro- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 305 
 
 vided for in this act." It might be well to have it definite on this suljject, in regard 
 to this top business. 
 
 One' other thing I -wish to call attention to : 
 
 "Button forms, lastinga, mohair cloth, and other manufactures of cloth woven or 
 made in patterns of such size, shape, or form, or cut in such manner as to be fit for 
 buttons exclusively, 10 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 We ask that that clause be stricken out absolutely, and our reasons for it are these : 
 There isatarift'for buttons and button forms, and such a change has taken place that 
 a number of buttons are imported under this clause of button forms that are made of 
 wood and others that are made of soft material, worsted and cloth, and made in the 
 .button shape, which come over in that HKape, and they are dutiable at 10 per cent, 
 when the material that comes over here to make them with, we ask, to have put 
 at three and one-half times the duty on wool. We ask that that be stricken out. 
 One other thing we wish to call attention to now, and then I believe I am done, ex- 
 cept to say that we agree entirely with the changes that have been offered to you 
 upon dress goods. We have some large manufacturers of dress goods in Philadelphia, 
 and we are in accord with them, believing that their own industry will be receiving 
 an impetus at once by only adopting and changing a part of that clause, which will 
 give them an opportunity to make the same material that is now coming over in 
 such enormous quantities. The reasons have been stated before. 
 
 Now, I want to call attention to article 360. I wish to notice this subject, Mr. 
 Chairman, belonging to this schedule, knowing that the parties are present them- 
 selves who wish the subject introduced, that they may discuss it before you. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF T. C. SEARCH. 
 
 1. The word "camel" is introduced into this clause in order to include a class of 
 animals producing hairsuitable for combing and carding purposes which may be used 
 in making cloth of a fine texture, such cloth competing with and sujiplauting an 
 equal weight of our finest wool cloth, and to that extent multiplying the protection 
 that otherwise is supposed to be granted to the producer of wool. If protection on 
 wool is intended to be of a vital and specific character, then such classes of materials 
 as are here alluded to should not be on the free list, the honest intention of which is 
 to permit free entry to materials not grown or found here only when such admission 
 does not do violence to an industry already supposed to be protected. The admission 
 free of duty of camels' hair is one of that class which should be made dutiable in 
 order to give force and vitality to the protection afforded to the wool-grower. 
 
 4. The phrase " excepting improved wools hereinafter provided for " is introduced 
 for the purpose of making paragrajihs 5 and 6 efl'ective. These two paragraphs (5 
 and 6) provide for an increase of duty through reclassification, whenever the charac- 
 ter of the wool becomes so changed by the admission of Merino or English blood, and 
 it is therefore plainly necessary that the exception hereby noted in paragraph 4, 
 should be inserted to vitalize paragraphs 5 and 6. 
 
 Five and 6 will, with the explanation offered toNo. 4, be fully understood. Yet it 
 may he said that there is nothing more easily accomplished than the changing of the 
 character of the wool. The first cross of a Merino or an English sheep with native 
 wools changes the whole character of the fleece quite decidedly, and the second cross 
 usually gives a line of demarcation so strong that the entire character of the wool is 
 altered. In other words, carpet wools may tie so changed by the crosses above men- 
 tioned in one or two seasons as to make them purely tlje clothing wools of class 1 or 
 2. Under such circumstances, and with theknowledge that importations of so-called 
 carpet wools have been used for other than carpet purposes, it is manifestly the 
 proper thing at this time to not only provide for such contingencies, but to remedy 
 the evils of the present importations, all of which, it seems, can be fairly accomplished 
 by these two paragraphs. 
 
 8. This paragraph is introduced for the purpose of defining the condition of wool 
 to prevent custom-house abuses, fraudulent invoicing, etc. Hitherto these terms 
 have not been well defined and much trouble has resulted. Scoured wool, or what 
 may be ti-rmed as such by fair-minded traders everywhere, has been declared to be 
 only washed wool, and this claim has been set up as a juNt .and valid one that should 
 be applied in all cases when the wool is not scoured absolutely clean, whereas it is 
 well known that absolutely clean wool is a rare article of conmierce or of manufact- 
 ure, and it would probably be very difficult to prove its identity. It has been pro- 
 posed to limit scoured wools to within certain fixed degrees of shrinkage, but this 
 would involve the maintenance of costly scouring and cleansing facilities by each 
 custom-house and of men expert in this branch of the trade, and therefore it would 
 be impracticable ; and for the same reasons washed wools are not to be considered to 
 be wools of any given shrinkage. This paragraph gives the simple definition for 
 
 485 20 
 
306 REVISION OF THE TAKIFF. 
 
 washed and unwashed wools which is prevalent everywhere and so understood hy all 
 wool merchants and wool manufacturers. All scoured wools are wools made so after 
 being shorn, and there is no difflcnlty in determining this fact of "scouring after 
 cleansing," since the process so disarranges thfe fibres from the original condition aud 
 breaks up the fleece in such a manner as to iuevitably show the attempt to cleanse 
 after shearing. 
 
 The adoption of this jiaragraph would be of the greatest value in preventing dis- 
 putes as to double, or triple, duty and totally avoid the unpleasant friction so often 
 engendered by the absence of well-defined laws. 
 
 A. Wools of the first and second classes pulled from the pelt, otherwise known as 
 pulled wools, shall be deemed to be washed wools. 
 
 This clause has especial reference to wools that are more or less cleansed during 
 the operation of pulling from the pelt, as these wools can not be completely scoured 
 while on the pelt before pulling, and yet are not, strictly siieaking, in the unwashed 
 condition; by reason of the operation referred to, it follows that they naturally 
 should be relegated to the intermediate condition of washed wools. They are lim- 
 ited to the first and second class, since they could only seriously affect these two 
 classes. 
 
 9. This phrase, " as now and heretofore practiced," has been used to protect many 
 questionablp transactions and was introduced into the tariff many years since — so 
 long ago, in fact, that its real value is very traditional. It is quite time that it be 
 deemed an obstruetiou and thrown out. 
 
 No one knows just when or where the claim may be set up by an importer of "now 
 and heretofore practiced," and if the matter should refer to an almost forgotten 
 transaction, it would be difficult to disprove its binding effect, besides, there is a 
 very well settled opinion in the minds of interested people that many question- 
 able things have occnrred, which are always liable to be the ground work of similar 
 transactions, and this ought to be avoided. A tariff should be based upon the 
 definite transactions of customs of to-day, and not have its active influence resting 
 upon obsolete methods of a quarter century already past. The bill before us requires 
 no such jibrase to make it effective. 
 
 A aud B need no argument; they simply make dishonesty less easily practiced and 
 are no bar to the honest man. 
 
 10 reads the same as Senate biD, excepting the word camel is introduced for reasons 
 heretofore given. 
 
 11 and 12. In the pronositions finally submitted by the representatives of the 
 carpet manufacturers, when in this city at the time of the bearing of the wool grow- 
 ers and woolen masmfactiirers before the Ways aud Means Committee, this proposi- 
 tion was made on Friday by the carpet manuiiicturers and accepted Saturday after- 
 noon following by the growers. 
 
 The 8 cents duty was asked for by the growers so as to protect their common and 
 quarter blood wools from the injurious competition of a high grade carpet wool, 
 so-called, of which we have the best of o%'idence, that several million pounds annu- 
 ally are used for other jjurposes than the mauufacture of carpets, and to protect the 
 growth of the best carpet wools in the country. In order that this rise of 3 cents per 
 pound in this class of wool might not operate to the disadvantage ifi the carpet 
 manufacturers the limit was finally fixed at 15 cents per pound. This conclusion 
 will admit a larger selection of the cheaper wools at 2^ cents duty, but while doing 
 so, it is believed that it will materially aid in the protection of .the lower grades of 
 wool now grown here, .and that the grower will b^ fairly compensated for the liber- 
 ality extended to the low class wools. The words "excluding charges in such port" 
 are cut out, this being part of the understanding betweeu the growers and manu- 
 facturers. 
 
 13. Unchanged. 
 
 14. Noils and shoddy are introduced into this clause on account of their value in 
 the world's markets being such as to seriously interfere with the wool values unless 
 protected by much more than a 10 cent duty. 
 
 The term shoddy has grown to be so elastic that it is dangerous to leave the ex- 
 pression in a low duty clause, since attempts will surely be made under that name to 
 introduce material not now known as shoddy under that headiug. Some classes of 
 shoddy can scarcely be distinguished from garnetted wa.stes— such shoddy as is now 
 known as white-yarn shoddy, or white knit goods shoddy, is not inferior to wastes 
 of the garnetted variety. It would therefore seem manifestly a grievous error not 
 to provide for the proper placing of this article where future difficulty could be 
 avoided. 
 
 15. The argument for jdacing shoddy in 14 applies to cutting it out of this. 
 
 16. This provides for advanced processes of manufacture, and is intended to prevent 
 any m.aterial which the cheaper labor of foreign nations has increased in value, but 
 yet which has not assumed thii dcliuite lorm of the finished products that are named, 
 or alluded to, in this bill. Wool tops are of this character and they have sought 
 entrance to our markets under the guise of scoured wool but have hitherto been con- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 307 
 
 demned. This clause would defeat any couteraj)lated effort against our industries by 
 such underhanded iirocess. 
 
 17. The object in fixing the dvity in this clause at three and one-half times the duty 
 on a pound of unwashed wool of the first class is to enable the manufacturer to re- 
 conp himself for actual duty paid to the Government as protection on wool. Yarus 
 are the product of scoured wool, which has a trijile duty besides the importing ex- 
 penses of 2 cents per pound. One pound of scoured wool will not make a pound of 
 scoured yarn, either woolen or worsted. The almost worthless card waste and 
 shrinlsage effectually prevents it. Besides this, these wools make 15 to 20 per cent, 
 of noils, the best of which only bring 50 cents per pound on the market, and as 35 cents 
 has already been paid to import a pound of scoured wool, it follows that the actual 
 net results realized on these noils over and above the duty paid is only 15 cents per 
 pound, while in the foreign markets, with free wool, a similar noil is worth 40 cents 
 to 45 cents per pound. This plainly shows that unless three and one-half times the 
 unwashed wool duty be given to the manufacturer to ofl'set the wool duty he can not 
 be re-imbursed for his actual outlay to the United States Goveruuieut on his raw ma- 
 terial ; and, furthermore, so much injury and pecuniary loss has resulted to the manu- 
 facturer from the specific duty having been at times changed, seemingly without 
 reason and certainly without a proper understanding of the facts, that now seems a 
 proper time to introduce a new form of specific duty which will be applicable to auy 
 duty that may now or ever be placed upon unwashed wool of the first class. 
 
 This wording will accomplish everything in that direction and especially so since it 
 is proposed now by the grower to abolish the sliding scale of 10 and 12 cents on un- 
 washed wool and introduce instead one of 11 cents. The sliding scale of rates on 
 yarns is also omitted, since we have seen the finest of wools and worsted yarns drop 
 into the (iO-cent limit during the last four years and, in fact, approach 50 cents very 
 closely. The only cure for this is to abolish the sliding scale; this simplifies the col- 
 lection of duties amazingly, and will avoid much of the re-appraisements now ordered, 
 since the effort made to drop into the new scale, whenever the market gets within 
 2 or 3 cents of such a limit, in order to get the benefit of lower duties, is sure 
 to result in fraud and uuder-valuation. The abolition of the sliding scale efj'ectually 
 cures this. There is everything in favor of a single rateof duty on yarns andgoods. 
 
 19 and 21. Itis wellkuowu that we produce nearly all the cheaper forms of mate- 
 rial used, and that nowhere is cheaper clothing to bo fouud than in our country ; so 
 that competition among ourselves effectually fixes the price here, and higher-priced 
 goods, which have a much larger element of labor in them, a^'e the ones which are 
 working us untold injury to-day, and besides, they are the goods which the progress- 
 ive manufacturer delights to make and should be ijrotected in making. Tbese are the 
 goods sought to be protected by the single-rate seheilule here given, and if our manu- 
 facturers are given a proper protection they can produce immediately, without any 
 delay, any style of goods that can be manufactured in the world. We have the ma- 
 chinery and the workmen; all we want is a chance. 
 
 18. This paragraph refers to cloths and all manufactures of wool not otherwise 
 provided for, and the schedule rate is a single one also, anil for the same reasons as 
 given for 17. The compensating duty is given as four tirues that of a pound of un- 
 washed woof, and is so fixed because of the inability to get a pound of cloth 
 from a pottnd of yam on account of the waste incidental to dyeing, reeling, 
 spooling, sizeing, weaving, and finishing of goods. It requires such a distinc- 
 tion in the specific^ rate to enable the cloth manufacturer to use the product of 
 the yarn manufacturer. This paragraph has also 10 per cent, ad vahirem duty more 
 than the one preceding, which is given to cover the cost of labor, as it has been found 
 that where so much labor is involved, as in the making and finishing of fine cloth, 
 40 per cent, is entirely insufficient, hence the naming of 50 per cent. Labor is as 
 high to-day as at any time since the war; niuler the old schedule 35 per cent, was al- 
 lowed to cover this difference. During this time wool was nearly, if not quite, 
 double its present value, and 35 per cent, carried as much protection as 70 per cent, 
 on the low-cost material of to-day. There is, therefore, every reason why the manu- 
 facturer of to-day can not possibly sustain himself on anything less than 50 i)er cent, 
 aud prosper. We are daily growing iiKjro and more in competition with the cheap 
 labors of France and Germany, and even with 50 per cent, there remains a grave 
 question as to its sufiSciency in the near future. 
 
 19. Women's and children's dress goods, etc. The text has been somewhat ohansred 
 to make the description more precise and comprehensive, and the duty if under 4 , 
 ounces per square yard placed at 8 cents per square yard, .and 50 per cent, ad va- 
 lorem ; but if the weight be over 4 ounces per square yard, then the duty is the same 
 as on cloth in the paragraph preceding. 
 
 20. Is similar. 
 
 21. Eeady-made clothing, etc. The text has some slight changes ; the dnty has 
 been fixed at four and one-half times the duty on a ])onnd of unwashed wool and at 60 
 per cent, ad valorem. It is a well-kuowu fact, aud an apparent one to all, that a 
 
308 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 pound of clotTiiiig can not possibly be made from a pound of cloth, since the loss in- 
 cidental to forming a garment is very large, and the waste cuttings are only suitable 
 for raungo, and are of little value compared with the cloth. 
 
 Four and one-half pounds of wool to 1 pound of clothing is entirely reasonable, 
 and no better method could be devised to j^rotect, and yet not over protect, the cloth- 
 ing manufacturers whose raw material is cloth, and who should be enabled by proper 
 statutes to use the cloth of our own looms. His ad valorem duty should also be in- 
 creased so as to, insure the accomplishment of such result. 
 
 Such a graduated scale of duties as is here contemplated would enable each indus- 
 try to use the product of the other, and result in building a harmonious, logical, and 
 reasonable tariif, working not only for the manufacturer, but for the laborer. 
 
 22. For same reasons as 21. 
 
 23. Webbings, etc. See braid manufactures, report herewith. 
 
 24. 25, 26, 27, 2a, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33. Unchanged. 
 
 34. Omitted, being included with other manufactures of wool. 
 
 Schedule N — 390. Cut out. 
 
 433. Cut out. 
 
 439. Cut out ; already provided for. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER E. KTJRSHEEDT. 
 
 Mr. Alexander E. Kursiieedt next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, Mr. Search has made my task very 
 
 easy so far as the general argument is concerned, so I will conhue myself to reading 
 
 the memorial of the Braid Mauufn.cturers' Association : 
 
 UNITKD STATES TARIFF LAW — APPLICATION OF THE BRAID MANDFACTDRERS' AS- 
 SOCIATION OF THE UNITKD STATES FOR A REVISION OF THE .SCHEDULE AFFECT- 
 ING MANUFACTURES OF WOOL, AS ESTABLISHED BY THE SENATE BILL, WHEREBY 
 HEAVIER DUTIES ARE IMPOSED ON MATERIALS USED IN THEIR BUSINESS THAN 
 ON THE FINISHED PRODUCT. 
 
 The Senate bill provision. — In the Senate bill, section 360 of Schedule K reads 
 as follows : 
 
 "Webbings, gorings, suspenders, braces, boltings, bin dings, braids, galloons, fringes, 
 gimps, cords, cords and tassels, dress trimmiugs, head-nets, buttons, or barrel but- 
 tons, or buttons of other forms for tassels or ornauients, wrought by hand, or braided 
 by machinery, any of the foregoing which are elastic or non-elastic, made of wool, 
 worsted, the hair of the goat, alpaca, or other aninuils, or of which wool, worsted, 
 the hair of the goat, alpaca, or other animals is a component material, 40 cents per 
 j)0iind, and in addition tin reto .50 ]ier centum ad valorem." 
 
 The revision we desire. — We ask that section 360 of Schedule K be amended to 
 read as follows : 
 
 " Webbings, gorings, suspenders, braces, beltings, bindings, braids, galloons, 
 fringes, gimps, cords, cords and t.assels, dress trimuiings, laces, embr(Jideries, head- 
 nets^ buttons, or barrel buttons, or buttous of other forms for tassels or ornaments, 
 wrought by hand, or braided by machinery, any of the foregoing which are elastic or 
 non -elastic, made of wool, worsted, the hair of the coat, alpaca, or other animals, or 
 of which wool, worsted, the hair of the goat, alpaca, or other animals is a component 
 material, 75 cents per pound, and in addition thereto 50 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 Tu the Committee on Ways and Means of the Fifty-first Congress: 
 
 Gentlemen: We, the Braid Manufacturers' Association of the United States, re- 
 spectfully represint to your honorable body the necessity for a revision of the tariff 
 affecting manufjictures of wool, as established by the Senate bill. This revision is 
 asked for on the following grounds: 
 
 (1) That the tariff imposes a heavier duty on materials used in our business than 
 is imposed on the linishcil ])rodu(;t; 
 
 (2) That we are thereljy debarred from the use of materials grown and machinery 
 manuficfured in this coujitry ; 
 
 (3) That equity demands the extension to us of a protection commensurate with 
 that enjoyed by ilio home makers of the materials we consume. 
 
 The braid industry, wo In lieve, is much moie important than is generally under- 
 stood. With wool alone it is concerned in the manufacture of the wearing-apparel of 
 every man, wom;i,u, and child in the United States. It ])uts the finishing touch to 
 bats, coats, vests, and trousers and all deserijitions of underwear, supplies trimming 
 for uearly every article of wcjmen's attire, and takes iiaxt in the production of rugs, 
 upholstery, awnings, horse-blankets, and au endless variety of other articles in com- 
 mon use. Under the present aud proposed tariff laws the bulk of the profits from ajl 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF 
 
 309 
 
 these sources is permitted to leave the country. Our industry is restricted, aud for- 
 eign manufacturers are enriched at our expense. 
 
 Our association represents the entire braid industry, the employment of over 
 $10,000,000 of capital, and a yearly payment of at least |2,000,000 in wages to Ameri- 
 can workmen. Including those employed in collateral branches, these iigures would 
 he largely augmented. We have factories in seven States, with facilities for constant 
 operation, and with adequate protection the business is capable of indefinite de- 
 velopment in the interest of American capital and labor. 
 
 The total yearly consnmption of wool in our processes averages on a low estimate 
 28,000,000 pounds. Of this only about 1,000,000 pounds, or less than 4 per cent., are 
 of American production. Why is this? Is the doujestic material unavailable? Wo 
 answer, no. With a proper tarilf our wool and worsted should come to us exclu- 
 sively in the form of yarn, which is onr true raw material, and every pound of it 
 should be purchased in this country. Bat this unwise discrimination of the taritf 
 forbids. We are compelled not only to buy our yarns abroad, but to pay for their 
 manufacture in Europe, and import them in the form of braids. Our workmen are 
 as skilled and our machines as efficient as those of England, France, and Germany. 
 Bat although we are on the ground and enjoy the consequent advantages over the 
 foreign manufacturer, we are powerless to meet his competition, simply because it 
 it costs more to manufacture the domestic material or import material from abroad 
 than to import the finished article. 
 
 The subjoined table will make our position clear. It shows the relative cost .of 
 manufacturing from the domestic yarns and of importing foreigQ yarns for manu- 
 facture in America, or as braid already manufactured in Europe. The calculations 
 are based on actual invoices. 
 
 
 
 S t 
 
 t;s 
 
 ?^a 
 
 p^S 
 
 ^ ? 
 
 i-o 
 
 
 
 
 t- o 
 
 °S^ 
 
 o ;i ^ 
 
 H--; 
 
 W^_; 
 
 Description. 
 
 
 .a a 
 
 B 
 
 rt o ^ 
 
 eg. a 
 
 a- -- t- 
 
 ag» 
 
 2 SCO 
 
 s a s 
 
 Igp. 
 
 c t:3 
 " 5 i> 
 
 r a'" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 o p. 
 
 f.5^ 
 
 
 p >. = 3 
 
 3£-S 
 
 2 gS 
 S£3 
 
 
 CM 
 
 O 
 
 fq 
 
 i-( 
 
 M 
 
 a 
 
 <i 
 
 
 s. d. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 7^ 
 
 $0.70 
 
 $1.10 
 
 $1.05 
 
 $1.25 
 
 $1.02 
 
 $1.12 
 
 
 9 n 
 
 .95 
 
 1.35 
 
 1. 2;i 
 
 ■ 1.37 
 
 1.20 
 
 1.30 
 
 
 3 3 
 
 1.50 
 
 1.90 
 
 1,70 
 
 1.87 
 
 1.75 
 
 1.87 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 3. IC 
 
 3. 20 
 
 3.00 
 
 3.10 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 4.38 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.35 
 
 4.45 
 
 
 
 
 
 * Not produced in America. 
 
 What do tKese figures show ? They show (1) that American yarns cost from 6 to 20 
 cents per pound more to manufacture than those grown in Europe ; (2) that to manu- 
 facture American yarns costs 1.5 cents a pound more than to import European braids, 
 and (3) that to import yarns of grades not produced in America for manufacture hero 
 costs actually 16 cents a pound more than to import braids manufactured aud paid 
 for in Europe. The contemplated increase of the duties on yarns would enhance this 
 inequality. The tariff is alone responsible. The average duties actually collected 
 on the manufactured product is less than 55 per cent. That on yarns, on the contrary, 
 is fully 70 per cent. Harmonious working of the two rates is manifestly impossible. 
 The proposed provisions of the Senate bill carry no adequate relief. They continue 
 the embargo on American brains and industry and offer a 12 per cent, premium to 
 the foreign producer to defend him from our rivalry and discourage the production 
 here of articles of whose manufacture he has a monopoly. Is competition possiblo 
 under such circumstances 1 And what has the European producer done to entitle him 
 to such generous treatment at our expense ? 
 
 The domestic manufacturer of woolen yarns has suffered under a similar di-sahility. 
 The tariff has, however, been revised in his interest by the placing of increased duties 
 of over 80 per cent, on his products. The duties on goods maniiliictured by us from 
 those products remain practically unchanged. We do not complain of the ratings of ' 
 imported yarns, and are willing to pay the heavier duties imposed, but what we need 
 and what we think we are legitimately entitled to is an adequate protective and 
 compensatory duty on the finished article. 
 
 The members of this association unanimously regard an increa.se of tho specific 
 duty to 75 cents a pound as required by tho neces.sities of tho ease. On the gi-ades 
 most used this would afford us additional protection of .about 19 per cent. — not .suf- 
 ficient to enable us to import foreign yarns in place of the manufactured braid, but 
 
310 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 sufficient to enable us to buy yarns in America for less than we can import them, and 
 to employ American labor and American machinery atAmerican prices in theirmanu- 
 facture. The efl'ect would be one of unmixed benefit. The only detriment would 
 accrue to the foreign producer, who now reapsfrom the unjust provisions of our tariff 
 an advantage denied to us, and the only objection could come from him. 
 
 We therefore respectfully request that section 3G0 of Schedule K be amended so as 
 to read, " 7^ cents per pound, and in addition thereto 50 per centum ad valorem, " in- 
 stead of " 40 cents per pound, and in addition thereto 50 per centum ad valorem," as 
 proposed by the Senate bill. 
 
 Per The Bkaid Manufacturers' Association, 
 
 H. W. SCHLOSS, 
 A. E. KURSHEEDT, 
 
 H. N. Daggett, 
 
 Committee. 
 
 " 360. Webbings, oullings, suspenders, braces, beltings, bindings, braids, galloons, 
 fringes, gimps, cords, cords and tassels, dress trimmings, head nets, buttons or barrel 
 buttons or buttons of other forms for tassels or ornaments, wrought by hand or 
 braided by machinery. Any of the foregoing which are elastic or non-elastic, made 
 of wool, worsted, the hair of the goat, alpaca, or other animals, or of which wool, 
 worsted, the hair of the goat, alpaca, or other animals is a component material, 40 
 cents per pound and in addition thereto 50 per cent, ad val." 
 
 They wish that clause changed .so th.it it will be 75 cents a pound and 40 per cent. 
 ad valorem. They have their reasons for it, and the introduction of this clause is at 
 the instance of the braid-m.akers' associ.atiou. They have reduced their argument to 
 print in relation to this m.'itter which they wish to lay before you, and would like to 
 be heard. 
 
 I thank you, gentlemen, for your courtesy in listening to me. 
 
 STATEMENT OP W. H. FOLWELL. 
 
 Mr. W. H. FoLWELL, of Philadelphia., next addressed the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I simply wish to confirm what 
 Mr. Whitman, the gentleman who preceded me, has said. lam a manufacturer in 
 Philadelphia, and have been so for the last fifteen years. Thirty years ago we 
 commenced business as jobbers. Fifteen years ago and since then we have built onr 
 large mills and are now doing a business of from |2,000,000 to $2,500,000. We are 
 both manufacturers, importers, and jobbers, and we want to tell you we have had to 
 sledge to get along. Yon have no doubt been convinced that those gentlemen who 
 preceded me .arc intelligent men, and you are no doubt convinced that Mr. Search 
 is, who has spoken here. I am convinced that Mr. Whitman knovvs what he is talk- 
 ing about. He is, I might say, a competitor of mine, and I was waiting for Mr. 
 Whitman to tell what kind of looms he uses, but he did not tell. I say here that we 
 manufacture our own looms; and I say that wo make a better loom than anywhere 
 else right in onr own shop. I want to say to you, gentlemen, that, being importers 
 of French and German goods, we do about |1, 000,000 worth of business in that par- 
 ticular line. I am especially interested in the importing branch of onr business, and 
 * I am continually going up with samples of foreign goods to get the manager to repeat ■ 
 them, and I tell yon, gentlemen, there is nothing in it. I do not mean to say our la- 
 l>or i.v tiio costly; I do not mean we pay too niucb for our labor, although we pride 
 ourselves that we pay better prices than other establishments. I have the figures in 
 my pock(^t. But, as I tell you, when we come to pay the labor we are knocked ont. 
 Tbat is the gist of it. 
 
 I do not come to you gentlemen here as an enemy, but I come to you as a friend. 
 If you are aSouthernman I will tell you my ideas. If yon area Southern man and yen 
 grow rice, and you say you cau not rai.se rice at 5 cents, I say, "How much will yon 
 want ?" You say, "2 cents." I would say to you, "I will give you 5," and I believe 
 yon would flood "the country with rice in five years. I would do the same thing witH 
 other articles, whether it be potatoes, turpentine or what. Now, in South Carolina, 
 . in regard to the sugar business. I believe you would make more on sugar if you had 
 a little more protection. I shoirld protect it even if I should give free whisky and 
 tob.'icco ; bnt I would put a very high duty on all foreign whisky and tobacco. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Would yon give free whisky and tax sugar? 
 
 Mr. FoLWKLr,. I would "not tax sugar unless it was foreign sugar and_ competed 
 with the domestic sugar-making industry of this country. Mr. Breckinridge asked 
 a few questions in regard to the cost of labor. If you want to know to a cent I can 
 tell you the difference b(^twecD the English labor and the labor in our miUs for all 
 grades of work. It is just double. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 311 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN P. PLUMMER. 
 
 Mr. John F. Plummer, of New York City, next addressed the committee. He 
 said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have listened with a great deal of 
 pleasure and interest to the remarks of the gentlemen who have spoken and I have noth- 
 ing to add to that except in this one particular : Tliere has been no man here who has 
 spoken in regard to the sort of material which men wear. It has beeucoutined mostly 
 to the question of sheep, wool growing and yarn production, and on the production 
 of dress goods, but of an industry which has reached its highest point, scarcely any- 
 thing has been said. In regard to it, that is, the rough fabrics worn by men, I have 
 been connected with it personally for over thirty years. I stand in a difierent ca- 
 pacity before you, since you had the courtesy to ask ine to address you, from the other 
 gentlemen who have spoken. I am not a manufacturer; I own no stock of any mill ; 
 1 am not a wool-grower; I am not a yarn-manufacturer; but I am interested in the 
 American production of men's wear from \v(]()l, simply because I have been helping 
 to make it grow. Perhaps no one man has had a longer experience in the develop- 
 ment of pure woolens on the market than myself. I have seen goods at the time I 
 refer to made in the United States developed from their crude form up to what they 
 are to-day, so that I make the statement without any qualification that there is noth- 
 ing which you gentlemen— I do not care how mnch money you may see fit to pay for 
 your suit of clothes, whether like my friend, Mr. Flower, who goes to a swell tailor on 
 Fifth Avenue, or not — there is nothing we can not produce better, in regard to excel- 
 lence of manufacture, etc., than the foreign market, and they can not claim a better 
 line of goods, that is, in regard to texture, in regard to fabric, and in every other 
 way. The only thing that we have to contend against at all is the popular prejudice 
 among the better classes, where the goods are used, against American goods. 
 Mr. Breckinkidge. Do you refer to the cost to the consumer ? 
 Mr. Plummer. I do refer to the cost to the consumer. There is no people on earth 
 
 to-day where mankind is born naked but who could get his suit of clothes 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you agree with Mr. Whitman ? 
 Mr. Plummer. I do not agree with Mr. Whitman. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you mean to say you know Mr. Whitman is wrong? 
 Mr. Plummer. I do not say he is wrong. You asked some of these gentlemen some 
 questions in regard to some things. I wish you would ask me some questions on 
 some of these subjects. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I expect to ask yon a question or two. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. You ask the gentleman a question as a practical manufacturer, 
 which I do not claim to be, but when you ask about what he thinks about the pros- 
 pects of the wool-growing interest being interrupted one way or another, and when 
 you ask him what he thinks about trade being extended in foreign markets, that does 
 not require a practical manufacturer to express an opinion upon. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But I want practical views. 
 Mr. Plummer. I will give yon practical views. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What'is your busines? 
 
 Mr. Plum^mer. It has been the actual management, so far as the production of 
 woolen .sales are concerned, not in the manufacture or production of the article itself, 
 hilt how and what to make for the market, and the selling of it on the market. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That involves a close study of the prices ? 
 Mr. Plujimer. Yes, a very clo,se study ol' the priors. 
 
 Mr. Breckinrihgi;. I will be glad if you will give it, so we may know as to our 
 ability for extending our trade in foreign markets, provided we put on the same level 
 the cost of raw material. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. I do not think we could sell one yard of goods in the foreign mar- 
 kets. They were the original producers of these manufactures in that country, and 
 they can maintain it to-day against the higher-priced skilled labor of this country. 
 They have the experience of years, and they have had it for that time, and now we 
 are seeking to make our country a manufacturing country instead of a granary. 
 
 Mr. BREGKiNRiDdE. Why should we not be able with equal cheapness of material 
 to compete with them in the foreign markets? 
 
 Mr. Plummer. Simply because their labor is so mnch cheaper than ours, and they 
 could steadily and inevitably force all their competitors to the wall. They send all 
 tlieir ware to the whole world. 
 
 Now, there is another question which you asked, and I am going to get you to ask 
 it of me. The question was, what section of the country was most damaged, or 
 the' whole United States. Now, I will say New England, wliich is the home of skilled 
 manufacture of men's ware. Philadelphia makes a great many goods, and is the 
 largest manufacturing city in this country. These dress goods, these yarns, these 
 low-priced materials, and these worsteds are made in that city. You asked a question 
 .'IS to the prospects of making profits on these goods. In regar<l to piece-dyed woolens, 
 the mills have been running niglit and day, yet the importers come here with all sorts 
 
Bl2 REVISION OP THE TAfilFF. 
 
 of waste which they get in under this classification, and sell several thousand pieces 
 in the market. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. There are one or two other practical points on which we need 
 information. 
 
 Mr. Pldmjier. This depression in the woolen mills has been principally in the East- 
 ern States along the Atlantic coast. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Has there been any increase in the manufacture of woolen 
 goods and machinery east of the AUeghanies ? 
 
 Mr. Plummer. Since when? 
 
 Mr. Breckixridge. Within the last few years. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. What do you mean by a few years ? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Five years or ten years. 
 
 Mr. Pliimmek. TLiere lias been very little. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge Has there been any appreciable growth? 
 
 Mr. Plummer. No, sir ; in no part of the country, except a certain part of Con- 
 necticut, which has increased where they have founded a large elegant woolen mill. 
 Why? Because it makes the best goods made in this country to-day. To-day there 
 are four mills which make as fine goods as can be luadc, and they can run those mills 
 provided they have a reasonable protection — such as any man Avho has any patriot- 
 ism for his country would give them. I am talking right square at yon, Mr. Breckin- 
 ridge. I say I think America has got the ingenuity and skill which will compare 
 with any other country on the face of the earth. Now all that we want is the priv- 
 ilege of clothing you gentlemen. • 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Will you charge anything extra for it? 
 
 Mr. Plummer. We are not charging you as much as a foreigner does. When a 
 foreigner tells you that a lot of stuff is such and such a thing he knows better, but 
 you don't. You swallow it. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You alluded to the bad-looking clothes I have on. I want to know if 
 there is anything personal in that. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. I only know you as one of the wealthy Fifth avenue swells of New 
 York, and I know what prices you pay, and I know that such an element of the 
 country as you represent generally have to pay from |60 and |70 to f 100 for a suit of 
 clothes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is that an American suit of clothes you have on ? 
 
 Mr. Plummer. Yes, sir, and I wear nothing else. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Was that necktie made in America ? 
 
 Mr. Plummer. I do not know anything about that, as I am a woolen man and not 
 a silk manufacturer. I even wear an American hat. If there is an English shape I 
 like better than an American hat, I adopt it, but I make them put that shape in an 
 American hat and make it out of American goods. 
 
 STATEMENT OF F. HARTLEY. 
 
 152 Federal Street, 
 Boston, January 13, 1890. 
 Dear Sir: I would have sent the manuscript of the iuclosed, but I thought it 
 would be easier for yon to read in print. The reason I wrote it was to remind you «£ 
 thenecessity for prompt acticm. The business cannot prosper whilst there is a shadow 
 of uncertainty over it, and you can do it more harm by long-continued discussion 
 than by removing the duty. Precedents are little iise in determining present action. 
 The present condition of affairs and as far as we can see into the tuture being the 
 only intelligent basis to figure on. When the industry was in its infancy, andneeded 
 infant's medicine. It is now suffering from nervous prostration, and the same infant's 
 physic will not cure it. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 F. Hartley. 
 The Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 FREE wool and POLITICS. 
 To the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee: 
 
 Dear Sir: I would like to ask how the Ways and Means Committee is going to 
 unravel the conflicting testimony it has received on the subject of wool and make any 
 practical application of a remedy which will satisfy any of the demands except those of 
 the free wool men ? Whatever rate of duty is decided upon will disappoint either 
 the ad valorem duty men, the specific duty men, the higher duty men, or the lower 
 duty men. The requests made at Washington prove by their conflicting nature the 
 absolute impossibility of their being granted. Somebody will have to be disappointed, 
 therefore it will be well for the Ways and Means Committee to realize at once that 
 the wool business is a very intricate business, full of terhnicalities. If the workers 
 in it ca.n not understand it enough to bo unauinious on any subject concerning its 
 needs, how is it possible for outsiders to do the subject justice ? What has the man 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF 313 
 
 Who wants higher duties on wool to say about wool being so high abroad that upon 
 many kinds, in fact, almost all except carpet wools, we should find it unprotitable to 
 import them to-day, even if the duty of 10 cents was reduced to 7 cents. Yet with a 
 prohibitory duty wool is a drug on the market to-day. 
 
 When business is good here we go abroad for wool and help np the foreigners, but 
 when they have a good trade they lieep it all to themselves. The duty on English and 
 Irish wool and on Australian wool to-day is prohibitory, and still the wool business is 
 under a cloud as dense as it ever has been during the last ten years. The grower, 
 the dealer, the broker, and the manufacturer are all under a cloud, as the late numer- 
 ous failures will prove. A large number of the operators in wool are lilve a seasick 
 person, who does not care whether the ship sinks or swims. They are thoroughly dis- 
 gusted with'tariff tinkering, and if some definite action is not taken very soon liy 
 Congress there will be more failures, wool will bo more of a drug than it is now, and 
 the grower will get for next season's clip about what it would bring on a free wool 
 basis. There is hardly any business so susceptible to an uncertain condition of afl'airs 
 as the wool business. A man can buy cotton unseen, and can always sell at quota- 
 tions. Every lot of wool must be bought on its merits, and every fleece examined by 
 an expert: therefore, while a man is waiting for an expert to examine and buy his 
 wool, the market can go from under him and leave him with a loss where he saw a 
 profit. Statistics have hardly anything to do with the business. Wool is worth 
 what a man can get for it, and, if his particular customers don't need any, he carries 
 it until they do. The high cost of wool in America, the 6 per cent, interest, and other 
 high expenses, make the carrying of a 40 cents per pound lot of wool for sixty days 
 cost, in interest, storage, insurance, and shrinkage, 1 cent per pound, and this must 
 be charged to profit. It is seldom possible to buy wool with a margin of 2 cents in 
 eight. The Ways and Means Committee will, therefore, see that the'most disastrous 
 results can be brought about and a blight cast over the business by inaction, which 
 will produce uncertainty, and really neither growers, dealers, nor manufacturers get 
 the benefit of it. 
 
 Large numbers of wool men who voted the Republican ticket would throw their 
 politics to the wind and vote the Democratic ticket and for the Mills bill, if they had 
 a chance now. They say: "Anything to get wool out of politics." If action is not 
 taken promptly, the business will sufl'er far more than it could by free wool. It is 
 probable that soouer or later we shall have free wool. There has not been a time for 
 ten years when free wool would hurt the grower as little as it would right now, or to 
 take ett'ect July 1. 'Medium grades of wool, which America grows as well or better 
 than any other country, would sell in Europe and he raised at a good profit to the 
 grower. If I thought it possible for you to place an equitable taritt'ou wool, I would 
 not have troubled you with this letter. For my own interests, I would just as soon 
 have the duty 10 cents, or even 20 cents, or have none at all. I have been in the bus- 
 iness all my life, and I could not take the first step toward suggesting a taritt' that 
 would not eventually place me in the position of the old man and his ass — he tried to 
 please every one, pleased no one, and lost his donkey. The easiest way out of the 
 difficulty seems to me to be to remove the duty, satisfy a large portion of your con- 
 stituents, and nearly the entire body of Democrats and their rapidly increasing mem- 
 bers. 
 
 The Democrats are still good citizens, although they did not elect their President. 
 I shouted for Harrison, but I will shout next time for either party which will not 
 fetter my business with politics or make it dangerous to try to use any judgment in 
 my business on account of the natural laws of supply aud demand being suspended. 
 A man is a fool who sticks to his party these times when about the only vital issue 
 before the country is the tariff; especially if his party does not view the matter in a 
 light favorable to his interests. There is not a subject to-day that more people are 
 interested in than in the one of free or protected wool. The whole political campaign 
 was fought on that basis, and if it were to bo fought over to-day with the additional 
 information highly protected wool men have received, the result would be different, 
 and Grover Cleveland would be President. Wool men have found it possible ior the 
 wool and woolen industry to be prosperous abroad, and wool so high that our present 
 tariff is prohibitory, and still our domestic wool be a drug on the market. Very re- 
 spectfully yours. 
 
 PETITION OF PHILADELPHIA BUSINESS MEN. 
 
 PUILADELPHIA TaEIFK REFORM ClUB, 
 
 PMladeljihia, January 1, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : Inclosed please find petition, the signatures to which were obtained 
 to-day at the opening of our new rooms. 
 They represent men engaged in every industry^ 
 The Club requests you to present it. 
 
 Very respectfully, J. F. Buck, 
 
 Hon. J. G. Caelislis. Secretary. 
 
314 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 PniLADELPHiA, January 1, 1890. 
 To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States at JVasJiington, D. C. : 
 
 Your petitioners represeuting manufacturers and other business interests of PMla- 
 delphja, request that the materials used in manufacturing be made free of duty, and 
 your petitioners will ever pray, etc. 
 
 "Win. M. Ayera, bucket manufacturer, 711 Market 
 
 street. 
 AViUiam M. Sins;erly, D17 Chestnut street. 
 "VVm. F. Bead, SlS'Oliostnut strr.-t. 
 John Huegard, 36 Sti'awberry street. 
 Thomas C. Else, 53 North Third street. 
 Edw. C. Kapheys, liy:d I'efiner, ^;lu Spruce etreet. 
 K. D. "Wolfe, ahoemauufaucTur.r, Mt. Holly. 
 Jos. H. G-reeiiwald. 2046 Korth Thirteenth street. 
 L. A. Wertz. 122 Walnut street. 
 Geo. W. Ward, 2023 Van Pelt street. 
 Geo. "W. S. NichoLsOD, 1714 Foulain street. 
 Milton Abbott, 2123 North Seventeenth street. 
 Conrad B. Day, 134 South Ninth street. 
 Bernard Eamke, 1623 Snuth Sixteenth street. 
 Jno. Mohauy, 3 704 Park avenne. 
 E. H. Ranch, Mauch Chunk. Pa. 
 John J. Duffy, 1727 Grat/. street. 
 John D. Kuoff, 1711 Park avenue. 
 Thos. J. Oram. 874 North Sixth street. 
 George De Groot, 1917 Oxford street. 
 Harry AViLson, 1732 Callo-whill. 
 Oscar E. Hass, 3.510 Mather street. 
 Kich'd H. Graham, 1229 North Nineteenth street. 
 "Wm. Thompson, 1829 Park avenue. 
 J.E. Brunet, M. D.,2038 North Broad. 
 A. G. Lee, 819 North Twentieth street. 
 
 D. W. Chandler, 2012 North Broad. 
 
 H. W. Weeks, 220 Church street, blue manufact- 
 urer. 
 
 John Burkhardt, 1113 Myrtle street. 
 
 Charles C. Geutner, 940 Alder street. 
 
 C. Ered'k Klink, 1104 Myrtle street. 
 
 Samuel H. Martin, 2105 Park avenue. 
 
 Edward E. Nicholas, 549 North Fifth street. 
 
 L. P. Tonka. 1951 Gratz avenue. 
 
 J. E. Ilendrickflon, 32k North Front street. 
 
 Wm. A. Geissingee, 204 South Seventh street. 
 
 G. J. Brass, Southwest corner Camac and Dia- 
 mond. 
 
 Edw. L. Bodin, jr., ]418 Mt. Vernon street. 
 
 Francis McGowan, 902 Seltzer fitn-'et. 
 
 Wm. Blackburn, 2133 Van Pelt street. 
 
 William T. Barclay, 356 North Sixth street. 
 
 Harry Kleinfelder, 1538 Tiernan street. 
 
 Ernest Ely, 1320 North Seventeenth street. 
 
 N. Fretz, 1718 Broad street. 
 
 L. Gardner, 1431 Norris street. 
 
 Alfred Yerkew. 1932 North Bro;id. 
 
 G. Morgan Eldridge. 1337 NortJi Broad street. 
 
 H. G. Atkinson, 1310 Myrtle strret. 
 
 Thomas Purdv, 1701 Arlington. 
 
 Alex. McCrea, 1700 Arlington. 
 
 L. W. C. Dief*-Dderfer, 1822 South Mervlno street. 
 
 1.. Shew, 1021 Dauphin street. 
 
 E. S, Lanigan, 1116 Columbia avenue. 
 Frank J. Deary, 223 South Sixth street. 
 A. Onature, 1915 Oxford. 
 
 Francis Budd, 633 North Sixth. 
 Alexander I. Gaylord, 1721 Page street. 
 Dr. Mark L. Nardyz, 718 Pine street. 
 L. B. Fife, 2009 North Stn'oiitemth street. 
 Wm. M. Edenborn, 2140 Park avenue. 
 
 F. L. Ort, 1338 Mervino street. 
 Dominique Caminade, lOi'S S\'denham street. 
 K. D. Best, 2042 Camac street. 
 
 Adolph Eichhol, 120 South Sixtli street. 
 
 Gideon Sibley, Thirteenth and Filbert street. 
 
 Samuel E. Black, 1607 Park avt^nue. 
 
 James B.Connor, 1737 Berks street. 
 
 J. T. Buck, 1823 Park avenue. 
 
 John A. Hazel, 2016 Warnock street. 
 
 John McCabe, 877 OreliHid street. 
 
 Jaiii.'S F.McNally. 3 719 Oxford wtreet. 
 
 M. J, Dougherty, 1504 West York street. 
 
 Saniu<l Downs. iBristnl. Pa. 
 
 Cli.'irh's K. Draper, 1209 Kemblo street, Philadol- 
 
 ])liia, ]'a. 
 F. Howard Xing, 2019 Carlisle square. 
 
 William Manderson, jr., 1549 North Twelfth 
 street. 
 
 Franci.4 S. Manderson, 1549 North Twelfth street 
 
 S. A. Bickham, 1627 Vine. 
 
 J. C. Mu.stard, 1817 North Seventeenth street. 
 
 G. A. I'ersch, 5177 Chew street, Germantown. 
 
 James R. Murphy, 3548 Mather street, Tioga. 
 
 M. Moiales, cigar manufacturer, Camac and Dix- 
 on streets. 
 
 B. L.Yarnall,276fiGarnetstreet, Philadelphia Pa 
 Wm. J. Kelly, 250 Perry street. 
 
 Wm. Horan, 2223 North Eighth street. 
 
 Edward Abraham, 1221 Columbia avenue. 
 
 Augustus Williams, 1630 Amboy street. 
 
 James McNally, 2050 Camac street. 
 
 Eobeit A. Overend, 3929 North Broad street. 
 
 Augustus C. Leidy, 1903 Camac street. 
 
 John W. Frey, 1850 Eighteenth street. 
 
 A. J. lloggenburger, 2129 North Twelfth street. 
 
 Wm. Johnston, 1732 North Eighteenth street. 
 
 Charles Stokes, 1726 Sydenham street. 
 
 John H. Emery, 1930 Warnock street, 
 
 Joseph Wagner, 1854 North Eleventh street. 
 
 M. Biaden, 2635 Jessup street. 
 
 M. H. Gahen, 3242 Leutz street. 
 
 Wm. F. Ansley, 1205 South Thirteenth street. 
 
 J. Henry Mclntyre, 1411 North Twentieth street, 
 
 Philadeli.ihia. 
 F. A. HerwiL^ Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia. 
 Herbert Minor, 910 Filbert street. 
 John P. Kinloy, 2144 Park avenue. 
 M. P. Bodden, 408 Marshall street. 
 Joseph Kinlev, 2144 Park avenue. 
 Thos. A. Fahy. 1609 North Tenth street. 
 Jos. Hagerty, 2025 Hancock street. 
 John C. Reiser, 1430 North Tenth street. 
 John J. Devine, 1802 Hamilton street. 
 M. A. Nline, 2222 Diamond street. 
 
 C. M. Hall, Sixth and Oxford streets. 
 Geo. W. Dowler, 3522 Smedley street. 
 L. P. T. Bigley, 2024 Park avenue. 
 Charlies Keith, 1300 Columbia avenue. 
 Sigmond Koggenburger, 2134 North Twelfth 
 
 street. 
 Wm. Linck. .ir., 2034 Camac street. 
 F. Wm. Lawton, 2010 Camac street. 
 I. Koggenburger, 2129 NmUi Twelfth street. 
 Otto F. Kunkely, 1811 Kidgeway Terrace. 
 Frank Waldsaner, 3612 Tborapson street. 
 Chas.C. Cawman, 1546 North Twelfth street. 
 Arthur J. Nugent, 1408 North Fourth street. 
 Max M. Letz, 1519 Fountain street. 
 Cbas. E. Wise, 4862 Germantown avenue. 
 Frederi'k L. Davies, 1518 Herbino avenue. 
 Wm. J. Server, 1429 Euclid avenue. 
 Kufus Brewer, 991 Marshall street. 
 Ben]. Jones, 2043 Camac street. 
 C. F. Taylor, 1520 Chestnut street. 
 Ben Herzoy, 2413 Hancock street. 
 W. K. Kline, 487 York avenue. 
 Owen McAlew, 943 Noel street. 
 Frank Kennedy, 1421 Hone. 
 Chas. J. Maisenhelder, 1445 Camac street. 
 G.D. Kleinfelder, 1624 Sydenham. 
 W. G. Wilson, 2048 Camac street. 
 Amos Bobbins, 2150 North Twenty-first street. 
 Louden E. Best, 2042 Camac street. 
 Wm. Brloe, 1.542 North Fifteenth street. 
 J. S. AVolfe, 2230 Diamond street. 
 Georsze AVahl, jr., 3123 Oxford street. 
 Jas. F. Boyl, 1837 No. Twimty-sccond street. 
 E. S. Donough, 925 Filbert street. 
 U. Koggenburger, 2129 North Twelfth street. 
 J. K. lUyler, 2224 Diamond street. 
 K. G. (.'luruiau, 3105 North Broad street. 
 AVm. B. Gray, 2046 Gratz avenue. 
 Danii-1 Scull, 3737 Berks street. 
 Ralph r.. Hersh, 55 North Third street. 
 Jno. J. Bm'.dy, 1738 North Twenty-fifth street. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 315 
 
 Hyde Park, Mass., January 1, 1890. 
 Dear Sir: Having had very pressing invitations to be present at the hearing be- 
 fore the Ways and Means Committee to be holdeu on the 3d instant, I should attend 
 gladly in the interest of free raw material for the woolen mills of the country if I 
 could possibly spare from my business the necessary time. Being nnable to do so, it 
 has occurred to me that I may do the cause some good by transmitting my thoughts 
 to you by letter, even though it may answer no better purpose than giving you my 
 individual opinion. I am encouraged to do this because of the manly and states- 
 manlike position which you aiul your associates took last year in framing and sup- 
 porting vphat is known as " the Mills bill," a bill which I have many times declared 
 to be the best bill ever framed in the interest of the whole woolen industry of the 
 country, both manufacturers and farmers, providing, as it did, for wool free of duty 
 and 40 per cent, protection on the manufactured product. This is substantially the 
 same position as the cotton, silk, and leather industries now occupy, and in which 
 they have ilourished so wonderfully. 
 
 When we see that the exports of leather manufacturers for the first ten mouths of 
 1889 amount to 110,000,000, we surely can feel no doubt of the ability of American 
 labor to compete with the labor of other countries when a fair chance is given it to 
 do so. That chance was given the leather industry in 1872 by the Republican party 
 when the duty was taken off hides. Hides are a product of the farm as much as wool 
 is, and have as much right to protection and no more. The result of placing them 
 on the free list has demonstrated the wisdom of the act, and is one of the many facts, 
 the evidence of which is doubtless familiar to yf u, which show that the prolits of the 
 producer of the raw material are enhanced by the prosperity of the industry which 
 converts that material into articles for consumption. Therefore I hope that the 
 mantle of the wisdom of 1872 will rest upon the members of the Ways and Means 
 Committee, and that they will put the wool growers and manufacturers upon a plane 
 with the hide producers and manufacturers. 
 
 I hope and ask for this becaiise the pledges made by the wool-growers of Ohio 
 through their agents, Delano and his associates, have failed in every particular. The 
 domestic production of wool has not been brought up to the requirements of the coun- 
 try ; it has not kept pace with the increase of population, much less with the increased 
 demand for wool. These men have been as much of a disturbing and mischievous 
 element in our midst as are the professional labor agitators, who make a living by 
 teaching his woes, real or imaginary, to the workman, and very often succeed in de- 
 stroying his means of livelihood and in converting his once happy home into an abode 
 of gloom. 
 
 During the last Presidential campaign we were frequently told that free wool car- 
 ried with it free cloths. The present chairman of your committee distinctly made 
 this declaration before the Home Market Club of Boston. I trust that this was only 
 from political necessity, and that the then politician will now become the liberal 
 statesman, who will lend his influence to bring about a condition in the woolen indus- 
 try similar to that of the leather business, so that the factory bells, not of New Eng- 
 land alone, but of the whole country, may ring forth this welcome summons to the 
 working people to come and in our own mills make up the .$50,000,000 worth of goods 
 now annually imported, thus giving employment to tensof thousands more workmen, 
 and distributing among them from $12,000,000 to .$15,000,000 for this labor, which, 
 under the present condition of the tariii', goes into foreign hands. 
 
 I send with this three statistical tables, marked, respectively. A, B, and C ; the first 
 showing the sheep culture of Ohio, with its increase and decrease, and the tariff rates 
 on wool during the same periods, reduced for convenience to ad valorem by assuming 
 the probable prices on wool imported; the second, dealing in a similar way with the 
 wool clip of California ; and the third, comparing the value of the wool crops of those 
 States with the value of the woolen manufactures of New England. 
 
 I select these two States for illustration because they are the most clamorous for a 
 high tariff on wool, and I omit, for the sake of brevity, Texas, Georgia, and many 
 other States which voted for free wool. 
 
 By the first table we see that from 1860 to 1867 the increase in the flocks of Ohio 
 was over 100 per cent., while the tariff jirotection was from 5 to 30 percent, ad va- 
 lorem ; but looking further, for the next ten years, during which time the tariff w:is 
 very high, and for a part of the time the highest ever known, we find that the 
 7,555,507 sheep of 1867 had dwindled down to 3,724,040, a decrease of more than 50 
 per cent.; and since then the number has increased less than 1,000,000 to the present 
 time. Ohio shows clearly that high-tariff' protection has not had the ollect of in- 
 creasing the wool-producing capacity of that State. It is also true that it has had 
 no lasting effect upon the price of wool ; there have been high prices under low 
 tariffs, and low prices under high tariff^. With a single exception, the best average 
 price obtained under almost free trade during the four years from 1857 to 18()0. 
 
 The fact is that the culture of sheep in Ohio and in many other of the more pop- 
 ulous States is chiefly controlled by the demand for mutton. 
 
31G REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The increase in the number of sheep in all the United States from 1860 to 1880 was 
 only about 57 per cent., or less than 3 per cent, yearly. This is absolutely insignifi- 
 cant when compared \yith the capacity of the animal to multiply, which is estimated 
 at 60 per cent, yearly by ranchmen and others engaged in sheep raising after making 
 all allowance for losses. 
 
 This 1 learned from personal interviews when traveling in Colorado and other 
 parts of tlie West lust snmnicr, and I have numerous letters to the same purport ' 
 from which I quote the following: 
 
 "Here are the figures of sheep increase on our ranch. Commenced August, 1887, 
 with amixedbandof wethers, ewes, and lambs. Lambs in 1888, 1,400; in 1889, 1,500; 
 sold for mutton in the two years, 1,200 head ; actually on hand August, 1889, 5,a00 
 head; shrinkage (very large — much more than average), 000 head; net increase for 
 the two years, 2,300 head, or, say, 28 per cent, per year on original number of band. 
 The lambing season of IS39 was very bad, on account of snow-storms; should have 
 had nearly 2,000 lambs." 
 
 And from another : "Our flock originally numbered 2,000 sheep. At the end of 
 three years we had 6,000." 
 
 And from one more : " Here is the memorandum of the result of 1,000 head of two- 
 year-old ewes and COO lambs in three years. These figures are actual. Stock on 
 hand by actual count at end of three years, &,000 ewes of all ages, 800 wethers, 1,375 
 lambs, 5,175 head all told. No mutton Ijad been sold, so this shows net increase." 
 . The annual increase as shown on the above tTiree ranches was respectively 28.66 
 and 74 per cent. 
 
 A moment's thought given to comparison of the normal increase as shown above, 
 with the net actual increase of about 3 per cent, per year in the whole country, tells 
 us that the greater part of the possible increase is to be accounted for by the slaugh- 
 ter of sheep for food, and that the catering to the demand for mutton, and not to the 
 demand for wool, is the first object in the minds of the sheep farmers. In Ohio, for 
 instance, it is evident that upwards of 2,000,000 are yearly killed for the market. 
 Such would not be the case if sheep were raised for their wool. Table B leads to the 
 .same conclusions. It shows what can be expected from sheep raising when carried 
 on for wool, as was clearly the case for many years in California. Starting with the 
 175,000 pounds of 1854, we find them almost doubling in number for several years, 
 and continuing to increase at a large percentage till in 1876 they numbered 56,550,970. 
 
 Then a change takes place, although there is no change in the tariff; the demand 
 for mutton becomes more potent than the demand for wool, and not only the annual 
 increase but much of the original stock is sacrificed, and the whole product dimin- 
 ishes to about 31,500,000 in 1887. The situation shown by these two States is enough 
 to convince us that increase of population, and consequent increase in the demand 
 for mutton for food, and for land for other purposes than for sheep-walks, will inev- 
 itably keep the flocks below the requirements of the wool market, and that no tariff 
 can be effectual to check this tendency for any considerable period. The experiences 
 of others of the older States corroborate this. Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, 
 Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa, had in the aggregate, 22,720,045 sheep in 
 1867, but this number had fallen to 9,809,639 in 1882. 
 
 Why, then, should Congress yield to the unreasoning demand of the sheep farmers 
 for the retention of the duty on wool? It has not benefited him in prices ; it has not 
 operated to prevent him from sending the greater part of his flock to the shambles; 
 it has not led him to increase his product of wool in a ratio with the increased demand 
 for wool. To-day, after twenty years of excessive high protection on wool, our do- 
 mestic supply is less than 70 per cent, of the wool actually u.sed by our people for 
 clothing and less than one-half of what they would use if this so-called woolen cloth- 
 ing was made of all woul instead of cotton, shoddy, and rags in part. The tariff 
 caused the im]iortation of this equivalent of over 140,000,000 pounds of wool in 1888 ; 
 it added largely to the cost to the consumer of every pound of that wool ; it has limited 
 enormously the possibilities of o;ir woolen Dianufactories; it has driven to foreign 
 shores the nmnufacturing of a considerable percentage of the woolen clothing worn 
 by us, and has given to foreign people the profits of such manufacture. 
 
 Under such circumstances is it a matter for wonder that some fifty woolen mills have 
 failed in this country since the present administration came into power, or even that 
 the large manufactory known as the Mission Mill, located where the entire wool 
 clip of California is centered, has hail to succumb to the withering influence of the 
 tariff? Increase <if duties on manufactured goods will not avert these disasters. 
 That would simply lead to an increase of prices all around, and end in a decrease in 
 the consumption of wool. 
 
 There is much clamor raised about the votes of the Ohio wool-grower, and dire ven- 
 geance is throati'ned if any interference is made with their pet theory of protection 
 on wool, as if no other section had interests which were entitled to consideration. I 
 liiive ])repared the talde (' I0 exhibit an easy comparison of the value of the wool busi- 
 ness in Nrn England with th.at of Ohio .ind California, and it shows lis, among other 
 interesting things, that the value of the products of woolen manufacture in New 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 317 
 
 Enn-land in 1880 were eqnal to $35.38J per head of its population, ■while the value of tho 
 wool clip of Ohio was only $2.01| per head of its population and that of California 
 |8.8a per head of its population. And it should not he forgotten that much of tho 
 capital invested in woolen niannfaoturing plants in New England was so invested 
 when wool was substantially free. 
 
 From the statistics presented does it not appear that the interests of Ohio in the 
 tariff legislation on wool aud woolens are very trivial compared with those of Massa- 
 chusetts and New England? That the sheepraisiugof Mr. Columbus Delano and the 
 other political farmers of Ohio must be largely carried on in some part of the world 
 other than their native State? And that the wool from the handling of which they 
 derive their greatest profit is the wool which they so constantly and industriously 
 pull over the eyes of their deluded followers and believers? Again I say that the 
 legislation affecting the wool and woolen industry should, for the best interests of the 
 whole country as well as New England, be modeled on that pertaining to the cotton, 
 silk, and leather industries. 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 Robert Blenkib. 
 
 Roger Q. Mills, M. C. 
 
 A. — STieep in Ohio. 
 
 [Kgurea taken from George William Bond.l 
 
 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Number of 
 sheep. 
 
 Increase. 
 
 Decrease. 
 
 Percent. 
 
 of in- 
 crease or 
 decrease. 
 
 Tariff 
 changed 
 
 to ad 
 valorem. 
 
 
 3, 546, 767 
 
 7, 655, 607 
 7, 688, 845 
 6, 272, 240 
 6, 052, 028 
 
 4, 302, 904 
 4, 464, 838 
 4, 596, 864 
 4, 333, 868 
 4, 100, 288 
 3, 854, 528 
 3, 724, 040 
 
 3, 909, 6(14 
 
 4, 267, 261 
 4,243,616 
 4, 923, 174 
 4, 694, 007 
 6, 190, 920 
 4, 068, 794 
 4, 928, 332 
 4, 295, 839 
 
 
 
 \ 100+ 
 
 ■ m 
 
 •19A 
 
 • 14-,-„ 
 ,03,«„- 
 .03 
 
 • 05,'„ 
 
 • 05-,=, 
 .06ft 
 . 03-,-„ 
 •04ft 
 
 • 09-,"„ 
 .OOi 
 .16' 
 
 ;?^'' 
 
 • 04ft 
 .00ft 
 .15 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Ig67 
 
 
 
 5 to 30. 
 
 
 133, 338 
 
 
 
 1869 
 
 i, 416, 605 
 
 1, 220, 212 
 
 749, 124 
 
 1 00 WW. 
 
 1870 
 
 
 •j. 
 
 
 
 
 ]872 
 
 161, 994 
 131, 966 
 
 
 
 
 
 1874 
 
 262, 996 
 233, 580 
 246, 760 
 130, 488 
 
 
 
 
 
 1876 - - . . 
 
 
 46 to 55 
 
 1877 ... , 
 
 
 
 1878 
 
 175, 664 
 357, 657 
 
 l^ 
 
 1879 . . 
 
 
 1880 
 
 23,645 
 
 
 1881 
 
 679, 558 
 
 
 1882 
 
 328, 567 
 
 
 1883 
 
 696, 313 
 
 
 1884 . . • 
 
 222, 126 
 40, 462 
 032, 493 
 
 -\ 
 
 1885 
 
 
 \ 40 to 50. 
 
 1886 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total decrease from 1867 to 1887, 3,259,668 = 43,V. 
 
 B. — California tvool crop. 
 [Figures taken from George Abbott.] 
 
 Year. 
 
 Clip. 
 
 Increase. 
 
 Decrease. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 of in- 
 crease or 
 decrease. 
 
 Tariff clinnged to ad 
 Viilorem. 
 
 1854 
 
 175, OOO 
 
 300, 000 
 
 600, 000 
 
 1, 100. 000 
 
 1, 428, 000 
 
 2, 378, 000 
 
 3, 055, 325 
 3,721,998 
 
 5, 990, 300 
 
 6, 268, 480 
 
 7, 92.3, 670 
 8,949,931 
 
 8, 532, 047 
 10,288,600 
 14, 232, 657 
 1.5,413,970 
 20, 072, 660 
 22, 187, 188 
 
 
 
 
 ? r,r. 
 
 1855 
 
 126,000 
 
 3(10, 000 
 
 .5(10, 000 
 
 328, 000 
 
 950, 000 
 
 677, 325 
 
 666, 673 
 
 2, 26R, 303 
 
 378, 180 
 
 1, 665, 190 
 
 1, 026, 261 
 
 
 .80 
 100 
 
 .83", 
 .39,"„ 
 
 ■ 00 ,';, 
 
 ■ 28,';, 
 • 31,",, 
 
 .eo,';. 
 
 \ 30 per cent. 
 
 18.56 .. . . 
 
 
 
 1857 
 
 
 \ 
 
 1868 
 
 
 1859 
 
 
 ^ Substantially free. 
 
 1860 
 
 
 J 
 5 per cent. 
 
 16 nei-,...i,t 
 
 1801 
 
 
 1862 
 
 
 1863 
 
 
 
 1864 
 
 
 20,'"- 1-1 
 
 1865 
 
 
 . 13 
 
 .04ft 
 
 .20ft 
 
 • 38,'„- 
 
 .08-ft 
 
 •30ft 
 
 .lOft 
 
 V 25 to 30 per cent. 
 
 1868 
 
 417, 884 
 
 1867 
 
 1, 7.56, 553 
 
 3, 044, 0.57 
 1,181,313 
 
 4, 058, 690 
 2, 114, 528 
 
 ^ 
 
 1868 - . . 
 
 
 
 1869 
 
 1870 
 
 
 *■ 50 to 00 per cent. 
 
 1871 
 
 
 
318 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 B. — CaVifor)iia wool crop— Continued. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 1873. 
 1S73 . 
 1874 . 
 1875. 
 1876. 
 1877. 
 1878 . 
 1879. 
 
 1880 . 
 
 1881 . 
 1883 . 
 1883. 
 ISSl. 
 1885 . 
 188S- 
 1887 . 
 
 Clip. 
 
 2, 068, 280 
 7, 89a, 701 
 7, 201, 612 
 4, 175, 442 
 13, 018, 747 
 
 1, 9i7, 770 
 
 Decrease. 
 
 3, 440, 228 
 12, 248, 651 
 
 829, 206 
 
 997, 490 
 
 4, 649, 025 
 
 3, i?.B, 360 
 853, 940 
 
 e, 944, 929 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 of in- 
 crease or 
 decrease. 
 
 .09i9„ 
 
 ■32A 
 
 .22iV 
 
 . 10 it 
 
 .30 
 
 .06A 
 
 .23 
 
 • li,% 
 •01ft 
 •03iV 
 
 • lOA 
 
 ■ OiA 
 
 ■ 08jV 
 
 • 02.ft 
 
 • 05/5 
 .18 
 
 Tariff clianged to ad 
 valorem. 
 
 45 to 55 percent. 
 
 J- 40 to 50 per cent. 
 
 I 
 
 J 
 
 C. — Comparative siatistics of value of wool dip and woolen manufactures in N^ew 
 
 Ohio, and California. 
 
 In New England, in 1S80 : 
 
 Capital inve.':ited in woolen niannfactnre $80, 
 
 Hands employed in woolen manntactnre 
 
 Value of products of woolen manufacture |141, 
 
 Pcjpulation of 4, 
 
 Value of woolen products per liead of population i 
 
 In JIassachusetts, i]i ISfU: 
 
 Value of woolen in'oducts per head of population 
 
 In Ohio, in im): 
 
 Hands emplo3'cd in wooleu mannfacture 
 
 Value of products of woolen manufacture $1, 
 
 Population of 3, 
 
 Product of wool clip pounds.. 19, 
 
 Value of wool clip $6, 
 
 Value of Avool clip per head of population 
 
 Value of wooleu products per head ofpoijulation 
 
 In California, in L880 : 
 
 Product of wool clip pounds.. 46, 
 
 Value of wool clip 
 
 Po])ulation of 
 
 Value of wool clip per lie.ad of population 
 
 678, 
 
 75, 
 
 927, 
 
 010, 
 
 $35. 
 
 972 
 
 40U 
 668 
 529 
 38i 
 
 $37. 82i 
 
 1, 
 
 678, 
 198, 
 331, 
 443, 
 
 074, 
 679, 
 864, 
 
 329 
 
 189 
 062 
 275 
 758 
 OH 
 52i 
 
 154 
 
 026 
 694 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. ANDERSON. 
 
 Mr. Lewls Ani)1cil.son, of Skowhegau, Me., appeared before the committee and read 
 the following papers : 
 
 Skowiiegai^', Me., December '30, 1889. 
 
 Gentlemen of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Kepreseutatives : 
 I embrace the opportunity you so kindly oli'er those who.se bu.sines8 interests render it 
 desirable to appear before you and present tlieir views on matters pertaining to duties 
 on iujports. I am a manufacturer of woolen goods, such as fancy cassiiueres, over- 
 coatings, broadcloths, eloakings, etc., and am also a member of the Maine Wooleu 
 Manufacturers' Club, an associatiou, as its name implies, of men who, like myself, are 
 eng:iged in that business in the State of Maine. Our secretary informs me that we 
 have twenty-six members, runniu,g about two hundred sets of cards, using from 
 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 pouiuls of wool annually, and employing about 4,000 persoau. 
 
 The semi-annual meeting of the club, held December 19, at Young's Hotel,^ Bos- 
 ton, and, on account of the general desire lor a change in the schedule of duties OQ 
 "woolens, it was the largest uuseting the club ever held, all the members having been 
 notified that that subject would be discussed. 
 
 Tliey voted unauiuiou'ily, indorsing resolutions yiassed at a nu^eting of the National 
 Associatiou of Woolen M"inuf;u;turers held ]u New York October 2, 1883, and ap- 
 pointed Williaui ]jolis(ni, of Pittstield, and myself to wait upon your honorable com- 
 mittee at the proper time to represent the views of the club. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 319 
 
 In addition to those present, letters were received from absent members expressing 
 their views on woolens and worsted duties, and every word written and spoken was 
 in substantial accord on that important subject. 
 
 We believe in the broad principle of ample protection to every American industry, 
 and that it is the duty of our Government to guard every branch of industry in the 
 United States against competition with the underpaid labor of the Old World. 
 
 We are opposed to removing the duties on wool, because it is a violation of that 
 broad principle and would be an injustice to the producers. 
 
 We do not propose to trespass ou your time and patience by recapitulating all the 
 details of tariff and decisions and changes, and have carefully followed the discussions 
 of those matters both in and out of Congress, and after careful consideration have be- 
 come convinced that the change made in 1883 was a great mistake, and has seriously 
 retarded the growth of worsted and woolen manufactures in the United States by 
 allowing foreign competitors, with their many advantages, to flood our markets with 
 both regular and surplus stocks, thus compelling a slacking up or stoppage of our 
 machinery instead of an increase. We further believe that the best and most effect- 
 ive way to remedy this evil is to restore the rates of duty on woolen and worsted 
 cloths to where they stood or about where they were previous to the change of 1883. 
 This would allow a fair compensatory duty on the wool used, and also for chemicals 
 used in coloring, machinery, etc. And we earnestly recommend the restoration of 
 such duties at as early a date as possible, believing that such legislation and its en- 
 forcement would have the effect of restoring prosperity to this important branch of 
 industry. 
 
 We desire, also to refer to the increasing tendency in our business to changes, and 
 sometimes radical changes, in styles and fashions from one season to another, making 
 it very hazardous to run our mills right along from one season to another. We now 
 have to go very carefully to prevent getting caught with a surplus of undesirable 
 goods ; in many cases the only remedy is to slack up or stop a part of our machinery, 
 it being more profitable to stop were it not for the fact that if we stop our help at 
 once go into other fields of labor, such as shoe factories, machine shops, stores, and a 
 thousand and one things where openings stand ready to receive them. It is of itself 
 very satisfactory that such openings exist, but it places the American manufacturer 
 at a serious disadvantage compared with his foreign rival, who has no such difficulty, 
 and when he gets ready to start up finds his help more delighted by the fact than 
 he himself, and all on the ground ready to go to work again. In this way, it will be 
 seen, the foreigner has much the advantage of the American manufacturer. We men- 
 tion this because it is generally overlooked, and its importance not generally under- 
 stood. 
 
 We desire, also, to call attention to the rapid increase in imports of woolen and 
 worsted yarns, as well as cloth and ready-made clothing, since the adoption of the 
 present rate of duty, and suggest that the natural tendency being to have work done 
 where it can be done cheapest, that it is simply a question of time when we shall 
 only be able to obtain a chance to manufacture for ourselves what the foreigner lacks 
 capacity to do for us. 
 
 We believe specific duties are generally less objectionable than ad valorem duties, 
 if for no other reason, because there is much less liability for trauds to be perpetrated, 
 and even where there is no disposition to defraud there is a greater liability to err in 
 appraising on the ad valorem s} stem. 
 
 Mr. Anderson. The other day Mr. Whitman, in reply to a question by the chair- 
 man, said he did not think there was much difference in the amount of waste and 
 imperfect work made by factory operatives in Europe as compared with the oper- 
 atives in the United States. My impression is that if Mr. Whitman had worked as 
 an operative in the mills on both sides of the water, as I have done, he would not 
 Irave answered as he did. Mr. Whitman thought we had 10 per cent, the advantage 
 of the foreign manufacturer on account of superior "help and machinery. While not 
 prepared to state by exact figuring just what advantages the foreign manufacturer 
 has over us, I feel positive that it will at least offset the 10 [jer cent, extra production 
 conceded by Mr. Whitman. Our operatives make more waste and imperfect work, 
 partially on account of higher speed of machinery, and because here the operatives 
 will not remain and submit to such reiiuirements as are necessary in Europe to retain 
 their positions. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you think that Congress ought by law to compensate or protect 
 the manufacturer of the United States against his waste or inattention to business? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. I do not think it is caused by our inattention or our inability to 
 do business. It arises from the fact that if we brought our operatives up to the scratch, 
 they would simply refuse, and if pressed would leave us. 
 Mr. Carlisle. There are other employments in which they could do better. 
 Mr. Anderson. Perhaps not so well. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If they could not, they would not leave you. 
 ' Mi. ,4npj5B80N. fhej do leave up srjpietimes, and are glad to get back. 
 
320 REVISION OF THE TARIFF 
 
 Mr. Cakuslt!. Because they think they can do better? 
 
 Mr. And]ckson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you think that where a man leaves one occupation and goes into 
 another, that it is for his lienetit to do so ? 
 
 Mr. Andek.son. Sometimes, but not always. 
 
 Mr. C.iKLisLE. And it is for Ihe beuefit of tlie country at large? 
 
 Mr. Andei;s(in. I thinli so, generally speaking. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is it better, if a man found a better occupation, to induce him to 
 stay in the woolen mill? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. It may be better for the man and not for the woolen mill. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. But suppose all men engaged in woolen mills found that they could 
 make better wages by goiug into some other occupation ; would not it be better that 
 they should do so ? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. I .should think so. You doubtless have heard something of the 
 change of sentiment in New England in reference to a demand for free wool among 
 manufacturers. Mr. Bennett day before yesterday presented two petitions, one for 
 an ad valorem rate of duty and another for free wool, and he made the statement 
 that a very largo perceutage of representative men engaged in the woolen industry 
 wanted free wool. I am not here to refute the statement made l.iy Mr. Bennett. I 
 know from personal knowledge that a good many of our manufacturers engaged in 
 the woolen industry signed those petitions, and I know also that those petitions 
 were circulated throughout the woolen mills — I think in every one of them — one in 
 favor of an ad valorem rate of duty and another in favor of free wool, but there was 
 no petition in favor of letting the duties remain as they are. There are manufact- 
 urers who might be wavering. There are manufacturers who have been driven to 
 the verge of despair by low duties, and many of them like sick i^eople are anxious 
 to change their doctor, but they do not know which doctor to take, and I believe 
 that many of the names were gotten in that way. I say, further, that if Mr. Ben- 
 nett had made a proyier canvass of New England he would have found that the senti- 
 ments .IS expressed before this committee by Mr. Whitman, Mr. Search, and others 
 on that question were true. Mr. Bennett alone stands as the representative of free 
 wool, while every other gentleman who has come before you has taken the other 
 side. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How many woolen manufacturers are there in the United States? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. I do not know. There are about ten thousand sets of cards in the 
 United States. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You have stated yon are in favor of the restoration of the duties on 
 woolen and worsted goods and on raw wool as it stood before the passage of the act 
 of 1883. 
 
 Mr. Amderson. About that. 
 
 Mr. Carllsle. The act of 188?), while it reduced duties on some classes of woolen 
 goods, also increased the duties on some other classes? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Yon would not therefore want the duties which were increased in 
 1883 reduced ? 
 
 Mr. Aj^^deeson. No, sir ; I do not think I do. I want to be very distinctly under- 
 stood. I think the duties ought to remain that were increased, and increased on 
 those not increased then. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That would not be a restoration of duties. What you want is to 
 retain the higher rates of duties which were imposed by the act of 1883, and restore 
 those reduced. 
 
 Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir ; restore them to about where they stood before. 
 
 The Chauiman. Do you think it essential to the prosperity of t,he industry and 
 maintenance of wages? 
 
 Mr. ANDER.S0N. I believe that to be very essential to the restoration and prosperity 
 of the woolen interest. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How about the consumer? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. The consumer would derive benefits. It seems to me every man 
 who has been iiccustomed to buy woolen goods previous to the estalilishinent of the 
 tariff system knows very well tli.at woolen goods have decreased in value since then. 
 Everything which is well protected has decreased in price. 
 
 Mr. Carllsle. Is not the general tendency throughout the whole world towards 
 decreasing jiriees? 
 
 Mr. Andlrson. I think there are .articles which have been well protected in the 
 United States by high duties that have decreased in larger ratio than articles on the 
 other side. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. They have not reached the point they have on the other side, have 
 they? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. I think in some cases they have. 
 
KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 321 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Take the generality of cases. If they had there could be no im- 
 portations. 
 
 Mr. Andek.son. There wonld not be likely to be many. In a good many industries 
 there are no importations bnt a good many exhortations. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. As to all those articles where there are importations, the prices are 
 higher than they aie abroad. There would not be much imported if they were not. 
 
 Mr. Anderson. I think th.it is true. 
 
 Mr, Carlisle. Is not the product sent to the best market you can find? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. When you sic an article is being imported here and sold, duties 
 paid, is it not pretty good evidence that its price is higher than the price abroad? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. Mr. Pluuimer spoke of a good many gentlemen who would rather 
 wear a foreign than a domcslic suit of clothes. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Of the two grciit staples necessary to life, cotton goods and shoes, 
 which is cheaper in tbis country ? 
 
 Mr. Anderson Cotton goods are cheaper. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Bur, they both liavo free raw material — hides are free. 
 
 Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir ; we export shoes, but not many. 
 
 Mr. BaYNE. The consequence is that they have come to as low a price as in Eng- 
 land? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. I am not posted on cotton and shoes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. .S|ieaking of Mr. Bennett's petition, was there anything unfair 
 in his mode of learning the opinions of the manufacturers '? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. It .-.eems to me that if Mr. Bennett bad nudertaken to be candid 
 and fair and given all sides a chance to be beard, as he claimed he intended to do, 
 that it would be simple justice to have given the third party a chauce to be heard. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge;. Did he not send the petition to every manufacturer as far as 
 you know? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. I think he did, if his purpose was to ascertain the sentiments of 
 the woolen manufacturers on that subject. Inasmuch as there were three sides and 
 he confined himself to only two, and those two rex)resenting a small minority, I do 
 not think it was exactly fair. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If a manufacturer said he wanted free wool, on the contrary 
 there was no necessity for saying the other thing. 
 
 Mr. Anderson. That does not prove that Mr. Bennett Avas imi)artial in putting 
 these questions if he wanted to ascertain the tAie sentiments of the manufacturers iu 
 regard to that question. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then, if all the signers were at perfect liberty to qualify their 
 sentiments, I am unable to see where there is any limitation placed upon them. 
 
 Mr. Anderson. I do not say there is; I merely wanted to call attention to it. Let 
 me say further that there is another thing in Mr. Bennett's jietition that perhaps yon 
 do not know. It was accompanied by a circular in which be requested those receiv- 
 ing it not only to sign the firm-name but the iudividual names of iiartners, superin- 
 tendents, assistant superintendents, and even operatives, because numbers were im- 
 portant in such matters. 
 
 Mr Breckinridge. After all it is entirely feasible to reduce the petition down and 
 then these additional names are quite important to get information as to the drift of 
 all opinions on that point. 
 
 Mr. Anderson. It was sly, and that is why I give these facts. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. These names give added value to the petition. Are you 
 familiar with the production of woolen goods in this country prior to the passage of 
 the act of 1861? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. I am not well enough versed in statistics to give you any statement 
 on that point. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Your i)ersonal experience does not run back to that period? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. I came to this country iu Ibol. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Certain branches of the woolen trade were prosperous, I )je- 
 lieve, during 1855, 1856, and 1857, and down to 1861. 
 
 Mr. Anderson. Certain branches were prosperous. As a rule, the trade was not 
 In anything like as prosperous a condition as it has been since that time. 
 
 The Chairman. How were wages then ? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. Wages were clear down. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Were you a wage-earner when you came here? < 
 
 Mr. Anderson. I was. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do yon remember the prices you received? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. I will endeavor to state them. I was a spinner at that time. I 
 had learned weaving, we had to commence work at 5 o'clock and work tiU 7. Our 
 hours amounted to seventy-eight per week. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. About thirteen hours a day, 
 
 485 3; 
 
322 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Anderson. By -n'orkiug hard, which we were obliged to do to live, we got 
 from perhaps $•24 to |28 a month as spinners. I was figuring on it a short time ago 
 and making some comparisons between that and the rates of wages which I am now 
 paying spinners wortiuo- in my mill. In mailing the comparison between the cost of 
 li-ping then and now, I find I had to worlt one hundred and eighty-two honra for a 
 barrel of flour. I will not say I am entirely correct in this. I thinlc I had to %York 
 three weeks for a barrel of flour, and now any of our spinners can earn four barrels 
 of flour in that time. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. When you were earning |28amonth at that time what would 
 you have earned in the same work in Scotland ? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. I had not worked at spinning in Scotland to any great extent. I 
 was a weaver in Scotland. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you know what could have been earned? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. In Scotland spinners could make about a pound a week. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Twenty- five dollars a mouth. 
 
 Mr, Gear. No; twenty-two dollars and fifty cents. 
 
 Mr. Ajsiderson. We generally speak of a pound as |5, but I suppose the latter fig- 
 ure is correct. It shows that there has been an advance in wages during that inter- 
 val. Spinners' wages have not advanced to the same degree abroad that they have 
 in this country. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I wanted to know as to whether or not there is a greater or 
 less discrepancy in wage-earners' wages then and now. 
 
 Mr. Anderson. We pay comparatively more. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is that an opinion of yours? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. I am not afraid to make the statement that there has been an ad- 
 vance iu wages here during that time over the wages abroad. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What principal articles do yon manufacture? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. Fancy cashmeres, broadcloths, and overcoatings. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. \)o you pay by the day or by the week? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. That depends on what the work is. On some classes we pay by 
 the piece, because that is the only way we can pay. Ou others that is impossible. 
 We pay both ways. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You pay by the piece whenever it can be done. 
 
 Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you divide it by the yard or the pick? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. By the yard and also by the pick. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I would like to know what you pay a weaver by the y.irdand 
 also by the pick, and what is paid in competing mills in England on the same goods 
 by the yard and by the pick ? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. I am hardly prepared to do that. When I left Scotland I was a 
 hand-loom weaver. Now we do not have any hand-looms. I worked upon hand- 
 looms at that time in lit tie shops where there were few looms. Tbey pay the same 
 price to-day that they did at that time — that is, in a small way. The rate per yard 
 was very much higher there. But that was for an industry which now is a thing of 
 the past. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It was more of a manual than a machine industry? 
 
 Mr. Ander.son. There is no comparison. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Most of the production in that country ia by machinery, as it 
 is in ours, I suppose ? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Jlr. Breckinridge. Where they employ the same power, do they pay per pick or 
 per yard? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. I could not tell you. I was in Scotland in 1883, and I made it my 
 business to find out what operatives were paid. I visited the mills and talked with 
 tbem. Many of them are my old friends, and 1 found in Galashiels they were paid 
 the highest rates of wages of any wherein Scotland. In Galashiels good weavers could 
 earn il a week. At that time weavers in our mill wore earning twice that amount. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Did you analyze their wages and ascertain what thev got^ier 
 pick 1 
 
 Mr. Anderson. I could not say whether I did or not. I merely did that in a casual 
 sort of way aud have forgotten. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You do not remember anything upon the score of the pro- 
 ductiveness of the looms, or of 1ho iKinds, or of the number of looms per hand? 
 You are not able to give us any data upon these points? 
 
 Mr. Andkrson. No, sir. 1 coufincci my attention to woolen goods. I found the 
 looms there very clumsy and slow. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That was in ISdii, I lujlieve you said. 
 
 Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir; they wore pomlerous aud were not so effective as our 
 speedy looms. 1 will tell you my impression. The first mill I went into, one of the 
 best in town, was managed by an old shop- mate of mine. He very kindly showed 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 323 
 
 me tliroTigh the works and I -admired hia room. Everyttiiug about it was well liL;lilc(l 
 and airy. It was nice macliinery, and the work was elegant, and after having Bliowa 
 me through the place he said, " What do you think of the room, Lew ?" I saiil, 
 "You have got a beautiful room, but I would nob take your looms if you gave tliem 
 to me. You are a hundred years behind the times." He was perfectly astonished. 
 I changed my opinion on this to some extent afterwards. Before leaviun; Europe I 
 went to an industrial exposition which was then going ou in Hiiddersdeld, England, 
 and I saw American looms and quite a number of English looms running side by side, 
 and I made up my mind that the alow-running loom enabled them to jirocure a class 
 of labor that we conld not use on our high-speed looms. They could not run onr 
 looms on the class of goods they were making. Their looms rnn slowly. They were 
 ponderous, and the shuttles and bobbins were large, so their filling did not rnn out 
 so often, thus saving waste and time of changing shuttles, and the slow speed also 
 lessening the liability of imperfect work. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you employ the best class of labor you can get ? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. I do. 
 
 Mr. Brbckinridge. Could you employ this inferior labor to which you refer? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. I would not consider it profitable. It is not the most economical. 
 
 Mr. Brbckinkidgb. Did you iind labor thoroughly organized on the other side of 
 the water ? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. If you mean in regard to unions. I do not think it was ; at least I 
 did not learn that it was. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How many of your looms will a man run ? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. Only one. 
 
 Mr, Breckinridge. In your business do the laboring people limit the hours of 
 workf 
 
 Mr. Anderson. The legislature does it for us. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. We have heard a good deal of the consumption of foreign 
 cloth as compared to the consumption of domestic cloth. I suppose the two ;iro 
 equal In appearance to most consumers, who do not know whether they are wearing 
 the foreign or the domestic article. You can not rely on what the tailor says, and 
 that is no guide. 
 
 Mr. Anderson. You can not rely upon the tailor. I will give a little instance if 
 the committee will bear with me. There was a lady in my office a short time ago 
 from California. She is a cousin to my partner, and after going through the mill slie 
 priced the goods that we were making. She said that a few years before she and her 
 husband went to a leading dry-goods store in San Francisco to buy a nice dress. One 
 of the salesmen threw down a piece of cloth and said to her, " Here is a nice piece of 
 imported goods," and recommended her to buy it. She said it was nice goods. In 
 handling the bundle finally the mill-tag drojjped on the floor and she picked it up, 
 and found it was from Skowhegan, Me. The goods had been imported from Skowhe- 
 gan. Me. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. There is no way for the consumer to toll the diiferenoe be- 
 tween the foreign and the domestic goods ? 
 
 Mr. Anderson. No, sir ; he can not generally. 
 
 CAMEL-HAIR BELTING. 
 
 This fabric is commercially known as camel-hair belting ; it is woven solid on the 
 loom and is composed of cotton, animal hair, and paint, and it is used for driving 
 machinery. The "camel-hair belting" surpasses all belts for mule-driving in cotton 
 miUs. It is also especially adapted for working in heat, steam, or water, such as 
 paper-mills, iron-works, flour-mills, saw-mills, woolen-mills, engineering works, 
 sugar-mills, and for use on electric machines it has no superior. 
 
 From its peculiar construction, which enables it to grip the pulley, more regular 
 turning power is obtained than with ordinary belting. 
 
 It is also stronger than a double leather belt of equal width, and as it stretches 
 less than any other belt in the market, we do not hesitate to say that it 'can be used 
 for any kind of work. 
 
 This camel-hair belting is manufactured in Manchester, England, according to a 
 process patented in 1884 by F. Eeddaw.ay, letters patent having been obtained in tlie 
 United States. The patent has eight years to run. No belting like it is made in 
 the United States, nor may the fabric be produced without the permission of the 
 patentee. The rate of duty imposed is that of 3) cents per pound and 50 percent. 
 ad valorem, the collector of customs assessing it under Schedule K, paragraph '666, 
 Heyl's United States Tariff, which reads as follows : 
 
 "Webbings, gorings, suspenders, braces, beltings, bindings, braids, galloons, 
 fringes, gimps, cords, cords and tassels, dress-trimmings, lace nets, buttons, or barrel- 
 
324 EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 buttons or buttons of other forms for tassels or ornaments wrought by hand or 
 braided by machinery, made of wool, worsted, the haii" of the alpaca, goat, or other 
 animals, is a component material, 30 cents per pound, and in addition thereto, 50 per 
 centum ad valorem." 
 
 The effect of that assessment was practically to prohibit the importation of a 
 "fabric which does not come into competition with any like manufacture in this 
 country, it alone being adapted for certain purposes of peculiar importance to the 
 American manufacturer. The invoice value of the tentative importation was $95.78 • 
 the weight 211x50unds; the rate 30 cents and 50 per cent. ; the result is easily perceived.' 
 Value, S9r,.78 : 
 
 211 pounds at 30 cents |63.30 
 
 $95.78 at 50 per cent 47]h9 
 
 Duty S111.19 
 
 Which was equivalent to an ad valorem duty of about 125 per cent. 
 
 Of course there was a protest to the collector (which was disallowed through the 
 conjoint action of the collector and the naval officer), followed by the customary 
 appeal in case of disallowance of protest to the Secretary of the Treasury, who handed 
 down Lis decision October 21, 1889 : 
 
 "Sik: The Department is in receipt of the 16th Instant, reporting further upon 
 the appeal (6221 N) of Messrs. G. W. Sheldon & Co. from your assessment of duty 
 at the rate of 30 cents per pound and 50 per cent, ad valorem on a certain so-called 
 manufacture of Avorsted imported by the appellants per Adriatio July 29, lb89, aud 
 claimed by them to be dutiable at 10 cents per pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem 
 under T. I. New 363. 
 
 " The appraiser rejjiorts that the merchandise in (ijuestion consists of a manufacture 
 of cotton, animal hair, and paint, commercially known as belting for machinery and 
 used as such ; that it was 76 feet long and 18 inches wide, aud that it can be obtained 
 in sizes and lengths to suit the purchaser. 
 
 "Said merchandise being, therefore, belting of which animal hair is a component 
 material, was classified as such under T. I. 368, and your assessment of duty accor- 
 dingly is hereby affirmed. 
 
 " Eespectfully, yours, 
 
 "Geokob C. TicnKNOR, 
 
 ' 'Assistant Secretary," 
 
 Throwing upon the appellants the onus of carrying on a lawsuit in the United States 
 circuit court for the southern district of New York, to be followed in due course of 
 time, in case he won his suit, by an appeal by the Attornej'-Geueral on a writ of error 
 to the United States Supreme Court at Washington, years elapsing during this proc- 
 ess of costly litigation, with an antagonist controlling unlimited financial and legal 
 resources. There is no remedy except in the court-room, as there is an aggravation 
 of whatever injustice may have occurred in the fact that in all cases of doubt the 
 highest rate of duty is imposed by the officials whose duty it is in the first instance 
 to construe the taritf act, and that while the Secretary of the Treasury ujay reverse 
 a predecessor's decision so as to impose a higher rate of duty, he may not do so to de- 
 termine a lower one, although the greatest injustice may have bteu inadvertently 
 committed. 
 
 In thefirst place, the term "belting "enumerated in the section of the law under which 
 by a strained interpretation of customs officials this fabric was taxed 125 per cent, 
 means, as may be perceived from the contest of that paragraph, the belting usedfor 
 milinery purposes; it certainly does not mean belting for machinery. 
 
 In this question, as the revision of the tariff is in the hands ot a party advocating 
 protection we may look at what measure of protection, according to their doctrines, 
 should be meted out. The fabric is made by a loom-hand, where wages in Manches- 
 ter average .f;8 a week ; in Philadelphia $12 per week. That is just M iier cent more. 
 The labor represented in the completed fabric is 10 per cent., consequently a duty of 10 
 per cent, would appear to be a sufficient i)roteetioii, as that wouhl be a protection of 
 200 per cent, to the mechanic. It should be remembered that the Manchester opera- 
 tive is thousands of miles away from this market. Were this fabric manufactured in 
 the United States there might be some shadow of a reason for an exorbitant tax, 
 but it is not made here, and the manufacturer absolutely requires it so that he may 
 produce other goods more efficiently. Now, the petitioners respectfully suhmit and 
 suggest that the following section be enacted : 
 
 " That all belting for machinery, compofsud of cotton, animal hair, and paint, known 
 as camel hair belting, shall pay 35 per cent." 
 
 Jno. F. Risddaway & Co., 
 Per John Macwatty, 
 
 52 New street, New Torh City. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 325 
 
 VIEVrS OP EDWARD T. STEELE & CO. 
 
 Philadelphia, January 18, 1S90. 
 Gentlemen of the Commiltee on Ways and Means : 
 
 We protest against the increase of duties on woolen goods as recommended and 
 agreed upon by the joint committee of wool growers and woolen manufacturers re- 
 cently assembled iu Washington. Said duties being substantially as follows, viz: 
 Four times the new duty on wool, as proposed by said committee, which is 11 cents 
 per pound, and would therefore amount to 44 cents per pound of goods and, in addi- 
 tion thereto, 50 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 The adoption of this scale of duties would impose a bnrden and be an oppression on 
 the people of the United St-ates, being exacted on an article of absolute necessity to 
 every man, woman, and child of the sixty millions of our population. 
 
 Under present duties the protection on these goods varies from 135 per cent, on the 
 common grades used by the mass of the people, and gradually diminishes as the 
 quality becomes finer, although still high on these. 
 
 By the ratesof duty against which we protest, the coarser grades of goods, say, such 
 as cost abroad 49 cents per yard of 20 ounces weight, would be taxed 172^ per cent., 
 diminishing as the goods become finer. 
 
 To plainly illustrate the excessive duty which would result from the adoption of 
 the rates against which we protest, we append a table showing the amount and per- 
 centage of duty under present Treasury rulings (35 cents per pound and 35 per cent. 
 ad valorem), and also under scale proi^osed of 44 cents per pound and 50 per cent, ad 
 valorem. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 Edward T. Steele &. Co. 
 
 Percentage of duty on foreiijii cost of woolens and worsteds as assessed hy presen t ruling of 
 Treasury Department on this class of goods, and also percentage of duty as arranged by 
 Wool Groicers and Manufacturers' Committee, recently convened in Washington. 
 
 [Note — To the amonnt of the total duty is added 5 cents pnr yard to cover cost of importing. The&e 
 calcnlations are based on goods weighing 20 ounces (]-J pounds) per linear yard. J 
 
 
 
 Percentage under 
 
 
 
 Percentage under 
 
 
 Percentage under 
 
 wool growers and 
 
 
 Percentage under 
 
 wool growers and 
 
 Foreign 
 cost 
 
 present nilings. 
 
 manufacturers' 
 
 Foreign 
 
 present rulings, 
 
 m.nniifac turers' 
 
 35 per cent, -and 35 
 
 proposed tarift, ."50 
 
 cost 
 
 35 per cent, and 35 
 
 proposed tai iff, 50 
 
 per yard, 
 
 cents per pound. 
 
 per cent, and 44 
 
 per yaid, 
 
 cents per pound. 
 
 per cent, and 44 
 
 United 
 
 
 cents per pound. 
 
 United 
 
 
 cents per pound. 
 
 States 
 
 
 
 States 
 money. 
 
 
 
 money. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Amount 
 of duty. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Amount 
 of duty. 
 
 Per cent. 
 172J 
 
 
 Amount 
 of duty. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Amount 
 of duty. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 $0.49 
 
 $0.66 
 
 135 
 
 $0.84i 
 
 $0.66 
 
 $0.72 
 
 109 
 
 $0. 93 
 
 141 
 
 .50 
 
 .66J 
 
 133 
 
 .85 
 
 170 
 
 .67 
 
 .724 
 
 108 
 
 .93i 
 
 140 
 
 .51 
 
 .67 
 
 131 
 
 .8.5i 
 
 168 
 
 .68 
 
 .72§ 
 
 107 
 
 .94 
 
 138 
 
 .52 
 
 .67 
 
 129 
 
 .^6 
 
 165* 
 
 .69 
 
 .73 
 
 100 
 
 .94i 
 
 137 
 
 .53 
 
 .67i 
 
 IL'7 
 
 .86J 
 
 163 
 
 .70 
 
 .7.3* 
 
 105 
 
 .95 
 
 136 
 
 .54 
 
 .68 
 
 120 
 
 .87 
 
 101 
 
 .71 
 
 .74' 
 
 104 
 
 . 951 
 
 134 
 
 .55 
 
 .68 
 
 124 
 
 ■ m 
 
 169 
 
 .72 
 
 .74S 
 
 103 
 
 .96 
 
 133 
 
 .50 
 
 ■ esi 
 
 122 
 
 .88 
 
 157 
 
 .73 
 
 .74i 
 
 102 
 
 .96^ 
 
 132 
 
 .57 
 
 .69 
 
 121 
 
 .88i 
 
 155 
 
 .74 
 
 .75 
 
 101 
 
 .97 
 
 131 
 
 .58 
 
 .69 
 
 120 
 
 .89 
 
 153 
 
 .75 
 
 .75 
 
 100 
 
 .97j 
 
 130 
 
 ..59 
 
 .69i 
 
 lis 
 
 .89,^ 
 
 152 
 
 .76 
 
 .75* 
 
 99 
 
 .9.S 
 
 129 
 
 .00 
 
 .70 
 
 117 
 
 .90 
 
 150 
 
 .77 
 
 ■n 
 
 98 
 
 .98,1 
 
 128 
 
 .61 
 
 .70 
 
 115 
 
 .BOJ 
 
 148* 
 
 .78 
 
 .70 
 
 97 
 
 .99 
 
 127 
 
 .62 
 
 .70J 
 
 114 
 
 .91 
 
 147 
 
 .79 
 
 .76J 
 
 98 
 
 .99* 
 
 126 
 
 .63 
 
 .71 
 
 113 
 
 .91i 
 
 145 
 
 .80 
 
 .77 
 
 96 
 
 l.Oii 
 
 125 
 
 .64 
 
 .71J 
 
 112 
 
 .93 
 
 144 
 
 1.20* 
 
 .97 
 
 81 
 
 L20 
 
 100 
 
 .65 
 
 .72 
 
 111 
 
 .92J 
 
 1421 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * Duty 40 per cent, and 35 cents per pound. 
 
326 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 VIEWS OP G. A. HAMBERGER. 
 
 Lancaster, Ohio, January 15, 1890, 
 
 To the Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 I came to Lancaster, Ohio, in 1866, to put in some ne-n^ machinery for Olds & Eab- 
 betts, proprietors of the Lancaster Woolen Mills, which was flourishing and doing a 
 prosperous business, running their mill with two sets of hands day and night. I 
 remained with them two years after starting the machinery. But oh, what a cloud 
 came over the woolen industry of Ohio when the tariff of 1867 was established. I 
 predicted to Olds & Eabbetts that if that tariff would be continued it would be the 
 ruin of the woolen industry in this country, but-they simply laughed. 
 
 The fall of 1868 Mr. Olds, seeing the terrible conditions before them, concluded to 
 sell out to his partner, George Eabbetts, who srruggled along for three years there- 
 after and lost all the money he had made years before. On Jane 12, 1869, there was 
 a company organized at Circleville, Ohio, to enter into the manufacturing of woolen 
 goods. I was employed to put in a lot of new machinery. The company was princi- 
 pally men from the East — Albert Day & Co., of Boston, Mass. And it was but a short 
 time after getting started in good condition that they found it would be impossible 
 to get the kind of wool necessary to manufacture blankets and such domestic goods 
 as were principally wanted in this market. They heard of a large amount of wool 
 held in Toronto, Canada. I was sent there to examine the quality, and found it to 
 be exactly whaii we wanted. But after ascertaining the price, we found it would be 
 impossible to buy it and pay the high duty on same and manufacture our goods, so 
 as to compete with prices of the manufacturer that had the advantage of the same. 
 
 After returning and making my report to the company, the idea of getting foreign 
 wool was abandoned, and we again remodeled some of our machinery for the purpose 
 of manufacturing tine hosiery yarn in order that we might get wool at its first cost. 
 The company established a wool-puUery industry, and I was sent to Lancaster to con- 
 tract with .James Anderson & Sons for their sheep pelts (who was killing sheep by 
 the thousand) for the purpose of pulling the wool ourselves and turning same into 
 hosiery yaros. There was no stone left unturned to make the woolen industry a suc- 
 cess by this company. They soon had their capital piled up in their store-room, being 
 unable to se 1 their goods and get the prices which would justify them to continue 
 the business. 
 
 They abandoned the said industry for all time to come, and the set of machinery, 
 which cost over |-20,000, I purchased on the 14th of April, 1880, for less than $1,000, 
 as my contract in my possession shows. I bought the entire plant for old iron, as 
 the building was wanted for other purposes. 
 
 If the high tariff is shown to be a protection to the sheep husbandry of this coun- 
 try, why should it happen that in less than two years after the high tariff was passed, 
 the farmers in this section of the country should sell their sheep to James Anderson & 
 Son, of Lancaster, for the small sum, on the average, of |il per head? And the said 
 Anderson to sell to me the sheep pelt in price from 60 to 7.') cents per pelt in lots of 
 five hundred? According to my memorandum, I purchased 9,374 during the fall of 
 1869 and winter of 1870. 
 
 In the winter of 1870 and 1871 Mr. Gladhill's Sons & Co., of Mansfield, Ohio, started 
 a new mill of the latest improved machinery. Mr. Gladhill had been a woolen manu- 
 facturer near Mansfield for a number of years, where previous to 1867 he had been 
 prosperous and made considerable money. He wrote me several letters and insisted 
 on me to come and start his mill. I concluded to go and accept his proposition, but 
 told him when I arrived there that it would be impossible to make the woolen indus- 
 try a success under the present tariff system. But as Mr. Gladhill & Sons had, as 
 they thought )|30,000 to $40,000, it would be ample means to make it a success. 
 
 In less than three years they were compelled to close, and their new woolen ma- 
 chinery that was once bright with industry was turned out into the junk shop to rust 
 and sold for little or nothing, and the fine brick building, as I learned, was pur- 
 chased by the planing mill and turned into a wood shop. It would certainly be 
 very gratifying to me if the honorable Senator, John Sherman, of Mansfield, would 
 explain why Mr. Gladhill &. Sons under the low tariff became wealthy in manufact- 
 uring woolen goods, and under the high tariff became bankrupt in a few years after 
 its passage. 
 
 I could refer you to several similar instances, but will speak of but one in particu- 
 lar. Previous to the high tariff there were two mills doing a prosperous and 
 splendid business at Athens, Ohio, the Hon. Charles Grosveuor's home. Mr. Stewart, 
 as president of a railroad and with plenty of money, purchased the finest machinery 
 that could be had in America. He spent a great deal of money to make it a success. 
 In 1874 he sent for jjie and offered to sell the mill for two-thirds less than the origi- 
 nal cost. And when ho found that I did not wish to buy, as I was already located 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 327 
 
 with a one-half interest at the Lancaster Woolen Mills, he insisted on rae renting it at 
 a very low rent. But I refused the offer. After a while both mills were closed. 
 
 Now, if Mr. Grosvenor will explain to me why previous to 1667 the little town 
 of Athens was capable of keeping two mills in operation and making money, but 
 since the high tariff both have gone out of existence, I will certainly feel under many 
 obligations for the explanation. I bought the half interest in the Lancaster Woolen 
 Mills, putting all the money I had into the business of running the mill by my part- 
 ner and I overseeing it ourselves, which we considered a-great advantage over others, 
 we being raised and educated in the business from boyhood up, as I served my ap- 
 prenticeship and learned the trade at the Utica Globe Woolen Mills, Utica, N. Y., one 
 of the finest Cassimere Mills in this country. But still with all that advantage we 
 were losing money year after year. 
 
 Expecting there would be a change in the tariff, we continued to struggle along 
 for eleven long years, when I gave up all hope in despair, sold out, paid every dol- 
 lar we-owed, never to enter the business again, until there would be chance for one 
 who could take the wool off of a sheep's back aud turn it iQto almost any class of 
 goods wanted, and whose capital is limited below the millions. When I was East 
 three years ago to visit my old home I was surprised to see and learn that the high 
 tariff had affected the woolen industry in that part of the country as well as here in 
 Ohio. 
 
 What caused the Utica Steam Woolen Mills to close its doors ; the two or three large 
 mills at Little Falls, N. Y. ; Oriskany Mills, Oneida County, N. Y. ; the two large 
 mills at Washingtonville, N. Y. ; the new Hartford mill, nearly all of which is run 
 by the same stream of water ; why are all those mills deserted, aud the spindles which 
 once were bright are now rusting ? Now I will take a glance of nine Ohio counties, 
 including Fairiield. Previous to 1867 there were twenty-seven No. Al woolen mills, 
 in operation ; but we now find that the grand woolen industry, which was considered 
 among the best industries in the district, is now dead, dead as only high tariff can 
 kill it. 
 
 I will give you the names of the mills of these counties previous to 1867 ; also those 
 that are left. What is the trouble with the Dare Mill, at Zanesville, which had 
 prospered for fortj' years, and now the machinery in the junk shop ? Also Kemmerer, 
 one of the finest cassimere mills in Ohio without any exception, built new in 1870 
 and 1871, with all improved machinery and a cash capital of $50,000 ? I met Mr. 
 Kemmerer at J. L. Taylor & Sons, wool dealers, Cincinnati, Ohio, in the winter of 
 1875 or 1876, and he stated to me that he never thought it could be possible for a man 
 to lose the amount of money that he had in the woolen industry in such a short time. 
 The last time he had met me he was a high-protective man, but was compelled 
 throngh experience of the last few years to change his views, and he hoped that Con- 
 gress would repeal the laws of 186/, which he had once advocated. But the day did 
 not come, and he went out of the business without a, cent. These are failures which 
 can not be contradicted. 
 
 Also the Putnam mill at the same place, only running four or five months in the 
 year. The Newark mills out of existence. The Somerset Woolen Mills; the two 
 at New Lexington, two at Athens, one at Nelsonville, one at Logan, one at Millville, 
 one at Lancaster, the latter only running three or four months in the year ; two at 
 Rock Mill, one at Chillicothe, one at Hamburg, one at Hemlock, one at Win- 
 chester, one at Columbus, two at Circleviile, and a dozen other places not running. 
 All these mills were running previous to 1867. Why are they idle; why is all the 
 machinery rusting and thrown out into the junk shop ? Why is there no intermin- 
 gling of warp and filling, and why is there no stream of laborers issuing forth at noon 
 day ? It is on account of the abominable high tarifi placed on the raw material which 
 is not raised in this country. 
 
 The market is controlled by the monopoly of a few speculators, which is detri- 
 mental to the masses of the people in this whole country. They are now enabled 
 virtually to purchase wool growji in this country at their own price. This is the 
 way it is done. They send their agent to the Ohio region to purchase a certain grade 
 of fine wool raised only here. They give him a limit, but instruct hira to buy as low 
 as possible below that limit. He comes here with a bug-a-boo, scares the farmer 
 into the belief that wool is to go to nothing a pound, and ho buys it at a figure way 
 below the limit. 
 
 Now, suppose that all these idle mills were in ojjeration as they were before the 
 high tariff, and as they would be with cheax)er foreign wool, they would necessarily 
 be compelled to lay in their stock of such fine wool needed in the business for certain 
 goods in the spring or early summer, for at that season the wool market opens. This 
 mill-owner and that mill-owner would have his eye upon the clip of the farmer in his 
 neighborhood. He knows that if the farmer sells bis wool to the Eastern speculator, 
 he will be compelled to purchase his wool at the East with increased cost and ship- 
 ping charges. So he and the Eastern agent engage in spirited bidding before either 
 hecomes purchaser. The consequence is that when the farmer sells his wool to the 
 
328 REVISION OF THE TARlPI. 
 
 Eastern man, or to the manufaotiirer in his OTvn noighborhood, he receives the top 
 price which either can possilily pay. As it is now the i^oor farmermust sell his wool 
 to pay his taxes. Theie are no competing bids for it, and the Eastern agent for 
 monopoly buys at bis own price. 
 
 Give the inland raaninfactnrer a little enconragcnient in the way of cheaper for- 
 eign wool, and thereby enable him to enga.ge in the bnsiness as of yore, and you will 
 establish a factor in competition that will not only prevent monorioly from'bnyinw 
 at its own price, but will also insure to the farmer a full money value in recompense 
 for his clip. They are in favor of the high tariff because it favors them instead of 
 you. I am in favor of free wool because it will enable me to start my mill and to 
 do a share of the business which they now hold in their own hands with a grip of 
 iron. 
 
 The farmer should be in favor of free wool because it will result in there being 
 more competition for his clip, and the laborer tihoiilil be in favor of free wool because 
 it opens avenues of employment which Iiave hitherto been Closed, and ha will be 
 enabled to clothe hia little ones at least in a comfortable condition without spending 
 the last cent bo so deaily earns. 
 
 I have been corresponding with Mr. W. Brown, of Boston, a wool dealer. He states 
 in his letter to me that the wholesale introduction into this country of foreign wools 
 in the form of tinished wools displaces American wools which would otherwise be 
 consumed in American mills, and that this is due to the unjust tariif. 
 
 As all the Amei lean wools ar<' consumed every year aud the supply falls far sbort 
 of the quantity needed to furnish clothing for our people, I fail to see how any of it 
 is displaced. The simple truth is, that the United States do not, and can not, grow 
 wool euougli to supply t'.ie Avants of tlie people. No matter what duty is placed upon 
 w-ool, it will not be grown here. Aud the sooner Mr. Brown, his associates, and the 
 people wboui they ]n-ofess to servi' realize this fact, the better it will be for all. I 
 believe that I am light when I state that the hardships and sutfering among the 
 woolen manufacturers, depicted by Mr. Brown aud the like of him, will increase in a 
 greater ratio, and the wool clip of the country diminish in quantity that nothing 
 can relieve them from partial annihilation except untaxed wool. 
 
 My mail has just been handed me, and I discover among it a notice of thePioneer 
 Woolen Mill, of 8an Francisco, Cal., as being ofl'ereil for sale, as the building is 
 wanted for other purposes. This mill has been known as the leading mill for manu- 
 facturing blankets in America. 80 you can see that it will be but a matter of time for 
 them all to close their doors. Below yun will find table giving the amount of wool 
 shorn in Ohio in 1^75, l(i,10'J.'iiit) pounds, which will prove my statement of above, 
 that while the woolen mills were all running the farmer received more for his wool 
 than with the inland mills closeil up. Above I have mentioned twenty-odd woolen 
 mills in nine counties in Ohio, and at a distance from Lancaster not to exceed 42 
 miles, showing the number of pounds in each countj' shorn. 
 
 PouDtla. 
 
 Fairfield County i:5-3,711 
 
 Perry County 310, 887 
 
 Pickaway County 67,865 
 
 Hocking County S8, 331 
 
 Eoss County 36,'200 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Licking County 1,079,685 
 
 Muskingum County 602,682 
 
 Athens'County 222,220 
 
 Franklin County 145, 505 
 
 Total 2,e 
 
 In the above counties there were twenty seven woolen mills running during the 
 year, which mills consumed 1,620,000 pounds. Take that from the amount raised 
 m said counties, of :i, 088,086 pounds, would leave a surplus of 1,068,086 pounds. 
 Average price, 31 J cents per pouud for 1875 in above counties. 
 
 Amount of wool shorn in Ohio in 1886, 22,081,5.52 pounds. 
 
 Amonnt in each county in 1886. • 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Muskingum Coirnty 889,277 
 
 Athens County 580, 98.3 
 
 Franklin County 129,908 
 
 Eoss County 55,473 
 
 PouDfls. 
 
 Fairfield County 146, 192 
 
 Perry County 3^2, 045 
 
 Pickaway County 42, 986 
 
 Hooking County 247,0115 
 
 Licking County 1, 272, 025 
 
 Total 3,745,904 
 
 .Out of the above twenty-seven mills there were only five running, and consumed 
 113,500 pounds, leaving 3, (i:!2,404 pounds. Average ])(!■ pouud during theyearof 1886, 
 in the abov'c counties, 2.5^ ceut.s, and in 18,Srt the avciage was but 22 cents jier pound, 
 showing that while the mills were running the larmer got more for his wool than 
 when they are :;early all closed up; as the s]ieculator has no competition, and the 
 wool at his own price. The above are prices and figures in Ohio 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 329 
 
 I will give you a small statement of low tariff during forty years, and bisli tariff 
 during twenty-one years. From 1828 to and including 1H37, ten years, average price 
 5i9i cents; from 1838 to and including 1847, ten years, average price 27|- cents ; from 
 1848 to and including IS'.'u, ten years, average price 32.9 cents; from 1858 to and iu- 
 cludiilg 1867, ten years, average price 4',).G cents. Average price for the forty years, 
 in low tariff, 35 cents ; in liigh tariff, from If (i8 to and including 1877, ten years, aver- 
 ao-o price 411 cents; from 1878 to and including 1887, ten years, average price 35.8 
 cents ; in 1888, average price 22 cents. Average jirice since the high tariff' from 1867 for 
 twenty-one years, 33 cents. 
 
 The above is Boston price, while in Ohio it was but 25 cents, a difference of 10 
 cents in favor of the Eastern speculator. 
 
 I will again say, give us a chance witli the duty off of wool, and you will find mill 
 after mill springing up throughout the country and prospering as of years gone by. 
 
 Hoping you will give this a fair consideration, and place it among your columns 
 for the benefit of those whose industry has been crushed out of existence, 
 I remain your obedient servant, 
 
 G. A. Hambekger, 
 Proprietor Lancaster Knitting Mill. 
 
CHEMICALS, PAIISTTS, OILS, AND TARNISHES. 
 
 STATEMENT OP HENRY BOWER. 
 
 Washington, D. C, Decemler 30, 1889. 
 The committee met at 10 a. m. 
 
 Mr. Henry Bower, of Pliilailelphia, Pa., secretary of the Mauufacturing Chem- 
 ists' Association of the United States, appeared before the committee and made tlie 
 following statement: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have appeared here, with quite a' 
 nnmber of manufacturers of chemicals, in response to your published notice, and de- 
 sire to call attention to the importance of the chemical industry, and recite a lew fig- 
 ures from the Tenth Census, which give the number of establishments at 1,349. I can 
 say that within the last decade the industry has increased enormously, so that the 
 Elevenlh Census will show a much largernumber of establishments. The total capi- 
 tal eni])liiyr'd was if8i"i,:l94,'-'n ; the total amount of wages paid was $11,840,704 ; the 
 nnmber of tons of coal used was :J7:;,101, anthracite, and 319,389 tons of bituminous. 
 The total value of the product was §117,372,324. 
 
 During the last session of Congress the members of this association, of which I am 
 tlie seci ctary, were called here to Washington, first, when the bill which originated in 
 tbis committee (the Mills bill) was under discusiiou, and afterwards when the Senate 
 billwas ill committee. After a great deal of deliberation and time spent, the schedule, 
 as it appears in the Senate bill was made, and it is considered by us to be satisfac- 
 tory in most of its provisions. 
 
 The Chairman. Does it materially dift'er from the schedule in the House bill? 
 
 Mr. BoANER. Yea, sir ; vcy materially. We were also called upon and took an act- 
 ive part in assisting the Hon. Samuel J. Randall in making his tariff bill, and at his 
 request prcjiared a descriptive schedule, of which I have a copy in my hand. I have 
 given the clerk of your committee some copies, which you will find quite valuable in 
 arriving at conclusions in regard to the several points touched upon in this paper. 
 
 In regard to the inconsistencies which appear in this Senate bill, there is one to 
 which 1 personally wish to call the attention of the committee, and that is carbonate 
 of potash, which has been taken from the dutiable list and placed upon the free list. 
 The duty on it is only 20 per cent., a moderate rate of duty, and one which should 
 remain. The object in taking it from the dutiable list was simply to reduce the reve- 
 nue. There can be no other reason, and notwithstanding my personal efforts at that 
 time, it was put upon the free list in the Senate bill. Some consumers are desirous 
 of having that duty removed ; but our establishment (probably one of the largest in 
 tiiis ciiniitry) disavows any action at all looking to such an unfortunate provision in 
 a tariff bill by which a manufactured article would be placed upon the free list. 
 
 For your information, I would say that in the State of Michigan there are now, ac- 
 cording to the latest returns of the Eleventh Census, 73 manufactories of this article: 
 In Ohio there are 24 ; in Kcw York, 17 ; in Maine, 12 ; in Wisconsin, 8 ; in Indiana, 4 ; 
 in Illinois, 1 ; making a total of 139. These American potashes are made from wood- 
 a.shcs, which is jiroduced largely in the lumber regions, especially in the State of 
 Michigan, in connection wi(h the salt industry. That is to say, the same concerns 
 which produce salt and lumber, also make these potashes from the slabs and heads of 
 lumber, which they burn. It is emphatically an American industry, and one which 
 deserves a duty. 
 
 The Chairman. Has this competition from the other side ? 
 
 Mr. BcjWER. The competition is a very serious one, even under the present rate of 
 duty. Large quantities of carbonate of potash are imported into this country. Mu- 
 riate of potash is now imported free of duty, mid it should be free of duty, because 
 there is no sucli material existing in this country. It is found as a native product in 
 Germany, at Stassfurt. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How long has it been admitted free? 
 
 Mr. BowEE. Since the bill of July 14, 1870, was passed. 
 330 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 331 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you know what it waa worth in 1870, when it was put upon the 
 tree list ? 
 
 Mr. Bower. I could not say. 
 
 Mr. Carlislk. Do you know whether it has risen or fallen in price since it was put 
 on the free list ? 
 
 Mr. Bower. It is an article that is somewhat fluctuating, and it is controlled by a 
 syndicate on the other side. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What is it worth now on the other sidet 
 
 Mr. Bower. It is worth |1.34 a pound. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That is crude potash f 
 
 Mr. Bower. It is muriate of potash ? 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What is nitrate of saltpeter, crude — how does that differ from what 
 you have been speaking about ? 
 
 Mr. Bower. That is a different salt altogether. That is a native product iu India. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It is produed here, is it not? 
 
 Mr. Bowrr. It is manufactured in this country, very largely. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is it not natural to this country ; is it not found here ? 
 
 Mr. Bower. It is marte from this muriate of potash aud nitrate of soda. They are 
 put together, and they form nitrate of potash. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you know whether saltpeter has been found in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Bower. Yes, sir ; saltpeter is found in all oaves, iu a degree. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Were not large quantities of it found in the Mammoth Cave in Ken- 
 tucky at one time ? 
 
 Mr. Bower. I do not know whether large quantities were found there. It exists 
 in these caves as nitrite of lime, and from that we can manufacture nitrate of potash. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The only change you suggest iu the Senate schedule on chemicals 
 would be the restoration of this article to the dutiable list at 20 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Bower. Yes, sir ; this article of potash interests every lumber region in this 
 country. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It is a bi-product of the lumber region ? 
 
 Mr. Bower. I suppose it may be said to be entirely a bi-product of the lumber 
 regions. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Their principal business is the manufacture of lumber? 
 
 Mr. Bower. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is this the product that is known to commerce as black salts ? 
 
 Mr. Bower. No, sir. Black salts are a very low grade of potash. They wore made 
 free of duty some years ago; just what year I can not tell, but it was done so as to 
 bring them in from Canada to be refined in this country. The importers have been 
 bringing in a, material which is of a dark gray color, and invoicing it as black salts ; 
 and they have even had that word incorporated into these tariff bills. It is now 
 somewhat of a scientific undertaking to originate a tariff bill so as to use only generic 
 terras and titles. I hope that in making your bill, no such expressions as "black 
 salts" will be allowed, for they are unscientific, and unworthy to appear in a great 
 public document like a tariff bill. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I think that formerly in Ohio, when a farmer cleared land, he would 
 leave on the ground large piles of this black salt, and this is the black salt to which 
 I refer. I never heard of any other kind. 
 
 Mr. Bower. The other term is a misnomer. These black salts which are now im- 
 ported contain 80 per cent, of carbonate of potash. They are very rich in potash. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. They have to be refined after they come here ? 
 
 Mr. Bower. We use them in the exact condition in which they are imported. We 
 import them and pay 20 per cent. At Philadelphia we pay 20 per ceut., and at the 
 Port of New York they have been entered free — surreptitiously, it is true. The im- 
 porters were apprehended, and that is now stopped. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The Treasury h(dds them to be dutiable ? 
 
 Mr. Bower. The Treasury holds that any salt above 30 per cent, of potash is duti- 
 able. It is a just decision. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. LEWIS ABRAHAM. 
 
 Mr. Lewis Abraham, of Washington, addressed the committee as follows: 
 Gentlemen of the committee, I understand that the hearings at your meetings are 
 simply for the purpose of preliminary information on the important subject-matter 
 under your charge. My object in appearing before you is not to discuss anything 
 from a political or financial stand-point. Inadvertently in the original bill presented 
 at the last session certain chemicals were placed on the free list, the employnimit of 
 which is mainly for adulteration of food, the manufacture of imitation fruit sirups, 
 and the production of spurious beverages, notably counterfeit whisky, wine, rum, and 
 brandy. 
 
332 REVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 
 
 It is respectfully requested that if you decide not to advance the import duty on 
 sucli articles they should at least remain at the rate of the present schedule. 
 
 Ihadthehouor to i)r(iseufc this mat tor to the gentlemen on the Ways and Means 
 Committee having special charge of chemicals. The result was that the committee 
 ■withdrew the articles from the free list. When the hill was under consideration in 
 the Senate I appeared before the Finance Committee and presented a paper on the 
 suliject , which was printed in the public document, Senate Report No. 2332. 
 
 I'beg to submit herewith copies of certain memoranda handed by me to several 
 members of both houses of Congress. 
 
 Atttciition is invited to certain clauses in the hill (H. R. 9051) now under consider- 
 ation, wherein it is proposed to reduce the import duty on articles used for the aduj- 
 teratiou of food, and more particularly for the manufacture of iuutation liquors and 
 bcvorages. 
 
 l!y the present tariff acts the dutfbs are imposed on articles of this description as 
 follows (see R. F. Downing & Co.'s new pocket tariff of express rates and United 
 Slates custom duties): 
 
 A, pages 4.5-104, cognac oil per ounce, |4. 
 
 B, pages .'jg-lOS, ether,oenanthic, per ounce, |4. 
 
 C, page 46, coloring for brandy, .50 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 D, page 58, essence of rum, 50 cents per ounce. 
 
 E, page 5rt, essence of fruit, |2.50 per pound. 
 
 F, pages .59-65, fruit ethers, |2..50 per pound. 
 
 G, page r/J, ethi'rs not specified, |1 per pound. 
 
 Tlie import duty proposed to be levied upon these articles by the bill under consid- 
 eration will be found on page 90, sections 31, 32, and 33. 
 
 A, cognac oi! is used simply and only for manufacturing spurious brtindy. 
 
 B, cenanthic ether is only employed for the manufacture of spririous spirits and the 
 adulteration of beverages. 
 
 C, it is manifest that coloring for brandy serves no other purpose than its name in- 
 dicates. 
 
 D, the same is true of essence of rum ; it is only employed in the production of a 
 spurious article. 
 
 The items C, D should be advanced in r.xte for obvious reasons. 
 The items A, B should be specihcallytabulated and rated, at least, as in the present 
 tariff, and not included, as proposed, in pending bill, sections 32, 33, page 90. 
 
 E, F. Fruit essences are now rated at |2.50 per ponnd. These are used to manu- 
 facture articles similating genuine fruit essences, and to take the place of the genu- 
 ine, healthful material. If the present bill becomes the law without specifically de- 
 nominating these products, they would come in at r,ates specified in sections 32 or 33. 
 
 Section 32 reads, "Butyric ether and other fruit ethe ." Butyric ether forms the 
 base of most of the condensed ethers, essences, and other coujpouiids used for adulter- 
 ating purposes. (See Note 1.) It is obvious that it is erroneous to class such a dele- 
 terious article as a fruit ether, or to reduce the duty thereon. 
 
 Most of the articles herein referred to were placed on the free-list in the original 
 bill introduced by Mr. Mills. 
 
 By instruction I had the honor to call .attention thereto, and by amendment these 
 articles were restored to the present tariff rates by the House of Representatives. 
 
 I respectfully request the same action on the part of the Senate. 
 
 Appended hereto are copies, marked Exhibits 2 and 3, of memoranda furnished the 
 Hon. Benjamin Bntterworth and Hou. J. M. Farquahar, June 1, 1888. 
 
 Exhibit 1. 
 
 Butyric ether, or pino-apple oil, is an exceedingly fragrant oil, obtained by distill- 
 ing butyric acid (or the butyrate of lime), alcohol, and sulphuric ixcid. The material 
 which passes over is the butyric ether, and it is generally mixed with alcohol, .and 
 sold in commerce as artificial pine-apple oil. It possesses the same very pleasant 
 flavor which belongs to pine-apples, and there is little doubt that pine-apples owe 
 their flavor to natural butyric ether. 
 
 The artificial variety is now extensively used for flavoring confections, as pine-apple 
 drops, for sophisticating bad rum, and for flavoring custards, ices, and cream, as also 
 an acidulated drink or lemonade named pine-apple ale. 
 
 Butyric ether alone can not bo used in perfumery for handkerchief use, as when in- 
 haled even in a small quantity it teu.ls to cause irritation of the air tubes of the 
 Inugs and intense headache, but is employed as one material in the manufacture of 
 compound perfuiiicry. 
 
 It is composed of ordinary ether (CJlr.O) and butyric acid (CaHTOa— HO) and 
 its strict chemical name and symbol is the butyrate of the oxide of ethyl (CiHsO, 
 C8H7O3), 
 
REVISION OF THE TAHIFF. 333 
 
 It is remarkable that a substance possessing such a disagreealjle odor as butyric 
 acid (tbat of rancid butter) should be capable of forming in part at least a sub- 
 stance of such pleasant flavor as artificial pine-apple oil. 
 
 Exhibit 2. 
 
 Attention is invited to the proposition in the tariff bill, now under consideration, 
 whereby essential oils and essences, solely used for the manufacture of Imitation 
 liquors and adulterating pure liquors, are placed on the free list. 
 
 Such articles, instead of being admitted duty free, should be absolutely prohibited. 
 
 The uses and purposes to which these oils and essences are put is fully illustrated 
 in accompanying documents, showing recipes for adulterating and manufacturing 
 liquors. 
 
 In a circular issued by a dealer in essential oils used for manufacturing imitation 
 liquors occurs the following language : " The base of a manufactured liquor must be 
 a pure inodorous spirit; should any but the besr be used, the quality will deteriorate 
 proportionately. All natural old liquors (straight goods) contain certain odorous 
 compound ethers, arising from fermentation processes and slow oxidation." 
 
 Besides for use in imitating spurious liquors these essences are used to make imita- 
 tion fruit flavoring, used for culinary purposes and in manufacturing sirups for soda 
 water, imitation ginger beer, and so-called " medical " bitters. 
 
 Even if some of these essences have some merit, nevertheless they have many dan- 
 gerous properties, and in the hands of unskilled persons are dangerous to handle. 
 
 A single illustration of one of the articles proposed to be put on the free list is 
 sufficient for this purpose. 
 
 (Enantliic acid and ether. — This is one of the products of the oxidation of oleic acid 
 by nitric acid, and is likewise yielded by the action of nitric acid on castor oil, wax, 
 and various fats. Its most characteristic salt is the ffinanthylate of copper, which 
 crystalizes in beautiful green needles. The oleates of the alkalies occur in the animal 
 body; they have also been found in pus, in pulmonary tubercles, and in the excre- 
 ments after the administration of purgatives. 
 
 BEANHIES. 
 
 CogiKic. — From our finest cognac oil, distilled out of grapes. Take to 40 gallons of 
 the best cologne spirit, proof, one-sixth of I ounce of the cognac oil, well cut, in 1 
 pint of alcohol, 1| pints sugar sirup, and 4 ounces of our sugar coloring. 
 
 Brandy from wnanthic ether. — Four ounces of cenanthio ether, 1 ounce Jamaica rum 
 essence, !■} pints sugar sirup, and 4 ounces of our sugar coloring. 
 
 Eochelle brandy.- — Four ounces of essence to 40 gallons spirits. 
 
 Otard brandi/. — Four ounces of essence to 40 gallons spirits. 
 
 Cof/nac brandy. — Four ounces of essence to 40 gallons spirits. 
 
 Seignette brandy. — Four ounces of essence to 40 gallons spirits. 
 
 Cataxoba brandy. — Eight to 10 ounces of essence to 40 gallons spirits. 
 
 Apple brandy. — Six ounces of essence to 40 gallons spirits. 
 
 Cider brandy. — Eight ounces of essence to 40 gallons spirits. 
 
 Peach brandy.^Vive ounces of essence to 40 gallons spirits. 
 
 Cherry brandy. — Eight ounces of essence to 40 gallons spirits. 
 
 Bice brandy. — One pound of essence to 50 gallons spirits. 
 
 And one pint of sugar sirup. 
 
 GINS. 
 
 Holland gin, Old Tom, Schiedam schnaps, London-dock gin, etc. — Take to 40 gallons 
 cologne spirit, proof, 4 ounces of the essence and 1| pints of sugar sirup. 
 
 RUMS. 
 
 Jamaica mm. — Take to 40 gallons spirit, proof, one-half pound of the essence, one- 
 half pint of our sugar coloring, and 1 quart of sugar sirup. 
 
 St. Croix rum, Batavia arrac, New England rum. — The same as above without the 
 coloring. 
 
 PUNCH ESSENCES. 
 
 Jamaica rum punch. — Take 1 pound of the essence, cut it in 1 gallon of alcohol, 30 
 gallons proof cologne spirit, 10 gallons sugar sirup, 1 piut of onr coloring, and 1 
 pound tartaric acid. 
 
 Wine punch, arracpunch, St. Croix rum pxincli,iohishjpuneh.— Hade the sa,iaeo,siiboYej 
 without coloring. 
 
334 EEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 BITTEK8. 
 
 Aromatic, Spanisb, and Mostetter's bitters. — Take to 40 gallons of spirits, 15 per cent, 
 below proof, 6 to 8 ounces of essnnce, well cut. 
 
 Plantation, Spatiish, Herba, Stoughton, Cocktail, Sop, and Angostura bitters. — In al- 
 cohol, 1 to 2 gallons of sirup and 1 pint sugar coloring. 
 
 JBonneeamp, Hamburger, and Berliner bitters.— Take to 40 gallons spirits, 3D per 
 cent, below proof, 1^ pints of the extract, add 2 gallons sirup and 1 pint coloring. 
 
 WHISKIES. 
 
 Bourbon, Bye, and Monongahela. — Take to 40 gallons spirit about 1 ounce of the 
 flavor and 2 ounces of onr brandy coloring. 
 
 Irisli and Scotch wliisTcies. — Forty gallons spirit, proof, 8 ounces essence, about 1 gal- 
 lon malt whisky. 
 
 Wheat and malt whisky. — Take to 40 gallons rectified whisky about 3 ounces of 
 the essence. 
 
 Corn ether is a well-known article for all kinds of whiskies, principally for rye ; 
 take IJ ounces essence per barrel. 
 
 CORDIALS. 
 
 Kummel. — Take about one-quarter pound of the essence, 36 gallons spirit, and 4 
 gallons sugar sirup. 
 
 Ante. — Take about one-half pound essence, well cut in 1 gallon of alcohol, 36 gal- 
 lons spirit, proof, 4 gallons sugar sirup. 
 
 Peppermint. — Dissolve one-half pound of the essence in 1 gallon of alcohol and add to 
 36 gallons spirit, proof, 4 gallons sugar sirup one-half pound of our peppermint 
 coloring. 
 
 Ginger brandy. — Take 2 pounds of the extract, 27 gallons of spirit, proof, 13 gal- 
 lons of water, 5 ounces of our sugar coloring, one-fourth gallon sugar sirup. 
 
 Ginger cordial and ginger wine.— Take 1^ pounds of the extract, 14 gallons spirit, 
 proof, 5 gallons sugar sirup, 21 gallons water, 2 ounces carlat red, 2 ounces tartaric 
 acid. 
 
 Blackberry brandy. — Seventeen gallons proof cologne spirit, 6 ounces blackberry 
 essence, 3 to 4 gallons cherry juice, 4 gallons sirup, 4 gallons sweet cider, 15 gallons 
 hot water, 1 pint coloring, 4 ounces tartaric acid. 
 
 Absinthe. — Twenty gallons cologne spirit, proof, 1 pound essence cut in alcohol, 1 
 pint sugar sirup. Color is made of six parts solution of corcuma, two parts indigo 
 carmen, mixed. 
 
 Cider and wine, rinegar flavor. — One ounce of this essence added to common vinegar 
 gives the flavor of wine and cider vinegar. 
 
 VfnSTE BKCELPTS. 
 
 Port wine. — (For 1 barrel) 30 gallons of cider, after the same has fermented, 5 gal- 
 lons spirit, 4 gallons sirup, one-half pound powdered Gum Kino, one-fourth pound 
 tartaric acid, 6 to 8 ounces port wine flavor. To produce a better quality, add either 
 a few gallons German cherry juice, or any kind of pure wine, Spanish or Catalonic the 
 best. 
 
 Malaga, Madeira, sherry, and Catawba wine. — (For 1 barrel) 20 to 30 gallons of cider, 
 2 to 3 gallons sugar sirup, one-half pound Tartaric acid, 5 gallons spirit, 1 gallon 
 vinegar, 5 to 1 ounce Carlat red sugar coloring, etc., of the respective flavors, one- 
 half pound each per barrel. 
 
 Claret. — The same as port wine, in addition to 1 to 2 gallons blackberry juice, and 
 one-half pound claret wine essence. 
 
 Color for port wine. — One ounce azuline, 4 ounces of onr sugar coloring to the barrel 
 
 FOR CONFECTIONERY AND SODA WATER. 
 
 Our flavors for wine drops, peppermint drops, etc., as well as our sarsaparilla 
 pear oil, pineapple, banana, etc., is very highly concentrated. 
 
 Carlat red coloring. — For all kinds of wines, liquors, cider, sirup, candies, ice cream, 
 etc. This color does not settle, is very extensively and newly prepared. Must be 
 mixed with sugar coloring, according to our recipes. 
 
 Sirup, raspberry, strairberry, etc. — One-half pound of the essence cut inl pint of al- 
 cohol, 1| pound Tartaric acid, 7 ounces Carlat red, for one barrel. Banana, pineapple, 
 etc., :i8 above, without the Carlat red. 
 
 Ginger, birch, root, and raspberry beer, etc. — Take 1 pound extract to 5 gallons sirup, 
 2i ounces Tartaric acid. Put this in bottles and charge with carbonic acid water* 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 335 
 
 BRANDIES. 
 
 Cofinac, from our finest Cognacoil, distilled out of grapes. — Take to 40 gallons of tlie 
 best Cologne spirit, proof, one-sixth of 1 ounce of the Cognac oil, well cue in 1 pint of 
 alcohol, H pints of sugar sirnp, and 4 onnces of our sngar coloring. 
 
 Brandy, from OenantMo ether. — Fouronnces of renantliic ether, 1 ounce Jamaica ruui- 
 essence, 1| pints of sugar sirnp, and 4 ounces of our sugar coloring. 
 
 Bochelle brandij. — Four ounces of essence to 40 gallons spirits, proof. 
 
 Otard Irandy. — Four ounces of essence to 40 gallons spirits, proof. 
 
 Cognac brandy. — Four onnces of essence to 40 gallons spirits, proof. 
 
 Seigneite brandy. — Four ounces of essence to 40 gallons spirits, proof. 
 
 Catawba brandy. — Eight to 10 ounces of essence to 40 gallons spirits, proof. 
 
 Apple brandy. — Six ounces of essence to 40 gallons spirits, proof. 
 
 Cidnrhrandy. — Eight ounces of essence to 40 gallons spirits, proof. 
 
 Peach brandy. — Five ounces of essence to 40 gallons spirits, proof. 
 
 Cherry brandy. — Eight ounces of essence to 40 gallons spirits, proof. 
 
 Bice brandy, — One pound of essence to 50 gallons spirits, proof. 
 
 Holland gin, Old Tom, Schiedam schnapps, London Dock gin, etc. — Talce to 40 gallons 
 Cologne spirits, proof, 4 ounces of the essence, and 1^ pints of sugar sirup. 
 
 Jamaica rum. — Take to 40 gallons spirit-proof, half pound of the essence, half pint 
 of our sugar coloring, and 1 quart sugar sirup. 
 
 Si. Croix rum, Batavia arrac, and New England ram. — The same as ahove without 
 the coloring. 
 
 PUNCH ESSENCES. 
 
 Jamaica rum punch. — Take 1 pound of the essence, cut it in 1 gallon of alcohol, 30 
 gallons proof Cologne spirits, 10 gallons sugar sirup, 1 pint of our coloring, and 1 
 pound tartaric acid. 
 
 Wine punch, arrac jiunch, St, Croix rum punch, and whisky punch. — Made the same 
 as above without coloring. 
 
 Aromatic, Spanish, Jlostetter, Plantation, Herba, Slough Ion, Cocl'xiail Sop, and An- 
 gostura bitters. — Take to 40 gallons spirits, 15 per cent, brlow proof, 6 to H ounces of 
 essence, well cut in alcohol, 1 to 2 gallons sirup, and 1 piut sugar coloring. 
 
 Boonecamp, Hamhttrger, and Berliner Bitters. — Take to 40 gallons spirits, 30 per cent 
 below proof, 1| pint of the extract, add about 2 gallous sirnp, and 1 pint coloring. 
 
 WHISKIES. 
 
 Bourbon, Bye, and Monongahela. — Take to 40 gallons spirits about 1 ounce of the 
 flavor, and 2 ounces of our brandy coloring. 
 
 Irish and Scotch whiskies.— Foxtj gallons spirits, iiroof, 8 onnces essence, about 1 
 gallon malt whisky. 
 
 Wheat and malt tohisky, — Take to 40 gallons rectified whisky about 3 ounces of the 
 essence. 
 
 Corn ether is a well known article for all kinds of whiskies, principally for rye ; 
 take IJ onnces essence per barrel. 
 
 CORDIALS. 
 
 Kummel, — Take about oue-quarter pound of the essence, 36 gallons spirits, and 4 
 gallons sugar sirup. 
 
 ^«ts.— Take about one-half pound of the essence, well cut in 1 gallon of alcohol, 36 
 gallons spirits, proof, 4 gallons sugar sirup. 
 
 Peppermint, — Dissolve one-half pound of the essence in 1 gallon of alcohol, and add 
 to 36 gallons spirits, proof, 3 gallons sugar sirni), one-half pound of our pepiiermiut 
 coloring. 
 
 Ginger brandy, — Take 2 pounds of the extract, 27 gallons spirits, proof, 13 gallous 
 water, 5 ounces of our sugar coloring, one-quarter gallon sugar sirup. 
 
 Ginger cordial or ginger tcine, — Take 1^ pounds of the extract, 14 gallons spirits, proof, 
 5£allon8 sugar sirup, 21 gallons water, 2 ounces carUit red, 2 ounces tartaric acid. 
 
336 EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 BlaclcbeiTy Irandy. — Seventeen gallons proof cologne spirts, 6 ounces blackberry es- 
 sence, 3 to 4 gallons cherry juice, 4 gallons sirup, 4 gallons sweet cider, 15 gallons hot 
 water, 1 pint coloring, 4 ounces tartaric acid. 
 
 Absinthe. — Twenty gallons cologne spirits, proof, 1 pound essence cut in alcohol 1 
 yjiut sugar sirup. Color is made of 6 parts solution curcuma, 2 jiarts indigo car- 
 men, mixed. 
 
 Cidtr and wine rineijar flaror. — One ounce of this essence added to common vinegar 
 gives the Uavor of wine and cider vinegar. 
 
 WINE RECIPES. 
 
 Port-icine. — (For one barrel), 30 gallons cider after the same has fermented, 5 gallons 
 spirit, 4 gallons sirup, one-half pound powdered gnmmi kino, one-quarter pound tar- 
 taric acid, 6 to H ounces port-wiue Ihivor. To produce a better quality, add eithera 
 few gallons German cherry juice or any kind of pure wiue, Spanish or Catalonic 
 the best. 
 
 MaJaga, Maderia, sherry, and Catawia wines. — (For one barrel), 20 to 30 gallons cider 
 2 to 3 gallons sugar sirup, one-hali pound tartaric acid, 5 gallons spirit, proof, 1 gallon 
 vinegar, oue-half to 1 ounce carlat red. Sugar coloring, etc., of the respective flavors, 
 one-half pound each per barrel. 
 
 Claret. — The same as port wine, in addition to 1 to 2 gallons blackberry juice and 
 one-half pound claret wine essence. 
 
 Color for port-wine. — One ounce azuline, 4 ounces of our sugar coloring to the 
 barrel. 
 
 FOE CONFECTIONERS AND SODA WATER. 
 
 Our flavor for wine drops, peppermint drops, etc., as well as our sarsaparilla, pear 
 oil, jjine-apple, banana, etc., are very highly concentrated. 
 
 Carlat red coloring. — For all kinds of wines, liquors, cider, sirup, candies, ice 
 cream, etc. This color does not settle, is very extensive, and newly prepared. Must 
 be mixed with sugar coloring according to our recipes. 
 
 Sirup, rasplerry, slrawlierrij, etc. — One-half pound of the essence cut in 1 pint of 
 alcohol. Impounds tartaric acid, 7 ounces carlat red, for one barrel. Banana, pine- 
 apple, etc., as above, without the carlat red. 
 
 Ginger, hirch, root, and raspherrg heer, etc. — Take 1 pound extract to 5 gallons 
 sirup, -ij ouuces of tartaric acid. Pnt this in bottles and charge with carbonic-acid 
 water. 
 
 The Chairman. What you want is simply that the duties be left where they are? 
 
 Mr. Abraham. In the original bills they were pnt on the free list by a sweep- 
 ing clause. 
 
 The Chaiujian. But subsequently they were pnt back on the dutiable list. 
 
 Mr. Abraham. Subsequently they were put back. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Are those articles which you have mentioned all adnlterants ? 
 
 Mr. Abraham. They are used for that only. Butyric acid is found in rancid 
 hutter, and how can it be a fruit essence? 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is it unwholesome 1 
 
 Mr. Abraham. Yes, sir. It is found in the pus of consumptives, and in the ex- 
 crement of consumptive patients. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. ARMSTRONG. 
 
 Mr. Armstrong, of the Pennsylvania Salt Company, appeared before the commit- 
 tee and said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen : I would ask to make a brief statement on the subject 
 of heavy chemicals, such as alum-sulphate of copper, or blue vitriol copperas, bicar- 
 bonate soda, caustic soda, sal-soda, soda of ash, and sulphate of soda. I believe manu- 
 facturers generally aresatistied with the provisions of the Senate bill, except in regard 
 to sulphate of soda. The existing duty on this article 18 20 percent, ad valorem. ^ The 
 rate in the Senate bill is the same. The article is uniform in quality, and is in tlie 
 same class as the other articles named, all o£ which pay specilic duties, and we would 
 respectfully ask for a specific duty of one-quarter cent per pound on this article. The 
 importations are increasing and the duty suggested is only asking for legislative pro- 
 teclion er[uivaleut to the difference in cost of labor. 
 
 Regarding the labor question, I will give an illustration, which it seems to me af- 
 fords couviuoing proof that the present duty goes into the pocket of the workingmaiii 
 As the conii)any with which I am associated is probably second to none of its kindm 
 magnitude and possesses all the facilities for manufacturing cheaply, I have taken it 
 as a basis for my calculations. 
 
EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 337 
 
 During the current calendar year we have x'aid to 1,300 hands the sura of $710,000 
 in wages, being an average of |546 each. 
 The value of our allialine product is $1,820,000, upon which the percentage of labor 
 
 is 39. 
 
 The percentage of labor in similar works in England is 15.6 and the average annual 
 earnings amount to |218. In Germany the avcrii.ge is only |130 |ier annum. 
 
 In other words, we paid $425,800 more wages than England and $475,930 more than" 
 Germany on same amount of product. 
 
 Now, if the product of my company's factory had been imported, the duty at ex- 
 isting rates would amount to $405,000, or $20,800 less than the difference in cost of 
 labor compared with England, and $70,930 less than cost of labor compared with 
 Germany. The sea freight does not otfset the difference. I have known ships, char- 
 tered to load cotton and petroleum, to bring heavy chemicals for ballast, and at all 
 times the cost of sea freight is comparatively a mere trifle. 
 
 Therefore, unless the present duty is retained, it is obvious that the manufacture of 
 heavy chemicals can not be continued here on the basis of wages now paid. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What is the price of sulphate of soda abroad now? 
 
 Mr. Abmstkong. I think it is in the neighborhood of four-teuths cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Caklisle. What is the price in America ? 
 
 Mr. Armstkong. I think it is half a cent a pound wholesale. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Then you are asking for a duty of 60 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Armstrong. Hardly as much as that. Under the operation of the package 
 clause of an ad valorem duty it would not be so much. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. We propose to correct that. 
 
 The Chairman. If we correct that I suppose you would not want so high a rate? 
 
 Mr. Armstrong. If the invoice of packages is corrected I think two-tenths of a 
 cent a pound would be ample. 
 
 STATEMENT OF CHURCHMAN & CO. 
 
 Mr. Armstrong, of the Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Company, has made an 
 argument before your committee in favor of making the duty on sulphate soda or 
 salt cake one-fourth cent per pound instead of 20 per cent, ad valorem, as at present. 
 He is very careful, however, not to say that this is an enormous increase, amounting 
 to between 400 and 500 per cent. 
 
 The average price of salt cake for 1889 in England was 23s., or $5.60 per ton, and 
 the duty of one-fourth cent per pound, or $5.60 a ton, would be, therefore, 100 per 
 cent, ad valorem instead of 20 per cent. The article is used principally by the glass 
 manufacturers, the consumption being about 35,000 to 40,000 tons per year. Of tliis 
 quantity only about 5,000 to 7,000 tons are imported, and yet Mr. Armstrong wouhl 
 tax the glass manufacturers to the extent of $150,000 annually to stop this small im- 
 portation. 
 
 We know of one glass manufacturer near Pittsburgh that this would cause an ad- 
 ditional cost of his raw material of $32,000 a year. 
 
 The duty on soda ash is equal to about 20 per cent. Why make sulphate of soda, 
 which is used for the same purpose, 100 per cent, ad valorem ? 
 
 We do think that it would be much better, both for the importer and the Goveru- 
 ment, that a specific duty should be adopted instead of an ad v.ilorem one, and sug- 
 gest that it be $1 a ton=18 per cent, ad valorem ou a valuation nf 23s. a ton. 
 
 Salt cake is about as crude a material as comes to this market, and certainly the 
 above duty should be more than enough to protect it, and Las proved so, as the con- 
 sumption of the domestic is five to one as compared with the foreign. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. H. B. ROSENGARTEN. 
 
 Mr. H. B. Eosengarten, of Philadelphia, Pa., manufacturing chemist, appeared 
 before the committee and made the following statenient : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 1 am here with some other gentle- 
 men as representatives of the chemical section of the Manufacturers' Club of Phila- 
 delphia. We have taken up these articles in the order in which we find them in the 
 Senate bill, which we think requires some cbangrs. 
 
 The iirst one is on page 70 — alcohol in the industrial arts. The regulations of the 
 Senate bill would prevent free alcohol for the al>ove use being available. A large 
 quantity of alcohol is used, in the .iggregate, by a number of small houses who could 
 not provide a store-room, as provided for in the act, at tlioir own cxiiense and furnish 
 the required bond, and few, if any, of the large consumers would l)i' willing to have a 
 Government officer in charge of such store-room "who shall have access to every part of 
 such manufactory in which such distilled spirits are used, who shall report the pur- 
 
 485 22 
 
338 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 pose for ■wliic'h snch spirits liave been used, and furnisb such other iuformation as may 
 be required." 
 
 The j-e,a;ulation8 for the use of free methylated spirits are even more obnoxious. 
 
 If distilled spirits can not be made free of tax, the rate of tax should be greatly- 
 reduced. 
 
 Page 97, tannic acid or tannin ; page 99, collodion ; page 100, ethers. On all the 
 'above the rate of duty should be regulated according to the rate of tax on alcohol. 
 
 Page 101, iodiue, resublimed, should remain as in" the present tariff, 40 cents per 
 pound. 
 
 Page W'i, morphia, and salts of, and aqueous extract opium, rate should be ac- 
 cording to the rate on opium. 
 
 Page 106, salt cake, oue-fourth cent per pound. 
 
 Page 175, strike out "articles specially imported for the use of the United States." 
 
 Page 18b, opium, strike out the words "and not adulterated." 
 
 Page 191, strike out "quinia, sulphate of, and all alkaloids or salts of Cinchona 
 barks." The duty was removed from sulphate of quinine by act of July 1, 1879. The 
 importations of sulphate of quinine for the year ending June 30, 1879, were 228,348 
 ounces, valued at $626,567, equal to |2.75 per ounce ; for the year ending June 30, 1889, 
 they were 2,893,582 ounces, valued at ,^940,325, equal to 321- cents per ounce. Tlie 
 importations of Cinchona bark for the year ending June 30, 1879, were 6,388,641 
 pounds, value $2,094,514; for the year ending June 30, 1889, 2,865,968 pounds, value 
 |367,966. 
 
 Page 105, line 209, paragraph 81, all medicinal preparations, including medical pro- 
 prietary pre]>arations, etc., the rate should be 50 per centum instead of 25 per ceut, 
 
 Page 105, lino 219, paragraph 82, preparations, etc., t^hould be 40 per cent, instead 
 of 25 per cent. Line 222 insert " and chemically pure acid." 
 
 Page 104, line 192, paragraph 74, phosphorus should be 25 cents per pound. 
 
 Page 104, line 203, paragraph 80, preparations of which alcohol is a component 
 part, should have a rate of duty compeusatiug for the tax on alcohol. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Are there not several industries which use alcohol in production, 
 which could not use methylated alcohol? 
 
 Mr. EosENGAETEN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. CAfiLiSLE. Is it not rarely methylated? 
 
 Mr. EosENGARTEN. The Senate bill gives the privilege of both clean and raethy- 
 ated alcohol, but many concerns could not comply with the regulations of the pro- 
 posed law. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Those who could would have a great advantage over those who 
 could not ' 
 
 Mr. RosENGARTEN. It would give them a monopoly of the business. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Has not that always been the law? 
 
 Mr. Rosengarten. No, sir. 
 
 Mr, Carlisle. If opium contains only 9 per cent, of adulteration, it is still not ab- 
 solutely pure? 
 
 Mr. Eosengakten. It sometimes runs up to 16 per ceut. It is pure enough. It 
 is difficult to determine just what is adulteiation. The best qualities are sometimes 
 adulterated with shot to make them weigh heavy. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How many quinine factories were in operation at the time of the 
 repeal of the law in 1879 ? 
 
 Mr. Eosengarten. There were five then, and there are three now. Of these re- 
 maining in ojieration, two are working in a spasmodic way. , 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How does the jirice coinjiure now with what it was then? 
 
 Mr. Eosengarten. American ([uiniue to-day is worth 35 cents an ounce. Then it 
 was worth $3.40 an ounce. The price of a 1 per ceut bark at that time was 2 shil- 
 lings a pound, and to-day it is IJ pence per pound. That reduction in the price of 
 the bark was brought about by Great Britain and Holland in raising cinchona bark. 
 They ship 15,000,000 pounds a year. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The price of the b.ark has not fallen quite so low ? 
 
 Mr. Eosengarten. It has fallen 90 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The price of quinine has fallen from $3.40 to 35 cents an ounce? 
 
 Mr. Eosengarten. Yes, sir: 
 
 Mr. Flower. Then it has cheapened the price by putting it on the free list. 
 
 Mr. Eosengarten. Putting it on the free list had nothing to do with the cheap- 
 ening of the bark. The price of quinine has gone down in Europe in the same pro- 
 portion as it has gone down here. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. About how many pounds of bark ordinarily is required to make one 
 onnce of quinine ? 
 
 Mr. Eosengarten. It requires 6J pounds of a 1 per cent, bark to make an ounce 
 of quinine. 
 
 Mr. Flower. It is claimed that it is aduUoratod in this country; is that true 1 
 
BEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 339 
 
 Mr. ROSBNGARTBN. I do not think that is true. There is a variation in the price 
 of different makes. 
 
 The Chairman. What would be the efTeot of restoring the duty on quinine T 
 
 Mr. RoSBNGARTEN. It would increase the manufacture in this country and enable 
 factories to go on. 
 
 The Chairman. How would the price be affected ? 
 
 Mr. RosKNGARTEN. The price would be regulated by the price abroad. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Would it not increase the price here? 
 
 Mr. ROSENGARTEN. Not Very largely ; not more than the duty. 
 
 The Chairman. It is claimed that quinine has fallen because it was put on the free 
 list. Has not the price of quinine fallen on account of the large reduction in the 
 price of cinchona bark ? 
 
 Mr. ROSENGARTEN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. The price abroad has fallen just in proportion as it has fallen here. 
 
 Mr. ROSENGARTEN. Yes, sir; from 11 shillings and 6 pence per ounce to about 14 
 pence per ounce. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You think that the restoration of the duty on sulphate of quinine 
 would increase the price here, do you not ? 
 
 Mr. ROSENGARTEN. We hope it would. It would not increase it sufficiently to be 
 felt at all by the consumer. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is not every increase of price felt by the consumer t 
 
 Mr. ROSENGARTEN. Hardly. In a thing that is divided into such small doses the 
 consumer would not feel it. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The tax on the articles entering into its manufacture is what makes 
 it cost — alcohol, for instance. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Why not put a tax on cinchona bark f 
 
 Mr. ROSENGARTEN. Cinohoua bark could not be produced here. Crude materials 
 which can not be produced here are brought in free. Of the drug and chemical 
 schedule about 60 per cent, is on the free list. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I think the mistake was made when the duty was taken off sulphate 
 of quinine Dot to take it off the material of which it is made. 
 
 Mr. ROSENGARTEN. At that time the South American bark was free and the duty 
 on the East India bark was a discrimating one. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Have you any statistics in regard to the cost of the labor ? 
 
 Mr. ROSENGARTEN. I have a gentleman's statement, which was that the cost of 
 labor abroad was 50 cents a day for men and 12^ cents a day for women in winter. 
 The gentleman's name was Hasslaoher. He made that statement in conversation. 
 
 VIEWS OP THE PHILADELPHIA DRUG EXCHANGE. 
 
 Philadelphia, January 28, 1890. 
 Sir : I have the honor to submit herewith a copy of that portion of the Twenty- 
 ninth Annual Report of the Philadelphia Drug Exchange referring to the internal 
 revenue aud tariff legislation, which report was jjresented to and adopted by the 
 association this day, and this copy thereof ordered to be forwarded to your com- 
 mittee, together with the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Philadelphia Drug Exchange respectfully requests the Com- 
 mittee of Ways and Means of the House of Eepreseutatives, in the revenue bill which 
 is now being prepared, to make a material reduction in the rate of tax on distilled 
 spirits, if they do not abolish the tax entirely; and also to strike out of tlie free 
 list of the tariff " quinine, sulphate of, aud all alkaloids of ealt.s of cinchona bark." 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 William Gulager, 
 
 Secretary. 
 Hon. William McKinlbt, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Commitlee of Ways and Meant. 
 
 EXTRACT FEOM THE TWEHTT-NINTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PHILADELPHIA 
 DRUG EXCHANGE, ADOPTED BY THE ASSOCIATION ON JANUARY 28, 1890. 
 
 The Ways and Means Committee of the National House of Representatives having 
 now under consideration the formation of a revenue bill, which will probably em- 
 brace both customs duties and internal revenue taxes, it avouM seem proper at this 
 meeting to state the views of the Philadelphia Drug Exchange as to certain matters 
 of special interest to the trade, and to have the attention of the said committee drawn 
 to the same. 
 
 (1) The tax on distilled spirits. 
 
340 EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 The present rate, 90 cents per gallon, is excessive, and the income derived there- 
 from is not required by the Government. 
 
 The rate is four and a half times that of the first war tax imposed, which was bnt 
 twenty cents per gallon. 
 
 The tax on alcohol, by reason of this tax on distilled spirits, is about $1.70 per gal- 
 lon, equal to about six times the cost of production. 
 
 In our opinion the tax should be materially reduced, if not totally abolished. 
 
 (2) There should be a duty on quinine, and all salts of quinine, and on all the 
 other alkaloids of cinchona bark and the salts thereof. 
 
 If the policy of this Government is to protect home industries these articles are 
 as fairly entitled to protection as are any others. 
 
 American manufacturers of quinine have to compete with Europeans, who, by 
 reason of cheap labor, can produce at much less cost and are enabled to flood this 
 country with their surplus product. 
 
 During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889, the amount of foreign sulphate of 
 quinine sent to this country aggregated between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 ounces. 
 American manufacturers can not export any. 
 
 The harmony of the entire protective system is disturbed by the exceptional le^is- 
 lation applied to quinine, and no argument can be brought forward advocating free 
 quinine that will not apply with equal force to wool, woolens, iron-ore, iron and 
 steel, pottery, salt, coal, sugar, rice, wheat, or auy other commodity largely produced 
 in this country. 
 
 Whatever system may be adopted must be equitably applied to be consistent and 
 constitutional or it will not be allowed to exist. 
 
 (3) A government committed to the doctrine of protecting home industries should 
 set an example to its citizens, as the German Government does. 
 
 According to the statute books, goods imported for the use of the United States 
 Government are exempt from duty. While this makes no dift'erence to the Treasury, 
 it encourages the various departments connected with the Government to give pref- 
 erence to the products of foreign work-shops and factories, because they can obtain 
 more goods for their appropriations by being able to purchase abroad at less cost. 
 
 This is unjust to American manufacturers, who pay vastly higher wages than are 
 paid in Europe. 
 
 A doctor should not object to taking the same sort of medicine he prescribes for 
 his patients. 
 
 If protection is best for the people, why should free trade be best for the Govern- 
 ment? 
 
 If cheap goods are to the advantage of the Government, why are they not equally 
 80 when the welfare of the citizen is to be considered? 
 
 The clause stultifies the protective system and should be eliminated from the forth- 
 coming House bill. 
 
 Manufacturers of blankets, bricks, quinine, and other articles have good cause to 
 complain when they find that their Government disregards its own pronounced gen- 
 eral policy as applied to American citizens, who sustain the Government in peace 
 and defend it in war, and favors in this way foreigners, who do nothing to promote 
 the welfare of the United States, and who are inimical, in every way, to republican 
 institutions. 
 
 If the people of this country were permitted to bring in foreign products free of 
 duty, as the Government is allowed to do, and as the Government does, what would 
 become of our industries? 
 
 Our working people would receive as low wages as they do abroad, their condition 
 would 'se reduced to the social status of their European competitors, the cost of pro- 
 duction would have to come down to the European level, or our establishments 
 would be closed and our people be without the ability to consume or produce, being 
 deprived of the means of support. 
 
 What then would become of our Government, which is a non-producer, and which 
 is in every way dependent upon the people for its existence ? 
 
 From the minutes. 
 
 William Gulager, 
 Secretary Philadelphia Drug Exchange. 
 
 MEDICAL SOCIETY, ERIE COUNTY, N. Y. 
 
 Whereas a feeling of humanity suggests that aU medical and surgical supplies, 
 instruments, and appliances, including those used in the diagnosis as well as treat- 
 ment of diseases, should be furnished to those needing them at the lowest possible 
 price; 
 
 Eesolved, That the Medical Society of Erie County, N. Y., would urge upon Con- 
 gress that, in the cause of humanity, the import duty should be removed from aU 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 341 
 
 medicines, medical aud surgical appliauces, and from everything used iu the treat- 
 ment or diagnosis of disease. 
 
 Resolved, That the corresponding secretary transmit a copy of the foregoing pre- 
 amble and resolutions to the Congressional Committee on Ways and Means and to our 
 Senators and Representatives. 
 
 Wm. H. Thornton, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 SODA ASH. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. "W. B. COGSWELL. 
 
 Mr. W. B. Cogswell, of Syracuse, N. Y., appeared before the committee and 
 made the following statement : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee : I represent the soda industry of 
 Syracuse, N. Y. I can say that the Senate bill is perfectly satisfactory, aud we ask 
 no change. We are making soda-ash, caustic and bicarbonate. 
 The Chairman. How long have you been engaged in that business ? 
 Mr. CoGSWBLL. We have been engaged in making soda-ash for six years the com- 
 ing January; in making caustic soda since March, 1888; we have been making bi- 
 carbonate for three years. Since we started in the manufacture of soda-ash the 
 price has declined four times nearly the present duty. The price of caustic soda has 
 declined from about 2f cents per pound for 60 per cent, alkali to as low as two 
 and one-tenth of a cent per pound. The price has advanced slightly here within a 
 month or two, however. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle;. What was the price when you began to manufacture soda-ash, six 
 years agot 
 Mr. Cogswell. About |40 per gross ton for 58 per cent, alkali. 
 Mr. Carlisle. What Is the price per ton now ? 
 Mr. Cogswell. It nets us at the works $26. 
 Mr. Carlisle. The proportion of the fall is from $40 to |26 ? 
 Mr. Cogswell. When we started building it was selling at $45. 
 Mr. Carlisle. And now it is selling at $26 ? 
 Mr. Cogswell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What is it worth abroad now ? It is less than a cent a pound, is it 
 not? 
 Mr. Cogswell. I think it is. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It is about 9 mills. I see here in a statement made by the Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury showing the price of various articles from 1878 down to 1889, 
 and I find soda-ash in 1878 was IJ cents, and in 1889 it is worth 9 mills per pound. 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. It went down on the other side. Two kinds are imported, 48 and 
 58 alkali, both paying the same duty. 
 Mr. Payne. How many men do you employ? 
 Mr. Cogswell. One thousand. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Yours is the only industry of this kind in the country, is it not? 
 Mr. Cogswell. There was a soda works at Bay City, Mich., which I think stopped 
 six years ago. It was using the same process that we use. 
 Mr. Burrows. You say you are the only firm making soda-ash 1 
 Mr. Cogswell. Yes, sir; so far as I know. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Up to the time these works were established in Syracuse we had to 
 depend on the foreign product ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. Except as to those works at Bay City, Mich., which were running 
 intermittingly. 
 Mr. Burrows. What amount is required for the home consumption ? 
 Mr. Cogswell. Two hundred thousand tons. 
 Mr. Burrows. How much will youi works supply? 
 Mr. Cogswell. Fifty thousand tons. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. The price has gone down from $45 until now it is only $26. What 
 makes the decline ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. Large increase in the production in Europe and of course our 
 make of 50,000 tons. The first year we made less. 
 Mr. Burrows. You make one-fourth of the home demand t 
 Mr. Cogswell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Does that affect the price somewhat ? 
 Mr. Cogswell. I presume it does. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. What would be the effect of taking off the duty of $5 a ton t 
 Mr. Cogswell. It would probably lower the price. 
 Mr. Burrows. You think the works would go on t 
 Mr. Cogswell. We would try to keep going. 
 
342 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Then you do not care about our keeping the duty on? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. Yes, sir. We have a large sum of money invested and would pre- 
 fer the duty as it is now. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Can you manage to do without the duty if we take it oif ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. Part of our works would stop if the duty were less than $5 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Can you manufacture now without the duty ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. We should not stop. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. You think the industry would flourish just the same ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. It would not flourish just the same. 
 
 The Chairman. Would you pay the same wages ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. Probably not. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. If you would pay the same wages after we took the duty off per- 
 haps we ought to take it off. 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. I am sure we would not. AVe would reduce wages. 
 
 Mr. Flower. If yours is the only factory making this article, I suppose you can tell 
 us how much you make a ton on it. 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. I do not think that is a fair question. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If you ask us to pass a law upon the assumption that yon ought to 
 he able to make a fair profit, why should we not know what is a fair profit? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. I do not think it is customary to give such information. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you recognize it as ahard question to answer. 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. I could tell you this : the first year we made soda-ash it cost us $44 
 a ton, and we sold it for $40 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is this a patented process? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. The apparatus is patented. A great many establishments make it 
 by the same process, \Yitli dift'erent apparatus. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What does it cost to make it now 1 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. That would be telling what we make. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Why do you refuse to tell what you make? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. It is a natural reason— because a person does not want to tell all 
 about his business. 
 
 Mr. McKekna. You told us when you lost, and why not tell us when you make? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. We are paying small dividends on $2,000,000 capital invested. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. And is it paying you the usual profit ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. la your company a corporation ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. Yes, sir; the capital stock is $1,500,000, or will be very soon, Jan- 
 uary 1, 1890. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What dividends do you declare ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. Well, I do not know that that is hardly a fair question. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Do they publish them? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. We have never published them. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much would you reduce wages, if this tariff were taken off? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. We should be obliged to reduce about 15 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the average pay now ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. We pay now, with the exception perhaps of a few men who are 
 ■what we call "pensioners" (as they are pretty old, and we keep them at work be- 
 cause they have been with us a long time), 14 cents an hour. We pay by the hour 
 most of our men. We run twenty-four hours, and some of the men work twelve 
 hours and some work ten. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you been declaring dividends since the first year ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. We did not declare any the first three years. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you been declaring dividends for the last three years? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. Y'es, the fir.st year we lost money; the second year we made a 
 little money; the third year we jiaid a small dividend and have continued since. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Were you then extending yonr piiint ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. The first extension was at the end of the second year. We have 
 altered and taken out a good deal of apparatus, so that we have increased our pro- 
 duction. We made an arrangement with Solvay & Co., of Belgium, to use their 
 patents. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. I understand you to say that you could not continue to carry on 
 the business and make profits without a reduction of wages? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. Yes, sir ; we could. 
 
 The Chairman. Profits have not been exorbitant, but you do not desire to state 
 them to the committee? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. -If they had been very small, I would not desire to state them. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You did not hesitate to answer that you lost the first three years. 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. We have made some money since. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I understand that your gains have not been greater than others in 
 ordinary business ? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 343 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. Not greater than other kinds of business, talking similar risks. 
 Mr. La Follktte. What is the character of the risks in your business? 
 Mr. Cogswell. There are a great many kinds. 
 The Chairman. Will you explain what the rislis are ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. We have put in about $400,000 in caustic plant, which, takiugtlie 
 ash at the market price, has not paid any profit. If the tariff should l)e lowered 
 materially on caustic soda, we should have to stop our works. We could not afford 
 to nm at less than the present tariff on caustic soda. 
 Mr. McKknna. Is yours skilled labor? 
 Mr. Cogswell. Largely. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Labor which could not find employment elsewhere ? 
 Mr. Cogswell. It might get work in other in<liistries. 
 Mr. McKenna. How could you reduce wages then? 
 Mr. Cogswell. We should try to get men who would work for less. 
 Mr. McKenna. Why not rather reduce the profits than try to reduce on wages? 
 Mr. Cogswell. In caustic there are uo profits yet. Our books will show a loss. 
 Mr. McKenna. Is that skilled labor which yon employ in soda-ash ? 
 Mr. Cogswell. Largely. Some are chemists. We have one chemist a superin- 
 tendent, a man educated in the business. We pay him $13,500 a year ; and wo have a 
 foreman who gets high pay. We pay from 14 cents an hour to 2'y cents an hoar. The 
 larger proportion of the men get 14 cents an hour, and a smaller number get as high 
 as as cents an hour. 
 Mr. Flower. What is soda-ash made from 7 
 Mr. Cogswell. Salt. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Do I understand you to say that if we take off the duty of $5 a ton 
 yon will still continue your works, and pay the same price for labor, and make a 
 profit— I do not say a large profit ; could you do that ? 
 Mr. Cogsw'ell. I think we could. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Would not the business then have to be carried on at a loss ? 
 Mr. Cogswell. No; we have such a large amount of money invested that we 
 would endeavor in some way to keep running by tr;, ing to reduce cost by improving 
 the apparatus. 
 Mr. Burrows. Tou could not keep up if you were losing money every year. 
 Mr. Cogswell. No ; not if we lost money every year ; certainly not. 
 Mr. Beckinridgb. Are you prepared to give us a demon.stration of the proposition 
 that you could not continue to ruu because of the production abroad, or do you ex- 
 pect us to go upon your personal 'assurance on that matter? 
 Mr. Cogswell. 1 do not know what the cost is abroad. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Therefore you have nothing to base your opinion upon? 
 Mr. Cogswell. As to the cost abroad ? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Your idea is necessarily a personal idea. If you do not know 
 the cost of production abroad you can not institute a comparisoa. Is that not a 
 right construction ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. I think the selling price indicates the cost of production. That is 
 the one that would regulate our business independent of what it cost. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You are not prepared to give a demonstration of the cost of 
 the production abroad ? 
 Mr. Cogswell. No, sir; I do not know what is the cost abroad. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That is simply an assertion that you could not run your busi- 
 ness if the duty were taken off? 
 Mr. Cogswell. No, sir; I think we could run without a loss. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You can give us no data? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. We are in correspondence with a large works in England which is 
 somewhat interested in our works, and we have very excellent opportunities of judg- 
 ing and knowing the difterence in the cost of wages abroad and in tbis country. We 
 find that whatever costs them |1 costs us |1.75. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are you speaking of the daily wages or cost of production, or 
 are yon speaking of a'unit of quantity? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. I am speaking of what is paid labor of all classes in two works of 
 the same character. It does not make any difference whether they are paid by the 
 day or by the month. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. A good deal would depend upon the efficiency of the labor, 
 perhaps. 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. I have not lived in England enough to know what is the efficiency 
 of their labor. I know that our labor averages $1.75 against $1 paid on the other side, 
 or in England. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. This labor is measured by the time it is employed, is it f 
 Mr. Cogswell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Have yon reckoned the resulting production on each aide? 
 Mr. Cogswell. I think there is a little in favor of our production, ' 
 
344 REVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 
 
 Mr. BRECKiNniDGB. But you are not prepared to give auy dcmoustaliou of the cost 
 of production per ton? 
 
 Mr. CoGSWELi,. Not at the present moment. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That in, of course, at the root of the question. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How many Englishmen are interested in your worlds ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. The Solvay Company, which owns the patents, were largely in- 
 terested in these works in England, and so became interested in our works. We 
 could not have started tho works or should not have started the works without the 
 aid of the Solvay patents. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Are not some business men in Belgium interested in your works? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. The Solvays live in Belgium. Tliey have nine works in Europe, or 
 are interested in them. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. So that in manufacturing this material here they are competing 
 with themselves in Europe? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. I do not see that they are. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Are you compelled to sell in competition with them? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. I do not understand you exactly. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is the selling price the same there as it is here ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. No, sir; there is a combination over there. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Your company is not iu that combination. 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Are not these gentlemen interested iu that combination in yonr 
 company ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. Oh, yes ; I think they are all in it. There is a combination in 
 Germany, Austria, and Prance. 
 
 Mr Baynb. Do the French put a duty on it ' 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. They do; and in Germany also. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. The combination in France is a combination of French capitalists? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. I only suppose so from the fact tliat the price has been raised. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You can make soda-ash under this process which you have been 
 making under the old process? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. We have made no soda-ash under any other process. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Are there not some American capitalists who are stockholders in those 
 foreign companies that own the patents? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. No, sir; over two-thirds of the stockholders are Americans. 
 
 Mr. Batne. In the manufacture of 50,000 tons of this article, how much limestone, 
 coal, etc., would you use? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. For 1 ton of soda, we would use 2 tons of coal, 2 tons of salt, and 2 
 tons of limestone. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Then for 50,000 tons you would use 300,000 tons of material? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. And all that material is produced in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Batne. And gives employment to large numbers of peojile? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. We have about one thousand men in our works. We use 350 tons 
 each of lime, coal, and coke per day, and salt. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Where do you get your lime ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. Three miles from Syracuse. 
 
 Mr. Bayxe. And your salt ? 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. We are using salt which has recently been discovered about 18 
 miles from Syracuse. We are using the brine from that deposit of salt, which is 
 about 100 feet thick. We are using a saturated solution in the works. 
 
 Mr. Bayxe. You stated that before it was manufactureil in this country it sold 
 for f 15. 
 
 Mr. Cogswell. Forty-five dollars was considered a low price at that time. It had 
 been higher. 
 
 NITRATE OF SODA. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. CHARLES TRACEY. 
 
 Hon. Charles Tracey, of New York, appeared before the committee and made the 
 following statement. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, during the first session of the last 
 Congress several gentleuien from Albany and Kensselaer and Erie Counties, N. 
 Y., came before the Ways and Means Committee and informed the committee of 
 their desire in regard to the bill which wiis then being prepared. All these gentle- 
 men, witlioiit exeejitiou, were satisfied with tho provisions of the bill known as the 
 Mills bill. I liope this couiiriittee will, later on, when it considers these questions, 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFt*. 346 
 
 read what lias been said by these gentlemen rcprosontiiij; Uiis induMtry. They aj)- 
 peared "befVire the Senate committee, and probably for the reason that tlieir viewM 
 ■were so thoroughly given to that committee they have not thong-lit it necessary to 
 appear here, bat I thought I ought to call the attention of your committee to their 
 testimony. They desire to have the articles called nitrite of soda placed on the free 
 list. They further desire to secure for the free list coal tar, crude, and all pn^iiarations 
 of coal tar used in the manufacture of the different shades of aniline dyes. Those are 
 all materials used in the aniline industry. Aniline dyes pay a duty of 35 per cent. 
 Coal tar, crude, pays a duty of 10 per cent., aud coal tar pmductspay a dutj'of "20 per 
 cent. There does not appear to be any reason why these duties should be imposed 
 on coal tar and its products. Before the act of 1883 there was a duty of 50 cents a 
 pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem. At that time several of these factories were 
 started and prospered, but after taking oflf the 50 cents a pound they began to lan- 
 guish, of course,- and several gentlemen in Albany have lost very large amounts of 
 money by reason of this, and their property is now lying idle. 
 
 Mr, Carlisle. The duties still renniin on the raw materials? 
 
 Mr. Tkacey. Yes, sir. If this 20 per cent, were taken ott' their raw material this 
 industry would liourish. H. V. M. Hudson's statement before the Senate Committee 
 on Tinance, page 2(i8 to page 278, Senate report No. 2332, part 2, contains the 
 matter which I requested the committee to consult. 
 
 CASTOR-OIL. 
 
 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. PARIS. 
 
 Mr. William D. Farm, secretary of the Baker Castor Oil Company, of New York, 
 appeared before the committee and read the following paper : 
 
 Gentlemen : In view of the proposed revision of the tariff, we beg to present to 
 your committee some facts in relation to the duty on castor-oil aud castor-beans, in 
 which we are very largely interested, having a considerable amount invested in the 
 machinery aud plant for the mannfacture of castor-oil, which adverse legislation in 
 Congress might render entirely useless, as such plant is only adapted for the purpose 
 for which it is intended, viz, tlie manufacture of castor-oil. 
 
 The duty on this article has at times been made the butt of adverse criticism on the 
 floor of Congress, by reason of the apparently high duty (ad valorem) which the actual 
 duty (which is specific) would seem to indicate, based on revenue statistics. This 
 is entirely misleading, as we propose to demonstrate to you that the present duty is 
 not excessive, and does not confer upon the doa estic manufacturers of castor-oil any 
 more protection than should be justly accorded to enable them to compete with the 
 sometimes abnormally low prices for the article of foreign manufacture. 
 
 As a matter of fact, the domestic market for this article is supplied solely from 
 domestic manufacture, and this has been the case for very many years, there having 
 been practically no castor-oil imported, Treasury statistics to the contrary notwith- 
 standing ; consequently, the published figures as to the value of the castor-oil im- 
 ported, with the duties levied thereon, and the consequent calculation of what such 
 duties would be ad valorem, we firmly believe are entirely erroneous. 
 
 There have been importations of an article in which castor oil enters as a constitu- 
 ent, and which, under the similitude clause of the present and former tariffs, has paid 
 the duty of castor-oil by reason of that being its component material of chief value, 
 and in some cases this manufactured article may have been entered at the custom- 
 house as castor-oil, the duty being the same, and has probably been classified as such 
 in Treasury statistics. 
 
 It is a combination of castor-oil and sulphuric acid, used in dyeing, etc., and known 
 as alizarine assistant, and will be referred to later. 
 
 It may he pertinent to mention here that the cost of the foreign castor-oil plus 
 the duty is no measure for the price of the article of domestic manufacture, as do- 
 mestic competition insures to the buyer of domestic castor-oil a price as low as can 
 reasonably be made, taking in view the cost of material, expense of manufacture, 
 etc., but having norelation to the cost of the foreign article, and the cost of the castor-oil 
 of domestic manufacture is at times considerably below what the cost of the foreign 
 article in our markets would be (at present being some 25 per cent, below the cost of 
 the foreign castor-oil, including duty), and it is eminently proper to have the duty 
 on castor-oil just where it is in order to provide against the fluctuations in price in 
 foreign markets, which might at times seriously cripple the domestic industry were 
 it not for the present duty, which, instead of being excessive, is only equitable and 
 reasonable, as we shall prove, we trust, to your entire satisfaction. 
 
 From the above statement you will have seen that the duty on castor-oil produces 
 no revenue to the Government, whereas if the duty were lowered there would be 
 
346 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 more or less foreign castor-oil brought in, depending upon the extent to wiich it 
 was lowered, which would thus increase the revenues. The article of castor-heans 
 however, from which the oil is made here, does produce at times considerable revenue 
 for the Governmeut. 
 
 We beg to state that foreign castor-oil, which is made principally in India, would 
 drive onr domestic manufacture out of the marliet, by reason of its lower price, were 
 it not for the protection afforded by the tariff, and there are cogent reasons for this, 
 viz, the cost of labor in India is simply nominal, the laborers there being paid about 
 6 annas, or some 14 cents, per day, depending upon their skill, and labor being so 
 cheap in India, it will be readily seen that it amounts to almost nothing as a factor in 
 the cost of castor-oil shipped from there, so that the cost of such oil here is almost as 
 cheap as it would be if imported iu the shape of crude material (or castor-beans) from 
 which the oil is made, and of which we import more or less, sometimes briijging in 
 very large quantities of these castor-beans. , 
 
 This shows the extreme disadvantage under which we labor in competition with 
 foreign castor-oil, as regards the cost of labor alone, but there is a still furtherdisad- 
 vantage, arising from the fact that, as the oil forms but a portion of the bulk of the 
 castor-beans, the foreign castor-oil can be freighted here at less than one-third of 
 what we, as domestic manufacturers, have to jiay for freight upon the oil contained 
 in the more bulky material of castor-beaus, out of which we make it. 
 
 The ton of castor-beans, as freighted from India, is l,;3r>0 pounds. This quantity 
 contains about 59 gallons of oil, depending upon the quality of the beans. With 
 freights at, say, $10 per ton, the freight would be on the oil contained in the beans 
 17 cents per gallon. Castor-oil is freighted at per ton of 40 cubic feet (equivalent to 
 about 200 gallons), and the freight would therefore be on the oil at $10 per ton, 5 
 cents per gallon. Therefore, the difference of freight on 1 gallon of oil as such and a 
 gallon of oil as contained in the crude material, or castor-beans, would be in favor of 
 the foreign manufacturer of oil 12 cents per gallon ; or, as we have mentioned, the 
 freight on the castor-beans which we import is more than three times as much as on 
 the castor-oil made abroad, figuring on the gallon of oil which the beans contain as 
 against a gallon of manufactured oil. 
 
 We also labor under a still further disadvantage in that we have to pay the duty 
 of 50 cents per bushel on all the beans which we import, so that while the present 
 duty on castor-oil (viz, 80 cents per gallon) seems at iirst glance a large one in view 
 of the facts we have mentioned, it is not unduly large. 
 
 We also have to pay a duty on the tin of which we make onr cans, which expense 
 the foreign manufacturer is exempt from, as his tins as such when containing oil 
 pay no duty. 
 
 The protection therefore accorded to domestic manufacturers of castor-oil by the 
 present tariff is as follows : 
 
 Per gallon. Per gallon. 
 
 Present duty $0.80 
 
 Present duty on 24 pounds of castor-beans required to produce 1 gal- 
 lon of oil (.50 cents per bushel of 50 pounds) is $0. 24 
 
 Excess in freight from India on castor-beans imported by domestic 
 manufacturers over castor-oil made abroad, as per figures pre- 
 viously given - .12 
 
 The duty on the tin for cans required by domestic mauutai-'turers of 
 
 castor-oil, about .01 
 
 Cost of labor and manufacture, say .20 
 
 Cost of repairs to machinery and works per annum, about .02 
 
 Interest on investment per annum, at fi per cent., say .10 
 
 Discrimination in favor of American manufacturers under present 
 
 tarilf, therefore only .11 
 
 .80 
 
 Against the cost of labor in the above figures is the cost of labor in India ; but this 
 is so extremely insignificant (as will be seen by our previous statement) as to form 
 a very small factor in the calculation. 
 
 We would state that castor-beans have been grown more or less in this country; 
 hut this .source of supply is an exceedingly variable one, sometimes amounting to 
 very little, depending upon whether the farmer prefers to plant them or to raise some 
 of the other numerous products of the soil which pay him better; but the amount 
 of castor-beans raised in this country at any time is most insignificant, compared 
 to the magnitude of almost any other product of the soil. 
 
 If it were proposed to admit the raw material, or castor-beans, free, or at a reduoea 
 rate of duty, in that event the domestic manufacturers of castor-oil could very well 
 stand a corresponding reduction in the duty on castor-oil. 
 
 In this connection it is important to bear in mind that a bushel of castor-beans pro- 
 duces about 2 gallons of oil (depending upon the quality of the beans), and it is there- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. ^4? 
 
 fore apparent that a reduction in duty, for instance, of 10 ceuts per busliel ontliebcans, 
 or raw material, would be equivalent to a reduction in duty of 5 cents per gallon on 
 the oil which the bushel of beans represents, and any reduction of duty, should there 
 be any, should be made with the fact in view that a redaction of 5 cents per gallon 
 on the oil is equivalent to a reduction of 10 cents per bushel on the beans, and we 
 would suggest that the duty on the manufactured article (oil) should not be reduced 
 more proportionately than that on the crude material, or castor-beans. 
 
 The foregoing statements will, we think, clearly show that the present rate of duty 
 on castor-oil ie not at all excessive, but very reasonable, when the duty on the castor- 
 beans, etc., is taken into consideration. 
 
 We now beg to call your attention to an article of which castor-oil forms the chief 
 component material, which we have alluded to in the former part of this statement. 
 This article consists usually of castor-oil treated with sulphuric acid, etc., and is 
 used as a mordant, and has been variously known under the names of alizarine as- 
 sistant, soluble oil, turkey red oil, oleate of soda, padding liquor, etc., and is 
 made of varying strength, the strength as used by the consnmer being what is called 
 from 30 to 50 per cent., that being the percentage of castor-oil introduced in the 
 mixture. It is possible, however, to have almost the entire mass of the material 
 consist of what was originally pure castor-oil, in which shape it can be and has been 
 imported in this country, and afterwards, by the addition of water, can readily be 
 reduced to the required strength. 
 
 By virtue of the similitude clause of the present and former tariffs (providing that 
 articles composed of various materials shall be chargeable with the same rate of duty 
 as the component material of chief value pays) alizarine assistant now justly pays 
 the same rate of duty as castor-oil, viz, 80 cents per gallon. 
 
 Representatives of foreign manufacturing houses here have frequently endeavored 
 to passalizarine assistant through the custom-house at the small rate of duty levied upon 
 chemical compounds, claiming that it was a chemical compound or a combination of 
 oU and alkali, and therefore admissible at such lower rate of duty, under paragraph 
 92 of the present tariff, covering chemical compounds, notwithstanding the very em- 
 phatic provisions of the "component material of chief value" clause before referred 
 to. This claim on their part has led to extended hearings before the Treasury De- 
 partment, and the various Secretaries of the Treasury have decided against the claim 
 of the importers as regards the lower rate of duty, but no sooner would a new head 
 of the Treasury be appointed than the parties would again use every exertion to have 
 alizarine assistant admitted at the low rate of duty. After repeated efforts before 
 the Treasury Department, the matter was finally left to the decision of the courts, and, 
 after a trial occupying many months, the position of the Government was sustained 
 and the decision rendered that alizarine assistant, by virtue of the "component ma- 
 terial of chief value " clause, should pay the same duty as castor-oil pays, and this is 
 the present status of the article. 
 
 Had the importers of the foreign article been successful in their claims, the result 
 would have been the complete destruction in this country of the industry of the man- 
 ufacture of alizarine assistant ; thus throwing the entire business in the hands of for- 
 eign manufacturers, who have been vainly endeavoring for years to secure, through 
 the lower rate of duty, the entire business of this country in the article, the tariff 
 alone standing between such foreign manufacturers of alizarine assistant and the 
 total extinction of the domestic industry of its manufacture, which wonld follow the 
 admission of the article at a low rate of duty; and we take it that it reciuirrs no long 
 argument to show the evil effects which would follow the admission of the manufact- 
 ured article at a very nominal rate of duty while its main constituent pays a very 
 much higher duty, particularly when it is possible to have that main constituent com- 
 prise almost the entire mass of the article as imported. 
 
 It is not alone the cheap castor-oil of foreign markets, however, that the domestic 
 manufacturers of alizarine assistant have to contend against, but the acid which is 
 used in the manufacture costs much less abroad, and labor is also considerably lower 
 there. 
 
 Alizarine assistant is sometimes, although very seldom, made of other oils besides 
 castor, that made from castor-oil having been found to give the best results. 
 
 In the past, some of the importers of alizarine assistant have endeavored to avoid 
 the proper duty by calling it some other name, and then endeavoring to pass it as a 
 chemical compound. 
 
 So many attempts have been made in the past to introduce this article at a lower 
 rate of duty that there is every probability that under a new tariff bill similar efforts 
 will be made. 
 
 It does not seem feasible to make a graded rate of duty, depending upon the quantity 
 of castor-oil used in its manufacture, and we would, therefore, respectfully suggest tliat 
 all possible so-called ambiguity as regards the duty on this article be avoided by 
 enumerating it, and making it pay the duty which it now pays under the decision of 
 the Treasury Department, and also of the courts, and would suggest the insertion of 
 
348 EEVlSION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 the following clause in the tariff: "Alizarine assistant, Turkoy-rcil oil, soluble oil, 
 or oleate of soda, by whatever name called, wheu made from castor-oil, 80 cents per 
 gallon ; " or if the duty on castor-oil should be changed, to make the same rate of 
 duty applicable to alizarine assistant, thus avoiding all ambiguity, which it is so de- 
 sirable to avoid, and keeping the article where it now stands as to duty. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is alizarine assistant made from something else than castor-oil? 
 
 Mr. Faris. Some other oils have been used, but castor-oil is most always used, as 
 it gives the best results. If this provision which I have indicated is inserted, that 
 would make the article, if composed of two or more materials of any nature, pay the 
 duty imposed on that component material which pays the highest duty. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That clause would cover it if it is made from castor-oil. If it is 
 made from something else than castor-oil, that would not cover it. 
 
 Mr. Faris. I think that clause would cover it. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It would, provided that is the article of chief value f 
 
 Mr. Faris. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you make castor-oil by machinery I 
 
 Mr. Faris. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you know how it is made in India? 
 
 Mr. Fakis. I presume they use some machinery. I have never heard it described. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you know whether they make it by hand in India ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. I presume it is made principally by hand in India, or rather without 
 steam power. Some is made in Marseilles, France. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What proportion of the castor-beans that you use is produced in this 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. It is a varying quantity, depeodent entirely on how the farmer feels 
 about it. If he feels that he can make more money out of other things than he can 
 out of castor-beans, he will not raise them. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Are you satisfied with the provisions of the Senate bill ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. I have stated in this paper that the present duty is not at all excessive. 
 The Senate bill reduces it. The present duty is 80 cents per gallon. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is it in the Mills bill ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. It is 40 cents a gallon. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is the duty on alizarine assistant ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. Eighty cents a gallon. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is that satisfactory ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. It is ; but under the wording of the present tariff there is an ambiguity 
 about it. It has led to endless litigation. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is it specified as alizarine assistant? 
 
 Mr. Faris. It comes in under the similitude olause. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You think it should be described ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. Yes, sir; and the same duty put ou it as on castor-oil. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Fifty cents on alizarine assistant and ."iO cents on castor-oil. Do you 
 think that the industry would prosper under those duties? 
 
 Mr. Faris. I think we could get along, but I think the present duty is not excess- 
 ive. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is 50 cents a gallon equivalent to, ad valorem? 
 
 Mr. Faris. The present price abroad is about 75 cents a gallon. Fifty cents duty 
 would be equal to 66f per cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. At what is it wholesaling now? 
 
 Mr. Faris. Some grades are wholesaling at $1 a gallon, and others at about $1.12^. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is there much imported ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. Practically none, except for shipment in bond to Canada, etc. 
 
 Mr. Gear. In what shape is it ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. All that is imported comes in in tins. It is never imported in barrels. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is this alizarine assistant imported in barrels 1 
 
 Mr. Faeis. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you export any castor-oil ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. Many years ago we exported a little. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Where did you sell it ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. We sold some in England. It was simply a trial export. We got out 
 with a loss. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The use of castor-oil is becoming more and more diversified, is it 
 not? 
 
 Mr. Faris. Yes, sir ; it is used for lubricating purposes and for hair preparations, 
 and quite a quantity of this dark castor-oil is used in dyeing. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How much do you produce ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. The quantity varies. I suppose it might be stated at 150,000 to 250,000 
 gallons a year. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. How much labor do you employ J 
 
 Mr. Faris. About fifty to seventy-five hands. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF, 349 
 
 Mr. Caklislk. No women, girls, or boys f 
 
 Mr. Faris. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. What other works in this country besides yours produce castor- 
 oil t 
 
 Mr. Faris. There are one or two more in New York, and about eight or nine out 
 West in Kansas and Missouri, etc. 
 
 Mr. La Folxjette. There are about a dozen in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. Somewhere in that neighborhood. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Do you know what the total productiou is in this Country ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. It is a varying quantity, from 600,000 to 1,000,000 gallons. We pro- 
 duce from 150,000 to 250,000 gallons. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. To produce that amount requires the labor of about fifty men, 
 you say ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. From fifty to seventy-five men. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLiN. You say the price in the United States is high? 
 
 Mr. FaKIS. The price at present is less than the cost would be to lay it down im- 
 ported. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. How would a reduction injure it? 
 
 Mr. Faris. A reduction of duty, if sufficieut, would enable the foreign oil to be 
 imported into this country ; the duty does not regulate the price in this market. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The difference in price here and abroad is now 25 cents a gallon? 
 
 Mr. Faris. The difference in price is at present about 25 cents, but it varies. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What does it sell for in England ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. Probably 75 cents a gallon. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Then part of the duty is charged in the price ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. The duty is no criterion of the price ; a portion of it, however, is added 
 to the price. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Suppose the dnty was made free t 
 
 Mr. Faris. Then every factory in this country would simply have to shut its 
 doors. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What would they then do with their beans ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. We have no beans, except such as we purchase from time to time. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What proportion of beans do you import ? 
 
 Mr. Fakis. It varies very much ; I could not say. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You have to pay a duty on your beans ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And therefore the duty is added to the cost of the beans ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. They are selling now at 25 cents a gallon more than in Eng- 
 land? 
 
 Mr. Faris. About that. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. We may say that the cost ofgettingtheoil from abroad would 
 be about 25 cents a gallon ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. It would not be anything like that figure. I believe freights are about 
 10 shillings a ton. Ten shillings is about $2.50. About 200 gallons represent a ton 
 of measurement- 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it packed with more than usual expensiveness 3 
 
 Mr. Faris. No, it packs solidly. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I had reference to the making of the cases. 
 
 Mr. Faris. The cases are wooden cases with tin cans in them. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You are operating with reasonable success now J 
 
 Mr. Faris. I think we are not running at a loss. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you put up your oil in barrels ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. To a certain extent. The majority of it is put up in cans. We put it 
 up principally that way. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Where do you ship to ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. All over the United States except to the West, which is supplied by 
 Western manufacturers, freights being against us. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Where is the castor-oil bean mainly produced in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. Largely in southern Illinois, southeastern Kansas, and sontheasteru Mis- 
 souri. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How far north will the plant grow ? 
 
 Mr. Faris. It will grow anywhere, but it will not mature farther north than about 
 the latitude of St. Louis. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It grows luxuriantly in a wild state, I understand? 
 Mr. Faris. It will grow almost anywliere in any moderate climate. In the Sand- 
 wich Islands, I understand, trees grow to the ciroumfereuce of 2 feet. 
 
350 EE VISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 QUININE. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. M. G. ROSENGARTEN. 
 
 Mr. M. Q. EoSENGARTEN, of Eosengarten & Sons, Philadelphia, next appeared he- 
 fore the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I would like to call your attention 
 to the necessity of taking quinia, sulphate of, and all nlkaloids or salts of cinchona 
 bark, from the free list. The industry has been sufi'ering tremendously for a number 
 of years. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. "What duty do you propose ? 
 
 Mr. Eosengarten. I propose striking them out of the free list, and letting them 
 come in under the head of chemicals not otherwise provided for, and raise rate on 
 chemicals not especially enumerated to 40 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What duty do you think should be put upon it? 
 
 Mr. Eosengarten. Ten cents an ounce on sulphate of quinine, or an ad valorem 
 duty of 4U per cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is quinine worth now? 
 
 Mr. EosENGARTEisr. Thirty-five cents an ounce. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Wholesale or retail ? 
 
 Mr. Eosengarten. That is for lOO-ounce lots. 
 
 VIEWS OF PO"WERS AND WBIGHTMAN. 
 
 Philadelphia, December 28, 1889. 
 
 Dear Sir: We desire to present to your honorable committee the following state- 
 ment and suggestions : 
 
 We are manufacturing chemists and have been engaged in the business for many 
 years in the city of Philadelphia. We have a large and expensive plant incident to 
 the manufacture of quinine and other preparations of cinchona bark. 
 
 We ask that " quinia, sulphate of, salts of, and cinchonidia " be removed from the 
 free list and restored to the dutiable list. 
 
 The wording of the law is incorrect. It should read " quinine, and all salts of, in- 
 cluding the sulphate, and all other alkaloids of cinchona bark, and the salts thereof." 
 
 The same arguments that apply to the protection of other articles apply to quinine. 
 Either there should be a specified duty or it should be covered by the drag-net clause 
 the same as unenumerated chemicals are. 
 
 The reduction in the price of quinine was due to other causes than the removal of 
 the duty by the Congress of the United States. The reduction was universal ; it was 
 to be noted the world over; so that, as an example, Euglish quinine that was worth, 
 some thirteen years ago, 16 shillings and 6 pence per ounce in Loudon (say $3.96 per 
 ounce) is worth to-day about 15 shillings and 3 pence (or, say, 30 cents per ounce). 
 
 This fall of about |3.6G per ounce in all Europe was never brought about by the 
 removal of a 20 per cent, duty by the American Congress, and no well-inforuied and 
 fair man will venture the assertion. The removal of the duty in the statutes of the 
 United States never brought about a general reduction of prices in England, France, 
 Germany, and Italy. 
 
 The low prices of quinine are due to the low prices of bark, from which quinine is 
 made. The low prices of bark are due to the large supplies. The large supplies of 
 bark are due to the cultivation of the cinchona plant, as an agricultural enterprise, 
 in the East Indies, in Ceylon, Java, etc. The cultivation of bark was an undertaliing 
 of the English and the Dutch, and neither the General Government nor the people of 
 the United States had anything whatever to do with it. 
 
 It is impossible to manufacture quinine in this country as cheaply as in Europe. 
 Wages are higher — very much so — expenses of doing business are higher, everything 
 is higher. Consequently this country is flooded with foreign quinine, while against 
 this condition of aflairs we can not export any, and we can not hold our own home 
 market. 
 
 We are prepared to supply the people of the United States with sulphate of quinine, 
 ot unsurpassed excellence, as we have been prepared to do for many years (having 
 been makers of it, almost from its discovery, some sixty-eight years since), but it is 
 impossible for us to do so on account of the ditference iu cost of iiroductiun. 
 
 The importation of foreign sulphate of quinine, mostly from Germany, aggregates 
 from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 ouuces perauuum; say, for the fiscal year ending June 30 — 
 
 Ounces. 
 
 1886 1,251,556 
 
 lPfl7 2,l!!'0,157 
 
 18H8 1,628,414 
 
 1889 2,893,582 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 351 
 
 We export none. Formerly American manufacturers supplied this country almost 
 entirely. 
 
 The business is carried on without profit. There are quinino factories in Germany 
 where women can be had to work, in the winter season, for 12J cents per day, such 
 as in the country district of Auerbach, and where men can be had for about 2 marks 
 per day, or about 48 to 50 cen ts. Against this we pay to women say |1 per, day and to 
 men from |10 to $12 per week. We speak now of unskilled labor. 
 
 We feel, and have always felt, that we have been very unjustly discriminated 
 against, and that the placing of quinine on the free list in i87'J, under suspension of 
 the rules, was in direct violation of the pronounced policy of the Government and at 
 variance with the course pursued towardsotherindlistries. 
 
 The duty was removed to appease clamor and the clamor resulted from misappre- 
 hension. Therefore we ask that quinine be removed from the free list. 
 
 There is no argument that applies to iron or steel, to rice, to sugar, to coal, to pot- 
 tery, to textiles, etc., but applies as well to quinine. If these articles should be 
 dutiable for protection so should quinine. 
 
 FKEE ALCOHOL FOR THE ARTS AND MANUFACTURES. 
 
 In our business we are obliged to use alcohol largely. The tax is about six times 
 the cost of production. It is |1.69-|- per gallon on 94 per cent, anhydrous alcohol. 
 The tax on distilled spirits of 50 per cent, anhydrous alcohol is 90 cents per gallon. 
 e.g. 
 
 hO% : 94% : : 90 cents : |1.69+ 
 
 This is an excessive tax. Alcohol is worth, say, |1.97 per gallon. Free of tax it 
 would be worth about 27 cents per gallon. The tirst tax was 20 cents. Say, 18P2, 
 20 cents per gallon; 1864, 60 cents per gallon; 1864, $1.50 per gallon; 1864, |2 per 
 gallon; 1868, 50 cents per gallon ; 1872, 70 cents per gallon ; 1875, 90 cents per gal- 
 lon, still in force. 
 
 But while the tax is excessive, we would prefer it to the restrictions, fines, penal- 
 ties, espionage, etc., indicated by the Senate bill, as likely to accompany free alcohol 
 for manufacturing purposes. 
 
 We send you a pamphlet herewith that covers this question fnlly. 
 
 Free alcohol, as before the civil war, would be very acceptable, and if the finances 
 of the Government would justify it we would urge it. But free alcohol coupled 
 with such regulations as are noted in the Senate bill could be made available by a 
 few only, say, by large manufacturers of chemical and pharmaceutical products, var- 
 nishes, etc., and by manufacturers of patent or proprietary articles. Druggists, un- 
 less manufacturers as well, could not avail themselves of it, and consumers of pro- 
 prietary articles would probably pay as much then as now. 
 
 Therefore we respectfully suggest either free alcohol pure and simple and univer- 
 sal as before the war, or a general reduction in the rate, say to 50 cents per gallon. 
 
 We do not wish to carry on business under the espionage of Government officials, 
 nor to run the risk of heavy penalties for unintentional violation of the law. 
 With great respect, very truly, yours. 
 
 Powers & Weightman. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlet, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Meant. 
 
 CONDITION OF QUININE INDUSTRY. 
 
 Philadelphia, January 29, 1890. 
 Sir : We desire respectfully and earnestly to call your attention to the following 
 brief statement of facts relating to the present unsatisfactory condition of a leading 
 branch of the Industry in which we are interested: 
 
 (1) We are manufacturers of chemicals, and have been engaged as such for many 
 years. 
 
 An important line of our products, and one involving largo outlay of capital, as 
 well as experience, skill, and constant supervision, is that of the jiroducts of cinchona 
 bark. 
 
 Prominent among these products is sulphate of quinine. In the year 1879 the 
 duty of 20 per cent., which had been previously imposed upon the foreign article, 
 was removed under suspension of the rules, and all opportunity for careful consider- 
 ation and logical conclusion was denied, as debate was cut oil. 
 
 (2) The result, as might have been expected, has been disastrous to American man- 
 
352 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 nfactarers. Their numbers have diminished from five, as before the duty was re- 
 moved, to three, at the present ■writing. 
 
 Of the three remaining (it may he asserted with critical exactness) but one con- 
 cern has constantly persisted, irrespective of profit or loss, in manufacturing quinine 
 on a large scale. The others have produced with more or less irregularity and in 
 very restricted quantity. 
 
 (3) The people of the United States are largely supplied (we might properly 
 say mainly supplicil) by the surplus product of European factories. 
 
 For the fiscal year ending June 30, J889, the amount of sulphate of quinine 
 brought into this country from Europe (as per Commerce and Navigation, Bureau 
 of Statistics) aggregated 2,893,582 ounces. Against this, American manufacturers 
 can not export an ounce to Europe or any other country. 
 
 (4) The present low price of sulphate of quinine, which is as conspicuous in 
 Europe as it is in this country, is not attributable to the removal of a 20 per cent, 
 duty in the United States, but is due to the cheapness of the cinchona bark, from 
 which the article is made. -The fall iu the price of ciuchona barkfoUowed, audvery 
 naturally, the enormous supplies afforded by the cultivated trees grown ou the English 
 and Dutch plartations of the East Indies. 
 
 English sulphate of quinine, which was quoted in London iu May, 1877, at 16 
 shillings 6 pence per ounce (equal to about $4), is now quoted at 1 shilling 3 pence 
 per ounce, or say about 30 cents. 
 
 It can not be claimed, with any regard to truth, that the removal of a 20 per 
 cent, dutj' in the Uuited States brought about such results in Europe. 
 
 We trust that the Fifty-first Congress will realize the importance of continuing 
 this industry in the United States ; 
 
 That it T^ill appreciate the advantages to our own people that must ensue if the 
 large sums of money now paid to foreigners be kept in this country and distributed 
 among American citizens; 
 
 That it will recognize the injustice of selecting one industry or one class of arti- 
 cles, for hasty and exceptional legislation ; and 
 
 Tliat it will right a wrong, possibly done under misapprehension, incident to gross 
 misrepresentation, but a wrong nevertheless. 
 
 Therefore, we respectfully ask that the clause quiniae, sulphate of, salts of, and 
 cinchonidia be removed from the free list. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Powers & Weightman. 
 eosengarten & sons. 
 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 SIJLPHUEIC ACID. 
 VIEWS OF HARRISON BROS. & CO. 
 
 Philadelphia, January 8, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : The American manufacturers of sulphuric acid, feeling that the cost and 
 difficulties of transportation were sufflcient protection against European competition, 
 have up to this time considered a duty unnecessary. Canada, to protect her interests 
 against United States competition, imposes a duty of 50 cents per 100 pounds, auduow 
 the American makers are promised some extraordinary competition from Cauada, 
 and ask that a like duty be inserted in the Senate tariff bill. The promised Canadian 
 competition is this : As soon as Congress settles the tariff matter and sulphuric acid 
 is left on the free list, a syndicate of English capitalists, we are reliably informed, in- 
 tends to erect a larg.i jilant to work copper pyrites, very rich in sulphur, from 
 which the copper may be utilized, provided the sulphur fumes can be disposed of. 
 The sulphur will bo converted into sulphuric acid, and, as it is really getting rid of a 
 troublesome waste, there will be no cost of material eutering into the cost of the 
 X)roduced acid; the cost will consist only of the maintenance of the acid plant. To 
 dispose of this acid by-product (which will be large) the United States markets will 
 be depended upon, and by reason of the cheap rail transportation in this country and 
 the employment of tank-cars all of our markets will bo reached. With the great 
 labor difference in favor of Canada, and with the acid as a by-product only, and with 
 a production limited only by the (lis|io8itiou of the copper produced, the Atnerican 
 industry will he very seriously threatened. As the whole chemical industry, includ- 
 ing the niaiuifactiirci nf ferlilii'.i'rs and the allied intorcsts, is based npon the manu- 
 facture of sulpliuric acid, the whoUi fabric of the chemical industry is involved. 
 
 Iron pyiites is a iiiiiKAral fliat is abundantin almostevery partofthe United Sta.te8, 
 and is now already mined iu large quantities in some States, particularly Virginia 
 
REVISION OF THE TAiilFE. 353 
 
 and Georgin, for the exp'rosB purpose of sulpliuric-iiciil maniifautriire. Tliesc mining 
 interests .are threatened and thoir further devcloi)nient stoppiul. 
 
 Intense home competition now reduces the margin of [irolit from tie nuiuufacture of 
 sulphuric acid, so that every method of cliea.pening production is necessarily resorted 
 to, and the American people have obtained, and will obtain, tlieir supplies on an al- 
 wayslowering basis. 
 
 We ask that the article be stricken from thi' free list and made dutiable at the 
 rate of 50 cents per 100 pounds, by insertiuii' iu Schedule A, chemical products, after 
 line 4, "sulphuric acid, 50 cents per 100 pounds." 
 
 You will no doubt remember our Mr. Thomas S. Harrison (now abroad for his 
 health),to whom you j;ave such a cordial Iiearing when he Avas iu Washington as the 
 president of the JIanufaeturing Chemists' Association, and we have ventured to ad- 
 dress you because of the deep interest you take in the whole subject of the tariff. 
 
 That we may know you have received this we would ask a simple acknowledg- 
 ment, and inclose stamped envelope for that purpose. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 Harrison Brothers & Co. 
 
 Hon. William McKinley, .Jr., 
 
 ll'aahinglon, D. G. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. EUGENE WAUGH. 
 
 Mr. Eugene Waugh, president of the Highlands Chemical Company, made a state- 
 ment on the subject of acids. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I ajipear as a representative on behalf of the High- 
 lands Chemical Company, and of acid manufacturers in Massachusetts, Counecticut, 
 New Jersey, and New York. Eight years ago we used to ('X]Mirt largely acids into 
 Canada, but local manufacturers startoil there and they ajiplied to the Canadian Par- 
 liament for a protective tariff and got a duty iuiposedof one-half cent a jxiund. About 
 six years ago a New York manufacturer went tliere and opened a mine, brought the 
 ore to this country, and made acids. We coiuplained against that. Within the last 
 year or so this manufacturer has nsed the refuse ore in making acid theiv, and he is 
 now bringing acid to the Eastern market to our detriment. We ask the committee 
 to give us the same duty that the Canadian I'arliament gives to their local manufact- 
 urers. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How much is that? 
 
 Mr. Waugh. One eeut a pound. 
 
 Mr. Breckixkidge. What percentage is that ? 
 
 Mr. Watjgh. Fifty per cent, on the prevailing prices at that time. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What percentage is it now f 
 
 Mr. Waugh. Sixty-five per cent. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is the present duty here? 
 
 Mr. Waugh. It is on the free list, and always has been. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What did you say the prolit is? 
 
 Mr. Waugh. Sulphuric acid made from pyrites — copper or iron jiyrites. They 
 bring that acid here in tinned cans and distribute it iu that shape, and our I'actovies 
 scattered around through different parts of the country can not compote against 
 them. The difference in the price of labor there and here is not very great, but still 
 it is quite considerable, and we have no advantage whatever iu freights. They get 
 their freights at Canadian rates and have the advantage of lower fnsights. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Have you any statistics showing what perceutage is imported 
 from Canada and what from other countries? 
 
 Mr. Waugh. None is imported from any other ccumtry but Cajiada, and only re- 
 cently from there. The geutleuian who had charge of presenting this matter to tlio 
 committee has been sick for the last three wrecks and I have not biseu able to get I he 
 statistics, but I Avill forward them to the committei'. The industry of malting sul- 
 phuric acid is a very large industry and represents a largo capital, a great jiart of 
 which is in plant. It gives employment to quite a cousideialile nninber of men, and 
 to them we pay very high wages, as the labor is mostly all skilled labor. We wish 
 to have the same dnty that the Canadian nm.nnfacturers have. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. For what purpose is sulphuric acid used (uitside of chemicals ? 
 
 Mr. Waugh. For refining oil, for manufactures, for fertilizers, for the finishing 
 of leather, for the galvanizing of wire, and iu all the arts and manufactures. It is 
 the base of all other acids and all other chemicals. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. What is the cost of the refuse that is sold after the manufacture 
 of sulphuric acid? 
 
 Mr. Waugh. The majority of our manufacturers make acid from brimstone, but 
 this acid [indicating specimen] is made from iron or copi>er jiyritos. In that case 
 
 485 23 
 
354 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 they have quite a percentage of copper, which they export to England and get theii 
 rebate. Sulphuric acid is free on the Senate bill. It is made on the Canada side 
 a few miles from the Vermont line, from pyrites, and is protected by a Canadian 
 dnty of one-half a cent per pound, or about 50 per cent, oa the market price. We 
 ask for that same protection, or one-half cent per pound on sulphuric acid. This 
 Canadian acid competes most fatally with acid made in NewEnglaud from pyrites 
 mined in Massachusetts, Franklin County, and in other States, owing to higher cost 
 of labor, both in the mines and acid works of the United States : and labor is 70 per 
 cent, of the cost of acid made from pyrites, including mining. The distance from our 
 market does not protect, as freight is low from Canada. 
 
 ■ VIEWS OF a. H. NICHOLS & CO. 
 
 New York, January 14, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : Some time ago, by invitation and appointment of tbe Committee of 
 Ways and Means, the chemical trade of the United States had a fair and courteous 
 hearing on the subject of the tariif. Among those present at that time were Mr. 
 Hugh Cochrane, of the Cochrane Chemical Company, of Boston, the largest sulphuric 
 acid manufacturers in the Eastern States, and also Mr. G. H. Nichols, of this firm 
 which is the largest manufacturing concern of sulphuric acid east of the AUeghenies ; 
 in fact, one of the largest in the world. • • » 
 
 We are informed that at a subsequent date a Mr. Waugh, of New York, appeared 
 before the committee and advocated that a duty of one-half cent, per pound be placed 
 upon sulphuric acid, or oil vitriol, as he feared it might come in from Canada and in- 
 terfere with the acid manufacturers of the Eastern States. We have also been informed 
 that the Eastern manufacturers, of whom there are three, the most important of whicli 
 we have referred to above as being present at the first meeting, have written to the 
 committee, advocating that this duty be placed upon sulphuric acid, which, by the 
 way, has never been placed, certainly not within the last twenty-five years, upon the 
 dutiable list. * * * 
 
 Sulphuric acid enters into almost every process of manufacture, but in none so 
 largely as in the manufacture of fertilizers for the farmers ; and this fact alone, it 
 seems to us, should be abundant reason why sulphuric acid, in common with all of 
 the other materials entering into the manufacture of fertilizers, should remain on 
 the free list. There are, however, many other arguments bearing on the iron and 
 kindred trades which would show the same condition. 
 
 In this same line we desire to inclose a copy of a bill which we would suggest 
 might be presented, if it does not interfere with other plans. This bill is in the in- 
 terest of American manufacturers, enabling them to use, wher^ necessary, foreign 
 materials, exporting them again and getting back all of the duty originally paid. 
 The present law enables them to recover a rebate of 90 per cent, of the original duty 
 paid ; and they therefore lose ten per cent, in addition to the custom-house charges, 
 which is quite a serious handicap in some industries. As this bill would accomplish 
 two things, namely, assistance to American manufacturers and a moderate curtail- 
 ment of the revenue, we trust it will appear to he wise as a Kepublican measure to 
 place it. 
 
 Again regretting the necessity of calling upon you in these matters, and thanking 
 you beforehand for your courteous consideration, we remain 
 Very truly, 
 
 G. H. Nichols & Co. 
 
 Hon. William C. Wallace, M. C, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 STATEMENT OP THOMAS M'DOUGAL. 
 
 Mr. Thomas McDougal, of Cincinnati, on behalf of certain manufacturers of sul- 
 phuric acid, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I desire to call your attentiou to 
 the metal schedule as it exists in the tariif bill. Schedule C of metals reads as follows : 
 
 "Iron ore, including mangauiferous iron ore, also the dross or residuum from burnt 
 pyrites, 75 cents per ton. Sulphur ore, as pyrites, or sulphuret of iron in its natural 
 state, containing not more than 3^^ per centum of copper, 75 cents per ton: Provided, 
 That ore containing more than 2 per centum of copper shall pay, in addition thereto, 
 2i cents per pouud for the copper contained therein." 
 
 There are from 375,000 to 400,000 tons of sulphuric acid manufactured in the United 
 States per annum. The growth or increase of that manufacture is likely to be rapid. 
 It is the most important ingredient of fertilizers. It is the essential element to en- 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 355 
 
 aWe tbe people of this country to use the phosphated mines and rock of the country 
 in the production of fertilizers. Brimstone, or sulphur, from which sulphuric acid is 
 made, is on the free list. It does not compete with any industry in this country. 
 About three-fourths of the present sulphuric acid is produced from brimstone, and 
 one-fourth from pyrites, from the sulphur or sulphuret of iron, iron pyrites or copper 
 pyrites. Under tne present existing law there is a discrimination in favor of the 
 copper pyrites, or what is called copper pyrites. You will observe that under the iron- 
 ore schedule 75 cents per ton duty is imposed on iron pyrites. If these pyrites con- 
 tain In excess of 2 per cent, of copper they pay a duty of 2^ cents per pound on the 
 copper contents up to 3| per cent, of copper. That is to say, if tbe ore contains from 
 2i to 3} per cent, of copper, it is treated under the iron-ore provision ; but if the per- 
 centage of copper is 4 per cent, it is listed as copper ore and not as iron ore, and under 
 the copper-ore provision it does not pay the 75 cents per ton in addition to the 2J 
 cents per pound on the copper contents ; so that, if the ore contained that same per- 
 centage of sulphur or the same percentage of iron, that 3^ per cent, of copper is im- 
 ported, and it is classified as iron pyrites or sulphuret of iron ore, and pays the 75 
 cents per ton, as iron ore, and 2^ cents per pound for the 3^ per cent, of copper pyrites 
 contained in it. But if it is classed as copper ore or copper pyrites with the same 
 percentage of sulphur and the same percentage of iron, but if it has a half per cent, 
 more of copper, it is listed as copper ore and not as iron ore, and pays a duty on the 
 copper contained at the rate of 2^ cents per pound. 
 
 The result of this is by calculation that a ton of ore with the same percentage of 
 sulphur and the same percentage of iron, but with 4 per cent, of copper, pays a duty 
 of $2.24 per ton, being 2| cents per pound on the copper contents of 4 per cent, in the 
 ore; whereas the iron ore or sulphuret of iron, which contains only 3^ per cent, of 
 copper, pays $2.71 per ton, or 47 cents per ton more than the ore that contains a half 
 per cent, more of copper. The same percentage of sulphur and the same percentage 
 of iron, but with a difference of a half per cent, of copper in favor of the copper 
 pyrites, makes the duty 47 cents per ton less in its favor. 
 
 In addition to that, under the rebate or drawback clause that the import of copper 
 pyrites exported as copper, the duty which is paid is refunded to him, less a fourth of 
 1 per cent, for customs expenses, so that the importer and user of ore that contains 4 
 per cent, or in excess of 3^ per cent, of copper, practically receives the ore free of 
 duty; whereas the importer of a similar ore with simply a half per cent, less of 
 copper is compelled to pay 75 cents per ton as iron ore or sulphuret of iron. 
 
 I have said that the many uses of sulphuric acid are known to you gentlemen 
 more or less. The principal uses at present are the refining of oil and the making 
 of fertilizers. 
 
 Mr. Breckinbidob. Eefining what kind of oil ? 
 
 Mr. McDouGAL. Coal oil. 
 
 Mr. Brbcklnrldge. Only coal oil t 
 
 Mr. McDouGAL. The principal use of sulphuric acid to-day is the refining of coal 
 oil. That is one of the largest single uses ; but I am not familiar enough with all 
 the uses to say whether it is used in other oils or not. In fertilizers I believe it is 
 required that a ton of acid should be used for a ton of phosphates ; a ton of cham- 
 ber acid to a ton of phosphate. Since the passage of the present taritf law the large 
 manufacturers of acids have been seeking naturally to cheapen the cost of the acid. 
 Cheaper acid can be made from pyrites than from sulphur. The only source of supply 
 of sulphur is from Sicily. From Sicily all tbe bnmsiono or sulphur used in the 
 United States is imported. There has none been found so it can be used in this 
 country. In recent years it has been a business necessity to cheapen the cost of the 
 production of sulphuric acid, and for that reason iron pyrites and copper pyrites are 
 used. Iron pyrites, or sulphuret of iron in a pure state, consisting of only sulphur 
 and iron, is 52 per cent, sulphur and 48 per cent. iron. As found, it is from 35 to 45 
 per cent, of sulphur and from 30 to 40 per cent, of iron, and the balance is in silica 
 and other ingredients. The sulphur in the iron pyrites does not compete with any 
 industry in this country, for the sulphur has always to be burned. From 35 to 45 per 
 cent, of the ore assessed as sulphuret of iron, with a duty of 75 cents per ton, consists 
 of sulphur and not of iron. The 30 to 40 per cent, of iron is a waste production, and 
 is put on the dump. It is not used for the purpose of manufacturing iron. It con- 
 tains from 2 to 3 per cent, of sulphur. In other words, it would be too expensive in 
 the burning of it for the purpose for which the acid manufacturers use it, to entirely 
 eliminate the sulphur from tne cinder so as to make it valuable to the manufacturer 
 of iron. Therefore, it is put on the dump as a waste production. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridgb. It has entirely to be eliminated. 
 
 Mr. McDoTJGAL. It is necessary to eliminate the sulphur from the iron. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The ore carries a certain per cent, of sulphur, and it is too ex- 
 pensive to sufficiently eliminate it to make the iron valuable for commercial purposes; 
 that is true ? 
 
356 REViaioN OF the taeiff. 
 
 Mr. MoDouGAL. Yes, sir; that is true. I presume tLat four concerns in this coan- 
 trv are the pi-iiicijial consumers of pyrites. 
 
 Mr. Gear. AVliere do these pyrites come from ? 
 
 Mr. McDouGAL. I was about to state it. There are no copper pyrites in this coun- 
 try. Our concerns have expended large sums of money to rind them here, but they 
 Lave failed to find them. There are two iron pyrites mines, perliaps, in the United 
 States; one uearTolersville, Va., and there is one iuDavis, JIass. The copper pyrites 
 come from Canada and the Rio Tinto mines in Spain. They are the largest and only 
 copper mines thus far known and that can be obtained to-day. Tlie copper pyrites 
 are found at Capleton, Canada, about 1.5 miles from the line of the United States 
 and at the Eio Tluto mines of Spain, from whicli the entire snlpliuric acid production 
 of Great Britain is obtained. Tbey are principal sources of supply of the manufact- 
 urers of this country who desire to use that in the manufacture of sulphuric acid. 
 The present ontpat of the mines in Virginia and Massachusetts, with the present 
 facilities and more or less inferior quality of ore, amounts to about |35,000 per annnn). 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. These mines produce iron pyrites, not the copper? 
 
 Mr. McDouGAL. I stated the only copper pyrites on this continent are at Capleton, 
 Canada. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is there any supply of iron pyrites abroad as far you know ? 
 
 Mr. McDouGAL. The copper pyrites of Rio Tinto, Spain, are unquestionably very 
 much more productive. 
 
 Mr. BKiiCKiXRiDGE. You mean it is better to buy? 
 
 Mr. McDouGAL. It is more suitable than iron pyrites to manufacture, because it 
 shows higher contents of sulphuric acid. Now, I presume from what I have been told 
 that the copper pyrites supply of the Rio Tinto mines of Spain are adequate for sev- 
 eral generations of Great Britain. One concern of this country imports it — the Penn- 
 sylvania Salt Company, of Philadelphia. The supply of Capleton, Canada, is 
 controlled exclusively by one concern in this country. It is imported as a copper py- 
 rites with an average of 4 per cent, of copper. The iron pyrites of Canada has about 
 the same iron contents as the iron pyrites of this country, and it has the same sulphur 
 contents substantially as the iron pyrites of this country, the only substantial differ- 
 ence being that it has a percentage of copper which the sulphuret of iron does not 
 contain. 
 
 Now, I have said, that until six years ago the entire sulphuric-acid production 
 was made from brimstone imported from Sicily. It was discovered, as it had been 
 previously in Great Britain, that cheaper acid could 1)6 made from pyrites than from 
 brimstone ; and so several concerns in this country have changed from brimstone to 
 py^iitfts, and now what we ask is that in view of the fact that the sulphur contents 
 or sulphurate of iron is free raw material and that tlio iron contents are a •waste proiU 
 uct and cannot compete with any industry in the country, the supply or production 
 of which is necessarily limited to what the sulphuric-acid manufacturers can con- 
 sume, as it would not pay for us in this country to use iron pyrites for the purpese of 
 making iron ore by reason of the small percentage of iron contained in the ore, so 
 that we ask that this To cents per ton shall be taken from sulphurate of iron or iron 
 pyrites. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are we importing it specifically as sulphuret of iron ? 
 
 Mr. McDougal. We have to make an affiilavit when it is imported from Canada 
 that the.y do not contain more than 2 per cent, of copper. If they contain 2 per cent, 
 of copper they are assessed 76 cents a ton, and then they pay on tlie copper at the 
 rate of 2i- cents per pound for the copper contaiued therein. If it should exceed 'H 
 per cent, of cop]>er they are listed as copper jiyrites and they do not pay the 75 cents 
 per ton. Now the sulphuret of iron or iron pyrites do not compete with any industry 
 in this country. The use of this ore will grow rapidly and necessarily so, as it is 
 safe to say that the entire country east of the Mississippi River from the Lakes to the 
 Gulf will he compelled more and more every year to use fertilizers, and this is the 
 element that cheapens the cost of fertilizers. 
 
 Mr. Gear. By doing that you would bo able to reduce the price of sulphuric acid? 
 
 Mr. McD(.)UGAL. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. You want iron p.yrites put on the free list? 
 
 ilr. McDouGAE. Yes, sir; that is the reasou for it, namely, that the sulphuret con- 
 tents are free now if they come in as sulphur, and the iron production being a waste 
 production, cannot compete with any industry. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is the proportion of the iron that accompanies these pyrites? 
 
 Mr. McDouGAL. Prom 30 to 40 per ceut. is iron. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is that iron easily separated from the pyrites ? 
 
 Mr. McDocGAL. No, sir ; they burn the ore for the sulphur it contains, but praeti- 
 call,y there is such a percentage of sulplmr re;nain-i in tlie cinder that it makes it 
 conjnu'roially unprolit.-ihln, and .so far as eliminating tlie siilpliiu' Irom the cinder is 
 concerned, iti is too costly fin- auy parjiose. The priaeipal eom crn-i in this country 
 simply put it on the dump, and it always has beeu pat ou the dump and used for 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 357 
 
 filling Tip, like the slas from the furnaces. Kiuv, tlie amount that could be iniportcil 
 if all the sulphuric acid inanufactiirers in the liiiitcd States wen^ usiugpyritcN, llieir 
 annual output would be from 375,00U to 4UU,O0U tons, of which 40 ])er ci'ut. wouUl be 
 iron if they would use the iron pyrites, and that would be the limit of iniport.itiim 
 unless the business increases, which would simply be almost inlinitesimal compared 
 with the iron ore that is used in this country, and under no circumstances, t,her<!- 
 fore by reason of the conditions of the cinder and the labor involved in using it, 
 could it ever come in competition "with the iron ore of this country. 
 
 Mr. BuKCiaNRlDGE. You call this article you want iron pyrites ? 
 
 Mr. McDoUGAL. Snlphuret of iron is iron pyrites; that is wliat it is called. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. There is on the list a commercial distinction between iron ore, 
 that is to say that which would be used as iron ore, and this Avhich has so much sul- 
 phur in it as to be known as pyrites. Now the point we want is where the |)erceutagc; 
 determining the one and the other shonld properly be made. This is a commercial 
 term ? 
 . Mr. McDouGAi.. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckikridge. And means that the one ore is used for iron, and that this is 
 imported solely ibr the sulphur which is in it? 
 
 Mr. McDouGAL. Yes, sir ; and as I have said in the case of the copper pyrites, ore 
 that contains over ij-l- per cent, of copper is not assessed any duty at all uiion the 
 iron ore which is in it, which may be 7 per cent. 
 
 Mr. MclvKNKA. Did yon s.ay it was produced in Virginia? 
 
 Mr. McDouCAL. It is produced in Tolersville, Va., at two mines which produce, 
 one 20,000 and the other 30,000 tons per animm. 
 
 Mr. McKknka. And also in Massachusetts? 
 
 Mr. McDoDGAi,. Yes, sir; the Davis mmes of Massachusetts, wliichturn out about 
 10 per cent, of the ore used. 
 
 Mr. Ml'Kkn.na. M'liat would be the effect on the Virginia and iSIassachusetts mines 
 if this were jiut on the free list? 
 
 Mr. McDouGAL. None at all. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Wliy not? 
 
 Mr. McDouGAL. Their quantity is very limited. It does not need any protection 
 against the ore outside. 
 
 Mr. McKexna. Why not ? If it was in small quantities it might need protection. 
 
 Mr. McDot;(}AL. If the ore from Tolersville and tlie ore irom the Davis mines wore 
 of the same quality commercially, with the same percentage of sulphur, and the ore 
 coming from Canada were the same, th('n it would be siiii])ly a question of freight 
 between the places where it was used; the cost of mining it in one place is very 
 little different from the cost of mining it in another place. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. In regard to the Virginia mine and the Massachusetts mine, which 
 of the two is the more expensive to mine ? 
 
 Mr. McDouGAX. I am not al>li' to answer that. 
 
 Mr. Bailey. I have to explain the mining in Virginia and Massachusetts would be 
 practically the same as in Canada, and they would be sonu'what jirotectedby reason 
 of the difference in freights ; and in any event it could not alfcct the iiriee liere at 
 all, because the quantity is small, and they can sell all they can put out at the same 
 prices; and if this Tfi cents a ton duty wire taken off an<l this iuipoi't wore IVee, it 
 would not have any effect n]ion the prices they would get at all. 
 
 Mr. McKkxna. How are tlie conditions in mining compared with Virginia and 
 Massachusetts? 
 
 Mr. Bailey. Practically the same. 
 
 Mr. McKen.va. Have they the same advantages, etc. ? 
 
 Mr. Bailey. Practically the same. So these men in this country would find a 
 market for all the ore at the present prices, 
 
 Mr. McKenna. How about the degree of richness of the two ores ? 
 
 Mr. Bailey. Tlie sulphur contents would probably Ije the same, and the iron con- 
 tents would be practically the same. The Canaila ore is a somewhat hard ore, and 
 in the furnaces Avhere the ore goes it would not ciunible so (|uick. The harder ore 
 is preferred to the other lieeanse that crumbles so easily. 
 
 Mr. McKe.nna. Are the Canada ores in suflicient quantities to supply the market? 
 
 Mr. Bailey. Not at present, but it wmild bo sulUcie'nt for jiresent needs. Wlieu 
 the manufacturers in this country really need the ore, they can not get it in this 
 country. That is to say, the existing mines in this country only supply a very small 
 proportion of the whole demand. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is not that by reason of a lack of quantity of mines and a lack of 
 pyrites to produce? 
 
 Mr. Bailey. The quantity is necessa.rily limiteil. It is found in more or less quan- 
 tities. It exists in a lens form between the meks, and it is usually a niatli'r o^ esl i- 
 mate and speculation in regard to the quantity. 
 
 Mr. Bay.mo. Do yon know the rate of wages [laid in Canaila and the rate paid in 
 Virginia and Massachusetts? 
 
358 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Bailey. I think they are practically the same. 
 
 Mr. Batne. That, of course, does not give me any information. 
 
 Mr. Bailky. In Virginia I thiuli the laborers' wages are $1 to |1.25 a day. Now, the 
 miners that drill would get more than that. I can not give you the exact informa- 
 tion ; they would be just about the same. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You only infer that they are about the same? 
 
 Mr. Bailey. My knowledge is they are about the same, although I can not give the 
 exact figures. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you think the difference would be as great in mining this kind of 
 ore as in mining iron ore and coal ? 
 
 Mr. Bailey. That question I could not answer, because I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Bayhe. You would suppo.se it to be about the same? 
 
 Mr. Bailey. Those men called miners in those mines would be comparatively few. 
 It would depend upon the number of drills they ran. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. But the labor would be about the same? 
 
 Mr. Bailey. I tiaink so. I do not know any reason for any difference because we 
 take men from here there. 
 
 Mr. McDouGAL. In closing, I want to say it is absolutely necessary for the sul- 
 phuric-acid manufacturers of the United States who are using pyrites to seek a sup- 
 ply elsewhere than in this country. The principal concerns I represent have spent 
 large sums of money to find sources of supply, and existing business has compelled 
 them to get foreign ore. What can be done, and will be done in five, ten, or fifteen 
 years we do not know, except to say that they have spent about $100,000 to And 
 pyrites, and have not succeeded. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Which is the most profitable to import, iron or copper pyrites? 
 
 Mr. McDouGAL. Copper, if we own it. It depends upon what you have to pay 
 for it. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Who owns these Spanish mines ? 
 
 Mr. McDouGAL. An English syndicate, but I do not know the arrangement under 
 which single concerns in this country import their ore ; but we assume that they 
 have to pay for the copper contents, and they simply sell the sulphur contents. The 
 other mine in this country, in Canada, is owned by one concern, and does not sell 
 anything. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How much iron is contained in that ore in Canada? 
 
 Mr. McDoUGAL. Thirty to forty per cent. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I suppose you import that ore from Canada with this very low grade 
 of iron in the ore. Could that be shipped far into the interior? 
 
 Mr. McDouGAL. Now the Virginia mines will supply the people of the South and 
 the New England mines will supply the people of New England. Then these ores of 
 Canada being so low a grade of iron it will not pay to ship far into the interior. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The reason why you use copi)er ore is because of the drawback on the 
 by-product of copper. 
 
 Mr. McDouGAL. Certainly. The manufacturer who buys copper pyrites gets the 
 sulphur for nothing. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Where is the Canada ore located ? 
 
 Mr. McDoDQAL. Capleton, Canada, in the Province of Quebec. It is about 50 
 miles aliove the American line. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Above Toronto ? 
 
 Mr. McDouGAL. No ; it is on this side, near the American line. 
 
 VIEWS OP LENNIG & CO. 
 
 Philadelphia, January 9, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: Since the chemical intere.sts were given a hearing before your honor- 
 able committee, the attentiou of several of the large manufacturers of sulphuric acid 
 has been directed to the importation of this article from Canada into the States, and 
 its future efl'ect on this branch of chemical industry in the States. 
 
 From what the writer has been able to learn, shipments began to be made of this 
 acid from Canada during the summer and autumn of last year, and interfered quite 
 materially in the markets of the New England States with some of the makers located 
 there. Further, it is reported that a large English company has been organized to 
 erect sulphuric acid works in Canada for the manufacture of this acid from pyrites 
 that abound there, and boast that thoy are going eventually to supply the United 
 States with it. 
 
 Now, as the duty on pyrites imported iuto the United States is 75 cents per ton, 
 the sulphuric acid made therefrom is free of duty, therefore a duty on the raw ma- 
 teri.al and none on the article manufactured therefrom hardly seems in order. 
 
 Further, while here sulphuric acid is admitted free of duty, the Dominion of Canada 
 imposes a duty of half a cent per pound oivthe article. 
 
EVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 359 
 
 In Tiew of the above we wouM suggest that a similar duty to that imposed hy the 
 Dominiott of Canada be imposed on sulphuric acid, or oil of vitriol, to prevent the 
 Canadian maimers flooding our marliet with their acid, for the consumption in Canada 
 being comparatively limited, it is in the United States they have to look tot their 
 principal market. 
 
 While on this subject we would remark that sulphuric acid being such an impor- 
 tant factor in the mannfactureof fertilizers, the permitting of manufactured fertilizers 
 longer to remain without a protective duty is a constant threat to the industry here 
 of interference from Canadian manufacturers, who seem only too willing to look to us 
 both for a market for their products and also a profit on the same, while they do noth- 
 ing towards either maintaining the Government or paying their share of the govern- 
 mental expenses. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 Charles Lenniq & Co. (limited). 
 
 Hon. William McKinlet, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 VIEWS OP W. M. JOHNSON. 
 
 Passaic, N. Y., January 9, 1890. 
 Dear Sir: We write to urge upon your committee the propriety of imposing a 
 duty upon sulphuric acid. The freight charges have served heretofore as a sufficient 
 protection against importations from Europe, and have enabled us to manufacture 
 suecessfully, notwithstanding the greater cost of labor here. We are now, however, 
 confronted with a competition across the border in Canada, which is being severely 
 felt by many of our manufacturers. The Canadian government protects its manu- 
 facturers by a duty of one-half cent per pound, while the same article is on the " free 
 list" here. Trusting your committee will afford us the desired relief, 
 We remain, respectfully, 
 
 The Dundee Chemical Works. 
 W. M. Johnson, 
 
 Treasurer. 
 Hon. William McKinlet, 
 
 Chairman Committee Ways and Means, 
 
 CYANIDE OF POTASSIUM. 
 VIEWS OF THE ERKENBACH WORKS. 
 
 HoBOKBN, N. J., January 12, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen: The undersigned respectfully call the attention of your honorable 
 body to the present rate of duty on -ryanide of potassium, viz, 25 per cent., which rate 
 is altogether too low to allow of the American manufacturers competing with the 
 foreign article much longer, unless something is done for us in the way of increasing 
 the present duty by Congress. 
 
 This article is used quite largely in the manufacture of gold and silver plated ware, 
 brass and bronze goods, etc., aod the bulk of that consumed at present in the United 
 States is imported, caused by the inability of the American makers to find any profit 
 in the article at the prices set by the importers during the past year, the importers 
 having forced the prices down to about the present cost of the American cyanide. 
 
 The importers are at present soliciting contracts for 1890 at a price of 55 cents per 
 pound for cyanide potassium 98 to 99 per cent, pure, and we will endeavor to prove to 
 you that this is about the cost of producing this article here. In the first place 
 cyanide potassium is manufactured from yellow prussiate of potash, the cost of the 
 latter being for that made in the United States 18| cents per pound, and for the 
 foreign as follows : 
 
 Per pound. 
 
 United States customs duty $0.05 
 
 Freight to United States OOi 
 
 Commission to agents selling here, at least 00 J 
 
 Cost of prussiate of potassium to the consumer abroad 13 
 
 Total cost of foreign prussiate to consumer in the United States 19 
 
 Please note the duty on prussiate potash is 38^ per cent, on the cost to consumers 
 abroad. 
 
360 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The cost of producing cyanide potassium 98 to 99 per cent, pure in the United 
 States is as follows : 
 
 180 pounds prussiate of potassimn, at 18|- cents per i)ounil $33.30 
 
 Cost of labor, one man for one day 2.00 
 
 Cost of crucibles and utensils for melting 2.25 
 
 Wear and tear ou furnaces, etc .25 
 
 Fuel 75 
 
 Yield of cyanide potassium 98 to 99 per cent. , 72 pounds 38. 55 
 
 Cost of cyanide potassium, !)8 to 99 per cent., per pound .53| 
 
 The cost of producing the same article abroad is as follows : 
 
 180 pounds prussiate potash, at price abroad, 13 cents 23.40 
 
 Cost of labor, one man for one day 75 
 
 Cost of crucibles and utensils 1.50 
 
 Wear and tear 12 
 
 Fuel .'. 50 
 
 Yield of cyanide potassium, 98 to 99 per cent., 72 pounds 26.27 
 
 Cost of cyanide potassium, 9S to 99 per cent., per pound 36^ 
 
 Difference in favor of foreign article, per pound 17 
 
 Now we have — 
 
 The cost of cyanide potassium, 98 to 99 per cent., ready for the market in the 
 
 United States at 53i cents per pound, or for 100 pounds |53.50 
 
 The cost of cyanide potassium, 99 per cent., abroad is shown to be 36J 
 
 cents per pound, or for 100 pounds it would be $36. 50 
 
 Freight, per 100 pounds, to United States 50 
 
 Duty of 2.') per cent, on selling price abroad, wliiohisM. 390* per 100 _ 
 kilos, or about 42 cents per pound, or $42 per 100 pounds 10.50 
 
 Total cost of foreign articles In New York 47. 50 
 
 Diiference in cost of foreign and American cyanide in New York, per 100 
 
 pounds 6.00 
 
 in favorof the foreign article. 
 
 The above figures show that the foreign article can be manufactured, freight ))aid 
 to New York, duty paid, and the cyanide potas.sium sold here at 53-J- cents per pound — 
 the present cost of the American cyanide, as shown above — and the foreign manufact- 
 urer would still make a profit of 6 cents per pound, or nearly 13 per cent, clear. Again, 
 if the duty remains as it is and the foreign cyanide is not lowered below its present 
 figure of 55 cents per pound, the American makers are and would l)e enabled to make 
 but IJ cents per pound, or not quite 3 per cent, jirofit, out of which must come the cost 
 ofsi^lling, shipping, interest on capital, risk, etc. (which does not pay those expenses), 
 while the f'ori'ign manufacturer is and would bo enabled to make a profit of 7i cents 
 per pound, or 16 jier cent, on cost price. 
 
 It isalso obvious th:«t the foreign maker may at any time run the price so low as 
 to sell his goods ))elow the cost of producing the article in this country, thus forcing 
 the American makers to cease making and still leave them a fair profit. 
 
 From the above figures we respectfully claim that the present rate of duty on cya- 
 nide of potassium is unjust and out of all proportion to the rate of duty on the crude 
 material, prussiate potassium. There are two ways of remedying this evil — by the in- 
 crease of the duty ou cyatiide potassium from 25 per cent, to at least 40 per cent., or 
 the reduction of the duty on Prussian potash. Tlie latter method we do not advocate, 
 solicit, or desire, as it would seriously injure, and probably smother, the industry here, 
 but we do e;irnestjy ])ray that the duty on cyanide potassium bo raised from 25 per 
 cent, to 40 ]ii;r cent., thus putting us on an equal footing with the foreign makers, 
 precluding the possiliility of their lowering the ])rice still further, and preventing the 
 smothexing of qiiit<; a large iiidustry in this conntry. 
 Very respectfully. 
 
 The Ei'.KENEACH CriEJiicAi, Works, 
 
 Hoboken, N. J. 
 
 The Ways ani> Means Coiiiiittee. 
 
 '^Tliia pvici- ot'M. liOO piT 1(10 IfiloH iRin'if.t^ givt^n ufl l)y a ni.akiir in Loip/.iff. Gorrnaiiy, for sra.all loffl, 
 and could \m ()l)tainoil hy a cutiMtiniPi- al.s(». It IIlciu-hh oliI. aljoiit r>'i\ rcut^ pi'V pound, freight ami duty 
 paid, to Now York, and j^ivcH tlio Grjinan maker at Um^l (i conts i^or pound protit. 
 
EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 301 
 
 BORAX AND ITS PRODUCTS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. J. W. MATHER. 
 
 Mr. J. W. Mather, of New York, made a statement to tlie committee on the sub- 
 ject of borates. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, asking yonr attention to the various samples of 
 crude and manufactured borax submitted, consisting of borate of lime in various 
 forms, borate of soda, boraoic acid, concentrated borax and the refiued article, I do- 
 sire to state that this is comparatively a new industry and covers a period of barely 
 twenty-five years. Prior to 1865 we were almost wholly dependent upon supplies 
 from abroad. About that time, or shortly thereafter, a few hundred tons were taken 
 from a -small lake or marsh in Lake County, Cal., and might properly be de- 
 nominated tincal. This represented all the ingredients of borax of commerce and 
 was readily converted into the refined article and at a trifling expense. This supply 
 ■was soon exhausted and the high price then ruling, some four or five times greater 
 than now, stimulated research and resulted in giving us the extensive fields lying in 
 both the States of California aud Nevada. These, however, lie at great distances from 
 any railroad or other facilities for bringing their output to market, aud entail heavy 
 expense in accomplishing this, as well as furnishing supplies of every kind for use at 
 the mines, surrounded for many miles by sandy and apparently barren wastes. 
 
 In the working of both the mines at Slate Range and at Death Valley, the hauling 
 is over a stretch of from 80 to 160 miles, and on portions of these routes water for 
 man and beast has to be carried, as well as all kinds of provisions and provender 
 required. All the money disbursed, whether in working the mines, purchasing sup- 
 plies, hauling and freighting to market, including New York City, the central dis- 
 tributing point, inures to the benefit of the United States. It is questionable if any 
 product of the country absorbs as large a percentage of its sales to put it on the 
 market, or one which gives so little return for the capital invested aud labor em- 
 ployed. 
 
 The first and more direct method was to make borax from borate of soda, but as 
 this article became scarce, means were found to make it from borate of lime, of which 
 there are extensive deposits in the barren and arid regions lying east of the Sierra 
 Nevada Mountains. 
 
 The consumption of borax in its various forms of concentrated, jiowdered, re- 
 fined, etc., has steadily increased, and during the year of I88y amounted to over 
 9,000,000 pounds, not reckoning boracio acid and borate of lime, used for making 
 boracic acid, while the consumption was only about 1,000,000 pounds twenty-five 
 years ago. Taking into consideration all its uses, direct and indirect, it is safe to 
 estimate the consumption at more than 10,000,000 ]ionnds last year, and that this 
 will be materially increased during the year 1890. Tliere need be no apprehension 
 of short supplies of the article, as extensive deposits are known to exist, but too re- 
 mote at present froQi railroads or other facilities to market them profitably. In a 
 few years these will be reached by projected or other roads, aud be within reach of 
 the general markets of the country. 
 
 In the summer of 1888 I had the honor of appearing before the Finance Committee 
 of the United States Senate and presenting this subject quite fully, and to save my- 
 self labor and this committee time I invite its careful consideration of what I then 
 set forth, which may be found in Senate Report No. 23'.i2, Part 2, Fiftieth Congress, 
 first session, page 205, and which I desire to have added to and made a portion of 
 this paper. 
 
 The rest of my paper refers to another subject in which borax is not alone inter- 
 ested, but I do not propose to read it now, and will simply ask to hand it to the 
 reporter. In connection with it I have a paper here that has been sent from Cali- 
 fornia, addressed to this committee, signed by all the leading producers of borax on 
 that coast, asking a modification of the general law. The existing law makes the 
 duty on refined borax and boracic acid 5 cents a pound, on commercial boracic acid 
 4 cents a pound, and 3 cents a pound on crude liorax, borate of soda, and borate of 
 lime. So far as refined borax and borate of soda and borate of lime are concerned, 
 those rates are probably sufficient, but it is very questionable whether boracic acid 
 should not be taxed higher. But rather tlin.u niake an argument upon it, I invite 
 the attention of the committee to what General Rosecrans, a man of no mean preten- 
 tions in science, submitted to this committee six years ago, and also a letter addressed 
 to a member of the committee in 1888, and I ask the committee to examine these 
 documents. 
 The Chairman. Have you got a copy of General Rosaerans' statement? 
 Mr. Mathee. I have. I will liand it to the reporter, ami I will also leave a part 
 of the report of my testimony before the Senate connnittri-,. 
 (These documents are appended to Mr. Mather's statement.) 
 
362 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Mather (continuing). In order that gentlemen of the committee may have 
 some idea of the immense undertalcmg of getting this to market, I present photographs 
 of the teams that are employed for hauling it. There are eighteen mules to each 
 team, and they are expected to haul fro'ri 10 tons upward. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What are these hexes [indicating] t 
 
 Mr. Mather. They are boxes containing the different kinds of material from which 
 borax is made. They contain borates of limein dilferent forms. Here [showing spec- 
 imen] is borate of lime from the southern part of Oregon. Here [showing another 
 specimen] is borate of lime from theMojave Desert. It may not be out of the way to 
 state that the proportions of borax of commerce are about .36J per cent, of boracic 
 acid 16^ per cent, of borate of soda, and 47 per cent, of water. Borate of soda makfs 
 borax directly, but borate of lime requires the addition of soda. The Ijorate of soda 
 of which 1 submit a specimen here is of a very high test, and probably contains 
 nearly IPO per cent. 
 
 Mr. McEenna. In the paper that you have submitted have you described this 
 borax ? 
 
 Mr. Mather. Yes, sir; everything is there. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Have you said anything about the prices? 
 
 Mr. Mathkr. I have not. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the market price ? 
 
 Mr. Mather. Iu the report that I have submitted it is shown that the market 
 price was in the neighborhood of 40 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Have you given the foreign price in competition ? 
 
 Mr. Mather. The foreign price to-day is suljstantially the same as ours. Atone 
 time in England it was £fiO per ton. To-day it is from £28 to £:iO. 
 
 To a careful observer it has long been apparent that our revenue laws pertaining 
 to the admission of American products sent abroad and returned to this country are 
 radically defective. 
 
 In the interest of both our revenue and industries Congress has wisely devised that 
 certain goods shall, upon entry for consumption, pay a specified duty, and until such 
 duty is paid these goods, while in the domain of our country, are iu possession of its 
 officials. When the requirements of the law have been complied with by the pay- 
 ment of the duties called for these goods go into general trade and become part and 
 parcel of American goods, the same as iu the case of a foreigner, who, coming here, 
 and through our naturalization laws, becomes an American citizen. If the importer 
 elects, after the arrival of the foreign goods here, to send them abroad the laws re- 
 quire him to give bond to produce satisfactory evidence of these goods having been 
 landed outside the country's limits, and until this is done at no time from their in- 
 ception have these goods passed beyond the Jurisdiction of our Government. If these 
 regulations are wise and beneficent, of which I conclude there can be no shadow of 
 doubt, why should they not be made applicable in analogous cases, or when American 
 goods are sent abroad and become pare and parcel of the merchandise of the country 
 whither exported ? 
 
 As already stated, foreign goods coming hither are held by the Government until 
 the conditions of our laws relating to them are complied with, after which they are 
 free to the trade, and in no case does the Government allow a drawback or return of 
 duties paid by the importer after the goods have passed beyond its control, except 
 ■when these goods may have been used iu connection with manufacturing iu this 
 country, and then upon such manufactured goods being exported, a drawback less 
 10 per cent, is allowed for the duty paid upon the foreign material so used in the 
 manufacture. 
 
 Goods of American manufacture sent to a foreign country, whether for sale or 
 holding there, whenever they have passed beyond fine confines of the Government of 
 such country, are essentially foreign goods and products and should be so treated by 
 our laws. But unfortunately, whether by an oversight in our laws or by a system 
 of lax regulations on the part of our ofiicials in charge of such matters, goods of a 
 purely foreign origin have undoubtedly found their way through our custom-houses, 
 as of American product, and without the jiayuient of the required duty, to the detri- 
 ment, as already stated, of both our revenue and our home producers. Heretofore it 
 seems to have been the privilege or duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to make 
 such regulations for the return of American products from abroad as would admit 
 them free of duty. These regulations often changed at the caprice of the existing 
 official, were of wide latitude and by no means as stringent as required in the case 
 of importation of foreign goods. Merchandise that has passed beyond the bounds of 
 the customs officials in England and gone into the channels of trade, and become 
 part and parcel of the consumption there, has be<'u admitted free here upon some flimsy 
 pretext, signed by an obliging American consul, that these were American goods. 
 
 It is very questionable if any material benefit is derived either by the producer or 
 the country in admitting products of this country after these have been sent to a 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 363 
 
 foreign market, and it is equally questionable -whetlier the goods so sent are not for 
 the account of the foreign merchant, and are only returned here when he finds his 
 individual gain in the operation. It will doubtless be found that the great hulk of 
 American products sent abroad are ordered for foreign account and by foreigners, 
 and no good and valid reason can be shown why our legislation should be shaped in 
 the interest of the foreign merchant and to the detriment of our producers. It is 
 demonstrable that a judicious tariff encourages and builds up manufacturing to a 
 point that cheapens the article so manufactured until it enters into the general 
 markets of the world. And yet these manufactured products, after having been sent 
 abroad for the purpose of use there and sold possibly on a falling market, can be 
 returned here free of impost and to the profit of the foreiguer sending them, and to 
 the injury of our manufacturers and disturbance more or less of our domeslic trade. 
 
 American goods abroad, as a rule, are held by foreigners, and it seems well nigh 
 incredible that Congress should enact laws the direct tendency of which is to 
 enable the foreign merohaut to derive a profit or advantage at the expense of both 
 our revenue and our producers. As already stated, the lax regulations adopted by 
 officials to whom are delegated powers almost co-equal with those of a legislative 
 body have resulted in giving free admission to goods of undoubted foreign origin. 
 Take, for example, the article — borax — which I have the honor to bring to your 
 notice, the great bulk of this is packed and shipped in bags of convenient size and 
 each one constitntes a package. These packages under existing regulations can be 
 returned from abroad to this country, duty free, and if emptied there and refilled 
 with a foreign article, there is nothing to prevent their coming in free except the 
 honesty of the shipper — a quality too rarely found in men dealing exclusively in 
 business pertaining to customs operations. 
 
 Within a few days my attention has been called by a highly respectable corre- 
 spondent to the fact that borax is being sent in bags across the border from Canada, 
 and, judging from the circumstances of the case, is undoubtedly of foreign origin. 
 There are no satisfactory means of deciding between the domestic and foreign arti- 
 cle, and so long as the package seems all right it usually finds ready and free admis- 
 sion. It would seem every way wise and judicious that Congress should no longer 
 delegate its powers over the admission of merchandise, whether foreign or domestic, 
 into the country, but should specifically enact that all goods or products going to a 
 foreign market should ipso facto be considered foreign products, and so treated when 
 returned hither. If this cannot be done then let tne law rather than any official 
 say upon what conditions and regulations these may be admitted into the country. 
 Anything less than this would seem to be a travesty upon legislation. 
 
 The testimony of Mr. Mather before the Senate Finance Committee was given on 
 June 14, 1888, and is contained in the report of the hearings of that committee, 
 pages 205 to 218. 
 
 The following is the letter from General Eosecrans referred to by Mr. Mather: 
 
 VIEWS OF GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS. 
 
 Tkeasuet Department, Register's Office, 
 
 Washinqton, D. C, April 14, 1888. 
 
 Mt Dear Sir: I see that the committee's tariff bill proposes to put all borax prod- 
 ucts on the free list. It involves no great sura of money, and I believe that if the 
 committee had been as familiar with the subject as circumstances have compelled me 
 to be they would have refrained from putting these products on the free list. 
 
 The production of borax from the desert alkali lands of California, Nevada, and 
 Colorado has become quite an industry and employs a good many people, scattered 
 all over the country. Only in the new States and Territories, however, can the raw 
 material be found. It seems desirable, therefore, to show as much favor as possible 
 to this industry. It is especially incumbent upon the Democratic pairty. 
 
 But that is the least of the reasons why the business should not be meddled with. 
 The history of the importation of borax into the United States, and of the various 
 tariff's thereon, shows that legislation in favor of a single person or a single house 
 has been the constant rule since 1842, or at the latest since 1845. I had occasion to 
 thoroughly examine and verify the accuracy of this statement, and in 1882 I earnestly 
 urged on the members of the House Committee on Ways and Means, whose attention I 
 could get, at least to do something for our own home industries, instead of building 
 np the wealthy monopoly to which I have alluded, and which slyly procured legisla- 
 tion in its favor all these past years. This combination had placed and kept boracio 
 acid on the free list, until in 1882, when the tariif discussion revealed the game, and 
 then only the inadequate tariff of 4 cents was imposed. The last change pro- 
 cured was to have boracic acidput on the free list. Boracio acid is the chief agent 
 in all processes where borax is used. 
 
364 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The conminn liovax of tliL' market is composed of the following ingredients, per 
 hundred pounds : 
 
 Boracic acid ) ( 38 18 
 
 Soda _ P''''™'''^Se-Ji^;5° 
 
 Water of crystallization 49,74 
 
 Soda (NaO) from soda ash and commercial caustic can be had in our market for an 
 average price of 4 cents per pound. Borate of lime (Ca BO) can he delivered from 
 Turkey to the British market at 1 cent per pound, owing to the discovery of a large 
 deposit of borate of lime about 40 miles from the sea, and by tlie use of cheap sul- 
 phuric acid the latter can be produced at a very low price. With sulphuric acid at 
 1 cent per pound, boracic acid can be manufactured from these raw materials at a 
 cost of aliont 6 cents cents per pound, or $(i per hundred pounds. Assuming it can 
 thus be produced for $6 per hundred pounds, and add for manufacturing and com- 
 mercial iirolit cSJ more per huudred pounds, with no duty thereon, we can have bo- 
 racic acid in our market at 8 cents per pound, witli an enriching profit to the man- 
 ufacturer and the importer. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Now 19.08 pounds of soda, at 4 cents, cost 48.32 
 
 38.18 pounds of boracic acid, at 8 cents, cost 305.44 
 
 Allow for labor and coutingcncies, per 100 pounds 16.24 
 
 Total per 100 pounds 370.00 
 
 Or $3.70, provided raw material be admitted free; but the people who have hitherto 
 controlled this marki^t have so managed matters as to charge our American cousum- 
 ers for these forty yeais from '.' to 18 cents per ]ionnd, and eveu sometimes as high as 
 25 cents per pound for borax. We had no relief until our borax producers began to 
 compete with tlieuj. If this combin;ition be permitteiL to do as it has been doing in 
 tlie past since the tariff of IHW^, it will dcsstroy competition, and ihen go back to its 
 old ways, our own producers will be ruined, and our consumers will then be worse oif 
 than under the present tarilf. 
 
 An inspection of the accoiiip.anying statement of imports for the years 18rt:',-'87 will 
 demonstrate what 1 slated to the committee in 188'i as to the ]>robable importation 
 of Ijoracic acid. Ere tlie tariff of 18-^3 had gone into operation, the importers rushed 
 in 4,178,737 pounds of boracic acid, and in the same year, after the tariff went into 
 operation, with a cluty of only 4 cents per pound, wliich small duty has enabled them 
 to control the market ever since, there were imported 155,095 iiounds; while the total 
 importation for the four succecsding years, f8-i4, 188.'i, 188i), and 1888, has only 
 amounted to 820,343 pound,", denionstrating that the object of these large importations 
 was to crush out competition. 
 
 It will be seen fi'om the forc\going figures in reference to the cost of producing borax 
 that the tariff of 5 cents per ])ound ou boracic acid is disproportiouately small, since 
 it only adds 2 cents per pound to the cost of making borax, and, therefore, under the 
 present t.'iiiff foreign manufacturers and importers can sell borax in our market, with 
 profit, at 5,7 cents a pound. 
 
 To jiiit our producers beyond the reach of monopolists, the tariff on boracic acid 
 ought to br. 10 cents instead of 5 cents. Our home producers are our dependents for de- 
 liverance from the iiractical '• trust" which has hitherto monopolized the business, 
 and they ought therefore to have the l)enelit of the existing tariff, with an increase 
 of 5 cents per ponnd on boracic acid. You will see by the table of importations that 
 the distinctions between commercial and pure boracic acid are practically worse 
 than useless, ihe commercial boracic acid and the commercial borax are the bulk 
 of the business, and the real basis of the t.aritf should be the (juantities of pure 
 boracic acid conta.in<Ml in the composition. 
 
 The committee can rely upon the foregoing as a substantial statement of Ihe facts; 
 hence, it follows that the consumers have no reasonable in'ospect of being benefited 
 by putting borax and its products ou the I'reo list, l)nt that if the tarift' on boracic 
 acid be rai.sed to 10 cents it will gi ve our own producers a chance to force the market 
 down fiom 15 cents to jierhaips as low <as 7 or 8 cents per pound, whicli will still leave 
 ample room for a fail' competition by importers. 
 
 I ho|ie the committee will reconsider this ease, !ind, I'm- justice's sake, increase tlie 
 tariff on boracic acid, .leaving the rates for all other borax inoducls unchanged, and 
 saving the ,^t;20,000 or .§; '.0,000 of duty by moans of reduction in tarilf on something 
 else. 
 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 W. S. ROSECKANS. 
 
 Hon. C^T.iFTON R. BRF-fiKiNriinnR, 
 
REVISION OF TllJi TAIUFF. 365 
 
 COMMUNICATION FROM BORAX PRODUCERS AND MANUFACT- 
 URERS. 
 
 Tlie following communioatioQ was received aud ordered to bo printed in tlio record : 
 
 San FuAxeisco, Cal., Deccnihcr 28, 1889. 
 The Committee on Ways and ilenns of the Fifly-fir-it Conaress : 
 
 We are large producers and manufacturers of crude, refined, and concentrated borax 
 on the Pacific coast. It has boeoiue necessary, in order to ])rotcct the interests of 
 American producers of borax and the interests of thousands of hiborers depoudent upon 
 this industry for a livelihood, to lay before yon facts which seem to call f(u- adminis- 
 trative regulation of a more stringent character than heretofore establislied by your 
 predecessors. 
 
 It is perhaps proper that we should furnish yon with some information as to the 
 salient features of the borax industry of the United States. Borax, or hiljorate of 
 soda, is produced in large quantities in Nevada and in California, ayd its (■.onsum|ition 
 in the United States is now upwards of 4,000 tons anunally. It is found in desert aud 
 arid regious which aft'ord no food supplies, and there being no raih'oad facilities for 
 long distances — hnndreds of miles — lieavy expenditure is necessitated for transpor- 
 tation in order both to its development and to get it to the principal ship\)ing port, 
 Sau Francisco. The borate deposits in the United States being of low grade, intelli- 
 gent, skilled, and high-priced labor is required in its production. 
 
 The esseutial ingredient of borax of commerce is boracic acid. The nscs of borax and 
 of boracic acid are manifold. It is nsed as an antiseptic ; as a medicine ; as an emol- 
 lient; as a flux in the arts, for all metals; as a glaze and for enameling in potteries 
 and glass-factories ; as a bleach; as a cleaner and purifier; as a preserver ; as a mor- 
 dant and a dye, etc. 
 
 In competition with domestic borax and boracic acid, and the American labor con- 
 nected therewith, comes the product of Italy, of India, of Asiatic Turk(5V near the 
 Bosporus, of Panderma on the sea of Marmora, ami of the west coast of South Amer- 
 ica, where large quantities of borate are produced at but comiiaratively small ex- 
 pense by reason of locality, shipping facilities, aud abundant and poorly-paid labor, 
 and from whence it is subject to the small cost (d' shipment to Liverpool — tin' prin- 
 cipal market and shipping-port aoroad — small in contradistinction to the cost of haul- 
 ing by teams and rail to Sau Francisco and thetice to New York, the i)riucipal do- 
 mestic market. 
 
 Since the production of borax in large quantities in the United States the ]irice has 
 fallen from 33 cents jior pound in 1873 to 8 cents per pound to-day, with the resultant 
 benefits to the country at large; aud the regular importations of both borax and 
 boracic acid of foreign origin have fallen to a nominal amount, the duties paid 
 thereon during the fi.scal year of 1888 having Ih'imi ^1,3^8. 
 
 We need not enlarge npon the importance of this industry to the producer, the 
 manufacturer, the skilled laborer, the artisan, and to the jieoplo at largo. 
 
 The domestic borax interests are, however, now met by this difficulty : The stat- 
 ute of March 3, 1883, paragraph 049 of Treasury Index, admits to free entry "ar- 
 ticles the growth, produce, and manufacture of the United States when returned in 
 the same condition as exported." 
 
 To the great distnrbance of the New York nuirket, under the foregoing provision 
 large quantities of borax have been introduced into tin; port of New Yin'k within 
 the last eighteen mouths and pa.ssed free of duty, said borax pnrpoiling to havi? 
 been exported from San Francisco at various dates. 
 
 The entireexportation of borax from San Fraiu-isco since .January ], 18S7, amonnted 
 to 1,425,596 pounds, of which 1,318,026 pounds went to Liverpool, while two houses 
 alone in New York received from Liverpool during 1888 upwards of 1,200,000 pounds, 
 all of which passed free. As these two amounts uearly ei(ual < ach other, and as, 
 according to our advices, there is a a large quantity of Ikuiix of American produc- 
 tion now offered in the Liverpool market, and as the price tliere ruling is greater 
 for American borax than it is for the foreign article of a su)ui ior grad<', the couclu- 
 sion seems irresistible that a large part of the borax re-impoi trd was of Ibreigu origin, 
 especially as the American borax exported was bought for consumption in the pottery 
 districts of England, was shipped for that purpose, and uudoubtedly w.'is used specific- 
 ally for pottery uses. 
 
 We are conversant with the regulations by which it has l)een sought to throw 
 around the re-importation of goods of American origin all safeguards for the protec- 
 tion of the revenue, aud at same time, as we brlieve, for the protection of American 
 industries ; but so far as the complete att.aif.ment of either of such ends is concerned, 
 under the present conditions of the relations between the United States and for- 
 eign countries of free-trade pi-oclivities, without, i)Brniit us to say, the all-to be-de- 
 sired consummation. We do not assume to snggiwt the remedy, cxceid., perhaps, 
 that a statutory restriction might be applied which would exclude all goods once ex- 
 ported from the United States from the privilege of free entry. It seems to ua that 
 
366 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 the primo object of our Government being to induce, promote, and protect the indus- 
 tries of the United Statee, and thus conserve the interests of the greatest number of 
 the American people as against the rest of the world, that it would be only in har- 
 mony with this principle for the United States in dealing with those other countries 
 whose policy it is to promote free trade, not only within their own limits, but with 
 ourselves, to their own enrichment and to the destruction of our industries, to enact 
 every taw which would tend to encourage our own people and defeat the purposes of 
 those inimical to ns. Why should not American goods when they enter into consump- 
 tion abroad, and assimilate practically with the products of the country to which they 
 may be sent, be refused entry in the United States free of duty? Foreign goods im- 
 ported into this country, paying duty upon entry for consumption here, assimilate 
 with our own manufactures, are given an equal chance to compete with them, and 
 lose their identity in so far, at least, that under the statutes tliey can not be exported 
 with the beneiit of return duty, and if they go out of the country must again pay duty 
 upon their return. Would not the few interests which might sulfer in the United 
 States from the prohibition of the return of domestic goods free of duty be insignifi- 
 cant in comparison with the larger number which would be more fully protected by 
 there being one less loophole for the introduction of foreign goods substituted for those 
 exported, to the detriment both of the revenue and of the home producer, and would 
 not such prohibition be harmonious with the prohibition of the free re-entry of foreign 
 goods, and would such a statute be any more arbitrary than other tariff laws ? 
 
 To revert to the situation as it stands to-day, may we not ask the establishment of 
 more stringent requirements, and the thorough enforcement of such as now exist or 
 which you may deem proper to make in addition thereto, in connection with the entry 
 of returned goods, in order that we may not be subjected to the detrimental action 
 of our foreign competitors ? 
 
 The constituent parts of domestic and of foreign borax are shown by analysis to he 
 so substantially the same that it is not possible that any distinction between them 
 can be detected by the customs officers. The custom-house, in order to determine 
 the identity of this article imported under the guise of a domestic product or manu- 
 facture, is therefore relegated entirely to the identity of the bag or package contain- 
 ing it, which also purport to be of domestic manufacture, and to the correctness of 
 the paper proofs presented by the importers and called for by the regulations pre- 
 scribed by the Treasury Department. The bags are doubtless like all bags, of a ma- 
 terial produced or manufactured at homo and abroad. Their only distinguishing 
 feature under Treasury regulations is an ink mark, a name, an initial — something 
 which is readily obliterated by handling and is readily replaced by the honest dealer 
 abroad, or by the unscrupulous person interested in defrauding the revenue of the 
 United States directly or through his ability thereby to undersell the American market 
 to the extent of the 3 or 5 cents ijer pound duty. 
 
 We have strong reason to believe that foreign borax is introduced into the United 
 States free of duty in these bags of alleged domestic origin. You will see by the 
 amount of domestic borax exported, and the amount of imported borax of alleged 
 domestic production, how improbable it is that all the borax brought into the United 
 States as of American origin was produced iji the United States. It is not compre- 
 hensible to us that so large an ajnount would be exported under varying dates of 
 shipment and held abroad for a waiting market, or that so much should be held at 
 Liverpool for so lengthy a period for a prospective advance in the American market. 
 We are not, however, at this time in possession of such substantial proofs as will ena- 
 ble the Treasury Department to direct measures for the condemnation of any given 
 importation. 
 
 The natural key of the situation — the appraiser's department — being of but little 
 avail for the protection of the Government and of the domestic producer of borax, 
 because of the similarity of the domestic and the foreign article, the only recourse 
 would seem to be to appeal to Congress to legislate on the subject, and by such ampli- 
 fication and modiiication of existing laws as will better insure protection to both the 
 revenue and all interested in the preservation of Amedcan industries. 
 
 In this connection we suggest for your consideration the practicability of all or 
 any of the following requirements a« conditions-precedent to the free entry of borax 
 and similar domestic articles returned : 
 
 (1) Proof that the goods re-imported were exported without intent to return them 
 to the United States. This is in line with the views expressed by Attorney-General 
 Brewster that a shipment to a foreign port with intent to return same is not an ex- 
 portation within the contemplation of the revenue laws. (See Department's decision, 
 No. 5829.) 
 
 (2) That aU domestic borax and merchandise of liko description exported in bags 
 or other packages shall only be admitted free when same shall have been corded and 
 sealed by a customs officer prior to exportation from the United States, and when 
 .such cord and seal shall remain intact. 
 
 (:!) That domestic borax and merchandise of like description shall only be admit- 
 ted tree when the bags or package shall have been stamped prior to export from the 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF, 367 
 
 United States by a customs oBicer with a distinctive mark extending over tlio place 
 of opening, and Vlien sucli mark shall remain intact. 
 
 (4) That no domestic manufacture exported iu bags shall he admitted without 
 proof that drawback has not been paid upon the bags, except upon repayment of 
 such drawback. 
 
 (5) That article 377, general Treasury regulations, be so amended as to require 
 the foreign customs certificate to be produced at time of entry, the provision for 
 bond for subsequent production of certificate to be revoked, and the ruling that 
 such certificate may be waived where value is not more than $100 be withdrawn. 
 
 (6) That record evidence of clearance be strictly required iu all cases of re-impor- 
 tation, and that the provision of article 377 of regulations waiving such evidence 
 where value of goods is not more than flOO be revoked. 
 
 (7) That bonds taken for production of domestic export certificates be not canceled 
 without careful comparison of certificates presented iu connection with previous ship- 
 ments with the certificates presented in cancellation. 
 
 (8) That the instruction to the collector at the port of New York allowing the ex- 
 amination of less than one package in ten of borax by the appraiser be revoked. 
 
 In one case, which has come to our knowledge, but 22 out of some 2,458 packages 
 were sent to appraiser's store — two of each mark. That one bag in each IH could 
 afford conclusive evidence of identification of domestic production of bag and its con- 
 tents is, to say the least, a doubtful proposition ; and we taV.e it that the discharging 
 inspector could hardly be assumed to be anexpert in determining tbe American origin 
 of the balance of the importation delivered by him under the permit. 
 
 We have tried to make clear in this communication the importance of the domestic 
 borax industry, and the ease with which the revenue can be evaded by the substitution 
 of foreign for domestic borax under American coverings, as well as the injurious 
 effect upon the American market of the unrestrained admission of so-called returned 
 goods; and we trust that you will see the way clear to recommend such legislation 
 and to enforce such additional regulations as will tend to secure to the revenue all its 
 proper duties and protect and encourage the domestic producer and manufacturer, 
 whose capital invested and labor afford so many people employment. 
 We are, sir, very respectfully, 
 
 Tule Marsh Borax Company, F, M. Smith, President. Pacific Borax, Salt, and 
 Soda Company, by Alton H. Cough, Secretary. San Bernardino Borax 
 Mining Company, by I. N. Thome, Secretary. Columbus Borax Company, 
 by Edward Lande, Secretary. The Nevada Salt and Borax Company, ,by 
 H. L. Coye, President. Harmony Borax Mining Company, by Wm. B. 
 Robertson, President. California Chemical Company, by Thos. W. Chinn, 
 President. Meridan Borax Company, by Wm. M. ISrisoa, Secretary. 
 Henry Clay Mining Company, by Newton M. Bell, Secretary. 
 
 OLIVE OIL. 
 
 Boston, December 26, 1889. 
 Sir : The undersigned, importers of olive oil, are desirous of urging the necessity 
 of haviugthe duty on olive oil changed to a specific rate or free of duty, for reasons 
 as set forth in a communication to the honorable Secretary of the Treasury, Septem- 
 ber, 188.5. (See testimony before Senate Finance Committee, Fiftieth Congress.) 
 Respectfully, James A. Hayb.s & Co. 
 
 The Chairman Committee of Ways and Means, Washington. 
 
 FLAXSEED OIL. 
 
 Iowa City, Iowa, January 22, 1890. 
 Dear Sir: Replying to your letter of the 18th : 
 
 (1) We get about 18 pounds, or 2§ gallons oil from a bushel of flaxseed. 
 
 (2) Thirty-eight to forty pounds cake, depending upon how much foreign substance 
 there is in the seed worked. 
 
 (3) Now seed is worth $1.35 in Chicago, or, say, |1.30 here. Cake $17 per ton, 
 Chicago, or say, .$15.50 here. ' 
 
 (4) Oil is worth 58 cents per gallon in Chicago, or, say, 57 cents per gallon here. 
 Two years ago seed was worth $1.44 per bushel in Chicago, fl.35 here. Oil was 
 
 worth 54 cents in Chicago, .53 cents here. Cake was worth $20 per ton in Chicago, 
 $18.50 here. Seed was a little higher, oil a little lower, and cake considerably 
 higher, making the net result very nearly in the same proportion as it is to-day. But 
 taking the whole crop of 1887 as compared with that of 1889, and the price of that 
 of 1887 was fully 8 cents per bushel below that of 1889. 
 
368 KEVISION OF THE TAKIPF. 
 
 Prices in 1.*S7 in Cliicago weiu, August, sl.flfi to 9-i cents; September, $1.01^ to 
 $1.0'.); Ootober, $1.0.5 to ^1.10; Nuveiiiber, .{iLlO to $l.2(\; December, $l.y:j to$l.;;G. 
 
 Prices of seed in 1^89, in Chicago: August, .'Jl.-iU to $1.33; September, |1.23 to 
 $1.33i; October, $1.26 to tjl.31i; November, .$1.28 to $1.38J; December, S1.32A to 
 $1. 36i. 
 
 So you see the cost of seed to the mills is much larger on the average this year 
 than two years ago. 
 Yours truly, 
 
 C. D. Close. 
 
 Hon. J. H. Gear, Washington, D. G. 
 
 GLYCERINE. 
 
 Nkw York, January 16, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : We beg leave to aildress you, and to say that our firm is engaged more 
 largely in the manufacture of refined glycerine than any other house in the United 
 States. We are deiieudent for our crude glycerine, to a groat degree, upon purchases 
 iu Europe, as less than one-fourth of the crude glycerine required to supply the large 
 demand for the refined article is produced in the United States. Therefore, the 
 Finance Committee of the Fiftieth Congress, after due consideration of this subject, 
 reduced the duty on crude glycerine under the heading of '■ unrefined, 1 cent per 
 pound." 
 
 We respectfully request you to incorporate in any tariff bill that may be presented 
 to the Fifty-first Congress the following changes in the nomenclature of this provis- 
 ion of the bill. For yonr information we would say that the crude glycerine of com- 
 merce is of two distinct varieties : 
 
 • (1) That manufactured from stearine candles, whicli usually has a specific gravity 
 of about 1.24. 
 
 (2) That mannfactured from soap-lyes, which usually has a s|M'cific gravity of about 
 1.30. The soap-lye glycerine only became an article of commerce in 1884, and was 
 entirely unknown in theniarket when the present tarift' bill was passed in March, 1883. 
 
 We propose: Glycerine — Crude, not purified by refining or distilling, 1 cent per 
 ponnd. Glycerine — Refined, 4^ cents per jionud. 
 
 You will observe that we do not propose to change the rates of duty of the Senate 
 tariff bill, but we desire to change the wording where the term "unrefined" is used 
 to that of the existing law, to wit, "crude," and to change the defiuition of crude 
 glycerine, owing to theditterence in thespecific gravities of this article a/S now known 
 in commerce. 
 
 The New York branch of the United States Laboratory has a satisfactory method 
 of testing glycerine and determine readily and accurately whether, under the above 
 definition, it is crude or refined, so that customs officials at the different ports of the 
 United States labor under no difficulty in ascertaining the projier classification of the 
 two grades of this article. 
 
 We remain, very respectfully, 
 
 Marx & Kawolle. 
 
 Hon. William McKixlf.y, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committeti on Ways and Means. 
 
 BISULPHIDE OF CARBON. 
 
 Cleveland, Ohio, Decemler 31, 1889. 
 Gentlemen: The manufacture of bisulphide of carbon is a v(>ry troublesome 
 one and has up to fho ]iresent been made in this country in comparatively small 
 quantities only, there being but two makers now, some four or five ditt'erent mak- 
 ers in the last few years giving it up on account of its troublesomeness and lack of 
 profitable production. Among these 1 may mention the noted firm of Powers & 
 Weightman, at' Philadelphia, who, after years of costly experimenting and manufact- 
 ure, some seven years since gave up its manufacture and purchased their own sup- 
 plies at double the price they are now paying for it. 
 
 In addition to this I am satisfied that it is imported under a name that is frandu- 
 lent and misleading, by means of which it doubtless receives a lower rate of freight 
 and perhaps escapes duty. May I ask that the importation of "ten drums of carbon 
 by steamer Durham Ciii/, London, into Boston" for week ending December 21, 1889, be 
 investigated, and I think it will be found to be " the bisulphide of carbon 1" 
 Very respectfully yours, 
 
 Edward R. Taylor, 
 Committee on Ways and Means, Manufacturing Chemist. 
 
 Waahingtuu, D. 0. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 369 
 
 MINERAL SALTS. 
 
 Washington, D. C, December 31, 1889. 
 
 Gbntlkmen : Acknowledging the courtesy of your committee which permitted our 
 counsel, General W. W. Dudley, to appear before you at the time fixed for hearing 
 on chemical preparations and products, and recognizing the consideration by which 
 we were accorded the privilege of placing upon file our written statement as to the 
 reasons why we asked your committee to place natural Carlsbad Sprudel salts and 
 other natural mineral salts upon the free list, in the same manner as natural mineral 
 waters (which are now admitted free of duty), we respectfully submit the following: 
 
 The same reasons that govern in the admit^sion of natural mineral waters, by which 
 they are admitted free of duty, should govern iu the admission of natural mineral 
 salts. These salts are produced by a process of evaporation from the water, exactly 
 as it comes from the springs in the ground. It is passed over evaporating pans, and 
 the precipitate thus produced is bottled and shijiped to all parts of the world — America 
 being the only country which charges an import duty thereon. 
 
 The natural Carlsbad Sprudel salts are produced by evaporation from the Carlsbad 
 Sprudel Springs, at Carlsbad, Austria. Carlsbad has been sought by patients for the 
 last four hundred years because of the curative qualities of its waters, and the salt, 
 which is highly medicinal, as is the natural water, was first evaporated for exporting 
 in 1842, and since then has been introduced gradually all over the globe. It is a 
 natural remedy, used mainly by physicians in the treatment of chronic catarrh of the 
 stomach, bladder, and kidneys, in liver diseases, diseases of the stomach and intes- 
 tines, for gravel and diabetes. For all these diseases it is considered almost a specific. 
 It is a purely natural remedy, in no way artificially prepared, and the duty on an ar- 
 ticle only enhances its price, especially where, as in this case, there is no competitor 
 for it among the products of this country ; and it is, therefore, almost placed beyond 
 the reach of the poorer classes, for whom it is specially intended, because the rich can 
 go to Carlsbad and effect the cures there by the use of the waters, while those in mod- 
 erate circumstances can not do so. The duty of 35 per cent, ad valorem does not, there- 
 fore, protect an industry in this country, because the natural product can only come 
 from Carlsbad, there being no other known spring in the world which possesses the 
 same medicinal properties as does this, and any substitute for it made here iu this 
 country by chemical process must be considered as an imitation, whhh is prohibited 
 by law, and which must necessarily fail in the curative effects. 
 
 Carlsbad salts contains among its constituents sulphate of soda, chloride of soda, 
 and bicarbonate of soda, besides other ingredients, which, in chemical combination 
 with it, are not fouud in any of the American springs. 
 
 What is true of the CarlslDad Sprudel salts is likewise true of all natural mineral 
 salts which are obtained by processes of evaporation without the admixture of any 
 foreign substances. 
 
 Our suggestion is that a paragraph be added to the free list, as follows : 
 
 "Natural mineral salts, when accompanied by the sworn certificate of the proper 
 oflicers operating the springs showing them to be obtained by evaporation, and when 
 they contain no admixture with any substance foreign to the natural waters of the 
 spring from which they come." 
 
 Or language to that effect. 
 
 It is manifestly to the interest of the United States that this wonderful curative 
 agent provided by nature, and confined in its production to a limited region of 
 Europe, should be brought into this country at the lowest iiossible rate in order to 
 bring it within the reach of rich and poor alike. 
 
 These considerations move us to ;isk that iu the preparation of a new tariff bill 
 this distinction will be taken, and that natural mineral salts obtained by the process 
 of simple evaporation, without the admixture of any-foreign substance, should be 
 admitted free of duty in the same manner as is provided for natural mineral waters. 
 
 It might also be stated that there is no industry in this country having for its ob- 
 ject the business of evaporating natural mineral waters introduced into this country 
 free of duty for the purpose of obtaining their salts by evaporation, and that there- 
 fore the duty assessed becomes simply a tax to be added to the price of the article, 
 and is not in any degree or sense protective. 
 
 EespeotfuUy submitted. 
 
 Eisner and Mbndelson Company. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 485 24 
 
370 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 SULPHATE OF POTASH. 
 
 VIEW^S OF HELLER, HIRSH & CO. 
 
 New York, January 11, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : We have your favor of 4th instant, in reply to our letter of the 3d, 
 and thank you for kind permission to submit to your committee in writing our argu- 
 ments in relation to sulphate of potash, and your kind promise to have the same 
 jirinted with th^^ vugular proceedings already put upon the chemical schedule. 
 
 The material on Ijuhalf of which we wish to appeal to your committee, and which 
 is now taxed to the extent of 20 per cent, ad valorem, is manure salt containing sul- 
 phate of potash. We are importers of this manure salt, which is composed largely 
 of sulphate of potash, but coiitainiut;- suiEcient impurities to absolutely prevent its 
 use, in the condition in which it is imported, for medicinal or chemical purposes. 
 The pure sulphate of potash, which is iirotected by 20 per oent. duty in this country, 
 is manufactured to the extent of only a few thousand pounds per annum, by two 
 or three manufacturers of iine chemicals, who obtain it as a by-product in the man- 
 ufacture of nitric acid from saltpeter. It is a very jjure article, put up principally 
 in bottles, containing from 1 ounce to 1 pound, and worth about 50 cents per pound. 
 In sjiite of the protection, however, it does not pay to manufacture it to any extent 
 here, because the total consumption in the United States is so small (not over 60,000 
 to 7.5,000 i">ounds) so that only two or three manufacturers dare to manufacture it, 
 and owing to cheaper raw material in Europe, producers there send it into this 
 country to an extent of about 10 tons per annum, making a total estimated consump- 
 tion in the United States of less than .50 tons per annum, assuming that the quantity 
 imported and manufactured here all goes into consumption, which, however, is not 
 the case, as it is of very slow sale. 
 
 As stated before, the article which v,-e import can not possibly he used for chemical 
 or medicinal purposes, so as to interfere in any degree with the above described pure 
 sulphate of potash. It is imported for purposes of agriculture, either for direct 
 application on the soil, or for mixing with other ingredients so as to produce a com- 
 plete fertilizer containing potash as free from chlorine as possible, and because some 
 plants, such as tobacco, sugar-cane, sugar-beets, potatoes, and all kinds of vegetables 
 and shrubs, suffer seriously in quality when potash salts containing a large quanlity 
 of chlorine are used. This is principally the case with tobacco of the finer grade. 
 One of the main causes of the inferiority of tobacco raised in this country is the large 
 percentage of chlorine contained in the potash salts heretofore used in this country 
 in the fertilizers used for tobacco. To some slight extent the manure salts we im- 
 port could be used forchemicalpurposes but onlyasaraw material, requiring purifica- 
 tion and chemical manipulation. We allude to the manufacture of potash, alum, and 
 bichromate of potash. For the manufacture of these two articles muriate of potash 
 (free of duty) has been used heretofore on account of its being a free article, though 
 it required a considerable outlay of time and labor and some slight loss in convert- 
 ing it into sulphate of potash by treating it with sulphuric acid, so as to avoid the 
 necessity of buying a crude sulphate of potash, and paying thereon a duty of 20 per 
 cent, ad valorem. The above-mentioned cost of using the undesirable muriate of pot- 
 ash (free of duty) and converting it into sulphate of j)otash by the use of sulphuric 
 acid (also free of duty), and the loss of time and incidental expenses connected with 
 this operation, sometimes aggregate a percentage so closely approaching the 20 per 
 cent, duty on sulphate of potash c(mtainiug over 30 per cent, pure potash, that the 
 manufacturers of alum or bichromate of potash i^refer to buy this raw material and 
 pay the high price for it caused by the imposition of the duty, even though they also 
 have to purify this crude sulphate of potash, as already stated. The chlorine con- 
 tained in the muriate of potash, to the extent of 35 per cent., cannot be so completely 
 removed from the manufactured article as it can be at the potash mines, from the ab- 
 solutely crude article, and for that reason the manufacturers of the above-mentioned 
 two chemicals also find it more advantageous to buy the crude sulphate of potash 
 and pay the duty thereon, rather than buy the high-grade muriate of potash and con- 
 vert it into sulphate of potash .by washing with sulphuric acid, as they have done 
 ever since the duty was imposed on sulphate of jjotash containing over 30 per ceut. 
 free potash. 
 
 The importation of our manure salts, containing as large a percentage of sulphate 
 of potash as possible, and as small a percentage of chlorine or muriate of potash, has 
 been a great benefit to the agricultural interests, and we refer to all the agricultural 
 experiment stations in this country, as well as to the tbromost agricultural authorities 
 of Europe, and .all of the agricultural exiieriment stations of Europe, to prove the 
 .ibovo assertion. Furthermore, we are in ]iosition to demonstrate that the use of 
 manure salts containing sulpliate of potash in a fairly pure condition and i'ree from 
 chhjrine, but comiJOsed principally of sulphate of potash and sulphate of magnesia, is 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 371 
 
 largely curtailed by the imposition of a duty of 20 per cent., to the great detriment of 
 agricultural products. 
 
 we have been for a number of years the largest importers of this article, and have 
 made a thorough study of it ; we know that its use in the tobacco regions, for which 
 it is almost indispensable, has been largely, if not solely, prevented by its high price, 
 necessitated by the duty of 20 per cent., which duty, of course, has to be added to the 
 price, and has to be paid by the farmer who buys the article, either for direct appli- 
 cation, or who buys fertilizer in which this article has been used. 
 
 It might be interesting to your committee to know that all fertilizers sold in each 
 State are tested by the chemist of the experimental station of such State for its ingre- 
 dients and the quality of snch ingredients. These stations then determine the value 
 to the farmer of fertilizer bought by the latter, on the basis of the availability and 
 value to the plant of each of the ingredients composing such fertilizer. Potash in the 
 form of sulphate of potash is determined by these stations by estimating the percent- 
 age of chlorine coutained therein, and with the full appreciation of the high value of 
 sulphate of potash free from chlorine, or low in chlorine, these stations, with few if any 
 exceptions, give a higher value (of from 25 to 35 per cent.) to fertilizers made with 
 sulphate of potash low in chlorine than they do to fertilizers containing potash inthe 
 form of muriate or kainit. 
 
 We'maintain, furthermore, that under the specific law that all manures, or mate- 
 rials expressly used for manures, should be ftee, our manure salt should be put on the 
 free list. Under the Treasury ruling of December 4, 1869, potash salts containing less 
 than 50 per cent, free potash were declared free. A later Treasury ruling, viz, that 
 of August 2, 1870, was modified to assess the duty on all potash salt containing sul- 
 phate of potash to the extent of 30 per cent, free potash. 
 
 We maintain that as this duty does not protect any one (there not being one soli- 
 tary manufacturer in this country of the article wo import) that the duty should be 
 abolished. Should your honorable committee decide otherwise, and desire to protect 
 the farmers by putting it on the free list, when used for fertilizers or manures only, 
 a provision might be made that a satisfactory bond be given by the importers or dealers 
 to have such sulphate of potash manure salt uifed only for such purposes, but by all 
 means remove the onerous duty as far as tlie farmer is concerned, and enable its free 
 importation for agricultural purposes. It should be free also when used as a raw 
 material by the manufacturers of alum and bichromate of potash, but we would ad- 
 vocate this more for the purpose of preventing a system of annoying and expensive 
 supervision on the part of the Government of the other importations for farming 
 purposes than for any other reason. We do not think that the retention of duty 
 merely for chemical purposes (as raw material) would bring the Government one- 
 tenth of what it would cost to look after and collect such duty, as the importation of 
 this article so far has been largely, if not entirely, for agricultural purposes, and its 
 use for the other purposes above described was accidental, and caused by unexpected 
 conditions rather than the regular demand. 
 
 All European countries buy sulphate of potash very largely for manure purposes, 
 and in no foreign country is muriate of potash used in fertilizing tobacco plants, as it 
 is a well-known fact that the chlorine in the muriate gives to tobacco a pungent 
 flavor, and gives to smoking tobacco very inferior burning qualities. 
 
 The Randall bill, as well as the last year's Senate bill, put this article on their 
 list, and we hope your committee will do likewise. 
 We remain, yours, very respectfully, 
 
 Hbllek, Hirsh & Co. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlbt, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 STATEMENT OF A. J. "WTEDDBRBURN. 
 
 Gentlemen: Replying to a question of Mr. La Pollette relative to the imposition 
 of a duty on potash sulphate over 30 per cent, of sulphate of potash, as required by 
 rulings of the Treasury Department, I respectfully submit the following: 
 
 There is used in the composition of fertilizers and as a manure, without manipula- 
 tion or addition, potash in various forms, all of which is imported. I am unaware 
 that any potash salts exist in this country. Potash exists in green sand, marl, and 
 wood ashes, but none of this is worked for the purpose of extracting the pure potash. 
 The fertilizing salts that are imported come in as muriate and sulphate. There is no 
 tax upon the former, although it contains as high as 98 per cent, of muriate of potash, 
 equal to 48 to 50, and kainit sulphate contains 25 per cent, of sulphate, equal to 11 
 to 13 percent, of actual potash — chemically, Ks 0. There is also a sulphate ranging 
 from 40 to 55 per cent, sulphate, equal to S6 to 30 per cent. Kk O, and higher grades 
 sulphate, running up as high as 90 to 98 per cent, of sulphate, or 50 to 56 per cent, 
 of pure potash. 
 
372 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The importations of muriate (free) were as follows for the past three years : 1887 
 18,000; 1888, 27,000; 1889, 25,000, used probably one-half for chemical purposes, the 
 balance for fertilizing purposes. Kainit (free) average importations about 75,000 
 tons a year. 
 
 1887. 
 
 1889. 
 
 Double manure sulphate of potash . 
 High grade, about 
 
 5,000 
 1,500 
 
 6,000 
 1,500 
 
 7,000 
 600 
 
 The statement of tlie imports are given to show that where no duty exists, as on 
 muriate, that although one-half is used for manufacturing purposes the use is steadily 
 increasing, while the sulphate steadily decreases under the influence of the tariff. 
 
 Now, as to the effect upon American .agriculture and the interest the farmer has in 
 the matter. Potash is one of the three principal elements that scientists agree must 
 be supplied the soil to make it productive and prevent its deterioration from con- 
 stant cropping ; the other two being ammonia and phosphoric acid. 
 
 It is a well-established fact that the system of American agriculture has been to 
 destroy rather than to improve the fertility of the soil, and the acreage of the pro- 
 duction in all the older States is steadily declining, which proves the necessity for 
 improving the land.. This fact comes to the farmer at a time when he can illy afford 
 the increased demand to meet the bill for fertilizers, owing to the many additional 
 drains upon his purse and the ever-decreasing value of the produce raised. Lower 
 prices and smaller crops, with no less rate of interest and ever-increasing mortgages, 
 make the farmer ask, at the hands of the national law-makers, every possible facility 
 to increase his income and decrease his expense. 
 
 This article of sulphate of jiotash enters largely into the components that improve 
 his soil. By being able to purchase in concentrated form he is enabled to save'in 
 freight, whic'i is an item of no small magnitude to him. For example, a ton of 
 kainit costing, say, |12 a ton contains about 12 per cent, of the manure he desires for 
 his tobacco, potatoes, corn, and poach trees, while a ton of high-grade sulphate con- 
 tains, say, 50 per cent, of potash and costs $45 per ton. In the first place the price is 
 less by $3 for the amount required of potash, and in the next the freight on 1 ton 
 only has to be paid on the high grade, while on the low freight has to be paid on 4 
 tons. When it is remembered that from many of our sea-board cities to places in the 
 interior the freight runs from $5 to $9 per ton, it needs no mathematician to show 
 the loss to the farmer. 
 
 There is another and yet more important side to this question, and that is the fact 
 that many scientists agree that the chlorine in muriate and the kainit salts are actu- 
 ally poisonous to land, and I have no doubt from experience that it is to some lands. 
 As the sulphate high grade does not contain this deleterious substance its use as a 
 fertilizer should be encouraged rather than discouraged by every means within a 
 proper limit by the Government. 
 
 The present tariff free list, paragraph 505, provides that guanos, manures, and all 
 substances expressly used for manures shall be free. 
 
 Now, if sulphate of potash is not a manure it is nothing ; if it is not a substance, 
 what is it? And that not one-twentieth of the product is used except for fertilizing 
 purposes can be readily established by the highest authority. Under these circum- 
 stances the interpretation of the word expressly to mean always or universally by 
 the Solicitor of the Treasury seems to me to be stretching a point against the 
 American farmer. That the importations are used universally for fertilizers can 
 readily be shown. Always, as a matter of fact, they are not, as some small proportion 
 goes into the manufacture of certain chemicals, the extent of the manufacture of 
 which will not exceed a few thousand pounds a month. 
 
 The constant drain upon the fertility of the American farm lands demands at the 
 hands of Congress more consideration than they are apt to get, and more than even 
 the farmer of to-day is apt to ask, but undoubtedly the constant decrease in fertility 
 of our wealth-producing land is a matter for consideration of the statesman and 
 patriot, and when the farmer comes before you and respectfully urges that you place 
 a constrnction upon the action of your own body in placing on the free list "guanos, 
 manures, and all substances expressly used for manures," so that the Treasury officials 
 will not construe another section of the same bill to place a tariff tax of 20 per cent. 
 upon this most valuable ingredient of fertility, it seems only just to our people that 
 you accede to their demands and give them free manures of all kinds and character, 
 and that in your subsequent action upon the tariff hill that you allow no eloquence 
 or argument to induce you tp add to his burden by imposing a tax upon potash salts 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 373 
 
 (or sulphuric acid, whicli is one of the chief elements that enters into his manure), 
 for hy so doing you will simply add to the burdens of the agriculturalist and increase 
 rather than diminish the troubles that beset him on all sides. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Alex. J. Weddkrburn, 
 Chairman Legislative Committee, 
 Virginia State Grange Patrons of Husbandry. 
 The Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 SULPHUR. 
 
 VIEWS OF DANIEL MYERS. 
 
 . Cleveland, Ohio, January 9, 1890. 
 The Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. : 
 
 I desire briefly to invite your attentiou to the sulphur industry of this country and 
 its possibilities. Vast deposits of sulphur are known to exist in Louisiana, Texas, 
 New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Idaho, California, Michigan, Utah, and Wyoming. 
 
 Sulphur occurs widely distributed in the mineral kingdom. 
 
 As a general rule, it is abundant in volcanic districts. 
 
 The Utah deposits are very extensive, and known to contain millions of tons. These 
 deposits alone are sufficient to supply the United States for a century to come. 
 
 In 1884 Prof. G. Von Rath, geologist, in the service of the German Government) on 
 a tour entirely in the interest of science, spent several days investigating the Utah 
 deposits of sulphur, and speaks as follows in his report : 
 
 "Among the almost numberless discoveries of volcanic origin, there appears to be 
 none which in massiveness can even approximately compare with the Cove Creek 
 (Utah) deposits." 
 
 Yet to-day all these vast deposits are lying dormant, simply because American labor 
 can not compete with Italian macaroni-fed labor ; and furthermore, because of the fact 
 that refined sulpnur is allowed to come in duty free as " crude sulphur." 
 
 Owing to this latter fact but trifling progress has been made in developing these 
 vast deposits of raw material. 
 
 Sicily has supplied the United States with sulphur during the past century. A 
 small proportton during the past few years has arrived from Japan, 
 
 The sulphur ore mined in Sicily yields not over 20 per cent, of sulphur. The ore is 
 all retined, before shipping, to an average purity of not less than 95 per cent., and in 
 this form is admitted free of duty as " crude sulphur." 
 
 No one familiar with the facts will controvert this statement. 
 
 The duty of $6 per ton on crude sulphur imposed during the war was removed under 
 the representation and belief that there were no deposits in this country to develop ; 
 hence the removal of the duty on crude sulphur met with no opposition. 
 
 The duty still remains on flowers or sublimed suljihur, li-20 per ton ; roll sulphur, $10 
 per ton ; pyrites, sometimes termed sulphur ore, 7.5 cents per ton. (The latter usually 
 carries over 40 per cent, iron.) 
 
 Sulphur ore proper contains no iron, only sulphur and earthy matter. 
 
 Custom-house statistics, in round figures, show the imports to have been as follows : 
 
 Tons. 
 
 1878 48,000 
 
 1880 87,000 
 
 1884 105,000 
 
 1886 :... 117,000 
 
 1888 98,000 
 
 Formerly sulphuric acid used in refining petroleum and manufacturing fertilizers 
 was all made from Sicily sulphur. This is now all changed. The sulphuric acid for 
 above uses has been for several years manufactured from pyrites, which exists in very 
 great abundance in all parts of this country. 
 
 This American substitute for Sicily sulphur proved a fortunate and formidable 
 competitor. Bat for its use in producing sulphuric acid for mechanical uses, the im- 
 ports from Sicily the past few years would have exceeded 200,000 tons, whereas by 
 the use of pyrites mined in this country the imports were about half that amount. 
 
 The Sicilians for many years have had a monopoly of the American sulphur market, 
 and up to the time that the new process came into use for manufacturing sulphuric acid 
 from pyrites the Sicilians charged the Americans an average price of not less than 
 $35 per ton. 
 
 But since the development of this American competitor the Sicilians reduced their 
 price, averaging less than $25 per ton. This reduction in price was the direct result 
 of home competition. 
 
374 REVISION ON THE TARIFF. 
 
 In 1833 the sulplmr barons of Sicily, lliiuking their monopoly of the world's market 
 impregnable, advanced their jjrice to |70 per ton by forming a combine or, what is 
 termed in the language of to-day, a trust. Experieuce demonstrates that the only 
 safeguard from foreign extortion is home competition. 
 
 But what isto prevent the Sicilians, ■with their great advantageof cheap labor and 
 cheap ocean transportation, from supplying the American market with sulphur at a 
 price that may in time crush out all American competition, and having done so, again 
 take a firm grip on our market and advance the price 50 per cent., as formerly? 
 
 As the tariff now stands there is nothing in the way. The only safeguard from such 
 extortion, or foreign "trusts," is to protect and develop our own natural resources. 
 
 If "trusts" must be tolerated, surely American trusts will be preferred. 
 
 Where raw material exists in such wonderful abundance in our own country, is it 
 not wise to foster and protect it for a term of years until the industry can be fairly 
 developed ? 
 
 Admitting the so-called "crude sulphur" free of duty has deprived the United 
 States Treasury of many hundred thousand dollars revenue, only to place it in the 
 pockets of the Sicilian sulphur kings and the Italian treasury, as that government 
 imposes an export duty of |2 per ton on every ton that has been sent to the United 
 States, and every ton exported is weighed by government officials. 
 
 No one will object to the raw material coming in duty free ; but to continue to 
 allow the Sicilians to refine their raw material from say 40 per cent, to as high as 99 
 per cent, and still admit it duty free as " crude sulphur " is certainly a direct discrim- 
 ination against the American producer, the American laborer, and in favor of the 
 Italian treasury and the sulphur barons of Sicily, with their hordes of pauper labor 
 willing to work for 125 cents to 40 cents per day, the latter being the highest price 
 I^aid to the Sicily miners. 
 
 The Sicily mines vary in depth from 100 to 400 feet. The mineral extracted by the 
 miners is brought to the surface by children from twelve to sixteen years of age. 
 Having reached daylight, they lay down their load and at once descend to the bottom 
 of the mine to repeat the same operation. 
 
 The proprietors of the Sicily mines have all accumulated great fortunes and are 
 known as sulphur kings. 
 
 The total exports reach 500,000 tons annually. 
 
 In commerce 99 per cent, is regarded as pure, only 1 per cent, more would be abso- 
 lute. If Sicily "crude »ulphur"were refined just 1 percent, more it surely could 
 not evade the duty of |10 per ton. ' 
 
 Year after year the Sicilians have sent to this market a higher grade of " crude 
 sulphur," until 99 per cent, has been reached, and the average is above 95 per cent. 
 
 Without further refining, this identical so-called " crude sulphur " is ground into a 
 fine powder by the importer and sold as flour sulphur, thus completely depriving the 
 American miner and producer of any protection or benefit whatever, by reason of 
 the duty of |SiO per ton on flowers sulphur. 
 
 The present tariff of f 20 per ton on flowers sulphur, |10 per ton on roll sulphur, and 
 admitting lump sulphur, 99 per cent, pure, free of duty, is entirely in the interest of 
 a few importers and the Sicilians, and thus far has prevented the successful develop- 
 ment of the vast deposits existing in this country. 
 
 The object of the above duty certainly must have been either for revenue or pro- 
 tection, or doubtless both, but in its practical results has utterly failed to accomplish 
 either, simply because of the iufongruities and anomalies herein referred to. The 
 Treasury lias derived no revenue from this sonrce, aud the American miner and pro- 
 ducer of suljihnr has been deiirived of all protection. 
 
 If I may bo allowed to suggest, I would say, place a duty of $5 per ton on refined 
 sulphur, averaging not over 50 per cent, pure ; and flO per ton on all from 50 per 
 cent, to 99 per cent.; $15 per ton on roll sulphur; |25 per ton on sublimed flowers of 
 sulphur, or distilled sulphur ground into flour. 
 
 The above wording in a tariff bill would effectually prevent all controversy be- 
 tween customs ofiioials and importers, and effectually close all avenues to fraudulent 
 importations. 
 
 Such protection as I have named, for ten years, will result in developing the min- 
 ing and refining of sulphur in this country to such an extent as to make us a formi- 
 dable competitor in the markets of the world. 
 
 A large corporation was organized for the purpose of mining and refining sulphur in 
 Louisiana, and preparaljiions ibr mining were begun on a Large scale. But the out- 
 break of the late war ended further proceedings. General Beauregard, I believe, 
 was a leading spirit in this enterprise. 
 
 The Louisiana sulphiir beds, near Calcasieu Parish, are now in the hands of a 
 strong corporation, of which Hon. Duncan F. Keniier was president. Reasonable 
 tariff protection against Sicily cheap labor would promptly stimulate capital to de- 
 velop these vast deijosits. 
 
 In 1885 a strong corporation was organized, and the mining and refining of sulphur 
 
EEVISION ON THE TARIFF. 375 
 
 was begun at Cove Creek in Utali, some 200 miles due south of Salt Lake City, in a 
 locality where millions of tons are known to exist. Over $100,000 was expended in 
 plant and development. 
 
 The intention was to produce only the suhliraed flowers of sulphur, or distilled sul- 
 phur ground into flour, and the roll sulphur, wherein the tariff did not fail to pro- 
 tect, and where the sole competition would come from the half dozen refineries lo- 
 cated in New York and New Jersey, who further refine the Sicilian product. No 
 sooner, however, had the Utah enterprise entered the market with its prodnct, than 
 the eastern sulphur pool dropped its price some $15 per ton on flowers sulphur. 
 
 Possibly this decline had no connection with the Utah enterprise, nevertheless the 
 coincidence is remarkable that the sulphur pool of the East should so much reduce 
 their price a few months after the Utah enterprise started — especially as the cost of 
 their Sicily raw material was only $'2 per ton less than in 1884. 
 
 It shonld be borne in mind that the sulphur pool of the East import the 95 to 99 per 
 cent, sulphur from Sicily, and at small expense and small labor convert it into the 
 highly refined products referred to. 
 
 Possibly the sulphur pool and the chemical industry of the East will howl and hold 
 up their hands in holy horror at any attempt to place a duty upon their " raw mate- 
 rial." At the same time, everything produced from this same ' ' raw material " is fully 
 protected. Consistency, in tariff matters, is indeed a jewel. 
 
 If it is the design of this Government to maintain a duty of $20 per ton on flowers 
 sulphur for the sole benefit of the half dozen refiners in the East, who import Sicil- 
 ian refined raw material, then no change in the present tariff is needed. But if this 
 Government desires to develop its own gigantic natural deposits, a duty must be 
 imposed upon the Sicilian product referred to, and the fraudulent importation of Si- 
 cilian refined sulphur as "crude sulphur" must cease. 
 
 The East should not forget that the nation's bread is now buttered west of the 
 Alleghany Mountains, and that all producers of raw material must be equitably pro- 
 tected. Either protect all the natural resources of our country fairly, or all protec- 
 tion will disintegrate and be followed by tariJf for revenue only. 
 
 Even with the great advantage of Sicily cheap labor, the mining and refining their 
 raw material into 95 per cent, lump sulphur averages not less than |10 per ton. 
 
 The Utah enterprise, at the close of two years' struggle, had exhausted its work- 
 ing capital and suspended further operations. The sulphur pool of the East, aided 
 by the great advantage of Sicilian " refined material," made it unprofitable for the 
 Utah refiners of sulphur ore. 
 
 The Utah corporation referred to, with its capitalization of |2,000,000, would at 
 once begin operations if assured of protection. This corporation is not composed of 
 speculators, but its members are at the present time active and leading business men 
 in the following cities, viz, San Francisco, Denver, Kansas City, St. Paul, St. Louis, 
 Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, and all 
 of whom are dealers in sulphur. 
 
 The natural outlet for Utah sulphur would be over the Union Pacific Railway. 
 The protection asked for would result in a train of 10 to 20 car-loads daily over that 
 line. This increased freight alone would enable that road to pay its obligation to 
 this Government. 
 
 It can not be said that protection in this case would be in the interest of monopoly 
 any more than in iron ore, as liotli are too generally distributed and too abundant to 
 be " cornered." 
 
 Snlphur enters largely into the nianufactnre of gunpowder. 
 
 During the civil war t he South was greatly embarrassed for the want of refined 
 sulphur for making gunpowder. 
 
 In the event of a foreign war, with our ports blockaded, very serious embarrass- 
 ments might follow if the sources of crude material are left undeveloped. 
 
 Extensive mining and refining of sulphur was begun at Rabbit Hole Springs, 
 Humboldt County, Nov., and continued for several years, until forced to suspend 
 becatise of the Sicilian competition. 
 
 The question naturally arises, why is it that Sicily lump sulphur refined to over 
 95 per cent, has been permitted to enter free of duty as '' crude sulphur?" I would 
 answer, simply because the chemical industry of the East possess great wealth, 
 act in harmony, employ the ablest advocates, and well understand how to lay the 
 pipes to secure their ends and prosper, while the western mine- workers have had no 
 organization, and have never, as a body, presc^nted their case before a Congressional 
 committee. 
 
 Exhibit A is the so-called " crude sulphur," as imported from Sicily. 
 
 Exhibit B is this same so-called crude sulphur, ground into flour in the East at an 
 expense of not over $1 per ton. , 
 
 Exhibit C is crude sulphur proper, as obtained from the mines. 
 Eespeotfully, 
 
 Dakikl Mybi;s, 
 Of Benton, MvEua & Co. 
 
376 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THOMAS WHITE. 
 
 Mr. Thomas White, of Brooklyn, N. Y., appeared "before the committee and read 
 the following paper : 
 
 To tlie Committee of Ways and Means, Mouse of liepresentaiivcs, Washington, D. C. : 
 
 The undersigned reiiners of sulphur desire respectfully to present the following 
 statement, with a view to alterations of the present tariff, which bears very hard 
 against them on the subject of their industry : 
 
 First. Crude sulphur is now on the free list, hut by an ill-advised change of lan- 
 guage found in all the old tariffs that have come to our notice down to therovision of 
 1S73, the words " brimstone, crude, in bulk " have been altered by omitting the words 
 " in bulk," probably as a verbal commendation of the reviser, wholly ignorant of 
 the reason why these two little words " in bulk" were used and of the mischievous 
 effect of omitting them. Kefined sulphur, if brought in bulk, would be unfit for use 
 for the purposes for which refined sulphur is wanted, exposed as it would be to con- 
 tamination by sea water and cargo impurities. 
 
 In effect, tlie old phraseology of "brimstone, crude, in bulk" excluded all dispute 
 about quality, for the question whether the brimstone or sulphur was refined and 
 therefore suliject to duty, or not refined, and therefore free, was simply whether it 
 was imported in bulk or not. 
 
 Now, however, we have vast quantities of refined sulphur imported in hags, bar- 
 rels, or casks, and passed through the custom-house as crude sulphur free of duty. 
 
 If the question is raised as to quality or fineness, a tedious and expensive investiga- 
 tion by chemical experts has to be made, aud their analysis of each importation to be 
 reported before the question of dutiable or not dutiable can be decided. 
 
 In practice, therefore, the omission of the words "in bulk" completely nullifies 
 all discrimination against the importation of manufactured or refined sulphur and 
 renders it a non-dutiable article. 
 
 Wo ask, therefore, as of the first importance, that the phraseology of the old tariff's 
 prior to the revision of 1673 be restored, so as to read "brimstone, crude, in bulk, 
 free." 
 
 The tariff now in force imposes a duty of $10 per ton on sulphur refined in rolls, and 
 of $2U per ton on sulphur sublimed or flowers of sulphur. All other J'orms of refined 
 sulphur under the sweeping clause of " sulphur or brimstone not otherwise provided 
 for " are admitted free. 
 
 The progress of the age has brought about .a great change on this snbject of refined 
 sulphur, as well as on many other subjects. Under the early acts impo.siug duties on 
 imports, the only forms of refined sulphur known to commerce came in as roll brim- 
 stone, or as sublimed flowers of sulphur. Now this is all changed. The art of vul- 
 canizing India rubber, an invention of Charles Goodyear, about forty years ago, re- 
 quires a fine flour made from pure refined brimstone. 
 
 Manufacturers of gunpowder now use refined brimstone in the form of rock brim- 
 stone, solid or broken. Friction-match manufacturers, also in general, use the same, 
 so that it has come about that the two items intended to comprehend all refined sul- 
 phur, to wit, roll brimstone and sublimed flowers, and therefore placed under an 
 import duty, are comparatively but little called for. 
 
 The main body of all refined sulphur now wanted is rock brimstone, solid or broken, 
 and refined sulphur in the iorm of fine flour, and these are left to come in under the 
 present tariff' as free goods, which leaves us refiners with no protection against 
 foreign comi>etition of any important advantage to us. On the other hand, every 
 item of our expense account, which constitutes about one-third of the value of oar 
 manufactured products, is subject to an enormous average duty of between 40 and 50 
 per cent. 
 
 Under this head maybe mentioned the cast-iron for retorts, whicli, owing to the de- 
 structive action of heated sulphur upon the metal, have to be often renewed; also 
 iron and steel for steam-engines and boilers, anthracite and bitrminous coal, and 
 many other articles too numerous to be specially enumerated. 
 
 lu view of the facts above men timed we respectfnlly ask that the following changes 
 be made in tlie present tariff' : 
 
 First. That the clause " sulphur or brimstone not specially euumorated or pro- 
 vided for " be stricken out, aud the words " brimstone or sulphur, crntle, in bulk, free" 
 be inserted. 
 
 Second. Tliat the duty on sublimed flowers of sulphur be reduced from $20 per ton 
 to $1.5 per ton. 
 
 Third. That all other forms of brimstone .and sulphur bo subject to a duty of $10 
 per ton . 
 
 Thomas White, 
 Surviving Partner of the Firm of T. ^- S. C. White. 
 Battelle & Rei>ivick, 
 
 Brooklyn Sulphur WorJcs. 
 
EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 377 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How does tbe Senate bill suit you? 
 
 Mr. White. I presented tlie subject to the House iu 1883, but the Mills bill never 
 passed, and I gave myself no further trouble on the subject. I made up my mind 
 that nothing would be done, and I have not noticed the matter since. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you import such machinery as retorts ? 
 
 Mr. White. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Caklisle. How would this affect that article ? 
 
 Mr. White. AVe presume that cast-iron is increased to that extent. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It is claimed that cast-iron and steel has been largely reduced by 
 
 this. 
 
 Mr. White. I have seen a statement that it increased the duty 40 or 50 per cent. 
 I have never tried to import material that I could get in my neighborhood. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is sulphur worth in this country, refined? 
 
 Mr. White. The highest is the sublime. The flour is about 2 cents or If, and the 
 regular brimstone is the same. 
 
 CANDLE PITCH. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THEO. ROSENBERG. 
 
 The following statement is made by Mr. Theo. Eosenberg, vice-president of the 
 Standard Varnish Works, of New York : 
 
 The varnish and japan manufacturers of the United States have for the past six 
 or eight years > een using an article called pitcb, which is a residuum in the manufact- 
 ure of candles where stearine and palm oil are employed. Some manufacturers have 
 manipulated this article so successfully in the manufacture of black varnishes, etc., 
 that they have been able to build up quite a trade in foreign countries. All of this 
 residuum comes from Europe, as only the foreign article can be successfully used in 
 the manufacture of black varnishes. 
 
 This candle pitch being a bi-product, it is against the interests of candle-makers to 
 produce it in quantities ; in fact they are continually devising means of lessening its 
 production, as the stearine and palm oil in the shape of candles are more valuable to 
 the candle-maker. 
 
 It has, however, become quite an important article in the manufacture of black 
 varnishes, and as the home manufacturers of candles do not produce the quality, and 
 in no event sufficient quantity, to satisfy the existing demand, varnish-makers must 
 go to Europe for their wants. Importations at present are about 500 tons per annum, 
 costing about $20,000 and upward. 
 
 This article (candle pitch) pays a duty of 20 per cent., and it is classified amongst 
 the unenumerated articles. Should this duty of 30 per cent, be removed, the export of 
 such articles as are being made from it could be more than doubled within a very 
 short time; in fact in time a very large and lucrative export trade could be built up. 
 
 At present the export trade of such articles in which candle pitch enters amounts 
 to over |40,000 per annum. As only American products, such as turpentine, linseed- 
 oil, oxide of lead, and benzine, are used in conjunction with candle pitch in the manxi- 
 facture of black varnishes, the removal of the duty would encourage the sale of these 
 goods in foreign lands versus foreign oils, French and Norwegian turpentine, Eus- 
 eian benzine, etc. 
 
 As the present tariff protects an article which is of no importance to the home pro- 
 dncer, but is a great drawback in extending the export trade of such articles into 
 which it enters, we pray that it be removed in order to foster a growing American in- 
 dustry. 
 
 PHOSPHORUS. 
 STATEMENT OF N. P. ALLEN. 
 
 Mr. N. P. Allen, of Philadelphia, appeared before the committee and read the fol- 
 lowing papers : 
 
 Majstufactuebrs' Club, op Philadelphia, 
 
 Secretary's Office, 
 
 December 28, 1889. 
 At a meeting of the chemical section of the Manufacturers' Club, held on the 23d 
 instant, it was voted that the Committee on Ways and Means be asked, in the prepa- 
 ration of tariff bUl, to impose a duty of 25 cents per pound on phosphorus. 
 Attest : 
 
 W. T. Seal, Secretary. 
 
378 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Philadelphia, December 27, 1889. 
 To tjie Ways and Means Committee of the House of Bepresentatives : 
 
 Gentlemen: We are informed that the chemical section of the Manufacturers 
 Club, of Philadelphia, has by resolution requested an increase in the duty on phos- 
 phorus to 25 cents per pound. We respectfully join in recommending this increased 
 duty. The fact that for ten years nearly all phosphorus consumed here has been 
 brought from Europe, while the American works are closed, we consider plain evidence 
 that the present duty is not sufflcient to put the works of this country on an equal 
 footing with those of Europe. 
 
 We believe that a duty sufficient to enable the manufacturers of this country to 
 compete on equal terms with the foreign manufacturers will result in the consumer 
 receiving the product at lower prices than will rule if the American works are not 
 enabled by a fair duty to compete for the trade. 
 
 Charles Lennig & Co. (Limited), Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Company, per T. Armstrong, presi- 
 dent, Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 EOSENGARTEN & SoNS, Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Frederick Phillips, Philadelphia. 
 
 Powers & Wbightman, Philadelphia. 
 
 J. J. Allen's Sons, Philadelphia. 
 
 J. J. Allen's Sons, No. 2 Chestnut St reet, 
 
 Philadelpliia, December 28, 1889. 
 
 Dear Sir : We respectfully ask the attention of your committee to a letter written 
 by us to Senator Aldrich, August 'i, 1888, on the subject of phosphorus, and his reply, 
 copies of which accompany this letter. In that letter we stated that we would try to 
 keep our plant in repair if the duty remained at the x'resent rate, 10 cents per pound, 
 hoping some circumstance might arise that would enable us to start up. 
 
 The Senate committee complied with that request, and now, one and a half years 
 later, we find the conditions remain as they have been for ten years and that we can 
 not meet the foreign manufacturers with the present duty. Careful examination shows 
 that the cost of plant, labor, coal, and materials, at the lowest prices ruling to-day, 
 amount to nearly 25 cents per pound more in this country than in Europe. The foreign 
 manufacturers are very few and of large wealth and for twenty years have, whenever 
 the American works were started up or kept in repair, pursued the policy of selling 
 the large consumers of this country at the wholesale prices ruling in Europe, not- 
 withstanding the duty of 10 cents per pound, and as soon as our works were thought 
 to be disabled, advanced the prices 50 to 100 per cent. 
 
 In the light of these facts we again respectfully ask you to consider whether the 
 consumers in this coijntry will not be benettted by a duty of 25 cents per pound, 
 which will start up the American works and insure steady and moderate prices and 
 work to many hands now idle. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 J. J. Allen's Sons. 
 
 Hon. Wm. McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 [Copy of letter sent to Hon. N. W. Aldrich, Angnst 3, 1888. J 
 
 Dear Sir : We respectfully ask your attention to the item of phosphorus in pre- 
 paring a tariff bill. It now pays 20 per cent, duty (or 10 cents per pound, about same 
 rate). The Mills bill puts it on the free list. Phosphorus is used principally in the 
 manufacture of matches, but also in various other preparations. 
 
 Its history in this country is : Until about twenty years ago it w.as not manufact- 
 ured in this country, and was, we think, entirely free of duty and was selling from 
 England at $1.50 to ,$1.20 per pound. A duty of 20 per cent, was then put on and a 
 plant was erected in this country, costing over $100,000. As soon as the American 
 works were fairly under way English phosphorus was reduced to 75 cents per pound, 
 delivered at New York. The American works failed and the price of English phos- 
 phorus was advanced to about f l.lO. The American works stood idle several years, 
 were finally bought out and came into our possession, were started up, and English 
 phosphorus again dropped to 75 cents. It was found that a moderate profit could be 
 made at our works at this rate by careful management, and we continued about three 
 years, during which time another large pl.ant was erected in this country, and, we 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 379 
 
 think, a third one. The English manufacturers now evidently decided to wipe out 
 the industry hero and contracted with the corporation which piirchases about three- 
 fourths of all used in this country to deliver it to them at Now York for several 
 years at. about 50 cents per pound, continuing to charge small outside buyers 70 to 
 75 cents. This closed onr Nvorks, as it was below cost, and by careful figuring we 
 believe. the present price leaves no profit to the English uiauufacturer after paying 
 the present duty.* The English manufacture is entirely controlled by one house, 
 and we believe their policy to be to compel us to let our plant decay, after which, and 
 in particular if the duty is removed, which would discourage us from keeping our 
 plant in repair, the price in America would undoubtedly be advanced 50 to 100 per 
 cent. 
 
 If the present duty of 20 per cent, is retained we shall keep up our plant and com- 
 pete for the trade whenever tbe price is as high as b5 cents, and if the duty should 
 be increased to 40 per cent., or probably to 30 per cent., it would result in all the phos- 
 phorus for this country being made at home, for which there is sulficient plant ready, 
 and as this plant is in the hands of two or more rival concerns, it would insure the 
 consumer receiving his phosphorus at the moderate price of 65 to 70 cents per 
 pound and give employment at double the wages paid in England to a large number 
 of hands novx idle. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 J. J. Allen's Sons. 
 
 Hon. N. W. Aldrich, United States Senate. 
 
 [Copy of letter from Senate Finance Committee to J. J. Allen'a Sons.] 
 
 August 17, 1888. 
 My Dear Sir : Your letter in regard to phosphorus, addressed to the Hon. N.W. 
 Aldrich, has been laid before the subcommittee on the tariff. 
 
 Your statement is so valuable in connection with the subject referred to that the 
 committee desire, with your approval, to print it with other testimony. Please 
 make such changes or additions to the copy inclosed as yon may deem necessary. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 BENJ. D0RFBE, 
 
 J, J. Allen's Sons, 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Mr. Allen. I propose to ask for a decided increase in the duty on phosphorus. I 
 come here with the indorsement of the Manufacturer's Club of Philadelphia to ask 
 for a duty of 25 cents per pound. 
 
 The Chairman. What duty did the Senate bill put on it ? 
 
 Mr. Allen. Ten cents. I wrote a letter to Senator Aldrich and ho put it in the bill 
 at 10 cents. There Is a great deal of money invested in works in this country 
 now, and onr works are in sucli a condition that we will have to spend several thou- 
 sand dollars to put them in repair, or else let them go down, and we are not war- 
 ranted in making these repairs without an increase in the duty. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. State some of the purposes for which phosphorus is used. 
 
 Mr. Allen. Its largest iise is in the manufacture of matches. It is also used in 
 some chemical preparations. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. State the annual product of the establishments now in operation. 
 
 Mr. Allen, Two complete works have turned out 50,000 pounds a year each. 
 
 Mr, Carlisle. How many hands do you employ? 
 
 Mr. Allen. We employ about -thirty hands. If the duty is increased we will start 
 up and employ about one hundred, all skilled labor. For the same labor in Europe 
 the price paid is only about $5 a week, and our labor is p^id $12 a week. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What ie the entire product now f 
 
 Mr. Allen. Two plants in this country turn out 100,000 pounds. Our works turn 
 out 50,000 pounds, but are capable of turning out 150,000 pounds, though we never 
 have done it. The consumption is about 250,000 ponnds a year. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Why could not matoh-makors carry on this business? 
 
 Mr. Allen. I can not tell, I am sure. I am not in the match business. They would 
 hardly attempt to make phosphorus when our plant, which costs $150,000, is idle. 
 
 Mr, Batne. Would 10 cents enable you to go on 1 
 
 Mr, Allen, No, sir; it would not. It is 10 cents now. I said to Senator Aldrich 
 that we would try to keep our works in repair with that amount of duty, but in that I 
 
 * December, 1889. — We find this ia an error. It cau be made in Eugland cheaper than wo expected 
 J. J. Allen's Sons. 
 
380 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 fouuJ I was ill t iTor. Since I liave looted into the wliole matter, I find that we need 
 25 cents a pouud duty. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Do you thiuk that would enable yon to go on ? 
 
 Mr. Allen. Twenty five cents a ponnd would, and it would not increase the price 
 of phosphorus to the consumer. We would start up at present market prices if we 
 had the increased duty to assure us that jjrices would not be cut lower until our works 
 failed and then raised again. That has been the foreign policy for years. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What would '^5 cents bo equivalent to ad valorem ? 
 
 Mr. Allen. It would be equivalent to 50 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you prefer a specific to an ad valorem duty ? 
 
 Mr. Allen. Wo do. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. At the present prices can you make a profit ? 
 
 Mr. Allen. Whether we make any profit at that price is problematical, but we 
 would start up if protected against lower prices. There are now two works. There 
 is enough competition and enough brains to put other works in the field if necessary, 
 and I say that a duty of 25 cents on phosphorus is necessary. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Why do you prefer a specific to an ad valorem duty f 
 
 Mr. Allen. It settles the thing definitely. There is more or less fraud under an ad 
 valorem duty. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Why does the match combination desire to interfere with yoii? 
 
 Mr. Allen. They say they do not. They told me they would prefer to buy of us 
 than of other peo]>le if we could meet the njarket price. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What is your principal business ? 
 
 Mr. Allen. It is nothing now. Our works are closed. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. 1 thought you had a plant for this purpose in connection with other 
 business? 
 
 Mr. Allen. We have a plant that was built for thi» purpose, and we have added 
 to it the manufacture of fertilizers, in order to use our engines and boilers. We 
 moved our fertilizer business to another place, and, therefore, our works are standing 
 absolutely idle and many of our men are now doing nothing! 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Where are your works situated? 
 
 Mr. Allen. Burlington County, N. .J. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is phosphorus made from ? 
 
 Mr. Allen. It is made from bones and sulphuric acid. The jirincipal items of cost 
 are labor and coal. 
 
 BEES-WAX, COMB FOUNDATION. 
 
 STATEMENT OF CHAS. DADANT & SON. 
 
 Hamilton, Hancock Co., III., January 8, 1890. 
 To the members of the Ways and Means Committee : 
 
 Gentlejien : Please excuse us for the liberty of calling your attention to some 
 facts related to custom-house duties : 
 
 (1) The books written in foreign languages do no not compete with the books pub- 
 lished here. Most of them relate to history, science, agriculture, industry, etc., and 
 our country can but be benefited by their importation. 
 
 If the duties on these books, duties which are but a mite in {he revenue, were abol- 
 ished, all the most learned citizens of foreign descent would experience gratitude 
 toward the actual Government. 
 
 (2) The i>roductiou of bees-wax is not any more considered as beneficial to bee- 
 keepers. Indeed it costs to them at least five times its worth, and as bees can not 
 do without it the bee-keepers invented the comb foundation machine to renovate the 
 old combs and sparer all the honey digested l>y the bees in building their combs; for the 
 wax is the fat of tlio bees. It. results of these facts that a few old fogy bee-keepers 
 only have any wa.K to sell, while the others buy wax for their bees. We have sold 
 .'J9,600 pounds of comb foundation last year (see samples inclosed) and have been com- 
 pelled to use imported wax and to raise our price, as you will see by the small slip 
 inclosed. Then the bee-keepers, far from being benefited by the customs duty, had 
 to pay it from their own pockets. 
 
 The duty on bees- wax is very unimportant and can be easily spared. 
 By pul ting these facts before the Congress you will confer a favor to the bee-keepers 
 and o))lige 
 
 Yours very respeiifully, 
 
 Chas. Dadant & Son. 
 
 We quote an advance of 5 cents per pound over March prices as printed in onr cir- 
 cular. 
 
, REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 381 
 
 ALCOHOL. 
 
 STATEMENT OP W. S. MAKNING. 
 
 Mr. W. S. Majmning, Esq., of Albany, N. Y., apiiearcd relative to the tax on alcohol. 
 He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear before your honorable 
 committee as the representative of the Albany Chemical Company, of Albany, N. Y., 
 and will, as brieflyaa possible, state their objections to any act whereby any discrimi- 
 nation is made in the tax on alcohol, either in its use in the arts of manufactures or 
 otherwise. Free alcohol in the arts means cither methylated spirit, which is open to 
 the very serious objectiou that it can be and has been easily purified or demethylated 
 by Government chemists as well as others, or it means manufacture in bond, and 
 which is met with the grave objection that such manufactures would be confined 
 strictly to wealthy capitalists, because tbe Government, to be secure, must exact a 
 heavy'bond, which none but the capitalists can command. There is also another, 
 an equally as grave an objection, that the manufacturers of alcoholic preparations 
 would be continually under Government espionage, subjected to the arbitrary will 
 (it may bo) of au unscrupulous ofiicial. Aside from this, such a condition would 
 naturally lead to combinations amongst large manufacturers, \Ybich would tend to 
 drive the small manufacturers from the field of competition ; and, as a natural con- 
 sequence, w ould be followed by higher prices to the retail dealer and the consumer. 
 
 Methylated spirit, but partially purified by incompetent and unscrupulous dealers 
 in intoxicants, would result in the manufacture and sale of adulterated mixtures of 
 partly purified methylated spirit, the taste and smell of which co'.ild be disguised by 
 sirups, flavors, aromatics, etc., the use of which would be seriously, if not fatally, in- 
 jurious. This objection is especially applicable to the venders and manufacturers of 
 so-called "medicinal bitters" and." compounds," which are made and sold to con- 
 sumers in vast quantities, especially in " prohibition" States. They are now notori- 
 ously niade of the poorest possible quality of liquor, the taste of which is disguised 
 by bitter herbs, etc. To this particular class of manufacturers who now, by virtue of 
 their patents, enjoy abnormal profits, even under the present law, Jree alcohol in the 
 arts and pharmacy is particularly and peculiarly attractive and lucrative, as they 
 could either directly or indirectly get the alcohol, which is the base of these bitters, 
 duty free ; whereas the liquor dealers, paying tax and license fee, could not compete, 
 thus stimulating fraud to a degree beyond calculation. Fostering such an industry 
 is not: exactly the surest way or method by which tbe public welfare could be pro- 
 moted. 
 
 Free alcohol in pharmacy appears open to very grave objections, and some of them 
 are too obvious to admit of any sound argument. The great reduction in tbe price 
 of ordinary tinctures would unquestionably lead to their very general adoption as a 
 stimulating beverage, instead of spirituous liquors, by a certain and very large class 
 of people, and it would be beyond the power of the GovernmcDt, with free alcohol in 
 the arts and manufactures, to control the pernicious evils which such a law would 
 entail. There are many tincture s whiih could be sold directly by the pharmacist to 
 the liquor dealer, who could ntilize them almost as received; and, besides, there is no 
 way which could be devised that would prevent the druggist himself from making 
 his tinctures in such proportions that no dilution would be needed. How can even the 
 sale of alcohol over the apothecaries' counter for intoxicating purposes be prevented? 
 As a matter of fact, this opens the door for fraud to an unlimited extent. We hear 
 now on every hand, mostly from prohibition States, accounts of the rapid growth 6f 
 the habit of "ginger drunkenness ;" and this would be promptly followed by drunk- 
 enness from (medicinal) elixirs, wine, and beef (with the iron left out), tincture of 
 gentian, compound tincture of cardamon, etc., which would be sold tor such pur- 
 poses, should free alcohol obtain in the arts and manufactures ; and we would soon 
 have a prolific crop of patented or non-patcuted "stomach bitters," " vin^ar bit- 
 ters," etc., put up by the pharmacist in 10 and 15 cent bottles, and sold all over the 
 country without restraint from any law. 
 
 The practical result of such a law would be the extinction of a large part of the tax 
 on alcohol now used in the liquor trafific, and the substitution of the druggist for the 
 legitimate liquor dealer. Not that all druggists would care to go into such a busi- 
 ness ; but men are not all sci upulous, and the honest man with profits on legitimate 
 preparations, cut down by the shrinkage of values of alcohol, could make no stand 
 against the man who sold stimulants under such a cover. Who, for instance, could 
 prevent any druggist from selling " anise-seed carminative," or " caraway carmina- 
 tive," or in fact any stimulant under the disguise of a medicinal compound ? There 
 is positively no safeguard which can be found that will efl'cctually prevent the sale of 
 compounds which can be used for intoxicating purposes, except by retaining the full 
 
382 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. - , 
 
 tax on alcohol wherover it may be used. Who can define a law by which the apoth- 
 ecary could he prevented from selling alcohol for the purposes of manufacturing, and 
 how can he know whether such alcohol will not be used as a stimulant under such a 
 cover ? 
 
 English capital, even, is drawn into this country attracted by the immense profits 
 made by patent-medicine dealers, in which alcohol is used as one of the main compo- 
 nent parts. Are the English capitalists attracted here building upon the hope that free 
 alcohol in the arts and manufactures will become a law ?• To relieve such industries 
 from the tax now imposed would certainly benefit the manufacturer, but not the 
 public. 
 
 Such a step, moreover, would greatly cripple, if not extinguish altogether, an in- 
 dustry which now gives employment, either directly or indirectly, to many thousands 
 of people, that is, "the wood alcohol" and the "acetate of lime industry." 
 
 With the introduction of wood alcohol into the arts a number of years ago a cheap 
 substitute was found which can and does to a very great extent supplant ordinary 
 alcohol, being just as good for manufacturing jiurposes as the grain alcohol ; but, 
 owing to impurities therein contained, it is rendered unfit to be used as a beverage. 
 Varnish manufacturers and others engaged in similar pursuits make extensive use of 
 it at the present day ; and it is useless to deny the fact that it is fully as good as 
 grain alcohol, in all instances, with no exception, where its dissolving powers are 
 needed. 
 
 From the moment that alcohol for use in the arts and manufactures becomes unre- 
 stricted the sale of wood alcohol will be entirely wiped out, together with the total 
 extinction of a great industry, thus entailing a loss of many mil>ions now invested, 
 fostered into existence because of the present state of the revenue laws. This would 
 naturally be followed by higher prices for the acetate of lime, which now being a by- 
 product, to a great extent, is sold so cheap as the base for the manufacture of acetic 
 acid used in the arts that, although vinegar manufacturers are allowed to make their 
 acetic acid from grain alcohol, yet they can not compete with the impure acetic acid 
 produced by that agent. The consequence of such a condition would of necessity be 
 followed by increased prices of the lead colors, mordants for fixing calico colors, Paris 
 green, etc., because the lead corioders of the United States, as well as of Europe, de- 
 pend largely for their supply of acetic acid and acetate of lime, respectively, upon 
 the product manufactured and shipped from this country. 
 
 Hence any limitation of the supply must .advance the price of every article of manu- 
 facture of which the acetate of lime, and acetic a.cid are the agents. The increase of 
 the cost of corroding of necessity increases the cost of paints to a very great extent, 
 and untold millions of dollars are thus irretrievably lost to the public at large solely 
 for the benefit of those who are enriched by reason of the removal of the tax so far as 
 the arts and manufactures are concerned. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, if it is really necessary for the public good to reduce the rev- 
 enue by reducing the tax on alcohol, would it not be more just to the whole people to 
 reduce the tax without regard to any special interest ? No particular interest should 
 be benefited at the expense of the many, and no established industry should be de- 
 stroyed in order that some other industry may reap inorainate profits. 
 
 A reduction of, say, 5 to 10 cents per gallon of the present tax on proof spirit would 
 not naaterially disturb the present condition of the interested industries, while it 
 ■would fully cover the estimated reduction of the revenue — should you deem it wise 
 to reduce the alcohol tax — quite as much as the reduction to be derived by reason of 
 tree alcohol used in the arts and manufactures. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Do you agree or disagree with the gentleman, Mr. RawoUe, who 
 has just spoken ? 
 
 Mr. Manning. I disagree with him in regard to what he says about wood alcohol 
 'not being generally used by manufacturers of varnish. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Are you familiar with wood alcohol ? 
 
 Mr. Manning. Yes, sir, to some extent. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You know something about its use ? 
 
 Mr. Manning. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Have you ever heard of men being affected in the manner that Mr. 
 Rawolle describes ? 
 
 Mr. Manning. It is new to me. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Do you think that any api^licatiou with a brush or rag would pro- 
 duce the results mentioned ? 
 
 Mr. Manning. I would not like to express an opinion on t.hat. I never heard of it 
 before. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You have heard it just now? 
 
 Mr. Manning. Yes, sir ; I heard it now. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Are you a manufacturer of chloroform ? 
 
 Mr, Manning. Yes, §ir ; we are, 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 383 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How do you make it ? 
 
 Mr. Manning. From acetate of lime by distillation, with the application of bleach- 
 ing powder. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. You reduce it from the acid ? 
 
 Mr. Manning. It is made from a mixed liquid, which is obtained from the dry dis- 
 tillation of acetate of lime. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you use wood alcohol ? 
 
 Mr. Manning. No, sir ; chloroform can not be made by using wood alcohol. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is it used in chloroform at all ? 
 
 Mr. Manning. Not a drop. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Have you certain patents under which you are making chloroform ? 
 
 Mr. Manning. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Would not the free use of alcohol in the arts enable competition to 
 arise against you 1 
 
 Mr. Manning. Most assuredly. I think, however, notwithstanding, we could 
 compete with them with acetate of lime at its present price. 
 
 Mr. Bay'NE. Is it your desire that alcohol shall not be made free in the arts because 
 it would come in competition with you ? 
 
 Mr. MaUning. Most assuredly it is not desired. We fear it would destroy the 
 acetate of lime and our pharmaceutical industry. 
 
 Mr. Bay'NE. Therefore the tax now levied on alcohol in the United States is a pro- 
 tection to your special industry? 
 
 Mr. Manning. It is. This process which we use is our individual discovery. But 
 what we really fear, as manufacturers of fluid extracts and alcoholic preparations, is 
 that with methylated spirit free in the arts we should have, as honest men, to buy 
 tax-paid alcohol to make reliable preparations, while we would be exposed to dishon- 
 est competition from any one unscrupulous enough to make medicinal preparations 
 from demethylated spirit, which would be highly iujurious, but also cheaper. Our 
 objections to manufacturing alcoholic products in bond I have already stated. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You have the protection of a patent ? 
 
 Mr. Manning. Precisely. I would say that by reason of this discovery chloroform 
 has been cheapened to the consumer 50 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Bayne.' If you had competition, would not it be cheapened still more? 
 
 Mr. Manning. No. I doubt whether other manufacturers could hold their own with 
 us under present cost of material, 
 
 Mr. Bayne. If they can not, why do you fear the taking ofl'of this tax? 
 
 Mr. Manning. Simply because I think, as stated, that for sanitary reasons it ought 
 not to be, aside from the reasons contained in my argument. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You argue from a humane staud-point. 
 
 Mr. Manning. Yes; but we fear the removal of the tax would to a great extent 
 cripple our pharmaceutical industry, as heretofore stated. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. In other words, it would make competition for your industry ? 
 
 Mr. Manning. Yes, sir : but higher chloroform prices would rule; besides the mak- 
 ing of chloroform is merely a part of our business. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would not the price of chloroform be reduced by taking the tax off 
 alcohol ? 
 
 Mr. Manning. I do not think it would. It might not be raised up as high as the 
 traffic would bear under the present tax, but in Germany, where there is no tax on 
 alcohol used in the arts, chloroform is made by the acetate of limo process and not 
 by the .ilcohol process, because of the present low jjrice of acetate of lime, which is 
 now a by-product, and is shipped from this country in vast quantities. 
 
 VIEWS OF MR. J. R. FRANCE. 
 
 Dear Sir : Replying to your esteemed favor of January 15, in reference to the 
 abolition of the tax on alcohol for use in the arts, we submit for your consideration 
 the following figures and arguments. 
 
 The Arlington Manufacturing Company is a corporation organized under the laws 
 of the State of New Jersey, with works at Arlington, N. J., and office there and also 
 in New York. 
 
 The product of this company is pyralin, a compound made from pyroxyline, and 
 similar to that known as celluloid and zylonite. 
 
 The figures herewith are based on an annual product of $100,000 or a multiple 
 thereof, and at prices current in the markets. 
 
 ^ The item of supplies for the factory in its manufacture of the sheeted product, out- 
 side of all other items, such as fuel, and leaving out the question of wages, for one 
 month, including alcohol used, amounts to $4,046.56, 
 
384 EPiVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 
 
 This item is composdl of such supplies as camphor, acids, jjaper, dyes, pig- 
 ments, and other chemicals, and exclusive of alcohol $2,488.36' 
 
 Alcohol, 95 per cent '. a, IM. 20 
 
 4, 646. 56 
 
 Alcohol, 1,090 gallons, at |1.98 y,l.'S8.20 
 
 Alcohol, per gallon '2H cents ; SO.*). 20 
 
 Tax on same, per gallon, $1.70 1,853.01) 
 
 2,158.20 
 
 Without the tax these figures would stand : 
 
 Sundry items as enumerated above 2,488.36 
 
 Alcohol, 1,090 gallons, without tax. 305.20 
 
 2, 793. 56 
 The relative value of tlie alcohol item in ratio to the other supplies is about one- 
 eighth, while as now with the tax added, it is about two-thirds of the sum total of 
 all the supplies, alcohol included. Thus — 
 
 One month's supplies, alcohol included $2,793.56 
 
 Tax on alcohol 1,853.00 
 
 4 646. 56 
 
 On a business of, say, only $500,000 it will be seen how enormous and burdensome 
 this tax becomes. 
 
 Because of this tax we are compelled to use largely wood alcohol. This item costs 
 more than double that of grain alcohol, and is not so good for our purposes as the 
 latter, and while enhancing the cost of the product does not give so good a one. 
 The difference in these two respects, viz, enhanced cost and poorer product, must 
 be chargeable to the tax on alcohol. 
 
 The enhanced coat of manufacture makes this tax entirely prohibitive to sale of 
 our goods in all markets except home. There are large lields open to us from which, 
 for this cause, we are entirely shut out. The superiority of American manufactures 
 in this line is so much in advance of foreign competition that, despite the disparity 
 of earnings by employes as compared with foreign labor, we could compete easily, 
 and that too with good profits, except for this tax. 
 
 Growing out of this tax, and co-existent with it, is another item of unnecessary 
 expense both to your correspondent and also to the tjuited States Government. Oar 
 company are in possession of United States patents for a method of freeing pyroxy- 
 lino from water liy the use of alcohol. The Patent Office gives us the right to use it, 
 but the Treasury Department says, No ; if you do you must pay an annual license and 
 comply with certain restrictions. These restrictions are wasteful, costly, and full of 
 delays. As a result of correspondence, some modifications have been allowed by the 
 Treasury Department, but not such as will prevent, to us heavy loss and expense. 
 
 The method referred to is one by which we wash out or by percolation expel water 
 from pyroxyline by a column of alcohol. In doing this the alcohol becomes diluted 
 with water. To recover it we use a still, for which we pay a license of $100 per annum, 
 and to attend which the United States Government has assigned a gauger in charge 
 of this work to visit our factory. For this $100 the Government pays for gauger and 
 clerical force not less than $500, and we are subjected to delays and waste — waste by 
 evaporation, in consequence of having to pour from barrel to barrel to comply with 
 the excise laws, instead of iiassing the diluted alcohol into the still and from that to 
 tanks without this heavy item of loss. In addition we have the long routine of forms 
 to make out, for which a clerk has to be detailed. These sums are directly charge- 
 able to the tax on alcohol. 
 
 We believe in a proper protective tariff to protect home manufacturers, but this 
 tax strikes directly at the foundation and life of home industries, and is not only 
 burdensome, but we submit to your committee that it will be hard to find a parallel 
 in any other line of manufacture where taxation is so disproportionate and wrong. 
 
 If Congresss hall refuse to abolish this tax, then some equitable laws should be - 
 passed by which (as a temporary expedient only) a larger license fee should be ex- 
 acted from manufacturers using alcohol, and a sworn watcher in the employ of the 
 Government detailed to such factory or premises where the alcohol is used, whose 
 duty would be to see and report if alcohol were used for other purposes than those 
 designed. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. J. R. France, 
 
 President The Arlington Manufacturing Company. 
 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 385 
 
 VXBWS OF THURBER, VTHYLAND & CO. 
 
 The following papers were presented by members of the committee to be printed in 
 connection with the testimony in reference to chemicals : 
 
 New York, January 6, 1890. 
 The hmordble the Committee on Ways and Means of the Souse of Bepresentatives : 
 
 We beg to present the following in behalf of the proposition to abolish the tax on 
 alcohol used in the arts and manufactures. The National Board of Trade, representing 
 the principal commercial organizations of the country, the Wholesale Druggists' Na- 
 tional Association, and other commercial and manufacturing organizations, are also on 
 record in favor of this proposition. 
 
 Its importance to the manufacturing industries of this country can hardly be over- 
 estimated, and it is safe to say that in no other way can a similar amount of reduction 
 in the nation's revenue be made with such benefit to so many different lines of indus- 
 try and with so little harm to any. 
 
 The principal objection which presentsitself is the danger of fraud upon the revenue 
 from this source, and the difficulty of enacting a law which will give the required 
 freedom to trade and at the same time protect the revenue. 
 
 We think this can be done by your committee confining itself principally to defin- 
 ing general principles in the act and lodging considerable discretionary authority 
 with the Commissioner of Internal Eevenue for carrying them into execution. 
 
 Industries using alcohol are so varied, the conditions surrounding them so differ- 
 ent, that if you attempt to express all the details in a law, it will be found very difii- 
 oult to do it wisely. 
 
 There are many secret formulas for the manufacture of medicines, perfumery, etc., 
 a knowledge of which is zealously guarded by manufacturers, and which it would be 
 undesirable for revenue ofiBcers to be familiar with. All that the Government is in- 
 terested in, is that the alcohol shall not be used otherwise than for legitimate manu- 
 facturing industries, and not as a beverage; and this can be secured by exacting 
 heavy bonds from any manufacturer who uses alcohol to see that it is not used in 
 other than the legimate processes of his business. 
 
 The responsibility of bonds should be ascertaiued and certified to by United States 
 officials, as in other matters connected with the internal revenue, and then the Com- 
 missioner should be given a large discretion to grant reasonable facilities to houses 
 doing a straightforward and legitimate manufacturing business. 
 
 For instance, our firm are wholesale grocers and manufacturers of food products ; 
 one branch of our business is that of flavoring extracts in which we use alcohol as a 
 solvent for essential oils and spices, and as a preservative of fruit flavors. When 
 thus compounded it is put up in small bottles, and the product is not likely to be 
 used as a beverage, although, of course, it is possible to a limited extent. 
 
 Persons who can not get stimulants in any other way or form will sometimes use 
 even extract of Jamaica ginger as a stimulant ; but with alcohol free of taxation for 
 such purposes, the cost of perfumery or flavoring extracts is greater than other forms 
 of stimulants, while the repugnance of the palate of the average consumer would be 
 a still greater safeguard. 
 
 The same is true of alcohol used in the compannding of medicines. It will not be 
 difficult, if the Commissioner of Internal Eevenue has the proper authority, for him 
 to discriminate between what is a legitimate and well-recognized medicine or prepa- 
 ration, not made to drink, and what is an alcoholic beverage. 
 
 In order that alcohol delivered from distillery warehouses for manufacturing pur- 
 poses may not be used for other purposes a system of manufacturing in bonded ware- 
 houses or apartments under a responsible bond, and under the supervision of Govern- 
 ment officials, can easily be arranged in a manner similar to that in which the bot- 
 tling of lictuors is now allowed by the internal-revenue regulations, and by which 
 the disposition of the goods can be traced until their character is so changed that 
 they are no longer available for drinking purposes. 
 
 In the more important industries, where greater quantities of alcohol are used, more 
 stringent regulations might be necessary to prevent redistillation ; but even there 
 such evasions of the revenue could not proceed far without detection, as the existing 
 machinery of the Internal Eevenue Department would soon detect any considerable 
 contraband source of supply. 
 
 In the thousand and one small industries where alcohol is used, this danger would 
 not be experienced ; and even if a small amount of alcohol should pass into consump- 
 tion without being taxed, the evil would be so small in comparison to the general 
 good accomplished that the country can afford to give the system a trial. 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 Thurbbe, Whyi,anp & Co. 
 485 25 
 
386 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 New York, January 4, 1890. 
 Gentlemen : Responding to your note of 2(J, advising us of the hearing before the 
 committee at Wasliington on 7th instant in regard to abolishing tax upon alcohol 
 used in the arts, we regret that we cannot be represented there,but desire to put our- 
 selves on record as decidedly opposed to the present entirely impracticable shape of 
 the proposed regulations controlling free alcohol for such uses. The provision of the 
 proposed law which requires the constant presence in one's laboratory of an inspector 
 practically nullifies all advantage, inasmuch as so man y of the processes of manufact- 
 ure are secret. Unless this provision is done away with, but few manufacturers will 
 avail themselves of the advantages of the proposed change. A number of the leading 
 manufacturers of alcoholic perfumery have conferred together, and we are aU decid- 
 edly of the opinion that it will not be possible to admit inspectors to the private 
 processes of our factories. This is almost universally true also of the manufacturers 
 of chemicals, and there has been a general expression of opinion item both these 
 classesof manufacturers that the proposed change in its present shape will be of no 
 practicable advantage to those for whose advantage it was designed. We beheve 
 the above expression of opinion fairly represents the convictions of consumers of al- 
 cohol and cologne spirits in the arts and manufactures to the extent fully of one- 
 half of the entire amount annually so used, and we shall be under obligation to you 
 if you wiU so represent us personally. 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Lazeli., Dallet & Co. 
 
 Messrs. Thurbeh, Whtlakd & Co. 
 
 VIEWS OP JAMES A. WEBB & SON, 
 
 Your informant has been engaged in refining and distributing alcohol for use in 
 the arts and manufactures for nearly forty years. During the first decade of said 
 term three-fourths of the alcohol so distilled was used for burning fluid. Refined 
 petroleum, having superseded burning fluid, alcohol is no longer used for illumi- 
 nation, but it is thinly distributed in the arts and manufactures. 
 
 The distribution of alcohol is in no sense a monopoly, but for personal reasons the 
 writer having devoted himself to the manufacture and sale of alcohol for the indus- 
 trial arts ( the least lucrative branch of the distilled spirit business ), now distributes 
 fully one-half of the entire output of alcohol of this country, and being in daily 
 intercourse with every class of manufacturer can therefore speak understandingly, 
 and knows whereof he aflirms. 
 
 We affirm that no discrimination in favor of alcohol can safely or justly be made 
 while any tax is imposed upon distilled spirits. 
 
 PKECAUTIONS NECESSARY BUT UNAVAILING. 
 
 The rigid regulations, restrictions, and penalties whereby alcohol may be free foi* 
 the arts, provided in the'Senate bill, are absolutely necessary, and, indeed, are inad- 
 equate to prevent frauds upon the revenue, and yet they do not accomplish the de- 
 sired purpose, to wit, making it possible for free alcohol to be used by the general 
 public. 
 
 A few manufacturers can avail themselves of free alcohol as proposed, and so reap 
 the benefits of the profits arising therefrom, but their goods would not be sold to the 
 consumer at any lower price. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO REVEALING FORMULAS. 
 
 The majority of manufacturers of proprietary articles will be deterred from avail- 
 ing themselves of this provision because the formulas of their various compounds 
 would be disclosed to the revenue officer in charge of the store-room, he being re- 
 quired to account for every gallon of alcohol placed under his care. 
 
 It is a well-knownfact that the value of these proprietary articles into which alcohol 
 enters consists in the formula (as well as their title), which is kept a secret. 
 
 For example, Mr. Hood, the well-known sarsaparilla manufacturer, who uses a 
 vast amount of alcohol, claims superiority over other sarsaparilla because of the in- 
 troduction of peculiar ingredients, which others do not possess. 
 
 Mr. Tobias claims the same thing for his liniment, and we might cite ad inJmUnm 
 instances where it would be impracticable for the manufacturer to avail himself o( 
 free alcohol. 
 
REVISION OF THE -TARIFF. 387 
 
 DBAIiERS AND USEES CAN NOT DERIVE BENEFIT FROM EXEMPTION. 
 
 Moreover three-fourths of the entire quantity of alcohol is distributed to the retail 
 druggist and apothecary, in barrels and lesser quantities, who can not avail them- 
 selves of free alcohol because they require it in its natural state accessible at all 
 times, and, as far as we are advised, in every country where a tax is imposed upon 
 distilled spirit, free alcohol can only be had after being mixed with some fluid or 
 substance which renders it unfit for use as a beverage, and we suppose that the same 
 regulations will and must follow in this country, and therefore the majority of buyers 
 of alcohol could not avail themselves of the provisions of the bill. 
 
 It may he argued that small druggists would purchase their tinctures from others 
 who had compounded them in bond under the provisions of the bill, but it is very 
 safe to say that the consumer or the general public will not derive any benelit there- 
 from, but a prescription will cost just as much under those circumstances as it does 
 now. 
 
 USEES OF ALCOHOL COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE KEGDLATIONS PROPOSED. 
 
 In addition to the large portion used by the druggists and apothecaries, there are 
 a great variety of industries that use alcohol in a small way, who require it con- 
 venient and accessible in its natural condition, uncontaminated. 
 
 We enumerate a few : 
 
 The manufacturers of soap, fire-works, brass goods of difl^erent kinds, various iron es- 
 tablishments, lock manufacturers, celluloid manufacturing companies, watchmakers, 
 woolen manufacturers, cotton mills, nitre manufacturers, straw -goods makers, 
 picture-frame manufacturers, gas companies, electric light manufacturing concerns, 
 hat and cap companies, furniture manufacturers, compass makers, preserving of 
 specimen companies, the tobacco manufacturers, cigarette and cigar men, the rail- 
 road machine-shops, lead-pencil makers, blacking manufacturers, rubber-goods 
 makers, wall-paper makers, cement makers, brush manufacturers, jjatent-leather 
 manufacturers, cutlery men, cartridge manufacturers, fulminate men, etc. 
 
 We aver without fear of contradiction that in none of the aforesaid branches of 
 industry will free alcohol cheapen the product to the consumer or public, but will 
 simply add to the profits of the manufacturer, which seems unnecessary, inasmuch 
 as the users of alcohol seem to be prospering in their various lines of business. We 
 therefore infer that they add the cost of their alcohol to their product. 
 
 Now, we have endeavored to show the impracticability of freeing alcohol when any 
 tax is imposed upon distilled spirits, and will proceed to give our reasons why we do 
 not advocate free alcohol in the arts. 
 
 FACILITY OF SEPARATING ALCOHOL FROM METHYL, ETC. 
 
 There is no fluid or substance for which alcohol has an affinity that can not, by the 
 simplest processes of exhaustion and precipitation, be separated, even including 
 methyl. In witness whereof we refer you to ex-Commissioner Miller's report, and 
 the statements of Dr. E. E. Squibb, the well-known chemist. 
 
 We would be required under the Senate bill to give a bond for $1,500,000. We are 
 held responsible for any violation of the law, not only while the goods are iu our pos- 
 session, but after they leave oar control, and until their annihilation. 
 
 The bill prohibits the use of alcohol in stated articles, and provides, that if we "use 
 it in any of these articles so prohibited, or if we willfully permit it to bo so used, or if 
 it ever shall be so used, and also, if it shall ever be separated, then the penalties at- 
 tach to us." 
 
 REVENUES ENDANGERED— THE SELLER HELD RESPONSIBLE. 
 
 We are confident that many successful attempts would be made to defraud the 
 Government by withdrawing from bond certain compounded articles which have ful- 
 filled the requirements of the law as far as apparent destruction of the identity of 
 the spirit is concerned, and then separating the spirit which would be put upon the 
 market in competition with the legitimate spirit of trade, alcohol being simply a 
 high-proof spirit which needs only to be reduced with water and leached through 
 charcoal to meet the reqirements of the liquor trade. The offender being captured 
 it is ascertained that the goods were purchased from our bonded warehouse, and very 
 naturally they would seek to inculpate us in the Irauds, upon thoprinciple that if a 
 goose is to he plucked it is very desirable to get one who has some feathers on him. 
 
 FREE ALCOHOL NOT WANTED UNDER RESTRICTIONS. 
 
 Those who experienced the irregularities practiced in the early days of our inter- 
 nal-revenue system, devoutly pray to be spared even the possible recurrence of the 
 troubles that transpired in those days. 
 
388 REVISION OF THE TAKIFF. 
 
 We see no way of relieving alcoliol from tax except by the abolition of the tax upon 
 
 all distilled spirits. 
 
 We beg further to say that when it is understood by the advocate of free alcohol 
 that it can not be had in its natural condition, and can be used only in a compounded 
 form under the necessary rigid restrictions of bonds and espionage, they no longer 
 desire free alcohol and declare that they do not want the freedom at such a cost. In 
 fact we do not know of any one interested to-day who advocates free alcohol intelli- 
 gently, unless it be the distillers, who are under the false impression with regard to 
 the increased demands upon them if alcohol is free from tax.' 
 
 Our experience proves that during all of the ramifications of the revenue tax alco- 
 hol will be used at any cost, and the price has but little to do with the quantity con- 
 sumed. 
 
 We believe that if alcohol were made free it would not increase the sale of it over 
 20 per cent. 
 
 In view of the foregoing restrictions upon business that only a few manufacturers 
 can avail themselves of free alcohol, and the fact that the public will in no case be 
 benefited by it, we recommend, in justice to all concerned, and in the interest of the 
 Government, that until the entire tax can be removed from distilled spirits, alcohol 
 remain as it is. 
 
 EEASONS ASSIGNED FOK RELIEVING ALCOHOL USED IN ARTS AND MANDFACTUKB8 
 
 FROM TAX. 
 
 First. That the public may be relieved from a supposed burden. 
 Second. Eeduction of revenue. 
 
 IS THE TAX UPON SPIRITS USED IN ARTS AND MANUFACTURES A BURDEN UPON 
 
 THE PUBLIC? 
 
 No ; it is not a burden to the public — the people do not ask for relief, because they 
 do not experience any oppression — because the quantity of alcohol, whether in its 
 natural state or mixed with other ingredients required by individual users, consum- 
 ers, or "the public," is so very small. While its uses are multiform, it is thinly dis- 
 tributed. 
 
 HOW AND IN WHAT QUANTITY IS ALCOHOL SOLD AND DISTRIBUTED? 
 
 The writer distributes fully one-half of the alcohol used in the arts and manufact 
 ures in the United States. It is sold mainly in single-barrel lots, or less; and even 
 these small lots are subdivided many times by the user or vender, and to be available 
 must be accessible at all times in its natural or unmixed state or form. 
 
 If it be true that the public must have alcohol free to use in its natural form to de- 
 rive any benefit from the exemption from tax, we ask : Does the Senate bill so free 
 alcohol ; and if not, why ? 
 
 The Senate bill, notwithstanding its safeguards and conditions, which are al- 
 most prohibitory, provides only for those manufactures of proprietary articles and 
 other dealers who make and vend their products containing alcohol, and leaves the 
 great mass of individuals who require alcohol in its natural state unprovided for. 
 They will and must resort to tax-paid spirits because it is simply impossible to have 
 free alcohol accessable while any tax remains upon distilled spirit. 
 
 Why did the Finance Committee take such a limited view of this important sub- 
 ject? 
 
 There are few who understand the uses of alcohol, the processes of its distribution 
 as herein set forth. Those who make and vend articles containing alcohol do not 
 care to consider the whole subject. The Senate committee may have conferred with 
 them only, and therefore did not get both sides of the case. The writer did not ap- 
 pear before them because it seemed impossible to perfect any bill during the last 
 session of Congress. 
 
 Other and chief objections to making alcohol free in the arts and manufactures: 
 All legistion upon this subject does not relieve, but embarrasses the user of alcohol. 
 It adds largely to the cost of collecting the revenue and opens a wide door for 
 frauds, which those whose business experience covers 1864-1867 cannot contemplate 
 with complacency. 
 
 It is well known that alcohol can by the simplest i^rocess be separated from 
 methyl, varnishes, or almost any fluid or substance for which it has an affinity (see 
 ex-Commissioner Miller's report, Dr. Squibb, and others) and when so recovered, as it 
 surely should bo, would find its way to cellars and dark places, where it would be 
 leached and marketed to the confusion of the legitimate spirit trade, and be a stand- 
 ing menace to the wlioJc internal-revenue system. 
 
 How shall the revenue be reduced? Simply by reducing the tax upon "distilled 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 389 
 
 spirit" in the ratio desired ; 10 cents per proof gallon upon all distilled spirit would 
 amount to a sum equal to tBe repeal of the tax upon spirits used in the arts and 
 
 manufactures. , o« , 
 
 James A. Webb & Son, 
 
 New Torlc. 
 
 VIEWS OP NOYES, BROS. & CUTLER. 
 
 January 24, 1890. 
 
 Dbak Sik : As the desire of your committee seems to be to get the views and de- 
 sires of representative houses in every branch of trade we venture to write you on a 
 subject in which we are largely interested, and concerning which the present time 
 seems ripe for action. ' , 
 
 We are heartily in favor of the total abolition of the tax on alcohol and spirits at 
 the earliest possible moment ; but if this can not he granted now, we sincerely hope 
 that the present session of Congress will not pass Tsithout the present tax being re- 
 duced. Why it should have remained so long where it now is we think is uuexplain- 
 able on any reasonable grounds. If a tax must remain on this article, we venture to 
 suggest that at 50 cents it would prove amply sufficient for the needs and purposes of 
 the Government. In any event, we desire free alcohol for the manufactures and the 
 arts, and rejoice to see that both reduction and free alcohol for these purposes have 
 their advocates in Congress, and we thinli in your committee as well. 
 
 The present bill for freeing alcohol for these specific purposes now before the Sen- 
 ate is not as simple as we could wish, but we believe it can be modified and amended 
 to make it of much more practical value to those whom it seeks to benefit, and un- 
 less a simpler and better measure of relief can be secured at this time we desire this 
 as a recognition of the need of relief and a step towards the end desired. 
 
 Your honorable body needs no argument from us in regard to this matter. We 
 simply state what we desire. This matter has had our careful consideration for 
 years. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 No YES Bros. & Cutler. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlky, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 VARNISHES. 
 ■STATEMENT OF FREDERICK RAWOLLE. 
 
 Mr. Frederick Rawolle appeared before the. committee and made the following 
 statement. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I respectfully desire to make the 
 following remarks upon the internal-revenue tax on alcohol. We are one of the 
 small manufacturers who use alcohol for the manufacture of French varnishes, colored 
 lacquers, and shellac varnish. 
 
 Methylated spirit I understand to be a mixture of nine parts grain alcohol and one 
 part wood alcohol. This methylated spirit can not be used at all for mediciues, medi- 
 cal preparations, perfumery, flavoring extracts for cooking, etc., nor. can we use it 
 for our French varnishes and colored lacquers. In our business we can only use it for 
 the cheap class of shellac varnishes, and the demand for these is only a limited one. 
 We can not use it for our French varnishes, because for some uses the workman dips a 
 rag or sponge into the varnish and then rubs it over the surface which he wishes to 
 polish. This operation has made ulcers on the hands of those thus employing the var- 
 nish. I went to see a man who was suffering from bad ulcers and sores on his hands 
 which were produced by this cause. 
 
 Grain alcohol if made free in the arts, owing to the safeguards which the Govern- 
 ment would be obliged to impose in order to prevent frauds upon the Treasury, would 
 probably place many difficulties and trammels upon the manufacturer, and thus annoy 
 and even prevent him from having the necessary free control and management re- 
 quired in the carrying on of his business. These remarks would apply most forcibly 
 to the small manufacturers. Should you gentlemen, however, deem it best to make 
 alcohol free in the arts, then the necessary laws and regulations should be so made 
 that, whilst fully protecting the Treasury, they should be as few and simple as possi- 
 ble, and cause the least possible annoyance and difficulty to the manufacturer. But 
 in any event, and this point should not be forgotten, all the necessary Government 
 officials and inspectors should be wholly paid by the Government, and no part of such 
 Balaries or fees should be paid by the manufacturer ; should this not be the case, then 
 
390 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 the small manufacturers would be driven out of busiiress, and only the large manu- 
 facturers would be able to survive, and thus the Government would create large 
 monopolies. 
 
 In view of the above objections to methylated spirits and alcohol free in the arts 
 we desire that everybody be treated alike and put on the same basis, and hence we 
 propose : 
 
 First. Abolish entirely all internal-revenue tax on alcohol and make it free Ibr 
 everybody, or — 
 
 Second. Largely reduce the present tax (which is 90 cents per gallon on whisky = 
 |1.69t^ per gallon on alcohol of 188 per cent.) to one-third of the present amount, so 
 that the proposed tax will be 30 cents per gallon on whisky =5&>V cents on alcohol of 
 188 per cent. 
 
 Mr, Carlisle. Is it nofvery offensive to the smell? 
 
 Mr. Eawolle. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is its cost? 
 
 Mr. Eawolle. Grain alcohol costs about $2 and wood alcohol about SI. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Was not methylated or wood alcohol made cheap originally? 
 
 Mr. Eawolle. No. I think in former times it sold' as high as $1.25 to $1.50, and 
 now I think we are paying f;l for it. The quality has been improved. Formerly it 
 was so bad that sometimes the consumer could not use it. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Can the smaller establishments avail themselves of free alcohol in 
 the arts if it was so provided by law ? 
 
 Mr. Eawolle. The question arises should we pay the cost of the inspector? For 
 instance, we keep our alcohol in the cellar. We buy 10 barrels at a time. We put 
 the whole 10 barrels in the cellar and when we want to use it we take out one at a 
 time. We employ only one man in making varnish. This French varnish is compar- 
 atively little used, its chief employment being for metals. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much would it reduce the price of varnish to take off the duty on 
 alcohol ? 
 
 Mr. Eawolle. I think it would take off about three-fonrths of the cost on the 
 cheaper varnisbes. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Eeduce them three-fourths ? 
 
 Mr. Eawolle. It would take off an amount equal to three-fourths of the duty on 
 alcohol. Labor is a material item. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What price do you get for your best varnish? 
 
 Mr. Eawolle. Three dollars and fifty cents. 
 
 Mr. Gear. If we take off the duty on alcohol, would it reduce the price to less than 
 $2? 
 
 Mr. Eawolle. Probably it would. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Suppose we simply allow it to be methylated, how much would that 
 reduce the cost ? 
 
 Mr. Eawolle. For some purposes that could not be used at all. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Are there many arts which could not use methylated alcohol at all? 
 
 Mr. Eawolle. For some x^urposes they could not use methylated spirits at all. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. If you reduce the price of everything in which alcohol is used, 
 there would still be a trouble about the administration of the law ? 
 
 Mr. Eawolle. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Could you reduce the price of those goods for which methylated al- 
 cohol could be used ? 
 
 Mr. Eawolle. Yes ; but for many purposes it could not be used at all. On this 
 fine varnish, where they use a rag or sponge to apply it, as I said, the hands of the 
 workmen break out with these sores. My idea is to make a universal law; eithervery 
 much reduce the tax or take it off entirely. 
 
 BLEACHED SHELLAC. 
 
 Tlie Ways and Means Committee, House of Hepresentatives : 
 
 Wo, the undersigued manufacturers of bleached shellac, respectfully request that 
 your committee carefully consider the advisability of placing a specific duty upon 
 this article, for the following reasons: 
 
 At the jiresent time the principal competition that the manufacturers in this conn- 
 try have, are goods made by English manufacturers who have the benefit over Ameri- 
 can makers of lower prices on crude material, being closer to the source of production, 
 and the London market being a more favorable market to purchase crude shellac; 
 and having also the benefit of cheaper chemicals which enter into the manufacture of 
 these goods ; as well as the benefit of cheap labor, which is an important item. 
 
 At the present time the article is subject to a duty of 10 per cent., coming under 
 the head of " gums that have been increased in value by manufacturing process." 
 (See paragraph 508 of present importduty.) This duty is not sufiBcient to protect the 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 391 
 
 American makers. The foreign goods can be imported and sold in this country at 
 below the prices of domestic makers. 
 We would suggest as a fair and equitable dnty, a specific duty of 5 cents per pound. 
 Wo trust that our communication will receive your favorable consideration. 
 
 Rogers & Pyatt, 78 and 80 Maiden Lane. 
 
 Wm. Tinssur & Co., 197 William street. 
 
 0. T. Ratnolds & Co., 106 Fulton street. 
 
 Marx & Rawolle, 163 "William street. 
 
 E. Kasb, Cier & Co., 445 Water street. 
 
 Berry Brothers, 252 Pearl street. 
 
 ANILINE DYES. • 
 
 STATEMENT OF HENRY MERZ. 
 
 Mr. Heijry Merz next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here representing the coal-tar 
 dye industry. There are nDw four factories in the United States which promised a 
 rapid growth when the tariff was changed in 1883, by takicg off a specific duty of 
 50 per cent, and leaving an ad valorem duty of 35 per cent., which is no adequate 
 compensation for the difference of price of labor between our country and Enrope, 
 particularly so, as much of our raw material — about 90 percent. — must be made here 
 and is subject to the same price of labor as we pay. It has been asserted that the 
 duty on that raw material (coal-tar products) which has to be imported now to a great 
 extent was a great obstacle in one way. This is not quite correct. From a pamphlet 
 I have here it can be seen that one of the largest coal-tar dye manufacturers in Europe 
 consumes about 100,000 tons of raw material, about 90 per cent, of which would have 
 to be made here if the factory was situated here in the United States. The coal-tar 
 products we use are made ftom coal-tar produced by gas and coke manufacturers. 
 Although we use a comparatively small amount, it represents a very large amount of 
 coal-tar from which these products are distilled and prepared in various ways, and of 
 which the greater part is now allowed to go to waste. There is no doubt in my mind 
 that a proper protection of our industry would enable it to become very extensive as 
 a producer as well as a consumer of chemicals, coal, etc., casks, cases, tins, etc. 
 • It may be said that a slight increase of duty would enhance the price of the goods, 
 yet our experience has always taught us the contrary. European prices go down 
 much quicker in presence of American competition than with a European only. 
 Some of our colors which were sold at $3.50 dropped since they are manufactured 
 here to $1.50. Goods which pay no duty in Canada were sold there higher than in the 
 United States until the American competition was felt, and theu prices fell to " bed 
 rock." Besides the industrial and financial advantages our industry has for the 
 United States, we must not forget to take into consideration the educational benefits it 
 offers. 
 
 Many of our young men study chemistry here or abroad. There is no industrial 
 branch which is as much in need of chemical help as the coal-tar color industry ; just 
 Buoh help as would most likely be developed by our national traits of far-reaching 
 inventiveness. 
 
 The present duty of 35 per cent, ad valorem is very difficult to collect in full, and 
 is no proper protection. A purely specific duty will be very hard to adjust on account 
 of the widely variance of prices. The only mode of a just discrimination would be 
 to divide the coal-tar dyes in two classes — Class I, azo colors, Class II, non-azo colors. 
 
 For the first class, which comprises all cheap colors, we would ask for a specific 
 dnty of 10 cents per pound, and 25 per cent, ad valorem. For the second class, which 
 comprises all the higher priced colors, we would ask for a specific duty of 25 cents 
 per pound and 25 percent, ad valorem. We hope your committee will consider our 
 request favorably, and thus correct an injury which was done to our industry errone- 
 ously in 1883. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do yon want free coal-tar f 
 
 Mr. Merz. We do not. We use coal-tar products, not coal-tar. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you want duty on alizarine red ? 
 
 Mr. Merz. We do not ask for that. Alizarine red is a color which requires a very 
 expensive plant and I do not think that anybody would venture to make alizarine 
 here at present. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is there any one engaged in making coal-tar products ? 
 
 Mr. Merz. There is one party now making some coal-tar products for coal-tar dyes. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you import coal-tar? 
 
 Mr. Merz. We only import coal-tar products for color, but not coal-tar crude. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you think this might become a very large industry ? 
 
392 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Mbez. a very large industry. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McKenka. What is azo color * 
 
 Mr. Merz. That is difflcnlt to explain. In chemical processes different bodies nt- 
 onmulate in groups. In coal-tar dyes one of these groups is called the azo group 
 and wherever this appears snch group would be called an azo color. I would like to 
 make a statement with reference to the remarks of Mr. Tracy : When Mr. Morrison 
 was chairman of the House committee we had a conversation of about two hours 
 We found that it was absolutely impossible to get anything else than free raw ma- 
 terial, and of course rather accepted this offer than nothing. Afterwards we went 
 over the whole field with our chemists and concluded to present the request of to-day. 
 . Mr. Tract. In the last Congress the matter was before the House committee t 
 
 Mr. Merz. I was not there, but Mr. Hudson, from Albany, was, and I did not act 
 with him before the House committee. 
 
 Mr. Tract. Mr. Hudson made a recommendation for taking off the duty on coal- 
 tar products. You said that if yon had protection on this article a great deal more 
 might be produced. 
 
 Mr. Merz. But how can there be more produced if there isnc^ consumption for it t 
 
 Mr. Tracy. In this statement Mr. Hudson said that this industry would have pros- 
 pered at that time if they had retained that 20 per cent, ad valorem duty. 
 
 Mr. Merz. There is no doubt about it that free raw material would not help us 
 much. We have part of that free now. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How many distilleries of coal-tar are there in this country t 
 
 Mr. Merz. There is oifly one. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Mr. Hudson recommended that coal-tar should be dutiable, and he 
 recommended a specific doty of 10 and 15 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. Merz. That would be impracticable. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What do you recommend as to coal-tar products ? 
 
 Mr. Merz. We prefer not to interfere with the gentlemen in that line of business. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You want an increased rate of duty on aniline dyes ? 
 
 Mr. Meez. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Brecklnrldge. What materials do you use as the base of your industry ? 
 
 Mr. Merz. Arsenic, aniline ; nitric, sulphuric, and muriatic acids ; soda-ash, caustic 
 soda, etc. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. My impression was that the main articles you used in your 
 industry were products of coal-tar. 
 
 Mr. Merz. The great bulk of our raw material is not coal-tar. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What proportion of your raw material is the product of coal- 
 tarT 
 
 Mr. Merz. It varies with the different colors ; in some it may be as much as 10 to 
 1.5 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Take the whole range of your industry ? 
 
 Mr. Merz. The amount of coal-tar products is small in comparison to other mate- 
 rials used. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you mean the amount of coal-tar in your industry ? 
 
 Mr. Merz. We do not use coal-tar at all. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I only wanted to know the per cent, of coal-tar products used 
 in your business? 
 
 Mr. Merz. It is almost impossible to give the percentage in an at-random way. 
 
 Mr. Breckineidgb. Without going through the entire list I should like to have 
 you enumerate to me perhaps two or three of the principal articles of raw material. 
 
 Mr. Merz. Benzole, tuluol, nitro benzo, dinitro benzol, tolnidin, nitro toluidin, di- 
 nitro toluidin, aniline, naphtol, etc. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What in general terms would be an approximate estimate f 
 
 Mr. Merz. Among other things we use a large percentage of acids. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That covers the acids ; what else is a leading element ? 
 
 Mr. Merz. Coal. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Coal for fuel ? 
 
 Mr. Merz. Yes ; for fuel. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I mean chemical constituents. 
 
 Mr. Merz. Aniline oil. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Aniline oil would be about what per cent, of your material T 
 
 Mr. Merz. In some colors we do not use any aniline oil. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Would there be anything else containing as much as 10 per 
 cent. 
 
 Mr. Merz. Salt is quite an item ; it may be about 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is there anything else that would be as much as 5-10 per cent 
 of the raw material used t 
 
 Mr. Merz. Nothing, outside of coal. 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 393 
 
 VIEWS OP MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 New York, December 10, 1888. 
 The Subcommittee ore the Tariff of the Senate Committee on Finance : 
 
 The undersigned manufacturers of coal-tar dyes beg leave to present the followmg 
 statement with regard to the tariff bill now under discussion. 
 
 The great difference in the cost of raw material, both imported and domestic, and 
 the still greater difference in the price of labor between here and Europe, malies it im- 
 possible rorthe home manufacturers to successfully compete with those of Europe, even 
 if the duty of 35 per cent, be actually paid. 
 
 Annexed schedule will show clearly the disadvantages under which we labor. 
 
 We also submit a statement of one of the largest factories in Europe showing their 
 consumption of raw materials and products for one year, thus illustrating the impor- 
 tance of this industry for the United States, if fully developed by a protective policy. 
 
 In order to give the domestic manufacturer a safer protection, to enforce a strictly 
 honest entry of values, and to insure the importation of the best quality of goods 
 only, we suggest that a specific, or at least a partly specific duty be imposed. 
 
 To overcome the apparent difficulty of equalizing the duty on the various priced 
 goods more justly, we propose to separate coal-tar dyes in two large classes, which 
 can easily be distinguished, and which would also separate the high-priced colors 
 from the cheaper ones, viz : 
 
 COAL-TAR DYES AND ACIDS OR BASES OF COAL-TAR DYTSS. 
 
 Class I.—kzo colors, picric acid, and naphtole yellow, 25 per cent, ad valorem and 
 10 cents per pound gross weight. 
 
 Class II. — Non-azo colors, 25 per cent, ad valorem and 25 cents per pound gross 
 weight. 
 
 Our authority for this classification is the list of coal-tar dyes as compiled by Gus- 
 tavo Schultz and Paul Julius, and published by E. Gaertner, at Berlin, in the year 
 1888. 
 
 Thisbooknot only gives the scientific and trade names, but also a description of the 
 outward appearance of all coal-tar colors and their action when treated with certain 
 named re-agents, thus clearly establishing the identity of the respective dyes. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Albany Aniline Company. 
 
 SoHOELLKOPP Aniline and Chemical Company. 
 
 Heller & Mbrz. 
 
 Hudson River Aniline Color Works. 
 
 We also beg to call your attention to the following : Under "paragraph 974" ani- 
 line oil is free. We would suggest to strike out the words "aniline oil" and insert 
 the words " commercial aniline oils." All aniline oils are mixtures of several products, 
 but the law as it now stands is liable to be misconstrued by the custom-house officials. 
 
 Schedule showing the consumption of raw material and products for the year 1887-8 
 Farbwerlie, vorm. " Meister, Lucius and Bruenig," at Hoechst-on-the-Main. 
 
 
 Long tons. 
 
 
 Long tons. 
 
 Coal 
 
 64,230 
 3,634 
 2,112 
 350 
 1,610. 
 1,905 
 
 
 12, 661 
 
 
 
 1,603 
 
 
 Methylated and ethylated spirits... 
 Various chemical products 
 
 309 
 
 Sififerent potash salin 
 
 1,635 
 
 Soda...... 
 
 
 10, 518 
 
 Nitrate of soda 
 
 
 4,312 
 
 
 
 
 Should this factory be located in the United States 93 per cent, of the above ma- 
 terial would have to be produced in our country, 2 per cent., nitrate of soda, would 
 come from South America, and of the remaining 5 per cent., consisting of "coal-tar" 
 and various chemical products, a large part, if not the whole, would also be manufact- 
 ured in America. 
 
 To ship the manufactured products of above factory the following packages were 
 used: 
 
 Casks 25,310 
 
 Tins 1,962,000 
 
 Bottles 803,200 
 
 Cases 25,310 
 
394 
 
 EEVISIdN OF TfiE TAElFP. 
 
 The effect on the carrying of sucli aa establishment can well be imagined. 
 
 This house was founded in 1863, and commenced operations with one 3 horse-power 
 steam-engine and 7 employes, which have been increased in the comparatively short 
 time of twenty-five years to 1,840 horse-power and 2,062 employes. 
 
 SoheduU showing effect of the proposed change of duty on the price of the most important 
 
 colors now on the marTcet. 
 
 Class I. — Azo colors, etc. 
 
 Cost in 
 Europe. 
 
 35 per cent. 
 
 25 per cent. 
 
 and 10 cento 
 
 per pound. 
 
 Orange T 
 
 Orange R 
 
 Orange No. 4 
 
 Metanil yellow 
 
 Cbrysonline 
 
 Bism. brown 
 
 Scarlet2K 
 
 Scarlet 3 R 
 
 Tastred 
 
 Crocein scarlet 
 
 Benzo-pmpurine, 4 B 
 
 Chrysamine R 
 
 Hessian purple 
 
 Hessian yellow 
 
 Cents. 
 
 22 
 
 25 
 
 60 
 
 75 
 
 40 
 
 72 
 
 27 
 
 34.5 
 
 22 
 
 47 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 
 824.5 
 
 Cents. 
 29.7 
 33.75 
 81.6 
 
 101.25 
 54 
 97.2 
 36.35 
 46.57 
 29.7 
 63 5 
 1.35 
 
 135 
 
 135 
 
 135 
 
 11,135.2 
 
 Gents. 
 37. B 
 41.25 
 85 
 
 103. 75 
 60 
 
 100 
 43.25 
 52.1 
 37.5 
 68.76 
 
 135 
 
 135 
 
 135 
 
 135 
 
 11, 691 
 
 Cost in Europe, 100 per cent. 
 
 Present duty cost in United States, 135 per cent. 
 
 Proposed duty cost in United States, 142 per cent. 
 
 Class II. — Nmi-azo colors. 
 
 
 Cost in 
 Europe. 
 
 35 per cent. 
 
 25 percent, 
 and 25 cents 
 per pound. 
 
 Anramine . - ... 
 
 $2.00 
 
 .72 
 
 1.00 
 
 1.40 
 
 .84 
 
 1.67 
 
 .80 
 
 2. SO 
 
 1.50 
 
 2.11 
 
 1.25 
 
 3.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 $2.70 
 .972 
 1.35 
 1.89 
 1.13 
 2.25 
 1.08 
 3.91 
 2.02 
 2.85 
 1.685 
 4.05 
 6.75 
 
 $2.75 
 
 
 1.15 
 
 
 1.50 
 
 Victoria blue 
 
 2.00 
 
 
 1.30 
 
 Violet crystals 
 
 2.34 
 
 Violets B 
 
 1.25 
 
 Cotton blue 5 B 
 
 3.875 
 
 Cotton blue B 
 
 2.125 
 2.89 
 
 Eosiue 
 
 LSI 
 
 
 4.00 
 
 
 6.50 
 
 
 
 
 24.19 
 
 32. 637 
 
 33.49 
 
 Cost in Europe, 100 per cent. 
 
 Present duty cost in United States, 185 per cent. 
 
 Proposed duty cost in United States, 139.4 per cent. 
 
 Class 1 142 
 
 ClassU 138.4 
 
 2)280. 4 
 
 140.2 
 136.0 
 
 6. 2 =: average higher duty under proposed 
 duty. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 395 
 
 VIEWS OF FRED. KOEHLBR. 
 
 Washington, D. C, December 13, 1888. 
 
 The Suicommittee on the Tariff of the Senate Committee on Finance : 
 
 Mr. Piokhardt, in Ms statement regarding the manufacture of aniline colors in tlais 
 country, having alluded to myself to sustain his assertion of the impossibility to make 
 said dyes here, 1 heg leave to submit the following : 
 
 I was employed as chemist in the largest aniline-color factory in Germany and 
 in the world from 1874 to 1883, and as such have had in my hands and am familiar 
 with the manufacture of all aniline colors known up to that date. I subsequently 
 was engaged for over five years in the aniline-color manufactory in this country, 
 and I therefore believe to be more competent to judge about the possibility or impos- 
 sibility of making colors here than Mr. Pickhardt. This gentleman having never 
 been a manufacturer of coal-tar dyes himself, can only express the views of his friends 
 in Germany about this matter or possibly the views they wish to impress upon your 
 committee. If they really are convinced that aniline colors never can be profitably 
 produced here, why are they not willing to let the American manufacturers die a 
 natural death instead of trying to kill them quickly by having the duty removed, 
 trying it even to the point of raising money among the German aniline-color manu- 
 facturers for that purpose ? I, for my part, am firmly convinced that aniline colors 
 can and will be made here, and, as a matter of fact, about 20 per cent, of the home con- 
 sumption are actually made here. 
 
 I am further convinced that had the duty not been lowered in 1883 not one ponnd of 
 aniline color would be imported to-day. 
 
 It is true we did not succeed nearly as well as I expected, but that does not prove 
 the impossibility to succeed finally. In the light of my knowledge of the oirOTm- 
 stances under which this industry exists here and abroad, I find the reasons for its 
 slow progress here chiefly as follows : . ' ' 
 
 (1) In the very large difference in wages. An ordinary laborer in German aniline 
 factories receives at the utmost 58 cents for eleven hours' work, while we must pay 
 from $1.25 to $1.75 for ten hours. 
 
 (2) In the large difference in the cost of raw material. 
 
 (3) In the difficulty we have in selling our goods. There are now about twenty 
 agents of foreign manufacturers established in this country, who until recently have 
 had practically the whole market, and whom we must undersell materially in order 
 to procure any share of the market. 
 
 In conclusion, I would reiterate my statement that It is my firm belief that coal- 
 tar colors can be made here, and it rests wholly with yonr honorable body to make 
 the industry prosper or die out by tariff legislation. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 Frederick Koehler. 
 
 KEMARKS ON MR. WILLIAM PICKHARDT'S TE8TIM0NT GIVEN BEFORE THE SUBCOM- 
 MITTEE ON THE TARIFF OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE DECEMBER 5 
 AND 6, 1888. 
 
 Mr. Pickhardt does not contradict our statement that he charged $1 per pound 
 over the European price. We are informed by the defendants in the suit that the 
 patent had two years longer to run when the adverse court decision came, and other 
 alizaririe importers stated that Mr. Pickhardt could have had the patent two years 
 longer if he had permitted the defendants and one or two others to share in the profits. 
 FageS, b, line 8. — Anthracene was formerly made here and could be made here agaio. 
 lAne 16. — The coal tar produced here is practically the same as that produced in 
 London. 
 
 Page 9, b, line 9. — Considerable coal-tar products are made in this country and used 
 for coal-tar dyes and other purposes in spite of Mr. Pickhardt's decisive "No." 
 
 Page 12, line 15. — How can the woolen mills of Rhode Island be retarded when the 
 duty on the whole importation of coal-tar dyes used for cotton, wool, silk, paper, 
 jnte, lake colors, etc., only amounts to $400,000 per year? On all these articles the 
 quantity of color used can not average 1 pound of dye to 100 pounds of material. 
 
 Page 13, line 8.— If Mr. Piokhardt calls the stuff the New York Coal Tar Company 
 distills benzine, he tries to mislead. He must know this is commercial benzole — 
 50 and 90 per cent, used in the manufacture of coal-tar products. In fact, these are 
 the standard grades produced by coal-tar distillers for the trade. 
 
 Line 13. — On a previous page Mr. Pickhardt describes the process of distillation 
 Tery minutely, and here he does not know what comes off first. 
 
396 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Page 14. Vine 17.— Mr. Pickhardt says that his factory was only making 10 per 
 cent, on their capital. For the last four years they declared dividends of from 12^ to 
 25 per cent, after deducting large amounts for wear and tear, reserves, etc. His state- 
 ment that an aniline factory would be useless for any other purpose is absolutely true. 
 Mr. Pickhardt's statement that all azo dyes are made from naphtole and uaphtalene 
 and the aniline colors from aniline is incorrect and shows how very little he under- 
 stands of the real nature of coal-tar dyes. The very first azo color discovered— am- 
 idoazo benzole — is a pure aniline color andcontainsnota trace of naphtole or uaphta- 
 lene. The true characteristic of an azo dye is the fact that it contains the azo group 
 N-N. 
 
 Page 15, line 10. — If the patent has nothing to do with the price it is singular that 
 alizarine red should have dropped $1 per pound as soon as the patent was practically 
 declared void, page 7. 
 
 Page 19, line tt. — Mr. Pickhardt's assertion that transportation from London to New- 
 York is as low as from London to Germany is notcorrect. It costs three times as 
 much to New York than to Cologne on the Rhine. 
 
 Page'iX, Kne20. — Itissingular that Mr. Pickhardt can not state the difference in 
 price of soluble and insoluble alizarine blue, as ho imports and sells both. We pro- 
 test against putting the alizarine colors on the free list. These colors, with free ali- 
 zarine red, can be produced here as well as any of the coal-tar colors. 
 
 Page 5, c, last line. — The Buifalo people never tried to sell their factory to Mr. Pick- 
 hardt or anybody else. The reason why the industry did not develop is because the 
 duty was lowered.in 1883 but not because wo can not get the proper help. 
 
 Page 7, c. — The reasons for the decline in prices of aniline colors are, first, cheaper 
 raw material; second, improved methods and principally on account of the enor- 
 mously increased output. Farbwerke, Meister, L. and M. produced in 1H63, 10 to 14 
 pounds of magenta per day, in 1873 they produced 770 pounds per day. 
 
 Mr. Pickhardt's reply to Mr. BandalVs letter. — In 1883 Holler & Merz's ultramarine 
 facttry was about the third largest in the world and probably furnished 10 per cent. 
 of the world's consumption. The labor in aniline factories in the United States 
 ranges from $1.25 to %l. 75 per day for ordinary laborers. 
 
 We estimate the production of aniline dyes in the United States at 500,000 pounds, 
 and the value at $.500,000. 
 
 Mr. Pickhardt's statement regarding the number of men employed in this industry 
 is probably, correct. In this connection we may say that the Buffalo factory em- 
 ployed over one hundred men before the last reduction in duty. They now employ 
 about one-half that number. 
 
 The production of aniline colors in Germany last year was in round numbers 
 13,000,000 pounds. Of this, one-ninth is exported to the United States. Seven- 
 eighths of the entire output is exported. 
 
 The foUowingis a pretty complete list of coal-tar dye factories in Europe: Ger- 
 many, 18 factories ; England, 6 factories ; France, 6 factories ; Switzerland, 6 fac- 
 tories. 
 
 It would be very desirable to have free alcohol, but for many purposes it should be 
 free from admixtures such as methyl-alcohol, camphor oil, etc. 
 
 Page 14. — There is a decided difference between dye-wood and coal-tar colors. The 
 first named are products of agriculture, while the latter are wholly manufactured 
 articles. 
 
 Page 18. — Mr. Pickhardt says here that in 1872, when he comtemplated starting an 
 ultramarine factory, nobody else had thought of it up to that time. He seems to have 
 forgotten that he bought ultramarine from Heller & Merz several years before the 
 date mentioned. 
 
 Pages 19 and 20. — Not everybody seemed to have been of Mr. Pickh.ardt's opinion 
 regarding the foolishness of starting an aniline factory here. As late as 1882 the gen- 
 eral manager of Mr. Pickhardt's factory told Dr. Koehlor that he considered America 
 a good field for that industry then and he would come over him.self if he had been 
 .younger. He told Dr. Koehler he did not consider tlie Americans crazy enough to 
 lower the duty. Another authority on this subject is G. Schultz, who in his book on 
 coal-tar dyes, edition of 1882, says : " The tar in Russia and especially in America is 
 developing. The latter country may soon be a serious competitor in this line to 
 Europe." 
 
 Page'->2. — Mr. Pickhardt evidently wishes to convey the impression that our raw 
 material is almost finished color. This is not the case by any means, as Mr. Pick- 
 hardt knows. With the exception of a few of the very largest, all the European 
 factories buy their material in the same state as wo do. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 397 
 
 the principal raw materials used in American coal-tar dye factories, and 
 their prices here and abroad. 
 
 Snlpburic acid 66° 
 
 Nitric acid 40" 
 
 Mniiatio acid 20° 
 
 Aniline oil for blue 
 
 Aniline oil fov red 
 
 TolQidine 
 
 Binitro-benzolo 
 
 Binitro-toluole 
 
 Biclironiate of soda 
 
 Salt 
 
 JTaphthole 
 
 Nitrite soda 
 
 Alkali, 58 per cent 
 
 Iron borings 
 
 Canstic soda, 74 per cent 
 Labor per week 
 
 Total 
 
 Price in 
 
 Europe per 
 
 pound. 
 
 $0.45 
 
 4.75 
 
 .30 
 
 16.33 
 
 15.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 14.70 
 
 14.70 
 
 7.00 
 
 .10 
 
 14.40 
 
 5.77 
 
 1.10 
 
 .50 
 
 1.74 
 
 4.01 
 
 115. ( 
 
 Price in 
 
 United 
 
 Statics per 
 
 pound. 
 
 $0.95 
 
 5.60 
 
 1 IC 
 
 18.00 
 
 16.60 
 
 19.50 
 
 18.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 9.50 
 
 .25 
 
 18.00 
 
 7.72 
 
 1.40 
 
 .75 
 
 2.84 
 
 10.00 
 
 148. 01 
 
 The above list shows that we have to pay for our raw material and labor on an 
 average 2ii per cent, more than it costs on the other side. If it is further considered 
 that we are obliged to undersell imported dyes from 5 to 10 per cent., that our plant 
 costs at least twice as much, the higher intere.st on capital and insurance, on plant 
 and wear and tear of same, and the diifereuco in scientific and clerical help, it will 
 be plain to everybody that 35 per cent., even if fully collected, is an entirely inade- 
 quate protection. This assertion is borne out by the schedules given below, showing 
 the different costs of a few of the principal colors in this country and abroad. 
 
 One week's production of safranine. 
 
 Cost in 
 Europe. 
 
 Cost in 
 United 
 States. 
 
 $90.00 
 
 $99.00 
 
 8.04 
 
 11.68 
 
 12.00 
 
 24.00 
 
 3.00 
 
 4.50 
 
 3.84 
 
 6.76 
 
 77.70 
 
 105.42 
 
 30.00 
 
 75.00 
 
 16.16 
 
 40.00 
 
 225. 18 
 
 S25. 26 
 
 11.26 
 
 32.52 
 
 236. 44 
 
 337. 78 
 
 100 
 
 151 
 
 COO pounds anilineoH 
 
 150 pounds nitrite soda 
 
 2.400 pounds muriaticacid — 
 
 600 pounds iron borings 
 
 960 pounds -whiting 
 
 1,110 pounds bichromate soda 
 
 30,000 poundsealt 
 
 Labor 
 
 Total 
 
 Wear and tear* 
 
 Percent 
 
 One Keek's production of Bismarck hrown. 
 
 Cost in 
 Europe. 
 
 Cost in 
 United 
 States. 
 
 800 pounds binitrotoluole 
 
 l.fllO pounds muriatic acid, 20° 
 702 pounds alkali, 58 per cent . 
 
 2,400 pounds iron 
 
 222 pounds nitrite soda 
 
 1,200 pounds salt 
 
 Labor 
 
 Total 
 
 "Wear and tear* 
 
 Per cent 
 
 $132. 30 
 
 9.55 
 
 7.72 
 
 12.00 
 
 13.81 
 
 1.20 
 
 12.12 
 
 187. 70 
 9.38 
 
 $162. 00 
 19.10 
 
 9 83 
 18.00 
 17.14 
 
 3.00 
 30.00 
 
 259. 07 
 25. 90 
 
 284.97 
 145 
 
 * In Earope, 5 per cent. ; ta United States, lOperoent.' 
 
■398 
 
 REVISION OF THE TABIFF. 
 One week's production of orange. 
 
 Cost in 
 Europe. 
 
 Coat in 
 United 
 
 States. 
 
 660 ponnde aniline oil 
 
 1,710 pounds sulphuric acid, 66° 
 345 pounds alkali, 58 per cent . . . 
 
 270 pounds lime 
 
 396 pounds nitrite soda 
 
 720 pounds naphtole 
 
 600 pounds caustic soda 
 
 2,100 pounds salt 
 
 Labor 
 
 Total 
 
 Wear and tear* 
 
 Percent 
 
 $107. 79 
 
 4.29 
 
 3.81 
 
 .54 
 
 22.80 
 
 103. 68 
 
 10.44 
 
 2.10 
 
 12.12 
 
 267. 63 
 13.38 
 
 $118. 80 
 16.25 
 4.83 
 .54 
 30.57 
 132.60 
 17.04 
 5.25 
 30.00 
 
 281. 01 
 100 
 
 32. E8 
 
 >8.4e 
 128 
 
 One week's production of fwchsine. 
 
 Cost in 
 Europe. 
 
 Cost in 
 United 
 States. 
 
 $628. 20 
 17.40 
 2.31 
 13.32 
 40.40 
 190.00 
 
 $691.02 
 43.50 
 2.94 
 29.30 
 100.00 
 237. 50 
 
 891. 63 
 44.58 
 
 1,104.26 
 110.42 
 
 936.21 
 100 
 
 1,214 68 
 130 
 
 4,188 pounds aniline oil 
 
 17,400 pounds salt 
 
 210 pounds alkali, 58 per cent 
 2,664 pounds muriatic acid — 
 
 Labor 
 
 1,900 pounds nitrobenzole 
 
 Total 
 
 Wear and tear* 
 
 Per cent 
 
 * In Europe 5 per cent.; in United States 10 per cent. 
 
 All of above calcnlations do not include salaries for chemists and office lielp, in- 
 surance on plantjinterest on capitalinvested, etc., all of whicli items form a large part 
 of the cost of the finished prodactj and cost at least twice as much here than they do 
 in Europe. 
 
 Cost in 
 United 
 States. 
 
 Safranine 
 
 Brown 
 
 Orange 
 
 Fuchsine 
 
 Total . . 
 
 Averagf 
 
 Per cent 
 151 
 145 
 128 
 130 
 
 554 
 139 
 
BEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 399 
 
 STATBIMENT OP HENRY STEWART. 
 
 Mr. Henry Stewart, of the Henry Wetherell Company, addressed the committee 
 on the subject of the production of oxides of iron, Venetian reds, and copperas. 
 
 Oxides of iron and Venetian reds are made largely, from copperas. When not so 
 manufactured they are natural products of the earth. 
 
 Copperas or sulphate of iron is made from vraste acid that has been used in the 
 manufacture of wire and in treating iron for galvanizing. 
 
 This waste acid can not be run into the streams .and water-ways without seriously 
 impairing the purity of the water. Many cities have ordinances prohibiting manu- 
 facturers from running this waste acid through sewers and otherwise into streams, 
 and there can be no doubt that laws of this kind must become general. 
 
 This wonld force the iron manufacturers to make up immense quantities of copperas 
 for which there is no possible use except the manufacture of oxide of iron and Vene- 
 tian red. (The quantity of copperas now made largely overstocks the market for dye- 
 ing and other chemical purposes.) 
 
 The present tariff on these articles (oxides iron, Venetian reds, etc.) was imposed 
 before there were any goods of this kind manufactured in this country, and the rate 
 of duty they should pay is by no means clear. There are many conflicting sections 
 in the present tariff bill under which these goods may be imported, and the duty 
 levied on present importations depends upon the ideas of the collector. 
 
 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS TO THE PRESENT TARIFF ON BARTH-PAINTS, 
 COLCOTHARS, OXIDES OF IRON, ETC. 
 
 Amend section 144 to read "iron ore, including manganiferous iron ore, also the 
 dross or residuum from burnt pyrites, not advanced by refining, grinding, or any other 
 process of manufacture, 75 cents per ton." 
 
 Amend section 89 of the present tariff bill to read "ocher and ochrey earths, umber 
 and nmbrey earths, sienna and sienna earths, in crude state, not advanced by refin- 
 ing, burning, grinding, or any other process of manufacture, one-fourth cent per 
 pound; if washed or powdered or burned, one-half cent per pound; if ground in oil, 
 li cents per pound." 
 
 Amend section 479 to read "polishing powders not otherwise provided for, 20 per 
 cent, ad valorem." 
 
 Make the following addition to the tariff bill: "Indian reds, Tuscan reds, Vene- 
 tian reds, oolcothars, and all oxides of iron that have been advanced by refining, 
 burning, grinding, or any other process of manufacture, when containing less than 
 60 per cent, oxide of iron, one-half cent per pound ; containing over 60 per cent, 
 oxide of iron, 25 per cent, ad valorem ; if ground in oil, li cents per pound." 
 
 Section 144, The proposed change in this section is to prevent the importation at 
 iron-ore duty (75 cents per ton) of paints and colors made from dross or residuum 
 from burnt pyrites. 
 
 Section 89. The proposed change in this section is a reduction of one-half the pres- 
 ent duty on crude materials. The present duty on ochers, umbers, etc., is the same 
 on the crude materials as it is on the manufactured product. This is a manifest in- 
 justice to the American manufacturers, because crude umbers, ochers, siennas, etc., 
 as imported from abroad, contain from 30 to 40 per cent, of moisture, on which the 
 present duty of one-half cent per pound must be paid by the manufacturer in Amer- 
 ica, while the foreign manufacturer saves this duty on moisture in addition to his 
 cheaper labor. Thus the American manufacturers are not only not protected, but 
 are actually legislated against. The manufacture of earth-paints is quite a large 
 industry, in which Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, the New England and many 
 Southern States are interested, and it would be largely increased by the revision of 
 the duties as suggested. At present very good deposits of earth-paints are undevel- 
 oped, owing to the cheap production of foreign paints of this kind. An advance of 
 three-fourths of a cent a pound would not be too much to give proper protection to 
 this industry. One-half cent per pound is certainly the lowest duty that should be 
 considered on the manufactured product. 
 
 Section 479. This section conflicts with other sections of the present tariff, and if 
 continued must lead to much confusion and uncertainty. Polishing powders are gen- 
 erally composed of articles otherwise provided for, such as colcathar, rotten-stone, 
 pumice-stone, etc. Frankfort black, Berlin, Chinese tig, and wash blues, which are 
 made dutiable in this section at 20 per cent., are certainly paints and colors, and are 
 dutiable under section 87 as paints and colors at 25 per cent. The term "polishing 
 powder" conveys no idea of what the material is. It might be used to cover a mul- 
 titude of frauds or it might be applied to articles on the free list, such as rotten-stone, 
 pnmice-stone, etc. 
 
400 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The new section proposed to provide a duty on coloothar, Indian reds, oxide of iron 
 etc., is desirable' because oxide of iron products have never had a definite place la 
 any tariff bill. 
 
 There are a number of sections of the present bill that have been applied to their 
 classification. Oxides of iron, either natural or manufactured, might be brought in 
 under any of the following sections of the tariff bill of 1883. (See sections 87, B9, 95 
 97, 144, 215, 479, and 638.) Some of these sections provide for tree entry; others vary 
 in the rate of duty from 75 cents per ton up to 25 per cent, ad valorem. The rate of 
 duty that these goods must pay is certainly a question that should be definitely set- 
 tled and plainly stated. 
 
 AH of the articles referred to in the proposed new section are oxide of iron prepa- 
 rations. They are valuable according to the quantity of bright-colored oxide of iron 
 they contain. Prices of these goods abroad range from one-half cent per pound to 8 
 cents per pound. It is therefore impossible to fix an equitable specific duty on 
 these goods. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HENRY C. STEWART. 
 
 Mr. Heney C. Stewart, of the Henry Wetherell Company, appeared before the 
 committee and made the following statement : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I will say that the oxide of iron, 
 etc., was never manufactured in America until within a few years ago, and of coarse 
 there has never been any arrangement made for it in any tariff bill. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How does the Senate bill suit you ? 
 
 Mr. Stewart. It was very suitable. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. When did you commence the manufacture of this article? 
 
 Mr. 'Stewart. We commenced the manufacture of oxide from copper ore in this 
 country in 1878. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You say that at the time the industry was established there was no 
 duty on it ? 
 
 Mr. Stewart. It was provided for as a special class. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Under what rate of duty was it admitted ? 
 
 Mr. Stewart. Twenty-five. It is still 25. 
 
 The Chairman. 'What rate do you now suggest ? 
 
 Mr. Stewart. I would say that all under 60 should be half a cent a pound, or 25 
 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Did you make some mention of manganese f 
 
 Mr. Stewart. I simply read the clause. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Did you make any change ? 
 
 Mr. Stewart. I am not sufiiciently familiar with that question. 
 
 STATEMENT OF H. M. JOHNSON. 
 
 Mr. H. M. Johnson, of the firm of Johnson & Shaw, manufacturing chemists, Bos- 
 ton, Mass., next appeared before the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I wish to speak in regard to the 
 duty on alizarine assistant, Turkey-red oil, and soluble oil. 
 
 In the Senate bill these articles, which are one and the same thing, were placed at 
 a duty of 3 cents per pound, provided they did not contain more thaa 50 per cent cas- 
 tor-oil. What they intended to say was, provided not more than 50 per cent, castor- 
 oil was used in their manufacture. For when the article is finished but little castor- 
 oU remains unchanged in it, even when so high as 90 per cent, has been used in its 
 manufacture. No provision was made as to what these articles should pay when 
 more than 50 per cent, castor-oil was used iu their manufacture. 
 
 The duty on castor-oil was put at 50 cents per gallon, or about 6 cents per pound, 
 thus making this article pay a higher duty than alizarine assistant, a manufactured 
 article, in which, no matter of what strength, the castor-oil used in its manufacture 
 represents always at least 90 per cent, of its cost. 
 
 Under the old law alizarine assistant paid the same duty as castor-oil, being classi- 
 fied under the similitude clause. 
 
 The manufacturers of this article would like the duty to be made specific as in the 
 past; its proper rate of duty has been in controversy several times and once in the 
 courts, but up to the present time all decisions have been that it should pay the same 
 duty as castor-oil. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. At what rate ? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. At the same rate as castor-oil. The Senate bill changes it to 3 centa 
 per pound, wbicli makes a, lower rate on the manufactured article than on castor-oil 
 or crude material for making this kind of oil. 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 401 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Did you protest against tlie proposed change in the Senate T 
 
 Mr. Johnson. We did. 
 
 The Chairmaju. You are satisfied with the present law J 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir; but should prefer to have a specific duty in order to settle 
 the matter and to prevent further controversy and a changing from one rate of duty 
 to another, as has been the case in times past. 
 
 KAOLIN. 
 STATEMENT OF ■WILLIAM M. WILSON. 
 
 Mr. William M. Wilson, of Philadelphia, representing the kaolin interest of 
 South Carolina, next addressed the committee. He said ; 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, our clay is sold at the rate of $12 
 the long ton. The output is 15,000 casks of 2,000 pounds. Since the tarift' has been 
 taken off the profits on the investment have very much decreased, while the cost of 
 labor has largely advanced. It has become so now that it is a question, if his Con- 
 gress does not advance the tariff, whether these clay mines will not close up. If they 
 do close up it is clear as sunlight that this negro labor will be reduced to ptoverty, if 
 not semi-barbarism. 
 
 The Chairman. How many men do you employ ? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. One thousand. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What wages do you pay f 
 
 Mr. Wilson. The wages were originally 50 cents per day. ' It advanced from 50 to 
 75 cents, and now a good negro will obtain $1 a day. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is the average ? 
 
 Mr. Wilson, About 80 cents. The nearest clay to the station of Langley is put di- 
 rectly into the casks from the earth. It is impossible to put it in in bulk like other 
 clays. The cost of this is $4.25 per cask. Of this $4 would be for labor including the 
 cost of the casks, which are made by negro hands. The hoop poles are also made by 
 the same labor. Taking into consideration that this 25 cents is the only profit the 
 digger receives, and by reason of the clay being paid by the cask and sold by the 
 long ton thus reduces it 10 per cent., besides the wear and tear of machinery, etc., 
 makes the investment on his money an absolute deficit. In other words, it will 
 not pay to continue the business unless you gentlemen see fit to advan^ the duty on it. 
 
 The Chairman. What advance would you suggest ? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. I would suggest the old tariff, namely, $3 and |5 per ton. There 
 would not appear to be much sentiment in this business, but there is a great deal of 
 humanity in it. If you protect the Southern white man, in protecting him you iiro- 
 tect the colored hand, and there is where the humanity comes in. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. What does the foreign clay cost ? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. Our clay is hardly worth as much as the foreign. Our clay is a very 
 crude clay, not washed but dug from the earth, and while it is very white it is not a 
 china clay. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Does any foreign clay come in competition with it ? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. We feel the effecU of the competition from foreign clay. Our clays 
 thereby have declined from |12 to $8 per ton. Foreign clays are frequently shipped as 
 ballast, thus really paying no freight. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What are they used for ? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. For surfacing paper, paints, and pottery. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Are you from the North ? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. I was educated in Philadelphia as a protectionist. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I suppose in addition to that the Northern white man might also want 
 a little protection ? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. I should like to protect everybody to a certain extent. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You would not exclude yourself ? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. No, sir. Again, transportation to tide-water is quite an item. To 
 place this clay in New York costs $3.50 a cask. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. From what point abroad is clay obtained that is used as a substi- 
 tute for yours ? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. England ships a great deal of clay here. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. Clays that are used as a substitute for yours ? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. And now there is a French beauxite coming up, and I say, 
 with great respect to the committee and to Congress, that unless this tariff is re-in- 
 etated, the French beauxite will deluge the market. It contains a large amount of 
 aluminum, and the qualities of that article are greatly agitating the chemists of the 
 world just at this time. 
 
 485 26 
 
402 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Flowbr. I8 this found in swamp lands ? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. No, sir ; it is not found in such localities. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is the weight of one of your casts? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. Two thousand pounds. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you kiln-dry it 1 
 
 Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. We have artifioiJ.! means for that. We put it in sheds 
 about 50 feet wide by 500 feet long. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The production of it is all labor J 
 
 Mr. Wilson. All labor. The last thousand casks we produced we sold for lees than 
 25 cents protit. We sold it for |4.25 the long ton. The negro labor was over $4, and 
 it was really a loss. When you consider other things there was an absolute deficit. 
 I would like to direct the special attention of the committee to this fact, the users of 
 American clays, many of whom are now in this room, are with us in our desire to ad- 
 vance the tariff, because if American clays are wiped out by reason of non-protection 
 the foreign clays will a'dvanoe enormously. 
 
 VIB-WS OP JOHN M. O'ROURKB. 
 
 Providence, R. I., January 15, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen : My occupation is that of an importer of drugs and chemicals used by 
 calico printers. And among such goods are alizarine assistants and soluble oil. 
 Both are mordants and should be charged a duty of 10 per cent, as mordants, under 
 the present law. They are made from castor-oil, sulphuric acid, and any alkali you 
 may wish to use. You will be kind enough to note the articles they are made from 
 for future reference. For many years I imported it as a chemical compound at 25 
 per cent, under 506, Schedule A, chemical products. A party in New York stirred np 
 the Treasury Department and we were advised that from a certain time, and for the 
 future, it must pay a duty of 80 cents per gallon ^over 500 per cent, ad valorem for 
 our lowest priced article). The printers in the country took umbrage at this and 
 every calico printer in New England, and nearly all in the United States, signed a 
 petition to Hon. Nelson W. Aldrich, asking him to appear before the Treasury De- 
 partment and use his best efforts to get said article back to 25 per cent. Senator 
 Aldrich insisted that the law only demanded for it 10 per cent, as a mordant. 
 
 After quite a struggle it was placed at 25 per cent, and until just after Secretary 
 Manning retired it remained the same. 
 
 Shortly after I was informed that the celebrated Secretary Pairchild had ordered 
 that until changed by a court of competent jurisdiction it must be charged at 80 
 cents per gallon under what is called the similitude clause, which as they say, once 
 iron always iron no matter what changes mny occur. I at once commenced appeal- 
 ing, and continued to import to fill contracts, and to test matters commenced an 
 action against John McWilliams, esq., collector port of Providence. 
 
 After long trial, case went for the collector, on the grounds that although the 
 articles were chemical compounds, that the similitude clause takes precedence ot 
 the chemical compound clause. I have carried case to full beuch Supreme Court, 
 Now to explain. Treasury Department claimed our product to be castor-oil; again, 
 that it has once been castor-oil, and under similitude clause it must still be castor- 
 oil. 
 
 Any sucking babe in either country of the world must know that by mixing sul- 
 phuric acid with castor-oil, that the woody fiber and glycerine is destroyed never to 
 be recovered. No chemical expert of any reputation will say there is one drop of 
 castor-oil in properly made alizarine assistant and soluble oil. It is not possible for 
 them to so say with any regard to truth. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, as I am not able to come to testify, I write to ask yoa to place 
 articles named where they belong. If they are mordants place them there — their 
 proper place ; if they are chemical compounds, at the rate aforesaid. 
 
 I tell you truly that if the rate was made 50 percent. I could not import and would 
 not. But, gentlemen, I do ask you to do something with this infernal similitude 
 clause. It has been a bugbear to all tariffs, and unless thrown out or made much 
 plainer it will contiuue to be such. No one knows what he is doing under it. 
 
 Hoping for some aid in these matters, I am gentlemen, 
 Y'ours, very truly, 
 
 John M. O'Kourkb. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 403 
 
 BARYTES. 
 STATEMENT OF HON. W. M. KINSEY. 
 
 Saturday Afternoon, January 11, 1890. 
 
 Mr. KiNSBY, a Representative from Missouri, appeared before tbe committee and 
 
 said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have been requested by some 
 of my constituents, as well as by the representative manufacturers in Virginia, to 
 malie a brief statement to the committee in regard to barytes, and if you desire I 
 shall be glad to have you examine Mr. Dingee, of Virginia, who is here and who 
 knows more of the details than I. 
 
 Mr.. Flowbh. What do you propose ? 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY. We propose to change the present schedule, which is now one-fourth 
 of a cent a pound on manufactured, and 10 per cent, ad valorem on the crude. The 
 manufacturers in Missouri desire to have it changed to one-half cent a pound on the 
 manufactured and one- fourth of a cent a pound on the crude. 
 
 Mr. Brkckixridge. What is the article? 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY. Barytes. It is used in paint as a substitute for lead and zinc. It was 
 at one time said to be an adulterant, but recently all who have used it regard it as a 
 valuable adjunct in the manufacture of paints and colors. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it an iron ? 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY. It is not an iron. In Missouri it is found in connection with lead, 
 and among lead miners is called "lead blossom." It is also found in large quantities 
 in Virginia, North Carolina, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, aud Iowa. 
 
 Mr. Flower. It is found in Connecticut. 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY. Yes ; but the two States which produce most of it are Virginia and 
 Missouri. In the State of Virginia it is found 40 or 50 feet below the surface, 
 while in Missouri it is found in pockets near the surface. Nearly every farm in por- 
 tions of Missouri contains more or less of this article, and in former years when we 
 had a higher tariff the farmers mined it in large quantities. There is a production 
 in my State of the manufactured article now of 10,000 tons per annum, and I under- 
 stand the production in the State of Virginia is about H,000 tons per annum, so that 
 the home production of this article is from 16,000 to 20,000 tons. There is being 
 imported now some 8,000 to 10,000 tons per annum. The foreign supply comes from 
 Germany and is brought over as ballast in vessels and laid down in the "port of New 
 York at an average valuation of $2.85 per ton. Although I have here a trade journal 
 which quotes it in New York at $6.50 to |8.50 for the crude article. 
 
 There is exactly the same reason for protecting this as there is for protecting lead 
 or any other of the numerous minerals which receive an adequate protection. Under 
 the present ad valorem duty, beginning in 1884, I will call attention to some figures 
 which have been taken from the report of the Bureau of Statistics. 
 
 In 1884 the importation of the crude article from abroad amounted in round num- 
 bers to 2,500,000 poanda, on which a duty of $366 was paid. 
 
 In 1888 there were 9,000,000 pounds imported and the duty paid was about $1,200. 
 The increase from 1884 to 1888 was nearly 7,000,000. Of the manufactured article 
 imported in 1884 there were 2,700,000 pounds, which paid a duty of $6,800, aud in 
 1888 there were imported 4,300,000 pounds, which paid a duty of $19,600. Tbe effect 
 of the change of the schedule in 1883 tended not only to increase largely the impor- 
 tation of this article and consequently increase the amount of revenue, but it ap- 
 pears the industry in this country began at once to decline. In Missouri, where there 
 was a large number of mills formerly, there is but one now. The industry does not 
 amount to anything like what it did then, aud can not because crude and manufact- 
 ured barytes from abroad is sold in ruinous competition with our own. 
 
 Mr. Flower. At what price ? 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY. I can not give you the figures, but the crude material is now about $5 
 a ton in St. Louis. It has to be mined, hauled to the railroad, and shipped a distance 
 of 75 to 150 miles, and is sold to mills in St. Louis at an average of $5 a ton. 
 
 There are two things that the miners and manufacturers of tliis article want: They 
 want the existing ad valorem duty on the crude article repealed. They want a spe- 
 cific duty instead, and they think one-fourth of a cent a pound is as liltle as they 
 ought to have in order to successfully conduct the business in competition with the 
 foreign trade. They also want half the former duty, one-half cent a pound, restored 
 OD the manufactured article. 
 
 I call your attention to the duty formerly levied on this article. In the act of 
 1840 it was 20 per cent.; in the act of 1847 it was 15 per cent.; in the act of July 14, 
 18B2, it was one-half a cent a pound on both crude and manufactured, and that rate 
 of duty was maintained until the revision of 1883, when the present rate of 10 per 
 
404 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 cent, ad valorem on the crude and one-fourth of a cent a pound on the mannfaotnred 
 went into effect. Under the act of 1862, this industry grew up and became very 
 valuable in those two States. It is practically in its infancy in Virginia and Mis- 
 Bouri, and they need adequate protection so as to be able to keep up this industry in 
 both of those States. It has hardly begun to develop in my State. Formerly barytes 
 was supposed to be an adulterant. It becomes harder with time, and I am told it 
 has been used in Italy for centuries in pigments where they want a paint that will 
 harden with age and retain its color for a great number of years. It gives body to 
 paint, and so far from being an adulterant, it is now regarded as a valuable adjunct 
 in the manufacture of paints and colors. This industry is of importance to the peo- 
 ple of those two States. I am told three thousand people in Virginia are dependent 
 upon it, and I know there arc a large numberin Missouri. In some places in Missonrl 
 it is an article in which the farmer is greatly interested ; he puts in his winter 
 months in mining this article and hauling it to the railroad and shipping it to 
 market. The increase we ask would revive an industry, that has been depressed by 
 the change made in the act of 18S3. There are now one or two manufactories in Vir- 
 ginia where there were a largo number formerly. With an increase of the duty there 
 will, no doubt, be a revival of this industry, which is a valuable one to the country, 
 and particularly to these States. In Virginia it affects quite a large number of peo- 
 ple. In one or two counties in Missouri nearly every farm has more or less of this 
 article upon it. If it can be marketed at anything like a fair price, even to make 
 wages, our farmers will mine it and send it to market. 
 
 I do- not want to detain you any longer, and I would be glad if you would listen 
 to my friend Mr. Dingee, of Virginia. He can give you much more information than I. 
 
 STATEMENT OF M. H. DINGEE. 
 
 Mr. M. H. Dlngee, of Lynehburgh, Va., next addressed the committee. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Have you a specimen of this article ? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. Yes, sir. [Exhibiting a specimen.] Baryta, or sulphate of barytes, 
 is a mineral or chemical composition, which is rendered valuable for its whiteness 
 in the manufao-ture of paints and colors, and as an insulating material for electrical 
 conductivity. It is simply a solid rock, and we grind it. In adding it to lead it helps 
 lead to retain its color. As Mr. Kinsey has said, it has been used for centuries by 
 artists, on valuable oil-paintings, where they can not use anything else. Lead tar- 
 nishes by time, and so does zinc. Some ten years ago consumers in this country used 
 to consider it an adulterant, or as something to cheapen the cost of goods, but to-day 
 the consumers have come to realize its value. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It is used in wuod-work? 
 
 Mr. DiNGBE. I think, to some extent, it is. The German article is brought down 
 from the Hartz Mountains, nearly 1,000 miles, to Bremer Haven, at a cost of about 
 $2.85 per ton. While in Virginia we have as cheap labor as there is anywhere in the 
 United States, we can not mine it for less than|3 a ton. They bring it to New York, 
 and, after paying the duty, the market value is |6.50 to |8.50 per ton. At Bremer 
 Haven vessels use it as ballast. In former years there were ten mills in Virginia. 
 None of them made any money, and all are closed out except one small mill and the 
 firm that I represent, in Lynehburgh, which runs two mills. We want a specific in- 
 stead of an ad valorem duty. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How is it found ? Is it found in veins 1 
 
 Mr. Dingee. It is found under the ground, 40 to 100 feet, in Virginia. It runs in 
 pockets. There are small veins, 6 to 9 inches wide. 
 
 Mr. Breckijridgb. What sort of a pocket? 
 
 Mr' Dingee. Sometimes they run 200 or 300 tons and sometimes 50. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is the deposit in this country similar to the deposit in the 
 Hartz Mountains. 
 
 Mr. Dingee. We think we have a better grade in Virginia. The deposit in the 
 Hartz Mountains is similar to what is found in Missouri, where it is found on the sur- 
 face. The farther down we go the softer the product is. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are the veins apart ? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. Some might be 100 feet and some might be half a mile. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Have you surface indications of the existence of thepookett 
 
 Mr. Dingee. We have surface indications of the existence of a vein and by that we 
 find the pocket. 
 
 Mr. Brecki.xridge. You follow the vein until you get to the pocket t 
 
 Mr. Dingee. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you pay miners by the day or by the tout 
 
 Mr. Dingee. I pay by the day, and as this business is so precarious to a miner we 
 could not pay by the ton. 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEtFP. 405 
 
 Mr. BrkckiNEIDGB. How much do you pay per day ? 
 
 Mr. DiNGEE. Prices vary. Our best men get 85 cents. It runs dowa as low as !iO 
 
 cents. 
 
 Mr. BRECKiNftiDGE. It is according to the strength and skill of the men f 
 
 Mr. DiNGEB. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How far do you haul it ? 
 
 Mr. DiNGBE. From onr best mine we haul it half a mile. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much do you estimate it costs to haul it 2 miles ? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. We have to pay $1 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much do you pay to haul it 1 mile ? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. We pay for hauling it half a mile 40 to 42 cents per ton. 
 
 Mr. Brbckinkidgb. Do you know anything about the extent of the supply in Mis- 
 Bouri? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. I never personally examined into it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Have you any information from hearsay on that subject ? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. My information is there are large quantities in Missouri. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does it lie on the surface there ? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you use powder to blast it ? , 
 
 • Mr. Dingee. No, sir ; we use a pick. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It comes to New York in the form in which it is mined by the 
 farmers of this country, does it ? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. It is imported both in that state and in the manufactured state. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It comes in in both conditions ? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. There is one concern in Connecticut which imports it in the crude 
 state and manufactures it in Connecticut and undersells us. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. When you reach the railroad how far are you from Lynchburgh f 
 
 Mr. Dingee.' Eighteen miles. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is your mode of shipment ? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. We grind it up and ship it in barrels ; we grind it as near to an im- 
 palpable powder as possible. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you ship by water or by rail ? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. The bulk of it goes by the Old Dominion Lino to Newport News. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How far is it by rail from your shipping point at Newport 
 News? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. I do not know, but about 250 miles. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is the freight you pay per barrel from that point to New 
 York? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. A barrel will average 800 pounds; that makes the freight $2.50 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Are you acquainted with the chemical properties of barytes f 
 
 Mr. Dingee. So far as I need it in my business. 
 
 Mr. IBayne. Do you know what its affinities for ores are ? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. Yes, sir ; I have broken up barytes. It is easily amalgamated by 
 being ground fine. 
 
 Mr. Batne. I have understood that the Senate committee took evidence and that 
 some persons appeared before that committee and said barytes was an adulterant for 
 paint and injured its quality. 
 
 Mr. Dingee. That was a general impression. It was so with some manufactures. 
 It is now used, however, in the finer grade of paints. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You think it improves paint ? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. It is cheaper than lead and is put in to cheapen the cost, I suppose. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. What about its durability ? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. It is absolutely indestructible. No acid will affect it. It is a solid 
 rook and when you apply it to a building you have a solid-rock resting. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Does the action of the atmosphere tend to separate it from the 
 lead; and does disintegration go on more rapidly between the particles of this than 
 between the particles of unadulterated lead 1 
 
 Mr. Dingee. If it is properly amalgamated this will help lead. If not it will hurt it. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. What do you mean by proijcr amalgamation ? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. If barytes is ground in properly it is all right ; if not, it is not all 
 right. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. In the best paint known to you what proportion of white lead and 
 what proportion of this is used ? 
 
 Mr. Dingee. I think the ordinary proportion is 35 to 50 per cent, of barytes. 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY. I am informed that 30 per cent, is used. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. A little over half a cent a pound. 
 
 Mr. Dingee. The reason a larger percentage is not used in lead is that lead will 
 take up oil ; this will not absorb as much oil as lead will. It is because of this 
 greater absorption of lead, and tboy have to make an amalgat'ion that will absorb 
 iwseed-Qil. 
 
406 EEVlSION OF THE TAEIFP. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it used for any other purposes ? 
 
 Mr. DiNGEE. It is used for dry colors. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Have we enougli of it to supply the wants of this country f 
 
 Mr. DixGEE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Can you give us any evidence that this is not an adulterant t I know 
 there has buen an inapression in regard to it, but the later view is the contrary and 
 that it is a useful article in the manufacture of lead. 
 
 Mr. Kinsey asked and was granted permission to file a brief on the subject. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OP HON. Vf. M. KINSEY. 
 
 House op Eepresentatives, 
 
 Washington, January 23, 1890. 
 
 Sir: Supplementary to the oral statement made before the committee on January 
 11, by Mr. Dingee, of Virginia, and myself, and pursuant to leave then granted, I 
 submit the following in relation to barytes or sulphate of baryta, together with cer- 
 tain petitions, affidavits, etc. : 
 
 The miners and manufacturers urge a modification of the present duty, both npon 
 the crude and manufactured article. Prior to March 3, 1883, the rate was one-half a 
 cent per pound on both. By the act of that date it was made 10 per cent, ad valorem 
 on the crude and one-fourth of a cent per pound on the manufactured. 
 
 By both the Mills and Senate bill the duty was retained on manufactured, but crude 
 was placed on the free list. 
 
 We now ask that a specific duty of one-fourth of a cent per pound be levied on the 
 crude and one-half a cent per pound on the manufactured. 
 
 (1) Because barytes as now prepared and used in this country is a valuable prod- 
 uct entitled to be classed with lead and zinc in the application of the protective 
 system. 
 
 (2) Because what was becoming a growing and profitable industry in the South 
 and West under the act of 1862 became depressed and unprofitable as a result of the 
 act of 1883, and if the crude article is placed on the free list, as proposed in the Sen- 
 ate bill, will be practically destroyed. 
 
 (3) Because the proposed duty will curtail importation and decrease the revenue 
 while the home supply is so vast and to be found throughout so wide a territory as 
 to insure ample competition between producers of the domestic article. 
 
 The principal use of barytes is in the preparation of paints and colors (lately in those 
 of very high grade, I am informed), and to meet a question propounded by a mem- 
 ber of the committee, viz, whether it is an adulterant, I copy one of four affidavits 
 all to the same effect, the originals being filed herewith : 
 
 State of Missouri, CUy of St. Louis, ss: 
 
 Henry Wunder, of lawful age, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 
 
 We have been engaged' in the manufacture of pigments for nineteen years last past 
 in St. Louis, Mo. We have often made paint of a mixture of sulphate of barytes, zinc 
 oxide, and white lead in proportion anywhere between one-third and one-fonrth 
 barytes. If properly pulverized and prepared barytes improves the quality of paint, 
 making it more durable. 
 
 The best and most durable paint we have ever made or used has been made of one- 
 third each best prepared sulphate barytes, zinc, oxide, and white lead. 
 
 White lead alone will "chalk off " and turn yellow ; zinc alone will crack and scale 
 off; barytes properly prepared and used lessens both of these defects of the lead and 
 zinc pigments. 
 
 Henry Wunder. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before me at St. Louis, Mo., this 15th day of January, 1890. 
 [SEAL.] Enrique Parmer, 
 
 Notary Public. 
 
 Barytes cheapens the cost and improves the quality of paints and colors. 
 
 Under the act of 1862, fixing the rate of duty at one-half a cent per pound, and 
 which continued until March 3, 1883, mining and manufacturing barytes grew into 
 a valuable industry, while under the act of March 3, 1883, importation was stimulated, 
 the amount of revenue largely increased, the home industry was crippled, and many 
 concerns driven out of busine-s. 
 
 This was due to the fact that the foreign supply is mined by the cheapest laborin 
 Europe, shipped to this country as ballast, and under the ad valorem system of duties 
 has for the last few years been laid down on the wUarves at New York, at an ayerago 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 407 
 
 valnation of $2. 85 per ton, while the cheapest crude artilce of home productiou has 
 coat $4.50 to |o.50 per ton delivered at mills near the mines. 
 
 To show the effect on importation of the rate of duty fixed by act of March 3, 
 1883, and other interesting facts, I attach a fac-simile of a statement made by the 
 Chief of the Bureau of Statistics : 
 
 Statement of the quantities and values of iarytes imported and entered into for consump- 
 tion in the United States, the rates of duty, and amounts of duty collected during the years 
 ended June 30, 1884 to 1888, inclusive. 
 
 
 Baryta, sulphate of, or barytes — 
 
 Fiscal year ended June 30 — 
 
 trnmanufactured. 
 
 Manufactured. 
 
 Ten per cent, ad Talorem. 
 
 One-fourth cent per pound. 
 
 
 PocLuds. 
 
 Values. 
 
 Duties. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Values. 
 
 Duties. 
 
 1884 , 
 
 2, 586, 082 
 9, 622, 822 
 5, 300, 269 
 11,813,810 
 9,055,859 
 
 $3,666 
 13, 324, 
 8,883 
 12, 649 
 12,032 
 
 $366. 60 
 1, 332. 40 
 888. 30 
 1, 264. 90 
 1, 203. 20 
 
 2, 721, 361 
 4, 100, 173 
 4, 019, 2)j0 
 
 3, 442, 563 
 
 4, 274. Oil 
 
 $15,417.00 
 24,683.86 
 19, 742. 00 
 17, 153. 00 
 19, 815. 89 
 
 $6,803.39 
 10,250.44 
 10, 048. 21 
 8,616.44 
 10 685 05 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 
 
 Bates of duty — iarytes, sulphate of, crude or refined. 
 
 Act of July 30, 1846, 20 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Act of March 3, 1857, 15 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Act of March 2, 1861, 20 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Act of July 14, 1862, one-half cent per pound. 
 
 Act of March 3, 1883, unmanufactured, 10 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Act of March 3, 1883, manufactured, one-fourth cent per pound. 
 
 I also file a memorandum, prepared by Mr. Dingee to be used in preparing the 
 Eleventh Census, showing that of twenty-eight mines, at one time in operation in 
 Virginia, but two are now operated. 
 
 In BO far as the rate of duty fixed in the act of March 3, 1883, has affected the in- 
 dustry in Missouri, I am able from common information to verify the correctness of 
 the statements made herein. 
 
 Touching the question of supply in this country, I copy the following affidavit, 
 filing the original and three others to the same effect : 
 
 State op Missouri, City of St. Louis, ss: 
 Thomas Eicheson, of lawful age, being sworn, on his oath, says as follows : 
 I am president of the Collier White Lead Company of St. Louis, Mo. I have been 
 familiar with barytes and barytes mining for thirty-five years. Barytes exists in 
 great quantities in Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee^ Georgia, Arkansas, Vir- 
 ginia, and several other States and Territories of the United States. Missouri alone 
 can snppply the whole United States with barytes. * # « « 
 
 Thomas Eicheson. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before me at St. Louis, Mo., this ISthday of January, 1890. 
 [SEAL.] Enrique Parmbe, 
 
 Notary PuMio. 
 
 I also submit for the inspection of your committee petitions very numerously signed 
 by residents of my own and other Congressional districts in Missouri, and contain- 
 ing the signatures of farmers, miners, and manufacturers, all of whom are deeply in- 
 terested in the subject to which I invite your considerate attention. 
 
 In conclusion, I beg to express the opinion that if this Congress shall enact a 
 tariff law framed upon the theory of protection to American industries, it cannot 
 afford to overlook this comparatively new and undeveloped source of wealth in the ' 
 South and West. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 W. M. EiNSEY, 
 
 Tenth District, Missouri. 
 Hon. William McKinlet, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
408 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 LAKES. 
 VIEWS OF H. KOHNSTAMM & CO. 
 
 New York, January 18, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : Noticing that tlie hearing on tariff lias ended, and having been pre- 
 vented from going to Washington to submit our grievances before your honorable 
 body, we now beg to lay befor? you a few facts in reference to duty on fine colors 
 called lakes. 
 
 Prebably over $2,000,000 worth of these lakes are imported every year, and not 
 $200,000 worth is made in this country, for the simple reason that the materials 
 used for making these lakes pay an average duty of 47 per cent., and the colors 
 made from these materials are protected only 25 per cent. 
 
 This industry was in a flourishing condition previous to 1882, and since then most 
 factories have stopped making these fine colors, and those left are about to give up 
 manufacturing for the reason that before 1882 the duties on lakes made from aniline 
 colors was then 35 per cent, ad valorem and 50 cents per pound specific (same as ani- 
 line dyes at that time), 75 per cent, of the value of these lakes being anihne, on 
 which basis we could then compete with foreign manufacturers. When the duty was 
 lowered in 1883 from 35 per cent, and 50 cents per pound to 25 per cent., our possi- 
 bility of competing with foreign lakes was then reduced to a minimum, giving the 
 foreign manufacturers an advantage of 10 per cent., and consequently they are now 
 monopolizing this market. 
 
 We think it no more than just that lakes or colors made from aniline pay the same 
 duty as aniline (which is 35 per cent.) or be made dutiable at the rate .of 50 cents per 
 pound, which represents an average duty of only 25 per cent. 
 
 Considering that some paints and colors, the use of which is as universal as white 
 lead, pay an average duty of 60 per cent, and ultramarine about 35 per cent, on its 
 value, a duty of 35 per cent, on goods made so exclusively for the fine arts as lake, is 
 neither excessive nor unreasonable, and, if put in the proper light, can not but meet 
 with approval. Otherwise we would suggest a reduction of duty on aniline dyes to 
 the basis of colors. 
 
 We inclose a few comparative examples showing the difference of a lake contain- 
 ing, for instance, 10 per cent, aniline (cosine), made in Germany, and pay a duty of 
 25 per cent., and are still 20 per cent, cheaper than can possibly be manufactured 
 here. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 H. KOHNSTAMM & CO. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlet, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 PRESENT TARIFF ON ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL COLORS. 
 
 Cost of geranium lake, containing, for example, 10 per cent, eosine. 
 
 Made in Germany: 
 
 100 pounds hydrate alumina. $1.25 
 
 10 pounds eosine at $1.25 12. 50 
 
 10 pounds sugar of lead at 8 
 cents 80 
 
 14.55 
 10 per cent, expenses, etc 1.46 
 
 16.01 
 25 per cent, duty at present. . 4. 00 
 
 20.01 
 For 25 pounds average yield, or 80 cents 
 per pound. 
 
 Made in America: 
 
 100 pounds hydrate alumina, $2.00 
 10 pounds cosine at 11.70 .... 17.00 
 10 pounds sugar of lead at 12 
 cents 1.20 
 
 20.20 
 15 per cent, expense, which 
 does not cover cost in the 
 United States 3.03 
 
 23.23 
 For 25 pounds yield, or 95 cents per 
 
 pound. 
 Can be imported 20 per cent, cheaper 
 than it can be made here. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 409 
 
 Proposed tariff. 
 
 Made in Germany: 
 
 100 pounds hydrate alumina, 
 
 10 pounds eosine at $1.25 
 
 10 pounds sugar of lead at 8 
 cents - 
 
 10 per cent, expenses, etc.. . 
 
 11.25 
 12. 50 
 
 80 
 
 14.55 
 1,45 
 
 16.00 
 Duty, 20 per cent 3.20 
 
 19.20 
 For a yield of 25 pounds, or atoiit 77 
 cents per pound German lake laid 
 down in New York. 
 
 Made in America: 
 
 100 ponnda hydrate alumina, $1. 65 
 
 10 pounds eosine at $1.70 17.00 
 
 10 pounds sugar of lead at lOJ 
 cents 1.05 
 
 19.70 
 15 per cent, expenses 2.86 
 
 22.56 
 For a yield of 25 pounds, or 90 cents per 
 pound, cost of American 10 per cent, 
 eosine lake. 
 
 Comparative costs of Jakes .made from aniline previous to 1882. 
 
 Made in Europe : 
 
 100 pounds hydrate alumina, $1. 25 
 10 pounds eosine at $1.25 .. .- 12. 50 
 10 pounds sugar of lead at 8 
 cents 80 
 
 14.55 
 10 per cent, lahor 1.45 
 
 Made in America: 
 
 100 pounds hydrate alumina, $2. 00 
 
 10 pounds eosine at $2.25 22. 50 
 
 10 pounds sugar of lead at 12 
 cents 1.20 
 
 25.70 
 15 per cent, labor 3.85 
 
 29.55 
 This is a yield of 25 pounds, or about 
 $1.20 per pound. 
 
 16. 00 
 Duty, 35 per cent 5.60 
 
 21. 60 
 This is a yield of 25 pounds, 
 and 50 cents per pound 12. 50 
 
 34.10 
 Or about $1.36 per pound. 
 
 Formerly we worked under 10 per cent, advantage; now we work under 20 per 
 cent, disadvantage. 
 
 MANTIEIAL SALTS. 
 
 OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE ON IMPORTATION OF. 
 
 Mr. La Foixette. Mr. Chairman, I offer .for the consideration of the committee 
 in this connection the following correspondence, which will, I think, be found of 
 special value at this time : 
 
 Department of Agriculture, 
 
 Office op the Secretary, 
 Washington, D. C, January 16, 1890. 
 Sir: In conformity to your suggestion that the correspondence, between this 
 Department and the Treasury Department with reference to the free importation of 
 manurial salts would be likely to contain information of value to the Committe on 
 Ways and Means, I beg herewith to hand you copies of the correspondence in ques- 
 tion for such disposition as may please you. 
 
 Very respectfully, j_ jj jj^g^^ 
 
 Hon.E.M.LAFoLLETTE, ^"'■''"''y- 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 April 6, 1889. 
 
 Sir : The statntes of the United States permit the free importation of all substances 
 
 which are to be used exclusively for fertilizing purposes. One of the most important 
 
 fertilizing materials which we import in this country is potash, which comes to our 
 
 ports in various forms and chiefly from Germany. The crude potash salts which are 
 
410 EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 imported into this country contain usually less than 30 per cent, of pure potash. In 
 order to save freights, however, it has been found profitable to prepare and ship to 
 this country much higher grades of potash salts as, for instance, an almost pure sul- 
 phate of potash, which is a form particularly valuable for fertilizing purposes. Under 
 the ruling of the Treasury these high-grade potash salts are compelled to pay duty, 
 since they have been used, in some instances, for other purposes than the manufacture 
 of fertilizers. 
 
 Permit me to suggest, therefore, that it would be of the greatest benefit to the 
 farmers of the country if the Treasury Department could arrange some method by 
 which high-grade potash salts could be imported free of duty, by instituting a series 
 of regulations which would secure the Treasury Department against fraud in this 
 matter. You can readily see how much benefit th^ farmer would have if he could 
 secure high-grade potash salts imported free of duty, as the crude salts are now 
 admitted. 
 
 Hoping that you may have time to give your early attention to this matter, I am, 
 Respectfully, 
 
 J. M. EUSE, 
 Secretary. 
 
 Hon. Wm. Wiin>OM, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury, 
 
 Treasury Department. 
 Office of the Secretary, 
 
 Washington, D. C. April 12, 1889. 
 
 Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 6th instant 
 suggesting that crude potash salts specially imported for use as fertilizers may be 
 passed free of duty, regardless of the percentage of potash contained therein, and to 
 inform you that the matter will receive due and careful consideration, and that yon 
 will be hereafter informed of the determination reached by the Department. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 Geo. S. Batchbllbk, 
 
 Acting Secretary. 
 The Secretary op Agriculture. 
 
 Treasury Department, 
 Office of the Secretary, 
 
 Washington, D. C, May 21, 1889. 
 Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 
 6th instant, in which you suggest that crude potash salts of the higher grades as, for 
 instance, the almost pure salts of potash, which is a form particularly valuable for 
 fertilizing purposes, may be admitted to free entry under the provision in the free 
 list, Tariff Index, 505, for " Guano, manures, and all substances expressly used for ma- 
 nure." 
 
 I have made a careful investigation of the matter, and after due consideration of 
 the question involved, have reached the conclusion that, under the existing statutes 
 your suggestion can not be carried into effect. 
 
 Although the substance mentioned by you may, as you state, be imported and used 
 mainly for fertilizing purposes, yet you will see by reference to Schedule A of the 
 existing tariff act, a copy of which is herewith inclosed, that both crude potash aa 
 well as sulphate of potash, is dutiable at ttie rate of 20 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 The substance, therefore, being thus expressly provided for by name, is under the 
 rule of classification as prescribed by the courts as well as this Department liable to 
 the duty therein prescribed, without regard to the use for which it may be intended. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 W. WiNDOM, 
 
 Secretary. 
 The Secretary op Agriculture. 
 
 June 11, 1889. 
 Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 
 2l8t ultimo, together with the copy of existing regulations concerning importations. 
 I have made a careful examination and bog leave to submit the following points for 
 your consideration. I interpret your communication of the Slst ultimo to apply 
 exolneiyely to crnde potash and to unlphate of potash, as mentioned on page 10 of 
 
REVtSION OF THE TARIFF. 411 
 
 the pamphlet to which you call my attention. I desire to direct your attention to 
 the fact that— 
 
 (1.) " Crude " potash, as included in No. 63 of Schedule A ("Crude carbonate of, 
 or fused, and caustic potash, 20 per cent, ad valorem "), is never used as a fertilizer, 
 this form evidently referring to crude carbonate and hydrate, such as is used in 
 alkali manufacture, and 
 
 (2.) " Sulphate of," in No. 70, undoubtedly refers to the pure chemical. 
 
 On page 44, however, I find enumerated on the list of articles entitled to free entry, 
 under act of March 3, 1883, first (616); "Kainite," a mineral containing sulphate or 
 chloride of potash, and second (627), "Muriate of potash." 
 
 It is evident that these latter classifications were made with a view of exempting 
 potash salts, used as fertilizers, from duty. But it is the understanding of the De- 
 partment that you are still applying the ruling of August 2, 1870, to those articles 
 expressly exempted from duty under act of March 3, 1883. " Kainite" varies in its 
 composition, but may contain over 30 per cent, of potash (Kj 0), although the com- 
 mercial article as imported does not contain so much. " Muriate (chloride) of potash " 
 may contain over 60 per cent., though it is probable that, as it is designated by its 
 trade name, the crude salt is meant, wnich would not contain so high a percentage, 
 though it would be considered over 30 per cent. In view of these facts, it seems 
 manifestly unjust and improper to arbitrarily apply the ruling made in 1870, that "all 
 potash salts containing over 30 per cent, of potash shall be dutiable," when the law 
 of 1883 expressly states that these articles shall be imported duty free. Section 2503, 
 No. 505, expressly provides that all substances used for manure shall be imported 
 duty free. The Treasury Department will hardly hold that a fertilizer and a manure 
 are different substances. It was undoubtedly the intention of the law that all sub- 
 stances used as fertilizers or manures should be duty free. I desire to call your 
 further attention to the fact that the sulphate of potash is a fertilizer of special 
 value to certain crops, viz, tobacco. Tobacco grown with chloride of potash (KCi 
 "muriate") has poor burning properties, which makeit unfit for the manufacture of 
 cigars. The sulphate of potash must be used with this crop. Even kainite contains 
 enough of cloride (muriaje) to render it of little value for tobacco. Yon will readily 
 understand, therefore, the great importance of the contention which I make, and 
 which to me appears fully authorized by the law. 
 
 The reason which is assigned for continuing the present ruling, as stated in your 
 letter of the 21st ultimo, is that since "both crude potash as well as sulphate of 
 potash is dutiable at the rate of 20 per cent, ad valorem," they can not be admitted 
 duty free under a general clause authorizing the free admission of substances used 
 for manure. I beg, however, to call your attention to the fact that by your own 
 ruling you do admit such salts, provided they do not contain more that 30 per cent, 
 of potash. You will therefore see that by the present action of the Treasury the 
 argument which you advance is rendered wholly null and void. If such salts can 
 he admitted, according to law, for manurial purposes, when they contain 30 per cent. 
 or less of potash, they might also by a similar construction of the law be admitted 
 with a higher percentage, viz , 40 or 50 per cent, and so an absolutely pure salt 
 containing 54.1 per cent, could be admitted duty free, provided it were used sotely 
 for manurial purposes. In point of fact, the potash salt known as manunal salt, 
 which I seek to have admitted free of duty, is not the pure sulphate, the high price 
 of which would preclude it from ever being used for manurial purposes. 
 
 By washing the crude kainite of commerce and thus securing the removal of the 
 chlorides which it contains a manurial salt is obtained which sometimes may con- 
 tain as much as 90 per cent, of pure sulphate of potash. Such a salt would contain 
 approximately 48.5 per cent, of pure potash. The Department of Agriculture, there- 
 fore, would be satisfied with a modification of your ruling which would admit for 
 manurial purposes, free of duty, all sulphates of potash containing not more than 
 50 per cent, of pure potash. This would allow the importation of a high-grade 
 manurial salt free of duty and at the same time prevent the importation of the pure 
 snlphate which is used solely as a chemical and not as a manurial salt. 
 
 The view which I take of the law, as I have set forth above, is fully sustained by 
 the decision of the United States courts in a recent cause of an action brought by 
 Heller, Hirsch & Co. against the collector of the port at New York to recover duty 
 collected of them on manurial salt, consisting of a high-grade sulphate of potash 
 which contained more than 30 per cent, of potash. The jury was instructed by .Judge 
 Lacomhe as follows: 
 
 "The Court. The more frequently we are called upon to interpret statutes the 
 greater likelihood there is of a tendency to an overstrained construction; and it is 
 wholesome occasionally to turn back to first principles, and to appreciate the force 
 of the old rule, again re-atfirmed by the Supreme Court in The Board of the County 
 Commissioners for the County of Lake vs. Rollins, that to get at the thought or 
 meaning expressed in a statute, the first resort in all oases is to the natural signifi- 
 cation of the words in the order of the grammatical arranf^emeut in which the 
 
412 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 framers of the instrument have placed them ; and that is a perfectly safe assilmptiofl 
 that the framers of an act meant exactly what they said. The clause here, No. 505 
 In the free list, reading, ' Guano, manures, and all substances expressly used for 
 manure,' very clearly expresses, and there seems no doubt that by the use of this 
 phrase Congress has plainly said that all imported substances (whether especially 
 providefl for eo nomine, or covered by any general language descriptive of their origin 
 or qualities) which subserve the purpose of enriching the soil, and thus increasing 
 the crops to be raised upon it should- be free. That is the plain meaning of the par- 
 agraph as it stands. I think we should err if from some strained and overelaborate 
 examination of a great many other paragraphs in the act, we should seek to spell out 
 some understanding or conception of what we might possibly infer had been 
 the intent of Congress. We are entitled to take their intent as expressed by 
 the plain language we have used. It is very true that the use of the word 
 'expressly' may make this paragraph difflcult of application in very many 
 cases, and in fact all cises so far as the collector is concerned; but it gives us no 
 trouble in this particular action because there is abundant evidence here to warrant 
 the holdings that these particular importations were expressly used for manure. 
 They have been traced from their importer into the hands of individuals whose sole 
 business is the preparation of ' fertilizers,' which word is a mere synonym for manure; 
 and should the jury draw from the testimony any other inference than that the 
 articles were expressly used for manure I should be inclined to set aside the verdict. 
 Therefore I think it is unnecessary to send the question to them. The defendant 
 refers to the well-settled rule of interpretation that a specific designation will pre- 
 vail over a general one, but the clause which he contends to be a general one 
 (section 505, supra) is in reality more specific than the paragraph under which 
 he insists these imports should be classed (paragraph 70, ' Sulphate of potash') be- 
 cause from the general class of articles properly classified as sulphate of potash it 
 differentiates tliat smaller portion which are expressly used for manure. I will 
 therefore direct a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,225.84. Exception to the 
 defendant, with a stay of sixty days, and a certificate of probable cause. 
 
 "Verdict rendered accordjngly." 
 
 You will see from the above that the courts of the United States expressly rale 
 that a manurial salt imported for manurial purposes under the broad clause of the 
 act of March 3, 1883, must be admitted free of duty. 
 
 The ruling of the Treasury Department, therefore, which prevents such an importa- 
 tion, is not only unjust to the farmers of our country, but is clearly contrary to the 
 expressed purposes of the law itself. It was clearly the intention of the act of Con- 
 gress to admit all manurial salts free of duty, just as it was also their intention to 
 levy a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem on pure sulphate of potash imported for other 
 than manurial purposes. 
 
 I therefore respectfully request that the ruling of the Treasury in question be 
 revoked, or so modified as to admit all salts of potash for manurial purposes contain- 
 ing sulphate of potash, and not containing more than 50 per cent, of pure potash (K 0) 
 I am, respectfully, 
 
 J, M. Rusk, 
 ^ Secretary. 
 
 The Sbcretaky of the Tebasuby. 
 
 Treasury Department, Office op the Secretary, 
 
 Washington, D. C, July 3, 1889. 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to inform you that having carefully considered the reasons 
 set forth in your letter of the 11th ultimo, why your request that imported crude 
 potash and sulphate of potash should be passed free of duty under tbe provision in 
 the free list for "Guano, manures, and all substances expressly used for manure," I 
 have failed to reach a conclusion different from that which is expressed in my com- 
 munication to you of the 21st of May last, which is to the eftect that under the exist- 
 ing statute I am unable to authorize the free entry of such articles. 
 
 While it is doubtless true that some importations of sulphate of and crude potash 
 are used in manufacturing fertilizers, the fact of such occasional use as material for 
 manufacturing purposes cannot operate so as to authorize me to disregard the special 
 provisions in the tariif act of March 3, 1883, which impose a duty of 20 per cent, ad 
 valorem on both crude and sulphate. of potash. Were I to do so, in the caie of these 
 articles, then there is no reason why other articles and substances specified by name 
 in the taniflf act as liable to duty should not also he passed free of duty, because, 
 forsooth, they may or can be used in the manufactui-e of fertilizers. Such action 
 would necessitate the adoption of a principle or rule of classification which wonld 
 load to disastrous results to the interests of the revenue, and would be adyerse toftU 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 413 
 
 the previous decisions of the courts and this Department, the decisions being to the 
 effect that a special provision by name in the tariff act for an article must iiake pre- 
 cedence of a general clause under which such article might be classified; anrJ that 
 the intended use of an article can not control its classification. 
 
 In the case of Arthur vs. Lahey (96 U. S. Reports, 118); in the United States 
 Supreme Court, the principle is clearly enunciated that the commercial designation 
 of the article among traders and importers, when clearly established, fixes its char- 
 acter for the purpose of the tariff laws, and when Congress has designated an article 
 hy its specific name, general terms in a subsequent act, or in a later part of the same 
 act, although sufficiently broad to comprehend such article, are not applicable to it. 
 
 With regard to the case of Heller and others against Daniel Magone, collector of 
 customs, recently tried at New York, with a result adversely to the Government, I 
 have to state that, under the views herein expressed, and as advised by the Solicitor 
 of the Treasury, an appeal will be taken by the United States to the United States 
 Supreme Court. 
 
 The Solicitor, among other things, states that, in his judgment, the case is an im- 
 portant one, in that it attempts to establish a method and principle of classification 
 that if extended or made universal might very seriously affect the revenues of the 
 Government, and that it ought to be appealed, and vigorously prosecuted in the 
 Supreme Court. He further advises that in his opinion, the word "expressly," as 
 found in paragraph 50.5 (" all substances expressly used for manure"), is used in the 
 sense of " always," or " universally," so that it should be only those substances which 
 are used for manures, and could not be used for any other purpose that are entitled 
 to free entry. 
 
 This opinion the Department concurs in, the more especially as it is believed to 
 have been the intention of Congress to only exempt from duty substances that are 
 only fit for use as manures in the condition in which imported, and not those which 
 require to be subjected to a process of manufacture to render them fit for that pur- 
 pose. 
 
 Referring to that portion of your letter which relates to this Department's decision 
 of August 2, 1870 (S. 715), concerning the percentage of potash contained in articles 
 entitled to free entry when imported for use as fertilizers, 1 have to state that when 
 an article is specifically provided for in the tariff and is commercially known by 
 that name, the Department holds that it must be so classified for dutiable purposes, 
 regardless of any percentage of strength it may contain, and the decision referred to 
 will he modified accordingly. 
 
 It is a matter of regret that I am unable to reach a determination in accordance 
 with your wishes. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 W. WiNDOM, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 The Secretary of Aqkicdltukk. 
 
DEGEAS. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. ANDRE W^ G. -WEBSTER. 
 
 Mr. Andrew G. Webster, of Boston, Mass., addressed the committee. He said 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent tbe shoe and leather industry. It was ex- 
 pected that ex-Governor Claflin, of Massachusetts, -would appear before you to-day, 
 but on account of his partner being from home, he was unable to leave Boston, and it 
 therefore devolves upon me to present the case to you. 
 
 In the Mills bill, and in the Senate bill as reported by the Finance Committee, the 
 article known as wool degras was put upon the free list, where it seems to us to be- 
 long. But when the Senate bill came before the Senate an amendment was offered 
 and agreed to, by which a duty of 1 cent a pound was put upon this article, in the 
 supposed interest of the producers of menhaden oil, which is used to some extent in 
 the manufacture of sole-leather, but almost to no extent in the manufacture of upper- 
 leather. 
 
 The producers of menhaden oil thought that if they could have a duty of 1 cent a 
 pound put upon this foreign wool degras (of which 94 x>er cent, of all that is used is 
 imported) they could force the tanners and curriers to use their jjroduct (menhaden 
 oil), but I think I can show you why curriers and tanners can not use it to any greater 
 extent than they do at present. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Please state what menhaden oil is. 
 
 Mr. Webster. Menhaden oil is produced by pressing the menhaden fish that is 
 caught off the coasts of Maine, Long Island, New Jersey, and New York. But I shall 
 be followed by Mr. Leonard who is more familiar with the matter than I am, and he 
 will tell you how menhaden oil is produced. 
 
 I have here a petition from the Shoe and Leather Trade, which I would like to 
 read. It is short. It is signed by about two hundred persons, who represent an 
 annual product of over $100,000,000 worth of leather and boots aivt shoes. It is 
 signed by Democrats and Republicans ; by free-traders and protectionists, indiscrimi- 
 nately. It is signed by the whole trade, so far as that was possible ; and I think it 
 expresses the opinion of the trade in all but one particular, which I will explain to 
 the committee afterwards. 
 
 Mr. Webster read the following petition : 
 
 The Ways and Means Committee of the National House of Representatives : 
 
 The undersigned, tanners and curriers, and others interested in leather and shoes 
 manufactured therefrom, understand that an effort is being made to increase the duty 
 upon brown wool grease, commercially known as degras in the tariff bill now under 
 consideration, respectfully request that no increase be made in the duty upon this 
 article, but that 10 per cent., as heretofore assessed, be the duty put upon it in the 
 proposed bill, unless it should be thought best to place it upon the free list. 
 
 This article is not one of the products of the United States, except to a very limited 
 extent, and it is indispensable in the manufacture of modern leather of desirable 
 quality. 
 
 Boston, December 24, 1889. 
 
 [Here follow numerous signatures.] 
 
 Mr. Webster (continuing). This petition is signed by about two hundred firms. 
 The first signature is that of ex-Governor Claflin, who, you all know is a Republican 
 and a protectionist. The second signature is that of 'Mr. Proctor, of Boston, well 
 known there as a Democrat and free-trader. As I said, it is signed, indiscriminately 
 by Democrats and Republicans, by protectionists and free-traders; they all ioin in 
 saying that there should be no duty on this article. I have also here similar petitions 
 from Salem and Worcester, and a similar one from the boot and shoe manufacturers 
 and from what few leather dealers there are in Worcester County. The tanners and 
 curriers of the West also unite with the tanners and curriers of the East in petition- 
 ing that this article shall not be increased in duty, but shall, if possible, he placed 
 upon the free list. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Under what head is this article of wool degras now imported t 
 
 Mr. Webster. Under the head of " other greases," I think. 
 414 
 
REVISION OF THE TAKIFF. 415 
 
 Mr. Leonard (the next witness). Under " other greases," not separated in any- 
 way. It is not known in the tariff bill as degras. 
 
 Mr. Webster. It has been imported at 10 per cent. , and that rate has been found in 
 practice to be equal to from one-eighth to one-fifth of a cent per pound. 
 
 The Chairman. What is this material? 
 
 Mr. Webster. It is recovered from the washings of fine wool by treatment with 
 acids and some neutralizing process which I can not explain. 
 
 The Chairman. What is it used fort 
 
 Mr. Webster. In manufacturing leather. The advantage of using it over any 
 other grease known to the trade is that leather finished with it retains its freshness 
 although it may be kept for a number of years. The menhaden-oil people hoped to 
 have their product introduced instead of this stuff. I would like to show you one 
 of the effects of using menhaden oil. You can see in this piece of leather [exhib- 
 iting specimen] the gum from the oil. It comes out on the leather, also on the shoes. 
 It is liable to come out within a month or two of the leather being finished. 
 
 This piece of leather was finished three months before the stuff made its appearance. 
 That piece of leather is not worth as much as the rawhide of which it is composed 
 would be worth if it could be separated. The tanners and curriers could not use this 
 article of menhaden oil if they could have it for half the price of degras; and 
 degras is produced in this country only to a very limited extent. In our opinion it 
 should be on the free list. We say in our petition that we would like to have it on the 
 fiee list, if it be thought advisable to put it there ; but, at any rate, we would not 
 like to have the duty raised beyond what it now is. This proposed tax of 1 cent a 
 pound would amount to five times the present duty, and would amount in round 
 numbers to something over |100,000. This is not a large enough sum to appear in the 
 price of the finished article. It would therefore simply amount to a tax on leather 
 dealers, for they would use just as much of the article as they now do. 
 
 There is another point. The hides produced in this country to-day are largely in 
 excess of the quantity needed for the leather manufactured here, and the export of 
 leather (especially finished leather) is a large and growing business. But if the 
 cost of producing that leather be increased the export trade will be endangered to a 
 large extent. In 1884 leather was exported from this country to a large amount, but 
 in 1889, although there had been a decrease of 30 per cent, in the price of leather, 
 there was an increase of 50 per cent, in the value of the leather exported, making 
 an increase in the quantity of leather exported of 65 per cent, in from five to six 
 years. And the increase is likely to go on and to employ a great many of our work- 
 men in time, who, if we did not have an export trade, would have to be idle. For 
 all these reasons we think that the stuff should be put upon the free list. 
 
 Mr. Gear. To what country do you export most of your leather ? 
 
 Mr. Webster. Mostly to England and to the continent of Europe. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What proportion of it goes to Germany ? 
 
 Mr. Webster. I should say not more than one-fourth. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is there a tariff on leather in Germany ? 
 
 Mr. Webster. There is a tariff on leather in Germany, which will in time prohibit 
 certain kinds to be imported there. There are other kinds of leather which can not 
 be produced there, and which will be sent from here no matter what their tariff is. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do we send a large number of hides to Genriany ? 
 
 Mr. Webster. Not at present. Of domestic hides more are beiug produced in this 
 country than can be consumed here in shoes; hence we can make the leather and 
 export it; but we have to-day a very small margin, and any increase of the duty on 
 degras would end that trade. I have here copies of the petition which I would like 
 to present to the committee in order to show the location of the different tanneries 
 and shoe-shops that are represented by the signers. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Did you state that we produce in this country a surplus of 
 hides that we can not consume? 
 
 Mr. Webster. We produce in this country a surplus of the hides of the kind that 
 are made into upper leather. There is a kind of hide which is made into sole leather 
 which is not produced in this country, but has to be imported from South .America. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. We do not import here the kind of hide which we produce in 
 this country ? 
 
 Mr. Webster. We do not. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But, on the contrary, we produce a surplus of that kind? 
 
 Mr. Webster. What would be a surplus of that kind if we depended solely on 
 the home market. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It is a surplus, is it not? I see that we export a good deal of 
 hides and skins, do we not ? 
 
 Mr. Webster. Yes. We have exported in the last year or two a good many skins 
 and a few hides, and there is danger that, instead of manufacturing the leather 
 here, we will be exporters of the raw material, thereby taking away from the work- 
 ingmen aU the advantage of finishing these goods into leather. 
 
416 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That danger would only come from our putting hinderances 
 on our finishing the hides here ? 
 
 Mr. Webster. Yes, sir. If we put no further hinderance on the leather trade we 
 will doubtless be able to continue and increase our exports. That export business 
 is growing very largely ; it amounted last year to $10,000,000, and that, too, at very 
 low prices for leather. 
 
 The Chairman. It amounted to $10,000,000 during the last ten months? 
 
 Mr. Webster. Yes. I should have said ton mouths, not twelve months. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE H. LEONARD. 
 
 Mr. George H. Leonard, of Boston, said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I appear here at the reqluest of the Oil Trade Asso- 
 ciation, of Boston, to protest against any increase of duty beyond the 10 per cent, 
 that has been heretofore assessed against wool degras, or brown grease, so known, 
 and to recommend in the name of that association that the grease be admitted free. 
 With your permission I would lilie to read the statement that the association has 
 made. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What is the name of this article ? 
 
 Mr. Leonard. The commercial name is brown grease. It is commonly called wool 
 degras. It is imported as grease — brown grease — and is made from wool washings. 
 
 Mr. Leonard read the statement, as follows : 
 
 The Committee of Ways and Means of the National Souse of Etpresentaiives : 
 
 Whereas an imported wool degras, received in considerable quantity, and sold to 
 the manufacturers of leather for producing qualities which no other grease can do; 
 and 
 
 Whereas it is proposed in the tariff bill, now under consideration, to raise the duty 
 upon wool degras for the supposed purpose of protecting makers of menhaden oil, an 
 article inferior and unsuited for the purpose for which degras is used for leather, and 
 we hereby affirm that the consumption of menhaden oil is not displaced by the use of 
 degras ; and 
 
 Whereas the quantity of degras produced in this country is extremely small com- 
 pared with the consumption, and can not be increased to any extent : Therefore 
 
 Sesolved, That we, the Oil Trade Association of Boston, protest against any increase 
 of duty on wool degras beyond the 10 per cent, as heretofore assessed, and recommend 
 it to be placed upon the free list. 
 
 Besolved, That a committee, consisting of Mr. George H. Leonard, vice-president, and 
 Hon. Alden Speare, member of this association, be instructed to present a copy of 
 these resolutions to the Committee on Ways and Means of the National House of 
 Representatives at Washington, D. C. 
 
 Boston, January 4, 1890. 
 
 Wm. Jambs Godlding, President. 
 S. W. Andrew, Seeretary. 
 For the Executive Committee of Oil Trade Association of Boston. 
 
 Mr. Leonard (continuing). The firm of which I am a member is a buyer and seller 
 of this wool degras, or brown grease ; also of menhaden oil. We distribute it from 
 the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast. We come in contact with almost every pro- 
 ducer or manufacturer of leather iii this country, and we have their opinions. We 
 know something in regard to the relative value of this wool degras and menhaden 
 oil. We know that menhaden oil can not produce the same class of leather that wool 
 degras produces. The sale of wool degras for manufacturing finished leather amounts 
 to |300,000 a year, while the sale of menhaden oil for manufacturing leather, not 
 wholly finished, amounts to only |100,000. The price of degras to-day, as compared 
 with menhaden oil, is about 5 cents a gallon more (reducing the grease to gallons) ; 
 and the demand for the grease is almost greater than the supply, while the demand 
 for the oil is not greater than the supply. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Did you say that the oil costs 5 cents a gallon more than the 
 
 Mr. Leonard. No ; 5 cents a gallon less. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. And yet, with the difference in price, you say that the oil is not a 
 competitor in trade? 
 
 Mr. Leonard. Not for making finished leather. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. There is a different use, I understand, for menhaden oil and for 
 degras 1 
 
 Mr. Leonard. Yes. I think there is very little menhaden oil used in connection 
 ■with degras. There may be a little menhaden oil used to reduce the consistency of 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 417 
 
 degras, but very little. There are other uses for menhaden oil outside of the leather 
 trade. From our experience we kuow that menhaden oil will not produce the 
 leather that degraa does, and we know also that a good many finishers of leather 
 have suffered very heavily from the use of menhaden oil. Before this degras was 
 imported they used to use a considei-able amount of menhaden oil, but they were 
 only too glad to get out of the use of it, because it produces a leather of which a 
 specimen has been presented here. They are getting out of the way of it. Some 
 people used to try to use it, because they wanted to try to make a cheaper class of 
 leather. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Explain how that portion of defaced surface in this specimen of 
 leather [indicating] is brought about by the use of menhaden oil. 
 
 Mr, Leonard. This leather is stufl'ed with an emulsion of grease and menhaden 
 oil, and, for some reason or other, the gum in menhaden oil does not stay put in the 
 leather. 
 Mr. Burrows. It exudes. 
 Mr. Leonard. It exudes and comes out. 
 
 Mr. La Foixette. And then the leather adheres, and in separating it defaces the 
 surface and has again to be subjected to manipulation ? 
 
 Mr. Leonard. It spoils the surface, and that leather never can be restored to the 
 same quality. For that reason curriers are getting very much out of the way of usiug 
 menhaden oil in finished leather. I have not the least doubt that the gentlemen 
 who presented the petition of the Menhaden Oil and Guano Company for an increased 
 duty on degras, for the supposed purpose of protecting their product, were sincere. 
 Their business is a hazardous business. It requires a large outlay to pursue it. That 
 outlay has to be met ; and, if the fish are not in the sea^ they certainly can not get 
 them. Some seasons they have been very successful and have taken a great many 
 fish, and the oil has been put on the market at a very low price. Meuhaden oil has 
 taken the place of other oils, and the menhaden iishermeu have sometimes accumu- 
 lated large amounts of money. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is the principal use of menhaden oil? 
 
 Mr. Leonard. Menhaden oil is used somewhat in leather. The class of leather is 
 rough leather and sole-leather, where very little oil is used, and where it has not the 
 same result as in curried leather. Another use for it is the refining of menhaden oil. 
 The scarcity of whale oil requires a similar substitute that can be burned in the 
 mines, where they require a very faint light and something that is very safe. The 
 whale-oil supply is not sufficient for that purpose and the meuhaden oil is refined to 
 take its place. Then it is exported abroad, and is used very largely in rope-making 
 and such industries. I do not think that more than one-fourth of the annual product 
 of menhaden oil is used for leather. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it used in the coarser grades of woolen manufactures? 
 
 Mr. Leonard. I do not think so. I never knew of its being used in woolen man- 
 ufactures. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. When was the mauufactiuiug of degras begun ? 
 
 Mr. Leonard. It is manufactured in Englaud and on the continent of Europe. I 
 think we have imported it for about fifteen years. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it manufactured iu this country? 
 
 Mr. Leonard. It is, to a very small extent. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It is manufactured, principally, in England ? 
 
 Mr. Leonard. In England, France, and Germany. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is the grease from which it is raannfactured there the product 
 of the sheep of the country where it is manufactured ? 
 
 Mr. Leonard. This grease is from wool. It is manufactured from their own wool ; 
 and then they are receivers of wool from Australia, South America, and other coun- 
 tries. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. As I understand it you have no objection to the duty on menhaden 
 oil? 
 
 Mr. Leonard. I did not know that there was any duty on menhaden oil. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. There is no duty on menhaden oil ? 
 
 Mr. Leonard. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Did the Senate bill put a duty on menhaden oil ? 
 
 Mr. Leonard. As I understand it, the Senate hill, as originally draughted, admitted 
 degras free, and when it was under consideration a duty of 1 cent a pound (equivalent 
 to 50 per cent, ad valorem) was put on degras. I do not know that the subject of 
 menhaden oil came up, otherwise than that the producers of it presented a petition 
 that a prohibitory duty (or equivalent to that) be put on degras. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. To wh.at exteut is degras mauufaetured iuthis country? 
 
 Mr. Leonard. I should think to the extent of $10,000 or $1.5,000 worth a year. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. About what percentage would that be of the amount used ? 
 
 Mr. Leonard. A very small percentage — not more than 6 per cent. It is limited 
 by the want of raw material from which to make it. 
 
 485 27 
 
418 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF, 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Do you know whether the manufacturers of degras in this country 
 have ever asked for au increase of this duty? 
 
 Mr. Leonard. I never heard of their asking for it. They do not manufacture it 
 for a business, as I understand. They simply make degras as the host way of getting 
 rid of the dirt is to turn It into grease. 
 
 I would like to call the attention of the committee to another matter— a recent 
 ruling of the Treasury Department in regard to some degras imported into Chicago. 
 It is classed in this decision as "expressed oil" which is required, under the tariff 
 law, to pay 25 per cent. duty. Why it has been so ruled now 1 can not understand. 
 It is certainly a grease — a grease that has oozed through the pores of the sheep when 
 living and has lodged in the wool. It is then washed out of the wool, and when it 
 is separated from the water it becomes a solid grease. That is the recent ruling ot 
 the Treasury Departmemt ; and now I suppose that, until that decision is erased, 
 the duty on degras will be 25 per cent, as an "expressed oil." We have been paying 
 10 per cent, and I can not see why there should be any duty at all on it, as it does 
 not interfere with any American product. 
 
 I hold in my hand a memorial from the oil trade association in Boston with that 
 suggestion. Also connected with that association are a number of large fish-houses. 
 They have signed this paper. Understanding that these oil merchants are dealers 
 and handlers of degras as well as menhaden oil, the fish concerns know very well 
 what the effect is, and that degras does not conflict with any American product. 
 
 I may say one thing more : that with menhaden oil it would be impossible to pro- 
 duce the class of leather that is produced by degras. That is our experience. In 
 fact, if the duty on this grease should be raised to double its present rate, I think 
 that the curriers would still use the degras. They can not nso the menhaden oil. 
 
 A gentleman came into my office yesterday who was very anxious about this mat- 
 ter, and who hoped that we would do everything we could to have degras put on the 
 free list. He said, " There is one thing I want you to fight for, and that is that Con- 
 gress will allow it to land on our shores. We must have it." 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You say that it does not compete at all with an American prod- 
 uct? 
 
 Mr. Leonard. Very slightly. The American product is about 6 per cent, of the 
 consumption here, and the American producers do not take any interest in it at all. 
 
 TELEGRAM FROM F. M. BECKER. 
 
 Mr. La FoUette submitted the following telegram received by him : 
 
 Chicago, III., Jamiarij 8, 1890. 
 To Hon. Robert M. La Follette, 
 
 Ways and Means Committee : 
 Use your influence against increase of duty on degras. Wisconsin tanners will be 
 hurt by its passage. 
 
 F. M. Becker. 
 
 STATEMENT OF J. H. WALKER. 
 
 Mr. J. H. Walker, of Worcester, Mass., said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have a protest here from the Chicago and Wisconsin 
 leather dealers. My business now is the manufacturing of leather in the city of 
 Chicago, the firm name being Walker, Oakley & Co. All of the degras that is manu- 
 factured in this country is a by-product, and is manufactured rather from necessity 
 than otherwise. There is an objection to the dirt and grease Jlowiug into the streams 
 in some places where they clean wool; and it is quite as much in order to keep it 
 out of the streams as to make any use of it that degras is mauufacturcd. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is it that which affects the Calumet River, at Chicago? 
 
 Mr. Walker. I can not tell you. I presume there would bo no objection to any- 
 thing that would purify that river. The leather manufactured by degras is a far 
 better product than the leather made before we began to use the degras. It is very 
 much more durable, more impervious to water, much softer and more pliable. In 
 fact, the leather made from hides with the use of this degras, stuffed as we do stuff' 
 it in using degras, is now very nearly as soft as the old fashioned calfskin of twenty 
 or thirty years ago. In fact, the calf skin trade has been very materially injured by 
 it, and the exports of calfskin leather are not more than two-thirds of what they 
 would be, if it were not for the use of degras in making coarser leather; so that 
 it has cheapened very materially to the peoi)Ie the price of boots and shoes. Fur- 
 thermore, wo know of no article that will take its place. There is no articleknown to 
 the trade that will take the place of degras. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 419 
 
 In my judgment (and I have asked several leather men here who agree with me) 
 not a dollar has been made in the export trade from the time we commenced to ex- 
 port leather to the present time, taking into account losses and gains. We have 
 been lighting for a foreign market, and now we are beginning to get a little money 
 out of the business ; and there is a prospect that from this time on it will be more 
 successful. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The proposed increase of duty on degras, you think, would tend to 
 hamper you in your export trade ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. The trade is so small that it would very materially lessen the export 
 of our material. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckineidge. Do you mean that the trade is so small or the margin of profits 
 so small ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. The margin itself is small. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The trade amounts to nine millions a year. 
 
 Mr. Walker. Two leather manufactories in this country make leather to that 
 amount. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But yira do not want to lose any of this export trade? 
 
 Mr. Walker. No, sir ; we do not want to lose any of the export trade ; and I see 
 that we would lose it if the price of degras is increased. There is no reason in the 
 world why, if anything whatever comes into the country free of duty, degras should 
 not. T wish to add that before we used degras we were constantly subjected to more 
 or less loss on account of the damage caused to the leather by " gum-fry," as it ia 
 known to the trade. Our loss in one year from that cause amounted to about $40,000, 
 and that too in a very damp summer. The loss to leather mauiifacturers from this 
 cause was very heavy before degras was used instead of oil. 
 
 PROTEST FROM CHICAGO AND ■WISCONSIN LEATHER DEALERS. 
 
 The following is the protest presented by Mr. Walker : 
 The Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 We understand there is now before your honorable body, for consideration, a pro- 
 posed increase of duty, amounting to 1 cent per pound or thereabouts, on degras, a 
 low-grade, imported grease, used almost exclusively by curriers of leather. 
 
 We respectfully protest against such increase, and submit for your consideration 
 the following facts connected therewith. 
 
 First. This increase in the duty on degras will go to the Treasury without benefit 
 to any manufacturers of degras, as this jjroduct is not manufactured, nor is it likely 
 to be, in this country. 
 
 Second. Such increase of duty would mean an increased cost of product to the 
 leather manufacturer, who would seek to re-imburse himself for this extra cost. To 
 do so he would have two directions to look ; first, to the American consumer of 
 leather, who would ] efuse to pay for such increased cost ; or, second, he would be 
 obliged to demand an increased price from leather exported. This is a very impor- 
 tant matter, as the following brief account will show. 
 
 Following the repeal of the duty on hides in 1872, American exports of sole-leather 
 increased rapidly. For many years the exports consisted of sole-leather. During the 
 last five years, however, American manufactured upper leather has been exported 
 in quantities, and is now a very important item in American exports. 
 
 As large quantities of degras are used in the exported leather, any increase iu the 
 price of degras would have a marked result upon the manufacture of leather intended 
 for export. The American leather trade to-day dominates the leather markets of the 
 world both in sole and upper leather, and governmental imposts, however slight, 
 which might be levied upon any of the materials entering into the manufacture of 
 leather would have a twofold effect; first, to limit the export of American leather ; 
 and second, to throw into onr home market the large amounts which the present 
 capacity of our American tanneries enables it to produce, thereby causing a glut 
 which would result in disaster to the leather industry and crowding down the price 
 of hides and other raw material entering iuto the production of thesame. American 
 tanners are able to-day to pay the highest wages to their operatives, and with their 
 raw materials free from duty they are able to sell their products in the markets of the 
 world and are to-day furnishing their home trade with leather at lower prices thau 
 the records of the trade for twenty-five years are able to iiaralle). 
 
 We therefore petition your honorable body that all mention of degras in the ques- 
 tion of revision of the tariff now pending before yon be stricken out, and that the 
 consideration of this matter be based upon the following clause to be inserted in such 
 revision, to wit : That the grease now known as " degras," under which name it is 
 now imported iuto these United States, be admitted free of duty. 
 
 In referring to the duty on degras we can imagine no one iu this country who 
 
420 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 desires any increase, or in fact any duty at all, unless it be those interested in the 
 Menhaden fisheries, from which the ordinary fish oil is derived. We think the fish 
 oil interest are working under a misapprehension, for from the practical standpoint 
 of tanners who are using degras it will be used without regard to the price of tish oil. 
 To illustrate : Pressed fish oil is now selling at 24 cents a gallon ; degras on seaboard 
 aj cents a pound. Three years ago fish oil 27 to 28 cents per gallon ; degras 2, 3, and 
 4 cents per pound. To-day degras is firmer at increased price than fish oil. 
 
 The intrinsic merit of degras in forming certain combinations in stuffing leather 
 is such that the tanners will use degras even if fish oil goes lower and degras higher. 
 There is at this time in the department of customs a misconception of the article of 
 degras. The name does not represent the trae article. It is made entirely in Europe 
 from the residue of very fine wools and is not expressed grease. This was tried be- 
 fore the United States courts several years ago by A. L. Knight, of New York, and 
 decision rendered that it was not an expressed grease. For further information on 
 this point refer to Welles & Knight, New York. 
 
 Tharp, Clakkk & Co. 
 
 Grey, Clark & Engle. 
 
 John B. Miller. 
 
 Walker, Oakley & Co. 
 
 W. N. Eisendeath & Co. 
 
 American Oak Leather Co. 
 
 C. C. Wallix & Sons. 
 Chicago, December 24, 1889. 
 
 STATEMENT OF J. R. LEESON. 
 
 Mr. J. K. Leeson, of Boston, Mass., said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I appear before you, not as an export on this question. 
 I know nothing about it. I appear before you as the vice-president of the Boston 
 Merchants' Association, a mercantile organization that represents a capital of some 
 §300,000,000 or $400,000,000 invested in New England industries. The directors of 
 that association adopted unanimously, the day before yesterday, .a resolution, and I 
 am here to read it, and to indorse the character and standing of tlie dealers who ap 
 pear before you to-day as experts: 
 
 The resolution is as follows: 
 
 Resolved, That wool degras, or brown grease, being a material necessary for tan- 
 ning leather, for which no known substitute exists ; that the domestic production of 
 degras being so limited as to necessitate the importation of the grease ; that as such 
 importations do not injure or conflict with any domestic industry, that therefore this 
 board is in favor of the admission of degras, or brown grease, for tanning, free of 
 duty. 
 
 STATEMENT OF FRANCIS W. BREED. 
 
 Mr. Francis W. Breed, of Massachusetts, said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent here to-da^' the New England Shoe and 
 Leather Association. That association, I believe, stands third on the list of all the 
 manufacturers of the country. It has adopted the following resolution, which I beg 
 leave to present : 
 
 Boston, January 6, 1890. 
 The Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 Gentlemen: At a meeting of the executive committee of this association, held on 
 Saturday the 4th instant, the following preamble and resolutions were authorized: 
 
 Whereas in the tarifi" bill now under consideration it is proposed to increase the 
 duty on wool degras, a grease largely used in manufacturing leather for home and 
 export trade, from 10 per cent, ad valorem (equaling about one-fifth of 1 cent per 
 pound) to a specific duty of 1 cent per pound, which change would be very detri- 
 mental to the boot, shoe, and leather interest of this country, because wool degras 
 is found to be necessary in producing certain most desirable effects in making mod- 
 ern leather, and no oil or other grease is known to the trade that will produce the 
 same or similar results ; and 
 
 Whereas the quantity of wool degras produced in this country amounts to but a 
 very small portion of the quantity consumed here : Therefore 
 
 Resolved, That unless it is decided to place this article upon the free list we rec- 
 ommend a specific diil,y of not over one-fifth of 1 cent per pound on wool degras in 
 place of and equal to the ad valorem duty of 10 per cent, as heretofore as.scssed and 
 collected, 
 
 New England Shoe and Leather Association. 
 William Claflin, President. 
 Chas. S. Ingalls, Clerk. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. : 421 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Why do you want a specific duty instead of an ad valorem 
 one? 
 
 Mr. Breed. I will ask Mr. Webster to answer the question. 
 
 Mr. Webster (former witness). The duty on degras has been assessed on the 
 value of the product at the place of its manufacture, excluding the cost of packages 
 and of the inland cartage to the sea-port. Just before I left home I had a clerk go 
 overtheseimportsof degras, taking them back to where we had paid about $600; 
 and I was surprised to find that if we had paid about one-fifth of a cent per pound 
 duty we would have paid |200 more than we did pay. In other words we made 
 the mistake of saying to the New England Shoe and Leather Association that the 
 ad valorem duty of 10 per cent.' on degras was equal to one-fifth of a cent per pound, 
 when practically it averaged three-twentieths of a cent or one-twentieth less than 
 one-fifth. 
 
 At the present time, on the very last invoice that we had' of this stuff, the duty was 
 $44. At one-fifth of a cent per pound the duty would have been $46.20 ; so that a 
 rather unusual advance in the price of the article abroad has brought the duty up to 
 almost one-fifth of a cent per pound. But until within a few mouths past it has not 
 been so ; and in no case during the three years of which I have a record here has the 
 duty equaled one-fifth of a cent per pound. The smallest duty that I have a record 
 of here is one-eighth cent per pound; aud the largest one-fifth cent. Practically 
 there is but one quality of this degras ; and it simplifies entries at the custom-house 
 to have a specific instead of an ad valorem duty.. But we would much prefer to have 
 the stuff on the free list; and none of us can see any good reason for its not being 
 there. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Suppose it is kept at 10 per cent, ad valorem, but with the 
 package clause restored ? 
 
 Mr. Webster. That would increase the duty about 25 per cent. But with the 
 price of degras where it has been during the last three years the duty would amount 
 to just about one-fifth cent per pound on that basis. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It would make the duty about 12^ per cent, to restore the 
 package clause. 
 
 Mr. Webster. Yes, to-day ; but if you take the average for the last three years, it 
 would leave the duty one-fifth cent a pound cvuu with the packages. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. So that you want the duty made specific ? 
 
 Mr. Webster. We want it made specific, because in that case there is no chance 
 of any Treasury ruling putting it anywhere except under "other greases, 10 per 
 centum." 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Leaving it where it is? 
 
 Mr. Webster. Yes; we do not want it where it is. We would have it on the free 
 li.st if we could. 
 
 Mr. Breed. The New England Shoe and Leather Association is non-partisan, and 
 we would like to have degras put upon the free list. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. ALDEN SPEARE. 
 
 Mr. Alden Spbarb, of Boston, said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I appear before the committee on behalf of the Bos- 
 ton Chamber of Commerce, of which I am President, and desire to present the fol- 
 lowing resolutions, adopted on the Gth instant : 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 Whereas the manufacture of leather and shoes is one of the moat important indus- 
 tries in this part of the United States — leather being ono of the staple products of 
 this country that is largely exported to foreign countries, giving employment to a 
 large class of industrious and frugal workmen ; and 
 
 Whereas it is proposed in the tariff bill now under consideration to raise the duty 
 upon wool degras, one of the important greases entering into the uuxuufacture of 
 leather, to several times the amount that has heretofore been collected upon it ; and 
 Whereas the quantity of degras produced in this country is very small and limit- 
 ed, as there is but little raw material from which to produce it, amounting to only a 
 small percentage of the (juantity consumed here ; and 
 
 Whereas certain parties interested in Menhaden oil, an article in every way infe- 
 rior for the purpose for which degras is used iu leather, are endeavoring to have the 
 propofsed increase of duty become a law : Therefore 
 
 Resolved, That the Boston Chamber of Commerce believe that such an increase of 
 duty would bo a hardship and burden upon the leather and shoe trade ; that it would 
 not be effective in bringing leather manufacturers to using oils or other greases as 
 substitutes for degras, but would simply serve to make the cost of leather greater, 
 thereby endangering a large and increasing exjiort trade with no beneficial results to 
 any class of producers in this country. 
 
422 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Eesolrcd, That we, the Boston Chamber of Commerce, i^rotest against any increase 
 of duty on wool dcgras beyond the 10 per cent, as heretofore assessed, and recom- 
 mend that it be placed upon the free list. 
 
 Mcsobvd, That a committee, consisting of Hon. Alden Speare, president, and Hon. 
 William Clalliu and Mr. William B. Rice, members of tbe association, be instructed 
 to present a copy of these resolntions to the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
 national House of Representatives, at Washington, D. C. 
 
 Attest. 
 
 Alden" Spbarb, 
 rresident ISoslon Chamber of Commerce. 
 
 Boston, January 6, 1390. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What does tbe Senate bill propose in the way of a tax on degras? 
 
 Mr. Speare. One cent a ponnd. 
 
 Mr. BRECKiNiiiDGE. What effect would that have on the leather export trade ? 
 
 Mr. SpEARE. It would simply have the effect of increasing the cost of leather to 
 that extent, an 1 would take from the profits, or it would decrease the exports. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is the margin of profit so small as that the increase of duty 
 on degras would injure the leather export trade? 
 
 Mr. Speare. Mv best opinion is that, up to this time, the exports of leather from 
 tbe ITuited hitutes'have paid little ov no profit whatever— simply getting rid of the 
 surplus. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It could not stand any extra loading? 
 
 Mr. Speare. It could not. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. One cent a pound on degras would add how much ? 
 
 Mr. Speare. It would amount to about §100)000 a ye.aron that industry. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That goes to all the leather manufactured in the country? 
 
 Mr. Speare. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the whole amount ? 
 
 Mr. Speare. About $-200,000,000 a year. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And in advancing the art of finisliing leather do yon find that 
 the use of this degras is more and more a necessity ? 
 
 Mr. Speare. Of that you have the evidence of these experts. We import the de- 
 gras and we handle very largely menhaden oil. We do not handle menhaden oil at 
 all for leather purposes. The main use of menhaden oil is for illuminating pnri)Oses. 
 It is iu very largo use in mines, where they must have whale oil, or lard oil, or men- 
 haden oil. It is also used in connection with other materials for lubricating pur- 
 poses. 
 
 In some years the menhaden do not run, and therefore if leather dealers were 
 thrown directly on mendaden oil there would be years when they could not have it. 
 It would be absolutely unjust, in my opinion, to force them to use it. It should be 
 put on the free list. The amount collected from it is so very small that it is of no 
 earthly account, as the Government has all the r('venu(!S it wants, and it is unwise 
 and im]iolitic to tax an in<lu,stry in that way. We never save the degra.s in this 
 country except where we are obliged to. For instance, I own a woolen mill, and 
 there is an emery mill just below us. The grease from my mill would ruin the emery, 
 and therefore we are compelled to take care of that grease. No man in this country 
 would manufacture degras uule.ss he was obliged to. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. You mentioned the uncertainties of the menhaden fisheries. Is it 
 not a fact that the supply of menhaden on the coast is diminishing and that, year by 
 year, it is more and more difficult to obtain menhaden ? 
 
 Mr. Speare. Like mackerel and other fish, the supply of menhaden is most uncer- 
 tain. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. They are leaving parts of the coast ? 
 
 Mr. Speare. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I recollect that that was developed iu an investigation in which I 
 assisted. 
 
 Mr. Speare: You are quite right ; there are not as many taken as formerly. 
 
 ARGUMENT BY D. T. CHURCH. 
 
 The Committee of Wans and Means : 
 
 Gentlemen: Your petitioners beg leave to submit the following statement relat- 
 ing to the importation of degras. If our petitioners, representing the entire fish-oil 
 producing industry of this country, which has within the past twenty years grown 
 to very largi; proportions, and being to-day one of the largest branches of our At- 
 lantic'fisheriee, employing; five thousand men and $3,000,000 capital, feel that we are 
 entitled to protection against the importation of foreign greases which are produced 
 by the employment of cheap labor in foreign countries. 
 
 The most important of these greases which come in competition with American 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 423 
 
 fisli-oils is known as French and English dogras. It is a product arising from the 
 washing of wool, and is collected and shipped to this market and used in the curry- 
 ing of leather. The result upon the fish-oil market, which is largely attributable to 
 the free importation of this special grease, has been to reduce the price of fish-oil so 
 materially that many have abandoned the business, and all are suffering from the 
 effects of this foreign competitor. This statement was made to the Senate committee 
 at a hearing on this subject at the last session of Congress, and in view of all the 
 facts then adduced it seemed just to them that a duty of H cents per jjound be im- 
 posed upon foreign degras. 
 
 Aside from the injury which this foreign competitor has inflicted upon the Ameri- 
 can fisheries may be cited some other reasons which we beg to submit for your con- 
 sideration : 
 
 1. Because degras is a manufactured article and a uniform specific duty on all 
 grades of degras would prevent all undervaluation and encourage the manufacture 
 of a good article, as the good bringing a higher price would pay no more duty than 
 the poor. 
 
 '2. Because the Government could control its manufacture and it could be made 
 here. No matter what the price of degras, tallow, oil, or grease is here, the price is 
 regulated by the price it is in Liverpool, governed by liho law of supply and demand 
 there and by manipulation. 
 
 3. Because grease used for soap-stock is free and has been since the present tariif 
 bill was formed iu 1848. 
 
 4. Because a specific duty is right on any manufactured article. 
 
 5. Because tallow, grease, and oil have been lower a few years back than they 
 have been for two hundred and fifty years. 
 
 This degras has to be mechanically extracted in England and on the Continent, and 
 from trustworthy sources and from Americans who have been there we learn they 
 would send it over here at from $5 to |10 a ton if they coiild not get more. Nine- 
 tenths of the leather exported is sole-leather on which no degras is used. 
 
 Take oft' the duty from degras and the Government would be at sea on castor-oil, 
 fish-oil, and other grea.se emulsions. The home consumption of this article in Philadel- 
 phia from 1360 to 1870 equaled our exports. Encourage homo consumption of our 
 American products which cau be mauufactureil hero. The average duty on degras 
 for the past twenty years has been three-fourths to 1 cent per pound. The duty on 
 fish-oil coming from the provinces was, until the duty ended, 10 per cent., since then 
 as per cent., yet fish-oil is imported from there and the price is lower since the duty 
 was 25 per cent. 
 
 This manufactured degras heing the cheapest stuffing for leather undermines all 
 other greases, fish-oil, and tallow, because it is mechanically prepared and put up 
 like condensed milk. 
 
 Degras cau be manufactured in this country but it requires a largo amount of 
 time, labor, room, and patience. 
 
 We are a grease-producing country, and can save and manufacture every pound of 
 grease used here. 
 
 Fear is a great magnifier, and the Government in placing an increased duty on de- 
 gras iu dealing with the substance, not the shadow. 
 
 These and many other general reasons can be given to sustain our position, but the 
 reason which is most important to us as a nation is the fostering of home industries, 
 and maintaiuing a naval school in which to educate our young men, that they may 
 be available in time of war to render efficient service to the country in the future as 
 they have done in the past, for it is well known to your committee that all countries 
 encourage by bounty or subsidy every branch of their fisheries, and by such a policy 
 they have built up a large marine force of which they boast and are justly proud, 
 while on the other hand our Government has neglected to follow the example of 
 foreign governments and are beginning to realize the serious eftect which is shown 
 us as a result of such neglect and lack of encourageiueut ; for it is within our remem- 
 brance that we controlled 75 per cent, of the tonnage of the world and to-day we 
 represent only 13 per cent, as well as a decrease of 50 per cent, of the Atlantic fish- 
 eries since the withdrawal of the bounty and free admission of Canadian fish to our 
 markets. The question may arise in your minds why the fish-oil producing industry 
 of the Atlantic coast fisheries can claim the attention of oitr Government ou this par- 
 ticular point. 
 
 We bog leave to state that there is no branch of the American fisheries which is 
 educating so many young fisherman as the fish-oil indus.try is. Not only are they 
 making proficient seamen, but they are educating hundreds of engineers and 
 firemen who are em.ployed upon their steauiers, which are used almost universally 
 in this special branch of the fisheries. Asiile fiDm the importance of the fact 
 before recited it shouhl lie remembered that the fish-oil produc<'d by this industry 
 enters largely into the manufacture of m.iny of our home products, and the 
 fertilizer produced is the stimulant which is used in nearly all of the superphos- 
 
424 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 phate manufactures, and finds its ^'ay to every cotton-field in the Soutli, as well 
 as to all other sections of our country where fert'iliters are used. While it cannot 
 be claimed as a food-producing industry directly, it has more influence upon the crops 
 of our country than any other branch of the fishing business, and as we are taxed on 
 every hand both by State and Government, and are entirely a home enterprise, and 
 all beneficial eff'ects of our business are local in their nature, therefore we claim at 
 the hands of our representatives in Congress their consideration, and fully believe 
 that when they understand the facts in relation to this matter they will deem it .just 
 that a protection of 1-1 cents per pound on foreign degras should be allowed to re- 
 main in the Senate tariff bill and become a law. 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 D. T. Church, 
 President United States Menhaden Oil and Guano Association. 
 
 VIEWS OP THE LORRAINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY. 
 
 Saylesville, R. I., January 21!, 1890. 
 
 The Committee of Ways and Means : 
 
 Gentlemen: Had we known that the subject of degras was to have been consid- 
 ered by you in your hearings upon the tariff, we should have personally appeared be- 
 fore yon in opposition to any reduction of duty on this article. The present would 
 be a very inopportune time to do this. You doubtless are aware that this article 
 called degras is a product of grease reclaimed from the washings of wool. For many 
 years this business has been carried on in Europe, and thus this waste, which formerly 
 was turned into the rivers, has been found to have a value for certain purposes, and 
 has commanded a price which has encouraged the woolen manufacturers to set up 
 plants for its manufacture. 
 
 Five years ago we put in a plant, which we imported from England with the nec- 
 essary skill to operate it, to make degras. We believe we are tlie pioneers in this 
 business in this country. Since tlien a few others have followed suit, and much at- 
 tention is now being directed to the subject. It is felt that as our manufacturing 
 industries are increasing in this country and tending to constantly more and more 
 defile our rivers with filth, and as probably the worst source of this defilement is the 
 washings from our woolen mills, th.at this subject should be encouraged to the fullest 
 extent, to the end that our rivers should be rendered free, as far as possible, from 
 everything which enters into them which is deleterious to health. At present the 
 margin of profit is barely sufficient to pay the expense, and it is quite a question 
 whether, when more mills engage in its mauufacture, the quantity produced will not 
 be so large as to reduce the selling price to a point below its cost of manufacture. 
 The duty should rather be increased than reduced. 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 W. F. & F. C. Sayles. 
 
 VIEWS OF THOMAS M. WARE. 
 
 Boston, January 8, 1890. 
 Fish Association, Washington, D. C: 
 
 Dear Sir : Received a telegram from D. T. Church, saying the Fish Association 
 had appointed me to represent their interest before the Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 I am unable to go on account of the grippe, but would say as a dealer in grease 
 and oil, buying and selling for gain, it would not be my object to represent any inter- 
 est, only what was for the best interest of the country as a whole. It would not ad- 
 vauce the price of degras in the end to put a tax of 1 cent per pound, because It is 
 a manufactured article like castor-oil on which is a duty of 8 cents per pound. They 
 could still import grease at 10 per cent, duty, but grease must have 93 to 100 per 
 cent of saponifiable matter. 
 
 Degras must come to this country to be sold ; it is not used in England. They are 
 compelled to save it and put it together as a soap or dubbing. It will not be long af- 
 ter a duty is put on degras before they save the grease from sewers, wool-washings, 
 and all places where they can, and then put different ingredients in the emulsion to 
 give the effect to leather. Some parties iicvtr use a pouud of this common degras, 
 ))ut use olive-oil, castor-oil, linseed-oil, etc. 
 
 The trouble is, brown grease is imported as brown grease and is sold as degras sim- 
 ply because it is not a pure grease, but is a manufactured paste especially prepared 
 like axle-grease or compounds for a special purpose. 
 
 If they were exported to any foreign country they would be rejected at ouce if sold 
 as grease, and any one would sustain them that it was not a pure gre.ase. Let them im- 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 425 
 
 port grease anrl mannfaotnre it into degras here; if tliey do not do that, let degras 
 pay a duty of 1 cent per pound specific duty. The price would be no higher after the 
 first year, any more than it is on tallow of 1 per cent. Be honest and square about it. 
 Grease must have 95 per cent, sapouifiable matter. If wool-washers would save their 
 grease they could wash wool for less. 
 Yours, 
 
 Thomas M. Ware. 
 
 ANALYSIS OF DEGRAS. 
 
 New Yoek, January 13, 1888. 
 Certificate of analysis of a sample of brown grease, marked degras, received from 
 Messrs. T. M. Ware & Co., January 8, 1888, drawn by our agent : 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Water 0.34 
 
 Unsaponifiable matter 40. 00 
 
 Saponifiable fat (neutral fat) 45. (ifi 
 
 Free fatty acid 14. 00 
 
 100. 00 
 
 This grease leaves no residue on ignition. We find no lime nor mineral acids. 
 But we are nnacquainted with any natural fat containing free fatty acids and un- 
 saponifiable matter like the above. We believe the above fat has been subjected to 
 some form of manufacturing process. The unsaponifiable matter is not mineral oil, 
 but appears to be a fatty alcohol. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Stillwell & Gladding, 
 Chemists to the New York Produce Exchange. 
 Messrs. Church & Co., 
 
 Tiverton, B. I. 
 
 AGAINST DUTY ON DEGRAS. 
 
 The Ways and Means Committee : 
 
 The undersigned, tanners and curriers, and others interested in leather and shoes 
 manufactured therefrom, understanding that an effort is being made to increase the 
 duty upon brown wool grease, commercially known as degras in the tarift' bill now 
 under consideratiou, respectfully request that no increase be made in the duty upon 
 this article, but that 10 per cent, as heretofore assessed be the duty put upon it in 
 the proposed bill, unless it should be thought best to |)lace it upon the free list. 
 
 This article is not one of the products of the United States, except to a very limited 
 extent, and it is indispensable in the manufacture of modern leather of desirable 
 quality. 
 
 Boston, December 24, 1889. 
 
 [Number of signatures to this memorial about two hundred, representing over 
 1100,000,000 annual production.] 
 
426 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 G-LASS AND G-LASSWARE. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. F. L. BODINE. 
 
 Mr. F. L. BODISE, president of tbe American Window Glass Maniifactnrers' Asso- 
 ciation, next appeared before the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Cbairman and {gentlemen of the committee, I aslc your consideration of a re- 
 vision of the tariff npon glass, particularly cylinder window-glass luipolished, as well 
 as bottle glass, both green and flint. The mauiifactnre of cylinder window-glass is 
 an industry natural to the country. It is thoroughly established in about half of the 
 States of the Union, employing a large amount of capital and a large number of 
 workmen. Cylinder window-glass has been presented so completely heretofore that 
 very little new can be said npon the subject. We ask a restoration of the duty to 
 what it was prior to the jiassage of the act of 18S3 instead of the present duty, 
 which is a reduction of one-eighth of a cent per jionud, besides establishing arbitrary 
 weights. Since the reduction of the duty in ISSo there has been .an increased amount 
 of imports and a great increase in the revenue, accompanied by a great decrease in 
 the time worked by American furnaces. Statistics made prior to lis8-<, hut which 
 will he found substantially correct to-day, show that four years before tlie reduction 
 of the duties of 188U the total imports of cylinder window-giass had amounted to 
 1 90,000, (JOll pounds in round numbers, and for lour yearsimmediately succeeding that 
 reduction the imports amounted to 2154,000,000 pounds, an increase, as comiiared with 
 the previous four years, of 64,000,000 ponnils. During the same periods the revenue 
 increased from $4,2;!:5,000 to 85,480,000, an increase of $1,247,000. We have a natural 
 and a developed industry. We have a capacity equal to the wants of the country. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. What is the jiresent rate of duty — what per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. BoDiNE. The present rate of duty is from 1|- to 2J cents per pound. I think the 
 average ad valorem rate would be about (15 per cent. ; 00 to 70, according to the 
 Treasury statistics, varying with the cost of glass. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. What ligures do you ])roposo to raise it to? 
 
 Jlr. BoDiXE. The restoration of one eighth of a cent a pound, which was taken off. 
 I have here tables of the Manufacturers' National Association, x>riuted for their in- 
 formation, which show these facts, that up to July, lls^^:!, the im]iorts never exceeded 
 91.5,000 boxes, while in 1889, the i>i\,st year, the impoi-ts were 1,24'J,000 boxes. These 
 ligures are from the Bureau of Statistics. They are uuide up there every month for 
 the manufacturers. 
 
 The GiiAiRMAM". Have you any stateujcnt about wages ? 
 
 Mr. BoinxB. Yes, sir; I am coming to that directly. At the same time we have 
 had another thing to compete with that never existed befori'. In 1»8:! the average 
 cost of the imported glass per custom-house invoices was S.K'i cents per pound, and 
 in 1889 it was 1.9 cents per pound. The cost each year was lower ihau the jirevious 
 year. That arose from two causes." Cue was the determination of thi^ foreign man- 
 ufacturers to hold this xnarket. They have constantly struggled by lower prices to 
 hold this market during the last ten years. Another element has arisen which makes 
 an additional reason for a restoration of the duty which was takeu oil'. The manu- 
 facture of window-glass in Europe has been revolutionized by the introduction of 
 tanks under the general system of Siemens' patents. The cost of glass has therel)y 
 been very much reduced. The constantly decreasing price for window-glass of for- 
 eign manufacturers has been demonstrated by the low prices whicli h.ave been sus- 
 tained for so many years. I have an oflicial list of Belgian manufacturers which 
 shows that 00 per cent, of the pot furnaces running last February have since been 
 compelled to stop. 
 
 51r. Geak. Do yon mean the Siemens system ap}dying to a furnace ? 
 
 Mr. BoDiNE. I mean tlic Siemens continuous tank furnace taking tlje place of the 
 old melting in ]iots. 
 
 The CHAiR>rAN'. Explain the tank system. 
 
 Mr. BoDlNE. The old system Used furnaces in which pots were placed ; the mate- 
 rial being put in the pots eaidi day and melted at night and worked out the follow- 
 ing day. The new system, instead of separate furnaces and pots, uses a large fur- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 427 
 
 iiace built as a tank, and generally with separate compartments for roftuiiig tbo 
 glass. It generally occnpies a space of 75 I'eet long by abont 25 feet in width ; the 
 glass being abont 3 or 4 feet in depth. At one end of the tank material is pnt in 
 every few minutes continuonsly. As it is melted, it sinks, and then rises to the com- 
 partment beyond, from which it is separated by a bridge of fire clay whicli floats 
 on top. After fnrther refining it goes on by specific gravity to the end of the taulc, 
 being fed and melted continnonsly at one end, and continnonsly blown into cylinders 
 at tlie other end. The result is a better application of heat, resulting in great 
 economy. This continuous process is going on all tbo time ; instead of the old way 
 of melting first, and afterwards blowing. Tbe blowers have better opportunities 
 for work. Tbey also have better hours and get better results. It is the greatest 
 advance in the manufacture of window-glass tliat has been made in the last hundred 
 years, unless we except when natural gas was introduced. Two of tbese largo 
 tanks which I have described are now operating at Jeannette, Pa., and anothei: 
 building by the Cohansey Glass Manufacturing Company at Bridgetown, N. .J., will 
 be under way next month. This tank system is of very expensive construction, 
 each having the capacity of about six furnaces of the old style, and costs for 
 plant ten times that of the old methods. Manufacturers need to be protected to de- 
 velop this expensive plant, and because of a large proportion of labor entering Into 
 the manufacture of their goods. 
 
 Now, as to the question of labor and the difference in wages. Our goods are the 
 product of labor exclnsively ; about 40 per cent, of the total cost being skilled labor, 
 25 per cent, additional being paid at furnaces for unskilled work, and 20 per cent, in 
 preparing and carrying materials to the furnaces ; making fully 80, and I think S5, 
 per cent, actually paid for labor in the manufaotui'e of window-gl.ass. The dift'er- 
 ence in the rate of wages here and abroad baa been often discussed, but it may not 
 be amiss to repeat it. 
 
 In this country we pay $1.25 a day for unskilled bauds. We have to compete with 
 similar labor in Belgium which costs not more than (iO cents a day. The skilled 
 labor required is of high order and is high priced. Blowers in this country, com- 
 pared with Belgium, are paid fully double, and for the better class of blowers we 
 pay three times the price paid in Belgium. For all f be skilled partof our labor we pay 
 an average of between 100 and 20U per cent, ligher tban prices in Belgium. Wo 
 have to pay such high wages, because tbe skill is very diflicult to acquire; tbe num- 
 ber of months that can be worked is only about nine. It is an onerous occupation, 
 and men soon wear out. When a man is fifty years of age be is no longer a desirable 
 workman. These are tbe things which make necessary a tariff in order to enable us 
 to compete with foreigners. 
 
 Our country is capable of supplying the whole consumptive demand, and there is 
 no reason why one box of glass should be imported, except for the difference in the 
 price of labor. Tbe rate of duty that we ask is an iucrease of one-eighth of a cent 
 per pound above tbe present rates. In other words, that it be restored to what it 
 w.as before the rednetion, except as to the admin ist rati vw feature of an arbitrary weight 
 per box, which can be left as it stands now, as we are anxious to do all we can to 
 promote easy and fair administration. We acquiesced in the reduction in 1883 .al- 
 though it took off about 8 per cent, from the actual average weight, so that by the 
 reduction of 1883 besides the one-eighth of a cent a pound, less rate, was also a reduc- 
 tion of one-twelfth of the total duty by weight. This weight reduction may stand if 
 the one-eighth cent per pound is restored. 
 
 That is necessary to stimulate the building of tanks, wliich is the only possible way 
 to continue the manufacture in this country. They require a. nice adjustment and a 
 Large outlay of capital. We are obliged to use them because the foreign cost is 
 greatl.y reduced thereby, havini; in tv/o or three years driven out of business 80 per 
 cent, of the old style furnaces. 
 
 I have here a statement of the total imports and revenue for four years prior to 
 June 30, 1883, under the old tariff, compared with four years subsequent to Juno 30, 
 1883, which I referred to, and I will hand it to tbe stenographer. 
 
 These statements are based on official data, any I will verify if any question them. 
 I hope that I have not failed through lack of fresh preparation, for reasons explained, 
 to make myself clear. 
 
 Mr. Gear (to Mr. Chambers). What is the price of glass at present — 8 by 10 glass? 
 
 Mr. Chambers. Tbe list price is abont $6 or |7. The discount is about 80 and 85 off. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How does that compare with the price in 180G and 1857 ? 
 
 Mr. Chambers. I could not tell. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Could you furnish that information ? 
 
 Mr. Chambers. We have it back to 1860. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I would like to have it back to 185t. 
 
 Mr. Chambers. 1 could get you the prices. The prices are lower to-day than tboy 
 were then. 
 
428 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Copy of statement by W. F. Switzler, Chief of Bureau of Statialics, WasMiigton, D. C, 
 January i, 1888, shoiving the quantiti/, value, and amount of duty collected^on imports 
 of cylinder window glass, unpolished (entered for consumption in the United States), dur- 
 ing each year ending June 30, from 1880 to 1887. 
 
 Cylinder winclow glass, Tinpolished. 
 
 Quantity. Yalue. Duty. 
 
 1881. 
 
 Qaantity. Value. Duty. 
 
 "Window glass, cylinder, crown, and 
 common, unpolished — 
 
 Not above 10 by 15 inches (I^ 
 cents per pound) 
 
 Above 10 by 15 and not above 
 16 by 24 inches (3 cents per 
 pouiid) 
 
 Above 16 by 24 and not above 
 24 by 30 inches {2^ cents per 
 pound) 
 
 Above 24 by 30 inches (3 cents 
 per pound) 
 
 Total 
 
 Pounds. 
 12, 041, 215 
 
 11, 077, 758 
 
 10, 693, 808 
 10, 137, 070 
 
 $308, 978 
 
 333,063 
 
 351, 464 
 412, 472 
 
 $180, 618 
 
 221, 555 
 
 267, 345 
 304,112 
 
 Founds. 
 12, 700, 930 
 
 12, 253, 212 
 
 10, 953, 733 
 9, 654, 822 
 
 $333, 712 
 
 366, 840 
 
 363, 541 
 361, 268 
 
 43, 949, 851 
 
 1, 405, 977 
 
 073, 630 
 
 45, 562, 697 
 
 1, 425, 301 
 
 $190, 514 
 
 245, 004 
 
 273, 843 
 289, 645 
 
 Cylinder "window glass, unpolished. 
 
 Quantity. Value. Duty. 
 
 Quantity. Value. Duty 
 
 "Window glass, cylinder, crown, and 
 common, unpolished — 
 
 Not above 10 by 15 inches {IJ 
 cents per pound) 
 
 Above 10 by 15 and not above 
 10 by 24 inches {2 cents per 
 pouud) 
 
 Above 16 by 24 and not above 
 24 by 30 inches (2^ cents per 
 pound) 
 
 Above 24 by 30 inches (3 cents 
 per pound) 
 
 Total 
 
 Pounds^ 
 1\, 520, 2R 
 
 13, 176, 799 
 
 12, 062, 663 
 12, 541, 991 
 
 $289, 335 
 
 355, 378 
 
 366, 300 
 443, 820 
 
 $172, 803 
 
 263, 536 
 
 301, 667 
 376,200 
 
 Pounds. 
 12, 141, 858 
 
 13, 439, 103 
 
 13, 049, 852 
 12, 317, 077 
 
 $312, 633 
 
 382, 340 
 
 407, 805 
 479, 601 
 
 $182, 128 
 
 268, 783 
 
 326, 246 
 369, 512 
 
 49, 301, 673 
 
 1,454,833 
 
 50, 947, 890 
 
 1, 582, 469 
 
 1, 146, « 
 
 Cylinder window-glass, unpolished. 
 
 1884 
 
 Quantity. Value, Duty. 
 
 Quantity. Value. Duty 
 
 "Window-glass, cylinder, crown, and 
 common, unpolished — 
 
 Not above 10 by 15 inches (IJ 
 cents per pound) 
 
 Above 10 by 15 and not above 
 16 by 24 inches (1§ cents per 
 pound) 
 
 Above 16 by 24 and not above 
 24 by 30 inches (2g cents per 
 pound) 
 
 Above 24 by 30 inches (25 cents 
 per pound) 
 
 Total 
 
 Pounds. 
 19,213,741 
 
 19, 433, 932 
 
 20, 736, 483 
 
 $504, 501 
 
 539, 245 
 
 622, 600 
 761, 381 
 
 $264, 189 
 
 347, 653 
 
 461, 532 
 596, 174 
 
 Pounds. 
 13, 3U6, 809 
 
 14, 820, 648 
 
 16, 024, 772 
 
 15, 693, 788 
 
 $341, 740 
 
 393, 041 
 
 451, 487 
 514, 469 
 
 $184, 207 
 277, 885 
 
 77, 924, 667 
 
 2, 417, 727 
 
 1, 609, 548 
 
 69, 936, 007 
 
 1,701,337 
 
 1, 293, 870 
 
EE VISION OP THE TARIFF. 429 
 
 Copij of statement hy W. F. Switzler, Chief of Bureau of Statistics, efo.— Continned. 
 
 Cylinder window-glass, unpolished. 
 
 "Window-glass, cylinder, crown, and 
 common, unpolished — 
 
 Not above 10 hy 15 inches {If 
 cents per pound) 
 
 Above 10 by 15 and not above 
 16 by 24 inches (L^ cents per 
 pound) 
 
 Above 16 by 24 and not above 
 24 by 30 inches (2g- cents per 
 pound) 
 
 Above 24 by 30 inches (2| cents 
 per pound) 
 
 Total 
 
 1886. 
 
 Quantity. Value. Duty. 
 
 Pounds. 
 12, 616, 385 
 
 12, 879, 413 
 
 15, 212, 878 
 
 13, 831, 579 
 
 54, 570, 255 
 
 $280, 796 
 
 299, 261 
 
 388, 978 
 394, 398 
 
 1, 363, 423 
 
 $173, 888 
 
 241, 489 
 
 361, 306 
 397, 658 
 
 1, 174, 341 
 
 1887, 
 
 Quantity. Yalue. Duty, 
 
 Pounds. 
 14, 117, 875 
 
 13, 481, 668 
 
 16, 419, 970 
 
 17, 608, 435 
 
 61, 627, 948 
 
 $319, 729 
 
 271, 485 
 
 367, 146 
 466, 604 
 
 1, 424, 964 
 
 $194, 121 
 152, 781 
 
 389, 974 
 606, 243 
 
 Total four years, 1880-1883 
 
 Total four years, 1884-1887 
 
 Increase since reduction of duty 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Poundg, 
 189, 762, 111 
 254, 058, 877 
 
 64, 296, 768 
 
 Duty. 
 
 $4, 233, 630 
 6, 480, 884 
 
 1, 247, 354 
 
 PROPOSED TARIFF BILL. 
 
 Flint and lime pressed glassware, not cut, engraved, painted, etched, decorated, 
 colored, printed, stained, silvered, or gilded, 10 cents per dozan and 35 per centum 
 ad valorem. 
 
 All articles of glass, cut, engraved, painted, colored, printed, stained, decorated, 
 silvered, or gilded, not including plate glass, silvered, or looking glass plates, 10 cents 
 per pound and 50 per centum ad valorem. 
 
 Chemical glassware: Thin blown glass, blown with or without a mold, and all 
 other manufactures of glass, or of which glass shall be the component material of 
 chief value, not especially enumerated or provided for in this act, 25 cents per dozen 
 and 50 per centum ad valorem. 
 
 Heavy blowii glass, blown with or without a mold, not cut or decorated, finished 
 or unfinished, 10 cents iier pound and 45 per centum ad valorem. 
 
 Porcelain or opal glassware, 7 inches either diameter or height, or less, 25 cents 
 per dozen. More than 7 inches, including 10 inches, 50 cents per dozen. All over 10 
 inches 75 cents per dozen, aud 50 per centum ad valorem on all sizes. 
 
 Proposed rates to cover importations of ground, obscured and enamelled window- 
 glass, either like Senate bill, paragraph 117, to reads 
 
 "Plate glass, silvered or unsilvered, and cylinder, crown, or common window- 
 glass, when beveled, etched, engraved, stained, colored, ground, obscured, enameled, 
 or otherwise ornamented or decorated, shall be. subject to a duty of 10 per cent, ad 
 valorem, in addition to the rates otherwise chargeable thereon." 
 
 We suppose that this reading would be certain to assess the duties as provided on 
 cylinder window-glass, unpolished, and 10 per cent, ad valorem in addition. 
 
 If a separate clause as provided in above paragraph is not included in any tariff 
 bill, then we suggest paragraph 111 to be made to read : 
 
 " Uupolished cylinder, crown, and common window-glass, plain, ground, enam- 
 eled, or obscured, not exceeding 10 by 15 inches square, 1|- cents per pound ; above 
 that, and not exceeding 16 by 24 inches square, 1^ cents per pound ; above that, and 
 not exceeding 24 by 30 inches square, 2| cents per pound ; all above that, 2J cents 
 per pound. 
 
 " Unpolished cylinder, crown, and common window-glass, plain, ground, enameled, 
 or obscured, not exceeding 10 by 15 inches square, 1| cents per pound ; above that, 
 and not exceeding 16 by 24 inches square, 1| cents per pound ; above that, and not 
 exceeding 24 by 30 inches square, 2| cents per pound ; above 24 by 30 inches, and not 
 exceeding 24 by .36, 2| cents per pound ; above that, aud not exceeding 40 by CO, 3i 
 cents per pound; above 40 by 60, 3J cents per pound." 
 
430 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 STATEMENT OF GEORGE A. MACBETH. 
 
 Mr. George A. Macbeth came forward and addressed the committee. 
 
 The Chairman. Please state your name, address, and place ot business. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. George A. Macbeth, Pittsburgh. I am a manufacturer of glass, and 
 produce the article of lamp glasses, globes, and everything under the name of chim- 
 ney. I have examined this matter from time to time, not only in this country but in 
 Europe, as to the price of labor, price of material, and the price of the product, and 
 the more I examine it, the more I am satisfied that the only proper method is to con- 
 sider the whole tariff question in its entirety, also in connection with labor. It has 
 alwavs been an argument of the protectionfst that protection is for the benefit of la- 
 bor. " I claim it is not. I claim to rei)resent as thoroughly as can be represented, 
 the exact status of the glass industry in the United States, leaving out bottles and 
 window-glass and plate-glass. 
 
 The Chairman. How many other factories are there of the kind in which you are 
 engaged? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I have forgotten, but, if I remember correctly, at one time there 
 were thirty-one, who made chimneys of various qualities, and I think there are more 
 now. 
 
 Another reason why I think I thoroughly represent this industry is, that I be- 
 lieve I make as many articles which come in competition with foreign articles of the 
 same character as any manufacturer in the United States. How many do you sup- 
 pose that is ? I make two hundred kinds of what are termed glass lamp-chimneys ; 
 only 10 per cent, of that class of goods are made abroad. There is, to my mind, a 
 most singular misapprehension of what the gentlemen are pleased to call competi- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You say 10 per cent, of the class of goods that you make are 
 made abroad 'I 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. About twenty different kinds are made abroad. I make two hun- 
 dred kinds, and of these two hundred kinds only twenty kinds are made abroad. 
 
 Mr. Brkckinru>ge. But they could be made abroad ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I doubt it. 
 
 The Ciiaikman. You have no competition in the one hundred and eighty kinds of 
 goods '? 
 
 5Ir. Macbeth. That is it exactly, so far as importation is concerned. Now, as to 
 the material that we use, and to begin right I will give you a history of the matter 
 so as to show the singular attitude that these gentlemen occupy who are here asking 
 for an increase of duty. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Will you please enlarge a little on that and state why there is 
 no foreign competition upon that part of your j)roduct, and why there is not likely to 
 be? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I believe that one reason why they do not make them is, that they 
 do not know how, and they have not that use for them that we have in this country. 
 "Wo use in the manufacture of these goods soda ash. According to Spofiford's almanac 
 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1887, the average duty was 23 per cent. Now 
 there is only one manufacture of that in this country. The gentleman was here, I 
 believe, the other day. I would like to call attentiou to a figure or two in Spofford's. 
 The amount of soda ash imported in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1887, was 
 263,000,000 pounds. The duty is one-fourth of a cent a pound, and the duty on the 
 amount just mentioned was 1658,000. What is soda ash used for besides glass? It 
 entc^rs into the composition of every, pound of glass except window glass, but soda 
 ash is used by every washerwoman. It is used in every cake of soap in the country, 
 making paper and washing wool. I am thinking seriously of going into it and ex- 
 jject to do so as soon as I find a favorable location, and I will do so in the full ex- 
 pectation that there will be no tarift' on it, and I expect to make it for $12 a ton and 
 make a profit. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What does it cost to import it now ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. We are talking about competition now. I do not look at competi- 
 tion like most of these gentlemen look at it. I bought some .soda ash the other day 
 at .>l..'>ri per bundled. I could have bought the home made, also other English make, 
 for leas. The .i;entleman is not competing with the foreign article. Ho is selling it 
 for less uow. Let him make the same quality and I will buy of him to-day. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You were speaking of location. What kind of a location do you want 1 
 
 Mr. Macheth. It is utterly impossible to make this material, to advantage, with- 
 out a i)roper location. It must be near a deposit of roik salt. So far as I know now, 
 thiire are only two deposits of rock salt in the United States. It is mwessary to have 
 that. One of these deposits is iu Michigan, and the other at Warsaw, N. Y. 
 
 Mr. FiJiWBit. Th(.'re is still another in Hutchinson, Kaus. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And still another in Louisiana and another at Salt Lake. 
 
EEVISIOK OF THE TARIFF. 431 
 
 Ml'. Macbeth. They are not eligible places. 
 
 Mr. Beeckixridgb. Why are they not favorable locations ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. They should be near limestone and coiil. It wonld be very singn- 
 lar for a man having a deposit of rock salt in Utah, to ask the United States (ioveru- 
 ment to raise the tariff so that he might be able to make soda ash in Utah. Who 
 pays for this soda ash bnt the xieople. I can take this |6&8,000, the anionnt of the 
 dnty collected that year, and bny ont that concern in New York. I would not give 
 him $300,000 for his plant. If he can not make it, under existing circumstances, it is 
 his own fault. 
 
 Mr. Geajk. Would you apply that principle to every other industrv? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. To quite a number I would. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would you in general ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I am speaking of this industry. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would you apply that principle and policy to other industries? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. If the policy is that to those who are badly located we should give 
 a tariff to enable them to manufacture, I wonld not do that. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What is the trouble with the location at Syracuse 1 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I do not like to state too mucli about it. He is manufacturing it 
 under an English patent. That is all well enough; he is all right. But he is not 
 well enough located to get a sufQcieut quality of brine to make it to the best advan- 
 tage. I tliink, however, he could get along first rate under no tariff. I am satisfied 
 of that. 
 
 Mr. Payne. He stated yesterday that they had fouud a bed of rock salt there. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Then he should be able to make it very low. 
 
 The Chairm"a:n. What is soda ash selling at now ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. One quality is $1.55 ; another quality is $1.45, both English make. 
 
 The Chairjiak. Do you tljink you could make at a profit for half a cent a pound ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I could make it at $12 a ton. 
 
 The Chairman. That would be a pretty profitable business. The price you say 
 is $1.45 a hundred, and you would make it for $12 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. That would he a profit of CO cents a hundred. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. That is it. 
 
 The Chairman. You say you were thinking of going into the business ? 
 
 Mr. M.ACBETH. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Where do you intend to locate ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. That is the trouble. I have been looking into it for two years. 
 
 Mr. Pay'ke. You could not find a location where you can make it at that price. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. So far we have not discovered a bed of rock salt. 
 
 Mr. Payne. There is one at Warsaw, N. Y. 
 
 The Chairman. Then you have to get something that you have not yet found be- 
 fore you cau make it at that price ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 1 can not see how you can help the glass business by put- 
 ting a duty on soda ash. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. You think it does not help the glass iiidnstry nor reduce its costs 1 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Most assuredly not. The lower the raw material the better. There 
 is another chemical product that goes into glass. There is a duty on carbonate of 
 potash of 20 per cent. I do not think there is enough of it made in this country 
 altogether to supply me alone, aud why? It was formerly made of wood ashes in 
 this country. The last I bought was in 1882. The gentleman told me he was get- 
 ting old and wanted to retire from the business; that ho had made some money, and 
 his material had run short on the disappearance of timber. Ho said, "Weliave 
 nothing from which to make pearl ash." It is made in Germany, bnt it is of an in- 
 ferior quality compared with that made in France. The French quality is used in 
 the finer grades of glassware. This 20 iicrcent. on it is all revenue. I have been :n 
 the market for it for years, and I think if there had been any in the market I wonld 
 have heard of it or been offered some. 
 
 The Chairman. This is a revenue duty aud not a protective duty? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You have said that this little soda-ash factory at Syracuse did not 
 comijete with the Euiopean soda-ash. How would a reduction help you ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. There is a misapprehension about the matter of competition, and 
 the element of quality has been left out of consideration. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. You have said that he did not compete at all with you, and that if 
 he made a good enough article you would bny of him? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I am not finding fault with the quality of his goods. His goods are 
 pure. I yirefer another brand, which costs more, for my own reasons. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Would you get that hraud cheaper than his brand if the tariff were 
 taken off ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Certainly, the brand would be 2:3 per cent, cheaper. 
 
432 EEVISION OF THE TAKIFF. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. Then thoy do compete? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. There .•xre difterent brands of soda-aeh. The nest item that is expen- 
 sive to me is lead. Many of these glass manufacturers do not use it, but quite a num- 
 ber do. Thn duty is 2 cents a pound. Now, the situation in the lead business is 
 peculiar. We have examined it from time to time for several years. I am not pre- 
 pared to state how much the duty increases the price of domestic precisely, or how 
 much of this duty we have to pav'if we use domestic lead, but we usually pay $1.80 or 
 $1.90 a hundred more than the price of English lead. I think it will net just about 
 that. This, in our examination of the matter, we have found to be about correct. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. One dollar and ninety cents a hundred pounds. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I have had oxidized lead quoted this mouth from Liverpool at 3 
 cents. The duty is 3 cents. The Americans ask $6.25 a hundred for the same kind. 
 We can not get 'it for much less. We pay 2 cents a pound duty for pig-lead. There 
 is another item. It is German clay, used in making pots. There is one spot in Ger- 
 many which supplies the world with that clay. If I remember aright, the duty is 
 30 per cent. Thatisull wellenonghif this Government is hard-up for money. 1 can 
 not see how it helps the pot manufacturer. The exact figures we have obtained on 
 this soda-ash, potash, and lead, which go into the manufacture of the finer grades of 
 glass, compared with the prices in Germany, are these — for that which Germany pays 
 |40 we pay |79.63 for our material. We could get the same thing in Germany for 
 ,1-10 that costs us here $79.63. This is the practical effect of the tariff. You have 
 heard the statement of gentlemen who have spoken as to the application. of the 
 package clause. How it can be obviated I am not prepared to say. For instance, 
 here is a mixed lot of chimneys imported, the duty on which is $122. The ocean 
 freight is $112. The goods cost $248. Now, the duty amounted in that mixed lot of 
 chimneys to 5J cents per dozen. I was told that I made a mistake, and that I did 
 not know how to import. They told me they could have changed this bill so that I 
 should have paid only 3 cents duty on that lot of chimneys. In a protective respect 
 the Mills bill was more favorable than the present tariff; it would have increased 
 the duty on this ware. When the goods are sold, the German exporter says : " I 
 quote you these goods including packages. I will deduct 40 or 50 per cent, from the 
 invoice, so you may pay the duty on the goods only." I do not know that he is lia- 
 ble for this ; if you leave it to him to charge what he chooses for packages, I do not 
 know but that it is right. He can say, " My goods are 10 cents, including package." 
 1 do not know but that be has a right to do it. 
 
 The Chairman. They were benelited then by the Mills bill in the restoration of 
 the package clause ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir ; that is, it would have increased the duty. If I am right as 
 I understand it, the Senate bill put the duty at 1 cent a pound. If that is true, I 
 should say that is another misapprehension of the facts of the case. I know some 
 articles which are worth $5 a piece, and they would not weigh more than a pound. 
 There would be one cent on them. Another article very heavy and very cheap would 
 be $1. This method is impracticable in any way that it can be taken. 
 
 Mr. Caelislb. Did it not graduate articles in weight according to value ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. This whole matter seems like a strange situation after all. I was 
 shipping yesterday to Australia, last week I was shipping to Copenhagen, and shortly 
 before to England. Not long ago I shipped to China and Japan. How can that be 
 done? We make a great mistake sometimes in calling a thing competition that is 
 not competition, leaving out entirely the element " quality." Some of these things 
 made savor a good deal of the milliner shop; what is fashionable one spring is 
 not fashionable next spring. Many things depend on the caprice of fashion. This 
 is not the fault of the tariff. New goods come on and are more profitable. These 
 things, however, in their turn become old and go down. Wo often find a merchant 
 selling off the odds and ends of a thing below cost. It is not how much can I make 
 on it, it is what can I get for it? I will give you an instance in goblets. I asked 
 a dealer the other day about this ware. He said: " We have here two kinds of gob- 
 lets. We have this tine French make at $2.25, and another, the German, at $1.50. 
 The American is still cheaper." I said: "Which sells most and how do you calculate 
 on sales?" He said: "The chances are a person will come in and prefer the fine 
 goods and pay $2.25 for the quality." " But they are out of fashion and American 
 are very low, and they do not want them at all." Yon leave out the elements of 
 quality and fashion all the time. So it is iu my goods. I do not care what the Ger- 
 man sells his chimneys for. In Japan for the same thing that goes on the same lamp 
 they sell for 5 cents we sell for 25 cents; but I am too high, too much difference. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there any trouble in their getting your shapes ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I do not know. Their goods are very poor in quality. We make a 
 chimney that they make over there very clie.ap, but I sell them for 38 cents. They 
 can be imported from Gorma,ny at 16 cents. I export them at 38 cents. I claim It 
 costs me too much for material — more than it docs to bring iu the chimneys. I am 
 not competing with the German, but excel him in quality. This is business, _ What 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 433 
 
 ia the matter -witli tlie white crockery ware ? Is it not oat of fashion ? I was in 
 Chicago the other day, and I found out about American and English goods, and saw 
 this, that, and the other kind of ware. I paid |84 for a set of ware. I saw one for 
 |60, one for $30, and one for $40. I bought one for $84 because I wanted that kind. 
 I paid $24 for an English lamp. American lamps, perhaps just as good, are sold in 
 London for $8; that is, they are lamns that will give just as much light. They are 
 sold here for |8, or perhaps $5, that will give just as much light. This English lamp 
 did not compete with the American lamp at all. I wanted that |'22 lamp. They are 
 exported and imported both. I think it is a perfectly proper thing. 
 
 Europe is being scoured by American agents going over there to pick up new ideas 
 and new devices. We have been constructing a tariff without taking into considera- 
 tion the wants, habits, and customs of tho people. I do not think you will cut off 
 the importations of foreign glassware, nor of foreign crockery ware by an increase 
 in the duty. You will make people who wish to buy that kind pay more, but do you 
 suppose you will increase tho price of American manufacturers' goods by a tariff? I 
 can not see that you do. Does not he compete with his neighbors ? The only thing 
 you do accomplish is to increase the cost of his product. We want to export. I pre- 
 dict that before long there will be a stringency or shnt down in the glass business. 
 There are larger stocks on hand than have been known in a long time. What con- 
 cerns me is this : that of the two hundred kinds of articles that are made, in order to 
 what is called protecting twenty kinds you increase the cost of one hundred and 
 eighty kinds not imported. That is all you do by this increase of the present duty 
 on material. I want to export. I haveno ideaat all that I canstop imijortation. I 
 do not compete with chimneys that are sold for 16 cents; I do not make 16-cent 
 goods. By this process you increase the cost of my product so as to curtail and em- 
 barrass export of it, and decrease the use of it at home. Yon are building up a Chinese 
 wall, out of which I want to get. I say competition is misunderstood, and so far it has 
 been the policy of this Government, in eifect, to increase the cost of the product of 
 the manufacturer only. 
 
 Mr. BaYnE. In your manufacture and use of soda-ash, pearl-ash, German clay, and 
 lead, would you have the duties remitted on all those articles 1 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Would you get them free ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. American oxide is selling at what ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I think 6J cents. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I think it is not much more than 5 cents. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I may be wrong. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. I am not sure, but I think |5 is the price, and if you pay |7.55 for the 
 English, duty paid, it is rather high. The American oxide is just as good as the En- 
 glish, 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. What is pig-lead selling at now in Pittsburgh ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. About %'i.lb. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. The English is selling in England at $3.50. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I am not posted on recent quotations of English pig-lead, but English 
 oxide was quoted us in December at 3 cents, and pig-lead would be less. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. It is selling at $3.50 in England. You buy American pig-lead at about 
 $3.75. If that be true, the tariif duty of 2 cents a pound has not increased the price 
 very much to the American consumer. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. If I had had time I would have compiled a statement. I know I 
 should not come before the committee and make these statements without having 
 definite proof, but it has been my experience in the past four or five years that Amer- 
 ican lead was nearly as much higher than English as tho duty. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I want to say that you have given the impression to tho committee 
 that because of a high duty on these articles you use that the present price of the 
 product you use is an increased one. I am trying to show you now that English lead 
 can not be laid down nor bought for 2 cents less than the American. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I think he said the English was imported at $1.00 a hundred. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. No, sir. If English pig-lead was $15, the American would be $14.90. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I am speaking now of the present price you would have to pay. 
 Three dollars and fifty cents for English without considering the duty at all, and you 
 get American for $3.75. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Well. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is pearl ash worth now ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Five dollars and twenty-five cents, duty paid, 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is there an American product of that kind t 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. None whatever ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. None that I can flnil, 
 
 485 38 
 
434 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is there a substitute for it ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How mucli German clay do you use ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I do not know exactly the percentage that goes into pots. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. We have what is used as a substitute for German clay, ha_Te we not 7 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Nothing for use in pots. We have nothing that will take the place 
 
 of it. . j-T. + +1, 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I want to ask you about lamp chimneys. Is it true that there are a 
 great many inventions in lamp chimneys in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Most assuredly, 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Are you able by reason of your nearness to the inventors to supply the 
 manufacturers with exactly the kind they want ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is it not true that the use of lamps is infinitely greater m this country 
 than in Europe or in any part of the old world ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I am not prepared to answer that. They are used largely in Ger- 
 many. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is the average to a family ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Thev may average three to a family. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is it not true that European hotels still use the old tallow dip candles ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I believe in Geimany they keep that up. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I think they use tallow dip caudles in the best hotels in England and 
 France. I found them in both England and France. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. We are sending our lamps over there to " enlighten" them on that 
 subject. 
 
 Mr. Bayke. I suppose the Germans, for instance, are capable of manufacturing for 
 importation, such chimneys as you manufacture ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. It is rather a diflicult question for me to estimate the capacity of the 
 German people. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. It has been shown by gentlemen who have appeared before us that we 
 had, to a certain extent, a monopoly of the decorated china-ware business, because we 
 are able to produce the liner class of decorated table ware, but the German article 
 has now come into competition with that product by imitating our patterns, and they 
 have sent men hero to get a knowledge of the art so they can manfaotiire them, and 
 is it not altogether probable that they may imitate your ware and manufacture the 
 one hundred and eighty kinds of lamp chimneys that they do not manufacture now?' 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Suppose they do 1 
 
 Mr. Bayne. But do you pretend to say that if the Germans who come in competi- 
 tion with you with their lower wages and with cheaper articles of every kind enter- 
 ing into the manufacture, that under those conditions you could compete with the 
 Germans in the markets of the world ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I will make a strong proposition. Give me free material ; give me 
 free trade, if you choose to call it so, say, as free as England has ; give me the proper 
 product of my Jabor, and I defy any competition on the face of the earth, or to make 
 the same quality of goods for lower money. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. And pay the wages you now pay ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I will pay more. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How much do you pay your workmen on an average ? What can one 
 make per day ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. They work two turns and make, on an average, $4.50 per day, and 
 work five and a half days a week. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you pretend to claim that you, paying |4.50 a day to your workmen, 
 making, for instance, this one hundred and eighty kinds of chimneys, can compete 
 with the German manufacturer of the same kind of chimneys, employing the same 
 kind of labor, and paying $2.25 a day ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You say you can? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You can, under those conditions, compete with the Germans? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir ; I will not restrict it to glass ; I will take the iron trad& 
 also. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I would prefer that you stick to your business. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. At one time, in what is called "a shop," we employed four hands. 
 One was a boy at 35 cents, another was a boy at 50 cents, another a man at |1, another 
 was a blower at $2. Figure that up and it is |3.85. We did away with the 50-cent. 
 boy. He did not starve. We kept the 35-cent boy and paid him 15 cents more. We 
 increased the $l.mau to $1.15 We decreased the time of wftfJj^ing, and for the $3.65 
 got the sMUio work. 
 
 Mr. liAYNE. Wliat are the ho\irH now ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth, On;- woTkiiicn luivo limited their hours to ,5\',rty-four % A^eek. They; 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 435 
 
 can do tbat work in thirty-five hours. He can work eight honrs and make forty-eight 
 hours a week. Let him give me half an hour a day more, or, say, nine hours. Let him 
 give me four and a half, and himself four and a half hours a day, and what a tremen- 
 dous change that would make. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. What proportion of your manufactured product is represented by 
 labor f 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. About 58 per cent. 
 
 The Chairman. I understood you to say you increased the number of hours ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. No, sir, no increase. What is actually in practice is forty-four 
 hours a week to do what should be done in thirty-five hours. 
 
 The Chairman. Is that the practice ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. There is at the present time a tremendous kicking, and they talk 
 about not doing it, and I am prefectly satisfied from all accounts that they can do 
 their work in thirty hours. We have carefully looked into that, and there is a great 
 waste of time. I am satisfied of that. 
 
 Mr. McKejtna. The question was, do you pay twice as much wages as the Germans? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I think you have a wrong idea of production and of values. You 
 leave entirely the element of quality out of the case. In the case of labor you leave 
 that element out altogether. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Answer the question directly. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. That would involve considerable debate. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What proposition? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Will you let me state the relative value of this labor? We find after 
 diligent inquiry that the relative wages of the German workman is 8 when the En- 
 glish is 12 and American 16. That German is dear. He is doing the work of a boy 
 part of the time; that is, he insists on going into each of the branches of the opera- 
 tion. We have seven men and boys to do the same kind of work. In that we have 
 economy of labor. That German half the time is doing the work of a boy at a very 
 low price. We have a boy to do that. You see it is everything in the quality and 
 organization. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. What proportion of your product is represented by labor? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I think about 57 or 58 per cent, of the selling price of the goods. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. If the foreign workmen could work to the same advantage that yours 
 do, supposing he could do that, could you then undersell the foreigner in the 
 markets of the world if you paid |16 for what the German paid but .f8? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. There is a very large "if" there. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. No "if" except upon the German. Upon the as.sumption that the 
 German acquired the skill and eftioiency of the American workman, and he works for 
 8 and you pay 16. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. On that assumption, most assuredly. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Your theory is that with free trade you could compete with the world 
 upon the hypothesis that the American workman is so much bettor organized and 
 skilled than the foreigner? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Did you contemplate at any time the project of moving your works to 
 Germany ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Did you know at the time of the inefficiency and unskillfulness of the 
 German labor? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I sent to see what could be done. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. After examining, did you still contemplate moving your works to that 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. What wages would you have paid ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. What I could have got them for. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you suppose you could get a man to go from here to Germany and 
 work for $8, when he was getting |16 here ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. There comes in another question. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. That raises another idea — your proposition that if some skillful men 
 like yourself, well informed in the manufacture of these products, should go to Ger- 
 many and instruct their labor and bring them up to perhaps the standard of the 
 American labor and pay the German price, do you think that practical? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. So that your idea was that you should go there and get more efficient 
 service out of the workmen than the Germans now get "l 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. The leading idea was the cheapness of the material and the cheap- 
 ness of the whole plant. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Was labor an element? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. It was, of course, an element. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Y'ou expected to get cheaper labor? 
 
43 G REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I expected to get the bulk of it out of the material. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Why was 58 per cent, represented by labor? You have said that the 
 finished product of your establishment at Pittsburgh represeutod about 58 per cent, 
 labor. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I said on the selling price. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Now, if you had gone to Germany, would not 58 per cent, possibly 
 reiiresent the labor still ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. In the price of the goods. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Would it not be a fact that you would get materials much cheaper ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. About one-half, and everything else in proportion. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. If you maintain wages, maintain the product, could not you produce 
 as cheaply as the German produces his product ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I do not know what the German can make it for. 
 
 Mr. Bay'NE. Your lamp chimneys are very much like the decorated table ware; it 
 is an invention and changes with fashion. Improvements are going on all the time, 
 so it is not like iron, window-glass, plate-glass, and a multitude of other things in 
 which changes are not freq^ueut, but they are standard articles substantially uni- 
 form? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I believe window-glass has changed considerably. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. We still have the green window-glass? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. We still have many things, but it is not used as much. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. But the great bulk of the industries of this country do not depend 
 upon the varieties of taste? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I would not admit that at all. 
 
 Mr. Bayub. Railroad bars have not changed. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Let us stick to the business, Mr. Bayne. I was going to illustrate. 
 Look at the enormous use of plate-glass, or take the matter of bottles. At one time 
 there was an enormous quantity used in this country of what we called pop bottles. 
 You may know that has all changed. I know some green-glass makers have gone 
 out of the business of making them. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. My idea was this, that window-glass, bottles, tumblers, railroad bars, 
 iron, and other standard products of manufacture which have been used for a great 
 many years, continue to be used substantially in the same form, while your business 
 is one which depends upon the fickleness of taste, and is not to be regarded as a 
 standard business. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I would not admit all of your premises by any means. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You said awhile ago that if yon had gone to Germany you would 
 have paid your labor what you could have got it for. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. Is it not a fact that that is what manufacturers are doing here in 
 the United States ? Are they paying more than they can get it for ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. There is a curious history in this matter. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is anybody paying a laborer any more than he can get him for? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I do not know a man, woman, or child in the United States that 
 does it. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. That is business. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I claim unions may be a substantial bonelit. I would rather have 
 unions than not; bnt the union sets its own limit on its own wages. I have men who 
 are able to earn |7.50, and $6, and |;5. The union prohibits them. A limit is placed 
 on the earning capacity of the workmen by themselves. They limit the time they 
 work and close up when they please. This state of affairs is wretched. At the same 
 time I do not wish to deride the union. I believe it is improving, and that it will 
 improve until they realize that they and the employer are only different parts of one 
 organization. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Will you prepare a statement or schedule of the prices of labor in 
 the glass business here and abroad of the articles which you have mentioned in your 
 testimony ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir ; I will do so. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. And the labor cost as far as you know it? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I have only known in the last three or four days that I would be 
 here, and I have trusted to the impulse of the moment to supply any doticiency in 
 preparation. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How long have you been engaged in this business ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. About seventeen years. I started awhile ago to speak of pig lead, 
 and I would like to explain a little more about that. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You stated you made one hundred and eighty dillcront kinds of chim- 
 neys? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir ; we make nothing bat chimneys. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You were interrogated .about the reason why you contem- 
 plated jjoiujj to Germany, I would be glad if you would state to the committee the 
 
REVISION 01' THE TARIFF. 437 
 
 reason and full information of tlie matter why yon conclnded not to go to Germany. 
 It seems you rendered a decision against that couclnsiou. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Under the tariff, admitting such materials as this free, it wonld not 
 pay. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What tariif V 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. The free admission of these articles. 
 
 The Chairman. Ton mean you would go if we had free trade ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I would not. Yon think I am protected. I am not. The material 
 in a dozen chimneys pays more dnty than a dozen chimneys pay. 
 
 The Chairman. If you had free raw material you would not pay what you now 
 payV 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. That is it. 
 
 The Chairman. If you had free trade in raw material, j'ou would he willing to 
 have free trade in chimneys ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Precisely. 
 
 The Chairman. Then yon visited Germany and examined into the whole (|nestion 
 and all the elements in the case, and you came to the conclneioa tha in the long run 
 it would be better for you to stay in America if you got free raw material and not 
 have a duty on your finished product and paying American labor higher wages ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir ; that is it exactly. 
 
 Mr Bayne. I understood yon to say that the cost of your labor is 58 per cent. The 
 cost of the material is 42 per cent. Say the tarifl' is one-half, which would be 21. The 
 . tariff on these chimneys is 45. Why do you say you are not protected ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I am practically worse than that. I could bring in the same goods 
 which I mate at 3 cents a dozen duty. The material going into a dozen of the same 
 chimneys will cost me 5 cents. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I am taking it on the general business. You say the genera] business 
 on the articles you use, the raw material, yiay 21 per cent., while you are protected 
 about 45 per cent., and still you say yon are not protected. Why ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yon do not seem 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I am taking the general result of your business as yon have stated it 
 here. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. How can you protect me when yon increase the cost on the product 
 which I make which is not imported ? 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Yon say thecost of importing the material is 21 percent., while you get 
 a protection of 45 per cent., and still you say you are not protected. I am taking the 
 whole business. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I will not admit your premises that I am protected 45 per cent, on 
 what I make. 
 
 The Chairman. He says he does not get any protection. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What proportion of your product is sold in the United States, .and 
 wh.at proportion is exported ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I can not answer that. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Can yon approximate it ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I can not. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is it one-tenth of it? When yon prepare that paper for Mr. Carlisle 
 I am especially anxious that you include this as one of the facts. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I do not think it would be fair to make an estimate for you on the 
 basis you mention. I will explain whj'. Any man who wished to introduce his 
 goods in Texas, or Kalamazoo, or Australia, or England will find it costs money to 
 do it. He may have much cost at the commencement of his business, and it takes a 
 long time to establish a trade. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you export at a loss ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I would not do anything at a loss. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I understand you to say you are at considerable expense ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I would be sometimes. That is a necessary element in the case. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Will yon give it to us in round numbers the proportion of export and 
 proportion sold in the United States? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I can do so from the hooks. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you export ns much as 5 per cent.? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Would it be fair to ask me to state if I did know? It takes some 
 time to get starled. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. From our standpoint the greatest market is here, and the man who 
 throws it away to my mind has little business judgment. What I want to know is 
 whether you export five or ten or fifteen, or whatever it may be, and if whether in 
 seeking a foreign market you are doing the country a service or an injury ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. When a man is selling goods in foreign parts is he doing the coun- 
 try an injury? 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I want to know what proportion of your product is sold here and what 
 proportion is sold in foreign markets ? If you sell three-fourths it is good, but if you 
 
438 REVISION OP THE TAfttlJ'F. 
 
 only sell one-twentieth or less than tliat I should say that the conclusion is not sc* 
 
 good. 1 i T. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. It is a continually growing trade. I would not like to have you 
 take the estimate on the beginning of a foreign trade and say that there is a loss 
 in it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How long have you heen shipping goods to Australia and England ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. It is less than two years. 
 
 Mr. Geak. Are you establishing agencies there ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you send out samples with a commercial traveler ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Not exactly in that way. To some places in England we have been 
 selling goods for seven years. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How about Australia ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Australia is doing very well. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are you doing business as a shipping merchant, or do yon ship a few 
 samples out only? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I am endeavoring to do a general business. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You have already stated that we invented a great many of these chim- 
 neys in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I want to know whether your exportation is not largely for lamps on 
 which it is necessary to use your chimney ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Not by a jugful. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are your chimneys used on European lamps? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I am unable to eay, but I think so. It must be so. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Can you tell now what proportion of your product you ship abroad? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I do not want to. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Do you mean to tell us you do not know how much you sell out of 
 the country? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I will stand here and say I have not added it up at all. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Is it not afact that thereason why you refrained from transferring 
 yourself to Germany is that you were afraid you would lose the American market? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I think 1 would have had an advantage in the American market. 
 There is a great deal involved in why I did not go to Germany. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Then there are other reasons. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I do not think that whether I wanted to go to Germany or not is 
 any argument at all. You do not dispute the statement; you are only missing the 
 question. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. I am trying to get your information on the subject so as to help me. 
 I am not willing to put it in the form of an argument at all; I am simply asking the 
 question. You said the reason you did not go to Germany was because labor iu the 
 United States was more efficient 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. The reasons why I did not go are private and economic reasons. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Then that is not the sole reason you did not go? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I stated the principal thing. It was that if you had a decreased 
 cost of material here we could not make goods over there and bring them here. 
 
 Mr. LaFollete. The result of your investigation in Germany, if 1 understand you 
 rightly, was that labor was less efficient there than iu this country. Was that lack 
 of efficiency there due to want of art or want of organization in the factory? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Mostly want of organization. 
 
 Mr. LaFollette. That would be something that could be changed more rapidly 
 than to acquire skill, if it was a lack of skill ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LaFollette. Why is labor in Germany less efficient than it is here ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I think to answer that question I should have to go into the whole 
 history of the German people. I do not know how else to do it. 
 
 Mr. LaFollette. Well, plea.so do not do that. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I did not quite finish my remark on pig-lead. On that question I 
 thiuk I should be entitled to have some kind of a say, laecause we are affected by it. 
 I see by Spofford that the duty was an aver.ige one of 63 per cent. The situation of 
 the lead business is about this. We have a lead trust. It is not my purpose to abuse 
 trusts. I believe a man has a right to go into business. That trusf to-day has con- 
 trol of most all the lead busniess of the United States, and what it does iiot own it 
 controls. That trust may control the price of pig-le.'id. It would not bo remarkable 
 if half a dozen smelters did not make money out of the deal. That would present 
 the peculiar situation of the Government being in par'tnerahip with the lead trust, to 
 increase a product 08 per cent, on which a very largo number of people depend for a, 
 livelihood. 
 Mr. Bayne. Would you say the same of the sugar trust? 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
KEVlSlON Ot* tltfi TARtP'P. 439 
 
 Mr. Geak. Yon believe combinations tend to increase tlie price ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Most emphatically. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Yon say the trust tends to increase the price of the article. Do you 
 think it tends to increase the price more than a corporation does ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. That depends. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are not these trnsts, like the sugar trust, composed of a number of cor- 
 porations ? Is that the rule 1 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I do not know that I understand your question clearly. A trust — 
 I do not care what you call it, it may be an aggregation of manufacturers or an ag- 
 gregation of labor — the prime and first object is to get the cost of the article down. 
 Lead, for instance, is in this country a byproduct from smelting silver ore. If the 
 lead trust should succeed, and it is a most reasonable and natural supposition, they 
 will try to control the product and price of pig-lead. It can be easily done. I say 
 if this Congress keeps a tariff of 2 cents on it, that enables them better to corner the 
 market, and it will take only about $1,000,000 to do it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That trust could combine and put up the prices? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And you said that that was all right ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I said I believed a man had a right to go into business. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You believe a lead trust is a good thing to go into ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Very good, under the circumstances, for money making. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would $1,000,000 control the lead business of this country 1 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. A million dollars would control the price of pig-lead in the United 
 States. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You do not think it is proper for the Government to help keep 
 up the price ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. No, sir ; and that is the effect of the tariff. 
 
 The Chairman. If we remove the duty on what you call raw material, and then 
 remove the duty from the finished articles, would the consumer get his chimneys any 
 cheaper ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. How much ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. As near as I can figure it out, it would 1)8 $650 a week on my 
 <product. 
 
 The Chairman. Six hundred and fifty dollars a week would represent how much 
 on each chimney ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I do not know exactly. 
 
 The Chairman. Suppose we took the duty off the raw material, 45 per cent., how 
 much would the consumer be benefited ? Would he be benefited to the amount of the 
 duty, by less or by more ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I could not state exactly. 
 
 The Chairman. You are here asking for free raw material. If we take the duty 
 off all raw material and then the duty off the finished product, what I want to know 
 is what benefit the American consumer would get in the reduced price of the finished 
 product? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. He would get just about the amount I stated. 
 
 The Chairman. How much would that he ? How much off the present price of the 
 chimney? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I do not know that I could state the exact amount per dozen. 
 
 The Chairman. I am not talking about a week's product. You understand the 
 business. You have visited Germany and other points for the purpose of investigat- 
 ing these matters, and you are here asking us to give you free raw material, and I 
 want to know what would be the reduced cost to the consumer on your goods if we 
 took off the duty. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. In dollars and cents it is $650 a week. 
 
 The Chairman. What I want to know is what chimneys would cost the consumer ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Chimneys now costing say 25 cents by the dozen ? 
 
 Mr. Batne. Take the dozen chimneys now sold at 25 cents, how much would the 
 consumer get a dozen chimneys for if the duties were taken off? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. You ask me to make figures. [After figuring.] The reduced cost 
 would be about 3 or 4 cents a dozen on that kind. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Only 3 or 4 cents a dozen ? 
 
 The Chairman. Would you maintain the present rate of wages? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. When a man or woman would go to a retailer and buy a chimney for a 
 lamp would he or she get the benefit of that? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. My individual opinion is he might not. 
 
 The Chairman. In your judgment, if you had free raw material the consumer of 
 your product would not get the benefit of it ? 
 
440 REVISION OP THE TARIFI^. 
 
 Mr. Macrutii. No, sir. [Mis.approlicnsion.l I can not say. 
 
 The Chairman. You do not think the consumer would get the benefit by wiping 
 out these duties, and the |G50 that the Government collects would be divided be- 
 tween the manufacturer and the middle-man and the consumer would not get any 
 benefit at all? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. No, sir. [Misapprehension.] I can not follow the question so far. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinridge. Yon have stated the reduction on your line of chimneys would 
 be how many cents on each ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Three or 4 cents a dozen. 
 
 Mr. Breckinkidgb. Tak'ng chimneys at 26 cents or 27 cents, it would diminish 
 the price paid at present something like 12 per cent, f 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. It would enable the retailer to sell them cheaper than he does now ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the price of the retailer ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do not people generally buy half a dozen at a time ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Some more, some less. 
 
 The Chairman. Would they sell at 5 cents apiece? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. I do not know. I would say 10 cents as the retail price, according 
 to location or distance. 
 
 The Chairman. How do they sell in Pittsburgh ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. It may be three for a quarter. We are talking about one size. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. What were these chimneys selling for when you commenced busi- 
 ness seventeen years ago ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. That was in 1872. This kind was not made then. When I began 
 business what answers to them was selling at 50 cents a dozen. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Then, under this system, the price is gone down from 54 to 30 cents ? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Under free trade they would go down one-twelfth of a cent to the 
 consumer? 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. It would be pretty hard to figure out that size coin. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. You say they sell at 30 cents a dozen now, and with free raw ma- 
 terial they would sell for 4 cents a dozen less. Under the present system they have 
 fallen from 54 cents to 30 cents. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The fall has not been peculiar to this country. It has been all over 
 the world. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth. The uniform experience in our product is that there has been an in- 
 crease in labor and decrease in price of commodities for the last twenty-five years, 
 both in free trade and tariif countries; it certainly could not be the tarifi!' that did- 
 this. English bottle-blowers have had their wages increased 30 per cent, the last 
 year. We have only increased the cost of our goods by a tarifll'. 
 
 I have been asked to prepare a statement or schedule of the prices of labor in the 
 glass business here and abroad. This I find, under the circumstances, impossible to 
 do, for the following reasons : We thought we had a rather complete statement of the 
 German laborer's wages, but a part of it has beeil lost. It was gathered for our own 
 information in two trips to Germany in 1887 and 1888. We found considerable dif- 
 ficulty in getting reliable data, and also found a variation in difi'erent places in Ger- 
 many in the amount paid. While the information that we gathered was sufficient 
 for our own practical use we did not anticipate making it complete enough to be of 
 value to those not experts in the business, and, as stated before, we found the ques- 
 tion of quality of the labor had been entirely eliminated from all statistics published. 
 This, in my opinion, is absolutely necessary in a right consideration of the question, 
 and I append extracts from a letter published in the Philadelphia Press of October 
 27, 1889, from Mr. Galbally, who is a practical worker, and whose information coin- 
 cides with onr own. He said : 
 
 "One thing that amused me was to see in the glass works at Glasgow, where 
 they have a tank furnace in operation, three men in a shop make pint flasks, and 
 other shops of three men each working on different kinds of ware. They would take 
 their bottles out of the molds themselves and throw them in a box for the finisher 
 to pick up and put in the hole himself. I also saw the same style of work in the 
 Stevens Glass Works, on Bishop street, Glasgow. I asked the men how many gross 
 per day they could make of one-half pint flasks, and was told 10 gross, which would 
 be less than one-half the amount we make in the United States, with three men in 
 one day's work. Through France and Belgium and Germany the men work the glass 
 on iron blocks in the bottle houses and work the glass on iron plates in flint houses. 
 The men do not work as fast as the men in our country work. In the bottle factories 
 in those countries the ware is what is called turned-mold ware, from the way the 
 blower twists his glass while blowing it iu the mold. 
 
tlEVlSION OF THE TARIFF. 441 
 
 "wages axd cost of living. 
 
 " In the bottle and ilmt-glass trade tbe -R'a-ges of tbo skilled j>lass-worlvei\s as a rule 
 are not so good in Germany or Belgium as they are in England, -with tbo exception 
 of tbe wndow-glass ■workers, wbo are tbe best paid of any cla&s of skilled "workers, 
 ■n'bich is owing to their perfect organization. In England and Scotland the wages 
 of skilled -workers rnn from $12 to $20 per week, while in France it is not quite so 
 much. In Belgium and Germany the weekly wages of skilled workers in tbe bottle 
 and flint-glass trade is from $8 to $12 per week, while the window-glass workers' 
 wages are much more. Skilled workers all work piece-work in those countries. Tbe 
 unskilled workers are paid by the week. lu England the firemen, or teasers aa they 
 are called, get from $8 to $9 per week. Other labor in the works get from $5 to ;|6 
 per week. Boys receive all tbe way from $1.50 to $3. In France, Germany, and Bel- 
 gium tbe wages of the unskilled workman are very small, being from $3 to $4.50 per 
 week. The wages of women in those places are from $1.50 to $2.40 per week. The 
 wages of boys and girls are $1 to $1.50 per week. In many cases it is less than this 
 amount, depending to a great extent upon tbe condition of tbe people and the oppor- 
 tunity offered to take advantage of their circumstances." 
 
 Another difficulty in making comparison between our own wages and the wages of 
 German workmen is that out of the twenty-seven factories in Germany none were en- 
 gaged in making the same quality of goods which wo make, and tbe labor on tbe finer 
 grade of goods is of necessity more than on the common grade, as a rule. 
 
 We found the pay of persons engaged in grinding glass chimneys in Germany very 
 low indeed, but it took more of them to do tbe work, aud not so well done. We find 
 precisely the same thing in ourown business. Weare willing to pay one person niore 
 than another for doing tbe same work, because they can do it better. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth submitted the following for publication with his testimony : 
 
 Hon. W. McKiNLBT, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee: 
 
 In regard to the statement of Mr. W. J. Smith, giving contradictory statistics to my 
 statements made to the committee, I believe Mr. Smith will concur in the statement 
 that at the time the schedule was made out, and which he referred to, that his union 
 was asked to make some more of tbe article in question (student chimneys) to the 
 day's work for the same wages, on account of the great difference between our make 
 and the price of tbe imported. The excuse was made to him at the time that tbe 
 material used in our domestic manufacture was largely increased in cost by the tariff 
 and that, at the time, tbe imported were sold at a very cheap rate, and while we both 
 agreed that they were comparatively worthless goods, tbe price of domestic manu- 
 facture came to so very much more than tbe imported that we found it a great diffi- 
 culty in inducing the trade to use the domestic make. A¥e perfectly agree with Mr. 
 Smith that the labor on one dozen domestic manufacture is more than the price of 
 _ the imported article, but, as was stated to the committee, the question of C[uality has 
 been entirely eliminated and has not entered into tbe consideration of tbe question, 
 as it should have been. We also stated to Mr. Smith at tbe time that we did not 
 expect him (or the union, rather) to work for us art such wages as would enable us 
 to sell our goods as low as the imported article. I would add that, as a consequence, 
 of tbe cordial co-operation of the workmen, we were enabled to reduce the co.st of this 
 article, still maintaining the price per day for tbe labor, and our sales largely in- 
 creased since the time mentioned. Further, in speaking of the article prodncetl be- 
 fore the committee (student chimney), the duty on this chinmey will amount to 
 about 2£- or 2i cents i)er dozen. Tbe duty on the material going into this chimney is 
 more than this. 
 
 I would further like to amend an answer to Mr. Bayne's question by stating a gross 
 sum, which would probably be a better and clearer answer to his question, if he will 
 permit; it is this, that in the production of about 1,800 gross per week the increased 
 cost of the material used in making our quality of goods is about $650 per week. I 
 would respectfully request also to be allowed to state that the assertion made on the 
 floor that some New England glass factories haii to discontinue the business on ac- 
 count of the imported goods is wrong. Two of the factories are in operation to-day 
 by their former proprietors, at improved localities ; tbe other one which it was claimed 
 went out of tbe business, did so because of local reasons, the manufacture of the goods 
 which they made and at which they were not successful having at least quadrupled 
 in the last four years in other more favorable localities of tbe country. 
 
 There are other statements made equally misleading, but it may not be proper to 
 state more than this in the absence of the parties making the statements. 
 
 Further, in reference to the statement that German wages were relative to Englnn<l 
 as 8 to 12 and American 16. I am perfectly content to accept $6 in the place of $H, 
 making tbe proportions 6, 12, and 16, as it makes the statement stronger than :ny 
 first statement, and the query now arises, bow does it come that England, a free- 
 
442 REVISION OF. THE TARIFF. 
 
 trade country, can pay twice as much as Germany, and notwithstanding the circurrf- 
 stances, Euglish.bottle blowers' wages were advanced 30 per cent, in the last year. 
 It has been our ,»bservation that a man who worked for |6 a weels; did so because he 
 was not worth any more. 
 
 Geo. a. Macbeth. 
 
 Pittsburgh, Pa., January 7, 1890. 
 
 Submitted to Mr. Smith January 7, and returned by him January 10, without com- 
 ment. I believe he did not think it necessary to sign, and his secretary, Mr. Dillon, 
 expressed no objections and stated lie saw none. 
 
 Geo. a. Macbeth. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. JAMES GILLINDER. 
 
 Mr. James Gillindek, of Philadelphia, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee : Before taking up the general 
 question I am here to represent, in view of what has been said by Mr. Macbeth on 
 the chimney question, I would like to present an object-lesson in that line. I sent 
 out before 1 left Philadelphia and got some chimneys, thinking it would give the 
 committee some impressions and some facts in relation to the selling price of that 
 class of goods imported, and that of home production, to the consumer. I was un- 
 fortunate enough not to secure one of Mr. Macbeth's chimneys, one of the best made, 
 but I secured another kind such as will answer my purpose, and show what I desire 
 to show. Of these student chimneys there are probably more imported than there 
 are of any other kind made. It is in universal use throughout the country. This 
 chimney is made cheap in Europe and is sold at 10 cents a dozen, including package 
 and cost of delivery to point of shiijment. 
 
 Mr. Batnh. The student lamp, I believe, is a German invention. 
 
 Mr. GiLLLNDBR. Yes, sir. I find by the mark on this chimney (the student chim- 
 ney) that it costs 8 cents each in this country at retail. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLLN. How much by the dozen? 
 
 Mr. GiLLlNDER. They are sold at 10 cents a dozen abroad. 
 
 The Chairman. Duty added ? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDER. Yes, sir. Duty added in this country. 
 
 Mr. ScHiLDKOTH That is the cost abroad at the point of shipment ? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDER. They cost 10 cents a dozen, including package, and if 40 per cent. 
 is taken off for packages and cost of transportation to point of shipment they would 
 pay a duty of only 6 cents a dozen. This chimney [indicating] is known as the Ar- 
 gand chimney, and is made across the water, and is sold at about the same price 
 abroad as the student chimney, 10 cents a dozen. We have here an American chim- 
 ney, made in Pittsburgh, that is sold in the market at less than cost to produce by 
 the manufacturer;, being sold as low as 21 cents a dozen. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What does it sell for at retail? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDER. Six cents. The point I desire to make is that the American 
 chimney is largely sold, and for less than the imported chimney. It costs less money 
 to the consumer. The imported chimney is used by people of means, and is sold as 
 an imported chimney, and for that reason it brings more money. I think if no chim- 
 neys were made in this country a great deal more money would be paid for this class 
 of chimneys, and the profit would be made by the importer. 
 
 Mr. La f ollette. Can you state the usual retail price abroad ? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDER. I can not. 
 
 Mr. L Faollettb. Are those chimneys made in this country ? 
 
 Mr. GILLINDER. Mr. Macbeth makes some of these. I think he stated he got 38 
 cents for a chimney similar in character to this [illustrating the crimped top chim- 
 ney]. While on this question of chimneys, before going into the other question, I 
 would like to say that in reply to inquiries made by mo of two large chimney manu- 
 facturers, to the inquiry what was the per cent, of labor on the total cost of the chim- 
 neys which they made, both replied and said that on crystal or lime glass chimneys 
 made without lead, the percentage of labor was 85 per cent, of the total cost. On 
 another grade of chimneys which are used to a large extent the percentage of labor 
 was 75 per cent. Another manufacturer of chimneys, one of the largest in this coun- 
 try, reported that on his chimneys the cost of labor was 75 per cent, made from glass 
 in which a large percentage of lead was used. The percentage of material used in 
 making chimneys is comparatively small compared to the cost in labor, and if we 
 had free raw material, as has been stated, it would not make a difference of 10 per 
 cent, in the tor.al cost of production. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you agree with Mr. Macbeth as to the matter of the inefficiency 
 of labor in Germany and in this country ? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDER. i do not. I think the glass-workers of Germany are as efScient as 
 
REVlSlOiir OP tfiE TARlFf. 443 
 
 the glass-'workera of this country, and in many of onr factories some of the best work- 
 men are those who learned their trade either in Belgium or Germany, and intro- 
 duced into this country the making of chimneys and other articles in what are known 
 as paste molds. 
 
 The Chairman. You do not think the difference in the efficiency between the 
 American and the German labor makes up the difi'ereuce in the price paid here? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDER. I have never heard any intimation of the kind from people who 
 are thoroughly posted in the business. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. You never heard there was any difference in efficiency ? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDER. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Do yon know how much meat the German gets a day ? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDER. I do not. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Do you know that his meal consists of a piece of black bread and 
 a little stale beer? Do you believe a man on that kind of fodder could work as well 
 as a well-paid American ? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDER. Well, I do not know. Oneof the best-developed class of people in 
 the world is the Scotch people, and it is said they live largely on oatmeal. 
 
 Mr. Flower. They do not always live on it. 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDER. I have seen ship-loads of immigrants from Germany coming to this 
 country, and as a rule they did not look as if they were starved, but looked well fed 
 and hearty. 
 
 Mr. Flower. But do they live on that kind of food ? 
 
 The Chairman. At all events the wages you give your men affords them sufficient 
 to buy meat and all that sort of thing. 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDBR. Yes, sir. I find on reference to the statistics of the Treasury 
 Department that the goods imported, that interfere with the interests we represent, 
 pay more than two-sevenths of all the duty that is collected on glassware. The class 
 of goods represented by Mr. Macbeth are but a small portion of ,the large variety of 
 goods that are imported. 
 
 The Chairman. Would it interrupt you to ask you if you know anything about the 
 export business in lamp-chimneys ? 
 
 Mr. GiLLlNDBR. I do not think there are many chimneys exported. There are a 
 few lines of chimneys exported from New York, usually to Cuba and some points in 
 South America. These are of a low quality and sell for 17, 18, and 19 cents, and we 
 export none of the goods similar in class to those imported from Europe. In going 
 over this question it would be only fair for the interest we represent to state that 
 the highest price class of goods imported, the class of goods that require the most 
 skillful and the highest paid labor, are the kinds we make. The present average 
 duty on glass is something over 62 per cent. Fine decorated and cut glass pays 4.5 
 per cent. Pressed glassware 40 per cent. We think we control the markets of this 
 country and there is some exported, some cheap grades of pressed glass. I have a 
 statement here, and perhaps I had better read it. 
 
 In appearing before you to represent the glass interests, in which we are directly 
 interested, we desire to say at the beginning that all we ask of the committee, in pre- 
 paring this portion of the bill that you propose presenting to the House, is that you 
 shall give us a rate of protection equal to the difference in wages i^aid between Eu- 
 ropean countries and our own. There is probably no branch of business in which the 
 item of labor is so directly traceable as in ours. The manufacturer of glass pays 
 from 60 to 90 per cent, of the cost of the manufactured articles to the workman direct ; 
 the remaining part is spent for materials, with the exception of what little average 
 of profit there may be in its manufacture. Some of the materials used in the manu- 
 facture of glass pay a tariff duty of from 20 to 75 per cent., and we do not think that 
 .any article we use ought to pay a higher tariff than the manufactured product. 
 Potash pays a duty of 20 per cent. Soda-ash 25 cents per 100 pounds, or equal to 33 
 per cent, of the cost at point of shipment. Litharge, or red lead, which is used in 
 the making of fine glass, pays a duty of 3 cents per pound on a cost of 4 cents in Eng- 
 land equals 75 per centum ad valorem. 
 
 We find, on referring to pages 41 and 42 of the annual report of the chief of the 
 Bureau of Statistics, in regard to imported merchandise, that the average duties on 
 glassware were during the year 1883, 62.16 per cent. This took in all the different 
 grades of glass from the lowest product to that which required the highest skill and 
 the most costly labor to make. We claim that the interest we represent makes the 
 glass that costs the most to produce, both for labor and material, of any of the differ- 
 ent kinds of glassware imported, and yet the duty is below the average, and is but 45 
 per cent, and 40 per cent., as against 75.27 per cent, for colored green and colored 
 glass bottles, the cheapest and most common kind of glass imported. In view of 
 this fact and that a considerable amount of the glass imported in our line are arti- 
 cles of luxury, largely used by the rich, we think it only fair that in rearranging the 
 tariff our line should be put on its proper basis. 
 
 There is a vast difference between the cost of labor in Europe, in the glass manu- 
 
444 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 facturing districts, and in our own country, and in many instances the articles cost 
 less on board, packages included, than we pav the workmen here for the labor alone 
 of inakiug the article in the glass factory. Take for instance 10-inch ring top domes 
 shades, opal, which are largely imported, they cost free on board at point of ship- 
 ment, packing included, $1 per dozen. We must pay according to the rates we are 
 now paying $1.05 per dozen for labor to produce an article of similar kind. There 
 labor does not cost thera more than 33 cents. Student chimneys, which are largely 
 imported into the United States, are sold at point of shipment for 10 cents per dozen. 
 The labor in our factories for a similar article does not cost less than 20 cents. Smoke 
 bells, opal glass, are imjiorted very largely into this country and cost at point of ship- 
 ment, 3-inch 24 cents; our labor cost 27 cents; G-inch 43 cents; our labor cost 51 
 cents ; 7-inch 48 cents ; our labor cost 56 cents ; 8-inch 60 cents ; our lahor cost 65 
 cents; 10-inch ring top shades, opal, their cost at point of shipment, 96 cents; our 
 labor cost 95 cents. The wages paid where these goods are made are very low, not 
 more than one-third of what is paid in this country. The result is that they can im- 
 port large quantities of these goods at such prices that it is impossible for us to com- 
 pete with them. We do not think for this class of goods our men are overpaid, we 
 do not think they average over nine months' work in the year ; we therefore ask that, 
 in addition to the present rate of duty, you put a specific duty on all these arti- 
 cles m addition to the ad valorem duty, not asking so much as the difference in wages, 
 but as per inclosed paragraphs, which we thiiilv would enable us to make them in 
 this country to a much larger extent than we now do, and would give more employ- 
 ment to the workmen engaged in that branch of the trade. 
 
 On pressed glassware you will notice we do not ask any special increase, simply 
 asking that you shall reduce the present ad valorem duty of 35 per cent., and add 
 10 cents per dozen this would give us an opportunity to compete in the small 
 articles which an ad valorem duty does not. On articles of glass, cut, engraved, 
 painted, colored, printed, stained, decorated, silvered or gilded, not including plate- 
 glass silvered, or looking-glass plates, we ask 10 cents per pound, and 50 per cent, 
 ad valorem. Tliis is a .very large increase over the present rate of duty, and one 
 which we think ought to be made, because the items covered by this paragraph are 
 largely used by the rich, reqnire skilled artisans, and it is certainlj' the interest of 
 the people employed in this country that these goods should bo made here. We 
 have the materials for making the best glass in the world. Our sand is equal, if not 
 better, than any used in the making of gl.ass anywhere, and yet it costs us a great 
 deal more than in Europe, and a very good article of sand has been shipped to this 
 country as ballast and delivered here at $1.25 per ton, while sand of similar quality 
 here can not be furnished to the manufacturer at less than double the price, and the 
 very best grades of sand cost four times as much as the same material in France, 
 where the sands are got for the fine glass produced in England. 
 
 A proper degree of protection would give a very groat development to this branch 
 of the business. This we can illustrate by the increase of duty put upon the finer 
 kinds of earthenware, china decorated, etc., by the tariff of 1882. Since that period 
 the production of fine china, porcelain, parian and bisque ware, has been very largely 
 increased and great advance made in the art. There has never been a period in our 
 history when so many beautiful articles in this class of goods have been made as at 
 present, and we think it is very largely owing to the fact that the duty was put high 
 enough to enable the American worker to devote his energies to the finer j^roductions 
 of such goods. We think we are fully entitled to as much duty as the class of goods 
 mentioned, which by reference yon will find is 60 per centum ad valorem. Chemical 
 glassware, thin blown glass, blown with or without a mold, and all other manu- 
 factures of glass we ask for a duty of 25 cents per dozen and 50 per centum ad va- 
 lorem. This class of goods requires skilled workmen and ought to be cultivated so 
 that it may be made in this country. It is made now to a linjited extent, but the 
 principal articles of chemical glassware are imported into this country, and it ought 
 to be made the interest of the American manufacturer to give more attention to it, 
 so that we may not be dependent upon foreign countries for the articles needed by 
 the chemist. 
 
 There are quite a large number of articles in this line that are small, hut that 
 require specially skilled labor, and we name a specific duty of 25 cents per dozen 
 and 50 per cent, ad valorem. Heavy blown glass, blown with or without a mold, 
 finished or unfinished, we ask a specific duty of 5 cents per pound and .50 per cent, 
 ad valorem. This covers the class of goods that are partially made in Europe and 
 have been brought to this country as common glassware, and the work finished here. 
 We do not think we ought to pay a duty of 3 cents per pound on the materials used. 
 The branch of the glass business which these paragraphs cover has not been very 
 profitable during the past tew years, and a number of glass manufacturers making the 
 iiuer grades of glass have gone out of the business, being unable to make a profit. 
 We mention the New Euglajid Glass Works, East Cambridge, which at one time was 
 one of the largest concerns in the country, an incorporated company with a capital 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 445 
 
 of $500,000 ; tlie company, finding the business unprofitable, has ceased to exist, and 
 the year before shuCting dowu lost $40,000. Their successors have removed to a 
 cheaper point of production, but are now operating but one furnace, where four were 
 operated before. The Boston Sandwich Glass Company, located at Sandwich, Mass., 
 and the Merideu Flint Glass Company, of Meriden, Conn., have both retired from 
 business, finding it unprofitable, and their plants are now idle. 
 
 We do not believe we have asked anything but what is perfectly just and right in view 
 of the relation of this branch to the other branches of the glass business, and under 
 any circumstances we ought to have a protection at least equal to the average of 
 that paid to the whole industry, which would not then be equal to the difference of 
 the cost of labor in Europe and in this country. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it a fact that there has been a very marked and quite a large advance 
 in wages in the last thirty years in this country ? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDBK. I am in direct communication with England, they give me figures 
 ic regard to wages, the wages there are about what they were thirty-five years ago. 
 
 Mr. Brkckinkidge. In regard to that data about wages, can you give us the com- 
 parative rates of wages paid between there and here 1 
 
 Mr. GiLLlNDBR. I might perhaps give you a case that I know of. My father came 
 to this country in 1.855 and was paid as good a rate of wages as was paid to any work- 
 man of a similar class at that time iu England. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much was that ? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDER. He got $12.50 a week. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What was his position ? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDER. A caster place workman in a glass factory. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What did he get here? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNPER. Fifteen dollars a week. He became foreman when he left that 
 factory. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Was $15 a week the prevailing price? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDER. The man that he succeeded got $13 a week. A few years ago the 
 same class of workmen received in England just about the same wages that my 
 father received in 1855. I know that, for we now have in our employ a man who got 
 $12.50 a week iu England at that time ; we now pay him $33 a week. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. For the same work ? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. These are hard facts. 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDER. I am prepared to make affidavit to them. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Some statement has been made as to the efficiency of the German 
 1 bor? 
 
 Mr. GILLINDER. I have not been in Germany myself, but my brother visited there 
 and was very much astonished by the skill and quickness displayed by the German 
 glass-blowers. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. Does not your coTupetition come more from Germany, where they 
 have a protective tariff', than from England, where they have not ? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiMDEK. I think that is true. The reason for that is that labor in England 
 is as two to one in Germany. Where a workman gets |12 in England he gets |6 in 
 Germany. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. And yet Germany is protected and England is not. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You say that labor gets .|6 a week in Germany; are there no i)laces 
 there where they work seven days a week ? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDER. I have heard that, and will give you a case in point. At Dresden 
 the Siemans have a large bottle factory, and the men struck against working on 
 Sunday. Now they work six and a half days a week. The bottles made there are 
 shipped about 800 miles to the sea and sent direct to this country. These facts prove 
 conclusively that even with the present tariif we can not compete with them. 
 
 Mr. Flower. But you say they are strong and healthy ? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDER. Yes; judging from appearances. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You would not call that pauper labor? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDER. No, sir. There is no question in the world that if American labor 
 was paid the same as European labor we could compete with the world. Yet I do 
 not want to see our well-paid labor put on the same footing with those who are said 
 to get meat only once a week. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Did you state awhile ago that the absence of moat does not make 
 them unhealthy ? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDER. I do not suppose they could work as well without it. 
 
 The Chairman. If you had your materials free and your finished product was 
 made free, do you think you could control this market against the foreigner and 
 enter the foreign market also, without disturbing the rate of wages in the United 
 States ? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDEH. I do not. It is simply impossible. To remove the duties simply 
 means that our wages must go down to the level of the wages paid abroad. 
 
446 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. We export nearly a milliou of dollars' worth of glassware a year, 
 what character of glassware is that? 
 
 Mr. GiLLixDEK. Pressed glassware. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinridgb. What advantage do we possess in pressed glassware that we 
 do not possess in other kinds ? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDEK. Large experience. Pressed glassware was first invented in this 
 country and has been developed from year to year until we have the best facilities 
 for making pressed glassware of any place in the world, 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If we had free raw material in pressed glassware would that 
 be able to control the whole market t 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDBR. No,sir; not without a duty. That particular kind of glass has not 
 been developed very largely in the cheap manufacturing districts of Europe, yet if 
 they had the experience that we have, and the difference in labor on pressed glass- 
 ware that they have in the glass they do make, they would be able in a very short 
 time, if there was no duty, lo take the markets of this country, unless our workmen 
 were willing to work for the same wages as in those countries. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That is the only kind that they do not manufacture? 
 
 Mr. GiLLiNDBR. Yes, sir. There is some little pressed glassware made in France, 
 but very little in Germany, Belgium, or Bohemia. The amount of duty on the raw 
 materials used in the making of pressed glass is very small, soda ash being the only 
 article used on which duty is paid. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge requested that I should give some data as to the cost of labor 
 in Europe compared with labor in the United States. I find on examination that 
 the hardest competition the glass manufacturer has in this country from abroad is 
 Belgium and Bohemia. According to the statement made by Consul Phelps, of 
 Prague, glassware is imported from Bo'hemia into the United States to the value of 
 $1,300,000 per year. And according to the information furnished by him, found on 
 page 157, labor in Europe letter from the Secretary of State, dated December 12, 
 1884, the wages paid to workmen are as low as at any point in Europe. It is esti- 
 mated that eighteen thousand persons are employed in the manufacture of Bohemian 
 glassware. 
 
 Average wages per weelc of seventy-one hours in — 
 
 In thia 
 country. 
 
 Blowers .. 
 Melter8... 
 Stokers — 
 Pounders . 
 Molflers .. 
 Engravers 
 Painters.. 
 Gildera ... 
 Grinders.. 
 Polishers . 
 
 $15.00 
 10.00 
 
 16.00 
 18.00 
 15.00 
 15. 00 
 14.00 
 
 tu.oo 
 
 * Mostly women. 
 
 t Mostly men. 
 
 Some of these workers are unknown under the names given in Bohemia in this 
 country, and the wages given to the American workman, corresponding to those in 
 Bohemia, are not based npon the highest rate of wages paid, but what we suppose to 
 be about the average. For instance, there are glass-blowers in this country who re- 
 ceive |33 per week, and there are some who receive but $13 per week. And then 
 there is a loss of time in the hot weather and for other causes that would probably 
 bring the average down to about the amount stated. The number of hours work, 
 however, in the United States is not over fifty hours per week, as compared with 
 the seventy-one hours in Bohemia. The unskilled laborer gets but $1.50 a week; the 
 lowest wages we know of being paid here in glass work is $1.25 per day, and in most 
 of the works in Pennsylvania the lowest wages for laboring men is $1.50 per day of 
 ten hours. On page 160, under the head of " glass-workers, " the wages put down 
 opposite glass-blowers, masters, is $9.24 per week. The same workman in this coun- 
 try would receive from $30 to $40 per week. It alludes to the highest skilled men 
 employed iu this branch of the glass business. Carriers, boys, receive in Bohemia 
 60 cents a week ; the lowest wages we pay in Pennsylvania is 50 cents per day. 
 
 If the wages given by Consul Phelps, in Bohemia, are correct not 25 percent, of 
 what is paid in the United States is paid in Bohemia, that is, where $1 is paid in the 
 United States, less than 25 cents is paid in Bohemia, The wages paid for unskilled 
 labor would demonstrate that the proportion is even less, as under that head is glYttli 
 day laborers at $1.40 per week, to ho f'oiiml on pagQ \60 of Lahoy in gurope. 
 
KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 447 
 
 In regard to the wages in Belgium, there is not much data in regard to tiie wages 
 paid to glass workers in the line that we are interested in, yet if you refer to the gen- 
 . eral average paid to all classes of workers in Belgium, you will find that the average 
 is very little over |4 per week of seventy-two honrs. Unskilled laborers are paid tiO 
 cents per day, and while the wages are higher than in Bohemia, they are not more 
 than 33 per cent, of the wages paid in this country. 
 
 In Germany the wages are given, page 37, Labor in Europe, glass-makers, $.'5.36; 
 same class of men in this country, not less than $15. Cutters, $4.05 ; in this country, 
 $14. Laborers, $2.98; in this country, from $7.50 to $9. Wages vary some little, but 
 this seems to be about the average, and to sum it up makes the wages in Germany 
 about 33 cents to the 100 paid in the United States. 
 
 In Bremen, found on page 38 of Labor in Europe, wages are about the same as they 
 give in Germany. 
 
 England in the character of its manufacturers and in the temper of its laborers 
 approaches nearer to the United States than perhaps any other country. Its labor is 
 better paid than any country in Europe. The glass interest of England has not been 
 prosperous for many years, and very large quantities of glass are imported from Bel- 
 gium, Bohemia, Germany, and France into England. The English workmen by their 
 labor unions have limited the production and controlled the business in such a way 
 that it has not made the progress or improvement that it has done in Continental 
 Europe. And while the business has grown in Belgium and other places, it has de- 
 creased in England. At one of the meetings held by a trade's union recently, one of 
 the speakers lamented the fact that the very glass they drank out of at their gather- 
 ing was imported, and that the publicans of England in some districts united to- 
 gether and bought a case of goods and divided them, and could afford to do so, as 
 they were so much cheaper than the goods of English mannfactuie. The present 
 wages paid in England are as 50 cents to $1 paid in the United States. The average 
 wages for unskilled laborers, porters, etc., as reported on page 178, is $4.70 per week. 
 The same proportions held out in the skilled labor would give the proportion about 
 on that basis. 
 
 We believe a thorough investigation would demonstrate that there is still greater 
 difference than is even shown by these figures, and if the tariff were reduced it would 
 not be a very great while until there would be complete stagnation in this country 
 among the manufacturers of glass, and ultimately the workers in this country would 
 have to work for a very slight advance over the wages paid in Europe. Our people 
 are well fed, well clothed, have comfortable homes, with even some of the luxuries 
 of life, and we believe the best interest of our branch of the business will be amended 
 by increasing the duty so that we may be able to control and manufacture all the 
 articles of glass that are required in this country. 
 
 To show the advantage that the glass manufacturer in Europe has over one in this 
 country, in the question of wages, 1 will illustrate by the operations of a glass works 
 in Pennsylvania during the year 1889. The works produced during the year $314,000 ; 
 the wages paid in the said factory amounted to $199,321.36. In Bohemia the same 
 product would have cost, for labor in the glass factory, $49,880.34; in Germauy or 
 Belgium, $66,440.12; in England, $99,660.68. It is natural to suppose that the ma- 
 terials used in glass making, fuel, etc., are proportionately as much cheaper as the 
 labor; that is a question in which I have no experience, but the labor used in pro- 
 ducing materials must be on the same basis as that which produces the manufactured 
 article. But taking it on the basis of the same cost for material, the same amount of 
 goods that cost in Pennsylvania $314,000 to produce, would have cost in Bohemia 
 $164,558.98; in Belgium or Germany, $181,118.76; in England, $214,339.32, To en- 
 able us to produce all these goods in this country, on tlie basis of wages alone, we 
 ought to have a duty on English goods of not less than 60 per cent ; on Belgium or 
 German goods 80 per cent., and on Bohemian goods not less than 100 per cent. What 
 we ask you to do is to make a duty equal to about 60 per centum ad valorem on all 
 the grades of goods covered by the schedule we send you. 'It does not begin to cover 
 the difference in the cost of mannfacture between Europe and this country, as I think 
 I have demonstrated by the figures given. The manufacturer, to produce the amount 
 of goods stated in Pennsylvania, has over $200,000 capital invested, and did not make 
 a very large percentage on the amount of the business for the year. 
 
 PROPOSED TARIFF SCHEDULE PRESENTED BT THE COMMITTEE OF TIIE FUST AND LIME 
 GLASS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES. PER MR. JAMES GIL- 
 LINDER. 
 
 Flint and lime pressed glassware, not cut, engraved, painted, etched, decorated, 
 colored, printed, stained, silvered, or gilded, 10 cents per dozen and 35 per centum 
 ad valorem. 
 
 All articles of glass, out, engraved, painted, colored, printed, stained, decorated, 
 silvered, or gilded, not including plate-glass silvered, or looking-glass plates, 10 cents 
 per pound and 50 per centum ad valorem. 
 
448 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Chemical glassware: Thin blown glass, blown with or witliont a mold, and all 
 other mannfactiires of glass, or of which glass shall be the component material of 
 chief value, not especially enumerated or ijrovided for iu this act, 25 cents per dozen, 
 and 50 per centum ad valorem. 
 
 Heavy blown glass: Blown with or without a mold, finished or unfinished, 10 
 cents per pound and 45 per centum ad valorem. 
 
 Porcelain or Opal glassware, 7 inches, either diameter or height, or less, 25 cents 
 per dozen. More than 7 inches, including 10 inches, 50 cents per dozen. All over 10 
 inches, 75 cents per dozen and 50 per centum ad valorem on all sizes. 
 
 C0MMTJN"ICATI01Sr OF JAMES GILLINDER, OF GILLINDER &, SONS, PHILADELPHIA, 
 
 jTAe Commitfee of Ways and Means, House of liepresentatives : 
 
 Gentlemen: In appearing before you to rejiresent the glass interests, in which 
 we are directly interested, \vc desire to say at the beginning that all we ask of the 
 Committee, in preparing this portion of the bill that you propose to present to the 
 House, is that you shall give us a rate of protection equal to the diflereuce iu wages 
 paid between European countries and our own. 
 
 There is probably no branch of business in which the item of labor is so directly 
 traceable as in ours. The manufacturer of glass pays from 00 to 'JO per cent, of the 
 cost of the manufactured articles to the workmen direct, the remaining part is spent 
 for materials, with the exception of what little margin of profit there may be in its 
 manufacture. 
 
 Some of the materials used in the making of glass pay a tariff duty of from 20 to 
 75 per cent., and we do not think any article we use ought to pay a higher tariff than 
 the manufactured product. Potash pays a duty of 20 per cent., soda ash 25 cents per 
 100 pounds, or equal to :i3 per cent, of the cost at point of shipment. Litharge, or 
 red lead, which is used in the making of fine glass, pays a duty of 3 cents per pound, 
 on a cost of 4 cents in England, equals 75 per centum ad valorem. We find on re- 
 ferring to pages 41 and 42 of the Annual Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Sta- 
 tistics iu regard to imported merchandise, that the average duty on glassware during 
 the year 1888 was 62.1(i per cent. This took in all the different grades of glass from 
 the lowest product to that which required the highest skill and the most costly labor 
 to make. 
 
 We claim that the interest we represent makes the glass that costs the most to pro- 
 duce, both for labor and material, of any of the different kinds of glassware imported, 
 and yet the duty is below the average, and is but 45 per cent., and 40 per cent., against 
 75.27 per cent, tor colored green and colored glass bottles, the cheapest and most com- 
 mon kind of glass imported. In view of this fact, and that a considerable amount of 
 the glass imported in our line are articles of luxury, largely used by the rich, we think 
 it only fair that in re-arranging the tariff our line should be put on its proper basis. 
 
 There is a vast differ<!nce between the cost of labor in Europe, iu the glass manu- 
 facturing districts, and in our own country, and in many instances the articles cost 
 less on board, packing included, than we pay the workmen here for the labor alone 
 of making the article iuthe glass factory. Take, for instance, lO-mch ring top dome 
 shades, opal, which are largely imported; they cost, free on board, at point of ship- 
 ment, packing included, $1 jjer dozen ; we must pay, according to the rates we are 
 now paying, |l.05 -per dozen for labor to produce an article of similar kind. Their 
 labor does not cost them more than 33 cents. Student chimneys, which are largely 
 imported into the United States, are sold at point of shipment for 10 cents per dozen ; 
 the labor in our factories for a simihar article does not cost less than 20 cents. Smoke 
 bells, opal glass, are imported very largely into this country, and cost at point of 
 shipment: 3-inch, 24 cents — our labor costs 27 cents ; 6-inch, 43 cents — our labor costs 
 51 cents ; 7-inch, 48 cents— our labor costs .56 cents ; 8-iuch, 60 cents — our labor costs 
 65 cents; 10-inch ring top shades, opal, their cost at point of shipment 96 cents — our 
 labor costs 95 cents. The wages paid where these goods are made are very low, not 
 more than one-third of what is paid in this country. The result is that that they can 
 import largo quantities of these goods at such prices that it is impossiblg for us to 
 compete with them. We do not think for this class of goods our men are overpaid. 
 We do not think they average more than nine months' work in the year. 
 
 We therefore ask that in addition to the present rate of duty tliat yon put a spe- 
 cific duty on all these articles in addition to the ad valorem duty, not asking so much 
 as the difference in wagi'S, but as per inclosed paragraphs, which we believe would 
 enable ub to make them in this country to a much larger extent than we now do, and 
 would give more employment to the workmen engaged in that branch of the trade. 
 On pressed glassware you will notice we do not ask any special increase, simply ask- 
 ing that you will reduce the present ad valorem duty to 35 percent, and add 10 ceiits 
 per dozen. 
 
 On articles of glass cut, engraved, painted, colored, printed, stained, decorated, 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 449 
 
 silvered, or gilded, not including plate glass silvered or looking-glass plates, we ask 
 10 cents \i»i pound and 50 per centum ad valorem. This is a very large increase 
 over the present rate of duty, and one which we think ought to be made, hecause 
 ■the items covered by this paragraph are largely used by the rich, require skilled ar- 
 tisans, and it is certainly the interest of the people employed in this country that 
 these goods should be made here. We have the materials for making the best glass 
 in the world. Our sand is equal if not better than any used in the making of glass 
 anywhere, and yet it costs us a great deal more than in Europe, and a very good ar- 
 ticle of sanil has been shipped to this country as ballast and delivered here at $1.25 
 per ton, while sand of a similar quality here can not be furnished to the manufact- 
 urer at less than double the price, and the very best grades of sand costs four times 
 as much as the same material in France, where the sands are got for the fine glass 
 produced in England. 
 
 A proper degree of protection would give a very great development to this branch 
 of the business. This wo can illustrate by the increase of duty put upon the finer 
 kinds of earthenware, china decorated, etc., by the taritf of 188;i. Since that period 
 the production of fine china, porcelain, parian, and bisque ware has been very 
 largely increased and great advancement made in the art. There has never been a 
 period in our history when so many beautiful articles in this class of goods have been 
 made as at the present, and we think it is very largely owing to the fact that the 
 duty was put high enough to enable the American manufacturer to devote his ener- 
 gies to the finer production of such goods. 
 
 We think we are fully entitled to as much duty as the class of gootls mentioned, 
 which, by reference, you will find is 60 per centum ad valorem. Chemical glassware, 
 thin blown glass, blown with or without a mold, and all other manufactures of 
 glass we ask for a duty of 25 cents per dozen and 50 per centum ad valorem. This 
 class of goods requires skilled workmen and ought to be cultivated, so that it may be 
 made in this country. It is made now to a limited extent, but the principal articles 
 of chemical glassware are imported into this country, and it ought to be made the 
 interest of American manufacturers to give more attention to it, so that we may not 
 be dependent upon foreign countries for the articles needed by the chemist. 
 
 There are quite a large number of articles in this line that are small but that re- 
 quire specially skilled labor, and we name a specific duty of 25 cents per dozen and 
 50 per centum ad valorem. 
 
 The branch of the business which these paragraphs cover has not been very profit- 
 able during the past few years, and a number of glass manufacturers making the 
 finer grades of glass have gone out of the business, being unable to make a profit. 
 We mention the New England Glass Works, East Cambridge, which at one time was 
 one of the largest concerns in the country, an incorporated company with a capital 
 of |500,000. The company finding the business unprofitable has ceased to exist, and 
 the year before shutting dow'n lost |40,000. Their successors have removed to a 
 cheaper point of production, but are now operating but one furnace, where four 
 were operated before. The Boston Sandwich Glass Company, located at Sandwich, 
 Mass., and the Meriden Flint Glass Company, of Meriden, Conn., have both retired 
 from business, finding it unprofitable, and their plants are now idle. 
 
 We do not believe we have asked anything but what is perfectly just and right, in 
 view of the relation of this branch to the other branches of the glass business, and 
 under any circumstances we ought to have a protection at least eqn.al to the average 
 of that paid to the whole industry, which would not then be equal to the difference 
 of the cost of labor in Euroiie and in this country. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. 'WILLIAM ELLIOTT SMITH. 
 
 Mr. William Elliott Smith, of Alton, 111., next addressed the committee. He 
 said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am a glass manufacturer employ- 
 ing between 900 to 1,000 hands. I manufacture green and flint bottles, articles in 
 general use throughout the country. It is an industry that is natural to the country. 
 The only reason we ask protection is on account of the rates of wages. We have 
 thought that a small increase would be reasonable. In regard to the industry being 
 a natural one, I will say that I represent some one hundred and eighty-live flint 
 and glass factories, which are scattered over the United States from New York to the 
 Pacifao coast, not only in the North but in the South, there being factories in West 
 Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi. It is an industry that is 
 constantly gpreading. The materials for its manufacture are found in abundance in 
 every State in the Union. We have as cheap sand and coal and lime and lumber as 
 there is on the face of the earth; but we get that lime from the quarry, mine it and 
 dry it, and we have to take it to the factory. The labor on it is about 20 per cent. 
 of the cost of our product. 
 
 485 29 
 
450 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The Chairman. Twenty per cent, of the cost is outside of the factory ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir ; 60 per cent, is paid directly at the factory so that 80 to 85 
 per cent, of the selling price is represented by lalior. As to the per cent, of labor in 
 this conntry and in Germany, our best plan wonld be to refer to the census reports. 
 The reports made in 188.') show we pay skilled labor $i to |.5, and the Germans pay 
 90 cents to SI. 25. To our unskilled labor we paid (iil.25 and tbo Germans paid 3.5 to 
 50 cents. We paid boys .50 cents, and the Germans paid 10 to 18 cents a daF. We 
 are asking but a small increase. The duty at present is 1 cent a pound. 
 
 Mr. McKexna. How does the German manufacturerer's profit compare wwhthe 
 profit made in the United States ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I have no facts to base an opinion upon, but in 1888 I went to Germany 
 myself, and in making a careful comparison of my cast with the cost of the German 
 manufacturer and the per cent, he made, I should be very willing to exchange places 
 with him. 
 
 Mr. Lafollette. What is ihe result of your observation as to the comparative 
 efficiency of labor in those factories? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Their workmen are more careful than ours. They work more slowly. 
 They make a better article than we make. Wo have as fast vrorkinen as there are 
 in the world, but our American hurry and aggressiveness show in tbeir work and 
 we in endeavoring to excel one another in a day's work do not get as good a re- 
 sult, and oftentimes sacrifice everything to a little speed. In order to cbeai)en the 
 product, we are losing sight of the importance of finer quality. The Germans work 
 slowly and wjU produce a finer average quality of bottles than we do. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It is more on account of his methods than his skill f 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The product to each individual man is not so great in that country 
 as hero 1 
 
 Mr. Smith. No sir. 
 
 Mr. Smith. While I was in Germany I found out the cost of the German ware. In 
 order to do that I bought 500 gross. Our cost of blowing this bottle is 53 cents 
 gross. I bought that in Berlin at 30 marks, which is 44 cents gross. We figure by 
 the gross and the Germans figure by the hundred. That bottle runs 9 pounds to the 
 gross. That would make 53 cents, making the cost of the bottle exactly what we 
 pay the blower simply for blowing the bottle. I have also a small stopper for which 
 1 paid 25 cents a gross in Germany. That stopper represents lo me a cost of 35 cents 
 a gross. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What are these bottles worth now t 
 
 Mr. Smith. It would be impossible for me to tell you. By the present revenue law, 
 I find that on ginger-ale bottles a duty shall be collected on the bottles and contents. 
 But under the law apolinaris water could be imported free. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. W. J. SMITH. 
 
 Mr. W. J. Smith, president of the American Flint Glass Workers' Union of Pitts- 
 burgh, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, your time has been occupied very 
 largely by glass this afternoon, and I want to trau,sgress on it enough to call your 
 attention to a few impressions that I think were created hero this afternoon that are 
 false. One of the gentlemen stated that the workers' association required its mem- 
 bers to work not less than eight hours per day or forty-four hours per week, although 
 the week's outputi can be made in thirty-five. Nine hours of the forty-four, the gen- 
 tleman claims is waste time, which would enable him to coujpete against the world 
 in manufacturing chimneys if permitted to utilize it. 
 
 We admit that the workers' association requires its members to work not less than 
 eight hours pi'r day, hut we want to go upon record as saying that the statement re- 
 garding the time alleged to be wasted can not be verified. Thirty-five hours ])er 
 week means six hours and twenty-two minutes per day. While it is true that in 
 some houses workers may be able to produce more rapidly than in others, yet it is not 
 true that in any one of them under the mo.st favorable conditions they can uniformly 
 make the day's output in six hours and twenty-two minutes. The most rapid work- 
 men under favorable conditions may occasionally make their day's work in the time 
 claimed, but the avera<g6 liujc ri'quircd to make the day's output by the mass of the 
 workers, incJuding oven the most rapid woikineii, would run nearer eight hours. 
 
 But I take exception to the gentleman's conclusion that, if iiprniittcd to utilize the 
 time alleged to be wa.stod, he could com|ieto against the world in the manufacture of 
 chimneys. I shall now quote the gentleman ag.-iinst himself to show that it would 
 be next to an ijupossibility to sell the product of the United States at prices that 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 451 
 
 ■would enable it to compete against the foreign-made product, making allowance even 
 for the gentleman's claim of wastage. I havo a paper here, a tabulated statement, pre- 
 pared by the gentleman who represents the house of Macbeth & Co., which was pre- 
 sented by him to the workers two or three years ago for the purpose of showing that, 
 because of the cost at which foreign goods are laid down in the United States, duty 
 paid, it was impossible for his house to compete on some particular chimneys. This 
 pai)er was presented to the workers at their annual convention, and a reduction 
 made in the cost of producing a number of chimneys. Last winter, at our request, 
 the gentleman added some new information to this paper, the purpose being to aid 
 the manufacturers and workers in preparing a statement to be presented to the Sen- 
 ate Finance Committee. I shall make the comparison on the student chimney, to 
 which your attention has already been called. I consult tho paper presented by the 
 gentleman and I find the following items: Cost of shop labor, which includes the 
 higher skilled labor, 15j- cents i)er dozen. For grinding, cutting, and glazing, 5 cents 
 per dozen. Cost of glass and other labor, 12 cents. I omit from my calculation that 
 portion of the last item that relates to other labor and consider only the cost of the 
 glass. The gentleman will not claim that the cost of his ghiss is less than 2J cents 
 per pound. Since the student chimney weighs 3 pounds to the dozen, the cost of the 
 glass for 1 dozen chimneys can not be less then 7^ cents. Add this cost to the items 
 already enumerated and the cost of manufacturing I dozen chimneys in the house 
 represented by the gentleman as shown by himself, is in round numbers 28 cents. I 
 am willing to grant for the sake of the argument that if he could get his men to 
 work as he suggests, he would get 12 per cent of an increase out of them in product, 
 which would be equivalent to reducing the wages. Deducting 12 per cent from the 
 cost as already shown would still leave the gentleman's cost 25 cents. 
 
 The Chalrmau. As against how much on the other side ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Fourteen to 16 cents laid down in the city of Pittsburgh, duty paid, a? 
 shown by the gentleman's figures of last winter. Lest there may be some doubt as 
 to the ability of the importers to sell at these figures I desire to present some informa- 
 tion obtained from another partner in the house of Macbeth & Co. This gentleman 
 who went abroad for the purpose of gathering information regarding the cost of the 
 foreign product, assures me that the cost of labor in the German states, whence the 
 bulk of these goods is imported, is one-third that in the United States. Since the 
 cost of labor per dozen at home has been shown to be 20i cents, the cost of the cor- 
 responding labor in the German states would be 6f cents. Mr. Macbeth has stated 
 that the cost of glass abroad is one-half that of the United States. The cost of glass 
 for 1 dozen chimneys as previously shown is 7J cents. Add one half of this to the 
 item for labor already stated, and the cost of the German chimney is shown tobelOJ 
 cents per dozen. 
 
 The difl;erence in the quality of goods is not so great as to overcome the difference 
 in the cost of labor between foreign and home-made goods, and as an American work- 
 man I am forced to admit that some of the chimneys brought over from foreign coun- 
 tries are not inferior to the goods produced iu this country. Much of the industry 
 that produces this class of goods iu the United States received its iustructions 
 abroad, and is not inferior to the labor instructed in this country. 
 
 What has been said regarding Mr. McBeth's statement in the matter of wastage of 
 time by his workers will apply equally well to his other statement that with free raw 
 materials he can compete against the world. We have already shown the cost of 
 producing 1 dozen chimneys in a home factory to be 20J cents. Let us now say that if 
 Mr. Macbeth's materials cost him nothing, he still pays 20J cents per dozen for his 
 chimneys. Against this cost there still stands the competing foreign product at lOJ 
 cents per dozen, which with duty added would stiU give the importer an advantage 
 great enough to undersell the American product. 
 
 There seems to have been some hesitation about giving the retail price of these 
 chimneys. While I am in a position that would perhaps enable me to get my chim- 
 neys free of cost, I pay for them 5 cents for No. 1, and 8 cents for No. 2, and I have 
 paid these prices as far back as my recollection runs. 
 
 Mr. Flower. These chimneys in all glass-houses are made a leading article, I sup- 
 pose? 
 
 Mr. Smith. There are about twelve, or perhaps sixteen houses that make a spec- 
 ialty of such goods. 
 
 Mr. Flower. 1 understood one gentleman to say that one class of these chimneys 
 sold for less than the cost for manufacturing them. 
 
 Mr. Smith. I want to give the committee some information regarding the cost of 
 labor on these goods at the present time as compared with war times. I think it is 
 safe to state that the cost of labor is about the same to-day as during war times. 
 
 Mr. Bayhe. Do you mean it cost about the same during wartimes? You do not 
 mean on a gold basis 'I Wages were constantly rising if you consider the gold basis. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are you in favor of a reduction ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I certainly am not. 
 
452 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Geak. What would be the result if we ^ave you no protection? 
 
 Mr. Smith. In that event we would be compelled to accept the situation. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What would be the effect of a reduction in duty ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. It would effect a reduction of wages, I think. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Does your principal competition come from England, Germany, 
 or France? 
 
 Mr. Smith. From the German states. I have been assured that labor in the Ger- 
 man states costs about one-third of that of the United States. It is higher in France 
 than in Germany, and higher in England than it is in France. 
 
 Mr. Smith presented the following communication: 
 
 Amekicax Flint-Glass Workers' Union, 
 
 Pittsburg, Pa., December 29, 1889. 
 To the Members of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives : 
 
 Gents : As the flint-glass manufacturers have appeared before you to present their 
 statement touching the subject of duties of flint glassware, we shall not occupy any 
 more of your time by verbal statements in relation to this subject, but we respectfully 
 submit this paper as embodying the thought of the workeus regarding the condition 
 of the flint-glass trade, the causes thereof, and the necessity for governmental relief. 
 While the consumption of flint-glass generally has been increased by being adapted 
 to new uses, and by the increase of population, yet is a fact that the manufacture of 
 fine blown, cut, and engraved goods has not shared the increase, but has, on the con- 
 trary, been diminished. 
 
 Houses that were engaged extensively in the manufacture of such goods a few 
 years ago have ceased entirely to operate, or have ceased to operate on fine-blown 
 goods, or, if stiU engaged in their manufacture, are operating less extensively and 
 less continuously than formerly. 
 
 The results of this condition have fallen heaviest upon the workers. Notwithstand- 
 ing their efforts to improve their condition by lessening the cost of the fine-blown 
 products, their average weekly earnings have been gradually reduced by freq^uent 
 loss of time until they barely afford a subsistence. 
 
 The principal cause of this deplorable condition is to be found in the excessive 
 quantity of foreign made goods annually imported into the United States. 
 
 The report of the Treasury Department for the year of 1889, shows the value of 
 " all other " glassware imported into the United States for the year ending June 30, 
 1889, to have been $2,238,903. The language " all other" we take to apply particu- 
 larly to fine-blown goods. 
 
 In this reported value of imports charges for packages, packing, brokerage, consu- 
 lar fees, inland freights, and shipping charges, which add to the cost of the goods, 
 cut no figure. These, if added to the reported value of the imports, would make their 
 value considerably greater. 
 
 We recently saw an invoice of goods in which the value set down at the place of 
 production was |739, yet which cost, when laid down at their final destination in the 
 United States, $1,269. Accepting this statement as a basis for calculating the real 
 value of the imports in the United States markets, we find the value of the imports 
 to be, all charges considered, $3,844,611, representing a greater volume of business 
 than is done in fine blown goods by nearly all the United States houses combined. 
 
 The causes that enable so much foreign glassware to be imported into the United 
 States to the detriment of the home industry are the cheaper labor of foreign coun- 
 tries and the inadequacy of the duty levied on the goods. 
 
 From the most reliable data obtainable on the subject the cost of labor in the Ger- 
 man states whence the bulk of these goods is imported may be set down at one-third 
 of the cost in the United States, that of Great Britain at five-eighths, and that of 
 France at a medium between that of the German states and that of Great Britain. 
 
 This vast difference in the cost of labor between foreign countries and the United 
 States makes it almost impossible for the home product to compete against foreign- 
 made goods in the markets of the United States under the present duty. 
 
 To show the disadvantage against which the home product must compete, we pre- 
 sent herewith a table .showing the approximate cost, of manufacturing certain goods 
 and the prices at which comijeting foreign goods have been laid down in New York, 
 duty paid. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 [Cost per dozetai.] 
 
 453 
 
 lO-iDch ring-top cone shade, opal 
 
 lO-iQch ring-top dome sliade, opal 
 
 iO-incti ring-top dome shade, corrugated 
 
 14 inch ring-top dome shade, opal 
 
 6-inch ring-top flat shade, opal 
 
 9 inch ring-top flat shade, opal 
 
 10 inch ring-top flat shade, opal 
 
 9 inch ling-top incandescent shade, opal 
 
 I'l-inch ring-top incandescent shade, opal 
 
 7-inch ring-top smoke shade, opal 
 
 7i by 5- inch squat globes, opal 
 
 7^ by 5-inch squat globes, crystal 
 
 8 by 5-inch crown globes, crystal 
 
 Light whisky tumbler, blown 
 
 Light champagne tumbler, blown 
 
 Light ale tumbler, blown 
 
 Light table tumbler, blown 
 
 Chimneys, light blown, top and bottom ground, 
 
 No. 2 student 
 
 7-inch gas 
 
 No. 3 Moehring argand 
 
 9-inch duplex — 
 
 No. 3daal 
 
 No 2 Kochester 
 
 Hickok 
 
 Nutmeg 
 
 Home manu- 
 factnre. 
 
 $1.74 
 
 1.97 
 
 ■J. 07 
 
 2.43 
 
 .88 
 
 1.19 
 
 1.28 
 
 1.10 
 
 1.28 
 
 1.29 
 
 1.21 
 
 1.14 
 
 1.59 
 
 .28 
 
 .28 
 
 .35 
 
 .35 
 
 Foreign goods 
 
 laid down in 
 
 New York, 
 
 duty paid. 
 
 $1. 2;'. 
 
 1.60 
 
 2.00 
 
 2.50 
 
 .70 
 
 .85 
 
 .85 
 
 .85 
 
 .85 
 
 1.00 
 
 .88 
 
 .,'58 
 
 .97 
 
 .21 
 
 .26 
 
 .38 
 
 .34 
 
 .15 
 .16 
 .20 
 .32 
 .32 
 -.32 
 .32 
 .08 
 
 To give tlie home product an equal chance to compete in United States markets 
 against the foreign product, we think the duty on foreign-made goods should be 
 increased. 
 
 We faYor a specific duty for the following reasons : 
 
 Under the ad valorem system valuations are subject to fraud, error of judgment, 
 and collusion, and can not therefore be always accurate. 
 
 Goods may be falsely invoiced, and the appraiser, haviug little or no knowledge of 
 the cost of production, can not detect the cheat. To call in importers to aid make 
 the appraisement upon the principle that one importer can watch another, can not 
 improve the system much, since all importers being interested in getting good.s in 
 cheap, and knowing the other fellow may be called upon to appraise their goods, 
 there is a temptation to undervalue, on the principle that one good turn begets an- 
 other. 
 
 The labor of foreign countries being generally in an unorganized state it is sub- 
 ject to fluctuation in cost, which would make the duty under the ad valorem system 
 an uncertain quantity. 
 
 In the haste with which we were compelled to come here prevented us from suggest- 
 ing a list of specific duties that would afford protection to United States goods. We 
 therefore recommend the adoption of the tates proposed by the 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. L. ARRINGTON. 
 
 Mr. L. Aerington, ofMassillon, Ohio, appeared before the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here representing the Green- 
 Glass Blowers' Association of the United States. I am representing the interest of 
 the workiugmen. On account of the difference in wages in this country and in 
 Europe I am satisfied it is necessary for us to have a protective tariff to protect us in 
 wages. In Germany a glass-blower receives 4 J cents a dozen. In New York, Phila- 
 delphia, and Baltimore a blower gets 15 cents a dozen. There is annually about 
 $700,000 worth of glassware imported into this country. It is principally green and 
 amber glassware. During the last two years, in San Francisco alone, there were, 
 over $'200,000 worth imported into that port. Just prior to the war we had four glass 
 factories on the Pacific coast. Now we can hardly run one. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. When did they cease running? 
 
 Mr. AifeiNGTON. Immediately after the war. Now they hardly run one, because 
 they can not get any orders. All the largo contracts come from Geririauy. 
 
454 
 
 EEViSION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The Chairman. If we take tb? duty off raw material and leave it on the finished 
 product would it help you. any ? 
 
 Mr. Abrington. The duty on raw material does not amount to anything. 
 
 The Chairman. Suppose they took the duty off the finished product ? 
 
 Mr. Arrington. We would then have to resort to a reduction of wages. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is it your experience, and the experience of those associated with 
 you, that your severest competition comes from Germany ? 
 
 Mr. Arrengton. Yes, sir. In America a teazer is paid $24 a week; in Germany 
 they get $8 to §10 a month. Take all these things into consideration. In late years 
 new manufactories of bottles have been started in Germany, and they work seven 
 days a week. They come in competition with us. Another question in regard to the 
 difference of wages" in England, France, and Germany, is that England is afree-trade 
 country, and the other two are not. This has been coaimented upon. There are cer- 
 tain conditions you must, take into consideration. The workingman in England is 
 thoroughly organized, and also somewhat in France, but in Germany he is not. We 
 are organized here and we get better wages. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLiN. How is it that organization and protectiou in France does not help 
 them as it does in England ? 
 
 Mr. Arrington. It is nearly the same in France. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. D. C. RIPLEY. 
 
 Mr. D. C. KiPLEy,of Pittsburgh, president of the Mauufacturers' Association, next 
 addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I want to say a few words in rela- 
 tion to cut glassware and plain white-glass shades. Here is a Vienna lamp shade, 
 commonly used on a student lamp [indicating] that is worth 60 cents a dozen. To- 
 day there is not one of those shades made in this country. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Why not? 
 
 Mr. EiPLEY. Because we can not make thera. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Why can we not make them ? 
 
 Mr. Ripley. We can not compete with them and sell them at 60 cents a dozen. 
 Here is another article [indicating] called a 10-iuch dome shade. The importer 
 sells that shade here at §1.25 a dozen. Our cost of material and labor on that shade 
 would be about |2.05 a dozen. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What is the retail price. 
 
 Mr. Ripley. Fifty cents. Here is a tumbler [indicating! made in Belgium that 
 cost i!) cents. It sells at 50 cents a dozen here. It costs in the neighborhood of 50 
 cents to do the cutting on it alone in this country. Hero is a plain whisky glass 
 [indicating] that sells at 4.^ cents here. The importer's price is 34 cents a dozen. 
 Our labor on it would cost us 47 cents. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What is the retail price ? 
 
 Mr. GiLLANDER. The importer's price is 50 cents. Our price to manufaoture that 
 would be about 50 cents. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Where are those made ? 
 
 Mr. Ripley. In Belgium. The cost of cutting many articles in this country alone 
 would be more money than it would cost us to buy them in Belgium and lay them 
 flown duty added. We think on this class of goods onr labor should be protected. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Have you formulated any proposition? 
 
 Mr. Ripley. Yes, sir; it was presented by Mr. Gillander. What wn ask is enough 
 to let us manufacture these articles iu this country. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You ask an increase of 25 per cent, on the present rate of duty ? 
 
 Mr. Ripley. That comes in under an ad valorem duty. We want 25 cents a d(iz(^n 
 and 50 per cent, ad valorem. There is a difference in cut-glass ware, but the doin- 
 ments that go before the custom-house officers call it cut ware. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Give us the reason why you want a specific duty. 
 
 Mr. Ripley. In order to prevent nnderval nation . 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Does not an ad valorem and a specific rate attach to both, whether 
 much or little? 
 
 Mr. Ripley. An ad valorem raite would catch them on prices which fluctuate a.nd 
 the specific would catch them on the article. Here is a w.ater- bottle [indicating] that 
 probably cost 50 cents each to make it ; here is the same, cut, that is worth $7 each. 
 By a man spending more time on it, that bottle might be made worth 5f20 or $'.iO. 
 There is practically no end to the work that can be put on it. We want this in- 
 dustry pioteeted in order to foster the making of a liner class of goods in this country. 
 
 Mr, McMlLLiN. What would the rate of duty on that wa,ter-boltle lie ? 
 
 Mr. Ripley. Forty-llvo per cent. a<l vnloidMi on a, valna.tiiin which is liable totluo- 
 tnate? 
 
 Mr. Gear. ITow is that bottle cut? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 455 
 
 Mr. Ripley. It Is held on the edge of an iron wheel fed with sand and water. The 
 next operation is cutting it with a stone fed with water, and the next is polishing it. 
 It passes through the hands of several expert men, and the trouble is that a man may 
 break it just as he has ittinished, and perhaps there is three or four weeks' work gone. 
 
 Mr. Brbciunridge. This increase suggested is mainly upon cut-glass goods? 
 
 Mr. Ripley. Yes, sir; cut goods and blown ware. We iiave now 45 per ceut. on 
 pressed ware whieh we have not needed heretofore, but there is no question that 
 within a few years more we will need a higher rate than we have now, because (he 
 foreign manufacturers have come over here and bought presses and ta'^. < ueni over 
 there, and they are going into the business of pressing. 
 
 New York, January 3, 1890. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means, House of Bepresentatives ; 
 
 We herewith submit to you further statements pertaining to rough plate-glass, 
 ground on both sides, wliioh, owing to the limited time before adjournment of the 
 hearing on the glass schedule, we were unable to fully state. 
 
 Referring to the point in question where Mr. King, representative of the Crystal 
 City Plate Glass Company, demands a new classification at the specified duty of 40 
 cents per square foot for rough plate-glass, ground on both sides, we beg to call 
 the attention of your committee that such a request is out of all reason, and a dis- 
 crimination in favor of the western manufacturers against an infant indnstry in New 
 York City, which has been recently gone into by ourselves, and will give employ- 
 ment to at least one hundred and fifty men, for the purpose of polishing a higher 
 grade of plate-glass used for the purpose of silvering and mirror jjlates, and which 
 are not made in this country. 
 
 Our present investment in this new enterprise consists of about $95,000, and covers 
 a plant of eleven city lots in New York City, corner Sixteenth street and Eleventh 
 avenue. 
 
 Before starting this enterprise we made thorough inquiries from the appraisers of 
 the port of New York, by submitting a sample of the rough glass, ground, and asked 
 him what would be the proper classification and duty for this kind of glass. The 
 United States examiner and expert, Mr. Levy, of this port, submitted this sample to 
 the head of his department, who decided that this kind of glass was a manufacture 
 of glass, under Schedule T. I. , 143, and dutiable at 45 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 On the strength of this assurance, wo commenced the importation of this article on 
 a very largo scale, likewise did we contract for machinery and a long lease on our 
 preseut premises, and commenced polishing of this plate glass, until a protest made 
 by the Crystal City Plate Glass Company brought forth a decision from Secretary 
 Windom, that this kind of glass shall pay the same duty as polished plalc-glass. 
 
 Should your honorable committee decide that this glass shall bo CH]iecially provided 
 for, we ask that you thoroughly go into the merits of the case and satisfy yourselves 
 as to the relative cost of grinding glass (the state we receive it in), and also that 
 of polishing glass ready to that stage where it is commercially known as polished 
 plate-glass. 
 
 To assist you in this matter I herewith submit to you the sworn statement of Mr. 
 R. Brockman, manager of our works, who has the exjjerience of forty years as a prac- 
 tical maker of plate-glass, and who has acted as manager in the works of De Pauw, 
 at New Albany, Ind., and Standard Plate Glass Company, Butler, Pa. 
 
 From this statement you will see that no skilled labor is required in the manu- 
 facturing, grinding, and polishing of plate-glass; it is accomplished by the aid of 
 machinery; and in grinding a machine will hold to advantage 400 square feet of 
 glass, while a polishing machine can not be worked to an average holding more than 
 200 square feet at one turn. Allowing that it requires about the same amount of 
 steam-power and the same number of men to operate and handle both machinery aud 
 glass, and that the grinding process can be accomplished in one hour shorter time 
 than that of polishing, you will find that the exact cost of the two manipulations 
 from the state of rough glass to be 25 per cent, for grinding and 75 per cent, for pol- 
 ishing. 
 
 Therefore, to do justice to both Western manufacturers of plate-glass and to our- 
 selves, it will be impossible for yon to tax this article of ground-plate glass on both 
 sides at a higher rate than 25 per cent, of the specified duty of 50 cents per square 
 feoffor the finished article, viz., 12| cents per s(iuare foot on all plates exceediug 
 24 by 60 inches in size. 
 
 Should your committee, however, decide that the creation of a specific duty for 
 this article is irapra<-ticablo on account that it is not .an article of common use, and it 
 never having been imported until we loniinenc.cd polishing it, thi'iofore being diffi- 
 .jult to especiallj provide /or, 1 would call your attention to the fact that the proper 
 
456 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 duty for this kind of glass ouglit to bo 2 cents per pound, as provided for iu 1883 
 tariff, of fluted, rolled, or rough glass; and to do justice to both American manufact- 
 urers and American labor, a further taxation of 45 per cent, on the cost of grinding 
 this article in a foreign country would protect our Anierican labor and will enable 
 us to further manufacturing of the same in the United States. 
 
 We find from our boolss that the average cost to us for polishing this glass to be 
 30 cents per square foot, which will demonstrate that, should your committee comply 
 with the Crystal City Plate Glass Company's request of taxing this article at 40_cents 
 per foot, it would be a direct discrimination against our industry of polishing a 
 higher grade of plate glass for the manufacture of mirror plates in the United States, 
 and force us out of business, unless you also advance the tax on polished plate-glass 
 to 70 cents per foot, to correspond with the demand of 40 cents per foot made for rough 
 glass ground. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 Mackenzie Storage and Manupactoiung Company, Limited. 
 
 Phillip Sbmmer, Se., Vice President. 
 
 State of New York, 
 
 City and County of Neid Yorlc, ss : 
 
 I, Robert Brockmau, a resident of Ne^r York City, a practical plate-glass maker of 
 forty years' experience in England and America, sixteen of which has been spent as 
 superintendent of DePauw's Plate Glass Works, New Albany, Ind., and manager of 
 the Standard Plate Glass Works at Butler, Pa., do declare that in the manufacturing 
 of plate-glass the cost of grinding and polishing separately is '25 to 30 per cent, for 
 grinding, and 70 to 75 per cent, for polishing. 
 
 This is explained from the fact that six grinding machines will grind sufficient 
 glass to keep twelve polishing machines in full operation for the same period of 
 time, and that each grinding and polishing machine requires a separate engine 
 with about the same amount of steam-power and men to operate the same. 
 
 Robert Brockman. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3d day of January, 1890. 
 
 Christian Zabriskle, 
 Notary Public, Kings County, New Torh. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. GILBERT S. KING. 
 
 Mr. Gilbert S. King next appeared before the committee. He said : 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I appear to represent the Crystal Plate Glass Com- 
 pany of St. Louis. Our plate-glass company made an elaborate statement before the 
 Ways and Means Committee during the last Congress, and also before the Senate 
 committee. Both the Senate bill and the Mills bill leave the duty on plate-glass as 
 it exists to-day. We have nothing further to add. The matter, however, which I 
 want to bring to the notice of the committee is the importation of partly-finished 
 plate-glass. Parties are importing large-sized plate-glass polished on one side and 
 smooth and finished on the other, and they were entering that as duitable at 45 per 
 cent. The matter was called to the attention of the Secretary of the Treasury, and 
 he referred it to the full board of appraisers, and the appraisers decided that it 
 should pay duty at the polished plate-glass rate. A decision w.as made that it should 
 pay iJO cents. They then undertook to import glass smooth on both sides, which 
 they entered as ground plate-glass, or as window-glass ground, at 45 cents. This 
 matter was also brought to the attention of the Secretary, and he rendered another 
 decision that it was jilate-glass, and should pay 50 cents. The similitude clause 
 formerly covered that fnlly, but now we ask you to name it as an article in your 
 tariff bill. 
 
 VIEWS OF GEORGE W. BLAIR. 
 
 Pittsburgh, Pa., January 16, 1890. 
 Dear Sir: As one of the committee representing the glass industry, I had hoped at 
 our interview with you on the 31st ultimo to say a few words, l)ut i-el'rained from 
 doing so, as yon hail accorded us so much time .and such a jiatient hearing. Mr. 
 Maclicth, a co-manufacturer, ban taken the position of an .absolute free-trader. His 
 position is snch an anomalous one that an interview with him published in one of 
 
EEVISIOlSr OF THE TARIFF. 457' 
 
 otlt papers was copied in fho Eastern press and canaert snch surprise to some of our 
 frieods of the tariff' leagae that they wrote to our people asking lor some exijlanation. 
 A reply has been published in the Economist, a copy of which I send you. His state- 
 ments in the press and also before your committee were made in geueral terms and 
 ■without definite figures or data by which you could form auy correct conclusion. 
 
 In his claim that the duty on the raw materials exceeds the duty on the finished 
 product he bases his conclusion on the assumption that the duty on lead makes that 
 article cost him just that much more than it would do were the duty off. This as- 
 sumption is entirely unwarranted by the facts iu the case, as is .shown in the published 
 article referred to iu the Economist. 
 
 Mr. Macbeth admitted to you that be could bny the American oxide of lead at |4.90 
 per 100 pounds and that it was as good as the English oxide for his purposes, which 
 has been selling at $7.75 iu our market. The difference in the price of the two 
 amounts almost to the rate of duty; which on oxide of lead is 3 cents per pounds. In 
 regard to pig lead I find the domestic pig lead is selling at .$3.90 in our market, 
 whilat the English is selling at $5.35. In this case there is a difference of .^1.45 per 
 100 ponnd.s, whilst the duty on pig lead is 2 cents per pound. So admitting that 
 were the duty off, and that he were to buy the English instead of the domestic lead, 
 he would save scarcely anything on the oxide, and in the case of pig lead he would 
 save only 55 cents per 100 pounds. Admitting, then, that we may possibly be in- 
 jured to this extent, and counting the duty on pearl ash and soda ash, I can not, 
 after the -most careful estimate, find that the cost of the chimneys, such as he de- 
 scribed before your committee, would be increased more than 1 cent per dozen. He 
 estimates the increased cost at 3 to 4 cents. The fact is that the duty on the raw 
 materials falls far below the duty on the finished product. A statement was made 
 before your committee showing that on the cheapest kind of chimneys imported it 
 amounted to 2.4 cents per dozen. 
 
 I call your attention to these matters because Mr. Macbeth laid so much stress on 
 his claim that the duty on raw materials exceeded that of the duty on the finished 
 product. 
 
 I would say that the house with which I am connected, Dithridge & Co., Fort Pitt 
 Glass Works, is one of the oldest glass works in Pittsburgh, and has been making the 
 class of goods that Macbeth makes for a much longer period than he has, although 
 perhaps we do not make so many chimneys, owing to the fact that we make many 
 other lines of goods as well, but I am quite familiar with the costs of the goods, and 
 in verification of my statement as to the increased cost of such goods by reason of 
 the duties on raw materials, I refer you to other large manufacturing concerns in the 
 same line of business, such as Gill Bros. & Co., Steubenville, Ohio, and Gillinder & 
 Sons, Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 I will not trespass on your time further than to say that our reasons for asking the 
 rates of duty as suggested iu our schedule before you is on account of the difference 
 in the cost of labor between that paid in our country and the same class of work ia 
 foreign countries. This has been fully dwelt on before your committee ah'eady and 
 I need add nothing further except to say that we do not think our laborers are over- 
 paid except perhaps in a few special instances. 
 
 We think, in fact, that this is the best reason in the world for our asking increased 
 duty, so that we may be able to pay good wages to our workmen. We are thoroughly 
 convinced that well-paid labor is the surest basis of continued prosperity in onr coun- 
 try. By this means the workmen receive all the benefits they could receive by any 
 other system of co-operation and thns avoid all the confusion and trouble that seem 
 to be always occurring in co-operative institutions. 
 
 I send you by this mail a letter from Messrs. Dorflinger & Co., of New York, who 
 are largely engaged in the manufacture of fine cut ware. As it is very brief and em- 
 braces some of the points we want to bring before you, I would ask your considera- 
 tion of the same. 
 
 I also send you copies of an English journal, the Pottery Gazette, of last year, and 
 call your attention to the pages with nximbers marked on the back of each volume, 
 as you will there get some views on labor, etc., from an English point of view. You 
 will see that the price of labor in the German states is abont what we estimated it to 
 be when before your committee. 
 
 I beg to remain, yours, respectfully, 
 
 Geo. W. Blair, 
 Secretary of Committee. 
 
 Hon. William McKinley, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee. 
 
458 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 OEBMAN LOOKING GLASS. 
 
 Grand Rapids Furniturb Manufacturers' Association, 
 
 Qi-and Kapids, Mich.., December 28, 1889. 
 Resolved, hy the Grand Rapids Furniture Manufacturers' Association in meeting assem- 
 lled, That a memorial be immediately forwarded to the Committee on Ways and 
 Means of tlie llouse of Representatives, at Washington, setting forth that the mem- 
 bers of this association use at least $300,000 worth of German looking-glass'plates per 
 annum, and most respectfully petition Congress to consider the present tariif on this 
 article, and being informed that a pressure is about to he made to increase the present 
 burdensome tariff now imposed on beveled German looking-glass plate, we most earn- 
 estly protest against any increase, and hereby petition your honorable body to with- 
 draw entirely the present tariff on all German looking-glass plates, there being no 
 industry in this country protected by its enforcement. 
 
 Jno. a. Covodb, 
 President Grand Rapids Furniture Manufacturers' Association. 
 
 H. D. C. Van Asmus, 
 Secretary Grand Rapids Furniture Manufacturers' Association. 
 
 National Furnitcke Manufacturers' Association, 
 
 Grand Rapids, Mich., December 28, 1889. 
 
 The honoraMe Committeee of Ways and Means of the House of Representatives : 
 
 The furniture manufacturers of the United States represent one of the most impor- 
 tant industries in this country. 
 
 They are employing fully 100,000 men and producing |125,000,000 worth of goods 
 annually. 
 
 We can manufacture furniture cheaper than it can be produced in any other 
 country. 
 
 Our exports last year amounted to nearly $3,000,000, standing sixth in the list of 
 manufactured articles, and under more favorable conditions this amount could have 
 been increased ten-fold. 
 
 We neither need nor ask for protection, but we do ask that articles we are compelled 
 to import, that are necessary in the manufacture of our goods, ^^hall not be made to 
 pay higher rates of duties than are now assessed against them. Thin mirrors, known 
 in the trade as German looking-glass plates, are not and never have been made in 
 this country, the ta c now levied ou thorn is not necessary as a matter of protection, 
 and the additional 10 per cent, ad valorem provided for beveled plates in the Senate 
 bill of last year is wholly inexcusable and unwarranted. 
 
 In accordance with a resolution passed at the last meeting of this association, held 
 in New York City, June 12 and 13, the otflcers were instructed to protest, in the 
 name of the furniture manufacturers of the United States, against auy additional tax. 
 being placed ou looking-glass plates. 
 
 We also respectfully request that in the new tariff bill you will provide that ma- 
 hogany and other fine cabinet woods may be imported, sawed into planks or boards, 
 at a duty of not to exci«d |2'per 1,000 superficial feet. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 National Furniture Manufacturers' As.sociation. 
 Chas. R. Sligh, 
 
 President. 
 John Widdicomb, 
 
 Secretary and Treasurer. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 459 
 
 WINDOW GLASS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF J. A. CHAMBERS. 
 
 Jeannette, Pa., January 3, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : As per your request, I lierewitli send y'>u the selling prices of wiudo w 
 glass in 1857, takt-u from the books of A. &, D. H. Chambers ; also the selling piices 
 of window glass for 1889 : 
 
 October, 1857. 
 
 October, 1889. 
 
 8 X 10 .. . . " 
 
 Per box. 
 $1.94 
 2.16 
 2.16 
 2.39 
 2.47 
 2.70 
 2.92 
 
 8x 10 
 
 Per box. 
 $1. 50 
 
 9x 12 
 
 9x 12 
 
 1.60 
 
 10 X 12 - 
 
 10 x 12 
 
 1.60 
 
 10 X 14 
 
 10 X 14 
 
 1.50 
 
 lU X 16 
 
 10 X 16 
 
 J. 80 
 
 12x 18 
 
 12x 18 
 
 1.80 
 
 12x20 
 
 12 X 20 
 
 1.80 
 
 
 
 
 If there is any further information that I can give you I will be glad to do so. 
 Ton will notice the prices are much lower to-day with what our Democratio friends 
 are pleased to call a prohibitory tariff than thoy were with itractically no tariff, as 
 was the case in 1857. 
 
 Tours truly, 
 
 Hon. John H. Gear, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 
 ,T. A. Chambers, 
 President Chanibers and MoKee Glass Company, 
 
 STATEMENT OF JAMES CAMPBELL. 
 
 Mr. James Campbell, of Pittsburgh, Pa., next addressed the committee. He said; 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I come here representing the win- 
 dow glass industry, and we ask that the tariff' of 1882 be restored with an additional 
 bracket. The tariff schedule to-day on window glass runs 10 by 1"), 16 by 24, 24 by 30, 
 ,ind above 24 by 30 it is ibur brackets. When that tari.T schedule was adopted in 
 1842, there w.as no window glass made above 8 by 10. They are now making cylin- 
 ders as large as 50 by 70 and larger, and the schedule that would apply then would 
 not apply now. Since the tarilf of 1883 we have had less work in this country, and 
 the importation has increased very largely, and it is increasing largely in the largest 
 sizes. You will see here by the report of the imported merchandise for 1887 in the 
 first bracket there was 14,117,87.5 pounds. In the highest bracket (I will only quote 
 two brackets) the importation was 17,608,435 jionnds. In 1888 the import of the lirst 
 bracket w.as 13,877,515 pounds' You see there is a reduction in the first bracket. In 
 the highest bracket there was imported 21,799,062 pounds. You see there is quite an 
 increase in the largest .size. The total importation of 1887 was 01,627,948 pounds, 
 while in 1888 it was 70,513,836.51 pounds. So you see the increase was very large. 
 If we fix another bracket to the present schedule it will be an advantage to the man- 
 ufacturers as well as to the workmen in this country. 
 
 IS'ow, I made a visit to Europe in August and September, 1888, and I made a 
 thorough examination of the work done over there ; and I tried to get the cost of the 
 material as near as I possibly could and the cost of labor of all kinds. The cost of 
 material over there is much cheaper with the exception of coal, Coal in Belgium is 
 probably .about as dear to the manufacturers as it is in this country. The labor 
 there, skilled and unskilled, is much lower than it is in this country — very much. 
 I will state to the committee that the largest competitor we have is Belgium, and the 
 Belgium glass is known in this country as French glass. There is not much glass 
 that comes from France to this country; but it comes from Belgium. In Belgium 
 thi-y work on Sunday. They have no regard for Sunday, and they work the same as 
 we do on a week day in this country. Consequently that makes a larger manufact- 
 ure. If there is any reduction at all we will have to stand a reduction in wages. 
 In England I visited some works whirh were \'ery large exporters to this country. 
 I found the difference in wages there as about equal to the difference in wages 
 in Belgium, and the cost <pf material tliere is much cheaper than it is in this country, 
 and as I stated in the beginning, since the reduction of the tariff of ]SS3 the importa- 
 tion has increased very largely, and we have nut had full work since that time. 
 
460 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 WAGES IN EUROPE AND AMERICA. 
 
 Pittsburgh, February 8, 1890. 
 Dear Sie: I inclose you list of -wages paid in Europe and America; also cost oi 
 mat-rial. There has been an advance in material in both countries, and I think the 
 difference is still about the same. The wages are still about the same. You will see 
 that the present li.-t of wages were made out in 1888, as were the material. The cost 
 of material was given me by thu managers of the works in Europe. The wages were 
 given me by the workmen themselves, and I know the wages are correct. In this 
 country the cost of material was given me by the mauufarturer. I hope you will 
 send me word about what will be done by the committee with our case uu glass. 
 Respectfully your.s, 
 
 James Campbell. 
 
 Mr. Thomas M. Bayne, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Blowers', gatherers', and Jlatteners' wages, per hox, 188i'. 
 
 Plank L.auc, England — 
 
 itlowera 
 
 Flattcner.s , 
 
 Gatherers 
 
 Total average 
 
 Sunderland, Englaad — 
 
 Blowers 
 
 Gixtberera 
 
 Flattenera 
 
 Total average 
 
 Spon Lane, Eni^land — 
 
 Blowers ..'. 
 
 Gatherers 
 
 Flatteners 
 
 Total average 
 
 s.s. 
 
 D.S. 
 
 $0.26 
 
 $0. .34 
 
 .L5 
 
 .15 
 
 .14 
 
 .19 
 
 .55 
 
 .68 
 
 .23 
 
 .28 
 
 .15 
 
 .17 
 
 .09 
 
 .11 
 
 .47 
 .25 
 
 .56 
 .30 
 
 .15 
 
 .19 
 
 .Od 
 
 .10 
 
 .48 
 
 .49 
 
 St. Helena, England- 
 
 Blowera . , 
 
 Gatherers 
 
 I'latteDera 
 
 Total average - 
 
 America — 
 
 Blowers 
 
 Gatherers 
 
 iFiattenurs 
 
 Total average - 
 
 
 S.S, 
 
 D.S. 
 
 America. . 
 
 109 
 
 283 
 
 America. . 
 
 W4 
 
 364 
 
 America.. 
 
 iW 
 
 341 
 
 America.. 
 
 lti7 
 
 431 
 
 S.S. 
 
 $0.23 
 .13 
 .07 
 
 D.S. 
 
 $0.24 
 .17 
 .08 
 
 1.40 
 .78 
 .36 
 
 2.60 
 
 Per cent, more thanpald in- 
 Plank Lane- 
 Sunderland. 
 Spon Lane. 
 St. Helens. 
 
 Wages paid for labor in the following places in the window-glass industries. 
 
 Plank Lane, 
 England. 
 
 Sunderland, 
 England. 
 
 Pittsburgh, 
 Amnriia. 
 
 Assorters 
 
 Cutters 
 
 Teaser.s 
 
 Coal-wheeler 
 
 Master teaser 
 
 Lear tender 
 
 Wheel turner 
 
 Black.smith - 
 
 Po-t-maker 
 
 Common Liborer.. 
 
 Batch mixer. 
 
 Elow-tiirnace man 
 
 Packer 
 
 Clerk 
 
 Clerk 
 
 Clerk 
 
 $6.72 
 5.28 
 6.84 
 5.36 
 8 46 
 2.88 
 2.88 
 6.72 
 8.40 
 4.08 
 5. 76 
 5.04 
 5.76 
 2.40 
 3, 'iO 
 7.20 
 
 $0. 24 
 6.00 
 6.72 
 6.00 
 7.80 
 2.80 
 1.92 
 6.96 
 8.00 
 4.08 
 5,76 
 
 $25. 00 
 26.00 
 12. liO 
 iri. 00 
 23. Ii2 
 11.35 
 13.30 
 26.00 
 25.00 
 9.00 
 13.05 
 12.00 
 20.00 
 12.00 
 18.110 
 25.00 
 
EEVISION OP THE TAKIFF. 
 
 46] 
 
 Cost of material in same places, 
 [2,240 pounds per ton.] 
 
 
 Plank Lane, 
 England. 
 
 Sunderland, 
 England. 
 
 Pittsburgh, 
 America. 
 
 Sand 
 
 Salt cako — 
 
 Coal 
 
 .Arsouic. 
 
 Chalk, instead of lime 
 
 per toa.. 
 
 do 
 
 do... 
 
 do.... 
 
 do 
 
 $L20 
 7.80 
 1.02 
 
 60.00 
 
 $1.20 
 7.80 
 .84 
 
 60.00 
 1.00 
 
 $2.50 
 
 15.00 
 
 1. 50 
 
 71.25 
 
 
 , do.... 
 
 2.26 
 
 3.30 
 
 
 
 
 111 Belgium blowers' wages are a little higher than in England. All the other 
 labor is much lower, which makes the cost of a box of glass cheaper in Belgium than 
 iu England. 
 
 James Campbell, 
 President of TFindoiv-Glass Workers' Association. 
 
 STATEMENT OF A. M. HAMMETT. 
 
 Mr. A. M. Hammett, of Pittsburgh, Pa., next appeared before the committee. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. What is your place of residence ? 
 
 Mr. Hammett. Pittsburgh. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is your avocation ? 
 
 Mr. Hammett. I am a glass-cutter by occupation. One reason we ask for a resto- 
 ration of the tariff of la83 is simply this : After the tariff of 1883 was passed we suf- 
 fered a reduction of 20 per cent, in wages, and upon the large sizes we suffered a re- 
 duction of 50 per cent. If the gentlemen will take occasion to look at this price-list, 
 coming from the manufacturers, you will find that in the large sizes — the extra large 
 sizes — we had to put iu three lights. 
 
 Mr. BuKROWS. What industry do you speak of 1 
 
 Mr. Hammett. Wiudow glass. With the sizes they changed the number of lights, 
 and they put in three more, making a reduction of 50 per cent. Now, another point 
 why we ask a restoration of this is simply this, that in these large sizes they have 
 more than 100 feet in them. For instance, 50 by 80 in 100-foot glass, there will be 
 in three lights, 166 feet. That comes in under what is known as a box of 50 feet, 
 while there is more in it. Now, we would ask that instead of having it on the com- 
 mercial box of glass we hare it on the actual weight ; that the basis be fixed upon 
 the actual weight of the glass. In the tariff' of 1883 not only was there a reduction 
 of price, but there was a reduction of weight. The single size was reduced from GO 
 to 55, and the double 90 to 80. We are satislied that this does not cover the weight 
 of glass in these boxes, and we believe in all fairness to all parties if the matter was 
 fixed upon the actual weight of the glass that it would be fairer to everybody. You 
 will see here if you will look at that list in 1883, prior— — ■ 
 
 Mr. McMiLLLN. What is the present rate of duty on that grade of glass— what per 
 cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Hammett. I think the rate is "2-1 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. About what per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Hammett. I could not say that. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What does it sell at a pound in this market ? 
 
 Mr. Hammett. It is not sold by the pound. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. What increase would this be in Iho present rate of duty 1 
 
 Mr. Hammett. It would be one-eighth of a cent a pound to restore the old tariff, and 
 the difference iu the reduction of weight is about 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. That would be about 10 per cent, more ? 
 
 Mr. Hammett. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. It was one-eighth of a cent a pound and 10 per cent, added to the 
 present rate of duty ? 
 
 Mr. Hammett. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You leave the impression in answer to the question put by Mr. McMillin 
 that the increase will be one-eighth per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Hammett. No ; one-eighth of a cent per pound on each schedule. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. And also 10 per cent. That is not correct. 
 
 Mr. Hammett. Yes, sir; 10 per cent, reduction was made in the weight. Now, 
 the duty was formerly tixed upon single size, which was known commercially as 50 
 feet. The weight was reduced from 60 pounds to 55 on the single, and on the double 
 
462 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Bize from 90 to 80. We ask that that be restored aud bo fixed upo,) the aetual weight 
 of everj' one. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You do not desire an increase of ouo-ei<^hth of a cent per pound and 
 10 per cent, additional ? 
 
 6Ir, Hammett. We simply want a restoration. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. The restoration will amount to 10 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. IfAMMBTT. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. That would restore the eighth of a cent a pound ? 
 
 Mr. Hammett. It would restore the eighth of a cent a pound and the weight too. 
 We would like to have it back just where it was before. 
 
 MINERAL WATER BOTTLES. 
 
 Falmouth Fokesidb, Me., January 2, 1890. 
 Sir: We request that your committee will take into prompt consideration the un- 
 just discrimination that the present tarift' makes against the owners of domestic 
 mineral springs by admitting the liottles that contain foreign mineral waters at a 
 duty (if 30 per cent, ad valorem, while the sauie bottles, empty, are charged a duty 
 of 1 cent per pound. This inconsistency of the tariff gives to the importer of foreign 
 mineral waters a premium of not less than l{!1.50 per gross for bringing into the 
 United States foreign waters to compete with the domestic. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 The Underwood Co. 
 The Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 STAINED GLASS. 
 STATEMENT OF S. M. ADAMS. 
 
 Mr. S. M. Adams, of No. 058 Broadway, New York, next addressed the committee. 
 He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear on behalf of the glass- 
 setters of the United States, the men who furnish the stained glass windows for 
 churches and public buildings. The difHculty with us is that the decision of the 
 Attorney-General, concurred in by the Treasury Department, has set aside the duty 
 of45 per cent, as originally placed upon stained glass windows imported into the 
 country. The result of that decision has been to wipe out our business. Nineteen- 
 twentieths of the stained glass windows used in churches are imported and without 
 paying 1 cent of duty. The decision of the Attorney-General as set forth by the 
 Attoiney-General calls them works of art. They are no more works of art than a 
 handsouie carpet. They are simply pieces of colored glass fastened together. They 
 are not works of art in any sense. The Attorney-General has decided that they are 
 works of art and they have been imported absolutely free of dnty. The duty is 10 
 jier cent, on works of art that are not presents to religious or educational institutions, 
 yet by taking subscriptions among members of the church and dividing it up, say 
 $.500 for this window and ^.''lOO for that, it would be a iiresent by this, that, and the 
 other, and the consequence is the windows come in duty free. 
 
 The Chairman. Is that practically true of all importations of stained glass ? 
 
 Mr. Adams. In regard to the importation of stained glass windows this is abso- 
 lutely true. Now, we wish the law so fixed that a duty can be collected without the 
 interi'ereuce of any attorney-general, or anybody else. The only way we can see to 
 do that is to say that no window costing less than $5,000 shall lie considered a work 
 of art. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you a printed memorial there ; do you make an explanation 
 of just what you want ? 
 
 Mr. Adams. No, sir ; in the printed memorial we have not made the statement that 
 any window shall not be admitted valued at less than $5,000; but that is the only 
 way I see out of it. The law was straight enough at 45 per cent., but the decision of 
 the Attorney-General did away with that, and under that decision the importers 
 have their agencies in New York — .seventeen or eighteen of them — and they get nine- 
 teen-twentieths of the work done in the United States. It is a beautiful art, and we 
 think we should do all this work here. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. When was that decision made ? 
 
 Mr. Adams. It was made in regard to a church in New York. Roscoe Conkling was 
 the man who carritd it through. 
 
 Mr. BuKKOWS. . 1 speak of the decision of the Attoriiey-Geueral? 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 463 
 
 Mr. Adams. It was in Mr. Coakling's time. He acted for the cburcli and got the 
 decision. 
 
 The Chairman. He represented the ohiirch before the Attorney-General ? 
 
 Mr. Adams. Yes, sii' ; and since then the foreign importers have been increasing 
 their business and decreasing ours. 
 
 MEMORIAL PROM GLASS-STAINBRS. 
 
 The CommiUee on Waijs and Means, House of Bepresentatives : 
 
 The glass-stainers of the United States respectfully ask your consideration to the 
 great injustice that is done to our business by the present tariff law. 
 
 Painted or stained glass windows are admitted free of duty if for presentation to 
 a religious corporation, etc., providing such windows attain to the rank of a work 
 of art. 
 
 All windows with figures or pictures represented ou them, without any regard to 
 their being the work of an artist, are classed as works of art by the aijpraisers, and 
 admitted free of duty. The windows are sold for $1.50 to $G per square foot. 
 » On raw material, colored glass, we pay a duty of 30 to 00 per cent. ; enamel colors 
 3r> per cent., and also a duty on lead and iron, which is largely used in the work. 
 
 Labor in Europe is |1.25 against $3 per day here. Eight-tenths of the cost of this 
 work is for labor, while the manufactured article is free of duty. 
 
 Stained glass we claim is an industrial and decorative work, an article of use and 
 a manufacture, made by contract with the most favorable bidder. 
 
 We ask that the duty of 45 per cent, be xjaced upon all stained glass windows, to 
 enable us to compete with the foreign manufacture. Eighteeu-twentieths of the work 
 is now taken to Europe to be done. 
 
 Wm. Gibson's Sons, 142 East Thirty-third street. New York. 
 
 J. E. Lamb, 59 Carmine street, New York, 
 
 T. & Jno. Morgan, 53 Bleecker street. New York, 
 
 Committee. 
 John Morgajst, 53 Bleecker street. New York, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 VIE-WS OF WM. COULTER & SON. 
 
 Cincinnati, February 4, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : We inclose to you a petition from the firms in our business in this city. 
 The petition explains itself and you can at a glance recognize the justice of what is 
 asked. 
 
 The stained-glass industry is a rapidly increasing one in this country. It is abso- 
 lutely necessary that a duty should be imposed upon the imported work. We have 
 establishments in this country now that far excel anything in Europe, and must nec- 
 essarily have the protection desired or be eventually crushed out. They can only turn 
 out this most artistic class of work as a result of highest priced aud skilled mechanics. 
 As the world knows the relative scale of wages in the foreign countries and ours, hence 
 the necessity of the protection asked. 
 
 We most earnestly ask that you give this matter some of your very valuable time 
 and therefore jilace the petitioners under great obligation to you, aud especially so. 
 Yours, most respectfully, 
 
 Wm. Coulter & Son. 
 Hon. Wm. McKinley, 
 
 Souse of Bepresentatives. 
 
 MEMORIAL from CINCINNATI. 
 
 To Hons. Benj. Butterworth and Jno. A. Caldwell, Bepresentatives for First and Second 
 
 Congressional districts of Ohio : 
 
 We the undersigned, your constituents, respectfully urge upon you the necessity 
 of protecting our industry in the present revision of the tariff laws. 
 
 In order to protect our industry. Congress imposed a tariff of 45 per cent, ad valo- 
 rem on all painted and stained glass imported to this country (United States tariff 
 laws, paragraphs 549-557). 
 
 This provision has been rendered absolutely nugatory by the decision of the Attor- 
 ney-General (United States Treasury, decision No, 3142), who has decided that painted 
 and stained glass windows may be ranked as works of art, and when entered for pre- 
 presentation to re] igious corporations, etc., should be admitted free. 
 
464 EEVISION OP THE TAEIFF. 
 
 Under this decision our appraisers class all windows with representations of figures 
 or pictures on thera, as works of arts, without any regard to merit. This work is sold 
 at |1. 50 to $6 per square foot. 
 
 The relief we desire is that stained-glass windows should be classed as belonging 
 to the decorative or industrial arts, and as articles of use, being a substitute ouly for 
 the plainer window, and not as works of art. 
 
 If 80 classed and forever exempted from the free list, and the present tariff of 45 
 per cent, ad valorem continued, our industry will flourish and give employment to 
 hundreds of designers, glass painters and lead workers. 
 
 Should this relief not be granted the future of our industry is at an end. 
 
 We can not compete with foreign work for the following reasons: 
 
 Wages in Europe, one-half what is paid in this country. Wages form eight-tenths 
 of the cost of the work. We pay a duty on raw material and antique glass, 30 to 60 
 per cent. On enameled colors 35 per ceut. and on lead, which enter largely in the 
 manufacture of a window, a duty is also paid. With all these disadvantages against 
 us, the finished article is allowed to come in free. 
 
 From the glass stainers of Cincinnati, Ohio. 
 
 Wm. Coulter & Son, 
 
 Employing twenty men. 
 
 VOLLMEE, TOMOOR & MaRX, 
 
 Employing twenty-four men. 
 The Bowen Art Stained Glass Works, 
 
 Employing thirty men. 
 The Artistic Glass Paintixg Company, 
 
 Employing twenty-five men. 
 
REVISION OF THli TARIFF. 465 
 
 E AKTHElSrWAKE . 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN MOSES. 
 
 Mr. John Moses, of Trenton, N. J., appeared before the committee and read the 
 following statement: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, iu presenting the following facts 
 on behalf of the potters of the United States we represent the interests not only of the 
 manufactnrers, bnt of the thousands immediately employed iu the potteries and the 
 very large additional number engaged in the mining and preparation of the materials. 
 We also can speak for the millions of consumers in this country to whom the devel- 
 opment of this industry has cheapened the price at least 60 per cent. This is a fact 
 that is capable of the most convincing proof, and establishes the fact that we have 
 not been enemies, but friends of the consumer. 
 
 We desire to state a few reasons why an increase of duty should be made on china, 
 porcelain, and earthen ware. 
 
 One reason is, because at least 90 per cent, of the entire cost of the goods is labor 
 in some form, in the mining, preparation, and transport of the materials and in the 
 work in the potteries ; besides, the materials cost more here than in the countries with 
 which we are obliged to compete, because of the higher price of labor generally. We 
 assert as a clearly established fact, that we are paying over 100 per cent, more wages 
 than our English competitors pay for the same work. Yet we pay no more for our 
 skilled labor than is paid to other classes of mechanics in the same localities. The 
 above fact was proved before the Tariff Commission, in spite of all the testimony to 
 the contrary. (See Tariff Commission's report, page 14 ; also report of present consul 
 at Tunstall, Mr. Schoenhof.) 
 
 To compensate for this difference in the price of labor, also the higher price of 
 materials consequent upon the higher price of all labor in this country, we have a 
 tariff of 55 per cent, on white and 60 per cent, on decorated wares. 
 
 With the duty taken off packages and all sorts of packing, foreign freights, ship- 
 piBg charges, etc., enables the manufacturers in Europe to send their goods in here 
 at prices that are impossible successfully to compete with by our American manu- 
 facturers. The amounts deducted from the invoices for packing and packages under 
 the present law run from 15 to 65 per cent, of the amount of the invoice, thus in 
 some cases paying duty on only 35 per cent, of the cost of the goods. 
 
 Besides, since the passage of the tariff of 1883, an entirely new source of compe- 
 tition has been developed in cheap German china, which has been freely advertised 
 at prices as low or lower than domestic or foreign earthenware. 
 
 This industry has never had its share of protection, because when the protective 
 tariffs were made it was so very small that the idea of protection was not thought of. 
 The apparent increase of duty in 1883 led, as we stated at that time that it would, to 
 lower prices to the consumer. Thus the development of any industry through a pro- 
 tective tariff always leads to lower prices to the consumer. For instance, white 
 granite, the class of goods of which the largest quantities, both foreign and domestic, 
 are sold in this country, sold in 1880 at over 60 per cent, more than at the present 
 time. The tariff of 1883 brought about a most marvelous development of the manu- 
 facture of decorated goods in this country, which has reduced the price of that class 
 of goods to not over one-half of the prices often years ago. 
 
 The domestic potteries have been kept in operation with the hope that the wisdom 
 of our members of Congress would lead them to give us the protection which we so 
 much need to maintain our ground against the colossal fortunes which have been 
 made by foreign manufacturers at the expense of the American people. 
 
 It is for you, gentlemen, to say whether this struggling industry shall be destroyed 
 for the benefit of foreign manufacturers. On your decision hangs the interest of both 
 capital, labor, and consumer. It is admitted by some advocates of tariff reform that 
 the tariff should be made to compensate for the difference in the price of labor in this 
 and foreign countries. In our opinion this is the true principle of protection ; for but 
 for this difference in the price of labor there would be no need of a tariff for protec- 
 tion. 
 
 The expense of labor in our business can not be cheapened by the introduction of 
 machinery to any great extent, for "the clay is still in the hands of the jiotter" as 
 
 485 30 
 
466 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 much almost as wlien this text was first written. Nothing but the human haud 
 seems capable of molding and forming the soft, plastic material from which the diifer- 
 ent .irticles are made. 
 
 With these few remarks we respectfully submit to the committee the following 
 schedule : 
 
 SCHEDULE ON EARTHENWAKE, ETC. 
 
 On common brown earthenware, stoneware, and crucibles, not ornamented or deco- 
 rated in any manner, 25 per centum ad valorem. 
 
 China, porcelain, parian, bisque, earthen, stone, and crockery ware, including 
 plaques, ornaments, toys, charms, Yases, and statuettes, painted, tinted, stained, en- 
 ameled or gilded, or otherwise decorated or oruameuted in any manner, 60 per centum 
 ad valorem. If plain white, and not ornamented or decorated in any manner, 55 per 
 centum ad valorem. 
 
 All other china, porcelain, parian, bisque, earthen, stone, and crockery ware and 
 manufactures of the same, composed wholly or in part of earthy or mineral substances, 
 by whatsoever designation or uame known in the trade, not specially enumerated or 
 provided for in this act, if ornamented or decorated in any manner, 60 per centum 
 ad valorem; if not ornamented or decorated, 55 per centum ad valorem. 
 
 The Chairman. I see you have added the word "toys." 
 
 Mr. Moses. Since the passage of the act of 1883, toy teas from Germany principally 
 have been imported. The duty at that time was lixed 55 per cent., but they have 
 been brought in as children's toys at 35 per cent. We have tried a number of times 
 to break it up, but for some reason we have been unable to do so. That branch of 
 the business is entirely taken away from us. 
 
 The Chairman. Do they import after dinner coffees, etc., that ought to be dutia- 
 ble under this act 1 
 
 Mr. Moses. They import a great number of children's teas. They import plates 
 and after dinner coffees and a great number of articles decor.ated for children's use, 
 claiming that they are children's playthings. They are really not toys, but articles 
 for children's use. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is that rate as compared with the existing rate ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. Fifty-five per cent, should be the duty paid. 
 
 Mr. McJliLLiN. You propose to raise it to 60 ? 
 
 Mr. Moses No, to .55. That was what it was intended to be. 
 
 Mr. McMiELiN. The law is generally the expression of the intention. 
 
 Mr. JIosES. Well, that depends a good deal on the interpretation of it. The act of 
 1883 was intended to take elfect on the 1st of July, but the Secretary of the Treasury 
 decided that section 7 took effect immediately on account of the clause relating to 
 jiackages reducing the duty. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Suppose we restore that package duty ; what effect would it have? 
 
 Mr. Moses. The way the law is framed there is as much as 65 per cent, in some 
 cases of the actual invoice value of the goods and packages deducted before the duty 
 is comi)uted. It is a disadvantage to us now on some classes of goods. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What classes of goods? 
 
 Mr. M(_)Si:s. Vases, statuettes, and that sort of thing, mostly for ornament. They 
 get in in some way tliat wo are unable to find out. They get in china at prices which 
 enable them to sell it at a lower rate than earthen wares. 
 
 The Chairman. The effect of the package clause has been to increase the value of 
 the i)ackages and diminish the value of contents, the former being free and the latter 
 dutiable ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. That is a fact. When we ask this committee to grant this change and 
 make these duties, it is not because we feci that that is as much as we ought to have, 
 that we do not ask more. I am satisfied if Congress would make this duty 75 on 
 white goods, and 100 per cent, on decorated, they would be doing a patriotic duty to 
 the country. 
 
 The Chairman. Was there an increase of any kind on those goods by the act of 
 IH*'. ? 
 
 Mr. JIosEs. Yes; on decorated ware there was. 
 
 Tlio Chairman. What iuUuence, if any, has it had on prices? 
 
 Mr. Moses. I claim it h:is stimulated the ]iroductiou of decorated goods. It has 
 produced a marvelous effect. The amount of decorated goods has been increased a 
 thousand times over, and the price is not more than half what it was. 
 
 The Chairman'. Wliat is the price of a dinner set ? 
 
 Mr, MosKs. The price of a decorated set of one hundred and twenty-five ijieces is 
 from $13. .50 up to about ijfW for decoration on white graniti', .and on the class of goods 
 known in the trade as stone porcelain. In the stone porcelain the prices are from 
 $15 to $'J2 for ordiiuLi-y decoration. 
 
 The Chairman. Wl'iat is plain white? 
 
 Mr. Moses. About |8. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 467 
 
 The Chaieman. What were the prices prior to 1883 ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. Sixty per cent, more than that, or say $12.80. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What do you mean by that? Do you mean that the domestic goods 
 are 60 per cent, higher? 
 
 Mr. Moses. Sixty per cent, higher in 1880 than they are to-day. 
 
 Mr Carlisle. The foreign had the duty to pay. You are spealiing of the Ameri- 
 can f 
 
 Mr. Moses. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How is it as to the foreign article ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. The foreign article has had to compete with the domestic in order to 
 keep their share of the trade. In other words, tlie foreign maniifiicturer pays the 
 duty because he is able to employ labor at a price that will enable him to do it. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What is the present price of a similar class of goods ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. It is about the same price. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What is it in foreign countries? 
 
 Mr. Moses. That we can not find out, because the foreign manufacturers are just 
 crafty enough not to let us know what the scale of prices are. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you mean to tell me that a foreign manufacturer will sell his 
 goods to an American customer cheaper than to an English or a French or a German 
 customer ? 
 
 Mr. JIoses. I believe that to be a fact. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you know any such case? 
 
 Mr. MosBS. The goods made for the American market are different from the goods 
 made for the English market. The Englishmen are understood to have good appe- 
 tites. An English dinner plate is 2 inches wider than the plate sent to the American 
 market. The goods sent to this country are different in that respect. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. There is a similar class of goods sold abroad, I suppose ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. They are hardly sold in England at all. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Were you making the same class of goods previous to the passage 
 of the act of 18«.3 ? 
 
 Mr. MoSES. They were made to a small extent. 
 
 The Chairman. Decorating was smaller prior of 1883? 
 
 Mr. MoSBS. Since I have been in the pottery business one man in Trenton did the 
 decoration for all the potteries; at the present time, 1 think, at least one thousand 
 people are engaged in decorations. That is what I mean hy the increase of one 
 thousand times. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. To what extent was it carried on prior to 1883? 
 
 Mr. Moses. Not more than 1 per cent, of the goods were decorated. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You say that that branch of the busi[iess has developed a thousand- 
 fold under the duty which was imposed by the tariff of 1883? 
 
 Mr. Moses. No, sir ; I said since 1883. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you not know that the abolition of the package clause will 
 largely increase it ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. It will increase it some. It is claimed that the tariff of 1883 increased 
 the duty about 5 per cent. It was a little over that on decorated goods. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Still, notwithstanding this disadvantage, the result of the abolition 
 of the duty on packages and undervaluation, this industry has increased a thousand- 
 fold ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. On decorated goods in general. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How does the quality compare to what it was in 1883 ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. In regard to that question I would say that the English manufacturers 
 for the last five years have been copying American original shapes. A large number 
 of our original shapes and decorations have been copied by some leading firms in Eng- 
 land and Germany. An importer told me they sent our patterns to the other side 
 to have them copied. 
 
 Mr. Bayne Do you know of an effort made in 1883 to distiuguish between foreign 
 and domestic proved a signal failure ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. Yes, sir; I was present at the test. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You are satisfied with the pre.sent duty f 
 Mr. Moses. With the duty restored on packages we are. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You have left the impression with the committoo that you are sat- 
 isfied with the present duty. 
 
 Mr. Moses. I tried to explain by saying that the practice of the importer is, under 
 the present law, to take 15 to 65 per cent of the invoice value of goods and packages 
 as the cost of the packages and packing. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. The output has increased ; the increased production has been sold 
 at a reduced price. 
 Mr. Carlisle. Would you continue to make that increased reduction t 
 Mr. MosBS. 1 do not know. 
 Mr. Carlisle. If not, why not ? 
 
468 KE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Moses. There is no money in the business. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. "Why have you so increased it if there is no money in it? 
 
 Mr. Moses. There is $10,000,000 invested in the crockery business of the United 
 States. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. Has the increase not been going on since 18831 
 
 Mr. Moses. Not to any great extent. Let me explain Tvhy not. The quantity 
 of decorated goods sold is greater than they were previous to 1883, but the quantity 
 of white goods has been lessened. We have not been selling nearly so many white 
 goods. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Because you have turned your attention to decoration. Was the 
 duty lower previous to the act of 1883? 
 
 Mr. MosBS. It was not. There was a duty collected for the actual amounts brought 
 into the United States, more before 1883 than since. The English were making less 
 previous to 1883 than they have made since. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Then you think the act of 1883 which increased the duty was not a 
 benefit to you? 
 
 Mr. Moses. It was not. 
 
 Mr. MoMillin. Do I understand you to say that some of these American designs 
 were taken to Germany and the decoration c»uld not be done there as cheaply as it 
 was done here? 
 
 Mr. Moses. That was what I was told by an importer of decorated goods from the 
 other side. He said American manufacturers had more intelligence and more taste. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Are not your workmen more skillful and more efficient than those 
 abroad ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. I do not know as they are. A good many of our men learned their 
 trades on the other side. That skilled labor in this country to-day is 300 jier cent, 
 more than in England. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. This increase of business is accompanied by an increase of 
 capital? 
 
 Mr. Moses. Yes, sir; in some cases. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You mean to say the business has increased so largely without 
 an increased capital? 
 
 Mr. Moses. The only additional capital required is the cost of decoration ; the 
 goods are finished before they are decorated. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then there has not been an increase of a thousand- fold in the 
 goods which are decorated? 
 
 Mr. Moses. Yes, in the decorated goods there has been. 
 
 Mr. Breckineidgb. You have only increased a thousand-fold in decorating plain 
 goods ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. That is it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You say this increase does not involve an increase of capital 
 in the business? 
 
 Mr. Moses. Not to a great extent. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You are a producer of the goods yourself? 
 
 Mr. Moses. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What material do you buy to make the goods out of — what 
 kind of clay ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. J use altogether American material, American clays. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it used with that foreign clay ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. I use the clay I was talking about a few minutes ago. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If the tax was taken oil' from the product abroad, would there 
 not be a considerable saving? 
 
 Mr. Moses. Not a great deal. I do not know as there would be any con.siderabie 
 saving, for the reason that as soon as the duty is taken ofl' of clay the price goes up 
 on the other side. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you mean it goes up by a combination of sellers ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. A combination of sellers, and an increase of the demand on the other 
 side. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If a foreign producer of clay would so readily combine against 
 the American purchaser of clay, why would he not also combine against the foreign 
 purchaser? I am trying to get at your information upon that point. 
 
 Mr. Moses. The information I have is from general knowledge and from past ex- 
 perience. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. His only object in combining would be in his own interest? 
 
 Mr. Moses. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. He has as much interest in combining against the foreign as 
 against the American purchaser ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. 1 do not know about that. I think English china clay is probably 
 sold to the AirH^ricans lower than it is to tli» English. 
 
 Mr. Bkhciunridgb. Why is that ? I find that a very general impression. 
 
REVISION OP The taripp. 469 
 
 Mr. MosSS. 1 thint it is justified by experience. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You tliink that the foreign seller will sell more cheaply to one 
 people than to another T I have never seen any evidence of that. 
 
 Mr. Moses. I suppose their opinion on this point is that they consider it to their 
 interest to get clear of the surplus production in a foreign country, and, in the second 
 place, to prevent the development of competing industries of the same character. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you think it would prevent a competing industry by com- 
 bining on the price and putting up the price of that which that industry would i)ro- 
 duce? 
 
 Mr. Moses. It depends on the condition of trade. A tariff, in my opinion, shiinld be 
 an equalizer between the price of labor here and in foreign countries. It would be a 
 means of developing home manufactures. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. By what mode 1 
 
 Mr. Moses. By increasing the production. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How would it increase the production? 
 
 Mr. Moses. It is the protection on the crockery that enables the manufacturer to 
 get a profit on his capiial. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The profit comes from the price? 
 
 Mr. Moses. It is combined with the cost of production. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do I understand you to say that you think a protective tariff 
 ■will sustain prices here? 
 
 Mr. Moses. I say that protection will lead to the development of manufactures at 
 home, and by increasing those manufactures and encouraging the investment of cap- 
 ital and the introduction of improved appliances to be used in the processes of man- 
 ufacture, it enables the manufacturers to reduce the cost on their articles, and conse- 
 quently to be able to sell those goods at a lower price to the consumer. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It encourages a man by preventing him from being under- 
 sold? 
 
 Mr. Moses. It encourages a man by increasing his business. A man can sell a 
 larger quantity of any given product on better terms than a small quantity. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you deny that it encourages a man by preventing his being 
 undersold ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. It encourages a man by preventing his being undersold by the foreign 
 manufacturer. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But you have averred that these foreigners would put up the 
 price. Do you export your article ? 
 
 Mr. MosKS. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is there considerable export now in the article ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. There is not any exportation. We do not manufacture half what is 
 used in the United States. We would be s.atisfied with the home market. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the percentage of the market that you have here ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. About one-half. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is it not true thatevery time the duty onpottery has been increased 
 the price has been less to the manufacturer from 1860 right on ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. It has been lower owing to the development of business in this country. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Every time the tariff has been increased the dividends on the stock 
 have gone down f 
 
 Mr. Moses. The dividends have gone down. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Why do you want an increase oftbe tariff underthat state of things? 
 
 Mr. Moses. We want it simply to prevent foreign manufacturers from driving us 
 out. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Why do you want an increase of the tariff duty when your price 
 goes down on every increase ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. If we had labor and material at the same price in the United States 
 that they have it in Europe we would in less than five years place our goods in the 
 English market. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. You have said that the persons engaged in decoratiug pottery are 
 paid 200 to 300 per cent, more than in Europe ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. Yes, sir, according to our best information. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. You have said that we sell a large proportion of the decorated goods 
 Bold in this comitry. 
 
 Mr. Moses. About one-half. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Is this duty that is now on this decorated pottery sufficient to main- 
 tain that proportion, or should it be increased if we propose to maintain our present 
 market for our domestic productions? 
 
 Mr. Moses. It would be my desire to have it increased, because I think it would 
 keep out the foreign article. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What protection did the premium on gold afford you? Did you re- 
 ceive any advantage from it ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. It is my judgment tliiitr had it not been for the premium on gold from 
 
470 
 
 Revision of the tariff. 
 
 I860 to 1879, the pottery 'business would not be one-twentieth part what it is in the 
 United States at the present time, for the reasou that the very large amount of pre- 
 mium on gold added to duty imposed on crockery developed that business. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. So the actual protection you say was greater than that indicated by 
 the tiguves in the book ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. The premium on gold enabled us to go on and increase our business. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Have not foreign firms established agents here and invoiced goods to 
 themselves 1 
 
 Mr. Moses. A clerk is sent to swear to tlie invoice. That clerk will swear to the 
 best of his knowledge and belief, which is nothing. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is it not a fact that that is a serious departure from the spirit, etfect, 
 and purpose of the law in this matter of classification 1 
 
 Mr. Moses. We can not say how goods have been classified. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You are familiar with the condition of tlie pottery business in Trcntnii. 
 Can you tell me how many establishments have failed there during the past three 
 years? 
 
 Mr. Moses. Four, and probably more. 
 
 Mr. BaY'NE. Were they large concerns? 
 
 Mr. Moses. One of the largest in the State failed some few years ago. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you get the actual benefit of even this low rate of protection ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. It has been stated by an importer in New York City that according to 
 the present jjractice that he did not believe that one-fourth of the duties intended 
 to be collected were actually collected. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You say the style of those goods has changed? 
 
 Mr. Moses. Yes, sir ; they are sometimes sold by dealers in preference to the foreign 
 article. We have developed an artistic taste for pottery in the United States that 
 has led the foreign manufacturers to copy us. 
 
 Mr. Geak. Has there been a decline in the price of this ware generally 1 
 
 Mr. Moses. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. About what per cent.? 
 
 Mr. Moses. The percentage is over 60. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would the Mills bill have affected your trade 1 
 
 Mr. Moses. I think it would have closed up the factories or compelled them to 
 make a large reduction in wages. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What percentage of the crockery used in this country is made here ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. At least one-half of all used in the United States. There is more 
 than one-half of the goods used by the people, but we take all classes of crockery, 
 including statuettes, vases, and we put on the market in the United States about half 
 of the whole consumption. In the article of china wo do not nianufacture nearly 
 that proportion, for the reason that china requires a greater amount of labor than 
 earthen ware. That branch of the business has not been developed, but we have 
 matertal in the United States to make the very finest goods made in the world. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You spoke of the increase of your business. Ooes not that increase 
 result from the fact that by the imposition of the duty it equalizes labor between 
 this country and Europe and gave you the benefit of the home market ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. To a great extent. We are not prepared to admit that the duty on 
 crockery has been sufficient. 
 
 Mr. Bayne I am only asking the question whether it has not given you the benefit 
 of the home market and thereby increased your facilities ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. In answer to a question by Governor Gear, you said that if the Mills 
 bill had passed, in your opinion, you would have been compelled either to close up 
 your establishment or to reduce wages. Is it not a fact that shortly after the passage 
 of the act of 1863, which increased the duties, you reduced wages at Trenton? 
 
 Mr. MoSBS. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. They have never been reduced since 1883 ? 
 
 Mr. MosES. In 1885 there was a reduction submitted to by the men themselves, 
 owing to the reduction made in the price of goods. From 1879 to ISS.'i there was no 
 reduction of any kind, although the price of goods had been gradually going down. 
 In 188.5, about the 1st of January, we called our men together and held a consulta- 
 tion, and we showed that there was a necessity for a reduction of wages. 
 
 Mr. Caiihslic. That was less than two years after the act of 1883 took effect. In 
 about two years after that you found you were not able to pay the same wages as 
 you did before that act jiassed. 
 
 Mr. Moses. Yes, sir, that is true, because the foreign goods of all classes were 
 thrown into our market. Prices of goods fell in the foreign ma.rket. 
 
 Mr. Carlisli:. Were they falling before 1883? 
 
 Mr. Moses. Not to a great extent. The i)assage of the act of 1883 enabled them 
 to send in ^oods chcapcsr than ever liefore. 
 
 Mr, C'aklxsle. You think the practical eil'ect was to reduce duties f 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 471 
 
 Mr. MoSEi , That was the practical effect. 
 
 The Chaiixman. By undervaluation. Speaking of the reduction of wages in 1883, 
 do you remember how much that reduction was ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. It was over 2i per cent, on the pay-rolls. 
 
 The Chairman. But the effect was that the men really got more money and more 
 steady employment? 
 
 Mr. Moses. It improved their income in that respect. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is this labor that was trained in England? 
 
 Mr. Moses. A few years ago quite a, large proportion of them were Englishmen, 
 but we have been gradually training our young people as they grew up. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. During the last twenty years a great many foreign laborers 
 have gone into this business and own their own homes to-day ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do very few go back ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. If they go back, they come back here again. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do yon use much machinery? 
 
 Mr. Moses. The business is not capable of being done by machinery to any great 
 extent. That is another reason why this industry should have a better rate of duty 
 than any other class of manufacture. It is hand labor. In other classes of business 
 machinery and the genius of the American people have enabled them to introduce 
 labor-saving appliances. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Does your labor have any advantage over foreign manual labor ? 
 
 13 r. Moses. On the other side the practice is to retain a week's wages. They hold 
 that for the xmrpose of making good any work that may be damaged. If the goods 
 come out imperfect, are fire-cracked, or have any flaws from any cause whatCA er, the 
 workman has to make it good. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How is that on this side ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. We pay every dollar that a man earns. Their work is counted every 
 day. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Before going into the kiln ? 
 
 Mr. Moses. It is counted before it goes into the green room. The kiln men come 
 and carry it off. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you make a reduction for imperfect work? 
 
 Mr. Moses. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinmdge. You made the statement, I believe, that not exceeding 25 per 
 cent, of tlie existing rate is collected by reason of frauds? 
 
 Mr. Moses. That is not my statement. I simx^ly said I was told so. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. My understanding is that you said you believed that 65 per 
 cent, of the existing rate on the goods in your line of business is lost by reason of 
 frauds under the package clause. 
 
 Mr. Moses. In certain isolated cases. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You are not prepared to make a statement as to the extent of 
 those frauds? 
 
 Mr. Moses. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. I will interrupt the order of proceedings to let Mr. Bodine speak. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. J. H. BREWER. 
 
 Hon. J. H. Brewer, of Trenton, N. J., appeared before the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, after hearing so much on this 
 earthenware and pottery question I hardly know where to begin. I have said so much 
 on this subject during the last few years that it is a sort of a "chestnut" to me, but 
 I hope it will not be to you. 
 
 With an ad valorem duty there always will be trouble to collect the duties, unless 
 you make the administrative features strong. We do not get the full benefit of the 
 duty under it. In some instances the undervaluation is very little, you can not apjjly 
 it to a whole industry. We would not consider the present rate of duty at .all ade- 
 quate, and it does not compare favorably with other industries. I could refer to a 
 number of industries, woolens, glass, iron, etc., all under a specific rate of duty, rang- 
 ing from 80 to 120 per cent., while our industry has to get along with an uncertain 
 ad valorem duty of 55 and 60 per cent. Our industry is nearly all manual labor. 
 We have never been adequa,tely protected nor proportionately protected as compared 
 with the industries above mentioned. We have maintained ourselves in them.arliet, 
 not because of the duties we have received, but because of our favorable location, to 
 a certain extent, and because we have at great expense brought out new shapes and 
 styles and decoratiims constantly adapted to the taste of the trade. 
 
 In regard to this decorated business, formerly three-fourths of the ware shipped to 
 the United States was plain white goods. Now three-fourths of the goods are deco- 
 rated. Having special designs, as before mentioned, we have been until recently ena- 
 
472 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 abled to get fair prices for the goods. We h.ive concentrated on certain lines of gootis 
 ■wMch -wo could run till the foreign mauufactnrcrs had time to copy our designs. Now, 
 we can not compete with Germany, and we are meeting with very serious opposition 
 from that quarter. Unless you arrange the law by the restoration of duties on pack- 
 ages and charges, and so that the custom-house can collect the Same, we wiU be 
 "knocked out." 
 
 The Chaiilmax. How is that? 
 
 Mr. Brewek. The Germans can make the goods cheaper, pay the duty, and under- 
 sell us. The only reason why Germany does not supply all these goods is that she is 
 not prepared to make them. I give you my opinion here to-day that unless some- 
 thing is done to check the importation of German goods they will take such posses- 
 sion of this market in five years. There is no profit in decorated or white goods to 
 anybody engaged in the business. Last year I ran my business every day in the 
 year — never lost a day— but I can not see where there is a dollar in the business. I 
 think I have lost money. 
 
 There are seventy-five manufacturers of white ware in the United States to-day, 
 employing 10,U00 hands and $10,000,000 of capital. The business both in the East 
 and West is depressed and in such a condition that a combination on selling prices is 
 absolutely impossible. They have natural gas in the West, which gives them certain 
 advantages over the East. We have advantages in the East which they have not in 
 the West, but we are so scattered that combination is impossible, and we have a 
 double competition — a home and a foreign. There has been a downward tendency 
 in prices, until there is no longer any profit in the business. Our only hope now is to 
 get an increase of duty to maintain us in this market. We do not say we expect to 
 get an increased price for our goods, but hope by changes in our business and possi- 
 bly a slight decrease in wages to maintain ourselves at present rates. 
 
 The question was asked as to the reduction of wages in 1885. There was a slight 
 reduction on a small line of goods. The men conceded a reduction of 5 per cent. 
 They did it voluntarily. In fact we left the whole matter to Powderly. In all the 
 other lines there has been in the past five years an increase in wages of 20 to .50 
 per cent., and many of the men are making more wages than they did previous to 
 1883. Every time a new shape was brought out we have conceded an advance. 
 Sometimes we have conceded an advance as high as 100 per cent. 
 
 The Chairman. Did you reduce the wages on piecework .5 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Brewer. On certain lines. But they made more goods and higher wages. 
 
 The Chairman. Would not they have made more goods and higher wages without 
 the reduction? 
 
 Mr. Brewer. No, sir; because they did not want to make so much. 
 
 The Chairman. If the duties were increased, would it enable you to go on in this 
 business as you are now doing? 
 
 Mr. Brewer. I hope so. 
 
 The Chairman. And would it increase the price to the consumer? 
 
 Mr. Brewer. I hope not. It would enablij us to go on temporarily as we have 
 been doing. Most of our prices have been largely reduced. 
 
 The Chairman. Iu the larger plants would you employ additional hands and in- 
 vest additional capital ? 
 
 Mr. Brkwi:k. I do not know that I would do that. 
 
 The C'HAiitMAN. How would yon increase the output? 
 
 Mr. BREWEit. I would cheapen the cost of production in various ways, if the 
 market is not flnoded before we can be given a chance. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is there any natural gas employed by the manufacturers of 
 pottery and glassware among the European nations? 
 
 Mr. Brewer. No; they use manufactured gas in Germany Largely. There is another 
 thing we have to contend with which is not generally understood, and that is the 
 trashy class of goods that is brought to this country. They are "cheap and trashy," 
 but they compete with goods we are making. They are in constant competition, and 
 though inferior in every respect, they bring us down in price and we have to stand it. 
 
 Mr. Breokixridge. If there is a class of people who are unable to buy anything 
 else you would not deprive them of the opportunity? 
 
 Mr. Brewer. No; we would not want to deprive them of buying, but these goods 
 are bought by a class of people who are able to buy bettor, and don't know the dif- 
 ference. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Why don't yon make tliese cheap goods ? 
 
 Mr. Brewer. We don't want to make that kind of goods. We make goods on dif- 
 ferent principles, and have some little pride in the business. I would not put that 
 cljiss of wares on the nnirket. 
 
 It is nonsense for any man to saj' that in Germany, where labor is so mnch cheaper 
 (200 to 300 ])er cent.), they can not make these goods cheaper than we can here. Wlien 
 I hear .an importer talk that way I know there is a " nigger iu the wood pile." 
 
 Mr. Mc.MlLLIN. What conntviis cdiiipetc with yon here J 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 473 
 
 Mr. Bhewbr. England antl Germany. Low grade German goods have a very seriona 
 efl'ect on lis. Something must be done in regard to this German competition or they 
 will drive our goods out of the United States, and the English too. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you thinlc it would he practical to establish a epeciflc rate of duty ? 
 
 Mr. Brewek. We recommended a compound duty to the tariff commission in 1882, 
 and thought of doing so now, hut we found it would entail a long discussion, and we 
 abandoned it. We took the simpler method of an ad valorem rate, and the restora- 
 tion of the package clause as in the old law. I have the classification here, which I 
 will leave with you. 
 
 Mr. Beeckinridgb. Is that labor abroad paid by the day or by the piece ? 
 
 Mr. Brewer. I do not know how it is paid in Germany. I only know that German 
 labor is far cheaper than English labor, and that English labor is 125 percent, cheaper 
 than ours on adult labor, and 200 to 300 per cent. che.aper on child labor. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. These goods are made in England ? 
 
 Mr. Brewer. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The Germans do not break them down 1 
 
 Mr. Brewer. Certainly they do, and are shipping goods direct to England to-day. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. There is no duty on it in England ? 
 
 Mr. Brewer. No ; but there will be or they will not make their own crockery very 
 long. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You were a member of Congress in 1883 when this bill was passed. 
 
 Mr. Brewer. Yes, sir ; this bill has resulted as I said it would so far as our in- 
 dustries are concerned, especially as to the package clause. I objected to it, and 
 told members on our side of the House that this package clause would entail endless 
 litigation and loss to the Government, as it has. 
 
 BELGIAN POTTERY. 
 
 New York, January 6, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : I send you by mail to-day copies of the September andNovember (1889) 
 issues of the London Pottery Gazette. Slips pasted on the covers give the numbers 
 of pages that have matter relative to trade in England. 
 
 I give yon on another sheet the prices charged by us on an order for stem-ware, 
 wanted in a hurry, and the prices for the same articles imported regularly from the 
 factory of " Val St. Lambert" in Belgium. I happen to know all there is in this 
 case, and I can make oath to the correctness of the figures. The prices we charged 
 are as low as we can make and sell the goods for. The stem-ware proper had stems 
 cut and finger flukes on bowl ; the tumblers were cut finger flukes. 
 
 Val. St. 
 Lambert. 
 
 C.Dorfliujrer 
 &, Sons. 
 
 Goblets 
 
 Chanipagno 
 
 CoTdiaLs 
 
 Water tumblers 
 
 Champagne tumblers 
 "Whislly tiam biers .. 
 
 Dozen. 
 
 $0.50 
 5. 60 
 4.. TO 
 4. .10 
 4.00 
 3.75 
 
 There is an immense quantity of this class of table-ware imported. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 Wm. F. Dorflinger. 
 Mr. D. C. Ripley, Pittshurgh, Pa. 
 
474 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 BEICK AND TILE. 
 
 VIEWS OF H. B. NEVTTON AND OTHERS. 
 
 ' Dear Sir: The nndersigned committee, representing all the principal manufact- 
 urers of fire-brick and gas retorts in the United States, beg leave to make the follow- 
 ing statement : 
 
 The present rate of duty is no protection to this industry. To compete with for- 
 eign manufacture, we require not less than $3 each on gas retorts, and .fl.25 per ton 
 on fire-brick, 8i)0citic. And would refer you to a statement made by Mr. George F. 
 Kreischer to the subcommittee of the Senate on Finance last August, a copy of which 
 is attached. 
 
 A manufacturer and member of the Fire-Brick and Retort Association visited a 
 number of works in England, Scotland, and Wales, and also Germany, last August, 
 and reports they have no improved machinery or facilities to make retorts or brick 
 less than they are here. Our sands and clays are as good, and its only difference is 
 in wages. 
 
 He found women employed both at the clay beds and the factories doing men's 
 work, laboring twelve liours at 20 cents per day. Men were paid from 65 cents to 
 $1. Here we pay our men for ftin. hours' work from $1.'25 to $2.50, with an average of 
 about $2. 
 
 The manufacturing of fire-brick and retorts is one in wliich hand labor is almost 
 exclusively employed, machiuery being used only to mix the different clays. Labor 
 begins at the clay mines, and does not end till the bricks are stacked up in the store- 
 house. 
 
 We have hundreds of acres of valuable clay and sand beds in New Jersey, Ohio, 
 and Pennsylvania, and recently some of the choicest beds have been found in the 
 West. 
 
 They are of no value to the owners unless we can use them. 
 
 There is over $3,000,000 invested in this industry — aboutninety works costiugfrom 
 $75,000 to $250,000, employing over nine thousand workmen, and with capacity to 
 ■work double the number. 
 
 The fact that there have not been built in the last ten years any new works must 
 convince your committee that it is not remunerative. 
 
 To-day millions of brick are stored in yards, and can not he sold without a loss. 
 
 Most of the brick and retorts imported are brought over as ballast. Bricks are 
 purchased at from |8 to 115 per thousand and thrown upon the market and often pur- 
 chased by a manufacturer and sold at a profit for less than they can be made here. 
 
 We have found of late that they are sending over an extra large brick as the duty 
 is by the thousand, and for that reason, on lire-brick it is important that a change 
 should be made and a specific duty by the ton. 
 
 Estimates have been made abroad to our gas works. Contracts have also been 
 made for retorts delivered here for $3 to $5 less than the actual cost of manufacturing 
 in this country. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 H. B. Newton, 
 President of the Fire-Briclc Manufacture Association, Residence, Albany, N. Y. 
 
 G. F. Kreischer, 
 132 Mangen street, New York City. 
 Henry Gleason, 
 106 Beekman street. New York. 
 
 lion. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 (Jhairman Committee on IVays and Means. 
 
Revision of the tariff. 475 
 
 VIEWS OP A. B. SANFORD. 
 
 Somerset, Mass., December 30, 1889. 
 Deak Sir: I notice that the hearing to-morrow (Tuesday), December 31, will he on 
 earthenware. There is an industry under this head in which I am interested as presi- 
 dent of a corporation in this State, the manufacture of tire-bricks. During the last 
 hearing before the Senate committee our comijany wrote on very fully in regard to 
 this matter, praying for more protection. 
 
 On the article of fire-bricks, under the old schedule, duties were represented at 
 about 30 per cent, ad valorem ; under the new bill of the House, dated January 26, 
 1889, with the amendments of the Senate, I find as follows : 
 
 Page 108, article 103, " Fire-brick, not glazed, enameled, or ornamented, |1.25 per 
 ton ad valorem." A thousand of these brick weigh between 6,000 and 7,000 pounds, 
 about 3 tons, consequently it would be about $3.7'5 per thousand. This, of course, is 
 hetter protection for us than the old duty, and for it we are very grateful, but we 
 •wish that it might be made specific duty of |5 per thousand instead of by the ton. 
 If for reasons which are not known to me, your committee think it better to be by 
 the ton, then I would respectfully ask that the duty be raised to |1.50 per ton instead 
 of $1.25 per ton, as we can not get along without $5 per thousand protection oq iire- 
 hrick industry. In this country at the present time many cargoes are imported 
 monthly in the port of Boston, and sold in competition with domestic at very low 
 prices, and we are not able to compete against these cheap foreign importations, and 
 it is necessary for our existence that we have a higher rate of duty on this very im- 
 portant industry, which needs encouragement to-day from the hands of the Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 This industry is growing largely in the West, also in the Southern States, several 
 manufacturers have located there, owing to the increased iron and steel industries of 
 these sections. We here, in the New England States, and New Jersey and Pennsyl- 
 vania, do not have customers at our doors ; we have to sell our wares here in the New 
 England States, etc., consequently we desire, and should have, protection enough to 
 allow us to compete against these foreign importations from Scotland and England, 
 and we can not get along under a duty of less than $1.50 per ton ; hetter still, a spe- 
 cific duty of $5 per thousand. This would give this industry in the West and South, 
 and New England States, a great impetus, if we could only stop the importation of 
 these foreign bricks. 
 
 The company in which I am interested, the Somerset Potters Works Corporation, at 
 Somerset, Mass., have invested about $100,000 in their business, and have recently 
 put in a new plant for the manufacture of fire-brick, in order to keep pace with the 
 times. They would also like to locate one in the State of Pennsylvania, in addition 
 to their works at Somerset. We are also taking up the subiect of glazed and enam- 
 eled bricks, and hope to be able to produce tliem in this country, instead of import- 
 ing them from Leeds, in England. The present dnty, 45 per centum ad valorem, is 
 BufScient, and we trust it will be maintained. 
 
 We would respectfully call your attention to tiles and bricks, in this schedule of 
 earthenware : 
 
 Page 107, article 102, " Tiles and brick, other than fire-brick not glazed, etc., 25 
 per centum ad valorem." This we would like increased to 30 per centum ad valorem, 
 as we also make large quantities of tiles and other brick than fire-brick, which 
 should be at least 30 per centum ad valorem protection. For these changes we 
 should he very grateful to your committee, if it can be inserted in the new bill which 
 you are preparing, as this industry is growing all over New England and the great 
 West and South, and with the proper protection which we need from these cheap 
 foreign tile and brick, we should be in a more prosperous condition than we are at 
 the present. 
 
 In the town of Somerset there is another brick industry the Presbery Stove Lin- 
 ing Company, who have invested about $75,000 in this industry, and who last year 
 joined with us in asking for more protection on fire-brick industry. 
 
 It was impossible for our people to be iiresent at the hearing, hut we presume, with 
 this before you, that you will he able to grant for this very important industry 
 sufficient protection in your new bill. 
 We want to respectfully ask that the duties be increased as above, as follows : 
 Tiles, bricks, other than fire-brick, not glazed, 30 per centum ad valorem instead of 
 25 per centum ad valorem. Upon enameled, vitrified, decorated, ornamented, etc., 
 45 per centum ad valorem ; same as in previous bill. Fire-brick not glazed, enameled, 
 ornamented, or decorated, $5 per thousand, specific, or $1.50 per ton. Glazed, orua- 
 meuted, decorated brick, 45 per centum ad valorem. 
 
476 REVISION OP THE TAEIPP. 
 
 If you can not grant advance on tile brick, kindly see that we have it on fire- 
 brick. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 Somerset Pottkes Works Co., 
 
 Somerset, Mass. 
 Arnold B. Sanford, 
 
 President. 
 Hon. William McKinlbt, jr.. 
 
 Chairman Committee Ways and Means. 
 
 STATEIMENT OP JOHN C. ALRICH. 
 
 John C. Alrich, of Pittsburgh, Pa., addressed the committee as follows: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the industry that I represent is 
 comparatively a new one in this country, and because of itsnewness we have suffered 
 not only from what has seemed to us an incorrect classification, but from the fact that 
 tlie duty on cue of the classes of goods which we manufacture has seemed to us en- 
 tirely too low, so low that we have virtually received no protection. 
 
 The points we wish to bring before the committee would be. first, that we receive 
 a more correct classification, and second, that we receive a higher rate of duty on one 
 of the classes of goods that we make. We have prepared a very short paper which 
 I will read with your permission. It refers to the classification and requests a change 
 in rate on one of the class of goods we refer to. 
 
 The Chairman. Is that the new classification by the Senate bill ? 
 
 Mr. Alrich. We propose to ask a little improvement on the Senate's proposition. 
 
 Mr. Alrich read the paper as follows : 
 
 " Our reason for asking for 30 per cent, on plain tile is, that from 85 to 90 per cent, 
 of the cost of every tile we make is labor, and I saw women in England doing work 
 for 10 and 12 shillings per week for which same labor we pay a man $1.75 per day. 
 When you consider how large a proportion of the cost of the finished article is labor, 
 and the vast difl«rence in the prices paid for labor there and here, you will readily 
 see why we can not compete with the foreign manufacturer so long as the duty re- 
 mains at 20 per cent. 
 
 "If the ocean freights on English tile were higher this would afford us some protec- 
 tion, but as this class of goods is considered desirable freight, the rates are so low 
 that tile can be brought from the manufacturing districts of England to New York 
 cheaper than we can send them from Pittsburgh to New York. This I learned from 
 actual experience." 
 
 I had occasion two years ago to import some tiles. Our factory was burned, and 
 I imported tUes at a price that really astonished me, although I had heard of the 
 low price at which they could be imported. At chat time I had great difficulty in 
 getting the custom-house officials to understand what rate I should pay. 
 
 [Mr. Alrich here exhibited and explained to the committee the several kinds of 
 tiles.] 
 
 Some tiles are known as plain and some as encaustic tiles. An encaustic tile is one 
 that is made by burning a figure of one colored clay into a different colored body. 
 The custom-house officials in many cases can not discriminate between an encaustic 
 tile and any other. A great many come in at 20 per cent., that under the present 
 classification should pay 55 or 60. That is why we ask for a correct classification. 
 
 Some importers in New York now have cases against them for the infringement of 
 the customs laws. They claim that what they bring in should be dutiable at 20 per 
 cent They bring in this fine class of enameled tile at 20 per cent, and call it a paving 
 tile. A paving tile, so called, is only one that can be walked upon. An enameled tile is 
 ]iot fit to walk on at all. There are some fifteen or twenty importers in New York and 
 other places who have suits against the Government involving some $450,000, which, 
 should the cases be decided in their favor, the Government would have to refund. 
 
 The Chairman. What duty did the Mills bill ]>ut upon your tiles? 
 
 Mr. Fisher. Fifty-five and 60. Forty-five is what the Senate proposed. 
 
 Mr. Payne. They raised it in the House to 50 per cent., I think. 
 
 Mr. Fi.sHER. My recollection is that floor tile was left at 20 per cent, and enameled 
 reduced. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Could your industry be so arranged as to pay a specific duty ? 
 
 Mr. Alrich. We have thought not. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you think a description could be put into a bill covering your in- 
 dustry so as to prevent undervaluation? 
 
 Mr. Alrich. We have thought so. We have thought we could prevent underval- 
 uation and make it so plain that there could be no misundcrataudiug. 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 477 
 
 Mr. BkicCkinridge. In the Mills bill this expression occurs : "All glazed and en- 
 ameled tiles at 45 per cent, ad valorem." Is that an improvement ? 
 
 Mr. AlRlcu. We propose to make all glazed and enameled tile 45 per cent, which 
 are now dutiable at 55 and 60. 
 
 Mr. Carlisu!. Did you say you made encaustic tiles f 
 
 Mr. Alhich. Yea, sir. I did not import what are known aa encaustic tiles. I paid 
 20 per cent, on what I imported, being all plain floor tile. 
 
 Mr. Caelislb. State some of the purposes for which these tiles are used. 
 
 Mr. AiBlCH. All the tiles that I have exhibited, except the small round tile, are 
 used for flooring. They are also used for hearths, mantels, facings, waiuscoting, orna- 
 mentation, etc. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. Is there more labor on those decorated* tiles than on the encaustic 
 tiles? ^ V 
 
 Mr. Alrich. Yes, sir. There is more labor i a preparing the small encaustic tile 
 in the tirst instance than in preparing the other ; but that small encaustic tile is only 
 burned once. It is put into the kiln, burned once, and it is done. This small, round 
 enameled tile is pressed and then burned. Then it is taken out aud enameled and 
 put in and burned again. 
 
 Our reason for asking 45 on the white and blue tiles is because of the expense of 
 the clay and the expense in labor. 
 
 ENCAUSTIC TIIES. 
 
 Tile and brick should be separated in the act, as they are made and treated en- 
 tirely different ; a brick being of one body, crude, and of few varieties; a tile usually 
 of various or composite bodies, ranging through mauy styles up to a high-art pro- 
 duction. 
 
 The species or particular designations do not apply to tilos and brick alike, and 
 may lead to confusion. The mere fact of putting them together may, and probably 
 will, result in false interpretations. 
 
 Tile and brick being associated together is owing to a classification made years 
 ago when very few tiles were used in this country, and then only the most ordinary 
 kinds, and at a period when none were manufactured here. 
 
 The manufacturing of tiles, while comparatively a new industry, has made great 
 progress in this country, and now many varieties are produced, and the business is 
 destined to have a great growth if properly encouraged. It is therefore deserving 
 of a place by itself, aud to be treated distinctly aud classified, as no other artiele is 
 made in the same way nor will be developed in the same directions. The duty on 
 tiles has been the subject of much litigation in the courts to determine under which 
 head the various kinds of tile are to be classed, the divisions being so few and im- 
 perfect and meager that a very large proportion of tiles manufactured belong to 
 neither, and resort was had to the word "earthen-ware." Two juries have now de- 
 cided differently as to an ornamental tile, rendering judgment that one is a paving 
 tile dutiable at 20 per cent., aud as to another that it is a. glazed earthen-ware duti- 
 able at 55 per cent., though the value of the two does not diiier in any such pro- 
 portion. 
 
 The tendency at law is to strain after classifications of an article under such 
 subdivisions of the article as are designated, and thus products vastly differing in 
 kind and value are associated together, working great injustice. 
 
 It is evident that the safest course to pursue is to specify each kind of tile in which 
 ornamentation is the prominent feature, attaching a higher duty, and then fix a mod- 
 erate rate for all other kinds collectively. 
 
 Having this in view the classification we present has been prepared and grows out 
 of the experience acquired in two long trials in court wherein all the prominent im- 
 porters and domestic manufacturers were examined and cross-examined, the law 
 analyzed by learned counsel and expounded by eminent judges. 
 
 A large number of people are now engaged and employed in the tiling business in 
 this country, and the number is growing; much capital is invested, and before any 
 revision subsequent to the one now proposed is had many years will probably pass 
 over our heads. The bill, therefore, should now be made asdefitnite and as certain 
 as possible, and should exhibit such discriminations as are obviously necessary and 
 proper. 
 
 The duty now collected on the higher grades of tiles, art tiles as it were, is 60 per 
 cent. ; on others, ornamental and decorated but of a simpler character, 55 per cent. 
 Under our category 45 per cent, is fixed upon. 
 
 Plain tiles (used for flooring) we place at 30 per cent. ; these tiles at 20 per cent, 
 are grossly beneath the standard that should be applied. The greatest per cent, of 
 
 * Xliis word tefors to enameled tile. 
 
478 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 their cost, being cost of labor, being at least 85 per cent. They have been classed so 
 low because proper attention has never been called to their character and process of 
 manufacture. Foreign tiles can now be imported as cheaply as these products can be 
 niauufactured in this country. 
 
 The amendment we propose will do away with litigation and uncertainty, and will 
 place the whole subject in such a clear light that " he who runs may read," and im- 
 porters and manufacturers will know just where they stand. 
 
 DITFEEENCE BETWEEN MAKING A BKICK AND A TILE. 
 
 Bricks are made from clay in its crude state, requiring very little manipulation, and 
 the brick can be made ready for burning in twenty-four hours. 
 
 Tiles require an elaborate process of preparation ; the clay must first be of a peculiar 
 character, then washed and reduced to a liquid state, then screened through a wire 
 mesh, then dried, then ground, then sifted, before itis ready for the press; each tile, 
 whether large or small, has to be handled separately several times before ready to go 
 to the kiln ; after burning each tile must be assorted and sized before ready for mar- 
 ket. 
 
 Bricks are of uniform size. Not so with tiles, which are of a great variety of forms, 
 colors, and sizes, rangingfrom one-half an iuch square up to 6 inches square ; asquare 
 foot being composed of irom four to five hundred and seventy-six jjieces. This proc- 
 ess has to be applied to each color of tile made. 
 
 As tiles are of many sizes, forms, and colors, endless combinations can be made, 
 and therefore there enters into their manufacture the question of design, taste, aud 
 styie, which is to be considered from the outset and enters into the expense. 
 
 It is not designed to detract in the least from the propriety of fixing the proper 
 duty on brick, but simply to call attention to the elaborate process connected with 
 the manufacture of tile aud the elements that constitute the expense. 
 We favor the following classifications : 
 
 Tiles : glazed, enameled, embossed, relief, printed or painted tiles, or tiles decorated 
 in any manner, including vitrified and encaustic tiles, 45 per cent, ad valorem. 
 Plain flooring tilris, 30 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 B. Fischer, 
 President American Encaustic Tile Company, Limited. 
 
 Jackson Landers, 
 Vice-President United States Encaustic Tile Company. 
 
 John C. Aleich, 
 Cluiirman Star Encaustic Tile Company, Limited. 
 
 Committee. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 479 
 
 CEMENT AND LIME. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means, 
 M'ashington, D. C, Tuesday, December 31, 1889. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT W. LESLEY. 
 
 Mr. Robert W. Lesley, of Philadelphia, of the American Improved Cement Com- 
 pany, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear here on behalf of a num- 
 ber of manufacturers of cement in the United States. It is an industry having about 
 $8,000,000 capital and employing about 15,000 men. Before going into the question 
 of duty, I want merely to state that two years ago 1 prepared and made an argument 
 on this matter for presentation both to the Senate Committee on Finance and the Com- 
 mittee on Ways and Means of the House, and as a result of the examination then made 
 the Ways and Means Committee kept the duty of 20 per cent. , as imposed by law origin- 
 ally under the act of 1883, though they re-imposed the duty on packages and inland 
 transportation, and the Senate committee fixed a specific duty instead of an ad valo- 
 rem duty, but which duty amounted to about the same as a 20 per cent, ad valorem 
 duty. In this matter, the principal fact I want to make clear is that the manufact'ire 
 of high-grade Portland cement in this country is a new industry, is gradually getting 
 to be of great importance, and is capable of very extensive development. 
 
 Under the act of 1883, the duty on cement generally was 20 per cent, ad valorem, on 
 cement, packages and inland transportation. By a decision of the Secretary of the 
 Treasury in 1885, this duty, by reason of the duty on packages and inland transporta- 
 tion being taken off, was cut in half. This action has given rise to numerous under- 
 valuations and other evasion whereby packages and inland transportation are made 
 to represent more than the cost of the contents. The result was that in 1884, imme- 
 diately after the act of 1883 went into effect, 473,864 barrels of Portland cement were 
 imported at an invoice price of $1.73 on which the duty was paid, and that after the 
 decision of the Secretary of the Treasury in 1885, imports began to increase every year 
 and invoice value to decrease so that in 1887 they amounted to 1,000,000 barrels of an 
 invoice value of fl.02 per barrel, and in 1888 to about 2,000,000 barrels of an invoice 
 value of 94 cents per barrel. Still further evidencing the gradual taking off of the 
 cost from the cement and putting it on the non-dutiable barrels and inland transpor- 
 tation, I can state that I have seen an invoice this year at 60 cents for cost of cement 
 and nearly $1 for the non dutiable items. The price has not gone down in Europe at 
 all for a barrel of cement ; barrels are no dearer and inland freights are no higher now 
 than 1885, but the invoice price is steadily growing less for the dutiable contents, or, 
 in other words, the contents, which were $1.11 in 1885, when duty was taken ofl' pack- 
 ages and inland transportation, have gone as low as 60 cents on one invoice in 1889. 
 
 The Chairman. Suppose we repeal the package clause ; what duty do you think 
 would be necessary ? 
 
 Mr. Lesley. I would argue in favor of a specific duty of 8 cents a hundred pounds 
 as under the Senate bill. This is as low as the act of 1883, which was 20 per cent, ad 
 valorem, or 32 to .36 cents for 400 pounds cement. 
 
 The Chairman. That bill restored the duty on i>ackages and inland transporta- 
 tion ? 
 
 Mr. Lesley. Yes, sir; that would be 8 cents ou goods in barrels and 7 cents in 
 bulk or bags per 100 pounds. 
 
 The particular point I wanted to make as showiug the method of undervaluation 
 was this: On one of the invoices of cement coming to the port of Philadelphia in 
 1889 a thousand barrels were invoiced and shipped without any labels or brand at 
 all. In one lot, at the bottom of the barrel, they had the initials " L. C," and on an- 
 other "A. L." This cement went into the hands of the importer. That concern re- 
 ceived from abroad a thousand labels. It received a letter of advice, stating what 
 these initials meant. When the custom-house people came to us as experts, we made 
 a chemical test of the cement as well as a test for strength. There w.as a difference 
 of i^5 to 50 per cent, in the cjualitj^ and value of the twQ lots of cement. They were 
 
480 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 all imported at a. valuatiou of the lowest grade. The dealer who imported them put 
 on the labels according to the initials at the bottom of the barrel, and in this way, 
 no doubt, both the Government and, possibly, the consumer was deceived. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What was the decision of the Secretary of the Treasurv in 1885 
 on the act of 1883 ? 
 
 Mr. Lesley. That the act of 1883 admitted packages and inland transportation 
 free. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The Secretary did not decide anything as to the rate of duty ? 
 
 Mr. Lbslet. No, sir; only as to what was not dutiable. Before the Ways and 
 Means Committee of the last Congress, I suggested a restoration of the duty on 
 packages, in view of the fact that they represented a greater value than the goods 
 themselves, under the existing method of invoicing. 
 
 Of course, in the matter of labor in this industry we employ only men, and the 
 wages range from |1.20 up to |2.50 per day. In Europe, this is done to a certain 
 extent by women at 20 cents a day, and men at slightly better wages. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Of what is this cement madet 
 
 Mr. Lesley. It is made from lime and clay, argillaceous limestone, marl and clay, 
 etc. There are two grades of cement. The "natural," like the Rosendale, Louis- 
 ville, Lehigh, etc., is made by taking natural cement rocks (argillaceous limestone) 
 and burning them at light heat in open kilns, like liuie-kilns, and then grinding the 
 calcined material and packing it in barrels or sacks. The higher grade of Portland 
 cement is artificially made by grinding together limestone and clay, cement rocks, 
 and lime, and molding the product, with the addition of water, into bricks, balls, 
 eggs, or blocks. The new stone thus produced has all its constituent elements in 
 close mechanical union, and is calcined at a high heat in closed kilns, and the fire 
 acting on the various particles causes an intimate chemical union. The clinker thus 
 produced is ground and barreled or packed in bags. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is your fine cement as good as the English ? 
 
 Mr. Lesley. Wo are making as good cement as there is in the world. 
 
 Mr. Bayxe. And ship it to England ? 
 
 Mr. Lesley. Yes, sir, and to Japan. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the cost of the packages ? 
 
 Mr. Lesley. It runs from 30 to 40 cents to the barrel. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the rate of inland transportation ? 
 
 Mr. Lesley. Fifteen to 20 cents per barrel. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Does it come from Germany ? 
 
 Mr. Lesley. Some of it comes from Germany. I will leave my printed statement 
 with your honorable committee. 
 
 STATEMENT OF CEMENT INDUSTRY. 
 
 [Preseuted by Mr. Kobert W. Lesley, of American Improved Cemeut Company, Pbiladelpbia, and 
 representing American cement industry.] 
 
 Cement is on chemical schedule, dutiable at 20 per cent, ad valorem, under act of 
 1883. 
 
 By decision of Secretary of Treasury in 1885, the duty has practically been cut in 
 lialf by admitting barrels and cost of inland transportation free. 
 
 Cement is one of those rare products where the cost of the package and inland 
 transportation are together nearly as great aa the cost of the cement itself. 
 
 Consequently, the Ways and Means Committee of the last Congress, in the "Mills 
 bill," kept the duty at 20 per cent., though restoring the duty on barrel and inland 
 transportation. 
 
 So, also, on the same grounds, the Senate, in the "Senate bill," passed in the last 
 Congress, fixed a specific duty of 8 cents per 100 pounds on cement in barrels, and 7 
 cents per 100 pounds on cement in bags or bulk, equaling very nearly 20 per cent, ad 
 valorem on the cement and packages. 
 
 In considering the duty to be placed on cement it must bo understood that cement 
 is not a raw material — it is quarried, burnt, and ground. 
 
 Cement enters into no other manufacture as a raw material. 
 
 Cement is made exclusively of American material; rock, coal, and coke, and bar- 
 rel stuff entering into the finished product. 
 
 Cement is nearly 90 per cent, labor, and of a class of labor that costs several times 
 as much in this country as in Europe. 
 
 Neither importers nor European manufacturers ask its admission free or at a lower 
 rate of duty, and in point of fact the price in Europe to dealers for American ship- 
 ment is 18 to 25 cents less than Cor the same cement fur European cousnmption, just 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 481 
 
 about the amount of the duty, so that putting cement on the free list or at a lower 
 rate of duty would enable the European makers to raise their price half the amount 
 of the duty and still control the American market by reducing prices only a part of 
 the duty taken off. 
 
 THE CEMENT nmUSTKY. 
 
 The manufacture of cement ia not a local industry; it is national. Works exist 
 in Maine, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Virginia, Washing- 
 ton, Oregon, Alabama, Colorado, Texas, California, Illinois, Wisconsin, West Virginia, 
 Kentucky, Indiana, and Michigan. It stands seventh on the list of non-metallic 
 products of the United States. It ranks just below lime and salt. It employs a 
 capital of $8,000,000, has an output of over 5,000,000 barrels per annum, and gives 
 work to about 12,000 laborers. The largest works are in New York State, where 
 nearly 3,000,000 barrels are made and 8,000 men employed; in Kentucky, where 
 nearly 1,000,000 barrels are made and 1,500 men employed; and in Pennsylvania, 
 where nearly 600,000 barrels are made and 600 men are employed. 
 
 MANDFACTURE AND CLASSIFICATION OF CEMENT. 
 
 " Roman" cement is a natural rock, quarried, burnt in kilns, and ground. 
 
 " Portland" cement is an artifioial cement made by mixing chalk and clay, or lime- 
 stone and clay iu varying proportion, grinding this to powder, making a brick or 
 bailout of this moistened powder, and after calcining, at high heat, this artificially 
 made new stone, by grinding the resultant clinkers to powder. 
 
 The " Roman " corresponds substantially to the Rosendale, Louisville, and the ma 
 jority of American natural cemeuts. 
 
 The " Portland " corresponds to the American "Portland." It has been claimed 
 that this grade of cement could not be made in this country for want of material. 
 After fifteeu years of experimenting, and after a loss running into millions, this state- 
 ment has been controverted, and for seven years past American "Portland " cements 
 "of a quality equal to any imported," and made in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, in Now 
 York, in Indiana, and in Texas, have been used on Government work {vide Reports 
 Engineer Commissioner District of Columbia for 1883, 1884, 1885), and other public 
 work with en, ire success and in competition with foreign cements. The Eads' jet- 
 ties are built with American Portland cement {vide Captain Eads's report on Mississippi 
 jetties), and the London and Southwestern Railroad of England actually, alter a 
 test, bought American Portland for one of its bridges (Engineering News, vol. 87). 
 This cement must sell at a lower price than the imported, because of the established 
 repatation of the older foreign brands ; but with the abundance of limestone and 
 clay in this country American manufacture will develop, and its product become es- 
 tablished also. 
 
 STATISTICS OF MANUFACTURE. 
 
 From .the " Mineral Resources of the United States," U. S. Geological Survey, 
 1885, the following figures are given of the production of cement made from natural 
 rock in the United States from 1882 to 1886 : 
 
 Production of cement from natural rooh in United States from 1882 to 1886. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Barrels 
 
 of 300 
 
 pounds. 
 
 Average 
 
 price per 
 
 barrel. 
 
 Total 
 value. 
 
 Igg2 
 
 3, 165, 000 
 4, 100, 000 
 3, 900, 000 
 
 4, 000, noo 
 
 i, 350, 000 
 
 $1.10 
 
 1.00 
 
 .90 
 
 .80 
 
 .85 
 
 $3,481,500 
 
 
 1884 
 
 
 1885 
 
 3, 200, 000 
 3 697 500 
 
 1886 . . 
 
 
 
 485- 
 
 -31 
 
482 
 
 REVISION OF THE TAillPF. 
 
 In reference to American Portland the following estimates are made in the same 
 work : 
 
 Estimated production of American Portland from 1882 to 1886. 
 
 Tears. 
 
 Barrels 
 
 of 400 
 
 pounds. 
 
 Average 
 
 price per 
 
 barrel. 
 
 Total 
 value. 
 
 
 85, 000 
 
 90, 000 
 
 100, 000 
 
 150, 000 
 
 150, 000 
 
 $2.25 
 2.15 
 2.10 
 1.95 
 1.95 
 
 $191, 250 
 193, 500 
 210 000 
 
 1883 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 292,600 
 292,500 
 
 1886 
 
 
 The total production of all kinds of cement, according to the same authority : 
 Total production of all kinds of cement in the United Slates from 1882 to 1886. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 Value. 
 
 
 
 3, 350. 000 
 4, 190, 000 
 4, 000, 000 
 4, 150, 000 
 
 4, 500, 000 
 
 $3, 672, 760 
 4, 293, 500 
 3, 720, 000 
 3, 492, .500 
 3,990,000 
 
 1883 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 
 From leading trade authorities it has been ascertained that the output of natural 
 cement has increased to 5,000,000 barrels in 1887, with an average price of 774 cents; 
 and the Portland cement industry has not appreciably increased, though prices have 
 gone down as low as $1.85. 
 
 IMPORTATIONS OF CEMENT. 
 
 From reports of Bureau of Statistics the following are the imports of cement of all 
 kinds into the United States for the past ten years : 
 
 Imports of cement. 
 
 Years ending June 30— 
 
 Barrels 
 
 of 400 
 
 pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 .Years ending June 30 — 
 
 Barrels 
 
 of 400 
 
 pounds. 
 
 Valne. 
 
 1878 
 
 •92, 000 
 
 •106, 000 
 
 •187, 000 
 
 *22l, 000 
 
 337, 793 
 
 472,864 
 
 $204,422 
 205, 074 
 373, 601 
 440, 025 
 67.5, 687 
 817, 346 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 682, 623 
 574,141 
 645, 197 
 
 1, 079, 944 
 
 2, 019, 718 
 
 $829, 098 
 90H 581 
 
 1879 
 
 1880 
 
 1S86 : 
 
 
 1881 
 
 1887 
 
 1, 108, 819 
 
 
 1888 
 
 1883 
 
 
 
 
 
 •Estimate of Geological Survey. 
 
 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE FIGURES. 
 
 The American manufacture has remained practically stationary since 1883, actually 
 decreasing in 1885, and increasing slightly to 1887. The price fell, however, each 
 year, except 1886, so that the 4,150,000 barrels of 1885 netted less to the makers than 
 the 3,250,000 barrels of 1882, and the 5,000,000 of 1887 barely as much as the smaller 
 output of 1882. 
 
 On the other hand, the imports of foreign cement have increased more than twenty- 
 fold in the ten years since 1878, and in the period since 1883 have increased nearly 
 fivefold. 
 
 In the last-named period the invoice price has fallen from $1.77 per barrel (when 
 packages and inland transportation were dutiable in 1884) to as low as 60 cents in 
 the case of some imports at the port of Philadelphia in 1889 (where the cost of the 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 483 
 
 barrels and inland transportation actually exceeded the price of the contents, and 
 left a handsome margin over). 
 
 By taking the imports of 1883, when the cement barrels and inland transportation 
 were all dutiable, it will be found that the average itivoioe value per barrel was 
 $1.73. In 1886, after the Secretary of the Treasury rendered his opinion admitting 
 packages and cost of inland transportation, the invoice value fell to $1.19. In 1887, 
 after it was found that by adding to the cost of barrels and transportation, and 
 taking it off the cost of cement, the duty could be materially lessened, the invoice 
 value fell to 11.02, and in 1888 it fell to 94 cents, though barrels have not risen in 
 value ; and in Germany, the Government, to encourage export, has actually on its 
 State railroads reduced the cost of transportation for goods for export. In 1889, as 
 above stated, on one invoice at the port of Philadelphia, cement has actually been 
 invoiced at 60 cents, the cost of barrel and transportation being nearly one and a half 
 times the cost of the cement. 
 
 At the above rate of arithmetical progression, amounting, according to the official 
 figures, to an average reduction of 8 cents per barrel of cement per annum for the 
 past three years, it would take the European manufacturers only twelve years more 
 to put all the cost on the barrels and the inland transportation, and make the con- 
 tents absolutely of no value at all. 
 
 THE CAUSE OP HEAVY IMPORTS AND CHECKED PRODUCTION. 
 
 Three causes have led to the increase of imports and checked home production: 
 
 (1) Low ocean freights. 
 
 (2) A practical reduction of the duty nearly one-half in 1885, by the decision of 
 the Secretary of the Treasury, relieving the foreign article from duty on the barrel 
 and on foreign inland transportation to tide-water. 
 
 (3) The higher wages paid American labor. 
 
 On the first point it may be stated as a fact that the freight from Europe to nearly 
 all tide-water points in the United States and to many lake points is less than the 
 rates from American cement works to similar points. The reason for this is that 
 cement comes from Europe as ballast, to a large extent, at low rates of freight. 
 
 On the second point the figures of imports above given show a reduction of 80 
 cents in invoice value of cement imported, from the year 1884 to 1888. This is due to 
 the taking off the duty on the barrel, and has actually, by an executive act, without 
 action of Congress, reduced the duty from 35 to 20 cents per barrel, and even less. 
 
 On the third point, in order to compete with the foreign maker there remains no 
 other possibility of reducing cost except by reducing wages of labor, as the constant 
 reduction necessary to keep a foothold since 1882 has exhausted all other margins 
 and means, a number of failures having proven this fact. The labor is at least 50 
 per cent, less abroad. 
 
 COMPAKATIVE LABOR FIGURES. 
 
 Cement is nearly all labor. 
 
 In the United States. Per cent. 
 
 Quarrying represents 40 
 
 Burning represents .- - 6 
 
 Grinding represents 6 
 
 Moving, etc., represents 5 
 
 Packing represents 3 
 
 Coal and coke, staves and heading, all the product of labor, represent 27 
 
 Making of labor 87 
 
 This labor represents, on an average, for — 
 
 Per day. 
 
 Quarrymen $1.50 to $2. 00 
 
 Laborers 1. 30 to 1.50 
 
 Millers 2.00to 2..50 
 
 Millwrights 2.50 to 3.00 
 
 Engineers 2.00to 2.50 
 
 Coopers 1.50 to 2.00 
 
 All the labor is that of men. 
 
484 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 In Europe. 
 
 Both men and women are employed in cement works. 
 
 The wages paid, as gathered from investigation made it the European cement 
 works and from Consular Reports of 1884, are as follows per day : 
 
 France. 
 
 Germany. 
 
 England. 
 
 Miners 
 
 iliUers 
 
 "Women millers . 
 
 Millwrights 
 
 Laborers 
 
 Women laborers 
 
 Engineers 
 
 Coopers 
 
 $0.87 
 
 4S-87 
 
 29-39 
 
 1.121 
 
 76 
 
 3Sit 
 
 97' 
 
 93 
 
 1.63 
 «o 
 
 70 
 60 
 24 
 73 
 66 
 
 .$0. 60 
 
 60 
 
 m 
 
 1.03 
 
 $0.52 
 1.00 
 
 1.16 
 
 73 
 
 1.10 
 1.13 
 
 AMBEICAil MAT.m VS. GERMAN FEMALE LABOR. 
 
 From United States Consular Reports, Executive Documents, Forty-eighth Con- 
 gress, page 464, one German Portland cement manufactory in Silesia employed in 
 1884, according to its pay-roll, in its whole works, 3 workmen at 36 cents per day ; 
 66 workmen, at 24 cents per day; 70 men and women, at 24 cents per day — a total 
 daily pay-roll of $33.72. 
 
 An American works of the same number of hands employs, according to its books, 
 2 engineers at $2, 4 millers at |2.50, 2 millwrightsat .$3, 30 coopers at .§1.75, 51 laborers 
 at 11.30, 50 quarrymen at |1.75 — a total daily pay-roU of |226.30 ; a daily difference in 
 favor of German manufacturer and against American manufacturer of $192.50 in labor 
 alone. 
 
 In conclusion it is respectfully urged that a specific duty be imposed on "cement — 
 Portland, Roman, slag, or all other — of 8 cents per 100 pounds in barrels, and 7 cents 
 per 100 pounds in bags, bulk, or clinker;" and that in this way the undervaluation 
 and other evasions of the customs laws may be arrested. 
 
 This is urged for the reasons above given as well as for the further reason that a 
 specific duty operates to the benefit of the American producer in times of general de- 
 pression, while an ad valorem duty enables the foreign producer in times of financial 
 disturbance to flood our markets with low-priced goods, which, for that very reason, 
 come in at the lowest rate of duty, aad thus tend to unsettle the American market 
 and reduce the wages of American labor. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. ERNEST R. ACKERMAN. 
 
 Mr. Ernest R. Ackerman, of New York, general sales agent of the Lawrence 
 Cement Company, said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, realizing the delicate and arduous duties with which 
 your committee is intrusted in the interests of the people of the United States, 
 I have endeavored to condense into as concise a form as possible the actual state of 
 affairs existing in the cement industry in the United States, but more particularly 
 in our mills which are situated in the States of New York, Pennsylvania, and Mary- 
 land. 
 
 I present to your committee a statement showing the amount of American Rosen- 
 dale cement that has been made in this country since 1848; also a statement showing 
 the importations of foreign Portland cement since 1878 ; also, the manufacture of 
 American Portland cement from the time that it was first commenced in this country 
 in 1876. 
 
 It costs us to manufacture Portland cement, of 400 pounds to the barrel, equal in 
 every respect to the cement that is made abroad, and so proved by eminent judges 
 and experts aud by actual use, the sum of 80 cents per barrel for labor alone, taking 
 into account nothing that is expended for the labor in making the barrel, or the labor 
 that is employed in mining the coal or burning the coke, both of which are necessary 
 adjuncts to the making of the article. 
 
 I also present a statement showing the rate of wages paid abroad. Taking the 
 average of France, Germany, Belgium, and England, we find we pay in this country, 
 on an average, two aud one-half times the rate of wages that is p8,id abroad. In other 
 words, where il costs us 80 cents to make 380 pounds (1 barrel) of cement here, at the 
 rate of wages that is paid abroad it could be made for the sum of 32 cents per bar- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 485 
 
 rel. And if we should take Germany as a special example (from wMch country we 
 are now receiving our largest importations), we would liml that we are paying three 
 times the average amount of wages that is being paid there. If we turn to Volume 
 I of Consular Reports, entitled Labor in Europe, page 512, we will find the average 
 wages paid in the Portland Cement Manufactory in Stettin, was f:i57 per weeli of 
 sixty hours, equal to 59^ cents per day of ten hours. If this same labor were em- 
 ployed in AJuerica, we should have to pay at least an average rate of $9.78 per week 
 of sixty hours, or $1.63 cents per day, in making a similar quantity of cement ; and 
 it is fair to presume that the German workman is as skillful as the American one. In 
 fact, he works no longer hours than those who are employed in this country. And as 
 they have no appliances in Germany that we do not ijossess here, or vice versa, it may 
 be taken as an indisputable truth that the rate of wages in Germany as compared to 
 the United States is as two is to five. Therefore, iu order to equalize the difference 
 in cost of production between this country and Germany, the tariff should be the dif- 
 ference between 80 cents, the cost to manufacture it here, aud 32 cents, which it costs 
 to manufacture it there, or 48 cents per barrel, equal to 12 cents per 100 pounds. 
 
 It'haa been suggested by those who have previously appeared before your honorable 
 committee that a rate of 8 cents per 100 pounds would be a proper one to impose on im- 
 portations of cement. But we are of the opinion, and our opinion is based upon 
 careful observation and consideration of all tfie exigencies of the case, that this rate 
 would not to any appreciable extent curtail the importations ; but at the same time 
 it is more than likely that it would augment the revenue by exactly the amount of 
 difference between 19 cents per barrel, which is now being collected, and 32 cents per 
 barrel, which would be the rate imposed should the rate of 8 cents per 100 pounds be- 
 come a law. On an average importation of 1,500,000 barrels per year this difference 
 would make the sum of .$200,000, which increment would seem to be directly antago- 
 nistic to the result which your committee is endeavoring to obtain — that of protect- 
 ing adequately those industries in the United States that are now suffering on account 
 of inadequate rates being imposed upon the competing foreign product, and at the 
 same time to reduce the revenue. To remedy these inconsistencies and incongruities 
 is the paramount result which your committee is striving to attain. It should be an 
 axiomatic principle that the rate that is imposed upon a competing foreign product 
 where every ingredient for the production of an article exists within the borders of 
 our own land should be ample to cover any increase of the cost of production which 
 may exist in consequence of the higher rate of wages existing in this country. And 
 eminent protectionists have declared that when the importation in any line of com- 
 modities is large and increasing from year to year, and no good reason appears why 
 the things can not be as well produced here, it is fair to assume that the duties are 
 below the cost line and the advantage is with the foreign producer. That this is un- 
 questionably true to-day of the Portland cement business can be seen from the fact 
 that while in former times we shipped large quantities of cement to the markets of 
 New Orleans, Galveston, and San Francisco, we are now shut oft' from them entirely. 
 
 Another witness to this truth may be found Ijy examining the schedule herewith 
 presented, showing that while the importations of foreign Portland cement have 
 grown from the sum of 92,000 barrels for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1878, to 
 1,517,350 barrels for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889, the increase in the manufact- 
 ure of domestic Portland cement has in the same time only grown from that of 
 25,000 barrels in 1878 to 450,000 barrels in 1889. As 87 per cent, of the cost of making 
 a barrel of cement is pure labor, it is the laboring class that would be so largely ben- 
 efited by the imposition of a duty that will give encouragement to the manufacturers 
 of this most essential article to stay in the business. And not only this result 
 will be attained by an adequate duty being prescribed, but it will sustain the capital 
 and the employment of the thousands of men which are now engaged in this busi- 
 ness, and what at the present time is far from being a remunerative occupation for 
 the manufacturer. 
 
 Representing as I do manufactories employing in the aggregate 1,000 men and a 
 production of over 1,000,000 barrels per year, we think you should give considerable 
 weight to this argument. I have carefully computed that the amount lost to labor 
 in the United States during the last twelve years on account of the importations of 
 foreign Portland cement on the basis of present wages, amounts to the enormous sum 
 ■ of $6,471,771, or the sum of $540,000 per year. And half of this amount could have 
 been saved for the interests of this country if the tariff' commission of 1883 had paid 
 careful attention to the arguments that were then presented to them asking for an 
 increase in the existing rate of duty. 
 
 In view of the facts here presented we would respectfully ask that the duty be made 
 as follows : On Portland, Roman, or other hydraulic cement, hydraulic lime, cement, 
 cinder, and clinker, whether imported in bulk, bags, or barrels, of 13 cents per 100 
 pounds. This rate we believe would so curtail the importations as to decrease the 
 revenue and would benefit a business which, iu New York and Pennsylvania alone, 
 employs 3,500 hands, paying out annually |2,000,000 for wages. 
 
486 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Ackerman presented the following table of annual piodiicta and prices with the 
 accompanying diagram : 
 
 Manufacture of Rosendale cement in the years named, the lowest and highest prices in each 
 year, the average price and the total value of each year's product at the average price. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 Kange of 
 prices. 
 
 Average 
 price of 
 products. 
 
 Total 
 valae. 
 
 1848 
 
 190, 000 
 
 210, 000 
 
 240, 000 
 
 310, 000 
 
 362, 000 
 
 466, 000 
 
 474, 000 
 
 486, 000 
 
 510, 000 
 
 610, 000 
 
 740, 000 
 
 670, 000 
 
 740, 000 
 
 440, 000 
 
 530, 000 
 
 530, 000 
 
 680, 000 
 
 590, 000 
 
 905, 000 
 
 849, 000 
 
 957, 000 
 
 1, 136, 000 
 
 1, 170, 000 
 
 1, 227, 000 
 
 1,38.5,000 
 
 1, 355, 000 
 
 1, 343, 000 
 
 1, 148, 000 
 
 1, 085, 000 
 
 991,000 
 
 1, 089, 000 
 
 1, 376, 000 
 
 1,432,000 
 
 1, 500, 000 
 
 1, 663, 000 
 
 1, 676, 000 
 
 1, 656, 000 
 
 1, 766, 000 
 
 2, 054, 000 
 2, 339, 000 
 2, 262, 984 
 2, 507, 000 
 
 $1.37 
 
 1.35 
 
 1.35 
 
 $1.25 to 1.35 
 
 1.25 
 
 1. 00 1. 50 
 
 1.12 1.50 
 
 1. 00 1. 25 
 
 1. 00 1. 12 
 
 1. 10 1. 20 
 
 . 85 1. 20 
 
 .80 .90 
 
 1.00 
 
 . 00 1. 00 
 
 .90 
 
 1.20 1.35 
 
 1. 40 1. 60 
 
 1. 60 1. 80 
 
 1.75 
 
 1. 50 1. 75 
 
 1. 76 1. 90 
 
 2.00 
 
 1.90 2.00 
 
 1.75 
 
 1.60 
 
 1.75 
 
 1.30 1.50 
 
 1.20 
 
 1.20 
 
 1.00 1.20 
 
 . 90 1. 00 
 
 . 90 1. 00 
 
 1.00 1.10 
 
 1.00 1.25 
 
 1. 00 1. 10 
 
 1. 00 1. 20 
 
 . 90 1. 00 
 
 .90 .95 
 
 .90 .93 
 
 -90 .95 
 
 .90 
 
 $1.37 
 1.35 
 1.36 
 1.27i 
 
 $260, 300 
 
 1849 
 
 283, 500 
 
 I860 
 
 324, 000 
 
 1851 
 
 395, 250 
 
 1852 
 
 452, 500 
 
 1853 
 
 1.20 
 
 1.27J 
 
 1.07 
 
 1.05 
 
 1.20 
 
 1.05 
 
 .871 
 
 1.00 
 
 .90 
 
 .90 
 
 1.20 
 
 1.65 
 
 1.65 
 
 1.75 
 
 1.70 
 
 1.80 
 
 2.00 
 
 1.95 
 
 1.75 
 
 1.60 
 
 1.75 
 
 1.40 
 
 1.20 
 
 1.20 
 
 1.10 
 
 .90 
 
 .97J 
 
 1.05 
 
 1.20 
 
 1.07i 
 
 1.07J 
 
 .97i 
 
 .95 
 
 .90 
 
 .92i 
 
 .90 
 
 .87J 
 
 547, 200 
 
 1854 
 
 604,350 
 
 1855 
 
 518, 950 
 
 1856 
 
 535, 500 
 
 1857 
 
 732, 000 
 
 1858 
 
 777, 000 
 
 1859 
 
 1860 
 
 586, 250 
 740, 000 
 
 1861 
 
 396. 000 
 
 1862 
 
 477, 000 
 
 1863 - 
 
 696, 000 
 
 1864 
 
 899, 000 
 
 1865 
 
 1, 138, 500 
 
 1866 
 
 I, 583, 750 
 
 1867 
 
 1, 443, 300 
 
 1868 
 
 1, 722, 600 
 
 
 2, 273, 000 
 
 1870 
 
 2, 281, 500 
 
 1871.. 
 
 2, 147, 250 
 
 1872 
 
 2, 216, 000 
 
 
 2, 371, 260 
 
 1874 
 
 1, 880, 200 
 
 
 1,377,600 
 
 1876 
 
 1, 302, 000 
 
 
 1, 090, 100 
 
 1878 
 
 980, 100 
 1, 341, 600 
 
 1880 
 
 1, 503, 600 
 
 1881 : 
 
 1882 
 
 1, 800, 000 
 1, 878, 725 
 
 
 1,694,200 
 
 1884 
 
 1, 614, 000 
 
 
 1, 689, 400 
 
 1886 
 
 1,848,600 
 
 
 2, 163, 575 
 
 1888 
 
 2, 036, 686 
 
 
 2,193,625 
 
 
 
 
 43, 846, 000 
 
 1 
 
 52, 604, 561 
 
 
 
 
 [Tears 1878 to 1886, from Report of TJ. S. Geological Survey. 
 
 Bureau of Statistics.] 
 
 Importations of foreign cement. 
 
 Tears 1887, 1888, and 1889, Report of 
 
 Fiscal years, June 30— 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 Increase 
 each year 
 
 over pre- 
 vious year. 
 
 Invoiced 
 value. 
 
 "Value 
 per bar- 
 rel. 
 
 Actual 
 value 
 per bar- 
 rel. 
 
 Decrease 
 in invoice 
 value from 
 
 price in 
 1878. 
 
 1878 
 
 92, 000 
 
 106, 000 
 
 187, 000 
 
 221, 000 
 
 370, 406 
 
 456,418 
 
 585, 768 
 
 554, 306 
 
 650, 032 
 
 1,070,400 
 
 2, 016, 990 
 
 1, 517, 350 
 
 Per cent. 
 15 
 15 
 76 
 18 
 67 
 25 
 28 
 .5* 
 17 
 64 
 88 
 25* 
 
 $204,422 
 
 205, 074 
 
 373, 601 
 
 440, 025 
 
 ,683,684 
 
 802, 294 
 
 825, 095 
 
 874, 070 
 
 733, 297 
 
 1,101,994 
 
 1,9113,650 
 
 1,459,838 
 
 $2.22 
 1.93 
 1.99 
 1.99 
 1.84 
 1.75 
 1.40 
 1.57 
 1.12 
 1.03 
 .94 
 96 
 
 $2.22 
 1.93 
 1.99 
 1.99 
 1.84 
 1.75 
 1.40 
 1.57 
 1.42 
 1.39 
 1.30 
 1.32 
 
 
 1879 
 
 $0.29 
 0.23 
 
 1880 
 
 1881 
 
 0.23' 
 
 1882 
 
 .38 
 
 1883 
 
 47 
 
 1884 
 
 .82 
 
 1885 
 
 .65 
 
 1886 
 
 1.10 
 
 1887 
 
 1.19 
 
 1888 
 
 1.28 
 
 1889 
 
 1.26 
 
 
 
 
 7,827,360 
 
 
 9, 607, 044 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average increase per year, 30 per cent. 
 
 * Decrease. 
 
oosa 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - j'-- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 OOPS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 I 
 1 
 
 
 
 ooee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 jE 
 
 
 
 
 ooss 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 1 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 } 
 
 
 
 
 DOTS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 ooos 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 —-- 
 
 0061 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0081 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --- 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 l- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OOLT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 i 
 
 > 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0091 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 / 
 
 ; 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 - - 
 
 
 
 OOSl 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OOW 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 S 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 »»•» 
 
 --" 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OOSl 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ( 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 oosz 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 i 
 
 ,'" 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 ( 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - — 
 
 
 
 OOIT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ___ 
 
 - 
 
 -- 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 V 
 
 t 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^., 
 
 
 
 0001 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 l\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 006 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 008 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 '. 
 
 *^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ... f 
 
 • 
 
 4' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 OOL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 009 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 & 
 
 
 
 ^* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 k 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 t 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 s 
 
 9 
 
 w^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OOS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 r"* 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 00^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 t 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ooe 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^_.,. 
 
 
 
 
 __- 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 1- 
 1 
 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 OOS 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GOT 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (^ 
 
 ,-- 
 
 '-' 
 
 "' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 on 
 
 c% 
 
 Ci 
 
 H 
 
 K) 
 
 f^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 »ft 
 
 ^ 
 
 K 
 
 Ci^ 
 
 Oi 
 
 Q> 
 
 rs 
 
 fi 
 
 m 
 
 ■* 
 
 tn 
 
 «1 
 
 K 
 
 IT, 
 
 Oi 
 
 o 
 
 M 
 
 IM 
 
 CI 
 
 ■Mi 
 
 IT, 
 
 to 
 
 t^ 
 
 on 
 
 a, 
 
 <? 
 
 rs 
 
 91 
 
 »! 
 
 ^ 
 
 >ri 
 
 <C! 
 
 K 
 
 3n o» 
 
 5S 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 "^ 
 
 In 
 
 \r\ 
 
 
 in 
 
 tr 
 
 
 L-^ 
 
 I/* 
 
 
 irj 
 
 V' 
 
 ^ 
 
 ':j^ 
 
 ;c 
 
 « 
 
 w 
 
 w 
 
 W 
 
 cr. 
 
 ^ 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 l-^ 
 
 
 r-. 
 
 K 
 
 r^ 
 
 N, 
 
 u 
 
 •^^ 
 
 
 li- 
 
 
 
 
 in 
 
 ^ 
 
 jn li- 
 
 
 
 
 liTl 
 
 rt) 
 
 r^ 
 
 On 
 
 ITi 
 
 % 
 
 cn 
 
 rj-* 
 
 (^ 
 
 (?^ 
 
 tj) 
 
 (3n 
 
 rn 
 
 Qo: ct 
 
 Lfl 
 
 '*' od 
 
 tn 
 
 «1 
 
 iri 
 
 u- 
 
 in 
 
 un 
 
 •J 
 
 If 
 
 in 
 
 * 
 
 1/) 
 
 n 
 
 If. 
 
 liD 
 
 (»i 
 
 W 
 
 1^- 
 
 ij- 
 
 •r, 
 
 uc. 
 
 iji 
 
 00 
 
 * QC 
 
 yf. 
 
 
 
 1-1 
 
 ^1 
 
 M 
 
 ;^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 r-il r-( 
 
 i-i 
 
 ___L 
 
 . L— 
 
 !_: 
 
 r-1 f^l fii i-ii c-^'. f-^ 
 
 ^1 
 
 j: 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 :: 
 
 
 r-l 
 
 M 
 
 M 
 
 1-1 
 
 i2 
 
 r-1 
 
 •I 
 
 '^ 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 r-i 
 
 r-1 
 
 
 
 1-1 
 
 
 g s 
 
 "£. H 
 
 I 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 487 
 
 Manufacture of Ameriean Portland cement in barrc 
 
 1876 5,000 
 
 1877 15,800 
 
 1878 25,000 
 
 1879 10,000 
 
 1880 50,000 
 
 1881 72,000 
 
 1882.... 85,000 
 
 1883 90,000 
 
 1884 100,000 
 
 1885., 150,000 
 
 1886' 185,000 
 
 1887 250,000 
 
 1888 400,000 
 
 COMPAKATIVE LABOK FIGURES. 
 
 Cement ia nearly all labor. 
 
 In the United States : 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Quarrying represents 40 
 
 Burning represents 6 
 
 Grinding represents 6 
 
 Moving, etc., represents 5 
 
 Packing represents 3 
 
 Coal and coke, staves and heading, all the products of labor 27 
 
 Making of labor „ 87 
 
 This labor represents on an average for : 
 
 Per day. 
 
 Quarrymen $1.50 to $3. 00 
 
 Laborers 1.30 1.50 
 
 MiUers 2.00 2.50 
 
 Millwrights 2.50 3.00 
 
 Engineers 2.00 2.50 
 
 Coopers 1.50 2.00 
 
 And all the labor is that of men. 
 
 In Europe. 
 
 Both men and women are employed in cement works. The wages paid, per day, as 
 gathered from the investigation made in European cement works and from consular 
 reports of 1884 are as follows : 
 
 
 France. 
 
 Germany. 
 
 Belgium. 
 
 Bnglaad. 
 
 TWiTiPirq , , , , . . , 
 
 $0.87 
 
 $0.48 to .87 
 
 .29 to .39 
 
 1. 1-4 
 
 .7* 
 
 .38J 
 
 .97 
 
 .93 
 
 $0.02 
 .65 
 
 $0.60 
 
 .88i 
 
 $0 52 
 
 Millers 
 
 1.00 
 
 
 
 Millwrights 
 
 .70 
 .60 
 .24 
 .73 
 .66 
 
 .83J 
 .60 
 .57 
 1.03 
 .86 
 
 1.16 
 
 .78 
 
 
 
 
 1.10 
 
 
 1.13 
 
 
 
 American vs. German labor. 
 
 From United States consular reports, Ex. Doc, Forty-eighth Cong., page 464, one 
 German Portland cement manufactory in Silesia employed iu 1884, according to its 
 pay-roll for one day, in its whole works : 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Three workmen, at 36 
 
 Sixty-six workmen, at 24 
 
 Seventy men and women, at 24 
 
 A total daily pay-roU of |33.72. 
 
 An American works, of same number of hands, employs, according to its books: 
 
 Two engineers - |2. 00 
 
 Four millers 2.50 
 
 Two millwrights - 3. 00 
 
 Thirty coopers .- 1.75 
 
 Fifty-one laborers 1.30 
 
 Fifty quarrymen 1. 75 
 
 A total daily pay-roll of $226.30. 
 
488 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Amount lost to tahor in the United States during last twelve years on account of the im- 
 portations of foreign Portland cement, on the ha.ns of]}resent wages : 
 
 Labor $3,913,880 
 
 Cooperage 1,272,011 
 
 Coopers 587,082 
 
 Paper 58,708 
 
 Nails 48,738 
 
 Paste 3.010 
 
 5, 883, 429 
 Transportation to New York, towing, etc., at 10 cents per barrel 588,342 
 
 Total 6,471,771 
 
 Or $539,314 per year. 
 
 VIEWS OP ABRAHAM COLES. 
 
 CuMBEELAJSTD, Md., January 10, 1690. 
 
 DBA.R Sir: I wish to call the attention of your committee to the claims of the 
 cement industry in the United States for adequate protection against an injurious 
 foreign competition. Before proceeding, however, to give the particular data upon 
 which these claims are based, I would Uke, with your permission, to be indulged in 
 a few remarliS on the general subject of protection and the duty of the Government 
 in relation thereto. 
 
 Starting with the assumption that the end of government is the good of the gov- 
 erned, all that follows is a question of means. Our national Congress has chiefly to 
 do with foreign nations. Our wisest and best citizens meet in council and pass laws 
 regulating our commercial intercourse with other )5eoples. They, of course, have in- 
 terests distinct, if not antagonistic, to our own which they are careful to protect. 
 "We do not complain of this, and by parity of reason they ought not to complain if we 
 do the same. 
 
 Protective tariifs belong to the domain of i^ractical polities. Nothing is more mis- 
 leading than glittering generalities. Cirmcumstauces alter cases. What may be 
 good for Great Britain may not be good for the United States. Her territory is lim- 
 ited and insular. Ours is vast and continental, ii world in itself, combining the ad- 
 vantages of all climates. Sensible of her territorial narrowness, she is jealous of 
 her supremacy on the seas. There she will not tolerate, if she can help it, any rival. 
 She grudges no subsidy however great to maintain her ascendency. This undeniably 
 is "protection," but it is in a lino with her commercial interests, and theieJore she 
 favors it. She would like to do all the manufacturing and all the carrying trade of 
 the world, and naturally enough she is iufavor of free trade, especially for the United 
 States. One can not help admiring the arctic coolness with which she counsels us to 
 give up manufacturing and betake ourselves to farming— the raising of cereals, and 
 possibly cotton. All Europe, we are assured, in that event, stands ready to supply 
 us with everything else we need, and all so cheap. The era of cheapness will then 
 begin. Everything will be cheap, clothes will be cheap, food will be cheap, and, last 
 of all, labor will be cheap, for cheap food is but another name for cheap labor. Cer- 
 tainly to the agriculturist who produces it, cheapness is a neces.sity. As there is to 
 be but one industry (the tilling of the soil) it would seem that the supply might be 
 in excess of the demand, and in that case, owing to the glut, both food and labor 
 would be in danger of being too cheap, so cheaxi as to have little or no purchasing 
 power. No lack of bread, certainly is to be apprehended (seeing the jiroducers are 
 the main consumers) whatever may be their lack of other things. 
 
 Free trade, for this country at least, is, we must think, the greatest of absurdities. 
 No policy could be more suicidal. It were alike foolish .and wicked, for free trade is 
 assailable both on its ethical and economic side. He who made the world gave it to 
 man to dress it and keep it, to turn it to the best possible account, to utilize and en- 
 noble every part of it, to analyze it and synthesize it and bring to light its latent 
 wonders. This brave earth, lumpish in itself, but full of magnificent possibilities 
 waiting development, was never intended for a race of sluggards. It was not by 
 accident but design that the greater part of the Creator's work Was left uniinished, 
 in order that man might finish it. This supplied the requisite motive for labor. 
 While to the strenuous toiler all things are possible, dominion and mastery over 
 everything above ground and beneath it, the cursn ot God rests upon the impious 
 idler who lets the most splendid opi)ort,unitiesfor noble service pass unimproved. 
 
 I propose now to i)oint out the disabling inequalities to which American cement 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 489 
 
 is subject as against the ibreigu — to place the facts of the case fairly aud frankly be- 
 fore your committee, so tliat they will be in a jjosition to jndge for themselves what 
 protection ought to be afforded to so important an industry. "The numberof men em- 
 ployed in the manufacture of cement throughout tlie country is very large. It is their 
 business, their living, their only means of support. Their calling is an honest one. 
 Cement is an article in universal use. The Good Being who gave to the Western 
 farmers a fertile soil, suitable for raising great crops of grain, h.as given to other locali- 
 ties lands less fertile, but, by way of compensation, has added abundant subterranean 
 supplies of excellent raw cement. It is widely diffused east, west, north, and south. 
 To make the burled rock, however, of the least value, it is necessary to mine it, and 
 burn it, and grind it, and barrel it, and transport it to remote markets and sell it for 
 what it wiU bring. For all this, both capital and labor are necessary. One is not 
 more so than the other. Now it is true, as can be easily shown, that 87 per cent, of 
 the cost of the manufactured article represents labor, and that proportion is actually 
 paid out as wages. Labor being the chief item, it is evident, that a great inequality 
 must thence arise, if, as we are prepared to show, the cost of American labor to Euro- 
 pean, employed in this business, is as five to two. 
 
 For the justification of this estimate, it is only necessary to refer to the printed 
 reports of our consuls residing in Germany and elsewhere. Allowing it to be true, 
 what follows ? It costs to make a barrel of Portland cement f 1. Made iu the United 
 States, 87 cents would be paid out for labor, whereas in Europe, only 35 cents would 
 be paid, showing the enormous difference of 52 cents per barrel in the cost, arising 
 from labor alone. How isitpossible that the American manufacturers, heavily handi- 
 capped in this way, can compete with his European rival 1 It goes without saying, 
 it is too plain for argument, that the race is lost before it is begun, and that there is 
 nothing to prevent the Old World jockeys having the whole field to themselves. 
 Under free trade the mineral treasures stored away in our hills and concealed be- 
 neath our feet will continue to lie unused, with nothing to disturb the slumber of 
 ages. It must be so. Indeed, something far short of free trade would suffice to 
 wipe out the whole cement industry as with a sponge, for no one is going to be so 
 foolish as to manufacture long at a loss. Rather than do this, he will close his fac- 
 tory — perhaps turn importer, and the millions that go to the support of the people at 
 home will then go abroad, making the whole country so much poorer. 
 
 The guiding principles which should direct in the fixing of tariff rates we have 
 seen nowhere more luminously stated than in Hon. Samnrl J. Randall's speech in 
 the House of Representatives, May 18, 1888. Having noticed certain free trade 
 fallacies, such as, first, that duties are always added to the price which the con- 
 sumers pay. the fact being that this is only true of articles not produced in this 
 country, such as tea, coffee, and the like, that in all other cases, owing to home com- 
 petition, the effect being, as experience shows, often no increase at all, rather an 
 actual decrease in the price; and second, that duties on articles produced in this 
 country are a tax or a bounty which the customers must pay to the manufacturer — • 
 the speaker proceeds to lay down the principles which should govern in determining 
 the rate that ought to be fixed in any given case. The rate, he says, should be 
 "ample to cover any increased cost of production which may exist in consequence 
 of the higher rate of wages existing in this country." He further says: "When the 
 importations in any lino of commodities is large and increasing from year to year 
 (and no good reason appears why the things can not be as well produced here), it is 
 fair to assume that the duties are below the cost line, and the advantage is with the 
 foreign producer." In consistency with this, he adds: "If in any instance the rate 
 of duty is too low to cover this difference of cost, I am ready to help raise it." 
 
 At present there is a duty on foreign cement of 20 per cent, ad valorem, assessed on 
 the invoice value of the cement alone, not including the barrels. Originally, aud up 
 to 1885, the barrel was included, which makes a difference of about 11 cents iu the 
 amount of duty paid, it being contended that the law admitted of such a construc- 
 tion, thus diminishing the original and purposed protection by just so much. Be- 
 fore that time the importations had been large, but immediately they became larger 
 and larger, until now they amount to nearly one-third the entire sales. This in- 
 crease was attended with a great fall in the invoice value per barrel, brought about 
 in two ways; first, by rating the barrel high and its contents low; and secondly, 
 and chiefly, by the lowering effect of American competition. The invoice price of 
 foreign Portland cement per barrel in 1878 was |2.22 with the barrel. In 1888 it 
 was 94 cents without the barrel. Withdraw all competition, let free trade close our 
 factories, and what is there to prevent the return of the old prices of a decade ago, 
 $2.22 per barrel, with the seller's profit added? Manufacturers are abundantly able, 
 by favor of the Government, to supply all that is wanted without any foreign aid. 
 All they want is fair play, and this, they think, the Government is bound to give. 
 We are citizens and entitled to protection, What is our citizenship worth to us if 
 it secures to us no advantage, not even an equality of advantage with the people of 
 
490 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 otlier countries? It is right to cultivate amity with other nations, hut surely it is 
 the State's first duty to care for it own. 
 
 It seems tome that the principle laid down hy Mr. Randall is an eminently just 
 one, that the rate of duty fixed should be " ample to cover any increased cost of pro- 
 duction which may exist in consequence of the higher rate of wages existing in this 
 country." The question then arises, what rate will be ample to that end ? 
 
 The committee will naturally wish to be satisfied that there is no overstatement 
 in the alleged fact that labor forms 87 per cent, of the cost of production — that no 
 exaggeration is chargeable to the comparison of wages, sot down as five to two on 
 an average. As the greater part of the imported cement comes from Germany, the 
 evidence afforded by the printed reports of our consuls residing there will, we pre- 
 sume, be counted sufficient, and to them I would confidently refer. (See exhibit 
 presented by Mr. Ernest R. Ackerman on January 4, 1890). According to my figur- 
 ing a duty of 13 cents per 100 pounds of cement would not " amply," but simply 
 cover the difference of cost of production between the two countries, and thus estab- 
 lish an equality, that and nothing more. It ought to be higher, rather than lower, 
 to effectually reach the other object aimed at, the checking and diminishing of im- 
 portation. Were the duty raised to 25 cents per 100 pounds, and made practically 
 prohibitory, no injury, rather a benefit, would result to the public, as keeping at 
 home a million or two of dollars which now unnecessarily go abroad. 
 
 No doubt the whole thing resolves itself ultimately into a question of cheapness. 
 Of course I can not produce as cheap as my neighbor if I am obliged to pay two or 
 three times as much as he does for labor, and it is all the same whether that neigh- 
 bor lives across the way Or across the water. If his cost is less, so that he can under- 
 sell me, be it 5 cents or only 1 cent a barrel, it is enough, he commands the markets 
 of the world, and I am thrown out. For men buy of whom they can buy cheapest. 
 
 It is fortunate under such circumstances that it is in one's power to avoid certain 
 ruin by ceasing to manufacture. If I can find no protection against the invasion of 
 my rights as a citizen ; if the State deliberately decides that it is contrary to public 
 policy to interfere ; if her final judgment is that she owes nothing to her children ; 
 that it is better to be romantically generous than to be just; that it is a beautiful 
 and proper thing to sacrifice national self-interest and national good on the altar of 
 a national altruism, and build up the prosperity of other countries and peoples out of 
 the ruins of her own, stone by stone, I can only wonder and submit. I may believe 
 it unwise ; I may think that herein she plays the step-mother rather than the true 
 parent ; that it were more becoming in her, and more to her advantage if her strong 
 arm were stretched out for the protection and help of those of her citizens who are 
 engaged in a hard fight against odds to lift her up out of a condition of ignoble de- 
 pendence and vassalage into one of honorable independence and freedom, and by a 
 timely interposition save them from the ignominy of defeat and the shame of being 
 triumphed over while battling in her own cause. 
 
 Nothing is clearer, it seems to me, that whoever else is benefited by protection, 
 the State is benefited first of all and most of all, and that she denies needed protection 
 at her own great loss. She, least of all, can afford to luake it less than effective and 
 adequate. Indisputably the entire blotting out of an important industry like cement 
 can not be otherwise than a great public calamity. Private ruin is a passing evil, 
 but this were something far-reaching and permanent. The individual dies, but the 
 State lives. After the bankrupt manufacturer is dead and buried the injustice re- 
 mains to plague future generations. It is safe to say, therefore, it is possible to ask 
 too little as well as too much, and that the granting too little may be fraught with 
 greater detriment to the public than granting too much. If the modesty of the man- 
 ufacturer is at fault, somebody in the interest of the public should be bold in behalf 
 of the endangered business and make the little more. At the last session of Congress, 
 when the Mills bill was first introduced, so imperfectly informed was the author of 
 the bill in regard to the nature of the business that cement was placed on the free 
 list, but later, seeing how ruinous this would be, he consented to the imposing of an 
 ad valorem duty of 20 per cent., expressly assessed on the invoice value of the cement 
 at the place of shipment, including the cask or barrel, which would be about equiva- 
 lent to 8 cents per 100 pounds. But 8 cents is not enough, for it is not sufijcient to 
 cover the difference in the cost of labor here and abroad, as must be evident to any 
 one who will take the trouble to compare the two, and should that be the rate deter- 
 mined on, there is every reason to believe that the foreign importations will go on in- 
 creasing as heretofore, so that both the objects aimed at will wholly or in part be de- 
 feated. I speak in the interests of the manufacturer, pur et simple, distinguished 
 from one who may deal largely in the imported article. 
 
 A single word on another point. Mr. Randall quotes Adam Smith as having long 
 ago laid down the proposition that larger profits in one industry than others could 
 not long prevail in the same country. This could only take place where there was a 
 monopoly secured by a patent. With respect to cement, there is no monopoly, nor 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 491' 
 
 can be. Any one is free to engage In it. The raw material is everywhere. All that 
 is necessary is to dig for it. Whatever knowledge or slcill is needed to utilize it is at 
 hand. Should the profits at any time appear temptingly large, everybody is welcome 
 to share them. But excessive profits are out of the question. The probabilities are 
 that it will be in the future as it has been in the past — a struggle for existence among 
 rival companies, and the survival of the fittest, and this whatever the duty may be, 
 even though it were prohibitory. It is doubtful whether the entire exclusion of for- 
 eign cement would affect the price much, if at all. The chief advantage to the 
 American manufacturers in that case would consist in this, that whereas now they 
 have only a part of the market, they then would have the whole, with a correspond- 
 ing benefit to the community at large. The public has nothing to fear. And the 
 manufacturers will deem themselves fortunate if their old experience is not repeated — 
 an exceedingly small profit with a vanishing margin much of the time of some 5 or 
 10 cents a barrel, running down to zero and below it. 
 
 Allow me to say in conclusion, that I appreciate the exceedingly diificult and deli- 
 cate nature of the duty with which you are charged. Your action can not fail to 
 have a powerful influence upon the well being of this country for many years to come. 
 The importance of the interests involved will be, I trust, a sufflcient apology for the 
 length of my communication. 
 
 I am, sir, with great respect, yours truly, 
 
 Abraham Coles, 
 President of the Cumberland Hydraulic Cement and Manufacturing Company. 
 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 THE DUTY ON LIMB. 
 
 To the Committee on Ways and Meams : 
 
 The manufacturers of lime in the county of Knox, and State of Maine would most 
 respectfully call your attention to the following important facts affecting the interest 
 of the people of this aod surrounding counties, as well as similar manufacturers in 
 different parts of the United States. 
 
 The vast beds of limestone in this county opened up an industry in the sea-ports 
 of Thomaston, Eockland, Eockport, and Lincolnville, in the manufacturing of lime, 
 which has existed for over a century. Gradually increasing, it now amounts to a 
 capital invested in kilns, wharves, and store-hoases of about $1,000,000, and In lime- 
 rook quarries of about |2, 000,000 — an investment worthless for any other purpose. 
 There is, besides, a large shipping interest employed in transporting the lime and fuel 
 for burning it. In the year ltiS9 the total number of barrels of lime produced in 
 Knox County was 1,856,068. 
 
 Excepting the rock in the quarry and the fuel and lumber in the forest, worth not 
 more than 6 cents per cask, the whole cost of lime is made up of labor, which in- 
 cludes quarrying the rock and hauling it to the kilns, cutting or mining the fuel 
 and transporting it, making and hauling the lime casks, burning the lime, and haul- 
 ing and transporting the same to market. 
 
 Until within a fevr years Canada was one of our large lime markets. But on the 
 formation of the Dominion of Canada she imposed a duty amounting to nearly 20 
 cents per barrel on imported lime, which excluded us from her maraets and soon 
 after began to develop her own lime-rock quarries. In consequence of her cheaper 
 labor and fuel, by the aid of American capital and skill, she has been able to manu- 
 facture lime not only for her own markets but to export to the United States in con- 
 sequence of our low duty of 10 per cent., which was sufficient to protect our own 
 lime industry when lime was valued at $1 per cask, before the development of the 
 Canadian lime industry and reduction of cost, which has diminished what was once 
 a duty of 10 cents per barrel to about 3 cents. 
 
 Some idea of the serious nature of the competition of the St. John limekilns in the 
 markets of this country may be gained from the official statistics, which show that 
 while up to 1885 the annual number of barrels of lime imported did not exceed 5,000, 
 the last fiscal year the imports reached 200,000 barrels. 
 
 The following comparative statement of the comparative cost of manufacturing 
 lime at Rockland, Me., and St. John, New Brunswick, show why it is the present 
 duty of 10 per cent., which was originally intended to bel.lO cents, but is now in fact 
 only 3 cents, is under present circumstances entirely inadequate : 
 
492 
 
 EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Comparative cost of manufaHiirivg one hundred barrels of lime at IlocJdancl, Me., and a 
 
 St. John, Nmo Brunsmiclc. 
 
 RocHand. 
 
 St. John. 
 
 Excess at 
 Rockland. 
 
 Lime rock at kilns 
 
 Three men on kiln, $2 per day each 
 
 One man feeding 
 
 One man trimmin*; casks 
 
 Wheelinj: fuel to kiln 
 
 Coal or wood used in burning 
 
 One hundred lime casks 
 
 Nails and liners 
 
 Delivering lime to vessel 
 
 K'iln rent 
 
 Total 
 
 $21.00 
 
 0.00 
 
 l.-W 
 
 2.00 
 
 2.00 
 
 17.50 
 
 18.00 
 
 .30 
 
 .50 
 
 3.00 
 
 71.87 
 
 $10. 00 
 
 3.75 
 
 1.00 
 
 1.26 
 
 1.25 
 
 10.00 
 
 18.00 
 
 .30 
 
 .31 
 
 3.00 
 
 48.86 
 
 $11.00 
 2.25 
 .57 
 .75 
 .75 
 7.60 
 
 It will be seen from this statement that it costs 23 cents more per barrel to manu- 
 facture lime in Maine than in New Brunswicli, lOJ cents of which is the excess of 
 wages paid in quarrying, burning, and transporting the rock, and 71 cents the excess 
 of cost of coal or other fuel. As the costs of transporting the Knox County lime to our 
 markets is a few cents lees than the cost of transporting from St. John, 15 or 16 cents 
 represents substantially the increased cost of manufacturing lime in Maine, and 
 transporting to our markets (and the same for other lime-manufacturing points in the 
 United States) over the cost in Canada ; and this difference it will be seen is practi- 
 cally all in the labor, for it is labor which makes the cost of fuel. It will be seen 
 that laborers employed in this arduous industry receive in Maine from $1.75 to |2per 
 day against |1 to $1.25 at St. John, doing in each case precisely the same amount of 
 effective work. 
 
 It will be seen from this statement that it requires about 15 cents duty per barrel on 
 imported lime in order to cover the difference in cost of labor and fuel in manufacture 
 in this country and in Canada. Indeed Canada herself imposes a duty of about 20 
 cents per barrel on imported lime made in this country. Unless the duty on imported 
 lime shall be placed at 15 cents or very nearly that figure, it is probable that Canada 
 Tyill gradually absorb our markets for lime, and compel our manufacturers to give 
 up this important industry and remove to Canada, and thus deprive a large number 
 of our workingmen of the opportunity for labor now afforded by tbis industry and our 
 people generally of all the benefits that flow from it. 
 
 We therefore pray that the duty on lime may be fixed at 8 cents per hundred 
 pounds, which in fact is but a little higher than was contemplated by the tarilf of 
 1846, which fixed the duty on lime at 10 per cent, when the v.aluation was about |1 
 and when there was no competition from abroad. 
 
 Knox County (Maine) Lime Manufactueeks. 
 
 EocklAjSTD, Me., January, 1890. 
 
KE VISION OF THE TAKIi'I)\ 493 
 
 CLAY. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JESSE B. KIMES. 
 
 Tuesday, December 31, 1889. 
 
 Mr. Jbsse B. Kimes, of Philadelphia, appeared before the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee : The clay manufacturers are de- 
 sirous of increasing the rate of duty on foreign clays to what it was in 1883. It was 
 $5 a ton at that time for wrought china-clays. It was $3 a ton on unwrought clays. 
 It is |1.50 and |3 at the present time. The output of china-clays at the present time 
 is less than it was four years ago. The importation of foreign clays is steadily in- 
 creasing. In 1887 there were imported into the United States 20,387 tons of china- 
 clay alone, at a per ton value of |6.60 gross weight. lu 1888 there were 21,340 tons 
 at the per ton value of 1^5.76 gToss weight. In 1889, for the year ending June 30, in 
 the city of New York alone there were 15,775 tons of china-clay alone at a valuation 
 of $5.03i',f a gross ton. The falling off in the output in American clays has been per- 
 haps at about the ratio of decrease as foreign clays have increased. We contend 
 that American clays can not be produced and put in the pottiug centers at a price 
 that will remunerate the miner. We would state that at first the china-clay of com- 
 merce was not properly understood ; it was not known exactly what it was. The 
 china-clay which was raw material to the potter is not raw material to the clay 
 miner and manufacturer. The latter have to expend the value of the article in 
 labor. The lowest wages we are paying to day iu the Eastern clay mines, the section 
 which I represent in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, is $1.25 a day and from 
 that to .5(1.40 per day. 
 
 The Chairman. What is paid per day in Europe ? 
 
 Mr. Kimes. I am assured they pay in Cornwall 2 .shillings a day, which is about 50 
 cents. The most of the English clay comes to this country as ballast, or, iu other 
 words, by tramp steamers that are seeking freights on this side, and clays are shipped 
 from southwestern England, where steamers stop at St. German, Falmouth, or St. 
 Ives, and take on china-clay and unload it on this side at a nominal cost. Other- 
 wise they would have to take stone as ballast, or some other material, and unload it 
 on this side at an expense. I am assured by a potter of Brooklyn, N. Y., who imports 
 directly on his own account, that he put in his bins china-clay that has cost him 
 $10.45 a gross ton, and that freights from Cornwall to New York in many instances 
 do not amount to 4 shilling 6 pence, which is less than $1.25 a ton from Cornwall 
 to New York. The freights from New York to the pottiug centers, including the for- 
 eign freight, in must instances are less than freights from interior mines to the same 
 places. 
 
 The Chairman. State where the mines are. 
 
 Mr. Kimes. In southeastern Pennsylvania, and from around that section of country 
 most of the American china-clays used by the china potters of this country come. 
 
 The Chairman. How many clay mines are there in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Kimes. China-clays come from one-half of the States of the Unioti, I would 
 say, but the greater portion of it is used for other purposes than china pottery. 
 
 The Chairman. Are there some in the Southern States? 
 
 Mr. Kimes. Quite a quantity comes from the Carolinas and Georgia. It is used by 
 paper-makers. A gentleman here will have some figures to submit upon that point 
 as to production there. The freights from New York, inclurling the foreign freight, 
 to the potting centers in most instances are less than the freights from the interior 
 mines of this country to the same centers. 
 
 The Chairman. Is the price of clay any cheaper than it was prior to the act of 
 1883? 
 
 Mr. Kimes. Yes, sir. I was not in the clay-mining business at that time, but I am 
 assured the average price was iu the neighborhood of $14 ; say froiQ $12 to $20 per 
 ton of 2,000 pounds. 
 
 The Chairman. What is it now ? 
 
 Mr. Kimes. Now china clay is selling at from $9 to $15 per ton. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is that according to quality ? 
 
 Mr. Kimes. According to quality. There is in china clay what we call a strong or 
 
494 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 plastic clay and a short clay. Short clay is one that corresponds more particularly 
 with the English clay. Most English clays are short clays. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is meant by short clay ? 
 
 Mr. KiMES. It is a kind that does not work up. It is not tenacious aud does not 
 hold itself together well. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What kind of clay is this (exhibiting a specimen of white clay)? 
 
 Mr. Kjmks. That is a white china clay, washed and prepared for the pottery. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What proportion of the clays used in the various manufactories of 
 the United States is now imported, and what proportion produced here ? 
 
 Mr. KiMES. There were in 1887 clays of all kinds imported into the United States 
 37,640 tons. In 1888 there were 46,551 tons of all kinds, wronght and unwrcught. 
 In 1889 up to June 30 there were 48,800 tons. The output in the United States of 
 American clays this year will amount to in the neighborhood of about 35,000 tous. 
 I am told that the china clay from the Carolinas and Georgia will amount to some- 
 where from 15,000 to 18,000 tons, and the output of the china clays from all other sec- 
 tions of the country that go into the hands of the potter this year will be about 
 18,000 tons. 
 
 Mr. BAYN15. And as to the "supply of china clay in this country ? 
 
 Mr. KiMES. There is an inexhaustible supply. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How is it in Pennsylvania ? 
 
 Mr. KiMBS. In Pennsylvania the beds so far discovered are not so large. They are 
 more in the shape of pockets or sedimentary beds. 
 
 The Chairman. Why do you ask for an increase of duty ? 
 
 Mr. KiMES. We want to be able to compensate ourselves for the depletion of the 
 property and get a, just remuneration for our labor. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you reduced the price of labor since the reduction in 1883 1 
 
 Mr. KiMES. No, sir; labor is now perhaps 10 per cent, higher than it was in 1883. 
 
 The Chairman. Is foreign competition diminishing your product here ? 
 
 Mr. KiMES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is your mode of mining ? 
 
 Mr. KiMES. We mine by shafts. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. In some cases I suppose you have scaffolds? 
 
 Mr. KiMES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you sometimes dig from the surface ? 
 
 Mr. KiMES. The principal mode is to mine my shafts 20 feet in diameter, and to go 
 down till we go though the clay bed. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How far below the surface do you usually strike the vein of 
 clay? 
 
 Mr. KiMBS. It would average 15 feet in our section. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How thick is the clay ? 
 
 Mr. KiMES. Sometimes as much as 75 feet thick ; others would not run over 15 feet 
 thick. On an average china clay in its different variations would run about 45 to 50 
 feet thick in the bed. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much do you generally calculate on getting out per hand 
 per day while excavating — of course I suppose there has to be some preparatory work 
 done? 
 
 Mr. KiMES. We can by running twenty-four hours produce 20 tons per day with 
 the labor of sixty men. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But that includes a great many men besides miners. I mean 
 with miners proper. 
 
 Mr. KiMBS. We have about forty men engaged in mining. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Forty men working, say, ten hours, would get out 20 tons of 
 clay? 
 
 Mr. KI^fES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Where is this clay mostly worked up ? 
 
 Mr. KiMBS. The principal centers in this country are Trenton, N. J., East Liver- 
 pool, Ohio, and along the Ohio River. There are four potteries in Baltimore, three or 
 four in Boston and surrounding country, three in Wheeling, W. Va., and three in Cin- 
 cinnati. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. They are pretty well distributed ? 
 
 Mr. KiMES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Your clay, I suppose, is principally consumed in Baltimore t 
 
 Mr. KiMBS. And East Liverpool, Ohio. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Western points, I suppose, are supplied from western deposits? 
 
 Mr. Kimes. To some extent. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How far is your mine from tide-water, and what is the port of 
 shipment ? 
 
 Mr. Kimes. The nearest point to tide-water would be Wilmington or Philadelphia, 
 about 45 miles to each place, or perhaps not quite so far to Wilmington. We ship to 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 495 
 
 the different pottery centers of New York and elsewhere by rail. We do not ship 
 except by rail. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridgb. How far are you from Trenton? 
 
 Mr. KiMES. We are about 75 miles. The freight to Treuton is |1. 26 per ton. The 
 freight from New York to Trenton is about 60 cents per ton. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you ship mostly in bulk as coal is shipped ? 
 
 Mr. KiMES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Rreckinridgk. How long has this industry been established in this country ? 
 
 Mr. KiMES. I am hardly able to state. I succeeded in the business by assuming 
 control of an estate of which I am a member. My successor was a pioneer in the 
 clay business, and was engaged more or less in it for 30 years. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How far back, so far as your knowledge extends, has it been 
 an extending industry ? 
 
 Mr. KiMES. Twelve or fifteen years. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And then according to your knowledge up to twelve or fifteen 
 years ago there was very little clay mined in this country? 
 
 Mr. KiMES. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is this dut.y equivalent to ad valorem ? 
 
 Mr. KiMES. I am not able to say from the statistics that I have. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is unwrought clay worth ? 
 
 Mr. Kimes. In the neighborhood of |5 to $S a ton. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is wrought and manufactured clay worth ? 
 
 Mr. Kimes. The value of imported clay is from $5.03tV to $6.66 per ton in England — 
 American clay is worth from $9 to |15 per ton at potteries. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. About 50 or 60 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Kimes. Yes, sir. 
 
 Trenton, N. J., January 1, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: As you will remember, thehearing given by your committee to the clay 
 manufacturers yesterday was interrupted in order to allow a representative of the glass 
 industry, who' was ill, to be heard. 
 
 At the suggestion of the other members of our committee I desire to present to the 
 notice of your committee, in connection with the remarks of Mr. Kimes and Wilson, 
 the following brief statement of facts from the business of our company (The Gold- 
 ing & Sons Company) during the period from 1883 to 1889, inclusive. 
 
 In 1883 our annual output reached its highest point, 8,000 tons; the spot value was 
 the highest for the period mentioned, and we employed from one hundred and 
 thirty to one hundred and forty men. 
 
 During this period our business has declined 37 per cent., or from 8,000 tons to 5,000 
 tons annually. 
 
 The spot value of our clay has declined about 1'2 per cent. Wages have remained 
 substantially unchanged. Our working force is reduced to about eighty men. 
 
 In the time mentioned we have partially developed three adjoining clay farms and 
 with fair results. 
 
 From a careful consideration of the situation, I believe that an advance to the old 
 rates of duty on toreign clays would result in an enlarged home market without ad- 
 vancing prices to the potters, because the advantages of increased development of 
 clay deposits at home would be sufficient to offset the tendency to re-establish the 
 old prices. 
 
 With great respect, I remain, yours, very truly, 
 
 Edwin Golding, 
 From Committee of Clay Miners and Manufacturers' Association. 
 
 The above remark showing the decline of china-clay mining is concurred in by the 
 Clay Miners' Association. 
 EespectfuUy, etc., 
 
 Jesse B. Kimes, 
 
 Secretary. 
 Hon. William McKinlby, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
496 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF, 
 
 MAKBLE AIN^D GRAlSriTE, 
 
 STATEMENT OP DAVID CLARKSON. 
 
 Mr. David Claeksost, of New York, addressed the committee on the subject of the 
 tariff on marble, and presented the following jiaper : 
 To the Hon. the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Sepresentafives. 
 
 Your attention is especially called to the operation of the tariif act of 1883 upon 
 this industry. 
 
 Under that act block marble pays 65 cents a cube. Marble sawed pays $1.10 a 
 cube. Eeduced to ad valorem, block marble pays equivalent to 90 per cent, on the 
 invoice value after deducting the cost of transportation from Carrara to the vessel, 
 while marble sawed pays only equivalent to 57 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 The effect of this discrimination has led to the building of large mills in Italy, 
 whilst since 1883 but two marble mills have been built in this country, several have 
 been closed or have ceased to be used as such, and the importation of sawed marble 
 slabs has largely increased and is constantly increasing. 
 
 All that this industry asks is that the irregularity of the present tariff be so ad- 
 justed that the mills in this country ma.y be enabled to produce and sell a slab of 
 marble from the imported block as cheap as the imported slab. This can not be done 
 under the existing tariff, as will appear from the following statement : ' 
 
 The cost of Imported slab, three-quarter inch thickness, free on board, is.... $0. 12 
 
 Fnight, at $6 per ton of 14 cubic feet, is 02J 
 
 Duty, at the rate of $1.10 per cubic foot, estimating sixteen slabs to a cube.. . 07 . 
 
 i 
 
 Cost per superficial foot of slabs sawed in Italy, landed in the United j 
 
 States 21 
 
 Slabs sawed in the United States from imported block marble — 
 
 Average cost block marble per cube at the quarries of Carrara 72 
 
 Transportation charges to vessel at Leghorn or Genoa 36 
 
 Cost free onboard per cube 1.08 
 
 Freight, at |6 per ton of 14 cubic feet, is 43 
 
 Duty 65 
 
 Cost of a cube in block 2.16 
 
 A cubic foot of imported block marble will only yield eleven slabs of three-quarter 
 inch thickness, because of nearly 30 per cent, waste in sawing — 
 
 Cents 
 
 One-eleventh of 12. 16 is 19.63 
 
 Cost of sawing slabs of three-quarter inch in the United States 6 
 
 Cost to produce slabs in this country, per superticial foot 25f 
 
 We have taken slabs three-quarter inch thickness, as that thickness constitutes 
 the larger part of the importation. 
 
 Having made evident, as we think, the irregularity of the tariff as it applies to 
 this industry, we venture to submit the following rates for the consideration of the 
 honorable the Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 "Marble of all kinds, in block, rough or squared, 40 cents per cubic foot. 
 
 "Marble, sawed, dressed, or otherwise, including marble slabs or marble paving 
 tiles, not exceeding 1 inch in thickness, 9 cents per superficial foot; if over 1 inch in 
 thickness, fl. 10 per cubic foot. 
 
 "Or to strike out all after the word tiles and insert as follows: one dollar and 
 ten cents per cubic foot. But in measurement no slab shall be computed at less than 
 1 inch in thickness." 
 
 Under the foregoing rates slabs of three-quarter inch can be imported at 23J cents 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 497 
 
 per superficial foot. Sliibs of three-quarter incli can be produced in United States at 
 2'ii cents per superficial foot. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Robert C. Fisher, David Bailie, of Samuel Bailie & Son, Crawford Maxwell, 
 Patrick H. Feeney, of Feeney & Devanny, James Dougherty, of Dough- 
 erty <fe Rist; David Clarkson, of Pells & Co., New York committee. 
 Joseph Baird, of John Baird & Sons, Joseph E. Schell, Joseph E. Schell & 
 
 Son, Philadelphia committee. 
 Charles Torrey, Bowker, Torrey & Co., Charles E. Hall, Chas. E. Hall & Co., 
 
 Boston committee. 
 W. H. Evans, W. H. Evans & Son ; Hugh Sisson, H. Sisson & Son, Baltimore 
 
 committee. 
 W. Goodall, Wm. Goodall & Son, J. McDonough, Cincinnati committee. 
 John A. Davidson, Davidson &, Sons, Chicago committee. 
 New York, January 7, 1890. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 We append the following statement, because we are reminded that the American 
 marble interest in their petition to the Committee of Ways aud Means, dated January 
 30, 1868, included the following clause : " That the duty on blocks of 65 cents per 
 cubic foot is equivalent to an ad vahirem duty of 90 per cent." The Government re- 
 turns state it to be 53.08 per cent. (See report of "Imports entered for consumption 
 for the year ending June 30, 1887.") 
 
 We did then, and do again, declare the foregoing clause to be misleading, for the 
 following reasons : 
 
 The custom-house invoices of block marble of several of the shippers since the rate 
 of the duty was made specific continue in form as before the " tarifi' act of 1H83 " by 
 including in said values the transportation charges which by that " act" should have 
 been excluded from said invoices. 
 
 The fact that the Government returns, as stated by the American marble interest, 
 make the existing duty of 65 cents a cube in block marble, equivalent to only 53.08 
 per centum ad valorem, is of itself conclusive evidence that the transportation charges 
 continue to be included instead of excluded, for otherwise the per centum of 53. OS on 
 market value at the place of production, namely, the quarries of Carrara, would be 
 f 1.22 per cubic foot, a price we venture to assert never obtained or asked. 
 
 This statement is made so that the present specific duty reduced to ad valorem 
 may be verified, as stated in this petition as 9 ) per centum. 
 
 We would further submit, and in so doing believe that the quarry interest of the 
 United States will concur, that if the present tariff of 65 cents per cubic foot on block 
 marble is retained that the clause relating to 8a,wed marble slabs, etc., should in 
 equity be amended as follows : 
 
 "Marble sawed, dressed, or otherwise, including marble slabs aud marble paving 
 tiles, not exceeding 1 inch in thickness, 11 cents per superficial foot; if over 1 inch 
 in thickness, $1.35 per cubic foot." 
 
 Under this proposed amendment three-quarter inch, slabs cam be imported at 254 
 cents per superficial foot, and can be produced in United States at 25f cents per su- 
 perficial foot. 
 
 In behalf of committee, 
 
 David Clakkson. 
 
 GRANITE. 
 
 STATEMENT OP HON. E. A. MORSE. 
 
 Hon. E. A. Morse, a representative from the State of Massachusetts, next ad- 
 dressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have received several commu- 
 nications from my constituents who are engaged in the granite business in Quincy, 
 and instead of troubling the committee by reading the several communications I have 
 here tlie features arranged in this paper, and it will not take me three minutes to 
 read them : 
 
 I am utterly astonished to learn that there is any member of the Massachusetts 
 delegation that should appear before this committee and recommend a lowering of 
 the duty on granite. The tariff bill which passed the Senate at the last session 
 called for an advance of the present duty of 25 pur cent. I think the duty should be 
 advanced 50 per cent., and I am sure that any man who pretends to represent Massa- 
 chusetts and asks for a lower duty than the present or that in the Senate tarifl' bill 
 of the last session, however much I might respect him, I am sure that he entirely 
 misrepresents the Stfljte. 
 
 485 32 
 
498 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 I have in my (liatrict (the jSecoud Massachusetts) the city of Quincy, containiuji; 
 from 12,000 to 15,000 inhabitants. The principal industry of this city is the quarrying 
 and finishing of granite. 
 
 This business employs a large capital and gives employment to thousands of 
 skilled workmen. These workmen are men of intelligence and industry, and second 
 to no mechanics in the country. Since this reduction in the duty has been proposed, 
 I have received communications from members of the Granite Cutters' Union of 
 Quincy, composed of over 600 members, protesting against any reduction, and de- 
 manding an increase of the present duty on granite. 
 
 Under the present duty, between January, 1889, and January, 1890, ,|49,950 worth 
 of Scotch granite came to Boston alone, 10 miles from the quarries at Quincy. 
 
 In the name of the manufacturers and workmen of Quincy, I demand that the 
 present duty shall be so increased as to protect my constituents, the manufacturers 
 and workmen of Quincy, from the competition of the poorly paid laborers of Europe. 
 
 At this very hour, while I am speaking, there is lying in front of the new Drexel 
 building in Philadelphia eight Scotch granite pillars. When they are erected they 
 will stand as a monument to the fact that the pesent duty on granite is insufficient 
 to protect the American workmen from the competition of the poorly paid laborers of 
 Scotland. This granite has been quarried, wrought, and has crossed the Atlantic, 
 and has been laid down in Philadelphia cheaper than American granite. If the duty 
 on granite is to be reduced, there would be but one alternative for the granite manu- 
 facturers of Quincy and New England, either to close the granite quarries at Quincy 
 and other quarries in New England, and turn these honest workmen out of employ- 
 ment, or to reduce their wages to the level of the wages of the laboring men of Europe. 
 
 I believe in American markets for American granite, and in American wages for 
 American workmen. 
 
 I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that there is on the way here a memorial from the 
 Granite Cutters' Union of Quincy addressed to this committee on the subject of duty 
 on granite. I understand other papers have been put in here and printed, and I ask 
 that that memorial may be incorporated in what I have to say. 
 
 The Chaikman. It will be. 
 
 Quincy, January 25, 1890. 
 To the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled ; 
 
 At a meeting of the stone- workers of Quincy, Mass., it was voted that the presi- 
 dent and secretary of Quincy Branch Granite Cutters' National Union be author- 
 ized to petition the Ways and Means Committee, Wm. McKinley, jr., chairman, 
 through their Congressional Representative, Hon. Elijah A. Morse, praying ttiat the 
 duty on dressed granite be increased from 20 per cent, ad valorem to 50 per cent, 
 ad valorem. 
 
 David Cramond, President. 
 
 John N. Kelley, Corresponding Secretary. 
 
 The above petition represents seven hundred granite cutters of Quincy, Mass., 
 sixty tool sharpeners, and two hundred and fifty granite polishers. This is to be fol- 
 lowed shortly by a petition from the granite manufacturers of Quincy. 
 
 Eli.tah a. Morse, 
 Meniber Congress Second Massackusetis District. 
 
 VIEWS OF "WILLIAM H. MITCHELL. 
 
 QoiNCY, Mass., January 27, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : The existing low tariff of 20 per cent, on dressed or finished granites 
 has resulted in the shipment of large quantities of Scotch and other foreign finished 
 granites to this country, at prices (owing not to cost of the rough granite, but to the 
 lower j)rices paid labor abroad for finishing same) considerably less than the same 
 work can be produced hero, thereby materially aftecting our business. 
 
 The Granite Manufacturers' Association, of Quincy, Mass., practically representing 
 the entire granite industry of this city, at a meeting held January 25, 1890, unani- 
 mously voted that we petition your honorable body that the tarifi' on all foreign- 
 dressed granite be increased to 50 per cent, ad valorem. 
 Very respectfully yours. 
 
 Granite Manufacturers' Association, 
 
 Henry McGrath, President. 
 Wm. H. Mitchell, Secretary. 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Vliainmn of Comniitlee of Ways and Means, 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 499 
 
 VIEWS OF CHAS. CLEMENTS, OP BOSTON. 
 
 Boston, January 17, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: I understand some effort is being made to advance the duty on Scotch 
 granite importations, and in connection with others interested in this product, I beg 
 to enter a most earnest protest and to ask of your honorable committee a hearing, 
 when facts and figures will be submitted that will show most conclusively that the 
 present rate of duty is as high as it would be possible to levy unless citizens of the 
 United States who, by descent or from having formerly been subjects of other coun- 
 tries, are to be discriminated against by reason of having from one or from various 
 reasons a disposition to select other than domestic products. 
 
 The amount of red granite quarried in this country is entirely inadequate to sup- 
 ply the demand, and it would work a hardship against any one wishing such a 
 granite on account of preference for that color. The present duty with ocean 
 freights and cost of handling already make a total cost that is higher than American 
 granite can be furnished for using same grades of stock for lower bases. 
 
 My interest is rather a divided one, being an owner of an American granite quarry 
 and supplying largely all of the American granites. Looking at the matter in the light ■ 
 of exact information, it is impossible to see what interest or class of producers or 
 handlers would be benefited by an increase while many interests would be injured. 
 
 Before taking action in this matter, if your honorable committee will call for such 
 iaformation as they think important to reach a conservative and fair conclusion, I 
 shall be pleased at any time to submit such as may be in my power. 
 Yours very respectfully, 
 
 Chas. Clements. 
 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 GRANITE BUILDING STONE. 
 VIE-WS OF JONES BROTHERS, OF BOSTON. 
 
 Dear Sir : As manufacturers and producers of American granite and importers of 
 Scotch granite, we beg to submit for the consideration of your committee the follow- 
 ing facts and reasons why there should be no change in the present tariff on granite. 
 
 About the only granite imported to this country is Scotch, hence we confine our- 
 selves in comparison on that basis. Owing to superior facilities — railroad commu- 
 nications and natural conditions — for quarrying in America we are enabled to pro- 
 duce our stone and put it on the market at a very much lower price than the quarries of 
 Scotland, so that imported stone for building material — for which purpose fully 90 
 per cent, of the granite produced is consumed — is completely excluded. For monu- 
 mental purposes the same conditions hold good on rough material, and as we own 
 quarries and manufacture granite inBarre, Vt., we will use the price of that material 
 as a basis for comparison on monumental work. 
 
 Barre granite is quarried and sold in the rough at a profit at 80 cents per cubic foot 
 in blocks containing 40 cubic feet and under, while Scotch granite in pieces of this 
 size costs on cars in Aberdeen, Scotland, 9 shillings and 9 pence per cubic foot, or 
 |2.36. Add to this the present duty of 20 per cent, which would make it $2.83 against 
 80 cents. The average wages paid skilled granite cutters in America is $2.7.t per day, 
 and in Scotland 5 shillings and 6 pence, or $1.37. Add to this the present duty of 20 
 per cent., making |1.65 against $1.75, 
 Barre granite : A stone containing 40 cubic feet, say 2 by 4 J by 4|, would cost 
 
 in the rough in Barre granite, at 80 cents a foot $32. 00 
 
 It would require twelve days to cut same into a plain block, at $2.75 per day 33. 00 
 
 Total cost in Barre granite 65.00 
 
 Scotch granite : 40 cubic feet of Scotch granite, at $2.83 per foot 113. 20 
 
 Twelve days labor, at $1.65 per day 19. 80 
 
 Add to this freight from Aberdeen to Boston, 3|- tons, at 25 shillings per ton, 
 
 £4 3s : 20.80 
 
 Total cost of Scotch granite on cars here 153. 80 
 
 To prove the correctness of this computation we can send, if desired, the printect 
 price-lists of both materials. 
 
500 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Our interests in American granite are far greater than those of imported granite, 
 and we consider the present duty ample to protect our interests. Should there be 
 any increase in the duty the burden would fall on the consumers 'who insist on pur- 
 chasing that material, because we have no American granites of similar shades to 
 those of the diiferent red and gray Scotch granites. 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 Jones Bkothbes. 
 Hon. William McKinlet, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 ARGUMENT OF CHARLES H. MORE, OF BOSTON. 
 
 In view of the present agitation relative to a revision of the tariff ou certain com- 
 modities now under consideration in your committee, we take the liberty to write 
 you in relation to the proposed change in the present duty on Scotch and other gran- 
 ites imported into this country. 
 
 We wish hereby to protest against any increase in the present rate of 20 per cent. 
 ad valorm, as it is sufficiently high ahready to prevent its being imported into this 
 country to any extent, certainly not enough to affect or restrict the manufacture and 
 sale of American granites for monumental purposes. We do not thinli it is ever im- 
 ported for any other use. 
 
 As you will see by the heading on this sheet, we are interested in the manufacture 
 and sale of American granites as well as the importation of foreign stone; in fact, 
 our books show that we manufacture and sell three tiiues as much domestic granite 
 as foreign, so we contend that our statements should have triple weight and force 
 with your committee. 
 
 The cost of the rough stock of Scotch, Swedish, or German granite is fully double 
 that of American on the average, as the price-lists will show. To this increase there 
 is of course to be added the duty of 20 per cent, after the stones are finished and the 
 freight from the quarries to this country, so you see what a tremendous advantage is 
 given the American manufacturer right on the start. So great is this ditferenoe that 
 it is scarcely ever overcome in the finishing of the work for monuments of any im- 
 portance, so that the same monument costs more laid-down in New York than when 
 built at our own quarries. 
 
 To prove this we are ready to submit any number of estimates on the same design, 
 sizes, and finish in both foreign and domestic granites. More than all this, there are 
 no red granites quarried in this country that are desirable for monumental purposes, 
 and this is the main reason for what little demand there is for foreign granites, and 
 it would be very unjust and unreasonable to thus jihohibit the importation of these 
 granites, which any increase in the present duty would certainly cause. 
 
 Eespectfully submitted, 
 
 Chas. H. Moke & Co. 
 
 ARGUMENT OF E. C. WILLISON, OF BOSTON. 
 
 I learn that there is now a movement on foot to advance the tariff on finished 
 Scotch granite. Being an importer, and thoroughly posted on the bulk of the Scotch 
 granite importatitjus, I beg to submit the following facts, setting forth why there 
 should be no advance, but, rather, a reduction on tarifl' on finished Scotch granite of 
 at least 10 per cent. 
 
 Scotch granite in the rough has advanced 10 per cent, within the past thirty days; 
 labor per day has advanced as an average, from 5 shillings to 5 shillings C pence, or 
 about 10 per cent, advance on day labor. 
 
 Scotch granite in the rough is now higher than any American granite in the 
 market, except Westerly granite, and it is concededby my representative at Aberdeen 
 that before another two months has passo'd the agitation of the American labor 
 unions, which are now working Great Britain and the Continent, will bring about 
 further advance of labor at Aljcrdeen. 
 
 In my past trade I can show that not over one-fifth of the iinished granites I have 
 shipped is Scotch and Swedish granites, four-fifths being American granites, that is, 
 Qnincy, Barre, Concord, Westerly, and other popular granites. 
 
 On large and expensive finished monuments, Scotch granite is higher than any Amer- 
 ican granite in the market, except Westerly granite. The same job in Quincy granite 
 can be furnished from 8 to 12 per cent, less, of Barre granite about ir. per cent, less, 
 and in Concord granite from 20 to 25 per cent. less. Where, then, is the justice of 
 advancing on Scotch granites 1 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 501 
 
 I trust tbat everytliing possible will be doue against these movements, as it cer- 
 tainly is brougbt about by jealous-minded American dealers, who are not aware of 
 the facts in the case. 
 
 I am, dear sir, yours, truly, 
 
 E. C WlLLISON. 
 
 VIEWS OF IMPORTERS. 
 
 Imported freestone comes here in rough blocks only. It is purely a raw material. 
 Every dollar's worth of imported freestone requires Si to |4 worth of American labor 
 to be expended upon it to fit it for building purposes. 
 
 Under the circumstances it could witli justice be admitted free, and certainly 
 should not have a prohibitory duty upon it. 
 
 The bulk of imported freestones come from Scotland, and all imjjorted stones 
 differ entirely from the American in color and texture, and do not interfere with the 
 sale of the latter, because the foreign are sold here at a higher price. A large share 
 of the domestic stone sold in this market sells froin 5 to 'M cents per cubic foot less 
 than the foreign ; it can not therefore be claimed that American quarries are injured 
 by the competition of foreign stones. Imported stones do not come here freight 
 free or "as ballast" (as has been stated), but, on the contrary, p.ay freight of 48 
 cents and upwards per foot, from which there is no rebate or deduction. Any higher 
 duty than the present ($1 per ton) will be prohibitory, and we claim the duty should 
 be materially decreased or taken off entirely. 
 
 There are only six importers of freestone in the United States, and their entire 
 sales do not amount to as much as any one of a dozen of American quarries. So 
 small a business can not seriously damage any native industry. 
 
 The Scotch stone meets a want of architects and owners who desire to iirodnco 
 certain effects, and they therefore pay its slight extra cost, but they would not pay 
 more. 
 
 American capital only is employed in this business, and it is therefore in effect an 
 American industry. 
 
 Inasmuch as the business is a very small one, the capital employed entirely 
 American, the foreign stones being sold at a higher price than the domestic and 
 supplying a demand that none other can fill, we present the foregoing facts, asking 
 a fair and just consideration of them. 
 
 G. P. Shekwood, 
 On Iwltalf of importers <if foreign huildhif/ stones. 
 
 New York, Decemler, 1889. 
 
 1888, duties paid $15,645.05 
 
 1889, duties paid 15,183.44 
 
 Decrease --. .-. -- 461.61 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 503 
 
 FLAX, JUTE, AJSjy HEMP. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. EDMUND A. WHITMAN. 
 
 Washington, D. C, December 7, 1889. 
 
 Mr. Edmund A. Whitman, of Boston, addressed the committee, and read the fol- 
 lowing paper : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in appearing before you to urge the removal of the 
 duties now imposed on raw flax, I may at the ontset state briefly the arguments ad- 
 vanced in favor of and against this projjosal. In favor of the proposal, we urge, in 
 brief, that the present rates of dnty have now been in force for nineteen years, and 
 the growing of flax in the United States has steadily decreased during that time, so 
 that at the present day the amount of fine flax fiber produced here is too small to be 
 taken into account. While, also, we have the soil and climate suitable for flax grow- 
 ing, and have grown fine flax in the past, yet its culture requires so much arduoHs 
 manual labor and technical skill that our farmers generally prefer to turn their 
 attention to other crops where the use of machinery is possible. Thus, the present 
 duties, intended to be protective, stand merely as a burden to the manufacturer, 
 without compensatory advantage to the farmer ; and by handicapping the linen in- 
 dustry, they prevent the establishment of new mills that might encourage the 
 growth of flax by the proximity of a home market. Furthermore, the linen manu- 
 facturers must have quality in their fiber at any cost, and it is now, and under the 
 very highest duties it will be for a long time, impossible to get the highest grades of 
 flax grown in our country. To sum up our position, the present duty does not help 
 the farmer a particle, and handicaps the manufacturer. 
 
 Against our position you will hear but two arguments : One, that so long as there 
 is a possibility that flax may be grown in this country, even the present very small 
 protection should not be removeil; and secondly, that if the manufacturer consents 
 to the removal of the duty on the raw material, he can not consistently resist a re- 
 daction of the duty on the manufactured ijroduct, and that, in the present state of 
 trade, he can not consent to. As some persons state this argument, the protected in- 
 terests of this country must stand together, and when one duty goes there is danger 
 that the whole structure will fall. 
 
 I do not appear before you as an expert, although I have given much study to the 
 subject of flax, and it is unnecessary that I should do so, for you have expert testi- 
 mony ready at hand in the reports of Government officials. Congress and the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture have by no means neglected the flax-grower. In 1865 Congress 
 appropriated $20,000 for acommission to investigate the whole subject of flax growing 
 in the United States ; and the matter has been frequently dealt with in numerous 
 valuable and exhaustive reports by the Department of Agriculture. I shall therefore 
 take my facts on which my argument is based mostly from reports of Government 
 officials that can readily be referred to. 
 
 Let me remind you that up to the tariff act of 1861, raw flax had always been on 
 the free list, with the exception of a few years. With flax on the free list, the cen- 
 sus of 1860 shows the production of nearly 5,000,000 pounds of flax fiber in the United 
 States. In 1861, a nominal duty of $15 per ton on all grades of flax was imposed. I 
 say nominal, for this amounted to Jess than 3 per cent, ad valorem on dressed flax. 
 With this duty, the production of flax increased until in 1870 the census showed a 
 product of 27,000,000 pounds. In that year also a tarift' bill raised the duty from $15 
 to $40 a ton for dressed flax, and from $15 to $20 for undressed ; the difference being 
 that the former is the fiber cleaned from the tow and chaft', With this duty the 
 amount of flax fiber produced steadily decreased until in 1880 the census showed a 
 product of but 1,500,000 pounds; and to-day, in 1889, no one is rash enough even to 
 gness at the quantity of flax fiber produced, so insignificant is the amount. With no 
 duty, we raised 5, OuO, 000 pounds ; with a small duty 27,000,000, and with a higher 
 duty, practically none at all. That the tarififhad nothing to do with the matter will be 
 understood when we remember that the enormous increase from 5,000,000 to 27,000,000 
 pounds between 1860 and 1870 was coincident with the scarcity of cotton due to the 
 war, and as soon as the supply of cotton was restored to the normal, the production 
 
504 REVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 
 
 of ll.-ix fiber rapidly fell off. In 1879, Mr. Charles R. Dodge, one of the most compe- 
 tent experts iu the country on the flax question, said in his exhaustive report, pre- 
 pared at the instance of the Department of Agriculture: "It is impossible to esti- 
 mate the amount of American dressed flax consumed at the present time. It is a 
 ridiculously small amount at best." To-day, I repeat, the amount of American flax 
 produced is insignificant. No linen mill in this country can depend upon the Amer- 
 ican flax for its rayr material. It is needless to pile up statistics. It must be gen- 
 erally admitted that except for a few spasmodic efforts, the raising of American flax 
 fiber is practically a non-existent industry, and that the tariff has not only not en- 
 couraged it, but has not prevented it from languishing and dying out. 
 
 To the question what is the reason for this state of things, the answers are two 
 First, that the culture of flax is so laborious and requires so much technical knowl- 
 edge that the American farmer can not be induced to engage in it even with a pros- 
 pect of a good profit ; and, secondly, because the linen mills iu this country are few 
 and the market for flax fiber is too small and too far away to stimulate the farmer. 
 
 The American farmer is accustomed to the use of machinery in his work. He 
 plows, plants, cultivates, and reaps by machine. Labor is too expensive for him 
 to employ many hands to do what can be done by machine. In the culture of fine 
 flax fiber, however, he finds a crop where the use of machinery is out of the question, 
 and where hand labor is a necessity. The soil, for instance, must be as carefully 
 treated as for the finest garden, and the earth must be plowed and replowed and 
 thoroughly harrowed and manured. In the European countries where fine flax is 
 raised, no farmer thinks of planting more than a quarter or a half acre in flax ; this 
 being all he can successfully attend to. Then, too, the sowing must be done by hand, 
 and as weeds are fatal to the crop, every weed must be c irefully removed. In Bel- 
 gium and France, where the finest flax is grown, thisweeding is done by the farmer's 
 wife and children, on their hands and knees. The plant, when grown, cannot be cut 
 by machine, but must be pulled by hand, and carefully dried. This much the farmer 
 must do if he wishes fine flax, and this the American farmer will not do. 
 
 The proper preparation of the soil is too expensive, careful weeding is a hopeless 
 task with the luxuriance of our native weeds, and the American farmer does not care 
 to put his wife and children on their hands and knees doing such work. Neverthe- 
 less, all authorities agree that this careful cultivation is essential to the production 
 of fine long fiber. It is true that the American i'armer sows much flaxieed. Over 
 1,000,000 acres are annually sown with flax in the United States. The ground is 
 plowed, the seed is thinly sown, the plant grows luxuriantly, and, when the seed 
 is ripe, is cut by the reaper and the seed separated by the thrasher, leaving the straw 
 in a tangled mass. The amount of such flax that is annually burned to get rid of it 
 is estimated at 1,000,000 tons, and yet fine dressed flax is worth $500 a ton. If you 
 ask if this rough flax straw can not be metamorphosed into the $500 a ton product, 
 the answer is that you might as well expect to pick fine Jacqueminot roses from a 
 wild sweet-briar. It is the care in cultivation that makes or mars the fiber. Oar 
 American product yields only a short, coarse fiber fit only for upholsterer's tow. All 
 authorities agree that raising flax for the seed, as is done by our Western farmers, is 
 entirely incompatible with the production of a fiber suitable for fine linen thread or 
 yarn , Yet the flaxseed industry is a valuable one. The crop for 1885, the last year 
 for which I have the figures, was estimated at 12,000,000 bushels, valued at $13,. 500,000. 
 This is indeed a valuable crop, yet it can not be too .strongly emphasized that this 
 production of seed is at the expense of the fiber. 
 
 How valuable this crop is may be seen when it is understood that the value of flax 
 seed annually grown in this country exceeds the value of all the flax fiber raised in 
 Great Britain and Ireland, equals the value of the celebrated Belgian flax crop, is far 
 in excess of the value of the Dutch crop, and is four or five times more valuable than 
 all the flax fibers, straw, and tow of flax now imported into this country for domestic 
 manufacture, while it is of ten times greater value than all the manufactures of linen 
 imported, other than woven fabrics, which are not manufactured here except in 
 limited quantity. The two Dakotas alone produce flax seed to the extent of double 
 the value of all the flax fiber imported. The farmer has already sufficient protection 
 for this industry of seed-raising in the duties on linseed-oil and oil-cake, the two prod- 
 ucts of the seed. For these the farmer finds a ready market with an assured and 
 steady demand for the oil-cake, which has proveil itself a valuable food for cattle. 
 But the farmer must choose between his seed crop and fiber production ; he can not 
 have both from the same field. It may now be seen why the farmer does not grow 
 fine flax. To put it in the words of farmers quotoil to the Tariff Commission in 1883 
 (p. 995) : " Wi! could not undertake the prc])aration of flax fiber for manufacturing 
 purposes; it is altogether out of our powei- to do so; we have not the knowledge or 
 the time for jl, ;" or, again, another i'armer was quoted as saying: "If I was to culti- 
 vate flax especially for its fillers, 1 would have to bestow a groat dc:i,l more labor and 
 care ou it, and have to sow fuur times'as niucli Kie<l, aud Ijireier my pri'sent mode of 
 culture." Or listen to the suuuniiig up Ity the (Joegrcssioii.U Coinraissinii in 1>'()4, after 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 605 
 
 a long and careful investigatiou. They say : "The raising of marketable flax for long 
 line imposes too many burdens on the grower, and is produced at too great a sacri- 
 fice of seed to warrant its extensive cultivation in this country. * * * It seems 
 to be better adapted to countries of humid climate, and of comparatively small areas 
 of cultivation, subdivided among a dense population, accustomed to cheap hand la- 
 bor." Even the Flax and Hemp Spinners' Asociation seem to have adopted this view, 
 for in the Hudson River region, formerly famous for its " North River flax," this as- 
 sociation offers prizes for hemp growing ; and the flax mills there are making special 
 inducements to the farmers to raise hemp, a crop requiring much less careful culti- 
 vation than flax. 
 
 The diificulty of the repugnance of the farmer to the cultivation of fine flax is, so 
 far as it goes, insurmountable, but a further diffiC'Ulty in the way of the farmer lies 
 in the lack of a ready market. It must not be supposed that the flax plant when 
 gathered is in a marketable condition. The flax tiber must first be separated from 
 the woody pith, and that operation, which is done by band, is a dirty and disagreeable 
 operation, requiring great technical knowledge and skill, and the success of the proc- 
 ess determines largely the value of the fiber. The details of this process need not he 
 gone into. Suffice it to say that as yet no successful method has been discovered 
 for doing this work by machinery, and that much of it must still be done by the 
 grower of the flax. I understand that experiments have been made tending to show 
 the feasibilty of performing these processes by machinery, but even assuming that 
 these inventions are successful, they are of no value to the farmer who does not reside 
 in the near vicinity of a mill. With these difticulties in the way, it will be readily 
 seen that the absence of any considerable home market for flax acts as a final dis- 
 conragement to farmers ; for one must admit that in spite of the protection accorded 
 to the linen industry, it is a small one. In 1883, a prominent manufacturer told the 
 Tariff Commission that $10,000,000 would cover the capital invested in this industry. 
 There has been no great increase since that time ; in fact, some flax-spinning mills 
 have recently been turning their attention to the spinning of hemp. In 1888 we 
 paid nearly $6,000,000 in duties on imported linen goods. The path of the industry 
 is strewn with wrecks of unsuccessful linen mills. The Flax and Hemp Spinners' 
 Association, in their memorial to the Tariff Commission in 1883, represented that 
 "several millions of dollars have been expended by more than fifty flax-spinning 
 mills in an effort to manufacture linen goods iu the United States; but although 
 capital was not lacking the American Linen Company, of Fall River, Mass., the Willi- 
 mantic Linen Company, the United States Linen Company, the Sprague Linen 
 Company, and many others had to abandon business * * * so that the present 
 manufacturing estalilishments number about one dozen." The Congressional Com- 
 mission in 1864, in referring to the same fact, attribute the failure to the insufficient 
 home supply of raw material and the high duty on foreign stock. 
 
 I would urge upon you that the manufacture of linen does not receive any encour- 
 agement by having raw material of sufiicient quality grown on the spot. It would 
 not develop, but cease to exist unless supplied with material from abroad. The de- 
 velopment of the manufacture is the only means of encouraging the production of 
 superior flax. The market must be created forthe farmer, or he will notattempt the 
 growth of a crop requiring care and skill. The manufacture of fine yarns and linens 
 necessitates a selection from the flax raised in various countries. The diflFerent soils 
 and climates and the treatment of the fiber after it is gathered produce widely vary- 
 ing grades of flax. In order to produce a varied line of linens, the manufacturer 
 should have all flax-growing countries open to him. We should aim to foster the 
 spinning industry which exists, and it should not be injured to benefit an industry 
 that does not exist. 
 
 The manufacture of linen can best be encouraged by the introduction of the raw 
 material, whether dressed or undressed, free of duty ; and with this development 
 the farmer will in time find a profitable market open to him. 
 
 In this connection, it is interesting to note that while raw cotton has long been on 
 the free list, yet the imports of that article have been rapidly increasing. Four 
 million pounds, valued at $500,000, imported iu 1887, have become 8,000,000 pounds, 
 valued at $1,200,000, in 1889, and yet the cotton-grower does not complain. 
 
 Meeting now, briefly, the arguments advanced against our proposal, I have al- 
 ready said much bearing on the argument that so long as the possibility of raising 
 iiax in this country exists, the small duty .should not be removed. If I have shown 
 anything, however, it is that the present duty has not been in tho least a help to 
 flax-growing, and it would not be even if it were much larger. What the farmer 
 needs is not protection; the soil and climate are as much a protection to tho flax- 
 grower as to our cotton-grower or the wheat-grower. Rest assured that if with our 
 varied soil and climate the American farmer does not compete with the foreign flax- 
 grower, it is because he does not wish to, and not because he has insuflicient protec- 
 tion. What he needs is a ready market and instruction and encouragement in the 
 tedious process of flax culture, and no duty can supply the place of these. I ehai- 
 
506 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 leoge any one to say what benefit this duty has been to the farmer or is likely to be 
 The most that can be said is that the duty is intended as protection to the farmer, 
 even if it does not actually operate as such. 'I'he only answer to this hope for the 
 future argument is to point to the past and show the uselessness of a protective duty 
 in stimulating flax culture. 
 
 The other argument needs only to be stated to show its fallacy. It is, in eifect, 
 that the manufacturer of linen can not consistently ask for protection without ac- 
 cording it to the flax-grower, and that if he assents to the removal of the duty on the 
 raw material he must expect an attack on the duty on the finished jiroduct. This 
 argument leaves out of account that, while themanufacti'rer, who is to be protected, 
 exists, the flax-grower can hardly be said to exist in this country. I venture to as- 
 sert that the whole value of American fine flax produced this year does not equal the 
 amount of the duty paid ou the imported flax at the ridiculously low rate of 7 or 8 
 per cent, ad valorem. It seems to be forgotten, also, that every duty should stand 
 on its own merits, and that the protective system does not attempt to justify any 
 duty that is not necessary for the protection of the industry for the sake of which it 
 is imposed. Any duty which is not protective in its nature can make no claims for 
 its retention on the protective system. Therefore, it comes with ill grace from man- 
 facturers to insist on the retention of the duty on something that can not be pro- 
 tected, because it does not exist, merely because they fear an attack on their own 
 protection. It is for the growers to come forward and state the reasons why they 
 wish the duty retained. They should show themselves and be ready to give the 
 approximate number and location of the flax-growers, the amount of capital invested, 
 and the extent of the benefit to the growers from the duty. The nation pays about 
 1150,000 annually in duties on the raw material. The growers must show that the bene- 
 fit to them from this duty outweighs the injury to the manufacturer and the con- 
 sumer who pay the duty. I challenge them to show anything of the kind. 
 
 But it may be said that, as in the case of the wool schedule, part of the duty on 
 the manufactured product is compensatory for the duty on the raw material ; that is, 
 that the duty on the finished product, varying from 30 to 40 per cent, ad valorem, is 
 made up of the duty necessary to protect the manufacturer plus the duty imposed 
 on the raw material, and that the manufacturer had rather pay the small specific 
 duty on his raw material than run the risk of an adverse re-adjustment of the ad 
 valorem duty on the finished product. A glance at the history of the legislation dis- 
 poses of this view of the case. The manufactured product has been subject to a duty 
 of at least 2.5 per cent, ever since 1816 The duty was placed at 30 per cent, in 18fil, 
 when the specific duty of $1.5 per ton was imposed on the raw material, and when 
 the duty on the raw material was increased to its present figure in 1870 no change 
 was made in the duty on the finished product. The tariff of 1883 reduced the duties 
 on the finished products but made no change in those on the raw material. Thus the 
 two sets of duties have been imposed as independently of each other as if they were 
 on different subject matters, and there is no basis for the assertion that any part of 
 the duty on the uianufactured article is compensatory for the duty on the raw ma- 
 terial. 
 
 Our proposal is that the duties on raw flax in all its various forms be removed. 
 The duties are at present i|40 per ton on dressed and $20 per ton on undressed flax ; 
 $10 per ton on tow and $5 per ton on the straw — all specific duties, the larger duties 
 varying from 7^ to 8| per cent, ad valorem. The imports of raw flax have been oon- 
 tantly increasing, the imports for 1889 amounting to 7,896 tons, valued at over 
 $2,000,000, as against 5,446 tons in 1881 and 1,927 tons in 1870. The duties paid on 
 raw flax in 1888 amounted to $139,567 ; in 1887, |154,.508. With the additional ad- 
 vantage to the manufacturer from the removal of these duties he will be the better 
 able to compete with the foreign manufacturer. At the present time little if any 
 fine linen cloths are made in this country. Ourmanufacturesconsist of twine, thread, 
 and coarse fabrics. Our imports of linen goods in 1888 amounted to $16,.500,000 and 
 in 1887 to over $15,000,000. There is no reason why much of this enormous amount 
 of linen could not have been manufactured in this country ; at least every opportunity 
 should be given to American capital and labor to extend into this broad field, and 
 certainly such hindrances as duty on a raw material not grown in this country should 
 be removed. 
 
 We have built up a great industry in weaving silk in this country. The raw ma- 
 terial can be produced here, but nevertheless raw silk is on the free list, and in 1889 
 we imported over 5,000,000 pounds of raw silk valued at $18,.500,000 to feed our silk 
 manufactories, and in the same year our imports of raw flax were valued at only 
 $2,000,000. Give the flax manufactuJers a chance to develop their industry without 
 the drag of a tax on their raw material, which does and must come from abroad, just 
 as the silk manufacturer is given free scope for his industry, although silk raising is 
 far froru impossible and actually exists in some parts of our vast country. We ask 
 that the duties be entirely removed from all grades of raw flax, the dressed and the un- 
 dressed, and we do so with a full uiidorstauding of the claim that is made that the 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 507 
 
 dressed flax is a manufactured product;, and, as such, is entitled to a protection. A 
 little consideration, however, wiU show how very little there is in this distinction. 
 The undressed flax is the fiber from which the woody pith has been removed by a me- 
 chanical process far more laborious than the later process to be described. Before 
 this fiber is in a condition to be spun, the short fibers, or tow, and the bits of chaif 
 and bark must be combed out. This combing, or haclding as it is called, is a simple 
 drawing of the flax over a Ktcel comb until the fiber is clean ; not a very intellectual 
 process, and not one that requires any very high degree of intelligence, but this is the 
 process for which protection is aslied. How many persons there are engaged in this 
 industry in the United States I cannot say, but the dozen or so linen mills can hardly 
 employ more than a few hundred men, and yet in 1887 the protection paid for these 
 men amounted to nearly $34,000. The Flax and Hemp Spinners' Association pub- 
 lished in 1886 a table of the average rates of wages in the flax-spinning trade in Eu- 
 rope and America, hut they omitted the hactlers, who were perhaps oif not suflicient 
 importance to appear in this table. 
 
 Moreover, let me ask the hackler what good the duty does him. From 1884 to 1887 
 the imports of hackled flax increased less than 20 per cent., while the imports of un- 
 dressed flax showed a gain of 75 per cent, in the same time. This does not look as 
 thougli the hackler was suffering from insufficient protection, and yet in the very 
 next year (1888) the imports of dressed flax jumped from 1,236 tons to 1,696, and im- 
 ports of undressed flax fell from 4,64n tons to 3,136 tons, showing that for this year 
 the American manufacturer found it cheaper to have his flax hackled abroad. Can 
 the manufacturers tell us what has become of the faithful hacklers who served them 
 in previous years, and can they tell us why this was when the protection to the 
 hackler was unchanged? Has the tariff anything to do with it? The hackler's 
 knowledge of handling flax gives him a position in the mill that his employer ap- 
 preciates and can utilize, and we need have no fears for the future of the hacklers 
 with the raw material on the free list. 
 
 If the American manufacturer could use the tow combed out in this hackling 
 process more could be said for this duty, but in some cases, I am informed, the man- 
 ufacturer finds it necessary to re-export this tow to countries where it can be used to 
 better advantage than it can here. Is it not absurd to compel the manufacturer to 
 import a waste product which he is forced to re-export ? 
 
 Furthermore, what is the basis for this difference in the duty between dressed and 
 undressed flax ? It was never heard of prior to 1870, when a private need and par- 
 ticular interests secured the difl'erentiation. Before that time the duty was uniform 
 at $15 per ton, and the hackler did not complain. Wliy should those interests shelter 
 themselves now behind a cry in behalf of the hackler f There is as much propriety 
 in taxing dressed and undressed flax at different rates as there would be in taxing 
 reeled silk and admitting the cocoons free, because the reeling is a mechanical proc- 
 ess entitled to protection. Yet both reeled silk and cocoons are on the free list, and 
 the amount of reeled silk imported is annually increasing and the amount of cocoons 
 decreasing to the apparent detriment of the American reeler. Yet no one can ques- 
 tion that the American silk industry is a gainer by the present rule. Eighteen and a 
 half million of dollars worth of raw silk as against $2,000,000 worth of raw flax 
 imported in 1889, show this. Why, for instance, while raw cotton is ou the free list 
 should not a duty be imposed on the ginned article as a protection to the American 
 cotton manufacturer? Ginning cotton is an analogous operation to the hackling of 
 flax. Both processes are necessary to prepare the fiber for spinning. Yet persons 
 who would laugh at the idea of a duty on ginned cotton while the ungiuned was ad- 
 mitted free seriously insist on a similar distinction in the flax industry. Let it be 
 recognized that dressed flax is in every sense of the term a raw material and should 
 be treated as snch. No manufacturer of linen represented here can say that the duty 
 on the raw material is a benefit to him . If he says that it is a benefit to any one else, 
 then it is incumbent on him to prove his assertion and to show by facts and statis- 
 tics the amount and extent of tlie benefit he claims. We challenge him to do this. 
 
 We boldly and confidently deny that the present duties on raw flax are a benefit to 
 either manufacturer or grower; nay, rather a hinderance to both by limiting the in- 
 dustry of the former and thus restricting the market of the latter. 
 
 If Congress desires to make any change in the tariif at all there is no better place 
 to begin than on the duty on raw flax, dressed and undressed. It is a duty for which 
 the protective theory furnishes no excuse, for it is not in any sense a protective duty. 
 It is a tax pure and simple ; a tax that, however much needed in time of war, is not 
 needed in the present state of the revenue, and we submit that the highest interest 
 of the flax and linen industry in this country requires that this tax should be removed. 
 
 The Chairman. Is it impossible to grow ilax both for the seed and fiber? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. It is, because where the flax is grown for seed the fiber is coarse. 
 
 The Chairman. Will you state about what proportion of flax goods and goods into 
 which flax enters as a oomj)onent part consumed by the people of this country is 
 made here and what proportion imported ? 
 
508 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. WrriTMAN. As to tlie actual amouut profluced, I can uot say because the two 
 do not come so uxuch in competition. It is made mostly into thread and twine. 
 
 The Chairman. You have substantially an American market for the amount of 
 goods you produce? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you not know how they compare in value with the foreign 
 Ijroduct ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I could not state the amount of annual production except to say 
 that the capital invested is $10,000,000. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. As a matter of fact, this importation is not in competition with you 
 at all ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I do not so understand it. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Why could not the duties be reduced ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. That is what I hope to impress upon this committee. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Your argument is that you could not endure a reduction of duties 
 on the finished product ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I should say there is a possibility that linen goods could be made 
 in this country. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. There has been a duty on flax, for eighty-four years, and still that is 
 not made here. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. It has not been so large as on other things. We have had a duty 
 of 35 cents since 1840. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Would it not be like trying to produce oranges in Pennsylvania ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I do not think a duty would help. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You think the price could be put up so as to compensate linen 
 nianufacturers ? I believe you said it was possible to do it. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Yes, sir; it is possible. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. After eighty -four years of production this industry has not been es- 
 tablished in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you see any reason why the duties should not be largely re- 
 duced? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. None unless the manufacturers might need some protection. I am 
 not prepared to say how much would enable them to manufacture. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How much capital is invested in the manufacture of flax ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. Ten millions of dollars. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. About how many men are employed ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I can not tell. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Are you a manufacturer yo rself ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I am not. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Have you any particular reason to state why the flax industry has 
 gradually gone down year after year ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I suppose it is partly owing to the fact that cotton goods are used 
 so much. For the last century we have raised a great deal of cotton in this country. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you remember the time in the State of New York and New Eng- 
 land when every farmer, when he bought a place, would sow it in flax, and when 
 tow linen breeches were worn to a great extent ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I think that was the case, but I do not remember. 
 
 Mr. Flower. As the country gets settled, the flax-grower is moved west, but it was 
 the first crop in the olden times. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. In New York and at the North they raised fine flax. 
 
 The Chairman. What interest do you represent ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. The spinning industry in Massachusetts. 
 
 The Chairman. If you had free flax, what duty would you want on the product ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I do not think I should ask any change in the tariff on the finished 
 product. 
 
 The Chairman. You would not advise a reduction ? 
 
 Mr. Whitman. No, sir ; I think not. 
 
 STATEMENT OP A. E. TURNER, JR. 
 
 Mr. A. R. Turner, president of the Flax and Hemp Spinners and Growers' Associa- 
 tion, appeared before the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. I would like to know who Mr. 
 Whitman, the attorney from Boston, represents, and also to know who are the own- 
 ers of the mill. 
 
 Mr. Whitman. I represent Finlayson, Bousfield & Co., flax spinners at Grafton, 
 Mass., and J. E. Lecson & Co., flax and linen goods, Boston. 
 
 Mr. Turner. In presenting our views in relation to the flax and hemp schedule, 
 we hand you a statement of iiuports for 1888 ( onipilod from official reports. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 509 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do I understand that you represent the growers and manufact- 
 urers ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. I am president of tlie Flax and Hemp Spinners and Growers' Associa- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Turner submitted the following papers : 
 
 Duty-paying imports of the United States. 
 [Heme consumption. — For tlie year ending JuBe 30, 1888. — Compiled from official reports.] 
 
 Articles. 
 
 Invoice valnea. 
 
 Daties paid. 
 
 Dotiesre- 
 
 dnced to 
 
 ad valorem. 
 
 G-unpowder and explosives — 
 Tobacco and mannlactuies of.. 
 
 Snt^ar. candy, molasses, etc 
 
 Rice . 
 
 Liquors — spirituous, malt, etc . 
 
 Lead, and manufactures of 
 
 Chicory root 
 
 Glass and fclassware 
 
 Wool, and manufactures of 
 
 Eai-tlien and china ware 
 
 Salt. 
 
 Silli, manufactures of . 
 
 Zinc, spelter, etc 
 
 Tin, manufactaies of . 
 Hops 
 
 Yamishes 
 
 Fancy articles 
 
 Iron and steel, manufactures of 
 
 Brass, and manufactures of 
 
 Cotton, manufactures of 
 
 Umbrellas, parasols, shades, etc 
 
 (yOpper, and manufactures of... 
 
 Marble, stone, and manufactures of 
 
 Chemicals, drugs, dyes, etc -- 
 
 Carriages and parts - - 
 
 Clays or earths 
 
 Metals, etc - 
 
 Paints and colors 
 
 Art works, paintings, eto 
 
 Brushes 
 
 Leather, and manufactures of 
 
 Fruits and nuts 
 
 India rubber, gutta percha,manufactures of . 
 
 Soap of all kinds 
 
 Gold and silver, and manufactures 
 
 Hair, and manufactures of 
 
 Flax, hemp, jute, etc 
 
 Clocks, watches, and parts 
 
 Oils. 
 
 Books and printed matter . 
 
 Musical instruments 
 
 Vegetables 
 
 Provisions 
 
 Buttons 
 
 Coal and coke 
 
 Hats, bonnets, hoods, etc . . . 
 Fish. 
 
 Mattings for floors (of vegetable substances, etc) . . . 
 
 Hay 
 
 Furs, and manufactures of 
 
 Animals 
 
 Cement 
 
 Ginger ale 
 
 Wax, and manufactures of 
 
 Paper, and manufactures of 
 
 Seeds . 
 
 Wood, and manufactures of 
 
 Grease 
 
 Bristles 
 
 Breadstnffs 
 
 Minerals 
 
 Jewelry and precious stones 
 
 Cocoa, prepared and manufactured, including cocoa 
 
 butter, up to 1888 
 
 All other articles 
 
 Total 468,143,773.98 
 
 12, 314, 
 68, 973, 
 
 2, 434, 
 
 10, 636, 
 208, 
 187, 
 
 7, 721, 
 61, 220, 
 
 6, 262, 
 1, 128, 
 
 32, 942, 
 
 227, 
 
 32, 
 
 1, 053, 
 
 85, 
 
 7, 237, 
 61, 079, 
 
 301, 
 28, 706, 
 154, 
 378, 
 976, 
 12, 814, 
 181, 
 320, 
 
 3, 024, 
 1, 239, 
 
 1, 440, 
 630, 
 
 11, 671, 
 15, 106, 
 
 295, 
 481, 
 632, 
 152, 
 3»,«12, 
 
 2, 046, 
 1,165 
 2, 882. 
 1,827, 
 7,081, 
 2, 055, 
 3,705, 
 
 2, 968, 
 6, 748, 
 
 3, 065, 
 994, 
 978, 
 
 4,811, 
 4,601, 
 
 1, 896, 
 126, 
 
 21, 
 
 2, 377, 
 1, 997, 
 9, 381, 
 
 343, 
 1, 072, 
 
 8, 215, 
 170, 
 
 11, 032, 
 
 187. 41 
 428. 66 
 214.36 
 813. 22 
 366. 86 
 227. 00 
 012. 00 
 453. 31 
 
 148. 26 
 337. 59 
 070. 92 
 629. 03 
 942.40 
 798. 61 
 232. 55 
 400.88 
 822. 46 
 969. 71 
 090. 13 
 702. 67 
 6i3. 23 
 931. 36 
 622.56 
 525. 85 
 276. 74 
 803. 44 
 565. 33 
 091. 57 
 752. 78 
 845. 26 
 497. 21 
 551. 08 
 527. 89 
 047. 22 
 296. 23 
 651. 00 
 7.18.10 
 056. 24 
 
 558. 18 
 550. 36 
 628. 39 
 758. 66 
 942.32 
 308. 20 
 C78, 08 
 751.83 
 
 585. 27 
 589.84 
 672. 77 
 412.44 
 849.06 
 
 876. 19 
 
 987. 49 
 
 336. 07 
 .577. 11 
 689.81 
 280. 01 
 413. 00 
 006. 00 
 
 337. 07 
 
 580. 50 
 310.74 
 
 178, 058. 61 
 , 086, 714. 26 
 
 $312, 842. 42 
 
 9, 734, 987. 35 
 
 52, 007, 879. 89 
 
 1, 796, 817. 75 
 
 7, 663, 244. 19 
 
 146, 310. 25 
 
 121,188.-22 
 
 4, 799, 251. 52 
 
 36, 942, 607. 24 
 
 3, 568, 276. 56 
 552, 093. 75 
 
 16, 3.51, 685. 48 
 105, 027. 08 
 
 59, 328. 66 
 
 467, 861. 56 
 37, 711. 27 
 
 3, 022, 742. 22 
 
 21, 283, 832. 45 
 
 123, 624. 47 
 
 11, 491, 897. 37 
 
 60, 605. 09 
 120,934.64 
 372, 569. 68 
 
 4, 632, 441. 94 
 
 63, 446. 86 
 109, 898. 17 
 
 1,02.5,632.67 
 411, 795. 14 
 432, 225. 83 
 189, 253. 69 
 
 3, 479, 248. 89 
 
 4, 477, 535. 21 
 8.5, 685. 03 
 139, 398. 06 
 180, 904 56 
 43, 446. 70 
 10,302,0«5.;i2 
 630, 566. 42 
 292, 363. 32 
 720, 609. 77 
 456,907.12 
 
 1, 755, 650. 65 
 506, 160. 13 
 863, 309. 68 
 605, 785. 09 
 
 1,241,915.45 
 645, 506. 83 
 205, 368. 96 
 200, 809. 61 
 971,196.86 
 932, 369. 81 
 379, 375. 23 
 26,387.50 
 4, 267. 21 
 
 468, 919. 56 
 385, 052. 14 
 
 1, 685, 060. 17 
 
 66, 692. 30 
 
 148, 574, 62 
 
 1,115,811.23 
 21,098.06 
 
 1, 182, 334. 34 
 
 11,714.89 
 1, 339, 478. 24 
 
 213, 509, 801. 57 
 
 Per cent. 
 8L86 
 79.05 
 75.40 
 73.80 
 72.23 
 78.26 
 64.80 
 62.16 
 60.34 
 56.98 
 54 41 
 49.64 
 46.07 
 45.00 
 44.42 
 44.16 
 4L76 
 41.67 
 41.06 
 40.03 
 .^9 19 
 38.89 
 38,15 
 36,07 
 35,00 
 34.26 
 33,91 
 33, 23 
 30,00 
 30,00 
 29, 81 
 29,64 
 28,99 
 28,98 
 28.61 
 28,46 
 2(i.01 
 25.93 
 25.11 
 
 25. 00 
 25.00 
 24.79 
 24,62 
 23,03 
 22,43 
 21,60 
 21,06 
 20,65 
 20,52 
 20.19 
 20. (JO 
 20. 00 
 20,00 
 20,00 
 19.72 
 19.27 
 17.96 
 16.55 
 13,86 
 13.58 
 12,72 
 10,73 
 
 6,58 
 
 26, 33 
 
 * The value of tin cans is returned with the value of their' contents under free fish, which explains 
 the large amount paid for duties. 
 
510 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Amounts of additional and discriminating duties, also the values of all merchandise 
 withdrawn from warehouse on which the duty has been remitted, have been excluded 
 from the computation of the average ad valorem rate. 
 
 Summary of the principal duty-paying imports that amount to over |10,000,000 in invoice 
 
 value. 
 
 Articles. 
 
 Invoice values. 
 
 Duties paid. 
 
 Duties re- 
 duced to 
 ad valorem. 
 
 Sugar, candy, molasses, etc 
 
 Wool, and manufactures of 
 
 Iron and steel, and manufactures of . 
 
 Flax, hemp, jute, etc 
 
 Silk, manufactures of 
 
 Cotton, manufactnres of 
 
 Fruits and nuts 
 
 Cbemicals, drugs, dyes, etc 
 
 Tobacco, and manufactures of 
 
 Leather, and manufactures of 
 
 ■Jewelry and precious stones 
 
 Liquors — spirituous, malt, etc 
 
 $68, 973, 
 01, 220, 
 .53, 079, 
 
 :J!),812 
 
 32, 942, 
 28, 706, 
 15, 106, 
 12, 814, 
 12, 314, 
 11,671, 
 11, 032, 
 ID, 636, 
 
 214. .36 
 148. 20 
 969, 71 
 ,73S.tO 
 629. 03 
 702. 67 
 ,551.08 
 525, 85 
 428. 66 
 497. 21 
 310. 74 
 
 .$52, 007, 
 36, 042 
 21, 283, 
 
 10,;J02 
 
 16,351 
 11,491 
 4, 477, 
 4, 022, 
 9, 734, 
 3, 479, 
 1, 182, 
 7, 663, 
 
 879. 89 
 607. 24 
 832. 45 
 ,0!I5.82 
 , 685. 48 
 897. 37 
 535.21 
 441.94 
 987. 35 
 248.89 
 :, 334. 34 
 244.19 
 
 Per cent 
 75.40 
 60,34 
 41.67 
 2B.01 
 49,64 
 40,03 
 29.64 
 36.07 
 79.05 
 29.81 
 10.72 
 72.23 
 
 Summary of the imports, duties, and the amount of protection given tojihers and textiles. 
 
 Articles. 
 
 Invoice val- 
 uables. 
 
 Duties paid. 
 
 Duties re- 
 duced to 
 ad valorem. 
 
 1. "Wool, and manufactures of 
 
 2. Flax, hemp, .jute, and manufactnres of 
 
 3. Silk, manul^cturesof 
 
 4. Cotton, manufactures of 
 
 Dollars. 
 61, 220, 148. 26 
 3»,612,7.3S.10 
 
 32, 942, 629. 03 
 28, 706, 702. 67 
 
 Ihllars. 
 
 36, 942, 607. 84 
 
 10,302,095.32 
 
 16,3.51,685.48 
 
 11, 491, 897.-37 
 
 Ter cent 
 60.34 
 2li.01 
 49.64 
 40.03 
 
 The average duty. 
 
 1. Wool, and manufactures of 60. 34 
 
 2. Silk, manufactures of 49. 64 
 
 :i. Cotton, manufactures of 40. 03 
 
 4. Flax, hemp, jute, and manufactures of 26. 01 
 
 Fibers and textiles. — Statement of the average per cent, of ad -valorem duty upon manu- 
 factured goods, with the average duty on raw material. 
 
 Articles. 
 
 Average ad valorem duty. 
 
 Manufactured 
 goods. Not in- 
 cluding duty 
 on raw ma- 
 terial. 
 
 Kaw ma- 
 terial. 
 
 1. Wool 
 
 2. Silk 
 
 3. Cotton 
 
 4. Flax, hemp, and jute 
 
 08.31 
 49.64 
 40.03 
 34.39 
 
 33.63 
 Free. 
 Free. 
 
 14.39 
 
 The above covers an average of all items included in each classification ; some 
 items in each classifioatiou have more, and some less, than the average protection. 
 
KEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 511 
 
 Importation of manufactured flax, hemp, and jute, and other ve;/elahle suhstances, by coun- 
 tries, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1888. 
 
 
 Flax. 
 
 Hemp, and 
 
 substitutes 
 
 (or. 
 
 Jute. 
 
 Sisal grass 
 and other veg- 
 etable 
 substances. 
 
 
 Tons. 
 
 
 Tons. 
 28 
 363 
 250 
 
 579 
 
 U, 871 
 
 220 
 
 230 
 
 $3, 518 
 75, 313 
 38, OOO 
 202 
 eS, 363 
 1,899,409 
 37, 282 
 35, 754 
 
 Tons. 
 
 
 Tons. 
 
 
 
 1,092 
 
 $278, 532 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cliina 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 360 
 
 7 
 
 233 
 
 881 
 
 1,116 
 
 98, 047 
 1,165 
 
 44,882 
 4(14, 584 
 573, 220 
 
 18 
 
 6 
 
 2,207 
 
 611 
 
 $1, 135 
 
 267 
 
 90,761 
 
 30, 859 
 
 
 
 Germany .' 
 
 
 
 1,134 
 
 $191, 460 
 
 
 
 
 
 Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and 
 
 89 
 
 2,8'S 
 55 
 
 
 
 Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and N.W. 
 
 1,067 
 9 
 
 184, 747 
 1,223 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 112, 332 
 
 3,251,454 
 
 
 
 Australasia — British Possessions 
 
 13 
 
 i, 327 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1,299 
 
 214, 006 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 35, 267 
 
 5, 239, 432 
 
 
 392 
 521 
 
 102, 750 
 111 612 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 543 
 
 06, 811 
 
 10 
 
 4, 496, 119 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 32, ,562 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5,691 
 
 1, 802, 089 
 
 47, 947 
 
 6, 934, 887 
 
 115, 163 
 
 3, 377, 369 
 
 36,401 
 
 5, 430, 894 
 
 
512 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 "^ 
 
 OClSlOCOlOCS-WiO'JSOCCiOCO 
 
 CO ^j::' :^i CO c-i i~- CO oi CO Oi -* t ( 
 
 — .rQ<o CN CO C'-w-OCO 
 
 lO OO "^ o 
 
 lO O t~ (M CO — <M 
 -M O -^ lO CO CQ 
 
 ITS t~ 
 
 tH XI '^ CO M OJ CO 
 C-l L— -M 'X- lO so 00 
 
 <M Tf *ri CO CO 00 'O 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 5 
 
 
 Oi O M t- 
 Tt> — (T I 'CI 
 
 O lO 00 o 
 
 71 ca 00 o 
 
 lOi-KZiQ-t 
 
 O CO o to 
 
 1-H lO CO 
 
 co"ci" 
 
 
 
 rt rt p S 
 -^ « « ^i 
 
 pa stcz; ■^ 
 
 CO S 
 
 00 'o ■/: i— 1 
 
 L- -f CD 1-2 
 
 00 
 
 r— -+ m. .Ti 
 
 C^ (M --Zi C> 
 
 
 ,-1 CI C.7 CO 
 
 o 00 r-. CI .— 1 gi 
 
 CO C~ Cj L- O 
 
 
 ] CTi a- 
 
 p,« 
 
 W C3 
 
 
 
 a s 
 
 90^ 
 
 ^-f^^J 
 
 
 J3W 
 
 O O 
 
 
 <1M 
 
 ■S Or:.! 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 513 
 
 Mt>b- iM N Cfl 
 
 t- O rWCDt- O 
 5.1 C-J -itjl 
 
 2i ! H 0) CO 
 
 Q f^ n d-2 =^ 
 
 S a .„ .M to •^ 
 "S .^ ■2 "S S a 
 
 485- 
 
 -33 
 
514 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 
 ■-. 
 
 a, 
 
 8 
 
 1^ 
 
 2 I 
 1 88 
 
 |-_ 
 
 so 
 
 93 CO 
 
 "^ 
 
 O O t>> 
 < 
 
 ■a 
 
 -oo^»otDiat~acioi<=>oo 
 
 tCO 0<-HCOr-(C-l(>-Ttl<£)C^ 
 
 ooojoiift — r-ic-i'^inT 
 
 CI CO tOOSt-O OJClc^iA 
 
 <D to "*" C^ 3* O U- 
 
 o o -J a 
 
 O oa « *^ t~ (» *5 
 ■* OO CI OJ O 
 
 -co 
 
 lO =r. o 
 
 1-1 CO * . 0» r-( T 
 
 d 
 
 fl 1=; a d a* 
 
 d a 
 
 ooflooooo5«oo 
 
 o o ^o lo o mo "* "^lo irt 
 ■^cjint-Hci-HC-j,— .oo.— (1— t 
 
 S-- 
 
 Sflfc' 
 
 s° 
 
 « o _£:; o 
 
 M ti 
 
 :^W^c/iH 
 
 d p3 
 
 !?j 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 t^ 
 
 <M <0 O) I- 
 lO O O f 
 00 Ol Ol 
 
 CO tN 
 
 Oi 
 
 (DO lOO 
 lOOO O 
 
 (M 
 
 00 OMCO 
 
 3 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ^«l=^ 
 
 -lO ifi"CD 
 
 in " 
 
 a n a a 
 
 Oj (B © 
 
 o « « 2 
 p tH c-i d 
 
 U (O U 0) 
 
 lo lo m Hw 
 
 CO CO CO r-( 
 
 I 
 
 t+M o ™ !^ '-2 P^'JI^ « 3 -^ ifcH '3 
 
 g-«gga2„-ggo-g 
 
 t^A^ S „ n S'^ a « ^'S 
 
 oS»fcgg°=3§°a ■" 
 
 ^5 
 
 
 ^ " fl CD © 
 
 2tj 
 cZO 
 
 ^ L. IT* ^"""^v. "1=1+^ tud OS'S o '-^ 
 
 
 w a 
 
 hn 
 
 ' S'3 a g 01 
 
 SWH=-55-gS|agS^^ 
 
 
 CD a 
 
 S ® fl 
 Cm 4J O 
 
 p-t: 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 515 
 
 as 
 
 
 Oi CO 
 CO t~ 
 
 la lO "^ CO 
 
 t* to rl 
 
 oioc^ to <M 00 O CD ^^ t 
 Soo »ft «D 00 i-i 50 m - 
 
 C^ 00 05 -* 
 
 in lo (o ro 
 CO -tji 00 Ci 
 CO -* 
 
 -3" --D 
 CO o 
 
 o to 00 in CO 
 
 h d ^ ^ 
 
 0) Q A o 
 
 o<o in o 
 
 •* CO -^ 
 
 o o 
 
 IS <D 
 
 O ift 
 
 CO CO 
 
 pj ® ® -o 
 
 <D V O P4 
 
 ftp* 
 
 
 
 3 b 9 " 
 -■5 Sj 
 
 S.a 
 
 ^'o 
 
 "^ 'ii ^ ;- >» * 
 
 h 5 
 o g 
 
 
 
 • -- ° s 
 
 <t3'0 « t-i ™'^ 
 <o <£) ^1 O 9 a; 
 
 P o a K ■_ © 
 
 p^ o rt oj- * 2 o a 
 
 -irf ffj ty^ be ^, - H 
 
 p. ft 
 
 I'd o 
 
 '9^ 
 
 a 
 
 O '^ m © 
 
 a ca - 
 PI +^co ca 
 
 ^ o — o 
 ^ ftO-i 
 
 a 
 
 3 O O 
 
 a on;:: S5 " 
 
 
 '■a-s 
 
 O Si 
 
 =« ago.- |a 
 
 .9 '^ '" 
 
 £S« 
 
 — — -'B rt S s^ 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 a a 
 
 O O H*0 
 
 
 e = " <^s = 3 
 yuO O to 
 
 Imv si 
 
 <D '-2 O -^ ^ O 
 
 o s ^ C 3 ft 
 
 • a m =3 - •- o S 
 
 1;-^ a M M M ^ rt 
 
 o S-— 
 
 -s a 
 
 PI M 
 
 g <rt 
 
 3 3 
 
 o o 
 
 H H 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 ;4|a a g 
 
 ^ o 
 » p< 
 
 l.§ 
 
 §^ 
 
 be 3 
 
 O i o 
 
516 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The reports ahovr the position of the imports of flax, hemp, and jute, and the rela. 
 tive position of our schedule in comparison with other leading articles of import. Of 
 sixty-three leading articles of import, thirty-six have a greater protection than the 
 flax, hemp, and jute schedule ; in fact no item of leading import has so small protec- 
 tion. 
 
 If you take the twelve leading items of imports, our schedule ranks fourth in 
 value ; or if you consider the entire list of imports, including those on the free list, 
 our schedule is fifth in value. Classed among the textiles, we rank second in value 
 of imports, but at the foot of the list in the matter of protection. 
 
 The printed tables also give a detailed statement of duty on raw materials and on 
 manufactured goods, as well as showing the quantities received from the diflerent 
 countries. 
 
 The official report for 1889 is not yet issued, but through the courtesy of the Chief 
 of Bureau of Statistics of Treasury Department, we are enabled to present to you a 
 summary of imports for 1889. 
 
 Flax, hemp, jute, etc., and manufactures of, entered for consumption, including Tiotk entries 
 for immediate consumption and imtlidraioals from warehouse for consumption during the 
 year ending June 30, 1889. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Dnty collected. 
 
 Average 
 
 ad valorem 
 
 duty. 
 
 Unmaniifactured 
 Manufactures of 
 
 Total 
 
 $18, 467, 822. 30 
 25, 955, 222. 78 
 
 $2, 482, 746. 30 
 8, 926, 802. 12 
 
 44, 423, 045. 08 
 
 11,409,548.42 
 
 Per cent, 
 13.44 
 34.39 
 
 25.68 
 
 FIBERS AND TEXTILES— PER CENT. OF DUTY COLLECTED. 
 
 
 Unmanu- 
 factured. 
 
 Manufact- 
 ured. 
 
 Average 
 
 ad valorem 
 
 duty. 
 
 "W'ool ■ 
 
 34.31 
 Free. 
 Free. 
 13.44 
 
 67.14 
 49.61 
 39.99 
 34.39 
 
 58 99 
 
 Silk 
 
 
 Cotton 
 
 39 99 
 
 
 25.6S 
 
 
 "We submit to you that we have not the same protection accorded to other indus- 
 tries, and the reasons for the large imports is, that the present rates of duty will not 
 admit of many lines of goods in the flax and hemp schedule being manufactured in 
 this country at a profit. 
 
 The United States is said to be the largest consuming 'country in the world of 
 linens, and it is possible with reasonable protection to develop a large linen industry 
 within our own borders. 
 
 The Department of Agriculture are paying special attention to the subject of fibers, 
 and we present herewith an extract from the report of Hon. J. M. Rusk, Secretary of 
 the Department of Agriculture, and to which we request your special consideration: 
 
 THE TEXTILE FIBERS. 
 [Extract from first report of Hon. J. M. Rusk, Secretary of Agriculture.] 
 
 "I have given much thought since assuming ray duties to the subject of fibers, a 
 subject whose importance can not be overestimated, and I have found a wide-spread 
 interest in the matter of a promotion of the cultivation and manufacture of flax, jute, 
 and ramie, and other textile fibers. The correspondence of the Department on"this 
 subject has become very large. In the States of Indiana, Illinois and all the North- 
 west, large amounts of flax are raised for the seed alone. The question now is, can 
 not the fiber be utilized also? While the cultivation of jute and ramie can hardly 
 be classed, as yet, beyond the experimental stage, enough has been grown to justify 
 the belief that iu most of the Southern States they can be produced in abundance and 
 of good qualify. 
 
 "The question, therefore, is not so much whether this country can produce all these 
 fibers, as whether the farmer can find a market for those he may produce. The manual 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 517 
 
 • 
 
 labor heretofore necessary in tlie separation of the fiber from the stalt has, in compe- 
 tition with the cheaper labor of other countries, rendered it impossible for the fiber 
 industry here to maintain an economic standing, and our only hope lies in the inven- 
 tion of decorticating machines, that shall take the dry stalls, or the green one, as the 
 case may be, and produce in one, or at most two operations, the fiber in a short time 
 with a minimum of cost, and without the primitive manual labor incident to the rot- 
 ting, breaking, hatcheling, pounding, etc. 
 
 "Within the last five years the mechanical genius of both continents has been 
 directed to the invention of machinery to accomplish these results. It is claimed 
 emphatically that there are one or more such for the rendering of flax. Several ma- 
 chines and processes for the rendering of the ramie fiber, which is far more difficult 
 than that of flax, are claiming.public consideration, but the tests of their efficiency at 
 this date, as reported to this Department, have not fully demonstrated their economic 
 success ; still there has been such substantial progress made in the last five years, 
 that we seem to be approaching the solution of the problem. 
 
 " Seeing the importance of this subject, I have taken advantage of the presence at 
 the Paris Exposition of a gentleman versed in this subject, and have commissioned 
 him to investigate all the fiber machines on exhibition there, to visit all the flax and 
 hemp growing countries of Europe, to examine the flax machines in operation, and 
 the ramie machines wherever tested, and to report thereon fully. I am seeking for 
 information from every quarter likely to give it, and to do all that can be done to 
 promote an industry that will, if successful, save to this country $20,000,000 annually, 
 and which may take the place of raising of wheat aud other cereals in States where 
 their production is not now profitable. I sfiall ask from Congress an appropriation to 
 enable me to prosecute a more extended investigation of this subject." 
 
 The consideration now being given to the subject of flax culture and linen manu- 
 facture in this country is attracting the attention of foreign textile journals, and the 
 Irish Textile Journal, of Belfast, a recognized authority, in referring to this subject, 
 states as follows : "The main difficulties which have hitherto stood in the way in 
 competing with European countries in flax growing and manufacturing are not 
 changed ; the climatic circumstances, dear labor, and inexperience are the same ad- 
 verse factors as formerly." In another issue they say that " while other fibers may 
 perhaps be widely grown, flax certainly can." 
 
 The same journal refers to flax culture in Russia, and that additional attention is 
 being paid to it " now that the supply of other cereals is so much in excess of the 
 demand." 
 
 It will be seen that the opinions of our foreign competitors .are that "flax can be 
 grown here," but that "climatic circumstances, dear labor, and inexperience" are 
 barriers to our progress as manufacturers. 
 
 We regard climatic circumstances as not of serious moment, aud believe we can 
 overcome any difficulties in this direction. That we pay, and must continue to pay 
 more for labor we admit ; and if you will give us fair protection we will manufacture 
 our threads, twines, yams, and linens here, and in time overcome any disadvantage 
 we now have from inexperience. 
 
 The extracts from foreign publications are as follows : 
 
 FLAX CULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 [Qnotation from editorial in Irish Textile Journal, Belfast, NovemberlS, 1889] 
 
 "From the files of American papers which reach us, we find that the question of 
 flax cultivation for the fiber, with a view to the development of a linen industry, con- 
 tinues to supply the press with a 'live' topic to write about. In nearly every in- 
 stance of late, reference is made to the new ' five-minute process of retting flax' as 
 the El Dorado which is to revolutionize the whole business in the future. That some 
 further attempts to revive the manufacture of linen goods we doubt not will be made 
 from time to time, but the main difficulties which have hitherto stood in the way 
 in competing with European countries in flax growing and manufacture are not 
 changed ; the climatic circumstances, dear labor, and experience are the same adverse 
 factors as in 1873, when the Parliamentary report then published set out the reasons 
 why all previous attempts to found a large industry of the kind had failed. Though 
 we say this, it is nevertheless incumbent on us as manufacturers of linen goods to 
 still further, if possible, improve upon the past in the variety and styleof our fabrics, 
 so that we may hold the foremost place with our competitors in this important mar- 
 ket. " 
 
 FLAX CULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 [Quotation from editorial of the Irish Textile Journal, Belfast, December 15, 1889.] 
 
 "Although the fuss about fl.ax culture in the United States had almost dwindled 
 away, fresh attention will be directed to the matter by the recent report of the Sec- 
 retary of Agriculture, in which considerable prominence is given to the prospect of 
 
518 
 
 REVISION OF THE TAEIFE'. 
 
 saving the cour try an annual experditure of some $20,000,000 through the cultiva. 
 tion and profitable treatment of such textile fibers as flax, jute, and ramie. There is, 
 it must be said, every difference between departmental administration on the othei 
 side of the Atlantic and this, aud, although we have the advantage in some respects, 
 ■we may well envy the way in which officials there keep in touch with public neces- 
 sities, and the freedom and energy with which they endeavor to lead public opinion 
 and effort towards improvement. The questiou has arisen, whether the fiber of flax 
 can uot be utilized instead of the straw being thrown away, or, at best, plowed in to 
 help the next crop. Jute and ramie, may, perhaps, be widely grown, but flax cer- 
 tainly can. It is generally planted on the extreme edge of cultivation. The settler' 
 takes it up to more effectually conquer the land he is bringing into subjection, but 
 deserts it soon after for better-paying cereals. Thus flax is generally the high-water 
 mark of advancement, although in some of the older States — in Indiana, Illinois, and 
 along the Northwest — large areas are planted for the sake of the seed. But in many 
 localities various causes have combined to render wheat-growing unprofitable, 
 and if flax, as a liber crop, could replace it, a double benefit would be gained. With 
 full recognition of the difficulties of labor cost which stand in the way, the Secretary 
 believes that we are approaching tlie solution of the problem of how to treat fiber 
 stalks by machinery, and that, in view of the substantial progress of the past five 
 years, it will not be long before cortical fibers, and flax among them will require 
 very little human labor to prepare them for use. 
 
 " We may feel quite certain that uu means will be left untried, nor expense spared 
 in securing what advantage can be gained for American agriculture and industry; 
 and although we may feel tolerably safe, intrenched behind our established trade, 
 ■we shall watch with close attention the progress of these State-aided experiments and 
 inquiries. 
 
 " PROGRESS OP FLAX CULTURE AND MANUFACTURES IN RUSSIA. 
 
 "Similar causes are stimulating the flax supply of Russia, more profitable occupa- 
 tion of the vast arable area of the Empire being eagerly sought after, now that the 
 supply of wheat and other cereals is so much in excess of demand. With India and 
 the United States pouring in increasingquantities of com, it is time for wheat-growing 
 countries to turn to some other crop not so generally grown, and Russia has already 
 an extensive and flourishing culture of flax only needing development. Its progress 
 has already "been remarkable, the exports having increased from 34,679 tons in 1824- 
 '2t), to 68,158 ton,'^ in 1848-50, and again to 116,778 tons in 1887, with every prospect of 
 further extension. This quantity is still far below theexportof 1884, which amounted 
 to 178,620 tons, although that likewise fell short of the maximum export of 288,5.54 
 tons in 1881. A peculiar, and in some respects enviable feature of Russia flax cult- 
 ure, is that peasants raise a larger quantity than landed proprietors. Very little is 
 really known of the industrial virtues and power of the great kustar population on 
 which the trade of Russia so largely depends ; and when we think of textile fibers 
 being brought completely under the control of machinery, we need to remember that 
 Russia has an immense population able to labor, with considerable hereditary skill, 
 and so poor, so able to adapt themselves to circumstances, that they can compete 
 with ull the resources of Birmingham in loctmaking, and hold their own in coarse 
 fabrics against all the mechanic development of Great Britain. Home-spun linen 
 prepared by the peasants amounted in 1884 to 116,700,000 yards. An official return 
 by Consul-General Way states that the first mills were introduced into Russia in the 
 sixteenth century. In 1809, Russia possessed 202 mills aud 18,727 looms, and raaun- 
 factured 16,530,000 yards of linen. Little by little, prices of mill products having de- 
 clined, the number of mills was reduced. Thus in 1830. Russia had 190 mills ; in 1853, 
 171; and. in 1863, 109, During the last years, however, an improvement has been 
 noticed, and the most recent statistics of mills and workmeu give these results : 
 
 
 Kussia in Ennope. 
 
 Poland. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 No. of 
 mills. 
 
 No. of 
 ■workmen. 
 
 No. of 
 mills. 
 
 No. of 
 workmen. 
 
 1880 
 
 158 
 163 
 1B4 
 160 
 160 
 
 24, 631 
 23, 688 
 32, 170 
 3.5, 991 
 38, 966 
 
 15 
 14 
 18 
 21 
 19 
 
 
 1881 . . .... 
 
 7,298 
 7 4"'5 
 
 1882 
 
 1883 . ... 
 
 8,402 
 7,810 
 
 1884... 
 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFI'. 
 
 519 
 
 Another interesting table, covering a wider per iod, gives the values of flax prod 
 nets exported, approximately in pounds ateiiiug : 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Yarn. 
 
 Sail- 
 cloth. 
 
 Flemish 
 linen. 
 
 Raven's 
 duck. 
 
 Towel- 
 ing. 
 
 Crash. 
 
 Table 
 linen. 
 
 1860 
 1865 
 1870 
 187i 
 1880 
 1885 
 
 12 
 
 1,880 
 
 153, 240 
 
 19, 720 
 
 7,600 
 
 12, 840 
 
 20 400 
 8,160 
 
 23, 500 
 9,000 
 
 13, 140 
 8,720 
 
 ,300 
 
 220 
 
 i 
 
 82 
 
 232 
 
 8,620 
 9,640 
 3,540 
 2,320 
 1,640 
 2,200 
 
 2,000 
 
 120 
 604 
 
 41, 300 
 98,800 
 37,24C 
 ■?!, 860 
 49, 100- 
 35, 440 
 
 3,220 
 8,140 
 
 24,280 
 7,240 
 
 20, 660 
 
 Referring agaiu to the large importations of linens to the United States we find 
 by statistics of the exports from the United Kingdom that the United States has been 
 their largest customer, and from their own record of exports we compile the follow- 
 ing table, which shows that the Uuited States received 52 per cent, of their exports in 
 "plain unbleached or bleached linens." This only covers a part of their exports of 
 linens, but covers many grades which should be manufactured in tlie United States. 
 
 Exports from United Kingdom of Great Britain of plain -unbleached or bleached linens. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Quantities 
 exported. 
 
 Declared 
 values ex- 
 ported. 
 
 Quantities 
 
 exported to 
 
 the United 
 
 States. 
 
 Declared 
 
 values of 
 
 exports to 
 
 the United 
 
 States. 
 
 1883 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 for 9 months 
 
 Yardg. 
 152, 163, 000 
 143, 672, 800 
 138, 18B, 600 
 152, 218, 000 
 152, 605, 600 
 161, .531, 800 
 127, 759, 100 
 
 £4, 408, 454 
 3,961,092 
 3, 653, 817 
 3, 792, 822 
 3, 800, 070 
 3, 749, 088 
 2, 942, 532 
 
 Yard^. 
 78, 169, 400 
 69, 638, 100 
 69, 839, 700 
 83, 116, 500 
 81,910,900 
 88, 698, 500 
 74, 306, 100 
 
 £2, 329, 267 
 1, 942, 528 
 1, 817, 286 
 
 1, 965, 670 
 
 2, 058, 663 
 2, 003, 428 
 1, 660, 691 
 
 Yards. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Total exports plain unbleached or bleached linens for six years and 
 
 nine months - 
 
 Portion of the above sent to the United States 
 
 Per cent, of quantity sent to the United States 
 
 P^ cent, of value sent to the United States 
 
 1, 028, 136, 800 
 545, 573, 200 
 53+ 
 52 + 
 
 £26, 368, 475 
 13, 767, 323 
 
 We to-day ask for an increase of dnty on some grades of linen goods that we may 
 have a home production for our home market. 
 
 We recommend the following rates of duty : Flax straw, |5 per ton ; flax not hackled, 
 $20 per ton ; tow of flax or hemp, $10 per ton ; hemp, $25 per ton ; dressed line of 
 flax, $60 per ton in place of the present rate of duty of $40 per ton. 
 
 The gentleman who first spoke, and who favored the admission of dressed line ot 
 flax free of duty, if I am correctly informed, represents the Grafton (Massachusetts) 
 Flax Mills, owned and operated by Finlayson, Bousfield & Co., of Johnstone, Scotland. 
 With the admission of dressed line of flax free of duty they could have the dressing 
 done abroad by cheap labor, and the product of their labor brought to this country 
 to the injury of AmericaTi spinners who do all their work here and to the injury of 
 the workers employed in dressing flax. 
 
 The present rate of duty of |40 is insufficient protection on dressed line of flax, and 
 $60 as asked is only a fair protection. 
 
 The first gentleman who spoke has asked about hacklers and where they have gon». 
 There are two hacklers here to-day. They come independent of our association. 
 They are not members of our association, and I did not meet them until this morn- 
 ing. Anything they ask will entirely concern themselves, not but that we are will- 
 ing to work with them. Their special interest is the workingmau, and they are here 
 to state their own case. Possibly they can tell where some of the hacklers have gone. 
 
 Linen weaving is limited in the United States, but it is possible to develop a large 
 manufacturing business if sufficient protection is given. 
 
520 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The Boston Thread and Twine Company, of Boston, Mass., recently made about 
 500,000 yards of linen crash, but have discontinued this department of their business 
 because the crashes could not be made at a profit. They also made small lots of 
 towels and other grades of linens, but found it impossible to do a profitable business 
 in these goods against foreign competition. [Samples of the woven linens referred 
 to were exhibited.] 
 
 We ask for a duty of 3 cents per pound and 50 per cent, ad valorem on all linen 
 coarser than 1600. (No. 1600 covering a linen counting 16 threads to three-sixteenths 
 of an inch or 8.5J threads to the inch). 
 
 We recommend a duty of 50 per cent, ad valorem on threads, twines, yarns. 
 
 We recommend a duty of 50 per cent, ad valorem on all other goods in the flax, 
 hemp, and jute schedule, not specially enumerated. 
 
 We recommend the present duty be retained of l$25 per ton on manilla hemp ; $15 
 per ton on sunn hemp ; $15 per ton on Sisal hemp, and $15 per ton on other vegeta- 
 ble substances not specially enumerated. 
 
 The duty, if retained on these fibers, will aid to stimulate the consumption of 
 American hemp binder twine. This twine has been used largely tbe past season, and 
 the last crop of American hemp is said to be 12,000 tons, and it is predicted that 
 15,000 to 20,000 tons will be raised this year. New machinery is being perfected for 
 the breaking and preparing of hemp, and with every prospect of success. 
 
 Samples of American flax grown at Green Bay, Wis., were shown, also the dressed 
 line from this flax, which is of excellent quality. 
 
 The statement was made by the first speaker that free flax would encourage a linen 
 industry in the United States, and that the duty placed on flax since 1860 had retarded 
 linen manufacturing, citing the lack of success of the United States Flax Spinning 
 Company, the American Linen Company, and others in support of bis statement. 
 
 The Chairman. What period do you refer to when flax was free ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. To the year 1853. I understand flax was free at that time. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Could they use American flax at that time ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. Crashes were made from American flax and tow, and the finer goods, 
 I may say, were not. 
 
 Reference to records in my possession show that the failure of the linen manufact- 
 nre was due to lack of protection, and not to the duty upon flax fiber. I will quote 
 as follows: 
 
 "American Linen Manufacturing Company, Fall River, Mass., was organized in 
 the year 1852, and commenced manufacturing in the year 1853. The first year they 
 purchased flax of the value of $138,000 aud commenced the manufacture of a variety 
 of goods, consisting of crashes, coatings, sheetings, pillow linen, damask towels, nap- 
 kins, table-cloths, huckabacks, etc. Crashes were made from Western flax and tow, 
 The finer goods were manufactured from Irish and Russian imported by the com.- 
 pany. These goods were sold in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. 
 Tlie business was commenced with a capital of |1, 000,000, and was run atalossfrom 
 the first and continuously until the year 1857, and was then stopped for about eight 
 months, when the finer goods were abandoned altogether, a portion of the coarse 
 work was put into a small building and run for a time, wlieu that was abandoned, 
 and the company decided to change to cotton. In the meantime tbe capital was 
 practically sunk, and the capital was reduced to $400,000. The linen manufacture 
 in Fall River commenced too early, and everytliing was done at too great a disad- 
 vantage to compete with imported cloths." 
 
 (Samples of linens as made by the American Linen Manufacturing Company were 
 shown.) 
 
 " The United States Flax Manufacturing Company, Central Falls, R. I., started in 
 1865 to make fine linens. Paid in capital $2^5,000. The linens could be made at less 
 cost in Europe, and principally for this reason the enterprise proved a failure." 
 
 " Willimantic Linen Company, organized in 1854. The original object of this com- 
 pany was the manufacture of linen goods, such as crash, toweling, and shoe-thread. 
 The business was soon interrupted by the failure of tbe supply of flax from southern 
 Russia, in consequence of the Crimean war in 1854-'55, and the attention of the com- 
 pany was turned to the manufacture of spool cotton." 
 
 The Chairman. What is the present duty on twine? 
 
 Mr. Turner. Forty per cent. 
 
 The importation last year of flax yarns was 788,000 pounds, and of hemp 602,000 
 pound,s. The value of linen thread was $572,691. We wish, if possible, to be able to 
 make all of that class of goods. It is in close competition with the foreign article as 
 we stand to-day. 
 
 A table of wages (compiled some time since, but which in its main features holds 
 good to-day) is submitted, showing comparative wages in Europe, and in the United 
 States. - 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 521 
 
 Ave7'age rates of wages paid in the flax-spinning trade, Europe and America. 
 [Mark, equal to 23.8 cents. Ruble, equal to 50 centa. Trano, equal to 19 cents.] 
 
 Sorters 
 
 Eoughers 
 
 Machine- worlsora 
 
 Spinnera 
 
 Reeltra , 
 
 Koving 
 
 Cardurs 
 
 Spreaders 
 
 Drawing... , 
 
 Doflers 
 
 Pruaaia, Silesia. 
 
 (Worl£ 72 hours per 
 
 week.) 
 
 Per week 
 of 60 hours. 
 
 Marks. 
 8.34 
 6.67 
 4.60 
 6.67 
 6.67 
 6.84 
 6.84 
 6.00 
 5.00 
 3.75 
 
 Equal to 
 TJ. S. cur- 
 rency. 
 
 Dollars. 
 2.00 
 1.60 
 1.15 
 1.60 
 1.60 
 1.40 
 1.40 
 1.20 
 1.20 
 
 Ehineland. 
 
 (Work 72 hours per 
 
 weelf.) 
 
 Per week 
 of 60 hours. 
 
 Marks. 
 15. 84 
 12.50 
 7.50 
 9.17 
 9.17 
 8.34 
 7 92 
 7.92 
 7.50 
 6.84 
 
 Equal to 
 U. S. cur- 
 rency. 
 
 Dollars. 
 3.75 
 3.00 
 1.78 
 2.18 
 2.18 
 2.00 
 1.88 
 1.88 
 1.78 
 1.40 
 
 G-erniany. 
 
 (Work 72 hours per 
 
 week.) 
 
 Per week 
 of 60 hours. 
 
 Marks. 
 12.10 
 9.60 
 6.05 
 7.93 
 7 92 
 7.10 
 6.90 
 6.45 
 6.25 
 4.80 
 
 Equal to 
 U. S. cur- 
 rency. 
 
 Dollars. 
 2.88 
 2.30 
 1.46 
 1.98 
 1.98 
 1.70 
 1.65 
 1.55 
 1.50 
 1.15 
 
 Sorters 
 
 lloufjhers 
 
 Machine- workers . 
 
 Spinners 
 
 Keelers 
 
 Koving 
 
 Cai-dera 
 
 Spreaders 
 
 iJrawing 
 
 Doflers 
 
 Kusaia, Eastern. 
 
 (Work 81 hours 
 
 per week.) 
 
 Per week 
 of 60 
 hours. 
 
 1.60 
 2.20 
 
 1.29 
 1.08 
 1.00 
 
 Equal to 
 tJ. S. cur- 
 rency. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 1.10 
 ".'64 
 
 .60 
 .54 
 .50 
 
 Ruaaia, "Western. 
 
 (Work 72 hours 
 
 per week.) 
 
 Per week 
 of 60 
 hours. 
 
 Rubles. 
 
 2.00 
 2.25 
 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 2.25 
 1.50 
 
 Eqxxal to 
 TJ. S. cur- 
 rency. 
 
 1.00 
 1.12 
 
 1.12 
 1.12 
 1.12 
 1.12 
 
 ,75 
 
 France. 
 
 (Work 72 hours 
 
 per week.) 
 
 Per week 
 of 60 
 hours. 
 
 Francs. 
 20.00 
 
 7.00 
 10.50 
 17.50 
 10.50 
 11.50 
 10.50 
 
 9.50 
 
 Equal to 
 U. S. cur- 
 rency. 
 
 Dollars. 
 3.86 
 
 1.35 
 2.02 
 3.37 
 2.02 
 2.20 
 a. 02 
 1.85 
 
 United 
 
 States. 
 
 (Work 60 
 
 houra per 
 
 week.) 
 
 Per week 
 of 00 
 hours. 
 
 Dollars. 
 12.00 
 12.00 
 5.00 
 7. 00 
 7.00 
 5.00 
 6.00 
 8.00 
 5.00 
 3.50 
 
 Great 
 Britain. 
 
 Per week 
 of- 
 houxs. 
 
 Dollars. 
 4.86 
 4.86 
 1.46 
 1.82 
 1.34 
 1.68 
 2.19 
 1.70 
 1.95 
 1.34 
 
 Machinery in the United States is to-day idle because of tbe foreign competition in 
 threads and yarns, tlie competition from Italian spinners of carpet yarns being very 
 severe. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Can you approximate the production in this country of flax and hemp ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. The amount of hemp is about 12,000 tons. The amount of flax will 
 be small — I should say under 500 tons. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. I see the flax raised for the year ending June 30, 1889, was 7,816 tons, 
 and the importation of hemp was 55,000 tons. 
 
 Mr. Turner. What class of hemp ? 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Hemp and substitutes for. That does not refer to jute and sisal. 
 
 Mr. Turner. There was imported in 1889, 35,000 tons of mauilla, 35,000 tons of 
 sisal, 30,000 tons of jute fiber, and jute butts cover 65,000 tons, and here is where 
 manufacturers woulS be benefited to a certain extent by having free raw material. 
 
 On the other hand we do not wish entirely to depend on foreign countries for 
 our fiber. Our name indicates our association as growers and manufacturers. 
 There are flax-growers in the West, in the Dakolas, Michigan, and other States, 
 and the sample of flax shown you comes from Green Bay, Wis. We stand ready 
 to-day to give a good price for that flax. It is some of the best western flax we 
 have seen in five years, being perhaps equal iu character to the average imported 
 flax. We ofiFered him 11 cents for it in that form. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is the production of flax increa.sing or decreasing the production of 
 the raw material? 
 
 Mr. Turner. I think it is in statu quo, with great eagerness being shown by 
 farmers. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is it true that farmers of New Enghand first put iu a crop of flax and 
 
622 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 from it made tow linen crashes? It has gradually moved to the West. After tlie 
 land was cleared, the industry has gone out of the old States. 
 
 Mr. Turner. It goes with civilization. They have put the land to the cultivation 
 of more profitable crops. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The old loom which used to be in the farmers' houses has gone, and 
 they buy cotton in the place of the linen ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. To-day we are importing linens for our use. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What firm do yoa represent in this Flax and Spinners' Association ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. Eoss.T'.irner & Co. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Have any firms in your association any foreign connections where 
 they manufacture ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. Yes, sir; and they join with us in asking to increase the duty on 
 "dressed line." 
 
 •»- Mr. Gear. You stated that during the past two years the flax raised in the West 
 was not adapted to this use. In other words, that it requires a special method of 
 cultivation to produce this product. 
 
 Mr. Turner. It grows upon a straight stock, and it must be a long fiber. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Could a farmer iu my State, where he sows the seed, put it to commer- 
 cial uses generally ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. I believe it is now possible to take off that short fiber with machinery. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it adapted to commercial uses 1 
 
 Mr. Turner. It could be put into coarse goods, but not into the finer fabrics. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It simply gives way in the market from the other side. 
 
 Mr. Turner. We should make coarse linens ; we import flax fabrics at 35 per cent. 
 If we had a fair protection we would make these goods out of American flax. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Can the two be joined? 
 
 Mr. Gear. They can make coarse goods out of them, he says. 
 
 Mr. Turner. That is true. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is it true that this linen and flax comes from Russia, Germany, and 
 Italy, and requires great care to produce it and put it in shape, and the care that it 
 requires would take the whole time of a farmer? I would not be certain whether 
 that is used as a substitute for that raised in Italy. Are you familiar with that ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. There is quite a lot of this Italian flax or hemp used. It is a whit- 
 ish fiber. 
 
 Mr. Flower. A great deal of labor is bestowed on it. Do you use iu this country 
 any of it in making linen ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. The Italian hemp is used a great deal. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The plant does not look like our hemp or flax. They call it by some 
 peculiar name. It is a fine product, requires great .attention, and has to be grown 
 with a great deal of care ; and it is my opinion that our farmers would not spend the 
 proper amount of time on it. 
 
 Mr. Turner. We have the climate and we have the soil. The time will come 
 when it will be done. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Will the time come here, with 20 people to the square mile while those 
 people have IbO or 300 to the square mile, when we will cultivate flax here after our 
 manner, while they in Italian countries cultivate it often on their hands and knees ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. There are machines, perhaps not perfected, forpulling flax, and the 
 time will come when it will be done iu large quantities audit will go into American 
 markets. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Will the climate of Russia raise this fine flax ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. They raise good grades of flax in Russia. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is this specimen shown as good flax as you ordinarily import? 
 
 Mr. Turner. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. This is an American growth ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. It is an American growth. It was raised by Eugene Bosse, and grown 
 at Green Bay, Wis. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Could it be grown both for seed and fiber on the same crop ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. We do not do that now. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do they in any part of the world? 
 
 Mr. Turner. I understand that they raise a crop of seed and a crop of fiber on land 
 in climates where the weather is not too moist. It is successfully raised for both. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But you do not know of its ever having been profitably culti- 
 vated both for seed and fiber from the same stalk in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. It has been done. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do they, get a full crop of seed in that way? 
 
 Mr. Turner. They will secure a fair crop of seed in that way. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. In it profitable to grow flax with a view of getting seed and 
 fiber oft' the same .stalk ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. I believe it is. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you know it, or believe it? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 523 
 
 Mr. Turner. I lielieve it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you know anybody that does it f 
 
 Mr. Turner. I have been in Iowa myself; I have talked with a man who made an 
 experiment, and I heard him say that they could do it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It was simply an experiment? 
 
 Mr. Turner. It was not on a very large scale. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. It is a question of training the stalk ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. A stalk must be kept straight. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. If it is kept straight can it be allowed to go to seed without the 
 fibers deteriorating ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. It does not consist in the amount of seed that is put into the acr 
 
 Mr. Turner. It takes a bushel and a half, or2 bushels to the acre. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you know what the average crop of seed is now 1 
 
 Mr. Turner. A bushel of seed -will grow 12 bushels. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How will the ordinary growth of flax to the acre be in fiber ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. About 300 pounds. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. How much is it worth a pound ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. We have offered for this 11 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr.LA Follette. What does $5 per ton for duty on flax amount to, reduced to per- 
 centage ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. Five dollars duty on flax amounts to 14 per cent. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What does $20 per ton on dressed flax amount to 1 
 
 Mr. Turner. To 8.53 per cent. The greater the duty, the greater the production 
 of fiber. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Do you think that this protective duty is enough on that indus- 
 try ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. I think it is, with freight added. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Do you think that it represents the difference in the cost of la- 
 bor of producing flax between the producer in this country and his foreign compet- 
 itor? 
 
 Mr. Turner. I should think it would depend on whether they carried on the same 
 methods. I should be inclined to doubt it if we carried on the same methods that 
 they do. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. How much of an item is the freight? 
 
 Mr. Turner. Freight is quite an item, amounting to 20 shillings from England, 40 
 shillings from Russia, 45 from Italy, or about 2 cents per pound. Another item work- 
 ing against flax is that "dressed line" comes in at an ad valorem rate of duty less 
 than raw flax. Raw flax is 8.53 per cent, and " dressed line" is 7.31 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You represent the Association of Flax Spinners and Growers? 
 
 Mr. Turner. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How many growers are there in your association ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. I should say six or eight out of an association of thirty-five. 
 
 Our association was originally formed by a few manufacturers, and as its title indi- 
 cates, we aim to co-operate with flax and hemp growers that by co-operation we may 
 consume the fibers which can be raised in the United States. Wo have a few grow- 
 ers in our association, and will at all times work with them to encourage the growth 
 of American flax and hemp, and we hope for the day when we may even be exporters 
 of flax and hemp fibers. Improved machinery is needed, but we believe that Ameri- 
 can enterprise, with a true progressive spirit, will in time overcome many obstacles, 
 and aid in placing the flax and hemp industry in all its branches on a prosperous 
 basis. 
 
 We submit that we have not had fair protection in the past, and ask you to con- 
 sider our claims and give the protection asked, and in return we promise an estab- 
 Vshed industry of great magnitude. 
 
 FLAX AND HEMP MEN PRESENT. 
 
 The following members of the Flax and Hemp Spinners and Growers' Association 
 were in attendance at the hearing before the Ways and Means Committee : 
 
 A. R. Turner, jr., president, of Ross, Turner & Co., Boston, Mass. 
 
 G. H. Torr, of Smith & Dove Manufacturing Company, Andover, Mass. 
 
 William Barbour, of Barbour Flax Spinning Company, of Paterson, N. J. 
 
 J. W. Wallace, of Dunbar, McMaster & Co., Greenwich, N. Y. 
 
 Charles E. Bonte, of John Bonte's Sous Company, Cincinnati, Ohio. 
 
 Abram Bentley, of Bentley & Gerwig Company, New Brighton, Pa. 
 
 E. A. Hartshorn, of Cable Flax Mills, Schaghtieoke, N. Y. 
 
 R. W. McRery, of Kentucky River Mills, Frankfort, Ky. 
 
 John H. Ross, of Boston Thread and Twine Company, Boston, Mass. 
 
 C. F. Wyman, of R. B. Storer & Co., Boston, Mass. 
 
524 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Frank Travers, of Travers Bros., New York, N. Y. 
 
 R. Bucliman, of James Thompson & Co., Valley Falls, N. Y. 
 
 - — Donovan, of A. Moore & Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Scott, of J. F. Scott & Bro., Lexiiugton, Ky. 
 
 Charles Boyce, Boston, Mass. 
 
 R. B. Symington, of Marshall & Co., Newark, N. J. 
 
 J. S. Coey, of Marshall & Co., Newark, N. J. 
 
 William Allen, of A. H. Hart Company, New York, N. Y. 
 
 Nelson, of H. B. Nelson & Co.. Lexington, Ky. 
 
 P. H. Brunrlage, New York, N. Y. 
 
 John T. Bailey, of John T. Bailey & Co., Philadulphia, Pa. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. LESLIE COMBS. 
 
 Mr. Leslib Combs, of Lexington, Ky., next addre.ssed the committee, as follows: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I came here expecting that hemp 
 •would he helped by arguments made here by the gentlemen interested in the Flax 
 and Hemp Growers and Spinners' Association. 
 
 I am entirely unprepared with any set argument. I feel strongly on the subject, 
 however, and it seemed to me that the recommendations of that association -were so 
 inadequate for the protection of hemp "that it was necessary that some statement of 
 our views should be made. 
 
 I would like to premise my remarks by calling attention to the fact that this asso- 
 ciation asks an increase of duty on flax products as follows : " Dressed line," from |40 
 to $60 per ton ; and on all manufactures from flax a uniform 50 per cent, duty, an aver- 
 age increase of about 15 per cent. If this is necessary I am a protectionist, and I 
 believe in it, but -when they come to our industry they are only willing to recommend 
 that sisal and manilla remain at the same rate, while they refuse to make any rec- 
 ommendation as to jute, which is one of our principal competitors, and the cheapest 
 fiber in the market. 
 
 Hemp was developed to a growth at one time in this country of 83,000 tons. Cheap 
 jute -was brought in ; and hemp, dependent largely upon bagging for its market, was 
 reduced in production to 2,500 tons at one time in the United States. There will be 
 a strong effort made here by the jute, sisal, and manilla manufacturers to strengthen 
 their competitiou veith hemp by putting jute, sisal, and manilla upon the free list. 
 It seems to me that it is not fair in these gentlemen, who profess to be protectionists, 
 to come before yoa and argue on that line. Jute manufacturers now have a duty on 
 the manufactured article of 30, 40, and 45 per cent. They only pay on their raw ma- 
 terial 7i per cent. So on the lowest grade of manufactured goods they have a pro- 
 tection of 22| per cent. It seems to me that if this is not sufficient for them to man- 
 ufacture goods in the United States, that the proper line of argument for them to 
 take is to make an exhibition to this committee that will induce it to give them the 
 protection that is necessary. But this is not their request. They not only want an 
 additional protection, but they want that additional protection in a way that wiU 
 injure and drive their principal competitor — American hemp — out of the market. 
 They say they must have this duty off the jute or they can not go on. It is a fact 
 that there have been three additional jute manufactories established in the United 
 States in the past year. Is that an indication that the business is being conducted 
 at a loss ? They do not offer to the American yieople a reduced price on their manu- 
 factured article ; they do not say give us free jute and we will compete in the mark- 
 ets of the world with our manufactures; but they say give us free jute and we will 
 make more money. 
 
 Hemp, I venture to say, contains a larger percentage of labor when it is put on the 
 market as a raw material than any otner product in the country; certainly any to 
 which my attention has been called. The average crop is, at the outside, 8 hundred- 
 weight=900 pounds to the acre. It costs in labor — not in seed, not in horse labor, 
 not in rent or interest or time in supervising, or anything of the sort — 118.90 an acre 
 to raise 900 pounds of hemp. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is that actual labor ! 
 
 Mr. C0MJ3S. Yes, sir; actual labor. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You say it is |18.90. Are you certain that is the figure? 
 
 Mr. Combs. After looking at my memoranda, to bo exact, I will say it is .|17.93, 
 
 Mr. iJRECKiNitiDGR. This is the labor on oue acre of hemp? 
 
 Mr. Combs. Yes, sir ; to produce 8 hundredweight, or 900 pounds. 
 
 Mr. BRKOKiNRiiiiiic. That brings it to what state ? 
 
 Mr. C'OMiis. That brings it to a bale ; not a comnierci.al bale, but the farmer's bale. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are you a grower of hemp ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. Yes, sir. I thinlc I will be borne out by the gentlemen hero who are 
 
KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 525 
 
 acquainted witli the condition of the agricultural laborers in Kentucky, in saying 
 that, on account of the production of crude hemp we employ 75,000 negroes in the 
 • blue-grass region of Kentucky at better wages than any agricultural labor in any 
 portion of the country south of Mason and Dixon's line commands. A larger percent- 
 age of them live in their own homes than any other farm labor in any part of the 
 United States. 
 The Chaikmast. Do you mean that they are all employed in raising hemp ? . 
 Mr. Combs. Not at all. It is the production of hemp in which they make these 
 good wages that fixes this higher scale for all labor. Hemp is growing in production 
 both as a raw material and as a manufactured article. At one time the production a 
 few years ago was reduced to 2,500 tons. It has been found to make first-class binder- 
 twine ; and owing to the development in that direction the product of American 
 hemp binder-twine has doubled each year for the last three years. By the discovery 
 of a cheap method of handling it they are raising it very cheap in Illinois and Nebras- 
 ka. They do not raise as good hemp as we do in Kentucky. They do not raise it for 
 the same purpose that ours is raised. It is short and sells for $3 a hundred. Ours is 
 a stronger and longer fiber and sells for $5 a hundred. Only a short time before I 
 left home an order was received from the West for 1,000 bushels of seed for raising 
 hemp. 
 
 I came here expecting to be able, with the assistance of my associates, and by the 
 assistance of my friends of the Hemp and Flax Growers' Association, to raise protec- 
 tion on hemp, and I believe, if jute and jute butts could be raised to a cent a pound, 
 that in five years Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, and Ohio would raise hemp of 
 the new process short sort at a price that would furnish bagging for all the Southern 
 country at two-thirds the price they have paid for cheap jute. But I am willing now 
 to get my hat back from the congregation, and if you leave jute where it is, and 
 leave sisal and manilla where they are, we will abide by it ; and I am satisfied from 
 the development that is going on we will be successful. Jute is an inferior fiber. 
 One-half of it is manufactured into binder-twine. They dye it to look like hemp, and 
 ninety-nine one-huudredths of farmers do not know it from hemp. It has been forced 
 on them and hemp has been hampered by that fact. They are learning, however, to 
 distinguish it. The jute men, the sisal men, and the manilla men are talking un- 
 fairly in their clamor demanding the raw material free. If they can demonstrate to 
 you gentlemen that they have not sufficient protection in manufacturing their pro- 
 duction, let them ask additional protection. It is unfair at the same time to increase 
 their protection and destroy their principal rival, and the only marketable fiber that 
 exists in this country. It came out very plainly to my mind that there is a great deal 
 of sectionalism in this. We, the hemp growers and manufacturers, are located in 
 Kentucky and Ohio. One man west of the AUeghanies in Pennsylvania, Mr. Herman, 
 stands by us. I should think' that our Western industries are entitled to the same 
 protection as our Eastern manufactures, and I think it is unfair for them to go before 
 the country asking the farmer to take from his pocket a dollar for every recommen- 
 dation made in this list, and when they reach a farmer's product refuse it the bene- 
 fit of the system. 
 Mr. Carlisle. What is 800 pounds of hemp in the bale worth ? 
 Mr. Combs. It varies very much in price. We are getting now |5 per cwt.; th'at 
 is, $40 for the 900 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You get $40 an acre, and $17.93 is expended in labor ; almost 50 per 
 cent, is labor. 
 Mr. Combs. I think that is a very large percentage. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You have stated there is more labor employed in the production of 
 hemp than in almost any other raw material. That is worth about |40 at the farm. 
 Mr. Combs. In the cities adjacent to the farm. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. In Frankfort, Ky., in the penitentiary, is it not used in manufact- 
 uring? 
 Mr. Combs. Not now ; it was formerly. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I think there is a manufactory in Frankfort where they make twine. 
 Is it not a fact that what has injured the industry is that iron and steel are used as a 
 substitute for hemp in elevators and ships and for binding nurposes ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. It is a fact that at Frankfort we get very good prices for hemp of 
 the best quality for twine. Hemp used to go into ship-rigging, but that is discarded 
 in a large measure for wire cordage. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What is the annual -production of hemp in the United States? 
 ' Mr. Combs. It went as low as 2,500 tons. It has increased lately. I suppose it is 
 12,000 tons now. 
 Mr. Carlisle. Jute is used for bagging ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. They are buying that more than ever for bagging. 
 Mr. Carlisle. Could you make hemp now as cheaply as they make that cheap bag- 
 ging? 
 
526 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Combs. If they should get jute under 2 cents a pound our bagging iii America 
 ■would be driyen out of the market. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What would it cost to produce that grade of hemp? 
 
 Mr. Combs. Hemp of a character suitable for bagging could be grown at a low 
 price. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What would it cost to produce it J 
 
 Mr. Combs. Three dollars a hundred. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If you could undersell jute bagging and make money, why don't 
 you? 
 
 Mr. Combs. Jute bagging is not bearing that price. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You would pay a higher price for it ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Whom would it benefit ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. It would foster the production of hemp at the West of a common sort 
 and cheap price. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If it would be to your injury and make hemp cheaper, why do you 
 want it? 
 
 Mr. Combs. I am talking on general principles. I do not think all these gentlemen 
 appear to represent their selfish interest. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You would not go into the production of that kind of hemp your- 
 self? 
 
 Mr. Combs. I have not investigated far enough into the matter to know. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If you cut the price of this bagging and baling increased, could 
 you? 
 
 Mr. Combs. I will say it would depend upon the price of the bagging and baling. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It would increase the price of jute ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. Do you think the price of jute bagging is controlled now by the price 
 of jute? 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I do not know. Is there a trust? 
 
 Mr. Combs. I read the testimony of one of the members of the trust before the Com- 
 mittee on Manufactures in the last Congress in which he openly declared it was a 
 trust; that they proposed to make all the money out of it they could. That was the 
 statement of Mr. Gratz. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It would enable them to keep up the trust and therefore keep up the 
 price. 
 
 Mr. Combs. I am not an expert in the manufacture of these articles. I looked upon 
 it entirely as a farmer. My understanding is that they are enabled to do it because 
 they are manufacturing with a foreign iiber, and that all they have to do is to make 
 a combination and control the prices. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If the duty was taken off they could not do that f 
 
 Mr. Combs. If the duty was taken off raw material they could. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Couldn't everybody go into the business of importing? 
 
 Mr. Combs. What figure one-half a cent a pound would cut would be governed by 
 the amount of capital that would be required. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It must cut some figure or they would not want it. What I am 
 trying to get at is, what is the effect of it ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. I could not answer that. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Do you kuow whether the importers go and buy up the product of 
 the mills of other countries ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. That is my information. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You do not know what it could have been bought for some years 
 ago? 
 
 Mr. Combs. I know they made a contract with a jute mill in Louisville. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Did they charge it to the consumer ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. If it had been American fiber they could not have done so. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Can not they make it out of cotton ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. They do make it out of cotton, but it costs about twice as much as the 
 jute at the high price. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Are they making bagging out of other material ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. They are making it out of pine fiber, or straw. I do not kuow how 
 successfully. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Did you say that the production of hemp went down at one time to 
 2,.500ton8? 
 
 A Gentleman. That was about 18G9. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. It is up now to what amount? 
 
 Mr. Combs. To 12,000 tons. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. That is for a big year ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. There was a time when we made the bagging for covering all the cotton. 
 
 Mr. Baynk. What year was that! 
 
 Mr. Combs. That was in IdSO. 
 
REVISION OF THE TAKIEF. 627 
 
 Mr. Baynb. How does the present price of bagging compare with that ! 
 
 Mr. Combs. It is very much higher; I allude to the time when herup, during the 
 atter part of the sixties or in 1870, when they were making bagging out of flax refuse, 
 mfl things of that sort. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How do yon break your hemp ?, 
 
 Mr. Combs. By hand labor. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Why do you do it that way ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. Because there has heretofore been no practical power break, My at- 
 tention is almost daily drawn to breaks, irom all parts of the country, that are being 
 invented to accomplish that purpose. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What does it cost you to break it ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. One dollar and twelve cents per hundred. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That is $20 per ton ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. It is $22.40 per ton. 
 
 Mr. Gear. If you had a machine that would break it you could probably reduce 
 that price t 
 
 Mr. Combs. They claim that a machine would break hemp at $5 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What do you pay for labor t 
 
 Mr. Combs. I pay, by the year, $15 a month and board. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What is the profit in growing an acre of hemp in an ordinary year 
 at the ordinary price ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. I will tell you how I calculate it. The manual labor of course is fluct- 
 uating when yon come to the breaking of it. It costs according to the product. The 
 other charges are fixed charges and are governed by the acreage. My friends from 
 Lexington think I place the average production too high. If this is a fact I have 
 cheapened the cost of it below what actually exists. But I will give you the figures. 
 At 8 hundred-weight to the acre, or 900 pounds, it will cost |'34.60 to raise it, includ- 
 ing everything. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you count interest on the plant ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. I allow for existing rates of rent by the year. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What do you allow per acre for rent ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. Ten dollars. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is that the average rental in Kentucky t 
 
 Mr. Combs. That is the average rental of hemp land.. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It sella for $40 ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You make $5.40 an acre, or $5.35 including transportation. 
 
 Mr. Combs. I make my estimates from my farm. Many others would have to haul 
 it 6, 8, or 10 mUes. If you own the land the profit is $15.40 per acre. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Suppose the same acreage was cultivated in corn or tobacco ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. I am unable to say as to tobacco. I am not familiar with the crop. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Does it not yield sometimes $25 an acre, and even more f 
 
 Mr. Combs. FrecLuently. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It is therefore much more profitable than hemp. 
 
 Mr. Combs. It is more profitable in its direct returns. It impoverishes the land. 
 There are few farmers who are willing to raise tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What would be the profit on cultivating corn? 
 
 Mr. Combs. I can make a calculation. Corn at |1.50 a barrel — I do not believe 
 there are over 8 barrels grown to the acre, and when you deduct the rent of the ground 
 there is an actual loss. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How about raising feed for stock ? That is a great grazing country, 
 too. 
 
 Mr. Combs. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do not you feed corn to stock t 
 
 Mr. Combs. Yes, and sell it to the distillers. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It is quite profitable, I believe. Some facetious Kentuckian has 
 computed that they raise so many bushels of corn, which is made into whisky, be- 
 sides what is wasted in making bread. [Laughter.] You do not waste very much of 
 it up there ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You think it is profitable to feed to stock ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. No, sir ; that was a suggestion of yours. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You have said there was none wasted. 
 
 Mr. Combs. I believe we feed it to stock at a loss. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What is the area of hemp-producing land in Kentucky as nearly as 
 you can tell it ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. I think I can name most of the counties. There is Fayette, Bourbon, 
 Jessamine, Scott, Clark, Montgomery, Madison, Mason, Boyle, Woodford, Mercer, 
 Shelby, Franklin, and Henry. 
 
528 REVISION OF THE TAKIFF. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Take Henry County, for instance : What proportion of the area of 
 that county is iit for the cultivation of hemp at a profit ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. I would rather you would get me on some county I know something 
 about. I was never in Henry County. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you not know that only a very small proportion of that county 
 can be used for growing hemp ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. I know there is not a great deal of hemp grown in Henry. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is it grown profitably in Montgomery County ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. Montgomery County would produce it. She is rich enough to pro- 
 duce good tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. In the counties of Fayette, Woodford, Scott, Bourbon, and Clark 
 is there anything like one-half of each county that is suitable for the production of 
 hemp? 
 
 Mr. Combs. If you can tell me the proportion, in your opinion, of the blue grass 
 sod in those counties I can tell you the proportion suitable for hemp. It requires 
 first-class blue grass land. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. They have not abandoned the raising of fine stock ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. No, sir. Fine stock consumes a small proportion of the agricultural 
 product. Much of our country is in grass and it is largely used iu grazing common 
 stock, mules, horses, cattle, and to some extent sheep. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is there not plenty of land in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and other west- 
 ern States adapted to the growth of hemp? 
 
 Mr. Combs. Any quantity of it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Any land that will grow blue grass will grow hemp ? 
 
 Mr. Combs. Yes, sir. Hemp is now being raised in Mississippi, Missouri, Illinois, 
 and Nebraska, besides Kentucky. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM BRIGHT. 
 
 After the committee resumed its session, Mr. William Bright, of New Jersey, 
 made a statement in the interest of the flax dressing trade. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you represent the labor employed in this business? 
 
 Mr. Bright. Yes; it is in the interest of the flax dressing trade that we appear before 
 you. This is the first and most important process iu the manufacture of flax, and is, 
 we might say, the only process requiring skilled labor. This is supposed to be pro- 
 tected by a duty of $40 per ton, but this is not even half enough to protect those em- 
 ployed in the dressing of it. We ask you iu tjiename of fair dealing to increase the 
 duty from |40 to $90. The importing of dressed line into the United States is a thing 
 that is no benefit to the country whatever, and is wholly unnecessary. 
 
 There are hundreds of flax-dressers in the United States who are at present unem- 
 ployed owing to the increased impor'..ation of dressed line. Why then should it be 
 imported ? Why should the manufacturer who has his headquarters in Europe and 
 his annex in the United States, be allowed to have his flax dressed in Europe at the 
 low scale of wages and import it here to the injury of our trade, and the American 
 manufacturer as well ? The raauufacturer who would prefer having his flax dressed 
 in the United States is compelled to resort to importing it in order to compete with 
 European firms, who can import to their branch factories here, which proceeding 
 gives them an advantage of about $45 per ton. Increase the duty by $50, and if there 
 IS any advantage given American labor, would the honorable committee not do them- 
 selves credit by granting it to us, so that instead of a decrease in labor in this branch 
 of industry, there would be an increase, and encouragement for more energy to pro- 
 duce in our markets an article which would deserve the name of American product. 
 
 The goods manufactured from imported dressed line is no benefit to the consumer. 
 They are sold at as high a price as the goods made from the flax dressed here. The 
 cost of dressing a ton of flax in Europe is $3.5. In the United States the cost is $64. 
 The duty on 1 ton of rough flax is $20, and as it takes almost 2 tons of rough flax to 
 produce 1 ton of dressed line, you can see that the importer can get his ton of 2,240 
 pounds for .$40, while the firm who would give employment to American flax-dressers 
 have to pay almost that amount duty, for the quantity of rough flax required to pro- 
 duce a ton of line, or in other words, duty on the material to produce 1 ton, 2,240 
 pounds, is i%ore than the cost of dressing the siime quantity in Europe amounts to. 
 In the year 1888 there was 1,696 tons of dressed line imported into the United States, 
 an increase of 460 tons over 1887 ; 1,696 tons would give steady employment to 200 
 hacklers for twelve months without considering the number of roughers, machine- 
 boys, etc., required, who are paid as proportionately high wages here as the haokler. 
 In the shop where we aie at present employed there have been fifty flax-dressers dis- 
 charged within the last eighteen months. In every shop throughout the States where 
 hacklers are employed the same story can be told. Our condition will be worse now 
 than before, as dressed line is being imported from Canada at present, and some of it 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 529 
 
 has been imported to the factory we are employed in. If tliere is enough protection 
 would this be the case ? 
 
 I would also say that the process of dressing flax is not simply what Mr. Whit- 
 man says it is. It is a great deal more. It requires much skill in the combing of 
 the flax and iu the sorting of the fiber. In one bale of flax there may be from six to 
 eight and sometimes ten sorts, each one finer than the other, and it requires great 
 skill to sore them. I have here some samples of dressed flax and also of rough flax 
 [exhibiting! which I would like the committee to examine. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridgb. How much is the rough flax taxed at present ? 
 
 Mr. Bright. Twenty dollars per ton. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does it take -J tons of this rough flax to make 1 ton of 
 dressed line ? 
 
 Mr. Bright. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is the freight to this country on this rough flax? 
 
 Mr. Bright. I can not tell you. It is about the same as on the dressed line I 
 suppose. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You say that the cost of dressing flax in Europe is |35 a ton? 
 
 Mr. Bright. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And the cost here is how much ? 
 
 Mr. Bright. Sixty-four dollars. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That is an increase in cost of |29 a ton ? 
 
 Mr. Bright. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And the present duty is .|40 per ton ? 
 
 Mr. Bright. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That leaves a margin of |11 a ton beyond the difference in 
 cost, and still you want an increase of duty. Why do you ask an increase ? 
 
 Mr. Bright. It takes 3,700 pounds of rough flax to make 1 ton of dressed line. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And you are taking into consideration the duty on rough flax ? 
 
 Mr. Bright. I am speaking of the disadvantages we labor under with the present 
 duty. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If the present duty is to continue on rough flax, what do you 
 then want ? 
 
 Mr. Bright. We want a proportionate difference on the dressed line. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Your calculations are based solely on the cost of labor ? 
 
 Mr. Bright. Yes, they are based on that. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If your calculations are based solely on the cost of labor, you 
 have got now $11 a ton more protection than the difference in the cost of labor for 
 dressing a ton of flax. The difference in the cost of labor is $'29 a ton, and you have 
 got a protection of .ji40. 
 
 Mr. Bright. I do not understand you. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You pay .|29 a ton more for dressing flax here than is paid in 
 Europe. 
 
 Mr. Bright. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then to put you on an equality with Europe you would want 
 just $29 a ton protection on dressed flax, while you have got $40 a ton protection ; so 
 that you do not seem to need anything on that score. Why do you put the protection 
 yon need at just $90 a ton? 
 
 Mr. Bright. I think that a duty of $90 a ton would be an encouragement to the 
 business here. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You have got to show us M'hy $90 a ton is necessary to enable 
 your people to pay the wages that are paid here and to conduct the business of dress- 
 ing flax. Have you any demonstration to make of it, or do you put it at haphazard ? 
 
 Mr. Bright. By comparing the wages in the two countries. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. State that comparison. Give us the facts. 
 
 Mr. Bright. It costs $3,5 for dressing a ton of flax in Europe and .$64 here. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What advantage has Europe over you on that score ? It is 
 not $29 a ton 1 
 
 Mr. Bright. Yes, ,$29 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then you pay |29 a ton more wages here, and would need a 
 duty of $29 a ton (not couiptiug freights) to equalize you. But yon have already got 
 $40 a ton, and you are now asking tor $90 a ton. By what mode of reasoning do you 
 arrive at a duty of |90 a ton 1 
 
 The Chairman. Do you not count the duty on raw flax in your estimate? 
 
 Mr. Bright. Yes, $20 a ton; and then it takes 3,700 pounds of rough flax to make 
 a ton of dressed line; and the importer gets that dressed line in at a duty of $40 a 
 ton. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I wish you would figure out the cost that enters into the 
 operation^tho duty on the rough flax, the cost of labor in Europe, .and the cost of 
 labor here, and the result and duty needed to enable you to do this business here. 
 
 485 34 
 
530 EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 As you have not the figures now, y'oa can make up the statement and haoil it to the 
 stenographer afterwards. 
 
 Mr. Bright subsequently handed in the following written statement iu reply to Mr. 
 Breckinridge's question : 
 
 Thirty-seven hundred weight of rough flax to produce 1 ton of dressed line, duty $37. 00 
 Cost of dressing in United States 64.00 
 
 Wages and duty 101.00 
 
 Wages in Europe 35. 00 
 
 Duty 40.00 
 
 Total 75.00 
 
 Balance in favor of European spinner ou hacking alone 26. 00 
 
 Eoughiug and machining wages are almost double in the United States what they 
 are in Europe, which gives the importer of dressed line an advantage of at least 
 $45.00. 
 
 LINEN FIRE HOSE. 
 
 New York, January 13, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen : We beg to call the attention of your committee, to the injustice in 
 the operations of the present tariff, iu its relations to the manufacture of linen hose 
 in this country. 
 
 The present advalorem duty is 35 per cent, upon linen hose, but as it is the same 
 upon the yarn which forms the raw material of hose manufacturers in this country, 
 the tariff of course affords no benefit to them ; but it is on the contrary employed as 
 an agency for doing serious injury to the interests of American hose manufacturers. 
 
 Linen hose differs from most articles of trade from the fact that its value depends 
 almost entirely upon its ability to hold water under pressure, and its quality can not 
 be judged from its appearance except, while under those conditions, even by the most 
 expert manufacturers. 
 
 It therefore affords especial opportunities for undervaluation, unless custom-house 
 appraisers are to be provided with hydrostatic pumps and gauges, and foreign man- 
 ufacturers have not been backward in availing themselves of the opportunities pre- 
 sented. 
 
 In a letter addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury dated September 4, 1885, 
 we presented evidence showing that the lowest grade of linen hose suitable lor fire 
 protective purposescouldnot be manufactured in Great Britain for less than 9'.i6 pence 
 per 100 yards, and similar conditions still exist, but we nevertheless find, that while 
 at the present time the largest discount given upon that grade of hose iu the English 
 market is 65 per cent, or 1,050 pence per 100 yards, the British manufacturers when 
 invoicing the same goods to his own agent in this country, invoices them at 70 and 
 7 per cent, discount or 837 pence j)er 100 yards, thereby showing that actual cost of 
 hose is not necessarily considered when making invoices for custom house purposes 
 only. 
 
 As we pointed out in our letter already referred to, hose of a suitable quality for 
 fire protective purposes cannot be made from yarn that costs in Great Britain less 
 than 11 pence per pound, but even that grade the manufacturers' mutual insurance 
 companies of this country, are endeavoring in the interests of safety to drive from 
 the market, and to substitute for it the best grades that can be manufactured, so that 
 a specific duty that would have a tendency to reduce the importation of the inferior 
 grades would be protective in a double sense. 
 
 We therefore beg that your committee will carefully investigate this matter, and 
 we are confident that you will be persuaded by the facts of the case that a specific duty 
 upon linen hydraulic hose that will relieve the American mauufacturers from compe- 
 tition with illegal undervaluations of imported hose, that will secure to the govern- 
 meut refenues of which it is now in part defrauded, alid will incidentally assist the 
 mutual fire insurance companies of this country in their endeavors to afford better 
 fire protection to the property of the country, will best serve the interests of the gov- 
 ernment, the users of hose, and the American manufacturer. 
 
 We annex hereto a copy of the letter to tho Secretary of the Treasury referred to, 
 also letters sustaining our statements respecting price of liuen hose in Great Britain, 
 and the requirements of the manufacturers' mutual insurance companies with respect 
 to linen hose, the latter, not only as i)roof of their endeavors already cited, but also 
 to show that after a long series of experiments with hydraulic hose, they coosider the 
 hydrostatic test as the only proof of the quality of hose, 
 
EEVISION OF THE TAKIFF. 531 
 
 We therefore recommend that in the forthcoming tariff under the heading of flax, 
 linen, hemp or jnte, the following: 
 
 "Hydraulic canvas liueu hose, composed of wholly or in part of flax, linen, hemp 
 
 or .jnte per cent, ad valorem, and 25 cents per pound specific duty." 
 
 The ad valorem duty to be such that may be established on linen yarns, as the 
 manufacturer of linen hose must import their yarns for it, and whatever ad valorem 
 .duty may be imposed on linen yarns, should be added to the manufactured hose. 
 
 The 25 cents per pound specific duty on the manufactured hose will be the onlj 
 protection the American manufacturer can have against undervaluation of the for- 
 eign article. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 EuRKKA Fire Hose Company. 
 Junius Sciiknck, 
 
 Vice I'resident and Trcasurei\ 
 The Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 }l ashiugton, D. C. 
 
 New York, December 14, 1889. 
 
 Deae Sir: Since writing you to-day perhaps you can, through Major McKinley, do 
 for us all that is required to protect our industry. 
 
 We are the largest manufacturers in this country of what is known as linen hose, 
 sample of which we inclose you. 
 
 The linen yarns from which this is made we import from Dundee, Scotland, and 
 pay 35 per cent, duty; the foreign manufacturers pay the same duty, 35 per cent, 
 upon the manufactured article, but when they come to pay the 35 per cent, duty 
 upon the manufactured article they undervalue the market value of these goods 
 about 40 per cent., and the result is they pay the 35 per cent, duty upon a 40 per 
 cent, undervaluation. 
 
 We have been fighting this fraud for several years, but we can not su.stain our- 
 selves for the reason that it is hard to specify or prove what the market value is where 
 the goods are manufactured, and it is here where the tariff' is weak and allows this 
 fraud to go Jhrough. 
 
 We have calculated this, and we find that in addition to 35 per cent, ad valorem 
 duty that to protect ourselves against fraud of undervaluation that io cents per 
 pound specific duty should be added ; and we would be much obliged if you will show 
 this letter to Major McKinley and ask him to add a clause in tlie new tarift' under 
 the heading of flax, linen, or hemp '" hydraulic hose 35 per cent, ad valorem and 25 
 cents per pound specific duty. " 
 
 We ask this addition to the tariff for our rights and protection to the American 
 manufacturers of this class of goods. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 Eureka Fire Hose Company. 
 Junius Schenck, Secretary. 
 
 Hon. William C. Wallace, 
 
 House of Eepresentaiives. 
 
 New York, September 4, 1885. 
 Dear Sir: In accordance with the invitation extended by you to the manufactur- 
 ers of the country to state their views with respect to the operation of the tariff' in its 
 relations to the classes of goods which they severally manufacture, we would respect- 
 fully submit for your consideration the following statement of facts relating to the 
 manufacture and sale of " flax, canvas, or linen hydraulic hose." That such hose is 
 invoiced by manufactuters in Great Britain to their agents in this country at a rate 
 which is below the market rate in England for the purpose of making the market of 
 the United States an outlet, for their surplus products we believe that the report of 
 the United States Treasury agent. Col. George C. Tichnor, in October, 1884, who in- 
 vestigated this question in Englaud, will fully demonstrate, and it is our^resent in- 
 tention and endeavor to make it plain to you that from the prices at which tliese 
 goods are sold in this country such must necessarily be the case. We will first show by 
 letters and invoices from reputable yarn manufacturers (which we annex) what has 
 been the prevailing price of flax hose yarns in Great Britain duringthe present season. 
 The B quality of one manufacturer about corresponds with the No. 1 quality of the 
 other, and these (jualities are as low as can be used economically in the manufacture 
 of a good marketable grade of hose, and are. as poor as any reputable yarn-maker 
 desires to sell. We tried during the past year some of the next grade lower but 
 
532 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 found that owing to the excessive waste from dirt and its inferiority in strength th« 
 cost of the hose was even more than when the usual quality B or No. 1 was used. 
 
 Messrs. Watson & Shield, of Dundee, and Messrs. Eichards & Co., of Aberdeen, 
 Scotland, are both very large manufacturers of .yarn, and we are confident will 
 sell to us as low as any English manufacturer can buy. We also buy B quality yarns 
 of Messrs. Marshall & Co., of Leeds, through the agency in New York. Theirprices 
 are duty paid, but correspond to those of others. If necessary we can furnish addi-. 
 tional proof to establish the fact that 11 pence per pound has been the lowest marlset 
 price for a fair quality of hose yarn during the past season. The usual weight of y|- 
 iuch hose of the quality referred to in this statement is not less than 64 pounds per 
 100 yards, and the shrinkage in weight of yarn and waste in manufacture is not less 
 than 3 per cent., or, say, 66 pounds are required for each 100 yards of hose woven, 
 making the cost of material per 100 yards 726 pence. We have endeavored to procure 
 statements from British manufacturers of their estimates of the cost of manufacture 
 per yard of this quality of hose, and directly and indirectly we have received several 
 such estimates, the lowest of which was 2 pence per yard. Probably the most relia- 
 ble statement of all was one which we received from an English manufacturing con- 
 cern, who, ostensibly proposing to commence the manufacture of hose, wrote to the 
 makers of the loom chiefly used by the English hose manufacturers, asking those 
 makers to quote their prices for looms and to furnish them with a detail statement of 
 the production of those looms, the cost of manufacture of hose, profits, etc. 
 
 The loom makers estimate was 2| pence per yard for labor, power, maintenance, 
 etc. We wiU, however, for our present purpose, adopt 2 pence per yard as the es- 
 timated cost, that being, we believe, the lowest price for which it is possible to pro- 
 duce the hose. One hundred yards, therefore, would cost 200 pence to manufacture, 
 which, added to 726 pence, the cost of material, makes 926 pence per 100 yards as the 
 actual cost of 2-i-iuch hose manufactured in Great Britain. 
 
 This 2j-inch hose has been imported into this country during the present season 
 invoiced at 2s. 6d. per yard, less 70 per cent., and frequently at 65 and 5 per cent, 
 discount, when a discount of 50 and 10 per cent, from list prices is a fair average dis- 
 count allowed by manufacturers there for home market. One hundred yards, at 28. 
 6d. per yard, equals 3,000 pence, and less 70 per cent, equals 900 pence per 100 yards, 
 or 26 pence per 100 yards less than the actual cost of manufacture in Great Britain, 
 based upon the lowest estimate of cost. Better qualities of yarn cost about 13^ pence 
 per pound, and the hose made from these qualities of yarn is manufactured in Great 
 Britain exclusively upon hand-looms, and consequently costs very much more to pro- 
 duce than the lower grades. The foregoing statement of facts, which we know the 
 most careful investigation of the subject that may be made will fully sustain, demon- 
 strates that there must necessarily be crookedness somewhere, which consists in in- 
 voicing their products for this market through special agencies at a much greater 
 discount from price lists than those allowed in their home markets ; therefore placing 
 their goods here upon which duty is paid far below the market ^alue there. We do 
 not wish to be understood as advocating a policy of either free-trade or protection, 
 but simply one that will not discriminate in favor of foreign manufacturers, feeling 
 confident of oitr ability to take care of ourselves under any just law properly en- 
 forced; but it appears only justice to American hose manufacturers either that they 
 should receive their raw material duty free, and be thereby enabled to compete in 
 the markets of the world, or, upon the other hand, such duty should be imposed upon 
 foreign-made hose as will give the American manufacturers a slight advantage in the 
 home market. Of course it is understood by you that the present tariff would afford 
 hose manufacturers no protection, even were it possible to collect it fairly upon for- 
 eign hose, as the. rate of duty upon yarn and the manufactured hose are equal, the 
 yarn being made in Great Britain from flax grown in Russia. 
 
 We have omitted any reference to costs of freight, consul fees, discount for cash, 
 etc., as they are about the same per pound upon yarn and hose. This company pos- 
 sesses improved machinery and facilities for manufacturing flax hose equal to those 
 of any hose manufacturer in the world, our machinery enabling us to overcome to a 
 great extent our disadvantage in the price of labor ; but notwithstanding all our ad- 
 vantages, we are unable, in consequence of foreign competition and undervaluation 
 to no much more than procure a retail trade in this class of hose. 
 
 In consideration of the foregoing facts, we respectfclly submit that a specific duty 
 per pound of hose seems to us the fairest means of collecting a duty upon these goods 
 and such tax should be high enough to protect American manufacturers in all grades 
 of hose ; and not only to do that, but we also think that while the tax upon our raw 
 material is maintained, thereby prohibiting us from entering foreign markets, we 
 should be entitled to some benefits from the operations of the tariff as compensation 
 for that disadvantage. 
 
 A specific duty tliat would equal the present tariff upon the best qualities of hose 
 would be not less than 25 cents per pound of hose, and it seems to us that such a rate 
 upon all grades of hose would be no more than American hose uuinufactui'ers are justly 
 
EEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 533 
 
 entitled to receive whenever a revision of tariff laws shouUl be undertaken; and in 
 the meantime we would respectfully petition that if possible, such ruling shall be 
 made under present laws as will prohibit the foreign article from being sold in the 
 Uuited States at a price less than that prevailiug intheEnglish markets. We there- 
 fore recommend for amended tariff legislation the following : That " flax, canvas, or 
 linen hydraulic hose" shall pay a duty of 25 cents per pound. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 EuRBKA Fire Hose Company. 
 Junius Schenck, 
 
 Secretary and General Agent. 
 The Secretary of the Treasury, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 The undersigned manufacturers fully concur in the above. 
 
 New York Belting and Packing Company, 
 Russell Manufacturing Company, 
 E. Deming, treasurer. 
 G. A. Eberle. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. ABRAM BENTLET. 
 
 Mr. Abeam Bbntley, of New Brighton, Pa., said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemeu : I do most earnestly recommend that the duty 
 as it now is be retained on mauilla, sisal, and jute, as these are the fibers that com- 
 pete most seriously with flax and hemp, and these latter fibers can be grown success- 
 fully and profitably in this country. 
 
 According to the census of 1870, flax was grown in twenty-seven States and Terri- 
 tories for fiber purposes, and hemp was cultivated largely in Kentucky and Missouri. 
 At that time the flax and hemp production was an important and growing industry, 
 but since then it has been declining and is now almost ruined. 
 
 We mention the following as among the principal causes of this declension : 
 
 First. During the war and for some time afterward, the premium on gold was that 
 much additional protection to the producers of tiax and hemp; and when the pre- 
 mium disappeared altogether the production was no longer profitable. Hence, very 
 much less flax and hemp is grown in the United States — that is, for fiber purposes. 
 
 Second. About the year 1873, the duty was reduced on jute butts, which caused 
 them to be used largely in manufacturing cotton bagging in place of flax and hemp 
 tow as formerly. The flax scutching mills then attempted to overcome thisdifiSculty 
 and compete with the jute butts by using unrotted flax straw in making cotton 
 bajrging. 
 
 But soon the flax mills met another great difficulty. About 1875, the cotton ex- 
 changes and boards of trade passed resolutions forbidding the use of the unrotted 
 flax-bagging on the ground of its staining the cotton when vpet; and its exposure to 
 rains was a common occurrence, as it had to be piled out waiting transportation. 
 
 The flax-bagging men became discouraged; many of them failed utterly. They 
 had no market for their bagging or their tow, and the farmers.no market for their 
 straw ; hence the flax was not grown. 
 
 The cotton-growers are now reaping the reward of the folly of their course by hav- 
 ing to pay a much higher price for their bagging. 
 
 No "bagging trust" would have been possible if bagging had still been made from 
 flax and hemp as formerly supplied irom mills and factories all over the land. 
 
 Flax is now grown for the seed only, and thousands of acres of fiber are allowed to 
 go to waste, and that for want of a market; and there is no market because jute 
 butts come in almost free. 
 
 Again, if flax and hemp growing had been properly fostered our farmers would 
 not have been compelled to use binding cord made from nianilla and 8tsal,and that at 
 a higher price, but would be iising that made from our own products, thus adding 
 to the prosperity of our agricultural iuterests. 
 
 I am glad to know that the Agricultural Department of the Government is now in- 
 vestigating this very matter of promoting the growth of flax and hemp in the United 
 States. Also that it is making inquiries as to the methods pursued in Europe for that 
 end. 
 
 I am fully persuaded that the interests of all parties will be best promoted by grow- 
 ing our own flax and hemp. It will make us less dependent upon foreign products. 
 It will employ our own labor and capital, and will insure to cousumers a supply of 
 such articles in that line as they need, as well as furnish to our manufacturers the 
 needed raw material. 
 
 If the duty were taken off mauilla, sisal, and jute, as proposed in the Senate bill of 
 last session, the advantage woulil only be temporary. It has been clearly demon- 
 
534 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 strated that increased demand always increases the price. Manilla and sisal havft 
 doubled their prices since 1880 on account uf the largo quantities consumed for bind- 
 ing cord, and jute has advanced fully 1 cent per pound in the last two years. 
 
 I have here in my hand a list of bagging mills that are located in Ohio and Indiana. 
 I will only mention a few of them : The Alliance Bagging Mill, the Cuyalioga Falls 
 Bagging Mill, and the Warren Mill. There are five of them in Ohio and four in In- 
 diana. These bagging mills derive their raw materials from scutching mills located 
 in Indiana and Ohio. There was a number of scutching mills that were buying the 
 straw from the farmers at that time. They were putting the coarser product of the 
 flax straw into bagging which was consumed at these mills. They scutched the flax 
 fiber which was bought by the manufacturers of flax twine. We ourselves drew 
 our supply within a radius of about 100 miles of our works. We did not have to go 
 into foreign countries at all for our supply of flax. If that condition of things had 
 continued we would have had ample flax in this country for all the consumption 
 needed. That is my opinion about it. 
 
 These nine bagging mills (with the exception of one, I believe) went out of exist- 
 ence when they could no longer use the flax in competition .with jute butts, or be- 
 cause their machinery was not adapted for jute butts. I am not an expert in flax 
 bagging or in jute bagging. 1 have been employed in my father's mills since 1650, 
 and am now at the same business. I spent my life in manufacturing flax and hemp 
 twines, and I indorse every word Mr. Combs said in regard to the protection of flax 
 and hemp fiber, especially the hemp. We have used very little but hemp fiber in our 
 mills in recent years. I can not recollect what the entire consumption of cordage 
 and twines is which we supply by hemp fiber. I believe that at one time every bale 
 of cotton in the country was baled by rope made from hemp and flax fiber, and every 
 yard of bagging was made from hemp and flax fiber. 
 
 Mr. Flower. And now iron has superseded that? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Iron has superseded the rope ; and jute bagging has superseded the 
 hemp and flax bagging. My idea is that the proper way to encourage the cultiva- 
 tion of flax is to develop the skutchiug mill. These skutchiug mills all derived their 
 straw from farmers in their immediate neighborhood, who grew flax both for seed 
 and fiber purposes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you mean that one crop of flax would be for the straw and 
 another for the seed f 
 
 Mr. Bentley. No, sir. They produce both seed and straw from the same crop. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But that straw did not yield this kind of flax product [indi- 
 cating sample]. 
 
 Mr. Bentley. It did not yield that quality. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But it yielded flax straw ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Yes ; straw that we paid 18 cents a pound for to the skutching mills. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Exi>lain what a skutching mill is. 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Here [exhibiting sample] is the straw as it is grown. These two 
 samples here [indicating] represent the difterent methods of cultivation. This sam- 
 ple [indicating] is cultivated both for the seed and for the straw. I do not know 
 ■whether the yield, per acre, of seed is as great. It is much better for fiber. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But the plant is cultivated mainly for the fiber? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. No; about equally, I believe. Both crops (seed and fiber) are con- 
 sidered necessary to make a profitable flax crop. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But the fiber is better with this kind of top [indicating sam- 
 ple] than with this dispersed pla^t [indicating another sample]. 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Certainly. That fiber [indicating] they put into what they call the 
 bagging tow. It did not jjay to take the same care in rotting it as though it was for 
 cloth fiber. I mean that it was not necessary to take the same care in rotting it as 
 •when it was for skutched flax. In developing the fiber the skutching mills had to 
 employ expert labor to superintend and manage the rotting, which was a very deli- 
 cate operation. If the flax was allowed to remain too long; the fiber was spoiled for 
 skutching purposes but was not entirely spoiled for bagging i)urpose.s. After it was 
 rotted sufficiently they dried it and brought it to the mills, and they put that part of 
 it which was adapted for skutching purposes aside aud used up first the tow, that 
 ■was only used for bagging. When the bagging tow was worked up they would take 
 out the long flax and prepare it for cloth. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then the skutching mills handled the long flax and handled 
 the seed flax also? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. They handled lioth. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Aud the functions of the skutching mills were to separate the 
 seed from the plant, a?id the fiber from the stalk ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. No; I think you have a wrong idea about it. The farmer would 
 take the seed ft-oni the stalk and sell the straw to the skutchiug mills before it was 
 rotted. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Aud the skutching mills handled only the straw ? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF, 535 
 
 Mr. Bentley. That ivas all, except sometimes when they acted as agent, when thej 
 bought the seed and sold it. 
 
 Mr, Breckinridge. And they hrought both stalks into use for commercial pur- 
 poses ? 
 
 Mr. Bentlby. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The less valuable stalk was generally for bagging tow? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Yes, until it was superseded by the iron ties. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Would the flax from seed stalk be used for rope at that time ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Yes, when rope was made. Tliis specimen [exhibiting] is the head 
 ef the plant. It was grown in O'Brien County, Iowa, last year. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Grown specifically for that purpose ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is jute the strongest competitor with flax. 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Yes ; I think it is, and also with American hemp. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Has the product of hemp increased last year? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Yes ; according to my information. It has increased within the last 
 four or five years considerably.. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it not a fact that the foreign jute has actively driven out, practically, 
 the manufacture of cloth from American flax ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Y'es, sir; there is very little flax fiber produced in this country to- 
 day. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you know the fact that in Iowa and Illinois within the last ten 
 years quite a number of mills have been established for separating this coarse fiber 
 [indicating a sample] from straw ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you know whether those mills are in business still or not ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Some of them are in business producing what we call a coarser tow. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Therefore the secret of it is that the flax straw which might be utilized 
 by American labor goes to waste now ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. If this trade were properly fostered that industry could be prosecuted 
 in the Western States in converting this raw material into flax ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. I have no donbt of it. I have no doubt that if tliis coarser product 
 of the scutching mills could be utilized in making bagging it would do more to estab- 
 lish the flax-growing industry in this country than any other thing that could be 
 done. 
 
 Mr. Flowek. At the present price of jute bagging can you make bags from this at 
 a profit? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. I am not familiar with the manufacture of bagging. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is dressed flax worth a ton ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley'. We get now most of our supply from Canada. We pay from 11 to 
 12 cents a pound for it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I wish you would explain the difference between scutched flax 
 and any other flax. 
 
 Mr. Bentley. This sample [indicating] represents scutched flax from Canada. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. In what does the process of scutching consist? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. The ordinary method pursued when we were getting American flax 
 from our immediate neighborhood was this : They used to run it through a series of 
 rollers 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Something like breaking hemp, I suppose 1 
 
 Mr. Bentley. The great bulk of the hemp to-day is broken with the ordinary old 
 hand-break which they used in ancient Egypt. It is a series of fluted rollers that 
 breaks the flax into short lengths and leaves the fibers intact. After it is broken it 
 passes through a series of circular scutching knives set in a pulley and that revolve 
 very rapidly. As the knives revolve they knock out the woody particles. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It is a process somewhat akin to hackling, I suppose ? 
 
 Mr. Bbntley. No, sir. Hackling is the next process in manufacturing. It is usu- 
 ally done by the spinning mills. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. This scutching is a cruder, separating process? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Yes; it simply knocks the woody matter out of it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Flax that is brought to a final finished state by another method 
 than scutching— how is that treated ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. I will describe how it is done for bagging, although I am not a 
 practical scutciier. When you want a long fiber, scutching is the way the flax is 
 treated. When you want simply the tow, it is run into some device for breaking the 
 sheaves. It tears the flax up into tow. That is the method as distinguished from 
 scutching. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I understiind you to .s.ay that the scutching process is the one 
 that was usually employed where the straw of the flax was to be used for bagging 
 purposes ? 
 
hSQ EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Bbntley. No, sir; you misiiuderstand me. That is the process that is used 
 for spinning purposes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And the other is the process where the straw is used for bag- 
 ging purposes? 
 
 Mr. Bkntley. Yes, sir. I would like to say a few words in regard to hemp. In my 
 judgment it has been the greatest factor in keeping down the price of binding twine 
 in the last two years. We were the first to manufacture binding twine out of hemp 
 instead of out of any other fiber. That was in 187.5, and since that time we have manu- 
 factured more or less every year. For the last two years we have probably manu- 
 factured about 200 tons each year. I think there were about 2,000 tons of hemp 
 binding twine used last year. If it had not been for hemp binding and for jute bind- 
 ing twine last year, I believe that the alarm of the farmers would have been realized. 
 They would have had to pay a much higher price for their manilla and sisal binding 
 twine. 
 
 The Chairman. That is, they have made the product cheaper to the farmer ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Yes ; and I believe that if properly fostered American hemp could 
 supply the entire demand of this country for binding twine, and I want to see the 
 day come when it will do so. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. For every ton of jute imported, how much flax is displaced? 
 
 Mr. Bentlev. About the same. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. One ton of jute will displace 1 ton of flax? 
 
 Mr. Bentlby. Perhaps a little more. There is more waste in flax fiber. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Then a ton of jute is at least equal to a ton of flax ? 
 
 Mr. Bently. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You speak of hemp twine bringing down the price of binding 
 twine ; you have to make this twine out of good article of hemp, I suppose ? 
 
 Mr. Bently. Yes; out of strong Kentucky hemp. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it not also made out of jute butts ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. No, sir; I think not. Jute twine made for that purpose is made out 
 of the very highest grades of jute. We import a great deal more jute butts than we 
 do jute — 68,000,000 pounds of the one against 21,000,000 pounds of the other. 
 
 Mr. Breckinkidge. The average price of this jute that is used for the finer pur- 
 poses is set down here at $42 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Bbntley. That must be a mistake. The average price would probably be 
 from 4^ to "if cents per pound for the high grades. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But jute runs down to $26 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Bentley. That is for jute butts. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Twenty-six dollars a ton is the average, including the high 
 and the low, according to the custom-house statistics. According to the same statis- 
 tics the tow of hemp averages $174 a ton. Now, how can an article made from that 
 which is $174 a ton bring down the price of an article made from another material 
 that costs only $42 a ton ? Has not the $42 a ton article brought down the other ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then that is the reverse of what you stated. You spoke of 
 this flax straw being used for bagging purposes and for baling. 
 
 Mr. Bentley. It was. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it not a fact that the cotton exchanges throughout the 
 country refused to receive cotton baled in flax bagging? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Yes, when the flax bagging was manufactured from the unrotted 
 straw. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Did you ever see any of it manufactured in such shape that 
 the cotton exchanges would receive it ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Yes, sir. The entire cotton crop was originally (before jute bagging 
 came into use) baled by flax bagging and by bagging made from hemp. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Was not the use of flax bagging only a temporary resort, and 
 was it not discontinued because of the introduction into the cotton of the woody 
 particles of that cheap flax which had to be used for that purpose ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. No. I do not think that they refused to receive cotton baled with 
 flax bagging until they began to use unrotted flax straw ; and then the fiber when 
 it got wet stained the cotton. But when the flax was rotted and put through the 
 regular proper process the bagging was, I believe, thoroughly acceptable to the 
 cotton balers. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. This flax straw which you speak of is an article introduced at a 
 comparatively low price — $35 a ton; but my own belief is that the flax straw proved 
 to be an utterly unsuitable :i,rticle for baling purposes ; that you had to use a high 
 grade of flax in order to get it free from iiiipuiities, and thatyou had to resort to jute 
 butts. Now, if you take flax that is not hackled it comes to $234 a ton and yet the 
 ptople are rising jute butts at $26 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Bkntley. That, quality of Hax was not yiut into tlii! cotton bagging. 
 
 Mr. BRECKiNiaiiCE. To got such bagging as would be accepted carried up the price 
 
KE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 537 
 
 perhaps not to be $234 a ton, but to something approximating that high amount. la 
 it not a fact now that you are trying to displace the consumption of one article by' 
 the introduction of another worth almost ten times as umch? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. I believe that the flax bagging was thoroughly acceptable to the 
 cotton balers until they commenced using the unrotted straw, as I said before. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinridge. What is the price now of the flax that would make a good 
 bagging free from woody fiber? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. I do not know of any being produced in the United States. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you know the value of flax of that kind ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. I do not know of any being produced at all. "When it was used it 
 was probably worth 3 or 4 cents a pound. The short particles of the flax were just 
 as acceptable for bagging purposes as this [indicating sample], which can be put to 
 much finer purposes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you believe that this Lindicating sample] could be made free 
 from woody fiber and produced at from 3 to 4 cents a ponnd ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Yes, I am sure of it, because I know that it has been done. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That would be from $60 to |80 a ton, instead of a commodity 
 costing only $26 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you think that would be fair to the people who consume it ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Yes, I believe it would be fair. I ask the same protection for the 
 parties who used to produce the tow and who are ready to produce it to-day as the 
 manufacturers are having, in order to protect them from the underpaid labor in 
 India where this jute fiber is produced and where tue compensation for day's labor is 
 only 10 cents. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it fair to compel our people to use that which costs $60 a 
 a ton when they can procure an equally good article at $26 a ton ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. The jute butts from which this fiber is produced is selling from 3J to 
 3^ cents per pound in New York. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Twenty-six dollars a ton is the import price of these jute butts ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley [Showing a table of prices]. The price of this jute butt on December 
 1, 1889, runs from If to 2f cents per pound. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That is a great change from what it has been continuously 
 during the last ten years. 
 
 Mr. Bentley. We do not buy any jute butts, and I do not know anything about it. 
 But I do not believe in compelling our American farmers and laborers to compete 
 with Indian labor at 10 cents a day. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Can jute be raised in this country? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. I do not know. I believe it can be raised ; but I doubt whether it 
 will be until the condition of things changes. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What dift'erence does it make to us when wa do not raise jute in this 
 country whether the laborers who raise it get 10 cents a day or $10 a day ? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. The difference that it makes to us is that it cuts out the flax fiber 
 which our labor is prepared to produce. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Which is the highest per square yard — jute bagging or flax bagging? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Flax bagging used to be rated at from 2 to 2J pounds to the yard. 
 I do not know the rate of jute bagging. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it not a fact that the very lowest grade of jute is used for this bag- 
 ging? 
 
 Mr. Bentley. Yes ; the butt ends. 
 
 LETTER FROM THE CHAS. C. JACOBS CORDAGE COMPANY. 
 
 The Chairman submitted the following letter : 
 
 Cincinnati, Decemher 31, 1889. 
 Dear Sir: We find it impossible to be present at the meeting of the Flax and 
 Hemp Spinners and Growers' Association to be held in Washington, January 3, 1890, but 
 as you are rei)resenting us from Ohio we hope you will consider our petition just the 
 same and do all you can to prevent the reduction of duty on manilla, sisal, jute, or 
 any other hemp andflax fibers. Such a course would ruin the growers of this country 
 and be most disastrous to the manufacturers, especially in the West. Their interest is 
 large and their capital invested would be lost. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 The Ciias. C. Jacobs Cordage Company. 
 Chas. C. Jacobs, President. 
 Hon. William McKinley, 
 
 Chairman of Waijs and Means Comiuitlee. 
 
538 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. F. L. BABBOTT. 
 
 Mr. F. L. Babbott, of New York, stated that the jute plant grew somewhat like a 
 corn stalk, to the height of 8, 10, 12, or 14 feet. Almost all of it was grown in India. 
 It had a pith like a corn stalk. It had also a thin bark on the outside which resem- 
 bled somewhat the outer covering of the corn stalk. When it was to be prepared for 
 market the plant was cut down (the upper part forming the jute), leaving a stubble 
 that was as much like the stubble of the coru stalk as anything he could compare it 
 to. This stubble was known as the jute butt of commerce. The upper part of the 
 plant was the jute, not the jute butt. These distinctions had to be kept clearly in 
 mind, because the butt went into one kind of fabric and the jute into various other 
 kinds of much higher grades. The pith was estimated at between 8 and 9 per cent, 
 of the weight of the jute stalk. When it was cut down it was put into pools, where 
 it was allowed to remain until the pith became loosened. Then it was taken up and 
 thrown on the bank and dried, when it was done up in bundles averaging about 80 
 pounds to the bundle. From there it went to the buyers in Calcutta. He made this 
 explanation so that there might be no mistake between jute and jute butts. He pro- 
 ceeded as follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the average annual consumption of jute in the 
 United States for the years 1886, 1887, and 1888 was 97,000 bales of 400 pounds to the 
 bale. The average annual consumption of jute in the world outside of the United 
 States for the same period was about 3,033,000 bales ; that is to say, the United States 
 manufactured about 3 per cent, of the jute product of the world during that time. 
 To put it in another way; The average annual consumption of Dundee for this same 
 period was in round numbers about 1,150,000 bales, or about twelve times that of the 
 United States. Calcutta and vicinity consumed annually during this period in round 
 numbers about 1,000,000 bales of jute, or more than ten times that of the United 
 States. The consumption of jute has increased in this country from 25,000 bales in 
 1876 to 125,000 bales, the estimated consumption for 1889. 
 
 According to the board of trade returns of Dundee, Scotland, as printed in the 
 Dundee "Prices Current and Trade Report" of January 16, 1889, there were shipped 
 from that single port during the year 1888 to the United States 130,291,400 yards of 
 jute cloth, exclusive of bags, or about 90,000,000 pounds. The largest quantity ex- 
 ported to any other country was 26,000,000 yards, or 104,000,000 yards less than were 
 shipped to the United States. During the same year there were exported to the United 
 States 16,681,800 pounds of jute yarn, or 12,000,000 pounds more than were shipped 
 to any other country. These figures represent the quantity of jute goods received 
 from Dundee alone. We can not give the importations from any other European 
 ports, nor from Calcutta, but it is a well-known fact that large quantities of burlap 
 are shipped to New York from Calcutta, and that the Pacific slope is supplied almost 
 exclusively from that source. We regret very much that we can not give the exact 
 figures in this case, but they would be enormous, as more grain is handled in bags 
 there than in the East. 
 
 The Blue Book of India, published early in the year 1889, shows that there were 
 employed in the year 1838, in jute mills in India, 50,713 hands. The last reports we 
 had from Dundee gav.e the number employed in this industry there as about 48,000, 
 although the number is usually stated in round figures as 50,000. The number em- 
 ployed in the mills of the United States, according to the last report which we have 
 at hand, is 3,325, which we believe is somewhat increased at present. 
 
 The following table will show the wages paid per week in Dundee, Calcutta, and 
 America. The figures were given by superintendents of mills in each of those 
 places: 
 
 
 Dundee. 
 
 Calcutta. 
 
 America. 
 
 
 $2.00 
 2.50 
 2.75 
 2.75 
 6.R0 
 8.00 
 
 .$0. 30-0. 90 
 
 .64-0.00 
 
 .48 
 
 .96-1. (iO 
 
 .70-l.'J« 
 
 1.10-2.21 
 
 $5.00 
 6.60 
 
 
 Kcfclers 
 
 7.50 
 
 
 6.60 
 
 
 15, 00 
 
 
 18.00 
 
 
 
 
 24.50 
 
 3.70-7.46 
 
 68.50 
 
 This table .shows that we pay about two and one-Iialf times as much as tlioy do in 
 Dundee, and about eleven tinii's what is piiid in Calcutta for the same class of help. 
 This ratio of wages between the Uuited States and Dundee fairly represents the dif- 
 
EEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 539 
 
 ference between the cost of labor for a pound of the same goods in both places, as the 
 Scotch worker is about as efficient as our own. We regiet that we can uot state the 
 comparative efficiency between our own and Indian labor on a given quantity of 
 goods, but have quoted the weekly wa<>es of the two countries, knowing that they 
 would practically demonstrate the great odds against us. Dundee producesthe finer 
 goods, the coarser qualities having been displaced to a very large extent by the cheaper 
 product of the Calcutta mills. 
 
 Accordingto theDundee "Price Current and Trade Report" of December 4, 1889, 
 the average price of jute in the month of December for the past eighteen years in 
 Dundee has been '3.2i cents per pound, upon which, allowing the same freight rates 
 and fixed charges as existing at present, the duty would be t^ir cents per pound. 
 
 The average price of yarns of a medium grade for eighteen years in Dundee, as 
 given in the "Price Current and Trade Report" is about 5.20 cents per pound, while 
 the higher grades of yarn would certainly have averaged 6 cents per pound for this 
 same period. On the basis of (i cents per pound for the finer grade of yarn the ad 
 valorem duty at present of 35 per cent, would equal 2i^^ cents per pound. 
 
 The average price of lOJ-ounce burlai) (the cheapest of all grades) per pound 
 in Dundee during the month of January since 1874, as given by a large consumer, 
 was about 7 cents, upon which the duty at 'SO per cent, ad valorem would be 2^ 
 cents per pound. 
 
 The freight rate from Dundee to New York to-day is about one-sixth of a cent, 
 per pound ; from Calcutta to New York, three-tenths of a cent per pound. Freights 
 from Calcutta often go much below three-tenths of a cent, as we have imported 
 jute at the rate of two-tenths of a cent per pound. 
 
 We have seen that the average rate of duty on burlap for the past fifteen years 
 has been equal to 2,\, cents per pound, and thatthe average rate of duty upon raw 
 jute for that period has been -ro%- cents per pound, leaving a net protection per pound 
 on burlap of 1.56 cents, or, in other words, that a duty of 20 per cent, on the raw 
 material has equaled a duty of 7| per cent, on the manufactured article. 
 
 The average price of a pound (2 yards) of 8-OHnce burlap in Dundee for the 
 past twelve months has been 7.20 cents, as given by the Bemis Bros. Bag Company, 
 of Boston ; the duty upon the same at the present rate of 30 per cent, ad valorem has 
 been 2.16 cents per pound, or about the average of the past fifteen years as above 
 stated. 
 
 The present condition of this industry sbows that we can now manufacture in 
 this country only a few grades of yarn and some specialties, and that with a duty 
 on the raw materials we are the smallest producer though the greatest consumer 
 of jute goods. 
 
 We would suggest a specific duty on burlap, instead of 30 per cent ad valorem as 
 recommended in the recent Senate bill, because it would simplify all computations 
 of cost and remove the temptation to undervaluation which now exists. An expert 
 can not distinguish the difi^erence between 10, lOJ, or 11-ounce burlap with accuracy, 
 and yet this small shade difference often represents the margin between profit and 
 loss. We further ask a specific duty because it shows the exact conditions that we 
 must meet. We have shown that the ad valorem duty of 30 per cent, is equivalent 
 to a specific duty of Sj'o cents per pound. 
 
 Large consumers of burlap wish to have this rate of duty reduced, but we believe 
 that consumers and manufacturers would unite in the recommendation of a spe- 
 cific duty of If cents per pound on all burlap under 60 inches in width, with raw 
 jute free. This rate would reduce the present duty -i^'i; cents per pound, or 16 per 
 cent. 
 
 We believe that if the Senate bill with this modification should become a law it 
 would tend to upbuild an industry that would employ a large amount of capital 
 and thousands of our people. 
 
 The following companies manufacture jute goods in some form, viz : Dolphin Man- 
 ufacturing Company, Paterson, N. J. ; Chelsea Jute Mills, New York City; Planet 
 Mills, Brooklyn ; Tucker and Carter Cordage Company, Brooklyn ; AUentown Spin- 
 ning Company, AUentown, Pa. ; John Good, Brooklyn ; Travers Bros., New York City ; 
 Schlecbber Jute Cordage Company, Philadelphia; J. T. Bailey & Co., Philadelphia; 
 Finley & Co., Philadelphia; Wilmington Manufacturing Company, Wilmington, 
 Del. ; Thos. Jackson & Co., Reading, Pa. ; Sutherland & Edwards, Paterson, N. J. ; 
 Pearson Cordage Company, Boston; Ludlow Manufacturing Company, Ludlow, 
 Mass. ; William Deering & Co., Chicago, 111. ; Hooven & Allison, Xenia, Ohio ; Cali- 
 fornia Jute Mills, San Francisco, Cal. 
 
 We ask for a duty of If cents per pound on all burlap under 60 inches in width, 
 with free raw jute; if the present duty is maintained on raw jute we would ask for 
 a specific duty of 2J cents per pound. 
 
 If an ad valorem duty on burlap is to be retained (which both the American mills 
 and the importers think unwise), it should not be less than 30 per ceat., even with 
 free raw jute. 
 
540 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Our industry has increased five-fold in the past thirteen years, and has reached a, 
 position where the manufacturing of burlap must be entered upon or its further 
 growth retarded. Our recommendations of duty are as low as we can make them to 
 secure this future development. The distinction in duty on burlap between goods 
 over and uader 60 inches in width has, we believe, 'been maintained in all recent bills 
 on this subject, and is the law to-day. The wider goods are produced at a greater 
 cost and have to be made with much more care. The duty upon these should cer- 
 tainly be 10 per cent, more than on ordinary burlap. Such is now the case, the one 
 being 30 and the other 40 per cent, ad valorem. These goods are now made here, 
 but not as largely as they would be with free jute. 
 
 We believe the discussion has shown that jute has not driven Kentucky hemp out 
 of the market. The warmest advocate of this fiber admitted that the production of 
 Kentucky hemp went from 80,000 tons (we believe) to 2,500 tons in 1869, at which 
 time jute mills were almost unknown in America. 
 
 We wish to add that the " Flax and Hemp Spinners and Growers' Association," 
 after kindly hearing our arguments, passed a resolution not to make any recommen- 
 dations concerning raw jute or the jute schedule, believing that the fiber had a dif- 
 ferent sphere of usefulness from their own. We think we can therefore say that the 
 arguments made before you against free raw jute were without the sanction of this 
 association, and mainly by a single hemp-grower who was unfamiliar with the com- 
 parative nature and uses of these two fibers, which are almost as different as cotton 
 and hemp. His principal argument presented was against jute for harvest-twine, 
 while he admitted that only 2,000 tons of Kentucky hemp harvest-twine were made 
 last year when the conditions were unusually favorable for its manufacture, and 
 that the Kentucky hemp-twine sold at 12 cents a pound and jute at 8|, even with the 
 duty ou the raw material of the latter. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is this industry in a trust ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. No, sir. We do not use jute butts. We use the upper part of the 
 plant fiber. The trust has been on the jute butts. 
 
 I have received the following telegram from the Dolphin Manufacturing Company. 
 
 Brooklyn, January 4, 1890. 
 To Frank L. Babbott (care Ways and Means Committee) : 
 
 Unless this Congress gives free raw jute we can no longer continue the unequal 
 struggle against Dundee competition on carpet yarns. For the last five years we 
 have kept our mills running with eight hundred hands, solely with the expectation 
 of free raw jute. 
 
 The Dolphin Manufacturing Company. 
 
 Now, in regard to Kentucky hemp, of which we have heard so much this morning. 
 By the courtesy and at the invitation of the president of the Flax Growers and Flax 
 Manufacturers' Association, I was invited to address some twenty-four members of that 
 association on this subject yesterday afternoon and evening. We went over it very 
 carefully. I regret to say that the figures were very slow in coming and very few 
 after they did come. I tried to look at it impartially ; but I could not see how jute 
 had been any factor in reducing the consumption of Kentucky hemp in this country ; 
 and I was very much obliged to the hemp grower of Kentucky this morning (Mr. 
 Coombs) for giving what I consider a conclusive argument in support of my state- 
 ment. You will recollect that he said that in the fifties we produced in this country 
 40,000 tons of hemp. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Eighty-three thousand tons. 
 
 Mr. Babbott. So much the better for my argument. He also said that in the year 
 18(59 the production had been reduced to 2,500 tons. Now, in 1869 the jute industry 
 was hardly known in this country. In 1876 (the first figures that I have here) the 
 consumption of jute in this country was 25,000 bales, or less than 5,000 tons. Now, 
 how 5,000 tons of jute could take the place of 75,000 tons of Kentucky hemp I am at 
 a loss to understand. It seems to me, in vicAv of the figures he has given, and in 
 view of the fact that we are not to-day consuming 25,000 tons of hemp, that this jute 
 fiber must be a very active one. If 5,000 tons of jute go as far as 75,000 tons of Ken- 
 tucky hemp, I think that the people want the jute. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The jute came in after the hemp ceast d ; did it not ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. Yes. The hemp was quite defunct when the jute came in. Now, so 
 far as I can see, every ton of jute knocked out 15 tons of hemp, which shows that the 
 jute was a T.'ery artive fiber. I can not appreciate it. I first asked the gentlemen of 
 the Flax Growers' Association to give me some flguresif they wished me to argue my 
 case before them. I saw no basis of discussion without figures. I asked them at 
 what ijrico hemp harvest-twine could lie made and gold in this country at a fair 
 margin of prolit. 1 w.'Ih told in t)ie afternoon that it could be made and sold at 12 
 cents a pound. Tlicu I bcuiin my discussiou. T asked the gentlemen if they wished 
 to correct tlifsc tlgures. Tliey made no reply. I then told them that the last year's 
 jute biudiugtwiue 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 541 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Did yon make it out of butts of the jute ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. No, sir; we do not use a pound of jute butts. It is used in burlaps, 
 incarpetyarn, or iu canvass, but not in harvest-twiue. The jute butt is a very coarse, 
 stiff fiber. 
 
 Mr. Flowek. If this jute was put on the free list you could afford to take 7-J per 
 cent, off from your manufactured j ate ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. We agreed to accept a reduction (in the average price for fifteen 
 years) on burlaps of thirty-five one hundredths of a cent a pound. We would do this 
 because during the last four or five years in which this industry has been of any im- 
 portance we have found that we can only make the specialties in burlaps. As, for 
 instance, we have been running about four hundred looms on what is the equivalent 
 of burlaps, and we have made, largely, seamless bags something of a specialty. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinridge. Is that a bag mainly foi' wheat? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. It is a bag for wheat, for sulphates, for bran, for flour, and other 
 things. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is not that kind of bag very susceptible to damp ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. All jute is susceptible to damp. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Then it is very liable to rot quickly? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. Yes, if it gets wet and then dries. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you not for that very cause have a good deal of binding twine re- 
 turned to you by the farmers ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. I have never heard of a pound of twine being returned for that 
 reason. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Have you had it returned for other reasons ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. The jute binding twine has been made only about two years. The 
 first year it was defective. We started to make it three-ply, and that was not a suc- 
 cess. Some of it was returned. We then made some single strand, but it was not 
 made in a satisfactory way, and some of it was returned. But this last year we put 
 out nearly 1,000,000 pounds of twine, and not a pound of it was returned. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Did you color it to imitate hemp ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. We put a sizing on it, which was of a bluish color. 
 
 Mr. Gear. In other words, you colored it? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are not the jute mills in this country prosperous under present condi- 
 tions ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. One mill was burned down last year, and is going up now. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you not know of other jute mills going up? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. We are putting up a new mill ourselves. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The production of jute in India is for other purposes besides the making 
 of twine and bagging, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. Yes; almost all the jute of India is woven into burlaps. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It is raised there for food, too, I believe. 
 
 Mr. Babbott. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Your new mill is of larger capacity than your present one, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. Yes, because we can not afford to run a small mill. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much larger is your new mill than your present one? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. Perhaps twice as large. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is the consumption of jute in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. It went up from 25,000 bales in 1876 to 12.'),000 bales last year. 
 
 Mr. Fi^owER. What is the cost of jute per ton in comparison with flax ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. 1 heard somebody say that flax was worth 5 cents a pound. I am 
 not familiar with it. We have bought a first-class article of hackled flax, duty paid, 
 laid down in the market for an average of under 3 cents ; to-day the market is un- 
 usually high. It has been abnormal for the last twelve or fifteen months; and we 
 are paying to-day from 4f to 4^ cents a pound, with a very fancy flax a little higher. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is the price of burlaps in this country as compared with the 
 same product abroad 1 
 
 Mr. Babbott. We have no statistics that I know of But I have given the prices 
 for each month of the past year, and for fifteen years in Dundee. The average price 
 at Dundee for the last twelve months was 7.20 cents per pound, to which is to be 
 added 2.16 cents duty, freight, commissions, insurance, etc., bringing it up, I should 
 think, to close upon 10 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiK. This burlaps is the burlaps used by agriculturists in putting up 
 wheat and other products? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. Yes, 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is it not used very extensively in California ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiM. I believe it is used there, not only for the transportation of wheat 
 but also when the wheat is stacked in the fields. 
 
542 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Babboti I do not know. I only know that they handle much of their grain 
 in bags. 
 
 Mr. McMii.LiN. You were asked about siziug. Do you size your thread to give it 
 smoothness '! 
 
 Mr. Babbott. "We size it for two or three purposes. One of these purposes is that 
 if you size twine, and if a drop of water touches it, ib is not likely to absorb it. You 
 can also place the fiber more closely together when it is sized. I think that we were 
 the first persons to make sized twine, and the Kentucky hemp people ought to be 
 grateful to us for teaching them to size their twine. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. It is all being sized now, is it ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. They are getting into it. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. That is a fact, is it ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. That is what one of them told me yesterday. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Please state the cost of twine made from flax as compared with the> 
 cost of twine made from jute. 
 
 Mr. Babbott. I have stated it. The Fl.ax Growers' Association told rae that li cents 
 a pound was the price of Kentucky hemp twine. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And what is the price of yours? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. I stated that jute twine was sold last year in the mavliet for 8f 
 cents. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Will a ball of jute twine that weighs 4 pounds bind as much grain as a 
 4-ponnd ball of hemp twine? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. It will biud nearly as much. We try to get our ball of twine to run 
 from 500 to 525 yards. A single-strand twine which Ave .sell for only 9 cents can not 
 be made with much uniformity by any man who is making a contract to supply it, 
 and we always give a lee way of 5'per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Did you state what would be the ad valorem percentage of duty 
 if the changes which you have suggested were made? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. On tlie average price for the last fifteen years? 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Babbott. It would be in the neighboihood of 224 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The price of burlaps which you have given just now, does it 
 apply to the price in our market ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. It applies to the foreign burlaps brought in here. I was asked what 
 was the price per pound of burlaps here and I gave the price in Dundee and stated 
 the amount of duty, freight, charges, etc., here. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What I was trying to get at was the cost of tlie burlaps abroad and 
 the price in this market. 
 
 Mr. Babbott. We are controlled almost exclusively by the Dundee market. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. So that the addition of duty, freight, charges, etc., would give sub- 
 stantially the price of burlaps in this market? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is burlaps worth in the market now ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. We are making our burlaps into seamless bags. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Then the tari his a tax on that article to the amount of the duty 
 imposed 
 
 Mr. Bemis. We are paying 5| cents a pound for burlaps in New York, duty paid. 
 
 Mr. Babbott. The figures that I gave for the year were given from Mr. Beniis'sown 
 office. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I asked you if the tariff is not a tax on the manufactured article to 
 the amount of duty imposed ; do you sell your burlaps any cheaper than it can be im- 
 ported ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. The difficulty is we have sold it below the Dundee price most of the 
 time. We have also sold it above the Dundee price. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You have given the wages to persons employed in the jute in- 
 dustry in India, Dundee, and this country ; I assume that the wages in Dundee are rela 
 tively much higher, as compared with those of India, than our wages are as compared 
 with those of Dundee? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. That is a fact. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I suppose there is free trade between India and Dundee. How 
 comes it then, that Calcutta does not drive Dundee out of the business? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. 1 was in Dundee myself two years ago. I talked to jute manufactur- 
 ers there, and they told me that the greatest mistake they had ever made was putting 
 their money into Calcutta mills. The Dundee mills make a little higher grade of 
 goods. The Calcutta mills make the lowest grades in the market and have the ma- 
 chinery fur tliat purpose. The Calcutta mills make no yarn, nocarjiets, no canvas. 
 
 Mr. Bri'.i ki.nriix;!;. How enmes it that in the tiuu'S in which they did make the 
 same goods tliey were able to pay sucli high wages iu Dundee and do better than the 
 Calcutta mills did ? 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 543 
 
 Mr. Babbott. They tlid not make such a good article in Calcutta as ia Dundee, and 
 the Calcutta goods have almost ruined the Dundee market. 
 
 Mr. Breckixkidgk. I understaud you to say that the Dundee manufacturers wore 
 sorry they had pnt their money in the Calcutta mills ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Brkckinriuge. Then it would seem that the business was profitable in Dun- 
 dee and unprofitable in Calcutta 
 
 Mr. Babbott. The last year or two have been good years in both places. Before 
 that, the business had been good in neither place. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then the sum of it then, as I understand you, is that in their 
 opinion Dundee is the more prohtable place to manufacture the article? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. Dundee has been and is the more i)rolitable place, as I understand, 
 for the finer grades of goods ; the coarser grades otgoods cau be made more cheaply in 
 Calcutta, and these coarser goods will answer certain purposes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do they make only the coarser goods in Calcutta ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. Mainly those. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then why did these Dundee manufacturers regret their in 
 vestment in Calcutta mills if they could manufacture there more cheaply then else- 
 where ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. For this reason, that when a poor article comes in competition with 
 a better one, the poorer article almost invariably brings down the price of the better 
 one. 
 
 Mr. Breckintridge. I can not see how the same men, in the same line of busi- 
 ness, could regret having put their money in mills at Calcutta, nnless there were some 
 conditions of climate, of labor or of popular traditions opposed to their success, be- 
 cause all the other elements in the business were exclusively under their control ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. The best explanation I can give of it is the fact that in the South 
 they can make coarse cotton yarn, compete with the products of New England 
 mills, but when they come down to the finer grades, the New England mills can com- 
 pete successfully still with the South. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Precisely; and we fiud quite frequently that Northern manu- 
 facturers invest capital in cotton mills in the South, where they are reaping a better 
 profit, but we do not find them regretting it. But you say that these Dundee manufact- 
 urers regretted their investment in the Calcutta mills. That is not au analagous case. 
 If our New England manufacturers were losing money by their investments in South- 
 ern mills, the conditigns would be analagous to those of the Dundee manufacturers 
 who regretted investing in mills in Calcutta ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. One fact which I have not stated before is that there ia machinery to 
 produce more goods than the world can consume, and in Calcutta to-day the mills 
 are running on short time. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But how is it that Calcutta is not so»good a place for the 
 manufacture of jute products as Dundee? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. One reason is that the labor of Calcutta is not so sliilled as the labor 
 of Dundee. I do not not see, however, why, for the coarser grades of good.s, Calcutta 
 will not supplant Dundee. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. As the finer grades of goods are not attempted in Calcutta, 
 the question cau only apply to the coarser grades which, alone, have been attempted 
 there. 
 
 Mr. Babbott. It seems to me that I have stated the case. I have stated the fact 
 that these manufacturers had their mills in Dundee, and that these mills were quite 
 prosperous ; that they then put their money in mills in Calcutta, and found that the 
 Calcutta and Dundee mills could produce more goods than the world wanted. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then they simply regretted that they had enlarged their 
 plant? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. You can draw your conclusions. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Your statement was that they removed a certain class of their 
 manufacture to Calcutta? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. That they opened mills there. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And that they regretted the selection of that locality as com- 
 pared with Dundee? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Why is it that the one location possesses an advantage over 
 the other location ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. There are a good many reasons for it. Calcutta is near where the 
 fiber is produced. Then, at one time, one mill will be standing idle, while the own- 
 ers would want both plants to be at work. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That applies to the enlargement of plant. So far as I can un- 
 derstand you there is no superiority at Calcutta which compensates for the expense 
 of the enlargement of plant. In other words, Calcutta has no sufficient superiority 
 in the manuiacture of these goods to compeusate for the additional outlay. 
 
544 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Babbott. She has a superiority ia the saving of freight on the raw jute. 
 
 Mr. BreciiInridge. You stated that liefore. Now, in regard to wages. You have 
 given the daily wage and the wfelily wage. 
 
 Mr. Babbott. 1 have given the weelily wages. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are the working people paid hy time or are they paid by 
 task? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. In some of the works it is a payment by task, and in others it is 
 averaged. I wanted to get the wages in Calcutta from a Calcutta superintendent, 
 and he gave me what his hands earned by the week, in rupees, and I went to the su- 
 periuteudent of the Dundee mill, and he gave me his wages in shillings, which I re- 
 duced to dollars. 
 
 Mr. Brbckinkidge. And on the basis of timet 
 
 Mr. Babbott. On the basis of weekly wages. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Would you consider that as satisfactory data In regard to the 
 cost of production, to simply put the wages on the basis of time, when the working 
 people are paid by the task, and when you do not get the cost per yard. 
 
 Mr. Babbott. I consider it the only practical basis. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are you prepared to state how much is paid in wages per yard 
 of a good grade pf burlaps in Calcutta, and how much in this country 1 
 
 Mr. Babbott. I am not. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Anything short of that would give no data as to the cost of 
 production. 
 
 Mr. Babbott. I think it would. In order to produce a certain quality of goods a 
 machine puts through so many pounds. Of course, when the Calcutta machine puts 
 through more that reduces the wages per pound, but for the Dundee mill and for 
 the American mill, which produce the same quality of goods, it would be a fair test. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it a fact that one hand in Calcutta will attend the same 
 number of looms (for burlaps) as in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. A good weaver in Calcutta may not be a good weaver here. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do weavers attend the same number of looms there as here t 
 
 Mr. Babbott. I understand they do. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do they attend the same number in Dundee as here ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. A hand in Dundee will produce about as much as a hand here. 
 
 Jlr. Breckinridge. How many looms will a good hand attend in your factory? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. Some will attend two, and some will attend one, depending on the 
 product. Some of these looms are weaving three pieces. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. So that a hand who superintends two of these looms is weav- 
 ing six pieces of cloth ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. In Calcutta will one weaver give attention to the process of 
 making six pieces of *loth at one time ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. I do not think that loom is used in Calcutta. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You have no data as to the product per capita in Dundee and 
 Calcutta ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. No. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And without that you think you can get at tlie cost of pro- 
 duction ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. You can get it down to the decimal. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Have you ligured out, in. your argument anywhere, the wage 
 cost per yard in Calcutta, Dundee, ami this co\intry ? 
 
 Mr. Babbott. I have not. It is impossible for me to do it. 
 
 The committee took a recess for 10 minutes. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES E. PEARCE. 
 
 Mr. Charles E. Pearce, of St. Louis, said: 
 
 Mr. chairman and gentlemen : Jute bagging is a product of American mills, used 
 exclusively for the baling of cotton, and is not utilizable for any other purpose, ex- 
 cepting as waste for paper stock. The present capacity of American mills now en- 
 gaged in this muDiifacture is about 70,000,000 yards per auuuiu. The maximum 
 quantity demanded by a 7,00(1,000 bale cotton crop is about 4&,000,000 yards. 
 
 Jute is exclusively a jiroduct of India, and is marketed as long or loose jute in and 
 near Calcutta. Jute butts are the root or "butt" cud of the jute stalk, cut off be- 
 cause of unfitness for line work. American cotton bagging is made from jute butts. 
 Loose jute is marketed in the Calcutta native bazaars, and is worth 2,5 cents per 100 
 pounds, or one-fourth cent per pound less llnan jute baled and ready for shipment. 
 Loose jute is bronglit down the rivers by the natives in small quantities, and bought 
 by large p.'ickers and by local mills. 
 
KEVISION OF THE TAEIPF. 545 
 
 From 1883 to 1886 about twenty-five j ate mills were established in Calcutta and 
 vicinity, fully equipped witli the best English machinery, on which no import duty 
 is imposed. All these mills employ coolie labor, paying an average for the entire mill 
 of less than 14 cents per day (silver In rupees) ; that is to say, wages paid to men 
 employed in these mills is from 16f cents to 22 cents per day ; to women, from 8 to 10 
 cents per day ; to youth, from 51 to 11 cents per day ; to children, from 4^ to SJ cents 
 per day. The aggregate number of hands employed in these twenty-five mills is 
 49,015, of which 29,660 are men, 11,198 are women, 5,113 are young persons from 
 twelve to sixteen years of age, and 3,044 are children from eight to twelve years of 
 age ; that is to say, nearly one-half of the aggregate force is composed of laborers 
 working for an average of less than 9 cents per day (silver in rupees). The verifica- 
 tion of these statements wUl be found on pages 379 and 380 of the report of B. F. Bon- 
 ham, consul-general at Calcutta, No. 102, February, 1889, of reports from the consuls 
 of the United States. 
 
 By reason of their advantage in loose jute and cheap labor the Calcutta mills have 
 gradually absorbed increasing proportions of the jute business of the world, until, as 
 a result of competition with each other, a combination has been formed among them 
 by means of which they are enabled to make their profits in markets which they con- 
 trol, and dump their surplus upon competing markets or markets which are beyond 
 their control at cost or even below cost. 
 
 The bagging mills in the United States are located in thirteen different States, to- 
 wit : New York, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas, Con- 
 necticut, New Jersey, Georgia, Alabama, Indiana, Ohio, and Missouri. These mills 
 are supplied with English machinery, on which the owners have paid to the United 
 States an average import duty of 40 per cent, ad valorem. All these mills use baled 
 jute butts imported via New Tork or Boston. 
 
 The large houses in Calcutta buy the loose jute and bale it. It has to be assorted, 
 then cut ofi: in lengths, and then put in bales and compressed by hydraulic pressure. 
 The wages paid in the United States average fully seven times as much per hand per 
 day, in operating machinery of the same general character, as is paid in Calcutta. 
 The average wages paid per week for all hands, young and old, in an American mill 
 is 16.76 (gold basis), as nearly as can he determined, as against the average of .f2.85 
 per week for all hands, young and old, paid at Dundee, and the average of about 80 
 cents per week (silver), for all hands, young and old, paid in similar mills in Cal- 
 cutta. 
 
 The existing duty on jute butts and the product known as cotton haling stufl' has 
 enabled American manufacturers to produce the supply necessary for the American 
 market. The present tariff on jute butts is $5 per ton, or about one-quarter of 1 cent 
 per pound, and on manufactured bagging 1^ cents per pound or 3 cents per yard on 
 what is known as 2-pound bagging, that is to say, ou bagging which weighs 2 pounds 
 to the yard. 
 
 The following table shows the present cost per yard to the manufacturers of 2-pound 
 jute bagging delivered at Southern ports from Calcutta : 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Jute butts, 2 pounds, at 1.08 cents per pound, loose 2.16 
 
 Waste, 10 per cent 22 
 
 Cost of manufacture , ' 72 
 
 Freight to New Orleans, per yard 1.00 
 
 Insurance, 2 per cent. ; brokerage, cabling, etc., 3 per cent 15 
 
 Cost in bond in Southern ports 4.25 
 
 Duty, li cents per pound 3. 00 
 
 Total cost per yard 7.25 
 
 Present cost per yard to the manufacturer of 2-pound jute bagging from American 
 mills delivered at Southern ports : 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Jute butts, 2 pounds, cost, duty paid in New York at 2 cents per pound 4. 00 
 
 Freight to mill, 17 cents per 100 pounds 34 
 
 Cost at mill 4.34 
 
 Waste, 10 per cent 44 
 
 Cost of manufacture - 2.00 
 
 Cost at mill 6.78 
 
 Freight to Southern ports, 15 cents per lOU pounds 30 
 
 Total cost per yard — - 7,08 
 
 485 35 ' 
 
546 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 These statements sbow the. cost of American bagging delivered at Southern porta 
 after having paid a duty on jute butts of 15 per ton, and the cost of Calcutta bagging 
 after haviug paid duty at the rate of 3 cents per yard on that -which weighs2pounds 
 to the yard. 
 
 J'>y taking the duty off the raw material it would bring the cost of American bag- 
 ging <lowu to about O.Ci-! cents per yard, and by taking olf 1 cent per yard from the 
 duty now charged im the Calcutta bagging it would make their cost 6.25 cents per 
 yard, so that the Calcutta bagging would then have nearly thirty-seven hun- 
 dredths of a cent thoadvantage of American luigging at Southern ports in cost. This 
 advantage is, however, to some extent offset by the fact that Calcutta is four months 
 away, and by the further fact that American bagging can be shipped from interior 
 points of manufacture to many points of consumption at an advantage in rates of 
 freight. It is therefore evident from these facts that with jute butts on the free list 
 a duty of less than 2 cents per yard on manufactured bagging would result in the 
 total destrnction of this industry in the United States. If, however, thepresent ex- 
 isting duty of .til5 per ton on jute l)utts should be retained, then a rate of duty of less 
 than 2* cents pc r yard would work the same result. The employment in bagging 
 factories is a sort of professional labor, in most departments re([uiring skill and long 
 practice. The people thus employed generally make it a life pursuit. It is proper to 
 state that the machinery tisediir jute factories of Europe, India, and the United States 
 is the same in character and efficiency and is made by the same manufacturers. A 
 comparison of the elements which enter into the cost of foreign and home bagging 
 shows that the United States can not compete with either Dundee or Calcutta, witfi 
 their low wage scales, without the intervention of a duty sufficiently protective to 
 overcome the discriminations of labor, rates of interest, and machinery, free from 
 imposts of duty in the foreign localities mentioned. 
 
 The inevitable result of a rate of duty which is non protective iu its operation 
 would be practically to legislate out of existence the American manufacturer of this 
 product, to destroy the capital invested, and to throw out of employment thousands 
 of operatives who are engaged in the industry, not only depriving them of this mcaiis 
 of livelihood, but sending their wages abroad to maintain the lowest grade of labor 
 known to the world, and at the same time to increase the Treasury surplus to the 
 extent of the duties collected. It is submitted that while a non-protective duty 
 would work the destruction of this American industry, it would not for any length 
 of time diminute the cost of bagging to consumers. 
 
 The following table show s the prices iu cents per yard of bagging weighing 2 pounds 
 to the yard on the 15th of Seyitember each from 186(j to ISH9: 
 
 rsm 35 1875 12i 18-4 llj 
 
 1807 23 1370 ; l!i 1885 lOf 
 
 1808 20f 1877 llf 1880 9J 
 
 laiO 22 1878 Hi 18W 7i 
 
 1,S70 30 1879 ._ lOi 188K 12i 
 
 1871 19 1880 12 1889 9J 
 
 1872 13-1 b««l lOJ December, 1889 7i 
 
 1873 12| 1882 9| January, 1890 7i 
 
 1874 13 1883 lOf 
 
 Jute came iuto use in the United States for bagging purposes about 1866. 
 
 The rate of duly fixed by the Senate tariff bill, of three-fourths of 1 cent perpound, 
 is altogether inadequate for any reasonable protection of this American industry. 
 
 The result of such a rate of duty would speedily run the American manufacturer 
 out of the business. Wo would therefore ask that section 3.39, page 1.54, of the Senate 
 bill be changed so as to make the rate of duty on maiiufaotured bagging 2 cents per 
 yard, jute butts being free, and 2| cents per yard, the present duty, being retained on 
 the raw material. The reason why the rate of duty should be levied at 2 cents per yard 
 (jute being free), instead of 1 cent per pound, is because the cost of manufacture does 
 not materially vary with the weight, and this adjustment would simplify the laws and 
 l^revent frauds by undervaluation, and would also encourage the use of heavy-weight 
 bagging, which is manifestly to the advantage of the cotton crop, better protection 
 being tliereby afi'orded to the staple. We would also ask that if redaction be made 
 in the duty on the raw material or finished product, or both, that the law shall not 
 go into effect until sufficient time shall have elapsed to allow manufacturers to adjust 
 their affairs accordingly ; that is to say, if the law shall be enacted during the present 
 session of Congress, it should not go into effect prior to the 1st of January, 1891, tho 
 reason being that manufacturers are compelled to purchase their raw material and 
 manufacture their product long in advance of the time when it is required for use, 
 and because the jute crop being marketed during the same seasons of the year as our 
 cotton crop, the source of sVipply being four to six montlis away, the hast of the old 
 crop arrives during October ami November, and the first of the new crop not earlier 
 than January ; consequently the stocks of raw material and manufactured product 
 
KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 547 
 
 are both smaller on .Iiimiary 1, than at any other time of the year, December being 
 the last month for i)ickiug cotton in this country. 
 
 The duty on bagging and butts is not a tax on the home consumer of the i)roduct 
 manufactured from this material because — 
 
 (1) All bagging surrounding cotton wliich is cxiiortcd out of tlio country is sub- 
 ject under the law to a customs rebate of 90 per cent, of tbe <luty levied on the orig- 
 inal importation. It is not the fault of the law or of tlie tarilf system if the con- 
 sumer fails to avail himself of his right. The law is, or can be made, etfcctive to the 
 extent of tbe rebate provided for. 
 
 (2) The bagging consumer makes a direct profit on his baling material. All cotton 
 sold in the XJnited States for consumption in American mills is sold gross weight, 
 that is, if a bale of cotton weighs .500 pounds gross, having around it 12 pounds of 
 iron ties costing SJ cents x)er pound, and (ii yards of bagging weighing 2 pounds to 
 the yard or 13 pounds, costing him, at retail prices, 10 cents per yard or .'j cents i^er 
 Ijonnd, he pays for the ties 27 cents and for the bagging 05 ci-nts. If he sells bis 
 cotton at 10 cents per pound he obtains for the ties and bagging aronnd it the same 
 price per pound as the bale is sold tor, gross weight, getting *2..10 for what cost him 
 92 cents, thereby realizing a large profit on his baling material. 
 
 Two criticisms are made on this commercial fact: First, it is said that the price in 
 a foreign market of an exported surplus fixes or determines the jirice in the home 
 market, and that therefore the Liverpool price fixes the price in New York, and inas- 
 much, secondly, as the cotton bale is sul)jected to a tare in tbe foreign market of 6 per 
 cent, or 30 pounds to the bale, the tare is practically applied to tbe bale consumed in 
 the home market. To these criticisms it is replied that the foreignei' buys net cotton 
 and Liverpool prices are quoted for net cotton, as appears from the attached price 
 current : 
 
 COTTON JIARKETS — BY TELEGKAPII. 
 
 LiVEiiPOOL, Jaimanj 4, 4 p. m. 
 
 Cotton. — The sales of the day include 12,200 bales American. 
 
 Futures closed firm. American — Middling, low middling clause, January delivery 
 ^,\d value ; January and February delivery, 5j;-J(? sellers ; February and March de- 
 livery, 5|J(2 buyers; March and April delivery, ^i^^d sellers; April and May deliv- 
 ery, 5il|(i sellers ; May and June delivery, 5-J-Jd seliers ; .June and July delivery, SJ-Jt? 
 buyers; July and August delivery, 5^(? sellers; August delivery, SJ'jfl .sellers. 
 
 it is also a fact in tr&de relations that the iirice paid for cotton will always in- 
 clude the value to the purchaser of the baling stuffs as paper stock, scrap, or what 
 ever else it can be used for. In the cobapetitions of business any two people bidding 
 for a bale of cotton, will necessarily recognize and compute this value in figuring on 
 the price they can afford to pay for what they get. 
 
 The home consumer of bagging, i. e. the planter, will therefore obtain for the stuff 
 used in baling its value for paper stock or other purposes in the foreign price paid 
 for the cotton. If the bagging is worth IJ cents per pound for pajier stock, he will 
 get for it 3} cents per yard, so that the net cost of the bagging shipped abroad will 
 be 6J cents on the basis of 10 cents per yard, and that amount lessened by whatever 
 he collects of the rebate allowed by law on the n-exported raw, material. Now, as 
 the foreigner buys not cotton, if it be true that the foreign price fixes the price in 
 New York, then the cotton producer gets a still larger benefit, because that price is 
 applied to the gross weight of the bale at borne. 
 
 ■ Now, using these data, and allowing that 70 per cent of a 7,000,000 bale crop would 
 be exported, the following would result, allowing 6| yards of bagging to the bale: 
 
 45,500,000 yards, at 10 cents *i4, 550, 000 
 
 Value for paper stock of 70 per cent., exported at IJ oent;s per pound 1, 194,375 
 
 Amount obtained for 30 per cent, sold at home at the price of cotton, .say, 
 
 10 cents per pound 2, 730, 000 
 
 Producing an aggregate returfi of $1,194,375 -f |2,730,000, or 3, 924, 375 
 
 showing a net cost to the cotton producers of S(;25,r,25 for the 2-pound bagging iieces- 
 cary to bale a 7,000,000 bale crop, or about 8f cents per bale. If now the rebate 
 allowed by law on the raw material re-exported in the shape of b.agging is collected, 
 then tho above net aggregate cost would bo diminuted as follows : 
 
 In 45,500,000 yards of 2-pound bagging there are about 100,000,000 pounds of jute 
 fiber, allowing for the loss of weight in manufacture. The duty is $5 per ton of 2,210 
 pounds. The amount re-exported would be 31,250 tons and the rebate of 90 |ier cent . 
 allowed by law would be $140,(325. This amount, taken from $02:5,025, would leave 
 $485,000 as the net cost of the bagging, or about 7 cents per bale. 
 
 In view of the willingness of the manufacturers of bagging to stand a net reduc- 
 tion of 20 per cent, we would ask that one of the following sections be adopted. 
 They are equivalents of each other. 
 
548 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 If jute butts are placed ou the free list then either of the following : 
 
 " Baggins for cotton, gunny cloth, and all similar material suitable for covering 
 cotton, composed in whole or in part of hemp, flax, jute, or jute bntts, and valued at 
 G cents or less per square yard, 1.6 cents per square yard." 
 
 "Bagging for cotton, gnnny cloth, and all similar material suitable for covering 
 cotton, composed in wliole or in part of hemp, flax, jute, or jute butts, not exceeding 
 45 inches in width, and valued at 6 cents or less per square yard, 2 cents per yard ; 
 exceeding 45 inches in width, 1.6 cents per square yard." 
 
 If the duty on jnte butts is retained, then either of the following : 
 
 " Bagging for cotton, gunny cloth, and all similar material suitable for covering 
 cotton, composed in wjjole or in part of hemp, flax, jute or jute butts, and valued at 
 6 cents or less per square yard, 2 cents per square yard." 
 
 " Bagging for cotton, gunny cloth, and all similar material suitable for covering 
 cotton, composed in whole or in part of hemji, flax, jute, or jute butts, not exceeding 
 45 inches in width, and valued at 6 cents or less per square yard, '2| cents per yard ; 
 exceeding 45 inches in width, 2 cents per square yard." 
 
 It is proper that the history of the advanced prices of bagging in 1888 should be 
 presented to the committee. The years 1886 and 1887 were years of extraordinary 
 competition among manufacturers. Prices steadily declined until they sank far 
 below the cost of manufacture, and large losses were incurred in marlseting the 
 product. Eighteen hundred and eighty-five and preceding years present normal 
 prices. 
 
 DlJ to March 1, 1888, bagging stocts accumulated until there were on hand about 
 22,000,000 5'ards of m.anufaotured product, and a stock of about 175,000 bales of jute 
 butts bought for the supply of that year? On all this aggregated material manufact- 
 urers had paid, or would be compelled to pay, duties to the Government of $5 per 
 ton, or the sum of about $260,000. The major portion of the machinery in mills was 
 made in England, and on it a duty of 40 per cent, ad valorem had also been paid to 
 the Government. The Mills tariff bill proposed to put manufactured bagging on the 
 free list to take effect July 1, 1888, and jute butts on the free list to take effect Jan- 
 uary 1, 1889 ; so that after July 1 American manufacturers were to be not only sub- 
 jected to the competition of free bagging, but must make their own product out of 
 dutiable material, the proposed law not even allowing manufacturers a rebate of the 
 duties i^aid or time to dispose of existing stocks. 
 
 The effect of this proposed enactment would have been not only to absolutely de- 
 stroy the American industry, but to reduce the expensive machinery employed in it 
 to the value of scrap-iron, it not being adapted to any other manufacturiug uses ; 
 the result being that the mechanical part of American bagging plants would under 
 the operations of this law be worth to owners far loss than the duties paid on the 
 same to the General Government. 
 
 Under this impending condition of things manufacturers becauie panic-stricken, 
 and the bagging business utterly demoralized. Immense quantities of cloth were 
 thrown upon the market six months before it was needed for use, at ruinous rates. 
 Nearly- 5,000,000 yards of 2-pound bagging were sold in Memphis alone at 6| cents per 
 yard, equal in New York to 6i cents. 
 
 It was under these conditions that a few proprietors uudertook, as the only possible 
 defensive measure, to hold up the market by taking all bagging oti'ered and withdraw- 
 ing future sales. Committees of manufacturers came to Washington and spent nearly 
 four months trying to secure a reasonable modification of the action taken by the 
 Ways and Means Committee. The only hearings obtainable were with individual 
 members of the committee. The rate finally adopted of 15 per cent, ad valorem 
 merely emphasized the determination of the committee to withdraw all protection 
 from American manufacturers. Finally on the 20th day of July, after the bill had 
 been adopted by the Democratic caucus, inasmuch as it appeared that the Mills bill 
 was destined to become a law, and that the probable success of the Democratic party 
 at the November elections would make the euactment certain, from which time there 
 was no possiljility of the business surviving, it was determined to corner the market, 
 and by anadvanccmentof prices to save as much as possible from the impending ruin. 
 
 From first to last it was a purely defensive measure. Only seven out of twenty-five 
 manufacturers were interested in it. These seven represented less than one-half of 
 the aggregate manufacturing capacity of the whole. There was no trust in the enter- 
 prise, and the contracts were temporary, being made only for the year 1888. The 
 tariff on bagging had nothing to do with it. The inciting cause was the onslaught 
 made njjon an industry which had been builded upon the faith of the Government. 
 These facts are shown by the subsequent conditions of the bagging market. 
 
 Immediately after the result of the November elections were known prices began 
 to decline from 12^ ceuts in November to IIJ cents iu December, to 10 cents in Janu- 
 ary, 188'J, to 9 cents iu February, to 8J cents in March. The cost of carrying and 
 otlier usual charges advanced the price to 9^3: cents in August and September, since 
 which time the decline has been steady to 7J in December, 1889, and January, 1890, 
 
REVISION • OF ' THE TARIFF. 549 
 
 The advancement in the price of baggiug for 1888 (lid not begin until after July 
 20, up to which time enormous quantities had been marketed at exceedingly low 
 rates, and were in the hands of Southern merchants or planters. 
 
 On estimates made from the "accounts sales " the average price realized by manu- 
 facturers for 2-pound bagging for the year 1888 did not exceed 9 cents per yard. 
 Even after July 20, 1888, more than 50 per cent, of all sales made by the parties con- 
 trolling the bagging corner was made at prices below lOJ cents per yard, yery lit- 
 tle bagging was sold at a price exceeding 11-J cents for that which weighs 2' pounds 
 to the yard. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I understand yon to say that there was a rise in the last couple of 
 years of from 9 cents to 17 cents in the selling price of jute products. Is it not a fact 
 that there was a combination of the manufacturers of cotton bagging in this country 
 for the purpose of putting up the price ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. There was a corner on bagging in 1888, brought into existence by the 
 influence of the introduction of the first tariff bill, known as the Mills bill. The con- 
 tracts of that combination expired with the year. There was never anything in the 
 nature of a trust in the bagging business in this country. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Was there no combination or understanding between manufact- 
 urers to increase prices 'I 
 
 Mr. Peap.ce. No, sir; there are twenty-five different manufacturers of jute bag- 
 ging in the United States. Out of these twenty-iive seven got a corner in jute bag- 
 ging on the Ist of January, 1888. The rest of them had nothing more to do with it 
 than anybody in this room. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. These seven manufacturers did form a combination ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. They ran th« price of jute bagging from 7J cents in 1887 to 121 cents 
 in 1888? 
 
 Mr. Peakce. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. How do I understand yon to say that the Mills bill affected that ? 
 that bill did not become a law. 
 
 Mr. Pearce. The conditions of the market and of the country in the spring of 1888 
 were very remarkable. In 1887 the bagging mills in the United States had lost a 
 great deal of money. The competition had been tremendous. The price in 1887 was 
 an abnormally low price. In the spring of 1888, April I think, when the Mills bill 
 was first formulated, there was in this country about 1.5,000,000 yards of bagging, 
 surplus stock, and, in addition to that amount of bagging in hand parties had bought 
 and paid for nearly all the raw material needed for the product of 1888. The Mills 
 bill as formulated proposed to put bagging on the free list (the law to go into operation 
 on the 1st of July), and also to put jute butts on the free list. The result of that was 
 a demoralization in the business, which threatened not only ruin to the manufacturer, 
 but bankruptcy to every manufacturer in the business in the United States. Two- 
 pound bagging was thrown on the Memphis market immediately after the bill was 
 offered at 6f cents per yard, which was, perhaps, li cents per yard below cost. 
 
 The bagging manufacturers had paid the Government the duty on their raw ma- 
 terial for nearly if not quite the entire year of 1888. The political force behind the 
 Mills bill seemed to be of a character that was calculated to carry the bill to a suc- 
 cessful enactment, and it therefore became necessary for the manufacturers to catch 
 the market in some way, and to do it immediately. It was under those conditions 
 and for those reasons that these seven gentlemen resolved to catch the market, and 
 they went in and bought all the bagging they could get their hands on all over the 
 United States. A large representation of the bagging manufacturers of the United 
 States came to Washington and laid their facts before the different members of the 
 Committee of Ways and Means whom they could see privately, because they were 
 not allowed a hearing before the committee. They filed their statements with the 
 committee (and I presume that those statements are in the possession of the present 
 committee) showing the whole status of the case ; and they begged that the commit- 
 tee would not carry out the provisions of the bill as applied to their industry. They, 
 however, did not succeed in getting any satisfaction upon any side, and during the 
 entire session of Congress these conditions, so far as jute bagging manufactures were 
 concerned, were the same. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You do not undertake to say that they ever acquainted any mem- 
 ber of Congress with the fact that they had gone and cornered the market, or had 
 orgauized a trust and then came here and announced what they had done ? You do 
 not mean to say that while tlley were pleading to retain the duties they were organ- 
 izing a trust ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. If you observe the dates of the examinations before the Senate com- 
 mittee and before the House committee during that year you will find that during 
 the month of August of that year (I think) the Senate committee at least was in pos- 
 session of all the facts and all the contracts which were made by those gentlemen for 
 the business of that year. 
 
550 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. JIoJIiLi.iN. Is it uot :i facttliatthe trust, orthe specula.tion, or the fleecing, or 
 wbaluYcr it may bo culled 
 
 Mr. Pearce. Xotliiuf; of the kind. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Tlien the eleemosyuary institution 
 
 Mr. Pearce. We will not quarrel over terms. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLix. Whatever yon see fit to call it was kept up and continued long 
 after the bill had been defeated ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. No, sir ; the contracts made were for 1888. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But the understanding continued ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. As I stated to you before, the people had bought their jute, and made 
 their contracts, and the contracts had to be carried out. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And these raanufactarers got so badly scared that they went 
 straightway and fleeced the users of their commodity to the extent of the difference 
 between ?£- cents a pound and 1:2-J cents a pound ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. There is no question about the fact that they got badly soared. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And they fleeced very extensively too 1 
 
 Mr. Pearce. I do uot think thej' ever fleeced anybody out of one cent. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. You think they did what was right. You justify it ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. There is a vast deal of difference between fleecing a man and doing 
 what is right. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. Then yon justify what was done in the organization of this trust 
 or understanding. You have admitted that it was a cornering. You justify that in 
 your argument for higher duties? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. There is not a bagging manufacturer in the United States who does 
 not regret to-day, and did not regret then, the conditions that forced that action on 
 them. 
 
 Mr. McMiLi.iN. Have you ever heard of any of them returning the money thus ob- 
 tained from the people who could uot help themselves? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. 1 never have ; I did not belong to them. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You made no contribution to the conscience fund? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. I did uot belong to them ; no man was ever forced to buy bagcjing 
 unless he wanted to. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Your idea of the proprieties of 1he trade is that, taking advan- 
 tage of the proposed changes in the tarilf, these people were justified in making 
 this corner? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. My idea of the propriety is that when you undertake, primarily, to 
 destroy me I am justified, secondarily, in protecting myself, and I will do it every 
 time. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But you have gone beyond the average price for years. In 1884 
 it was llj cents per 2-pound yard ; in 1885, lOJ cents ; in 1880, yj cents; in 1887, 7jr 
 cents; and in 1888 you carried up the price, by artificial means, to 12'J cents; and 
 you say that v\'as right. 
 
 Mr. Pearce. It is selling for 6| cents to-day. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And you admit that. the grip was not loosed when all po-ssibility 
 of the passage of the bill was ended. 
 
 Mr. Pearce. I beg your pardon. The average price of 2-pound bagging for 188'J 
 was 9f cents. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What was the highest price to which it was carried in 1888 ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. I think about 12^ cents. 
 
 Mr. McJIiLLiN. You stated that as the average price. 
 
 Mr. Pearce. No. I stated it as the price quoted on the 1.5th of September. The 
 price will vary very considerably during the year. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What was the additional cost to the consumer on account of the 
 increase of price from 7J to 12J cents a pound I What did it aggregate for the whole 
 output of the mills of this country ? 
 
 Mr. Pearck. I can tell you better about what thoy made. 
 
 Mr. McMllxiN. I want to know what that figure would aggregate. I see the 
 prices they got before the trust or organization and what they were afterwards. I 
 want to know what the difi'erence amounted to on the whole ]>roduct of the United 
 States. 
 
 Mr. Pearcio. The whole product of the United States is, say, 40,000,000 yards. 
 
 Mr. McMli.LlN. And the price was in 18S7 7:| cents a yard, and in 1888 h^ cents? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. Take the year before, because 1;^87 was an abnorni.iUy low year. 
 
 Mr. McMii.Lix. I take it for the year when, you say, this corner was made. It was 
 organized at the, close of 18-7 ? 
 
 Mr. pEAKCi:. No ; it was organized in the year 188S. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. 1 took the prei eding year as the year it did not exist ; and I took 
 tlie year ls^8 as the year it did exist, as the proper years for the calculation. 
 
 Mr. PiSAitCB. The price in 1887 was an abnornuilly low price, under which nearly 
 all the bagging manufaoturers of the United States lost large amounts of money. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 551 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlx. I have stated the reason why I selected the .year lrt87. 
 
 Mr. Pearcb. You selected it, of course, because it was the yea.i- of the lowest price. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I beg your pardon. I have stated correctly the reason why I 
 selected the year 1867 ; and your statement to the contrary does me injustice. 
 
 Mr. Pearce. I understood you to say that you selected it because the combination 
 you speak of was formed iu that year. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I stated that I selected it because it was the last year in which, 
 there was no combiuation, and because 18rf8 was the first year when there was a com- 
 bination. Now what did the dift'erenco in price ajjgregate on the whole production ? 
 
 Mr. Peakce. It would be 40,000,000 multiplied by 5 cents, $2,000,000. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. That was the amount pocketed as the result of that fraud. 
 
 Mr. Pearce. No, sir; decidedly not. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. Then after this corner closed off or expired, or was abandoned 
 (whicb ever term may be used) in 1889, I see the price went back to 9^ cents and in 
 January, 1890, to 7J cents. 
 
 Mr. Pearce. It is selling now at 7| cents. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. They were no longer able to control the market ; is it not a fact 
 tbat the farmers began to put cotton in other wrajiping ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. The price is 7-J cents. I do not know whether it is for that reason or 
 not. I say it is by reason of the competition among manufacturers of bagging. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You say that the low j)rice W3,s originally on account of fright as 
 to the new tariff bill. 
 
 Mr. Pearce. I beg your pardon. The tariff bill was not proposed in the House 
 until 1888. I said that the competition among the manufacturers carried the price 
 to that abnormally low figure; and the competition now has carried the price to the 
 figure you find it at, 7^ cents. 
 
 Mr. McMiLi.lN. Is there any prospect that the manufacturers will not get fright- 
 ened again, and go into this laudable work, if we contiune the duty as you desire ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. 1 trust not. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. You know as a fact that the farmers, through their organizations, 
 began to act, and to practice successfully the putting up of their cotlon in other sub- 
 stances than jute ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. There were some experiments made in the production of bagging 
 from the fiber of the pine needle, and there was a considerable quantity of bagging 
 made from cotton, both of which were used to some extent in 1889. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiM". So that the market could not be controlled any longer 1 
 
 Mr. Pearce. I do not think that the quantity of this bagging used had auy appre- 
 ciable effect upon the market. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. But the constant threat to use it, and the nse of it to some extent, 
 would have that tendency, would it not ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. Perhaps that is good as an argument. It would be a matter of 
 opinion. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You say that you did not put that $2,000,000 difl'erence iu your 
 pockets; what do you mean by that ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. I mean what I say. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Why did you not ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. Because we did not have it to put there. 
 
 Mr. McKexxa. You got it? 
 . Mr. Pearce. We did not. 
 
 The Chairman. The Mills bill, that you have been speaking about, put cotton 
 bagging on the free list. 
 
 Mr. Pearce. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. And that bill was to go into effect on the let July, 1888? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. If that bill had become a law, what efi'ect, if any, would it have 
 had on your business for that year, and on the capital invested in the bagging man- 
 ufacture? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. It would have destroyed every manufactory of bagging in the United 
 States, and probably have bankrupted seven-eighths of all the manufacturers. 
 
 The Chairman. How much capital invested in that businoss would have been 
 literally wiped out ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. From l|0,000,000 to 118,500,000, I presume. 
 
 The Chairman. And the reason of the inlluence of that bill on your business was, 
 first, that it put upon the free list the raw material which you had bought and paid 
 duty on, and had nuiiiufacturea into the finished product, and then because it removed 
 all protection froiu your finished product? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. That w:is the cause and the only cause why that corner was rung. 
 It never would have been undertaken, in any sense of the word, had it not been for 
 that fact. 
 
552 REVISION OF THE TARIFF, 
 
 The Chairman. And your statement is that that combination was only made to 
 protect invested capital from what you believed to be destructive legislation ? 
 
 Mr. Peahce. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You say that the proposed passage of the Mills bill was a dangerous 
 menace to your industry ? 
 
 Mr. Pearcb. We so considered it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. When it was found that the biU did not pass, did not the price of bag- 
 ging begin to decline, and decline steadily? 
 
 Mr. PjjARCE. It did ; and it has been declining ever since, until to-day it is below cost. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The bill failed in the summer ; when did the decline begin ? 
 
 Mr. Peakcb. I can not tell exactly. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What was the price along in the autumn of 1888 ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. I can not give you that. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Your statement to Governor Gear was that when you found 
 that the Mills bill would not become a law, the price of bagging began to decline 
 immediately. You knew, of course, on the 1st of September that it would not be- 
 come a law, when the House bill had been defeated in the Senate. 
 
 Mr. Pearce. I do not recollect the time. I can not recall the dates. The market, 
 if I recollect right, began to decline in the early winter of 1888. I will not bo re- 
 sponsible for that statement, because I may be in error. I can get tljp price for each 
 month. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Get them for a few months after September, 1888. My im- 
 pression is that there was no appreciable decline throughout the whole period that 
 included the marketing of the crop of 1888. I am speaking, however, only from an 
 impression. In making jute butts into bagging what percentage of waste of material 
 is there ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. I think it is reckoned at about 10 per cent. ; the dirt and woody 
 matter. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is there any bagging such as we use in this country made 
 abroad ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. It think not. There may be some little ruade in Scotland. I wiU not 
 be sure. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. My impression is that the crops of other countries are baled in 
 an entirely different way from the baling in this couutry ? 
 
 Mr. PpARCE. I think so ; in differently made fabrics. They make nothing there 
 that could be used for our products. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is l^-pound burlaps worth per yard? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. It is about 12| cents in New York. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Therefore, a competing article weighing li pounds would have 
 cost 12^ cents. 
 
 Mr. Pearce. Yes. 
 
 Mr. J. M. Bbmis (another witness). One and one-half-pounds jute would be 10 
 cents a yard in New York. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. So a competing article would be 10 cents a yard in New York 
 when (as you state) cotton bagging was selling at 7J cents in Memphis. 
 
 Mr. Pearce. Of course, the price depends on the weight of the bagging. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am speaking of l|-pound bagging; was that selling at 7J 
 cents in Memphis 1 
 
 Mr. Pearce. I do not recollect about that. The figure that I gave is for 2-pound 
 bagging. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then li-pound bagging would cost something less ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. Yes ; 1 cent a pound less. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. ?Iad not correspondence been begun, and to a considerable ex- 
 tent contracts made, in reference to this combination on bagging prior to any. knowl- 
 edge of the proposition in the Mills bill ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. Two of the gentlemen I know that were in that enterprise I heard 
 state prior to the introduction of the Mills bill in the House that they would not have 
 anything to do with any combination or any asisociatiou. 
 
 Mr. Breckinp.idge. Was that prior to information to you and others of what the 
 Mills l)iU proposed? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. They made that reply, of course, in reference to a correspond- 
 ence or a conversation about the coiubiiuition ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. There was a conversation at that time in regard to the question as to 
 whether there could be an agreement formed to diminute the output of bagging 
 down to aliont .''), 000,000 yards in excess of tlie maximum consumptive demand, the 
 capacity of the American mills being about :i5, 000,000 yards of bagging in excess of 
 possible consumption. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That negotiation, then, was prior to information on the part 
 of those gentlemen of the proposition in the Mills bill, and was with the view of lim- 
 iting production for the purpose of improving the market price of bagging? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 553 
 
 Mr. Peaecb. There was nething said about prices. 
 
 Mr. Bkbckineidge. That would be the ett'ect, I presume. They did not want to 
 lower the price. You had been suffering a depression at that time ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. a very serious one. The conversation did not amount to anything. 
 It was just a cursory conversation. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Have you ever figured what this 2-ponnd jute bagging could 
 be imported for, if it were on the free-list? Of course they could soon start mills in 
 Dundee and other places to make it. 
 
 Mr. Peaecb. I think I can give you the figures. Two-pound jute bagging, Calcutta 
 bagging, can be delivered at New Orleans at 4J cents, there being no duty on the bag- 
 ging. That is to say, that is the cost at New Orleans to the manufacturer, 4J cents 
 exclusive of the profit which the manufacturer may expect to make. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is the equivalent of the duty on jute in the cost of the 
 yard of your 2-pound bagging ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. Of course that depends upon the price of jute at various times. It 
 varies, of course. It is not a fixed quantity. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You say, that if the Mills Bill had gone intoeffect, your industry would 
 have been wiped out ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. That is a dead certainty. There is no question about it. 
 
 Mr. BA-i-NE. You say that there were from $6,000,000 to $8,000,000 invested in it ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. At least that. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Would your plants have been fit for any other purpose? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. Nothing else except for scrap-iron. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You started your enterprise under the faith which legislation had given 
 you that a certain duty would be levied on jute bagging? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. It grew up entirely under that policy ; and the manufacturers had 
 paid import duties to the Government on their machinery. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. And on that faith you started your business ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Was your machinery all imported. 
 
 Mr. Pearce. Not quite — the best portion of it. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. And for the loss which you apprehended you endeavored by this cor- 
 ner to recoup yourselves to some extent? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. To get out to the best advantage. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. If any contribution were to be made to the conscience fund under those 
 circumstances (you having started your enterprise under an assurance by this Gov- 
 ernment that you should receive a certain protection) would it not be fair, in your 
 opinion, that the projectors of the Mills bill should share in that contribution ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. I think I can safely leave that to my friends here. 
 
 The Chairman. Yen said that the highest price of bagging was in September, 
 1888? 
 
 Mr. Pbaece. That is my recollection. 
 
 The Chairman. Was that price reached gradually during the months preceding ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. And what proportion of the product, if any, was sold between 
 July and September at a lower price than ISJ cents a yard ? 
 
 Mr. Pearce. I do not recollect ; my impression is that it was about one-half. 
 There is always a very heavy demand for jute bagging in July and August. 
 
 Now, on the subject of hemp, 1 happen to be interested iu a large manufactory of 
 hemp binding-twine at Champaign, 111., an enterprise which has grown up during 
 the past three years ; and I speak from my own personal knowledge and experience 
 "When I say that that industry which is just now growing has been giving a wonder- 
 ful impetus to the production of hemp through the West and Northwest. It is at 
 present in its infancy. I haven't the slightest doubt but that, if the industry be 
 properly cared for, the hemp raised in this country within the next three years in- 
 stead of being 12,000 tons will be as much as 40,000 or 50,000 tons. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What do you pay for liemp ? 
 
 Mr. Peaece. I think we are paying about 4 cents a pound. The Kentucky hemp- 
 growers are asking in the neighborhood of 5 cents a pound, but their hemp is a little 
 better. 
 
 Mr. Pearce submitted the following letters : 
 
 St. Louis, Mo., December 26, 1889. 
 Dear Sir: Replying to your inquiry in regard to the average price at which jute 
 bagging has sold during the past season, 1889, we state that the average pjrice at 
 which If pound jute bagging has been sold during the year 1889 is 8 cents, free 
 on board. New York. One and three-quarters pounds is the weight principally used 
 in covering cotton. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 Warrkx, Jones & Ghatz, 
 Maj, Chas. E. Pearcu, 
 
 Si, Louis, Mo 
 
554 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Xew Yiiuk, Jiinuarij 3, 1890. 
 Dear Sli; : lu leiily 1o ,\onr iiiqiiiry i btj;; leave to s;iy thai. lUe market prices of 2- 
 pound pure jute bagging, free ou Ijoiiid, New York, from November, ItitiV, to January, 
 1890, is as follows : November, 1888, 12|. cents per yard ; December, 1888, 11^ centu 
 per yard ; January, 1889, 10 cents per yard ; February, 1889, 9 cents per yard ; March, 
 1889, 8i cents per yard. 
 
 From April 1st, with carrying charges, insurance, etc., added', price advanced to 9;^ 
 cents in August and September, since which time the decline has been steady to 7J 
 cents in December, 1889, and January, 1890. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 Applf.ton Sturois. 
 Maj. Chas. E. Pearce. 
 
 The following letter was subsequently received from Mr. Pearce : 
 
 Jandary 4, 1890. 
 Tlie Committee of Ways and Means : 
 
 Representing the Empire Cordage Company, which is located at Champaign, 111., 
 and is largely engaged in the manufacture of harvest-bindi'r twine, I beg leave to 
 state to the committee that the iiroduot of this company is made wholly from Amer- 
 ican hemp grown in the States of Illinois, Iowa, and Kentucky. The fiber is by no 
 means limited to these areas, and is being planted on a most extensive scale pretty 
 nearly everywhere in the country. The use of twine instead of wire for binder pur- 
 poses has wonderfully revivified this old and remunerative agricultural industry. 
 
 If American hemp receives its fair shani of protection as against manilla and sisal it 
 may be fairly expected that within thi; next three years, or as soon as a sufficiency of 
 seed can be obtained, the American hemp product in fiber will increase from 12,000 
 to .'■)0,000 tons per annum. 
 
 Hemp is one of the most valuable of farm products, and while it involves severe 
 and heavy labor, its profits to the farmer are fully compensatory. The encourage- 
 ment of hemp-raising is especially desirable at this time, when the production of 
 wheat and i orn so largely exceeds the consumptive-, demand for these staples. It is 
 not unlikely that the introduction of mechanical aiipliauces for the extraction of the 
 fiber will, by lessening its cost, greatly increase its uses. The Mexican ixtle and pita, 
 which can be raised on either sideof the EioGrande, and various species of Ameiican 
 cacti are becoming of great importance for mixing with hemp, and these combina- 
 tions will in the very near future greatly increase the use and demand for this grand 
 fiber. 
 
 The retention of the duties on manilla and sisal will make the tariff a direct bene- 
 fit to the farmer'as he produces the material out of which the twine which he con- 
 sumes is manufactured, while those who do not raise the hemp have a better show 
 for wheat and corn in the diminution of acreage devoted to those staples. 
 
 I do not think that American hemp can be raised in competition wilh manilla and 
 sisal without the iutervent ion of a protective tarifl'. The percentage of labor which 
 enters into these fibers is very large and the diflerencesin rates of wages are too 
 great to give the American product a chance under our present industrial .system. 
 
 The Empire Cordage Comi)iiuy in 1888 used about 400 tons of hemp ; in 1889 about 
 700 tons; in 1890 it will use 1,500 tons, and when its present mechanical system is 
 fully e(|uip))ed, its annual consumption of fiber will be not less than -^,.500 tons, all of 
 which will be drawn from Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, and other coutignous districts. 
 
 I earnestly commend to the committee the wisdom of giving to this splendid farm 
 product a fair protection ag.ainst manilla and sisal. 
 
 Respectfully submittied. 
 
 Charles E. Pearce. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. J. M. BEMIS. 
 
 Mr. J. M. I'EMLs, of St. Louis (of the lirm oC Bemis Bros.' ling Company, Boston), 
 sa.id: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and geiiitlemen of the committee, nniike my IVieud Mr. Pe.arcc, whose 
 business is entirely in the manufacture of Jut(^ for the covering ot cotton, our business 
 is entirely in the manufacture of jute liaggiug for the covering of grain. Hour, ores, 
 etc., and the two classes of bagging an; as entirely sepaiate as cotton goods an; from 
 jute gijods. 
 
 W(^ appear befoM^ you on the subject of retaining an adequate protection to the bag- 
 mauulacturing interest; we mean bags made of jute cloth or so-called burlaps. 
 
 The present tariff on burlajis is 30 per cent,, and on bags made from this burlap 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 555 
 
 cloth is 40 per cent, ad valorem. This ])roteetii)n of ten oiie-luindredtliH is quite .siil- 
 flcient and satisfactory to the bug nuuiut'acloi ies ;4euerally, but as we are ail\ised 
 that some effort may be made to carry this industry to the free list we beg to put our 
 views before your honorable committee. Wo are inclined to think'tbe time has come 
 ■when the minimum rate of duties that will pay the difterencc in the price of labor for 
 making bags in this country over what it costs abroad for making bags should be 
 adopted, and with this view we beg to sugge.st to your honorable committee that 
 seven one-hundred ths per cent, over and above any duty there may be on the cloth 
 will enable us to retain this industry. 
 
 It is our desire to name the lowest point that will give us adequate protection, and 
 ■with that view we have conferred with all of the large uiauufacturers (not all of the 
 smaller ones), and they are all agreed, I believe, on that point. 
 
 This means three one-hundredths per cent, less protection than present tariff. 
 Some other manufacturers think the present ditt'ereuce of ten one-hundredths should 
 he maintained. 
 
 Most all of the large bag manufacturers are also importers of the burlap cloth, and 
 there arc many reasons why the ad valorem system is against the American iccporter. 
 We will mention a few of them : Undervaluation or fraudulent invoices as to prices 
 and weights.of the goods, either or both. Most of all purchases of goods, either Dun- 
 dee or Calcutta, are for future shipment. For instance, a purchase is made to-day at 2 
 pence per yard for a lO^-ounce burlap, goods to be shipped one month hence. If the 
 price on the day of shipment has advanced, then the purchaser must pay duties on the 
 advance price; but in case market declines after purchase and before day of shipment, 
 then the purchaser must pay duties on purchase price. This is very unjust and 
 against the American buyer. Then, again, no expert can tell by sample of the goods 
 the weight; the weight to a great extent defines the price. Hence all chances for 
 fraud are removed by adopting a specific rate, and the American importer is placed 
 on an even plane with the foreign shippers and importers. 
 
 We think the honorable Secretary of theTrea.sury has been collecting some infor- 
 mation favorable for a specific rate of duty on burlaps. Mr. F. L. Babbott, who no 
 doubt will speak for the American manufacturers of burlap, will have something to 
 say in favor of a specific rate on jute, stuff, burlaps, etc. 
 
 On a specificrate basis bags should have a protection of forty-five one-hnndredths 
 of 1 cent per pound over and above any rate there may be on the burlap cloth. This 
 would be an equivalent of seven one-hundredths ad valorem and lower than the 
 present tariff. The specific rate as compared with ijrescnt tariff would be about fifty- 
 eight one-hundredths cents per pound. The bags consumed in this country have al- 
 ways been made here, that i.s, since the present tariff came into force in IS&i and 186!i, 
 and don't believe that even the friends of low tariffs, or even free trade, will now 
 advocate cutting down the small protection we ask and deprive our poor women of 
 this work. Most of all the bag-making is done by women and girls. 
 
 Wages in Calcutta are, say, 10 cents per day; in Dundee about 40 per cent, of what 
 we pay ; our girls earn on an average of $1 per day. The laborers of this country 
 comprise or produce the great purchasing power. This purchasing power destroyed 
 by wages being reduced to a mere existence basis, ou% farms become unproductive, 
 our factories close. 
 
 These bag factories are located in all jiartsof the country. There is no north, south, 
 east, or west sectional feeling. The duty involves no tax on the community, but 
 these factories are of great convenience to the agricultural interest, consumer, millers, 
 shippers. The millers and shippers have been so well served at the hands of the 
 bag-makers that we can not think any concerted action will be taken to cut down 
 the small protection asked for this industry. 
 
 To reduce the surplus can not bo an excuse for lowering the duties or carrying 
 bags to the free li.st, as only a small revenue is colb-cted from importation, mainly to 
 the Pacific coa.st, and on a few double-warp bags into New York, as hereafter ex- 
 plained. 
 
 The millers and exporters certainly should not complain , as, "when these bags (if 
 made in this country), are exported filled with Hour or grain, the la.w allows them a 
 refund of 90 per cent, of the duties jiaid on the burlap cloth. The late Senate bill 
 provided for a full refund of all the duties paid, and wo suggest your honorable com- 
 mittee will so frame your bill allowing a full refund of all duties paid when the bags 
 are exported filled with our products. 
 
 Protection on bags has built up tlie home trade and provoked home competition to 
 such an extent that the profits are cut down to the njinimjim consistent with a small 
 interest on capital invested, and so close has been this comp(>tition that within the 
 past five years one-third of as many factories as are now in the business have failed. 
 
 The bag manufactories have not coinbined, pooled, or gone into trusts, but the 
 tarifl' has given a protection enabling them to niannfaetiiio at the minimum cost — 
 having most of the bags used in this country made here. The cost of manufactur- 
 ing is reduced wonderfully by the quantity turned out. If half our consumption was 
 
556 REVISION OF THE TAElFP. 
 
 importccl, thou the cost of luauufacUniuj; would iidvonco and bags would actually 
 be higher. 
 
 We would now like to show your honorable committee a bag dutiable at 40 per cent., 
 as is also the burlap or double-warp cloth from which it is made dutiable at 40 per 
 cent., and all of this line of bags used in this country are imported from Calcutta. 
 Not one can be manufactured here, although several attempts have been made. The 
 cloth in almost every case of experiment costs, with the cost of the thread, as much 
 as the made-up bag. We bring this to the special notice of your honorable committee 
 to show that, with burlap cloth and the bag at the same rate of duty, or both the 
 burlap cloth and bags on the free list, the industry of bag manufacture would be 
 entirely lost to our laborin»class. 
 
 This industry once destroyed, prices would undoubtedly advance, as we believe 
 Dundee and Calcutta are the only two places in the worlcj. where this industry is 
 carried on outside of this country, and Calcutta is to a great extent controlled by 
 Dundee. 
 
 Then our shippers, millers, and consumers would be at the mercy of foreign makers, 
 and corners, combines, and pools would be the natural result, where so large an in- 
 dustry could be controlled from only two places in the world. 
 
 The bag consumers, millers, and shippers do not know how well they have been_ 
 served at the hands of the bag manufacturers ; no comers, combines, or trust have' 
 been worked up on them and never will be as long as an adequate rate of protection 
 is awarded this industry. We do not know what argument may be presented to your 
 honorable committee for free bags, but we can not think that any millers or shippers 
 will make any plea to have this industry destroyed if they are fully conversant with 
 the situation. In our estimation the minimum rate under the ad valorem system that 
 will give the necessary protection is seven one-hundredths per cent. oVer and above 
 the duty on the burlap cloth, or say with burlap at 30 per cent, bags should be 37 
 per cent. Under a specific rate for burlaps of If cents per pound, bags should be 21- 
 cents per pound, or forty-five one-hundredths of one cent per pound over and above 
 the cloth. 
 
 These rates named are assented to by Messrs. J. T. Bailey & Co., Philadelphia, one 
 of the largest bag manufactories in the country. Some of the firm are present ; also 
 by myself, J. M. Bemis, president Bemis Boston Bag Company, with factories at St. 
 Louis, Mo., Minneapolis, Minn., and Omaha, Nebr. ; also by Messrs. II. & L. Chase, 
 of Boston, St. Louis, and Kansas City ; and M. .T. Neahr & Co., Chicago, as represented 
 by Mr. Wm. Chase, now the head of the firm, and not present, owing to sickness in 
 his family. Mr. Chase also advocates strongly specific rates — If cents per pound ou 
 burlaps and 2-J- cents per pound on bags. Messrs. McGrath & Sons, large manufact- 
 urers at New Orleans, recommend the present tariff. John C. Graflin & Co., of Balti- 
 more, want protection equal to the present tariff, but both burlap cloth and bags on 
 a specific duty basis. The Fulton Bag and Cotton Company, Atlanta, Ga., want spe- 
 cific rate of If cents per pound on burlaps and 2i cents per pound on bags. D. W. 
 Manwarring, of New York, will join in any rate recommended by the large manu- 
 facturers at this hearing. 
 
 We wish to say a word in' favor of free raw jute. Our burlap manufacturers in 
 this country tell us with free jute they will give us very soon a home market in 
 which to purchase burlap cloth. This would certainly be very desirable for our 
 agricultural and shipping interest. Now we are entirely dependent on foreign man- 
 ufacturers for supply of this very important article of commerce. Jute is not grown 
 in this country, and our manufacturers should have it free of duty. Finally, we 
 strongly suggest to your honorable committee that you frame your bill with free raw 
 jute, burlap cloth under 60 inches in width at a duty of If cents per pound net weight, 
 and bags made of burlap cloth 2-} cents per pound. 
 
 Mr. Breckinkidgb. What countries consume these bags largely besides our own 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. IJemis. They are consumed all over the world. The Argentine Republic has 
 been a great consumer of burlaps for the last two or three years. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. For baling wool ? 
 
 Mr. Bemis. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It is also largely u.sed, I suppose, for transporting ores? 
 
 Mr. Bemis. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If we give you free raw jute do you hope to bring your busi- 
 ness in reasonable length of time so that you can participate in the sales of burlaps 
 to that country, thus enlarging vour market ? 
 
 Mr. Bemis. I do not Icnow ; I am not a manufacturer of burlaps. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridgf.. I thought you made bags. 
 
 Mr. Bemis. Yes; but we make them out of the cloth only. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You purchase the burlaps? 
 
 Mr. Bemis. We purchase the burlaps. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you make the bags by sewing or by weaving ? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 657 
 
 Mr. Bemis. By eewiuj;. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Have you uver figured out tUo element of wages in one dollar's 
 worth of your product? How muoli of it is chargeable to capital and material and 
 how much to wages ? 
 
 Mr. Bemis. We consider that it costs all the way from 7 to 9 per cent, to manu- 
 facture. Under good conditions we can manufacture in this country for 7^ per cent. 
 Mr. Brbckixridge. I am spealiing of the wage roll. 
 Mr. Bemis. I am speaking of all our expenses. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What does thOit 7 to 9 per cent, cost include ? 
 Mr. Bemis. It includes thereiit of premises, inteross on the capital, the pay of trav- 
 elers who sell our goods, and the wages of sewers and laborers and various little 
 items. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It includes everything except the cost of cloth ? 
 Mr. Bemis. Everything except the cost of cloth. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is your work hand-work ? 
 
 Mr. Bemis. No ; we sew up the bags almost invariably by machinery. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Have yoa any information as to the amount of work you get 
 from your hands per day as compared to the amount of work of hands in other coun- 
 tries •? 
 
 Mr. Bemis. Of course I can not speak for Calcutta. Two years ago I was in Dun- 
 dee and got some information on that subject. I think that our hands here will turn 
 out, as compared with the Dundee, 25 per cent, more work. As compared with Cal- 
 cutta I do not know. I expect that our hands here would do double the work of any 
 operator in Calcutta. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The native population of Calcutta is a very inert population, 
 lacking in ingenuity and enterprise I 
 Mr. Bemis. We understand it so. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And the climate is very enervating ? 
 Mr. Bemis. We understand it so. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Where are your factories ? 
 Mr. Bemis. In St. Louis, Minneapolis, and Omaha. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Your factories are Western factories ? 
 Mr. Bemis. Yes, sir. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 31, 1890. 
 The Ways and Means Committee : 
 
 Gentlemen: I view of the possibility of your honorable committee, following 
 somewhat the lines of the late Senate bill, we beg to submit an addendum to our 
 reports of January 4th, and in perfect accordance with those reports, namely, that 
 schedule J, page 29, Senate bill, paragraph 334, instead of 30 per cent, ad valorem 
 insert If cents per jiound, net weight ; add to this iiaragraph single warp bags at 2s- 
 cents per poundNj double warp bags 2^ cents per pound, net weight. This is the 
 only modification that we would suggest in the Senate bill. 
 
 We ask for a higher rate of duty on double warp than on single warp bags, because 
 the double warp cloth is dutiable at a higher rate, because more expensive to manu- 
 facture; the basis of the changes are on the supposition that yourtarifif bill will place 
 raw jute on the free list in accordance with the Senate bill. 
 We remain, yours, very respectfully, 
 
 John T. Bailey & Company, Philadelphia. 
 D. W. Manwaeing & Company, New York. 
 H, & L. Chase, Boston. 
 H. & L. Chase, St. Louis. 
 M. J. Nbahe, Kansas City. 
 John C. Grafplin & Company, Baltimore. 
 H. & L. Chase, Kansas City. 
 Fulton Bag & Cotton Company, Atlanta, Ga, 
 Bemis Brothers Bag Company, St. Louis. 
 Bemis Brothers Bag Company, Minneapolis. 
 Bemis Omaha Bag Company, Omaha, 
 By J. M. Bemis, 
 
 126 Central street, Boston. 
 
 We hereby concur in the above recommendations as American manufacturers of 
 jute products. 
 
 Dolphin Manufacturing Company, New Jersey. 
 Chelsea Jute Mills, New York. 
 Wilmington Manufacturing Company, Delaware. 
 Tkavers Brothers, New York. 
 Allenton Spinning Company, Pennsylvania. 
 Pearson Cordage Company, Massachusetts, 
 By Frank L. Babbott, 
 
 319 Broadway, New York. 
 
558 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. 'WILLIAM LYALL. 
 
 Mr. William Lyall, of Nciw York, siiid : Mv. CLiiinium and gmtlfineu, I havu been 
 loug eugaged in tbr uianufactiive of jute prnducts from the raw jnte, and am now ,so 
 eugaufd. I merely want to say, at this time, lliat in no way does jute interfere with 
 any other fiber, because jute is the cbeapest fiber in existence and has its particular 
 sphere, not conflicting with hemp. It is muih lower in i)rice, and is only used for cer- 
 tain purposes, and ih only has its value because of its cheapness. The idea of our 
 p<!0pl6 is that it shall be taxed on a specific basis in.stead of ad valorem, so as to pre- 
 vent fraudulent undervaluations. In the matter of (auvas and liocking I have been 
 called as a witness frequently in New York to testify, and I found that they "were 
 classing them a sburlaps at 30 ])cr cent. I think that if it were on a specilie basis 
 it would save a great deal of trouble to the Government and the manufacturers would 
 know better what they had to contend with. As regaids the gent leman',^ remarks 
 about hemp carpets, we are not making a.uy now. They are a lancy article. They 
 run from 2U to 6U cents ayard, so that a duty of G cents is ouly fair. 
 
 As to the binding twines ( which they recently commenced making out of jute), the 
 hemp twines have sold in the market last year ai I'rom 11 to 12 cents a pound, while 
 the jute twines have sold at from 8 to 9 eeut.s a pound. If it will do the work as 
 ■well, it is a cheaper aiticle for the trade. Wo take the jute from the bale. This 
 [exhibiting sam]de] is jute as it is imported. 
 
 Mr. FloweI!. Is that from the jute Imtt? 
 
 Mr. Lyall. -No; this is the jute. The butt is the etump of the plant [describing]. 
 It is cut by the natives, thrown in the water, rotted for from two to ten days, taken 
 out of the water by the natives, who take hold of one end of the stalk and knock 
 the pith out of it, and then it is carried to Calcutta and baled. We have paid for 
 this [exhibiting specimen] from 2| to o cents a pound in Calcutta. This is the raw 
 jute. (Witness described in detail the different ]irocess(.'s of tirepariug the jute for 
 m.arket, and adds): It is used for the backs of tapestry carpet, and for twine for 
 wrapping purposes and all sorts of purposes. This yarn is made into this ]iiece of 
 burlaps. This [showing another specimen] is a piece of heavy canvas used for oil- 
 cloth formation. It is the foundation on which they print their cloths. We would 
 bo satisfied if (in order to prevent any wrong classification between 9, lO.aud 11 
 ounce burlaps) the duty were made specific. We think it should be put on a specific 
 basis of from 1-| to 2 cents a pound. 
 
 The following communication was subsequently received from Mr. Lyall : 
 
 VIEWS OF THE NATIONAL GRANGE, PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY. 
 
 Mr. MATTEUiW Teimlle submitted the following statement : 
 
 Mr. Chairmau, John Trimble, secretaiy, has been directed by General J. H. Brigham, 
 master of the National Grange, Patrons of Husbandry, to submit the following letter 
 from a representative farmer of Georgia, in connection with the subject of "Duty on 
 jute-baggmg," now under consideration by your committee. 
 
 The secretary of the National (irange being unable to be present at this session of 
 your committee, has requested me to act in his behalf. 
 
 The letter reterred to is as follows : 
 
 Cataula, Haiikis County, Ga. 
 
 Dear Brother Tri:mble : The State Grange of Georgia and my county grange 
 have in-structed irie to present some views on the bagging question. The Congres- 
 sional committee have invited a hearingon the '' Duty on jute-baggiug " on January 4. 
 
 This is one of the most important questions that will come up of interest to the 
 Southern cotton-planter. 
 
 The ]ieo]ile are anxiously awaiting results, and .are desirous of showing if our 
 legislators feel more interest in enrichment of a half dozen men who control the 
 price of jute li.agging manufactured in America, or their millions of coQSlituents who 
 are striving to fei;d and clothe their loved ones by an honest ettbrt. 
 
 It will require 50,000,000 yards of baggiugper annum. This bagging can bemanu- 
 faeture«l for 7 cents a yard, |3,500,000. The duty is from 2J to o cents per yard, 
 owing to weight. 
 
 The jute bag trust demanded in )>ifS, when too late to order from India or Scot- 
 land, from iJi tol4 cents per yard, |(i,.'J00,0ii0. Spring of b-^SD, by tlie importation 
 of Scotch bagging and the use of cotton bagL;iug, the price was reduced to about 10 
 cents a yard, i;5, 000,000. All of this big iirol'b was taken out of the pockets of the 
 American cotton producer and is done so through tlie duty on imported goods. Now 
 they acknowledge that they have been I'xacting an unreasonable and exorbitant 
 
REVISION OP^ THE TARIFF. 559 
 
 profit, by indirectly proposing to sell baKgiug for crop of l-'HO at 7 cents per yard. 
 Unt we believe this is done to prevent us tioiii importing foreign bagging or i)rovid- 
 iug for an ample supply of cotton bags. Shonld Congress refuse to help the Ameri- 
 can cotton producer, vrhcu too late to import foi-eign bagging or secure a supply of 
 cotton bagging, they will wire a convention in July, and put bagging up to lO or 12 
 cents, anil we will be at the mercy of an unmercitul crew. What is our duty ? 
 
 As stated in our memorial, there is no protection to our lleecy staple, and not 
 one iota of encouragement to our industry. Now consider the fact that the unjust 
 6 per cent, tare on our cotton by Europe, and deducted by both the European and 
 American manufacturers. I say this custom of tare compels us to use a heavy bag- 
 ging, too expensive to be made of cotton. Therefore, if no protection is given cot- 
 ton, I appeal to our law-makers to remove the discrimination by putting jute butts 
 and jute bagging on the free list, until by such encouragement as we hope to receive 
 from the National Government a cheaper and reliable substitute for jute will be pro- 
 duced and manufactured in the United States. For it is certainly a disoriminahion 
 when we are compelled to use as a canvas to protect our cotton (on the free list) 
 the highly protected article of jute. The great part ot this bagging was nianufaot- 
 ured in the United States, many of the manufacturers claiming not to be m the 
 trust ; but took advantage and demanded the same exorbitant price. 
 
 Now, while the manufacturer of jute bagging is protected at the expense of the cot- 
 ton inoducer, by the duty on jute, and while the producer is not protected at all, the 
 shipi'er and exporter of our fleecy staple receives a rebate of a large per cent, of this 
 duty on every bale of cotton exported, which gives him the advantage of our own 
 manufacturers. These with a groat deal of impudence pocket vast sums that prop- 
 erly belong to the cotton )irodncer, while the latter's pockets are empty. * * » 
 
 If any further information is needed I will take great pleasure in corresponding 
 with the committee, and in answering such questions as they may propound. * * » 
 
 T. II. KiMBKOUGH, 
 
 M. a. S. G. 
 
 I am also requested to present for your consideration the following resolution and 
 accompanying statistics, adopted by the National Grange at its twenty-second annual 
 session at Topeka, Kans., in November, 1888 (page 124, proceedings of 1888): 
 
 " Whereas the customary tare on cotton baled for market is 6 per cent, in foreign 
 markets, while the actual tare is only 3^ to 4 per cent., a clear loss to cotton-planters 
 of 10 pounds of cotton per bale, equivalent to 6,000,000 pounds; 
 
 "Beit resolved, That the executive committee of the National Grange be instructed to 
 confer with the cotton exchanges of foreign markets and secure a reduction of tare 
 on cotton. 
 
 "Second. That the result of the conference be communicated to masters of State 
 granges of cotton-growing States." 
 
 The following statistics were presented by T. H. Kinibrough, of Georgia : 
 
 "Estimated cotton crop, 6,500,000 bales; number of yards of bagging used, at 7 yards 
 per bale, 45,500,000 yards ; cost of bagging, 1887, f3, 185,000 ; deereas'e of cost of jute 
 for the bagging for 1888, $45,000; cost of bagging, 18SS, t?5,'200,000. 
 
 "Estimated number of pounds of cotton, 1888, 3,'250,000,000 ijounds; value in the 
 foreign markets, $325,000,000 ; cost of customary tare, at 6 per cent., $10,500,000; act- 
 ual tare, at 4 per cent., $13,000,000; discrimination against Southern planter, $6,500,000. 
 
 " Increase of cost of bagging by trust, $2,015,OuO ; discrimination against cotton- 
 planters by trust and tare, $8,515,000 ; actual increase of the value of the cotton crop 
 by reduction of the customarytareof 6per cent.to tte actual tare would bo $25,250,000." 
 
 At the twenty-third annual session which was held at Sacramento, C'al., in Novem- 
 ber last, the executive committee made its report as provided in the foregoing reso- 
 littion and submitted the following correspondence in connection with the subject- 
 matter under consideration : 
 
 PA.W Paw, Mich., May 8, 1880. 
 Liverpool Cotton Exchange, Liverpool, England : 
 
 Messrs : At the recent session of the National Grange of the Patrons <if Husbandry 
 of the United States of America, the folloviing resolutions were adopted : 
 
 "Whereas the customary tare on cotton baled for market is 6 iici- cent, in for- 
 eign markets, while the actual tare is only '.iii to 4 per cent., a clear loss to cotton- 
 planters of 10 pounds of cotton per bale, equivalent to 6,000,000 pounds ; be it 
 
 " Liesolved, That the executive committee of the National Grange be instructed to 
 confer with cotton exchanges of foreign markets and secure a reduction of tare on 
 cotton. 
 
 " Second. That the result of this conference be communicated to masters of State 
 granges of cotton growing States." 
 
 The above fully explains itself and the object of this communication. 
 
 The cotton-crop of 1888 in this country amounted to 3,250,000,000 pounds, and a 
 
560 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 loss of 2 per cent, in tare is not a small item, and causes universal dissatisfaction 
 among our cottou-plauters. 
 
 We are conlident that a change of the rule and practice of your exchanges so as to 
 take only actual tare, willnot only remove the cause of complaint, but have atendency 
 to inspire the trade with renewed confidence and vigor, and insure for it a more 
 hopeful future. Wo asli you to give this another due consideration and report your 
 conclusions to this committee as soon as practicable. 
 
 I have the honor to be, yours most respectfully, 
 
 J. J. Woodman, 
 Secretary of the ExeeuUve Committee of the National Grange 
 
 of the Patrons of Rushandrii, United States of America. 
 
 Letters of the same import were sent to the cotton exchanges of Amsterdam, Hol- 
 land, and Bremen, Germany, and the following are the answers received : 
 
 LivEiiPOOL Cotton Association, Limited, 
 
 Liverpool, May 21, 1889. 
 Dear Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 8th May, set- 
 ting forth a resolution of your committee with respect to the tare on cotton baled for 
 the foreign market. 
 
 Your letter has received the careful consideration of the directors of this associa- 
 tion, who desire me to say that the 6 per cent, allowance you allude to covers not only 
 canvas but also iron bands, and that frequeutly the allowance of 6 per cent, is 
 found suflicient. The directors venture to think that there has been some misappre- 
 hension on the part of your committee with respect to the " iron bands." 
 I have the honor to be yours faithfully, 
 
 John Roseburg, President. 
 J. J. Woodman, 
 
 Secretary Executive Committee of the National Granr/e, 
 
 Patrons of Husbandry, Paw Pan), Michiuan. 
 
 Amsterdam, May 23, 1889. 
 The Executive Committee of the National Grange, 
 
 Patrons of Husbandry, Paw Paio, Mich. : 
 Dear Sirs : We duly received your valuable favor of the 6th instant and have given 
 contents our full attention. 
 
 In reply we would beg to say that whilst admitting that the tare of 6 per cent, is 
 a full one, we do not agree with you that the planters sustain any loss by allowing 
 same to their buyers. In our opinion it is a mere matter of calculation, and the buyer 
 who gets used to 6 per cent, tare will pay so much less for his cotton, if only 4 per 
 cent, is allowed hiuj. 
 
 We would on that account not advocate a reduction, and be content to leave things 
 as they are. On the other hand if the trade in general desired a change we would 
 certainly not oppose it, as de facto it would make no difference. 
 We remain, dear sirs, yours truly, ■ 
 
 The Amsterdam Cotton Brokers' Association. 
 J. D. Waller, Secretary. 
 
 Bremen, June 15, 1889. 
 To the Executive Committee of the National Grange, 
 
 Patrons of Husbandry, Hon. J. J. Woodman, Secretary, Paw Paw, Mich.: 
 
 In answer to your esteemed letter of the 6th, I have to say that the committee of 
 the Bremen Cotton Exchange have entirely agreed with your decision to strive for the 
 introduction of the reckoning of the actual tare in American cotton, and it is only 
 to be hoped that this view might be supported generally. 
 
 A further and much stronger reason for the introduction of the "actual tare." is 
 the supposition (or assumption) that finally by that means a better and stronger cov- 
 ering would be secured which completely covers the bale, and such is absolutely 
 necessary for the protection of the cotton against exposure, and for the diminution 
 of danger by fire. 
 
 On the other hand as concerns a reduction of the discount of the gross weight from 
 the present 6 per cent, to about 4 per cent., the committee believe the intended 
 change and retaining the present i^acking is not to be recommended, since the reduc- 
 tion of 2 per cent, would 8im])ly be balanced again through some other computation. 
 
 Nevertheless, should the new covering which is made of cotton itself and is about 
 2 per cent, lighter than the old packing, succeed in being introduced there, it would 
 be advisable — so long as the present tare is not fully used — to make a reduction to 4 
 per cent, for such packing, instead of the old 6 per cent, deduction, and as soon as a 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 561 
 
 report of the accomplishmeHt of tlie above undertakiug is received the committee of 
 the geueral assembly of the Bremen Cotton Exchange -will communicate the same to 
 the assembly for consideration. 
 Most respectfully, 
 
 G. B. Braevbr, 
 President Bremen Cotton Exchange. 
 
 Hon. Hiram Hawkins, master of Alabama State Grange, called the attention of the 
 committee to a very important omission in the resolution adopted by the National 
 Grange, and consequently in the communication to the Cotton Exchange of Liver- 
 pool, and advised further correspondence, which resulted as follows: 
 
 Paw Paw, Mich., Atujust 24, 1889. 
 Hon. John Bosehurgh , President of Liverpool Cotton Association, Limited: 
 
 Deae Sir. : Your esteemed favor of May 21 was duly received and submitted to 
 prominent men who are largely identified with the cotton-growing industry, and they 
 request me to write you again. While it is admitted that the " iron bands " to which 
 yon refer are used on cotton bales and heavy jute bagging, yet this it is claimed does 
 not cover the 6 per cent, tare taken. But there is one point which has been over- 
 looked in this correspondence, and to which I am directed to call the special atten- 
 tion of your association. Under the present practice our cotton-growers are obliged 
 to use heavy and expensive material for covering cottoi bales in order to make up to 
 some extent for the tare taken. In lieu of this they desire to use "cotton bagging," 
 which is lighter and cheaper, weighing but three-fourths of a pound to the yard, 
 while jute bagging weighs about 2 pounds to the yard. It is estimated that nearly 
 one-half of the present crop of cotton will be put up in cotton covering, and that 
 this change in material will reduce the actual weight of the covering, on an average, 
 8 pounds on each bale. We therefore ask you to submit this question to the candid 
 consideration of the members of your association, firmly believing that as a fair bus- 
 iness proposition they will consent to so modify their rule and practice as to reduce 
 the tare on cotton bales to correspond with the reduction in the weight of the ma- 
 terial used in the covering, approximating actual tare, or better still, to " actual 
 tare." Then no one will be wronged, whether light or heavy wrappings are used. 
 As the annual session of our National Grange is soon to convene, we desire an early 
 reply and a definite answer, so as to enable us to report the result of this correspond- 
 ence to that body. I have the honor to be, 
 Yours most respectfully, 
 
 J. J. Woodman, 
 Secretary of the Executive Committee of the National Grange, Patrons of Mnsbandry. 
 
 LiVKRPOOL Cotton Association, Limited, 
 
 Liverpool, Septemlier 12, 1889. 
 Deak Sik : I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 24th of Au- 
 gust. 
 
 This association has for the present decided to withhold all legislation with respect 
 to cotton bagging, the difiSculti'tes arising from its use leading them to fear that im- 
 liorters of cotton will be sufferers through its introduction. 
 
 As the season advances, however, the question may again be brought forward, and 
 in such case the views of your honorable body will receive due consideration. 
 I am, dear sir, yours faithfully, 
 
 John Rosebuegh. 
 
 J. J. Woodman, Esq., 
 
 Secretary Executive Committee of the National Grange, Patrons of Husbandry. 
 
 Communications were sent to our GoVernment consuls at Liverpool, Amsterdam, 
 and Bremen, soliciting their influence and aid in adjusting tare rates. The consuls 
 at Liverpool and Bremen failed to answer, perhaps on account of the changes of 
 oflicers then taking place. D. Eckstein, United States consul at Amsterdam, replied 
 promptly, saying : " If I can, through my influence and exertion, serve the interests 
 of your association in the direction indicated in your letter, it will cheerfully be 
 done." The committee are inclined to the opinion that the practice of foreign cotton 
 exchanges in discounting our American cotton bales on account of bagging, to an 
 extent which compels our cotton producers to use heavy and expensive material of 
 foreign production for covering in order to make up in some degree for loss in undue 
 tare, when they can produce a covering made of the cotton of their own raising, of 
 lighter weight, much cheaper and equally as good, can not be maintained by any 
 fair or logical business proposition ; therefore believe that the effort to obtain an 
 adjustment of this question upon a basis that will be equally just to both the pro- 
 ducer and the foreign buyer can not be hopeless. The committee beg leave to sug- 
 
 485 36 
 
562 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 gest that in any future efforts in this direction the co-operation of the "American 
 cotton exchanges" and the State Deijartmeut of the Government, through its com- 
 icercial consuls, be solicited. 
 
 At the same session the committee on "good of the order" made the folio w ing 
 report, which was adopted, viz : 
 
 Your committee on "good of the order," to whom was referred the memorial of 
 delegates from Southern States ou subject of tare on cotton, etc., has been considered 
 by us, and we recommend as follows: 
 
 First. That the prayer of petitioners be complied with, and that the work ou this 
 question begun by the executive committee through instructions of National Grange 
 at its twenty-second session be continued and pressed as requested by petitioners. 
 
 Second. For special and good reasons presented by petitioners, we recommend a 
 memorial be prepared asking the National Government to place jute butts aud jute 
 bagging on the free list. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 AVA. E. Page, 
 Wm. Sims, 
 Thos. Maes, 
 
 T. H. KiMBKOUGH, 
 
 Committee, 
 
 We, the undersigned, members of Southern States, would again ask the privilege 
 of calliug attention to the injustice of tare imposed upon cotton by European manu- 
 factuiers through their exchanges, and would ask your indulgeuce while presentiug 
 some facts connected with the same. 
 
 Originally the canvas (which was of Indian bagging) weighed about IS-J pounds 
 per bale; tbo roping or iron bands, about Vii pounds per bale ; the average weight of 
 an AuBcrican bale of cotton, 430 pounds. At this time a tare of 6 per ceut. on cotton 
 was adopted by the European cotton exchanges. 
 
 But more recently the weight of canvas and bauds has been reduced by the man- 
 ufacturers, until the actual tare is only 20 pounds per bale; as a matter of economy, 
 the average weight of an American bale of cotton, by the latest statistics, is 50.5 
 pounds, showing conclusively that there is a gross injustice imbedded in this ques- 
 tion of tare against the American cotton producer of 10 pounds per bale, aggregating 
 ^7, 000, 000 per annum. 
 
 We would also call attention to the fact that the canvas and bands referred to, and 
 which constitute the actual tare, is worth about one-third its original cost to man- 
 ufacturer, which is an exception to general rule on articlescoutainiug tare, forouuo 
 other article is the purchaser able to realize anything from articles constituting 
 tare. 
 
 We also call attention to the fact that commerce in no other iustauco has refused 
 to purchase aud sell by net weight. 
 
 Now, worthy master, we are well aware of the fact that no legislation can be had 
 on this question by any association, organization, legislative or representative; body 
 in the United States, but feel that every influence should be bronght to bear ou the 
 European exchanges. As this question originated and the work \vas first begun in 
 our order, we ask of yon to help us in pushing this work aud in the secureuient of 
 all the influence possible on the question. 
 
 We i-iope to succeed by impressing the importance of this question upon our Rep- 
 resentatives in Congress, our agricultural departments in State and nation, our con- 
 suls in foreign countries, our American cotton exchanges, our boards of trade, aud all 
 our agricultural organizations. 
 
 We ask that the ettorts of our executive committee, through our consular system, 
 be continued and pressed until'our American exchanges indorse our oflorts, and until 
 England, Germany, aud France admit the injustice of this tare, aud yield to the over- 
 tures of the American cotton producer. 
 
 It would bo proper for us to state that we believe this reform would have been so- 
 cured through the efforts of our executive committee from tlie instructious of this 
 National Grange at its session in Topeka, 16S>!, but for the sellish and mercenary mo- 
 tives actuating our American exchanges, and iudill'ereuce on part of our representa- 
 tive bodies. 
 
 Still another point on this cotton cpiestion is the unreasonable demand and the 
 exorbitant proiits put iuto the gaping pockets of the unserupnlous jutc-bag com- 
 biue, aggre!;atiDg above a reasonable protit during the years 1-^^^'^ aud 188!Ji|{i2,750,000. 
 
 Now, worthy master, we desire aud ask your Iniluonco upon our National Govern- 
 ment for the euconranement of the production of jute or such other fibrous materials 
 as will eoable us to compete with jute produced in India. 
 
 The true position of the cottou producer can be well understood, and the situation 
 can only be aiipreeiated by the presentation of one other fact. 
 
 Jute in Iiulia costs I'uly iibout 'li cents per pound, while it costs 10 cents to raiae 
 
KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 563 
 
 cotton. Our cotton is not protected liy national legislation, yet we are compelled 
 to use as a canvas for the protection of onr llcecy staple this protected article called 
 jute bagging. We claim this to be a direct discrimination against the cotton pro- 
 ducer, and that there is in it no protection except to the jute-bagging combine, in its 
 determination to rob the cotton-planter, and can but believe that we are consisteut 
 with the rules of our order when we ask your influence upon our national counsels, 
 that we may not be discriminated against in this matter, and no longer be robbed 
 of our hard-earned dollars by the jute combine. 
 
 "W. K. Thompson. 
 
 T. H. KlMBROUGH. 
 
 A. J. Rose. 
 Hiram Hawkins. 
 J. B. Bailey. 
 X. X. Chaktters. 
 W. E. Williams. 
 J. D. Clardy. 
 
 In conclusion I beg to say that this order of Patrons of Husbandry is a great, pow- 
 erful, and permanent organization, with a strong and intelligent membership in every 
 State and Territory. It is composed of the best and most intelligent elements of our 
 farming communities, and is wholly and entirely devoted to protecting the interests 
 of that important class, upon whom depends the .sul)stantial greatness and iJrosperity 
 of this country. It discusses questions of national importance and governmental 
 policy, without political bias or sectional prejudice, and as such it is the farmer's 
 friend without regard to party aJfiliation. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS OF MILLERS. 
 
 The following paper was presented and made part of the record : 
 
 COPY' OF resolutions ADOPTED BY MILLERS IN PRINCIPAL ELOURING-MILL CENTERS. 
 
 Milvv^aukee, Wis. 
 
 A meeting of the millers of Milwaukee, Wis., was held on December 17, 1889, and 
 after lengthy discussion of the subject of import duty on jute, the foUowing resolu- 
 tion was unanimously adopted : 
 
 Whereas we believe there exists no valid reason that millers of the United States 
 should be called upon to pay the present high tariff on jute ; 
 
 Resolved, That the secretary of this meeting be instructed to communicate with 
 Mr. F. L. Greenleaf, president of the Minnesota State Miller.s' Association, and presi- 
 dent of the Millers' National Association, advising him of this meeting and its ob- 
 jects, and requesting him Jo use his influence with Minnesota millers to obtain their 
 co-operation in an ettbrt to secure the abolition of this tax. Also to request that the 
 matter be taken in hand by the Millers' National Association, and that if possible the 
 assistance of prominent flour manufacturers be obtained, to jiresent the subject prop- 
 erly before the Committee on Ways and Means of the United States Congress at the 
 time set for hearing and cousidering arguments relating to the duty on jute (Janu- 
 ary i, 1690). 
 
 B. Stern, Ckuinnan. 
 F. Barky, Secretary. 
 
 Minneapolis, Minn. 
 At a meeting of the Miuneapolis millers, December 18, 1889, the following resolu- 
 tion w:i,s unanimously carried : 
 
 Whereas the existing tax on the importation of jute is working a great injury and 
 unnecessary expense to the millers of this country ; and 
 
 Whereas the Government is deriving but little revenue from said tax, as the 
 amount received is returned to the exporter when it is shown that such material has 
 been manufactured into sacks in this country and exjiorted again ; and 
 
 Whereas millers are obliged to pay a commission to brokers to collect same, and 
 the Government is compelled to employ clerks to transact thisbusiuesti, all of which 
 reduces the net amounts returned to the millers very materially : 
 
 liesolved, That we respectfully rwiuest our Representatives at Washington to use 
 their endeavors to have the tax abolished, believing that it is working a great hard- 
 ship to a very large class of manufacturers, without any n,dequate return to the coun- 
 try at large. 
 
 F. L. Greenleaf, 
 President Minnesota Millers' Association. 
 
 W. C. Edgar, 
 Secretary Minnesota Millers' Association. , 
 
664 KEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 A meetiug of the millers of St. Louis, Mo., was held iu the Chamber of Commerce, 
 December yO, lS>id, aud the following resolution was unanimously adopted : 
 
 Whereas the flour manufacturers of St. Louis, Mo., believe that the import duty 
 charged upon jute imposes a Uardship upon millers of the United States and acts to 
 the detriment of our flour export trade, costing the Government and exporters of flour 
 a large and unnecessary expenditure of money : 
 
 Sesolved, That we heartily indorse the effort being put forth by the Millers' Na- 
 tional Association to eocuro the repeal of this tax, and pledge our support and co- 
 operation in the movement. 
 
 A committee was then appointed, with Mr. Alexander H. Smith as chairman, to see 
 that St. Louis shall be represented, if possible, iu the presentation of argument favor- 
 ing this measure before the Committee on Ways and Means of the United States Con- 
 gress, at Washington, D. C, January 4, 1S90. 
 
 Louis Fusz, Chairman. 
 A. H. Smith, Secretary. 
 
 St. Louis, Mo. 
 A meeting of the Grain Eeceivers' Association of this city was held December 21, 
 1889, to consider the necessity of repealing the present import duty on jute. 
 
 After a full discussion aud consideration of the matter, showing, in our opinion, it 
 was inflicting hardship on our grain, our flour, our milling exporters, and thus in- 
 directly injuriously aifecting our farming communities and other general interests, 
 the following resolution was unanimously adopted:. 
 
 Resolved, That we most heartily indorse the action of the National Millers' Associa 
 tiou in endeavoring to have the tax on jute repealed, and that we will do all we can 
 legitimately to assist them in accomplishing this object. 
 
 John N. Booth, Fresident. 
 Phil. F. Shikmee, Secretary, etc. 
 
 Buffalo, N. Y. 
 
 At a meeting of the New York State Millers' Association the following preamble 
 and resolution was unanimously adopted : 
 
 Whereas the tariff on jute-bagging cloth protecting no home industry, it being all 
 of foreign manufacture, and causing extra expense to the millers of this country, 
 through commissions paid to brokers to collect back the duty on bags exported ; be it 
 
 Resolved, That the New York Millers' State Association earnestly desire the re- 
 moval of all tariff dues on jute bagging and respectfully ask their Senator and Mem- 
 bers in Congress to favor putting jute bagging on the free list. 
 
 Resolved, That copy of above be sent to Senator Hiscock and New York Congress- 
 men and president of the Millers' National Association, tyid aakiiig them to appear 
 before the Committee on Ways aud Means January 4, 1890, to advocate the adding 
 of jute bagging to the free list. 
 
 A. E. James, President. 
 
 Rochester, N. Y. 
 At a meeting held by the millers of Eochester, N. Y., on December 29, 1889, the 
 repeal of import duty on jute was discussed, aud the following resolutions adopted: 
 Whereas the millers of Rochester, N. Y., believe that the import duty charged 
 upon jute imposes a hardship upon the milling industry of the United States, causing 
 all exporters of flour a large and unnecessary expenditure of money ; 
 
 Resolved, That we indorse the efforts being put forth by the Millers' National Asso- 
 ciation and the millers of Milwaukee and St. Louis to secure the repeal of the tax, 
 and pledge our support and co-operation in the movement, and that a copy of this 
 resolution be forwarded to the Hon. Chas. S. Baker, our Representative in Congress, 
 and the Hon. Frank Hiscock, United States Senator, with the request that they use 
 all honorable means in their power for the abolishment of this unnecessary tax. 
 
 Wm. H. Duffelt, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 Indianapolis, Inix 
 At a meeting of the Indiana State Millers' Association hold at Indianapolis on De- 
 cember 30, 1889, the following resolution was adopted : 
 
 Whereas the flour millers of Indianapolis, Ind., and vicinity, believing that the 
 present import duty on jute is oppressive to the millers of the United States engaged 
 in exx)orting flour, aud is unnecessary .and costly to the Government ; therefore be it 
 
 llesolvfd. That we commend the efforts of the Millers' National Association to secure 
 the repeal of this tax, and we pledge our earnest support to the nun-emcnt. 
 
 D. H. Ranck, 
 Secretary Indiana Millers' Association. 
 
REVISIOlSr OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 565 
 
 STATISTICS OF THE JUTE INDUSTRY. 
 
 New York, January 6, 1890. 
 Dear Sir: We beg to submit to you tlie following statistics relative to the jute in- 
 dustry in the United States, in Europe, and Calcutta, which we read to your honor- 
 able committee January 4. The average annual consumption of jute in the United 
 States for the years 1886, 1887, and 188B, was 97,000 bales of 400 pounds to the bale. 
 The average annual consumption of jute in the world, outside of the United States, 
 for the same period, was about 3,033,000 bales. That is to say, the United States 
 manufactured about 3 per cent, of the jute product of the world during that time. 
 To put it in another way : The average annual consumption of Dundee for this same 
 period was, in round numbers, about 1, 150,000 bales, or about twelve times that of the 
 United States. Calcutta and vicinity consumed annually during this period, in round 
 numbers, about 1,000,000 bales of jute, or more than ten times that of the United 
 States. The consumption of jute has increased in this country from 25,000 bales in 
 1876 to 125,000 bales, the estimated consumption for 1889. 
 
 CONSUMPTION OF JDTB IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 According to the board of trade returns of Dundee, Scotland, as printed in the 
 Dundee "Prices Current and Trade Report" of .January 16, 1889, there were shipped 
 from that single port during the year 1888 to the United States 130,291,400 yards of 
 jute cloth exclusive of bags, or about 90,000,000 pounds; the largest quantity ex- 
 ported to any other country was 26,000,000 yards, or 104,000,000 yards less than were 
 shipped to the United States. ■ During the same year there were exported to the 
 United States 16,681,800 pounds of jute yarn, or 12,000,000 pounds more than were 
 shipped to any other country. These figures represent the quantity of jute goods re- 
 ceived from Dundee alone. We can not give the importations from any other European 
 .ports, nor from Calcutta, but it is a well-known fact that large quantities of burlap 
 are shipped to New York from Calcutta, and that the Paciiic slope is supplied almost 
 exclusively from that source. We regret very much that we can not give the exact 
 figures in this case, but they would be enormous, as more grain is handled in bags 
 there than is the East. 
 
 NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED IN THIS INDUSTRY. 
 
 The Blue Book of India, published early in the year 1889, shows that there were 
 employed in the year 1888 in jute mills in India 50,713 hands. The last report we had 
 from Dundee gave the number employed in this industry there as about 48,000, 
 although the number is usually stated in round figures as 50,000. The number em- 
 ployed in the mills of the United States, according to the last report which we have 
 at hand, is 3,325, which we believe is somewhat increased at present. 
 
 The following table will show the wages paid per week in Dundee, Calcutta, and 
 America. The figures were given by superintendents of mills in each of those places : 
 
 
 Dundee. 
 
 Calcutta. 
 
 America. 
 
 
 $2.00 
 2.50 
 2.75 
 2.7.5 
 6. .50 
 8.00 
 
 $0.30 to $0.90 
 
 . 64 to . 96 
 
 .48 
 
 .96 to 1.60 
 
 .70 to 1.28 
 
 1.10 to 2.24 
 
 $5.00 
 C 50 
 
 
 
 
 "Weavers 
 
 50 
 
 Mp,r,ha,Tiin.q 
 
 - 15 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 24.50 
 
 3. 70 to 7.46 
 
 58.50 
 
 This table shows that we pay about two and one-half times as much .as they do in 
 Dundee, and about eleven times what is paid in Calcutta for the same class of help. 
 This ratio of wages between the United States and Dundee fairly represents the dif- 
 ference between the cost of labor for a pound of tlie same goods in both places, as the 
 Scotch worker is about as efficient as our own. We regret that we can not state the 
 comparative efficiency between our own and Indian labor on a given quantity of 
 goods, but have quoted the weekly wages of the two countries, knowing that they 
 would practically demonstrate the great odds against us. Dundee produces the finer 
 goods, the coarser qualities having been displayed to a very large extent by the 
 cheaper product of the Calcutta mills. 
 
566 
 
 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 PRICE OF JUTE. 
 
 According to the Dundee " Prices Current and Trade Report " of December 4, 1889, 
 the average price of jute in the month of December for the jiast eighteen years in 
 Dundee has been ;i.24 cents per i^ound, upon which, allowing tbe same freight rates 
 and fixed charges aa existing at iiresent, the duty would be fifty-four one hundredths 
 cent, per pound. 
 
 PRICE OP YARNS. 
 
 The average price of yarns of a medium grade for eighteen years in Dundee as given 
 in the "Prices Current and Trade Report" is about .5.20 cents perpouud, while the 
 liigher grades of y.aru would certainly have averaged 6 cents per pound for this same 
 period. On the basis of cents per pound for the liner grade of yarn the ad valorem 
 duty at present of 35 per cent, would equal 2.1 cents per pound. 
 
 PRICE OF BURLAP. 
 
 The average price of lOJ-ounce burlap (the cheapest of all grades) per pound 
 in Dundee during the month of Jauuary since 1874, as given by a large consumer 
 was about 7 cents, upon which the duty at 30 per cent, ad valorem would be 2.1 cents 
 jier pound. 
 
 FREIGHTS. 
 
 The freight rate from Dundee to New York to-day is about one-sixth of a cent, per 
 pound; from Calcutta to New York three-tenths of a cent per pound. Freights from 
 Calcutta often go much below three-tenths of a ceut, as we have imported jute at 
 the rate of two-tenths of a cent jier pound. 
 
 We bave seen that the average rate of duty on burlap ibr the past fifteen years has 
 been equal to 2.1 cents per ponud, and that tlie average rate of duly upon raw jnte 
 for that period has l)een fifty-four one-hujidredths of a cent per pound, leaving a net 
 protection per pound on burlap of 1.5(5 cents — or, in other words, that a duty of 20 
 per cent, on the raw material has equaled a duty of 7 V per ceut. on the manufactured 
 article. 
 
 The average price of a pound (2 yards) of 8-ounce burlap in Dundee for the past 
 twelve months has been 7.20 cents, as given ))y the Bemis Ijrothers Lia.g Company, of 
 Boston; tlie duty upon the same at the present rate of 30 per rent, ad valorem has 
 been 2.16 cents x)er pound, or about the averiige of lAie past fifteen years as above 
 stated. 
 
 The present condition of this industry shows tliat wo can now manufacture in 
 this country only a few grades of yarn and some s])eci.alties and that with a duty on 
 the raw materials we are the smallest producer though the greatest consumer of 
 jute goods. 
 
 We would suggest a specific duty on burlap instead of 30 per cent, ad valorem as 
 recommended in the recent Senate bill becauNc it would siuiijlify all computations of 
 cost and remove the temptation to undervalu.ation which now exists. An expert 
 can not distinguish the difterence between 10, lO-J or 11 ounce burlap with accuracy, 
 and yet this small shade of difference often represents the margin between profit and 
 loss. 
 
 We further ask a specific duty because it shows the exact conditions that we must 
 meet. 
 
 We have shown that the ad valorem duty of 30 per cent, is equivalent to a specific 
 duty of 2.1 cents per pound. 
 
 Large consumers of burlap wish to have this rate of duty reduced, but we believe 
 that consumens and manufacturers would unite in the recommcndiition of a specifi_p 
 duty of If cents per pound on all burlap under 60 inches in width, with raw jute 
 free. iTris rate would reduce the present duty thirty-live one-hnndredths cent per 
 pound, or 16 per cent. 
 
 We believe that if the Senate bill, with this modification, should become law it 
 would t<'nd to upbuild an industry that 'would employ a large amount of capital and 
 thousands of people. 
 
 The following companies manufacture jute goods in some form, viz: 
 
 Dolphin Maiinfflctiirinff Co., P.itorHon, N. J. 
 CliBisca.TiitoMiiln, Nkw York City. 
 Planet Mills, Brooklyn. 
 Tinker Ar- VnrU-r i'ltvilnf^n Co., Brooklyn. 
 AUfiDtown Spinuiuf; Co., AUentown, Ba. 
 .Jolin Good, Brooklyn. 
 TraverH Bro .. New York City. 
 Sehlechlier Jute Conliif;e ('o., Pliiladelpliia. 
 J.T.Eailey & Co., Pljiladolijhia. 
 
 Finloy & Co , Pliilaflolphia, 
 
 AVihii in jitoMiilannliK-l.urino; Co,, "Wilmington, Del. 
 
 T'homas Jaikson & (Jo., Reading. Pa. 
 
 SiilliiMlaiul & Edwards, Paterson, N. J". 
 
 Pearson Cordage Co., Boston. 
 
 Ludlow iManufacturiug Co., Ludlow, Mass, 
 
 William Deering &. Co, Chieago, 111. 
 
 Hoo\(n & Allison, Xenia, Ohio. 
 
 California -Tuto Mills, San Franciaoo, Cal, 
 
REVISION OP THE TAEIFP. 567 
 
 We ask for a, duty of If cents per pound ou nil burlap under fiO inches in width, 
 ■with free raw jute. If the present duty is maintained on raw jute we would ask for 
 a spocific duty of 2i cents per pound. 
 
 If an ad yalorem duty on burlap is to be retained (^hich both the American naills 
 and importers think unwise) it should not be less than SO per cent, even with free 
 raw jute. 
 
 Our industry lias increased five-fold in the past thirteen years, and has reached a 
 position where the manufacturing of burlap must be entered upon or its further growth 
 retarded. Our recommendations ot duty are as low as we can make them to secure 
 this future development. The distinction in duty on burlap between goods over and 
 under 60 inches in width has, we believe, been maintained in all recent bills on this 
 subject, and is the law to-day. The wider goods are produced at a greater cost, and 
 have to be made with much more care. The duties on these should certainly be 10 
 per cent, more than on ordinary burlap. Such is now the case, the one being 30 and 
 the other 40 per cent, ad valorem. These goods are now made -here, but would be 
 more largely with free jute. 
 
 We believe the discussion has shown that jute has not driven Kentucky hemp out of 
 the market. The warmest advocates of this fiber admitted that the production of 
 Kentucky hemp went from 80,000 tons (we believe) to 2,.'iOO tons in 1869, at which 
 time jute mills were almost unknown in America. 
 
 We wish to add that the Flax and Hemp Spinners and Growers' Association, after 
 kindly hearing our arguments, passed a resolution not to make any recommendations 
 concerning raw jute or the jute schedule, believing that the fiber had a different 
 sphere of usefulness fsom their own. We think we can therefore say that the argu- 
 .meuts made before you against free raw jute were without the sanction of this asso- 
 ciation, and mainly by a single hemp-grower who was unfamiliar with the compara- 
 tive nature and uses of these two fibers which are almost as difl'erent as cotton and 
 hemp. His principal argument presented was against jute for harvest twine, while 
 he admitted that only 2,000 tons of Kentucky hemp harvest twine were made last 
 year when the conditions were unusually favorable for its manufacture, and thai the 
 Kentucky hemp twine sold at 12 cents a pound and jnte at 8f even with the duty on 
 the raw material of the latter. 
 
 Wo submit these figures without further comment. 
 
 We remain, in behalf of the jute industry, yours, truly. 
 
 Dolphin Manufacturing Company. 
 
 Chelsea Jute Mills. 
 
 Wilmington Manufacturino Company. 
 
 TkaVERS Bi!OS., 
 
 Allentown Spinning Company, 
 By Frank L. Babbott. 
 Hon. William McKinlbt, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 LETTER PROM KENTUCKY RIVER MILLS. 
 
 Kentucky River Mills, 
 Fra.nkfort Kij., January 1, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: We beg leave to present to your honorable committee our protest against 
 putting manilla, sisal, jute, and other fibers on the free list, as we believe that such 
 action would ultimately destroy the hemp and flax industries of the United States, 
 thus throwing out of employment all those now engaged in raising the raw material 
 or manufacturing it, and rendering valueless a large amount of invested capital. 
 The duties as they now are are very moderate, not equivalent to an ad valorem duty 
 of 15 per cent., and we believe that their removal would not permanently benefit the 
 consumer, but, after destroying home competition, ultimately would advance price 
 and tend to foster monopolies and trusts. 
 
 To the argument that manilla, sisal, and jute are not raised in this conntry, we 
 would reply that they all compete with American hemp in the different kinds of 
 cordage and twine, and none of them can be admitted free without serious detriment 
 to it. 
 
 There has been a great deal of clamor in regard to binder twine during the past 
 year and the importance of cheapening it, and this has been used as an argument in 
 favor of free manilla and sisal, but we believe that the true way to cheapen it is to 
 enlarge the number of fibers from which it may be made and not to reduce it, as this 
 would. The use of American hemi) binder twine has been growing very rapidly, and 
 promises to grow still more rapidly, provided it is not checked by unfriendly legisla- 
 tion, and will in future exercise an important influence in controlling prices. We 
 
568 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 therefore sincerely believe that expediency and justice alike demand that we shall 
 not be deprived of the small measure of protection that has been' accorded to us 
 heretofore. 
 
 We remain, very respectfully, 
 
 Kentucky Eivbk Mills. 
 Hon. Wm. McKJNLBY, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 ACTION OF FLAX AND HEMP GROWERS. 
 
 To the honorahle Committee of Ways and Means : 
 
 Gentlemen: At a convention of flax and hemp growers and spinners, held at 
 Schaghticoke, Eeusselaer County, N. Y., November 12, 1889, the following was unani- 
 mously adopted : 
 
 Resolved, That the North Eiver hemp growers and spinners' convention, assembled 
 this 12th day of November, 1889, do most emphatically protest against any reduction 
 in the present duty upon foreign hemp and flax, and hereby request the imposition 
 of a duty upon foreign fibers sufficient to cover the highest cost of labor and capital 
 engaged in the industry in this country. 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed by the chairman to make known 
 the wishes of this convention to the Fifty-first Congress when it assembles. 
 
 The chair appointed E. A. Hartshorn, W. H. Bucl^ey, and Hii'am File as the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 In obedience to the foregoing action the undersigned committee beg to recommend : 
 
 That the duty upon flax be increased from $20 to $50 per ton. 
 
 That the duty upon tow be increased from $10 to $20 per ton ; that no reduction be 
 made from the present duties upon either hemp, jute, manilla, sisal, New Zealand 
 hemp, or other competing vegetable fibers. 
 
 Also that the tariif upon the goods manufactured from flax and hemp shall be fixed 
 at such rates as shall be recommended by the Flax and Hemp Spinners' and Grow- 
 ers' Association of America, provided such rates are sufficient to insure the profitable 
 manufacture of American flax and hemp into yarns, twines, threads, aud woven 
 fibers for the American market. 
 
 From an experience of twenty-five years or more by each member of the committee 
 either in the growing or spinning of flax we beg your honorable body to consider 
 that flax has been successfully grown in our vicinity for eighty consecutive years 
 both for fibers and for seed. That prior to the war of the rebellion the industry 
 was profitable, because the cost of labor was then less than one-half the present scale. 
 
 That the ante-bellum price for j)ulling flax was from |3 to $3.50 per acre, against 
 $6 to $8 at the present, and the former cost of scutching was $1.25 per 100 pounds 
 against $2.50 at the present time. 
 
 That during the period of high premium on gold following the war the protection 
 was materially increased by reason of said premium, so that the duty in currency 
 was more than double, and then the industry rapidly increased, so that not less tbau 
 1,000 tons of flax, valued at $250,000, was produced yearly in the North Eiver flax 
 district, comprising Washington and Eensselaer Counties. But when gold went to 
 par value the increased protection vanished, causing the cultivation of flax to be- 
 come unprofitable, and the industry has since then rapidly declined. 
 
 Twenty years ago there were about sixty flax scutching mills, valued at, say, $3,500 
 each, in operation in the district from October to Juno, but now there are only six or 
 eight mills, running three or four weeks in each year. The only reason for the de- 
 cline of the industry has been the inadequate protection extended to the industry, 
 and with an adequate protection upon flax and its kindred fibers as purposed, the 
 linen industry will become very large and prosperous in the immediate future. 
 
 Sixty years ago the finest fields of hemp were iiroduced in our vicinity ; but the sus- 
 pension of local spinning-mills and the lack of cheap and rapid trausportation to dis- 
 tant mills brought the industry to a halt. During the present year an effort has been 
 made to revive the industry, which promises much for the future prosperity of our 
 State. 
 
 Improved labor-saving methods are being adopted, which will aid us materially in 
 our eiforts to cheapen the cleaning of the fiber. We do not apprehend that the pro- 
 posed increase tax upon fiber will enhance the cost of the domestic product materi- 
 ally, but, on the contrary, we believe it will finally cheapen it, as was the result of ade- 
 quate protection when exteuded to cotton, iron, and other so-called raw materials 
 and the manufactured articles made therefrom. 
 
 The priceof manillaand of sisal (hemp) has ruled nearlydouble their former value 
 for the pSist twelve mouths, which proves that the cheaper fiber wlien it has driven 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 569 
 
 out the dearer will then by reason of an increased demand fronyall the Tvorld advance 
 to a higher price than the -vrorld cares to pay. 
 
 The claim that these various foreign fibers grow wild and can be supplied in un- 
 limited quantities has been proven false. With manilla (hemp) commanding almost 
 double its normal price the supply this year is far short of last. 
 
 New Zealand flax, so called, is not flax at all. It comes from a flag — here is a speci- 
 men of the fiber and a flag from which it is obtained. [Showing them.] Now, if 
 all New Zealand is a swamp, this flag may be inexhaustible, but by the time a large 
 quantity is in steady demand from all parts of the world you may rest assured it will 
 not be very cheap. 
 
 In conclusion, we believe the only sure way to obtain cheap flax and hemp and the 
 goods therefrom is to produce them within our own country. 
 Eespeotfully submitted. 
 
 E. A. Hartshorn, 
 W. H. Buckley, 
 Hiram File, 
 
 Committee. 
 Washington, D. C, January 4, 1890. 
 
 LETTER FROM THE AMERICAN LINEN SUITING COMPANT. 
 
 To ike Jionorable Committee of Ways and Means : 
 
 Gentlemen: The American Linen Suiting Company begs to submit for your in- 
 spection samples of cloth for summer wear manufactured from American flax and 
 hemp. These fabrics are made from the natural colors of the fiber upon which neither 
 chemicals nor dye-stuffs have been used. The stripes, checks, plaids, and diagonals 
 are all produced by weaving the dark-colored yarns produced fromdeworfield-ietted 
 fiber with a light-colored yarn produced from steam or water retted fiber, both colors 
 being readily produced from the same hemp or flax stalks by the different methods 
 of retting. 
 
 We beg to assure your honorable committee that this company is prepared to enter 
 extensively into the cultivation of native fiber and the manufacture of cloth for suit- 
 ings, crashes, toweling, etc., therefrom at any time when a sufEioient duty shall be 
 imposed upon foreign competing products to cover the additional cost of American 
 labor and capital. 
 
 That the present duty of 35 per cent, ad valorem will not enable us to make these 
 goods at the present time, as the same is entirely inadequate to cover the additional 
 labor cost current in the United States. 
 
 That with adequate protection, so that our business as soon as developed will not 
 be transferred to competing European mills by the duplicating of our patterns at a 
 lower cost of production, this company will employ $500,000 capital in this industry. 
 
 We therefore request a specific or weight duty of 3 cents per pound and 50 per cent. 
 ad valorem duty on all imported woolen, linen fabrics woven from yarn coarser than 
 the yarn woven into 1600 linen. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 E. A. Hartshorn, 
 
 Manager. 
 Washington, D. C, January 4, 1890. 
 
 OIL-CLOTH AND LINOLETIM, 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. PETER CAMPBELL. 
 
 Mr. Peter Campbell, of Kearney, N. J., made a statement on the subject of oil- 
 cloth and linoleum. 
 
 There was an ad valorem duty, he said, on this article, but the American manu- 
 facturers of it had to pay duties on the linseed-oil, and on the burlaps used in the 
 making of linoleum. They had to pay duties on seven-tenths of the raw materials. 
 What he and his colleagues appeared before the committee for was to show the com- 
 mittee that the raw materials entering into the manufacture of oil-cloths and lino- 
 leum were taxed so heavily that it was impossible for the American manufacturer to 
 compete against the British manufacturer who had his linseed-oil free and his bur- 
 laps free. The present protection of 40 per cent, was inadequate. He asked that the 
 committee would recommend a specific duty of 10 cents per yard and 30 per cent, ad 
 valorem. 
 
570 REVISION OF TIIE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. JUcIiIiLLlx. Wli.ii ill ■icMsr woiiM I'.iat hu iiii:lui' iiruscut prices? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. It would be an increase of probably about 10 per cent. But our 
 strong point is that our raw material is protected 90 per cent. We do not say that 
 that is wrong. What we say is that it is perfectly impossible for us to operate against 
 the English manufactures. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. A reduction of the duty on the raw material would inure to your 
 benefit? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. No doubt of that. There have been some cases brought before the 
 custom-house authorities where grades have been questioned by the appraisers. A 
 specific duty would help to remove that difficulty. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How much capital is employed in this country in the production of oil- 
 cloths and linoleum ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. In linoleum about$l,. 500, 000. Therateof wages which we pay here 
 is probably 100 per cent, more than is paid in Scotland, where the largest iiroi)ortion 
 of oil-cloth is made. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Can we supply our consumption in this country? 
 
 Mr. Campisell. We can if we have proper protection. But last year in one customs 
 district alone there was £:!4,000 worth of linoleum imported. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Oil-cloth and linoleum are inexpensive articles? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. They are comparatively inexpensive. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. G. "W. BLABON. 
 
 Mr. 6. W. Blabon, of Philadelphia, said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am a representative of the oil-cloth and linoleum 
 business. At the present time our jjoods are protected under an ad valorem duty of 
 40 per cent.; but every raw material that we use in the manufacture of our goods has 
 to pay a duty of from 40 to 90 per cent. I presume there is not a plant in this coun- 
 try which, under present circumstances, makes 4 per cent, on its capit.al invested in 
 the business of manufacturing oil-cloth and linoleum. It is a very risky business. 
 Oil constitutes from 2.5 to 40 per cent, of the first cost of producing oil-cloth and lin- 
 oleum. In con.si'qnence of the high <luty on this oil it is brought in at a very high 
 rate. We do not use imported oil ; but, nevertheless, we are on a level with imported 
 oil. The quotation in New York yesterday was Ij".' cents a gallon, and in London 32 
 cents. Yesterday the quotation of lead was 5 cents a pound in Loudon, and in New 
 York 7i cents a pound. Then the cost of our labor is a little over 100 per cent, more 
 than the cost on the other side. I do not come here begging for more protection, but 
 only for fair play. We only want to get equal. So far as white lead and oil are con- 
 cerned, I have no suggestion to make. This committee can see the condition of 
 things. Linseed-oil has advanced largely within the last eighteen months, and white 
 lead also. That is done by combinations and trusts. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Has not the increased price of linseed-oil been caused by a shortage in 
 the crops of flax ? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. No, sir. If that were the case why would not linseed-oil be much 
 higher in London and Liverpool? In some of the linseed-oil mills here they use 
 altogether foreign seed. I think what would probably help the oil-cloth and lino- 
 leum interest would be found in the matter of duty on canvas. People have been 
 talking here to-day about the duty on canvas as 30 per cent. The oil-cloth capacity 
 for the use of burlaps is about 22,500,000 yards a year. For years and years the duty 
 on jute canvas was uniform, without regard to width or weight. In the last arrange- 
 ment of the tariff the oil-cloth people were discriminated against by being made to 
 pay 10 iier cent. more. I do not know that that has helped any one; but 1 know 
 that it has taken about .f;l,000 a month out of my firm. We got along very nicely, 
 however, and made very fair returns in profits until this late advance in the prices 
 of oil and white lead. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Was that advance caused by trusts? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. Yes; trusts that have come to stay. It seems to me as if they had a 
 blackboard in London and looked over hero to see what the price of oil was, and 
 made the prices corres|iOHd there. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLiN. And they add to the London price substantially the Loudon price? 
 
 Mr. Blabo.n'. Yes. We have no comiietition except in Dundee; and there are only 
 half a dozen coni'erns there that make canvas suitable for oil-cloth, and they are in 
 combination with the burlap trade. Wliile it may not be a trust, it is a clannish 
 understanding. They siiy that it is not a trust ; but there are uot more than half a 
 dozen firms there, and tliey maiiii)ulate this matter. If you would give us free jute 
 we could iirotect ourselves. Give us the free raw material and I will try to protect 
 myself. i 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You think you could get along with raw material free? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. Yes ; that is what we want. Of course, if you make a tariff (either 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 571 
 
 specific or ad valuicui), von will not discriiiiiiia.ti'. iii;:iinst tlu; nviunfaotnrers of oil- 
 cloth and linoleum. Give «b iii« buiuc i alc.^, hiil w jilioiit lliu limit, lo 4u luclies. The 
 oil-cloth people use canvas about 50 inches wide. 
 
 The Chairman. If you had raw material free would you want a duty on your pro- 
 duct ? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. No, sir. If I get my raw material free, and if you let me hnport my 
 labor, I do not ask any favor. 
 
 Mr. Gear, You want to get your labor at the same price as is paid abroad ? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. I am not a free-trading man ; but if you put me on a fair equality 
 with London or Kirkcaldey I can get along. I can get along even if our labor is not 
 quite as low as theirs, for we have better machinery. Our plant contains the best 
 machinery. 
 
 Mr. Gkar. You say that the labor on this side i^ 100 per cent, higher than the 
 labor on the other side? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. Yes; a little more than that. It makes a great difference in our pay 
 list when we have to pay a man double. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Then, to make your conditions equal with those of a foreign manufact- 
 urer, you should only pay 50 cents for labor where you now pay $1 'I 
 
 Mr. Blabon. Yes; you are right about that. I have some parties workiug in my 
 mills who were getting a little over £1 a week on the other side, and who are getting 
 in our works |15 a week. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Ilien, in order to make things equal, you would have to reduce your 
 wages one-half? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. Yes; we would have to bring the wages down. I want to be placed 
 in a position where I am not discriminated against. I could get along if I were on 
 an equality. I do not want any favors. 
 
 Mr. Gear. If you had to reduce the wages of your work-people to the same rates as 
 they receive on the other side, could they live as comfortably on the same wages here 
 as they could on the other side ? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. No, sir ; a family that occupies four rooms now would then have to 
 bundle into one room. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Would they do aa much work for the lower wages ? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. I can not say. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is your product turned out mainly by machinery? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. Very largely. In the last few years we have exerted ourselves, and 
 have spent a great deal of money for machinery. 
 
 Mr. BRECKlNltlDGE. So that the mere manual labor does not cost you much? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. We have still a large amount of hand-labor — printers and others. 
 Three or four years ago I offered |50,000 for the patent of a machine that would print 
 linoleum perfectly. I offered it to any genius who would invent a machine that 
 would do the work, and assign the patent to me. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then you would have the patent and control it ? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. Of course I would have it and control it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You say we use better machinery in your business in this coun- 
 try than they use abroad ? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. Yes; I estimate the capacity of the American works as about 22,500,000 
 yards. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How will your output compare with theirs per hand ? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. I think we can do more work per hand than they can. We gener- 
 ally work our men on piece work. Some of our primers will make |18 per week. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Have you ever compared your output per hand with theirs? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. No; I have never been able to do that. They are very close there. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You have only figured on the weekly earnings? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr Breckinridge. Suppose you had everything you consume free and had no pro- 
 tection on your oil-cloth or linoleum, would your condition be worse then than it is 
 now ? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. I think not. . 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Take your labor, as it is paid here, and have your linseed-oil, 
 and white lead, and everything that is called raw material, free of duty, aiul you 
 think you would not be v.orse off; you say that in the taxes on your raw material 
 you are discriminated against ? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. We are. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Than my question is, suppose that all your raw materials 
 were free of duty, and there were no protection on your product, would your condi- 
 tion be much worse than it is now ? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. I can not say exactly. I should judge it could not be very much 
 worse. We are bad enough off now. There is no trust among the oil-cloth manufact- 
 urers. They are knife and pistol with each other. 
 Mr. Breckinuldgb. Did they not make a trust last fall ? 
 
672 
 
 EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Blabon. No, sir. They are very anxious for one; and if it were not for our 
 house they could get one up in ten days ; but I will not have anything to do with it. 
 I did not build up my business on couibinations and trusts ; and if I can not run it on 
 a square market I will let it alone. As regards the duty on oil-cloth, I have made a 
 calculation that if the duty is fixed at 30 per cent, ad valorem and 10 cents per 
 square yard the foreign manufacturers can still laud their goods here. 
 
 The Chaikman. While you had free raw material ? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. No, sir. ]?ut us in the same condition that we are in to-day and 
 make the duty 30 per cent, ad valorem and 10 cents per square yard; and that will, 
 allow the goods to be landed here at just about the price of the first-class American 
 oil-cloth and linoleum. 
 
 The Chairman. And that is what you suggest ? 
 
 Mr. Blabon. That is what I aslj; for and suggest — and that the duties on canvas 
 be made uniform, without regard to width. 
 
 The following additional statement was subsequently received from Mr. Blabon: 
 
 Linoleuin is a floor covering manufactured from oxidized linseed-oil, gums, resins, 
 and ground cork, and having bnrlaps as its base. The proportions of the different 
 chemicals etc., entering into the manufacture are: 
 
 Present duty : Cents. Total. 
 
 25 cents per gallon or 90 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Oxidized linseed-oil, duty 12^ 'lO. 00 
 
 25 per cent, ad valorem, resins. 
 
 Free gums.... 10 
 
 (50 per cent, ad valorem) one-half cent per pound ochers, one- 
 half 1.25 
 
 Free ground cork 4. 00 
 
 24. 35 
 
 40 per cent, ad valorem, burlap, 4 cent 9.94 
 
 Duty 17 cents -. 34.29 
 
 Labor 30.00 
 
 Interest, taxes, packing, and selling expenses 10. 00 
 
 Actual cost per square yard 74.29 
 
 Present protection on linoleum is 40 per cent, ad valorem.. BurLip thus carries 
 same protection. The one chemical (linseed-oil), composing fully three-fourths of the 
 raw materials, is protected 90 per cent., i. e. in Britain to-day linseed-oil is 32 cents 
 per gallon, in New York 62 cents per gallon. 
 
 We ask on new tariif 30 per cent, ad valorem and 10 cents specific duty per square 
 yard. 
 
 Linoleum values abroad : 
 
 A quality. 
 
 B quality. 
 
 Net cost in Kirkcaldy 
 
 Present duty, 40 per cent, ad valorem. 
 Charges from Glasgow to Nott York . 
 
 Cents. 
 48.55 
 19.42 
 6.00 
 
 72.97 
 
 Net cost in Kirkcaldy 
 
 30 per cent, ad valorem ( ..+. ,n f 
 
 Specific dnty I Petitioned for. , 
 
 Charges from Glasgow to New York 
 
 48.55 
 14.66 
 10. 00 
 5.00 
 
 78.11 
 
 Cents. 
 42.70 
 17.20 
 5.00 
 
 04.96 
 
 42.76 
 
 12.82 
 
 10.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 70.58 
 
 Duties on raw materials used in manufacture of linoleums: Linseed-oil, 25 cents 
 per gallon, or HO per cent, ad valorem; canvas, 40 per cent, ad valorem; rosin, 20 
 per cent ad valorem ; spirits of turpentine, 20 cents per gallon ; ochers of all sorts, 
 one-half cent per pound or 50 per cent ad valorem; cotton, 2| cents per square yard; 
 vermilion, 25 percent, ad valorem ; Paris white, 1 cent per pound, or 80 per cent, ad 
 valorem; red and white leads, 3 cents perponud; paper for patterns, 25 per cent. 
 ad valorem ; printing blocks, 30 per cent, ad valorem ; methylated spirits, $1 per 
 gallon. 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 573 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN CARTLEDGE. 
 
 Mr. John Cartledgb, of New York, said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the two last speakers have so well covered the 
 ground that I have nothing to do except to indorse their views thoroughly. I repre- 
 sent the oldest linoleum manufactory in this conntry. The business is very much in 
 its infancy. The price of raw material is such that we cannot get along unless the 
 duties on the raw materials are reduced. If they remain as they are, I indorse the 
 suggestion that the tariff on linoleum and oil-cloth should be 30 per cent, ad valoren 
 and 10 cents per square yard. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Can you give the committee the average prices of linseed-oil 
 for the last two or threee years in this country and in Europe ? 
 
 M. Cartledgb. I can not. I can tell you about the price of to-day. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Yot can get up a statement of those prices and furnish it to the 
 committee at a later day. 
 
 Mr. Cartlbdge. I think I can, perhaps. About two and one-half years ago linseed- 
 oil was down to about 30 cents. If has risen greatly since then. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is the duty on white lead now? 
 
 Mr. Cartledgb. Three cents a pound, but it enters so little into the manufacture 
 of linoleum that I do not care to say any thing about it. Linseed-oil is the great 
 factor in linoleum. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How long have these goods been manufactured in this 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. Cartledgb. We have been manufacturing them about fourteen years. It was 
 a patented article, and we bought the patent on the other side and were covered by 
 the patent for a little while. Now it is free. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. When did that patent expire? 
 
 Mr. Cartledgb. About five or six years ago. 
 
 Mr. Brbckinridge. I understand you to say that oil-cloth was not manufactured 
 in America until you began the business ? 
 
 Mr. Cartlbdge. Linoleum. - 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is the difference 1 
 
 Mr. Cartlbdge. They are very different articles, and are sold at very different 
 prices. Linoleum goes very much for the same purpose as oil-cloth, but is a different 
 thing. Linoleum is generally a much higher and more expensive article. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. • And linoleum has been made in this country only twelve 
 years ? 
 
 Mr. Cartlbdge. About that. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How long has oil-cloth been made hero ? 
 
 Mr. Cartlbdge. Quite a long period. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Back in the fifties ? 
 
 Mr. Cartlbdge. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Was it in a prosperous condition then ? 
 
 Mr. Cartledgb. I can not speak from knowledge. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You do not know the extent to which it was made then ? 
 
 Mr. Cartlbdge. I do not. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. J. CRA^A?^FORD LYON. 
 
 Mr. J. Crawford Lyon, of Baltimore, said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, as nobody has yet been heard on behalf of the con- 
 sumer, I wish to say a few words on his behalf ; I wish to call the attention of the 
 committee to the tariff which now exists on carpets made of hemp and jute 6 cents 
 per square yar*, specific. The majority of these carpets cost in Dundee from 3 pence 
 to 6 pence per yard, or from 6 cents to 12 cents. Consequently the carpet which costs 
 in Dundee 6 cents a yard pays the enormous duty of 100 per cent. But these carpets 
 run as high in valne as 80 cents per square yard. They go into the homes of the wealthy 
 who pay a duty on them of only 7i per cent. (6 cents per square yard). Very little 
 more need be said on that subject. A specific duty is little short of iniquity. "But it 
 is said that a specific duty is necessary because a fair valuation can not be assured. ' 
 There is no difficulty about that. There are custom-house weighers and appraisers 
 for that purpose. In the interest of consumers I should suggest that no more than 
 the present rate of duty on burlaps or on carpets made from jute and hemp should be 
 imposed ; that is 30 per cent. That would aflbrd ample protection to the American 
 manufacturer. I am a protectionist in theory, but when a revision of the tariff is 
 proposed I would like te see it equitably done. 
 There are several other industries of considerable importance, such as oil-oloth and 
 
574 EEVISION OF THE TAKIFF, 
 
 linoleum manufactures, that depend on a jute foundation. Under the act of 1874 the 
 duty was 35 per cent, on oil-cloth costing 50 cents a yard and under, and 45 per cent, 
 on oil-cloth costing over 50 cents a square yard. In 1883 the duty was made 40 per 
 cent, ad valorem, and that is the rate of duty that we live under now. The Senate 
 tariff biU proposes a duty of 10 cents a square yard and 15 per cent, ad valorem. 
 That would he a reduction on goods costing 40 cents a yard and which went into the 
 consumption of the rich, but on goods costing less than 40 cents a yard and' which are 
 consumed by the poor there is an increase of duty running for the lowest grade to the 
 enormous rate of 200 percent. The great majority of the sqn are-yard area of oil-cloth 
 and linoleum that is consumed in this country is consumed by the working people 
 and by people of slender means. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you manufacture this product ? 
 
 Mr. Lyon. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is there much of it made in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Lyon. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is there much of it imported? 
 
 Mr. Lyon. There can not be, so long as this duty acts as a check upon it, and, 
 therefore, the home manufacturers are increasing their prices. It is estimated that 
 the manufacture in this country employs less than 1,000 men, chiefly unskilled labor, 
 paid at from 75 cents to $1.50 per day. The printers of oil-cloth and linoleum are 
 the principal skilled labor. Their output is variously estimated at from 10,000,000 to 
 15,000,000 square j'ards, seven-eighths of which is used by the working classes and 
 by people who can afford to pay very little for luxuries. Seven-eighths of this 
 product nets the manufacturers from 15 to 30 cents per square yard. The average 
 return to the manufacturer is about 20 cents per square yard. The Senate bill pro- 
 poses to change the existing rate to 10 cents a yard speciti duty and 15 per cent, 
 ad valorem. The committee will see how that increase of duty would affect the 
 price of oil-cloth and linoleum that goes into the homes of the poor. Cloth costing in 
 England 10 cents per square yard is landed here now at about 15 cents a square yard, 
 and that acta as a check upon the prices of the American product. Biit if you put 
 10 cents per square yard duty upon it, and 15 per cent, ad valorem, it would cost 21^ 
 cents a yard to land in New York instead of 15 cents. That high rate of duty would 
 make a trast possible to the sixteen manufacturers who now act together as one 
 man. They could instantly increase their price 5 cents per square yard, which on 
 10,000,000 yards would put into their pockets in one year $500,000. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is your business? 
 
 Mr. Lyon. I am a merchant. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Doing business where ? 
 
 Mr. Lyon. In Baltimore. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are you an importer? 
 
 Mr. Lyon. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Otsar. Are there not large factories engaged in making the foundation for 
 linoleum? 
 
 Mr. Lyon. It is made here by twine mills, and is made more largely in Dundee. 
 The foundation is burlaps. 
 
 Mr. Brkckinridgb. Is the business prosperous at XJresent in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Lyon. Under the tariff of 40 percent., and under the present one of 35 per cent, 
 on goods costing under 50 cents a yard and of 45 per cent, on goods over 40 cents a 
 yard, it has grown and flourished and greatly multiplied. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much of the gra<le that is used by the poor do we import ? 
 
 Mr. Lyon. We can not import a great deal of it. It does not enter into our 
 st.atistios, because the importation of it is too trifling to be mentioned ; hut still it 
 acts as a check on a further advance of price, which would bo possible under the 
 tariff' bill proposed by the Senate. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. We manufacture about 15,000,000 square y.ards. 
 
 Mr. Lyon. From 12,000,000 to 15,000,000 square yards, about 1|3,OUO,000 worth. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Where do you get your estimate? 
 
 Mr. Lyon. It is given to rae by persons who profess to know. 
 
 Mr. McKen'na. What do you mean by the importation acting as a check? 
 
 Mr. Lyon. As long as the foreign product is imijorted here it acts as a check upon 
 the prices of the American product. 
 
 Mr. MoKenna. This |500,000 which you say would go into the pockets of the man- 
 ufacturers if the duty were increased, is that imagination ? 
 
 Mr. Lyon. I say that if they increase their price 5 cents per yard (which would be 
 possible under the Senate tariff bill) it would make this additional profit. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What profit did you say the American manufacturers are making f 
 
 Mr. Lyon. I did not say. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Can you state what it is ? 
 
 Mr. Lyon. I can not. I can tell you what they get for their output ; but what 
 it coats them I do not know. 
 
EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 575 
 
 ■ Mr. Flower. You say that the Senate bill largely increases the duty on the lower 
 grades of oil-cloth f 
 
 Mr. Lyon. Yes. All that which goes into the homes of the rich is reduced below 
 the present tariff; and that which goes into the homes of the poor is greatly increased 
 to tbe extent of nearly 200 per cent, on the lowest grades. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you deal in the home product ? 
 
 Mr. Lyon. Yes. 
 
 Mr. B/VYNB. What proportion of your dealing is in the home product as compared 
 with what you import 1 
 
 Mr. Lyon. Up to the year 1889 it has been three-fourths. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How was it in 1889 ? 
 
 Mr. Lyon. Iu 1889 we took a change. In this particular matter of oil-cloth and 
 linoleum the three-fourths were the other way. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. That is, three-fourths of what you sold were imported and only one- 
 fourth of American product? 
 
 Mr. Lyon. Yes, sir. 
 
 LETTER FROM MR. JOHN SLOANE. 
 
 New York, Januari/ I'.l, 1890. 
 Dear SiK : On behalf of tbe several linoleum companies of the United States and 
 more especially of the Nairn Linoleum Comi)any of Kearney, N. J., I beg to submit 
 the accompanying statement. 
 
 A. Showing the cost of materials entering into a square yard of cloth (linoleum) 
 and the proportion of same represented by the duties paid. 
 
 B. Showing the cost of imported A quality to-day. Showing the cost of imported 
 under tariff asked for. 
 
 C. Showing the duties on raw materials used in manufacture. 
 
 The underv.aluations of linoleum have been so numerous of late that a specific duty 
 as well as an ad valorem is claimed to more effectually protect the manufacturers and 
 the Treasury. 
 Kespectfully submitted. 
 
 John Sloane. 
 Hon. Wm. McKinlby, 
 
 Chairman Committee on JVays and Means. 
 
 Washington, D. C, Januarij 28, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: I have already sent to your committee a statement in regard to the 
 present duty on linoleum which, if you will be pleased to refer to, you will observe 
 that the duties imposed on the raw and partially manufactured materials entering 
 into a square yard of linoleum is 17 cents or .')0 per cent, of their cost abroad. 
 
 There is in every yard of goods half a gallon of linseed-oil subject to a duty of 25 
 cents per gallon. The price of this article at linseed-oil trust is ti2 cents; price of 
 this article abroad is 32 cents. 
 
 It is not my purpose to argue for any reduction in the duty on material, but to put 
 the American makers jon a x>rosperous road. They ask that the new duty be made 
 " 10 cents per square yard and 30 per cent, ad valorem," which, iu my humble judg- 
 ment, is a very modest and reasonable request, and a protection much below that you 
 are disposed to concede to the American manufacturers of carpetings. 
 
 The linoleum industry is only in its infancy, yet goods are produced here fully 
 equal in quality to those imported. Under favorable conditions as to materials we 
 might be content with the present duty of 40 per cent., but at their greatly enhanced 
 cost an increased duty on the foreign linoleum is required. 
 
 In floor oil-cloth comparatively little linseed-oil is used, but heavier and more 
 costly canvass is needed. I beg to inclose herewith a memorial of D. Powers & Son, 
 of Lansingburgh, the oldest floor cloth manufacturers in the United States, which 
 memorial 1 commend to your kind and careful iierusal. Bespeaking a favorable con- 
 sideration of the foregoing, 
 I am very truly yours, 
 
 John Sloane. 
 
 Hon. William McKinley. 
 
576 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 MEMORIAL OF D! PO'WERS & SONS. 
 
 The following paper was received from D. Powers & Sons, manufacturers of iloor 
 oil-cloths, at Lansiugburgh and Newburgh, N. Y. : 
 
 Gentlemen: Not being able to attend your hearing on the 4th of January, when, 
 we understand, you expect to give attention to the trade in which we arc interested, 
 we make you the following statement in writing, viz : 
 
 First. The tariff on the materials we use in our manufacture has been so arranged 
 that the duties on them have been in most instances as high or higher than the duties 
 on floor oil-cloths, viz : 
 
 The principal articles in value consumed by ua are, first, the canvas or foundations 
 on which the goods are made, usually called burlaps. The widths used in our trade 
 pay a duty of 40 per cent., while other widths, narrower, used chiefly for packing 
 and baling goods, pay a lower duty. Second in importance is linseed-oil, the duty 
 on which is specific. This duty has since 1861 been first 20 cents, next 30 cents, and 
 now is 25 cents per gallon. 
 
 The article is one that fluctuates largely in price and the percentage of duty is very 
 variable, ranging from 60 to 100 per cent., according to the market price abroad. 
 
 Next in importance is white lead, on which the duty is specific, at 3 cents per 
 pound, and the average duty is above 50 per cent, as prices abroad vary. 
 
 Wliiting, which is powdered chalk, and ochers, which enter largely into the pro- 
 duction, pay a specific duty of one-half cent per pound, which makes the ad valorem 
 duty from 60 to 100 per cent. 
 
 For our protection the duty was formerly 45 per cent, and is now 40 per cent, ad 
 valorem. 
 
 In the Mills bill, so called, which passed the last House of Representatives, the pro- 
 visions relating to floor oil-cloths fixed the duty at 10 cents per square yard and 15 
 per cent, ad v^orem. 
 
 The effect of this provision would be to lower the rate of duty on the goods usually 
 imported from 1 to 9 per cent., as shown in detail in Schedule A, annexed. 
 
 The most satisfactory relief we could have would be the lowering of the duties on 
 the articles consumed, so that we could get them at lower prices. 
 
 The present situation is that burlaps are almost wholly imported, and as yet no 
 benefit has come to us by the developpient of the home manufacture, and it seems 
 unfair that the descriptions of these goods which we use should be charged a higher 
 duty than those which go into general consumption. If any discrimination is to be 
 made it would seem just that it should be in favor of manufacturers who use the 
 goods as their raw material. 
 
 In the other cases of linseed-oil and of white lead trusts or combinations have 
 been formed, which hold prices very close to cost of importation. 
 
 We believe that in each of these cases the specific duty is much above what is 
 needful for the protection of these industries, and that they should be lowered one- 
 half in amount. 
 
 To revert to the matter of the duties on floor oil-cloths. We think that any sched- 
 ule which should put the duty effectually lower than 40 per cent, ad valorem would 
 be very unjust to our trade unless the duties on the materials consumed should be 
 reduced so much as to make the average rate less than that on our goods. 
 
 In Schedule A only invoice prices and dutiable values aro«included, showing the 
 cost prices without charges or expenses of any kind. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 D. Powers' Sons. 
 
 New Yoke, January 3, 1890. 
 
 Schedule A. — Comparative statement to show effect of present and propowd duties on 
 
 Jloor oil-cloih. 
 
 Sterling coat per square yard. 
 
 3 shillings 
 
 2 shillings 7 peuco 
 
 2 shillinffs 
 
 1 shilling 2 pi-nco- 
 
 Cost in 
 
 0. S. cuv- 
 
 roncy with 
 
 40perceiit. 
 
 duty. 
 
 Gents. 
 84. 3123 
 72. MVi 
 56. 2082 
 39. 7408 
 
 Cost with 
 
 duty at 
 
 10 per cent. 
 
 and 15 
 
 per cent. 
 
 Gents. 
 79. 2566 
 69. 0008 
 56. 1710 
 42. 6442 
 
 Rate of 
 
 ad valorenl 
 
 with mixed 
 
 duty. 
 
 Per cent. 
 31.60 
 34.29 
 39.90 
 50.22 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 577 
 
 Comparative statement {in detail) to show effect of present and proposed duties on floor oil- 
 cloth costing 3 shillings sterling. 
 
 100 yards, at 3s=£15,00, or(at |4.8665) 72.9975 
 
 Less 17i per cent 12.7744 
 
 60. 2231 
 Duty, 40 per cent 24.0892 
 
 84. 3123 
 
 Dutiable value CO. 2231 
 
 Specific duty 10. 
 
 And 15 per cent - 9. 0335 
 
 79. 25(36 
 Equivalent ad valorem duty, .31.605 per cent. 
 
 Comparative statement {in detail) to show effect ofiiresent and proposed duties on floor oil- 
 cloth costing 23. 7d. sterling. 
 
 100 yards, at 2s. 7d.=£12.18.4, or (at $4.8665) 62.8265 
 
 Less 17 J per cent 10.9945 
 
 51. 8320 
 Duty, 40 per cent 20.7328 
 
 72. 5648 
 
 Dutiable value 51. 8320 
 
 Specific duty 10. 
 
 And 15 per cent 7.7748 
 
 69. 6068 
 Equivalent ad valorem duty, 34.29 per cent. 
 
 Comparative statement {in detail) to show effect of present and proposed duties on floor oil 
 cloth costing 2 shillings sterling. 
 
 100 yards, at 2 shillings=£10.0.0, or (at $4.8665) 48.6650 
 
 Less 17^ per cent 8. 5163 
 
 40. 1487 
 Duty, 40 per cent 16.0595 
 
 56. 2082 
 
 Dutiable value 40.1487 
 
 Specific duty 10. 
 
 And 15 per cent (^.0223 
 
 56.1710 
 Equivalent ad valorem duty, 39.90 per cent. 
 
 Comparative statemeiU {in detail) to show effect of present and jiroposed duties on floor oil- 
 cloth costing Is. 2d. sterling. 
 
 100 yards, at Is. 2(J.=£5.16.8, or (at $4.8665) 28.3863 
 
 Duty, 40 per cent 11.3.545 
 
 39. 7408 
 
 Dutiable value 28. 3863 
 
 Specific duty 10. 
 
 And 15 per cent : 4.2579 
 
 42. 6442 
 Equivalent ad valorem duty, 50.22 per cent. 
 
 485 37 
 
578 REVISION OP THE TABIFF. 
 
 VIEWS OF LYON, HALL & CO. 
 
 Baltimore, January 15, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : Pursuing the subject of tariff revision, we wish, with your assistance, 
 to expose the monstrous increase proposed by the "Senate bill" now pending on iloor 
 oil-cloth and linoleum, dutiable as oil-cloth, in the grades consumed chiefly by the 
 working classes, and all your constituents of slender means. 
 
 The present dnty is 40 per cent, ad valorem, and has amply protected manufact- 
 urers since 1883, previous to which date it was 35 per cent, on cloth valued under, 
 and 45 per cent, ad valorem on those valued over 50 cents per square yard. The pres- 
 ent duty is therefore an increase on low grades, over the act of 1874, being 40 per 
 cent, instead of 35 per cent, ad valorem. Under this stimulant the industry has had 
 great growth and progress, and is now mature and well established. 
 
 The "Senate bill" proposes in the place of the existing duty of 40 per cent, ad 
 valorem a specific duty of 10 cents per square yard and 15 per cent, ad valorem. This, 
 briefly stated, reduces the tariff on high grades used by the rich, valued at more than 
 40 cents per square yard, and vastly increases, in a deeendiug scale, the tax on low 
 grades, produced to meet the wants of the poor. On the cheapest grades, very largely 
 consumed, the advance is nearly 200 per cent. 
 
 Uear in mind that fully seven-eighths of the total production is for people of mod- 
 erate or slender means, who can ill afford to endure a greater burden than is now 
 imposed by the existing duty of 40 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Then reflect that this duty has enabled makers to kill off foreign competition com- 
 pletely since 1883 on low grades, the few imported merely showing that if prices 
 were advanced, foreign makers stood ready to again compete. 
 
 But, put into operation the "Senate Bill," providing for 10 cents per square yard 
 and 15 per cent, ad valorem, and what will result ? The cheapest grade of cloths, 
 costing abroad 10 cents per square yard, largely consumed, and paying a duty of 40 
 per cent, or 4 cents per square yard, will be advanced to 11^ cents, an increase of 
 nearly 200 per cent. 
 
 All competition will thus be killed in the interest of sixteen manufacturers, large 
 and small, located in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and Maine, 
 employing a comparatively small number of people, making it possible for them to 
 speedily form a trust, advance the price of their output in the four lower grades an 
 average of 5 cents per square yard, and squeeze from the poorer classes who consume 
 the goods the sum of $.500,000 per year, on the estimated 10,000,000 square yards 
 produced in these grades. These goods enter every household in your constituency. 
 
 As long as we must have a tarifi', it should be made to bear as lightly as possible on 
 the poor, and no excuse that can be offered will jusify the imposition of a specific 
 duty. The interest of the great mass of your constituents deserve at least as much 
 connsideration as manufacturers, and an equitable change would be to reduce the 
 tariff to 25 per cent, on all cloths costiug 20 cents and under per square yar(J, and 
 main tain the present rate of 40 per cent, ad valorem on all valued at over 20 cents 
 per square yard. The former are used by the poor, the latter by the rich. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Lyon, Hall & Co. 
 
 Hon. RoswELL P. Flower, M. C. 
 
 BURLAPS. 
 
 Sales Office, Planet Mills, 83 Leonard Street, 
 
 New York, January 8, 1890. 
 
 My Dear Sir : I beg to submit the following to supplement my few remarks made 
 to your committee Saturday last : 
 
 That the Senate bill, schedule J, is satisfactory excepting the item, burlaps under 
 CO inches in width, which I would suggest would pay a specific duty of 2 cents per 
 pound, instead of the present ad valorem duty of 'M per cent., and so prevent under- 
 valuation and fraud. 
 
 I know of a number of cases where importers have brought in canvas and pad- 
 dings classified as burlap at 30 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 The average price of burlaps in Dundee for the past fifteen years has been 7 cents 
 per lion nd. Duty at 30 per cent, ad valorem is more than 3 cents per pound, but a 
 Fpocilic duty of 2 ci-nts per pound would prevent undervaluation and wrong classi- 
 firatioii anil make it possible for burlaps and like goods to be manufactured in this 
 country. More than $10,000,000 of these goods are imported annually, all of which 
 would be made Iiere if the tarili' were rightly adjusted and raw jute on the ftee list, 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 579 
 
 But with the undervaluation and wrong classification made possible by the present 
 ad valorem duty, we are unable to compete with the cheap labor of Dundee and 
 Calcutta on this class of goods. 
 
 Yours respectfully, ^^_ Lyail. 
 
 Hon. Wm. McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 VIEWS OP -WILLIAM B. CUNNINGHAM. 
 
 New Yokk, February 1, 1890. 
 To the Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 Over 140,000,000 yards of burlaps (a low estimate) were imported during 1889. 
 Foreign value over $5,000,000, on which was paid 30 to 40 per cent, duty, or, to be 
 more correct, tax, because, excepting a very small lot for a special purpose, such goods 
 are not made in this country. The Chelsea Mills, New York, which spins jute yarns 
 and manufactures jute carpets, make a few wide burlaps for floor oil-cloth purposes, 
 but the quantity produced is very small, not snSicient to supply one of the large floor 
 oil-cloth factories with all the burlaps such a factory would require. The great bulk 
 of burlaps is used for making bags and packing purposes. Enormous quantities of 
 . grain-bags, phosphate-bags, peanut-bags, flour-bags, etc., are made in this country 
 annually from imported burlaps. 
 
 Why should the agricultural people, whose produce is so low in price that it is a 
 struggle and hard labor for them to make a livelihood, be taxed (for the consumer 
 pays for the duty imposed) on these goods ? Burlap importers are so numerous and 
 competition so keen, that if the duty (tax) was abolished, or reduced, the full benefit 
 of such reduction or abolition would be given to the burlap importers' customers 
 (bag manufacturers), and the bag manufacturers are also so numerous, and competi- 
 tion so keen, that they woiild also give their customers (users of bags) the full bene- 
 fit of such reduction (reduced cost). A little investigation into this matter would 
 soon satisfy any inquirer that, for the trade, competitors are numerous and competi- 
 tion keen in the importing of burlaps and bag manufacturing trades. Inquire, re- 
 garding the competition, of any or all of the burlap importers, and any or all of the 
 bag manufacturers. 
 
 Burlaps are imported principally from Scotland, also largely from India, and now 
 German manufacturers are beginning to send goods here; so there can be no trust 
 nor combine with so many markets to order from, nor can there be a trust in the bag 
 trade, as a bag factory is such a simple affair, consisting mainly of sewing-machines 
 easily obtained and set up wherever required. A very large portion of the cost of 
 producing burlaps is labor, so that it is very doubtful if, even with free jute and 
 present duty of 30 to 40 per cent., the goods could be profitably manufactured in this 
 country in competition with the cheap labor of Scotland, Germany and India. Very 
 much the same arguments apply to burlaps used in the floor oil-cloth trade. 
 
 All the leading floor oil-cloth manufacturers import their burlaps (foundations for 
 floor oil-cloths), direct from Scotland, and pay the Government 40 per cent, duty on 
 these importations. That duty of 40 per cent, is a large item in the cost of oil-cloth 
 which the manufacturer has to charge to his customer, say, for instance, Marshall 
 Field & Co., who in turn charge it to theii' customer, and so on until the goods are 
 paid for by the consumer, and he it is, virtually, who pays that 40 percent, which the 
 Government has received. Why should the Government, which does not need the 
 money, compel consumers to pay that enhanced cost on the oil-oloth used by con- 
 sumers ? These oil-cloths are largely used by farmers and working people who have 
 little enough money to spare. The producing capacity of the floor oil-cloth factories 
 is now larger than the consumption, so competition is also very keen in this line, and 
 if the duty (tax) on burlaps was abolished or reduced, the full benefit <5f such reduced 
 cost would be obtained by those who use floor oil-cloths. 
 
 Of late some cheap English oil-cloths and also large quantities of linoleum have 
 been imported here and so interfered with American manufacturers of such goods 
 that some of them now advocate an increase in the duty ou importations of floor oil- 
 cloths and linoleum, but the feeling of the country at large is for reduction and 
 against additions to the present tariff. If the duty on burlaps was abolished or 
 reduced American floor oil-cloth and linoleum manufacturers would be so much 
 relieved that they would not need any additional duty imposed on floor oil-cloth and 
 linoleum to protect them. 
 
 Floor oil-oloth and linoleum manufacturing is a large and established industry in 
 this country. Bag manufacturing is also a large and established industry here. The 
 abolition or reduction of duty now imposed on the goods imported by and for these 
 manufacturers would result in a saving of millions of dollars by the consumers of bags, 
 floor oil-cloths, and linoleums. For over twenty years millions of dollars have been 
 exacted for duty on burlaps unnecessarily and it is now time that this tax ehould be 
 rescinded. — — 
 
580 EEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 EUFFLING. 
 STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID KISCH. 
 
 Mr. David Kisch, representing the Ruffling Manufacturers' Association, addressed 
 the committee as follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we do not intend to make a lengthy argument, 
 but being ruffling manufacturers, we come here on behalf and as the authorized rep- 
 resentatives of the Euffling Association of the United States, to ask for a fair ad- 
 justment of the present tariff, which operates injuriously to our interests, and which 
 was designed to protect, but practically tends to almost ruin this particular trade by 
 reason of an apparent oversight or lack of information or investigation. 
 
 In order to illustrate this statement, I show you a piece of cloth [exhibiting], 
 called organdy or tarleton, which is a sample of the cloth of which all cotton ruf- 
 flings are made. The yarn necessarily used to manufacture this cloth pays an ad 
 valorem duty of 50 per cent. We refer you to the yarn schedule of the present 
 tariff. This cloth pays a duty of 56 to 100 per cent, above the duty of the yarn, 
 making a total duty of from 100 to 150 per cent, on the manufactured cloth. This 
 manufactured cloth is the American ruffling manufacturers' raw material. The 
 neck rnfflings and ruchings made of snch cloth pay a duty of 40 per ceut. ad valorem 
 only. There is thus created by Congress a discrimination against the American man- 
 ufacturers on this article of from 60 to 100 per cent. This, you will readily see, is a 
 great wrong and hardship, and bars home production of this class of rnfflings. 
 There is apparently no reason that we can see why an article manuiactured in for- 
 eign countries should pay a lower rate of duty than the raw material itself bears. 
 
 To prove the assertion above made, that this cotton cloth, called organdy or tar- 
 leton pays 100 to 150 per cent., we submit this to you : Clotli No. 3, 75 threads, costs 
 If pence sterling per yard on the other side, equal to SiJ- cents currency ; the duty on 
 this cloth is 3^ cents per square yard. The cloth being 1-J- yards wide makes the duty 
 4.67 cents per yard, thus raising the duty to 133 per cent. This percentage is still 
 further increased where black or tinted cloths come in question, throwing the duty 
 of the cloths up to almost 200 per cent. 
 
 We are thus in a position analogous to that of a baker, who being compelled to im- 
 port his flour and pay 125 per cent, duty, could import his bread at the rate of 40 per 
 cent. 
 
 The Senate Tariff Committee, before whom we laid our grievance, saw clearly the 
 error of the present tariff in this particular instance, and have in their proposed bill 
 advanced neck-rufflings made of cotton cloths 10 per cent., raising the duty of the 
 same from the present 40 per cent, to 50 per cent, ad valorem, at the same time stat- 
 ing that for lack of time the committee was unable to investigate this matter further 
 or thoroughly, and that we could expect relief at the proper time. 
 
 We think that the time has come when we can look for relief against the unprece- 
 dented oppression which we have endured in this regard for seven years by a simple 
 oversight or mistake made at the time the existing tariff was framed. 
 
 We pray your honorable committee to amend by striking out the words "neck- 
 rufflings and ruchings" appearing on lines 1422 and 1423, section 336, page 154 of the 
 act, and to add to such section, as so altered, or any section which may be substi- 
 tuted in lieu thereof, after the words "ad valorem" in line 1427, the following: 
 " On neck rnfflings and ruchings, composed of cotton or other vegetable fiber not 
 specially enumerated or provided for in this act, 75 per centum ad valorem." This 
 75 per cent, duty would not cover the difference between the cloth and the neck- 
 rufSings duty at present, but by our own energies, ingenious devices, and superior 
 machinery, we would then be in a position to compete once more with the foreign 
 markets, which have succeeded in the last seven years in destroying this industry, 
 which was of purely American origin, and this amendment would enable us to .give 
 employment to a large number of hands who have been her6.tofore entirely thrown 
 out of position and work. 
 
EE VISION OF THE TAEIPF. 581 
 
 HEMP TWINES. 
 
 Cincinnati, January 6, 1890. 
 
 Dhae Sir : As manufacturers of American hemp twines we wisli to enter our pro- 
 test against any reduction in duties now imposed upoQ luanilla, sisal, New Zealand, 
 Sunn, Russian, Italian, flax,.jute, jute butts, or auy similar fibers that compete witli 
 our native hemp. American hemp has heretofore been raised in Kentucky and Mis- 
 souri, but is now produced as well in Ohio, Illinois, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Da- 
 kota, all having been encouraged in its growth by the increased demand for binder 
 twine. Any reduction made will be to stunt an industry tbat is now being revived. 
 
 The obstacle in the past has been the crude maunur in which hemp had to be 
 broken out or separated from the stalk, that of the old hand-brake. It has been 
 practically demonstrated in the past year that a successful power-brake has been pro- 
 duced that will euable oar farmers to raise their hemp with less expense and labor 
 than iu the past, so that with the duty kept on the tfbers heretofore mentioned it 
 -will be only a question of a few years before all the fiber for binder and other twines 
 can be raised here at home, thus obviating the necessity of depending upon foreign 
 countries for our supply. 
 
 Labor in this country for raising hemp is paid $15 per month and board. Labor iu 
 Calcutta, where jute is raised, is paid only 6 cents a day, or $1.50 a month, and we 
 understand that in Mexico and Manilla Islands wages are 20 cents per day. Freights 
 from Calcutta to New York on jute is 30 cents per 100, while from our city to the sea- 
 board, a distance of only 750 miles, we pay the same rate, 30 cents per 100. Thus, 
 with cheap pauper labor and freights to compete with, it will work a hardship to 
 the American farmer should the duty be lowered or taken off the fibers named. 
 Eespectfully submitted, 
 
 The John Bontb Sons Company, 
 Charlbs E. Bonte, President. 
 
 Hon. William McKinley, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 t 
 
 VIEWS OF H. C. PUTNAM. 
 
 Ead Claire, Wis., January 27, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen : Referring to the action of Flax and Hemp Spinners and Growers' 
 Association in asking you to place a duty of 3 cents a pound and 50 per cent, ad 
 ■valorem duty on coarse linens in place of the 35 per cent, present duty, as manufact- 
 urers we shall certainly recommend it, if we are satisfied that the flax can be and 
 ■will be raised and prepared in this country. Thus far, however, we, as manufact- 
 urers of coarse linens, such as is in general use all over this country, are obliged to 
 get our yarns abroad, mostly from Ireland, Scotland, and Holland. At this, paying 
 a duty of 35 per cent, on said yarn, and by paying very low wages — from one-half 
 to three-fourths of one cent per yard for weaving ordinary crash — to our women labor 
 or help, and by the strictest economy in all departments, using water power and no 
 rents, we have managed thus far to come out even, paying no dividends or interest 
 on stock of our company. 
 
 We have good men on the road selling; we make good linen crashed towels fully 
 as good as imported of the same grades, and we are selliug to over seven hundred 
 diflereut representative firms from Maine to California, and have no adverse criticisms 
 on our product, but we can make no money unless we can manage in some way to 
 raise the price of the imported article or reduce the cost of our own product some 
 three-fourths or one cent per yard. As it now stands we have no machinery in the 
 , United States to dress flax, none to spin it even, if farmers do raise it. If we can and 
 do raise flax, we shall have to import all our machinery to utilize it. On this machin- 
 ery the United States charges 35 to 45 per cent. duty. Now, unless Congress can so 
 adjust matters referred to above, the raising of the duty on yarns and coarse linens, 
 and leaving our factories the alternative of paying high duties on necessary flax 
 dressing and spinning machinery, or of importing flax, I can not see much benefit to 
 be derived or gained to the country at large by raising the duty as recommended by 
 that association. Of course, I can say for our factory's interest and others similarly 
 situated that we are in favor of said raise. I have aimed to discuss the question from 
 all points. I have had a long correspondence with the Secretary of Agriculture on 
 the flax question. 
 
 I visited Europe in 1885 and again in 1887 on this subject, and have gained much 
 knowledge thereby. I have had the past week at my residence a Russian gentleman 
 of large estate, 300 miles southeast of St. Petersburg, here at my invitation, and find 
 
582 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 if we had the spinning machinery we can bring flax from Russia much superior to 
 any we have raised so far at a less rate than we can prepare it herefrom home-raised 
 flax. The committee will see that the subject requires careful study; it is of vast 
 importance to the country, as the statistics of imports will show. There is no ques- 
 tion but we can raise or grow the flax now, if we can utilize it. The machines with 
 which to do this we must import for the present at any rate. Thus far our mechapics 
 have not the knowledge nor jjatience or incentive to make such machines as are 
 made in Europe. We have offered to import the proper machines and run them at 
 our own expense, and allow the Secretary of Agriculture to call our factory an ex- 
 perimental station, if he would procure the remission of duty on said machines, to 
 wit, those for dressing and spinning the flax when so raised. I shall be very glad 
 to aid the committee m any way. 
 
 I refer the committee to Hon. J. M. Rusk, Secretary. 
 Very respectfully. 
 
 The Ways and Means Committee, 
 
 'ton, D. C. 
 
 H. C. Putnam, 
 President Eau Claire Linen Company. 
 
 DRESSED LINE. 
 
 Sir : Encouraged by the recommendation in the President's message " to revise and 
 adjust any inequalities in the present tariff laws," and also assured that where it can 
 be shown to you that any part of the present tariff laws are acting injuriously upon 
 any of our industrial or manufacturing interests, such oases will receive due rectifi- 
 cation at the hands of your committee ; therefore we, the undersigned employes of 
 the Barbour Flax Spinning Company, presently engagedin the occupation of hackling 
 (flax dressing), beg respectfully to submit to your notice a discrepancy iu that part 
 of present tarilf schedule touching upon the article known as dressed line and the 
 injurious effect it has upon the branch of the business with which we are connected. 
 
 No doubt, sir, you are aware that flax grown in this country is unsuitable in the 
 manufacture of fine goods, therefore in order to make the finer grades of goods re- 
 quired by the trade it becomes necessary to import the finest sorts of European flax, 
 such as French, Dutch, Belgian, and Irish. 
 
 It is in relation to these imports that we wish to draw your attention, for as the 
 tariff laws are presently arranged, the discrimination between raw flax and dressed 
 line is practically in favor of the latter article, so much so that a large proportion of 
 the above-mentioned imports come here in the form of dressed line, carrying with it 
 the following results : that hundreds of men, flax-dressers, are in this country today 
 who by reason of this large importation of dressed line are unable to find employ- 
 ment at their own trade, and are thereby driven into competition with men of other 
 industries. Under the present tarifl'laws the duty on raw flax is $20 per ton ; dressed 
 line is $40 per ton, and tow |10 per ton. 
 
 You will here observe that dressed line is charged double the dutif of raw flax, but 
 we must here explain that by taking an average of the flax imported here raw flax 
 will only yield about 50 per cent, of dressed line, so that to produce a ton of dressed 
 line it requires about 2 tons of raw flax, thus leaving the two articles, as far as duty 
 is concerned, upon equal terms. The average price paid in this country for hackling 
 a ton of this imported flax is $50. In Europe the wages scarcely reaches the half of 
 what is paid here, so that for hackling a ton of flax on the other side it would cost 
 about |25. Now we will figure up the cost of a ton of dressed line made in Europe 
 and compare it with the cost of producing the same quantity here, duty, cost of prod- 
 ucts, and raw flax added. 
 
 Cost of hackling 2 tons of flax in Europe, at |25 per ton $50 
 
 One ton of dressed line, at |40 duty per ton 40 
 
 One ton of tow, at $10 duty per ton 10 
 
 » 100 
 
 Cost of hackling 2 tons of flax in the United States, at $50 per ton 100 
 
 Two tons of raw flax, at $20 per ton duty 40 
 
 140 
 
 Thus showing that the duty upon the two articles, dressed line and tow, only covers 
 the difference in the cost of labor between here and the other side, leaving the ad- 
 mission of dressed line practically free. 
 
 Now, sir, as under the present tariff arrangement, the grower derives no protection 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 583 
 
 and tiie foreign flax being absolutely necessary in the making of fine goods, Tve would 
 suggest that tbe raw flax be admitted free of duty ; this would leave us on an equality 
 with the foreign dressed line, and would assist the other branches of the industry who 
 are at present hard pressed in their competition with the foreign manufactured goods, 
 but if the removal of the duty from this raw flax should prove in any way detrimental 
 to the interests of the grower then we would aay let the raw flax and tow remain as 
 they are, and raise the duty upon dressed line to |i80 per ton, which would amount to 
 the same thing, and would give the grower a clear protection of |20 per ton. So far 
 we have been treating upon the article known as dressed line. 
 
 We now beg to draw your attention to the flax trade in general, and compare it 
 with other textile industries. Around us we have silk, woolen, and cotton manufac- 
 tories all going on prosperously, new mills yearly springing up, and the older ones 
 adding to their immense establishments and gradually driving out the foreign goods 
 from our market, while for the past year the two flax-spinning establishments in this 
 State have been unable to keep their places running full time. The flax industry if 
 fairly protected would be one of the most prosperous industries for unlike some of the 
 other textiles their goods are unaffected by the flights of fashion, they being articles 
 of daily use. 
 
 We ask no special privileges, we only ask for protection equal with the other textile 
 industries so that we may be able to take the place of the foreigner in supplying 
 these goods to this rapidly growing country. 
 
 Trusting that this will receive your consideration and that we may be granted a 
 moiety of that protection which is the right of every citizen, 
 We remain, sir, yours, respectfully, 
 
 John Stephen. 
 George Soutab. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlet, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 FLAX AND LINEN THREAD. 
 
 As the largest importers of linen thread in the United States, and as the selling 
 agents of the flax mills of North Grafton, Mass., manufacturing linen threads, we 
 deem it fit to avail ourselves of the hearing assigned by the Ways and Means Com- 
 mittee January 4, 1890, to state briefly our views in writing in reference to the duty 
 on flax and on linen thread. 
 
 We have so fully set forth our opinions upon flax in our published volume, "Flax: 
 Its Culture and Use in the United States," and in other publications circulated by 
 us as to render it unnecessary for us at this time to do more than refer to those pub- 
 lished statements of our position on flax. We would simply reiterate that flax fiber 
 not being a product of American agriculture, any duty imposed upon importations 
 is a deterrent upon flax spinning, and discourages the development of that particu- 
 lar branch of American manufactiire. The products of flax culture here are flax-seed 
 and the oil therefrom expressed, linseed-oil. A suitable impost upon these products 
 will therefore protect the flax-grower in America, and will not injure any domestic 
 interest. As consistent advocates of the policy of protection in this country we are 
 opposed to a duty on flax fiber of any kind, and favor a duty upon what American 
 flax-growers sell from their flax crops. Whatever experience in a series of years has 
 shown can be profitably grown or produced in this country we would prote t, where 
 deemed necessary by those most competent to j udge, and in the same spirit we would 
 take oif the duty whenever that can be done without injury to any existing interest, 
 as in the case of dressed and undressed flax fiber. As directly bearing upon this 
 statement of the case, we quote from a recent article by the well-known economic 
 writer David Hall Rice : 
 
 "Customs duties to be classed as protective must be such as are applied to those 
 products of the field, mine, or factory which we produce or can produce by home in- 
 dustry in sufficient quantity to supply national demand at reasonable prices to the 
 consumer through a considerable period of time. Thus, for example, a duty that is 
 applied to a product, which we are debarred by soil or climate from producing at all, 
 would not be a protective duty. On the contrary, it would be a free-trade tariff, 
 and is distinctly recognized as such by eminent advocates of free-trade like Pro- 
 fessor Sumner, of Yale College, and by nations practicing free-trade like England." 
 
 In reference to the duty oo linen thread, we are in favor of a specific rate. Under 
 date of November 6, 1885, we prepared a schedule of specific rates, the equivalents of 
 the existing rate, 40 per cent, ad valorem. That schedule, which is based on the 
 graded method in use in Germany, is given in the special report of the Secretary of 
 the Treasury, February, 1886, pages 105, 106, 107. Should the committee decide to re- 
 tain the present ad valorem system upon linen threads, we would say as the agents of 
 American producers that the existing rate is satisfactory to us. In case the duty be 
 
584 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 taken off dressed flax, as recommended by us, a rate of 25 per cent, ad valorem 
 ■would sufficiently protect tlie mills we represent, which manufacture linen thread in 
 this State. 
 
 We may say that we are strongly opposed to the imposition of a duty on outer 
 coverings which are used merely to protect merchandise in transit. We believe it to 
 be entirely practicable to so frame tlie laws imposing a duty on all inside coverings 
 which may be necessary for placing merchandise in salable condition, and exempting 
 such coverings as are used solely for the protection of the goods while being moved 
 from ouo place to another. We believe section 347, Schedule J, act March 3, 1883, 
 should be repealed and the provisions therein incorporated in section 336, section 347 
 being practically inoperative, under the existing rulings of the Treasury Depart- 
 ment, which are in accordance with the prevailing spirit of the act. 
 
 Eespectfnlly submitted to the Ways and Means Committee for J. E. Leeson & Co., 
 by J. H. Walker, Member of Congress for the Tenth Massachusetts district. 
 
 AFRICAN FIBER. 
 
 Washington, D. C, Januanj 22, 1890. 
 The Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 The undersigned would respectfully set forth that there is an article known in 
 commerce as African fiber. The same in its natural state grows wild in the northern 
 states of Africa, being a grass which is gathered, pr6i)ared, and spun into rope by 
 slave and convict labor, shipped to the United States, principally as ballast, at a 
 very low rate of freight and entered free of duty. 
 
 The material is used for upholstering and bedding purposes in direct competition 
 with material grown and manufactured in the United States, principally among 
 which are excelsior and corn-husk. While I have no accurate data as to the quan- 
 tity of African fiber brought into the United States, the quantity brought the past 
 year would probably reach between 10,000 and 20,000 tons, every ton of which re- 
 duces the consumption of the home product and demoralizes the price of same by 
 reason of the foreign product being put upon the market in large quantities. 
 
 The interests of the grower and manufacturer of the home product would be served 
 by a duty being put upon African fiber of $10 per ton. 
 
 Very respectfully submitted. 
 
 C. B. Van de Cark. 
 
 CULTIVATION OF FLAX. 
 
 Hastings, Minn., Jannary 21, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen : Our eiTort to establish a linen mill in this section of country makes 
 us especially earnest in asking that your honorable committee consider favorably the 
 request of the Flax and Hemp Spinners and Growers' Association. 
 
 It is our purpose to establisli in conjunction with our manufactory a spinning 
 plant. Increasing our capacity of course, and to do all in our power to induce and 
 aid our farmers to cultivate flax for the fiber. 
 
 This we feel will be very difficult undertaking with the proportionately light pro- 
 tection now given by import duty. 
 
 Tlie Secretary of Agriculture in his first report gives great prominence to the sub- 
 ject of fiber cultivation. We all realize its importance to our farming community in 
 providing an additional and very profitable crop, and in increasing our manufactur- 
 ing industries, developing the two most vital and important factors in our national 
 growth and prosperity. 
 
 We lielieve we are especially favored in the Northwest both in soil and climate, 
 and we have a still further advantage in the fact that many of our farmers are thor- 
 oughly conversant and skilled in growing the flax and preparing the fiber for the 
 spinner; hence we feel confident that with our very just request granted it will be 
 possible to greatly advance the material interests and conditions of our rapidly in- 
 creasing population, in reducing the amount paid for duty on importations and dis- 
 tributing amongst our own people wages now paid foreign operatives. 
 Wo have the honor to remain, yours very respectfully, 
 
 Vermilion Linen Mills. 
 The Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned, citzena of the city of Hastings, respectfully ask your favor- 
 able consideration of the foregoing request. 
 
 Charles Espenschid, miller; J. C. Norton; G. Follett, banker; N. L. 
 Bailey, John Heinen ; William Hodgson, mayor city of Hastings ; John 
 J. Ehodes, merchant; Frank Younz. 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIPF. 585 
 
 REWARD FOR JUTE MACHINERY. 
 
 Twenty-five thousand dollars will be paid to ttio inventor of tlie best machine for 
 decorticating, with process fordisintegratingthefiberfrom the jute plant, the merits 
 to be determined at trials to be held in one of the Southern States of America within 
 three years from the date of this act, and the test of success being the production of 
 fiber worth at least $60 per ton of 2,000 pounds in the American market at a cost of 
 preparation not excee<ling |20 per ton. Competion open to the world. 
 
 And to further encourage the production and preparation of this fiber, a bounty of 
 one-half cent per pound to be paid to the American agriculturist who shall produce 
 for sale and sell not less in one lot than 2,000 pounds. This bounty to continue for 
 seven years from the date of the act. 
 
 Twenty-five thousand dollars will be paid to the inventor of the best machine for 
 preparing fiber from the ramie plant, the merits to be determined at trials to be held 
 in one of the Southern States within three years from the date of this act, and the 
 test of success being the production of fiber worth at least |100 per ton of 2,000 pounds 
 in the American market, at a cost of preparation not exceeding |30 per ton. Competi- 
 tion open to the world ; provided, hoioever, that in case dry ramie stalks are used from 
 which to prepare fiber, the cost of curing, handling, drying, and storing, and all labor 
 incurred subsequent to catting of the stalks, shall be considered as part of the cost 
 of preparation. 
 
 And to further encourage the production and preparation of this fiber, a bounty of 
 1 cent per pound to be paid to the agriculturist of the United States who shall pro- 
 duce for sale and sell in one lot not less than 2,000 pounds. This act to continue 
 for ten years. 
 
 Ten thousand dollars, or so much thereof as is needed, should be appropriated to 
 defray the expense of the trials, which should be under the supervison of the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture. 
 
 T. Albkb Smith. 
 
 DEDUCTIONS FROM INVOICES. 
 
 Flax and Hemp Spinners aiw Growers' Association, 
 
 Sostoii, Mass., Jaiijiarsj 11, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : As requested by you, I send memoranda of charges deducted from 
 invoices, copies of which have passed through my hands. I trust that new legisla- 
 tion may remedy the great wrong now being done. If I am correctly informed, the 
 Home Market Club administration bill retains the exempting of special charges from 
 duty, but this is not to be wondered at when we find free-traders and importers have 
 had a hand in the framing of their bill. 
 
 MEMORANDA. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 An invoice of thread amounted to (net) 289 7 5 
 
 Packing charges, 5 cases 58. per case - 15 
 
 Total amount of invoice 290 12 5 
 
 The total deductions from this invoice were as follows : 
 
 On spool goods. Per gross. 
 
 8. d. 
 
 Spools 1 :? 
 
 Spooling and overlooking 3 
 
 Boxes and labels 1 3 
 
 Wrappers, tickets, and strings 1 
 
 Labels, papering, and overlooking 2 
 
 £ 8. d. 
 
 Total, 176 gross, at 3 26 8 
 
 On hanlc goods. Per dozen. 
 
 8. d. 
 
 Papering and making up 10 
 
 Labels - 9 
 
 Wrappers, tickets, and string 4 
 
 Labeling, papering, and overlooking 5 
 
 Total, 30i dozen, at 2 4 3 11 2 
 
586 REVISION OP THE TARIFF, 
 
 On hank goods, hoxed. Per dozen. 
 
 8. a. 
 
 Boxing and making up i 2 10 
 
 Boxes and labels 1 5 
 
 Wrappers, tickets, and string 4 
 
 £ 8. d. 
 
 Total, 13 dozen, at 5 3 5 
 
 Packing charges as before noted 15 
 
 Total 34 9 2 
 
 Exempt from dtity on invoice of £290 12s. 5d. 
 
 On another invoice deductions are as follows: Per dozen. 
 
 8. d. 
 
 Boxing 1 
 
 Winding and balling 9 
 
 Paper and strings 3 
 
 Papering ., 1 
 
 Fiftydozenat 2 1 5 18 9 
 
 Packing charges 15 
 
 6 13 9 
 
 This on an invoice of value of £116 2«. 9d. 
 
 Other cases might be cited to show the gross injustice of the present laws. 
 I urge on behalf of the members of our association that you prepare a new and just 
 law for our protection. 
 Very truly, 
 
 A. R. Turner, Jr., President. 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 AGAINST EEMOVAL OF DUTY. » 
 
 Baltimokk, Md., January 20, 1890. 
 Dear Sir: * » « There seems to be a determined effort to place jute, hemp, 
 and kindred fibers on the free list. I always held the views of a rigid protectionist, 
 but it does seem that the benefits to be derived from protection should be dividecl 
 with some regard for fairness between the consumer and manufacturer. The pro- 
 posal to place these iibers on the free list without lowering the duty on the goods 
 manufactured therefrom means to direct the duties now paid directly into the pock- 
 ets of the manufacturer. There is no business reason that can possibly be urged that, 
 will reduce the price of binder-twine, cordage, bags, or bagging to the consumer be- 
 cause the raw material has been placed on the free list, if there is no reduction of duties 
 on the goods. The stock here, afloat, and abroad is thoroughly controlled by the 
 manufacturers or their agents. Jute costs 2^ cents per pound, but it is worth 5 cents 
 in New York. Manilla costs 6 cents, but is worth 12 cents ; sisal from Mexico is worth 
 9 cents, but costs less than 4 cents. Hence the duty does not regulate the price. I 
 hope, therefore, that the bill will be so amended as to reduce the duty on the manu- 
 .factnred goods to correspond with the duty that may be taken off the raw materiaK 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 T. Albek Smith. 
 Hon. William McKinley, 
 
 Souse of Representatives. 
 
 Philadelphia, January 20, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: I have read with great interest the statements and remarks upon the 
 subject of flax and kindred fibers, made before your committee by Mr. Turner, of 
 Ross, Turner & Co., of Boston, and the president of the Flax Association. 
 
 I wish to add my earnest plea to his that a chance should be given to this country 
 to supply itself with the fiber grown upon our own ground and by our own farmers 
 and manufactured by our own workmen. 
 
 The great Northwest, a region stretching over a thousand miles north, west, south, 
 and southwest of the head of Lake Superior, where now a large portion of the wheat 
 is grown, is also the very home of the flax plant. 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 587 
 
 4 
 
 There is, at the head of Lake Superior, a magnificent water-power not yet utilized, 
 with over 100,000 horse-power. 
 
 Ross, Turner & Co. and others have written to me that they will he glad to start 
 linen mills up there, if it were possible to make money on the product under the 
 present tariff. 
 
 The farmers of that region have heretofore done very little at flax growing, simply 
 because the seed alone could be saved ; but it would be a grand thing for them if the 
 demand for the fiber should spring up and manufacturing establishments in their 
 own mills could undertake to supply the country with at least the cheaper articles 
 manufactured of flax material. 
 
 Wheat raising is unproductive at present, and a goodly portion of their lands could 
 be planted with flax if they were encouraged to do so, and by utilizing the seed and 
 fiber as can now be done the whole region would become prosperous again. 
 
 I seems to me to be no more than just that this flax interest should be protected to 
 the full extent that other interests are, and that the farmers, who were pioneers 
 through many hardships, should be encouraged by your committee to diversify their 
 productions in this way. 
 
 I am satisfied that no more popular legislation could be enacted and none that 
 could produce greater results for our whole country. 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 Jat Cooke. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlbt, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 BUCKLHY, III., January 30, 1890. 
 The Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 We, the undersigned farmers and business men of Bjickley and vicinity, recogniz- 
 ing tliat a new industry has been started and is being carried on successfully here , 
 also that it is valuable to farmers in general for many reasons, but more p.irtioularly 
 on acQount of having already lowered the price of binder twine to them ; also recog- 
 nizing and believing that if the present duties on fibrous raw material be main- 
 tained, that it is possible at no very distant day for the people of the United States to 
 produce all its own fibers — we would therefore petition your honorable committee 
 that they recommend to Congress that the present duties be maintained on all foreign 
 fibrous raw material. 
 
 [Here follow numerous signatures. ] 
 
 Major McKiNLEY, 
 
 Chairman of tlie Ways and Means Committee : 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Heron Lake, Minn., and vicinity, are in favor of 
 the retention of duty on flax, hemp, sisal, manilla, and jute fibers, and even of 
 augmentation of imported duty on all fibers on an equal with yarns, linen, and threads. 
 
 In 1889 hemp was extensively raised in Illinois and Nebraska and seven hemp mills 
 are now in operation manufacturing hemp-tow for binding twine, and with reason- 
 able protection the range of agricultural production of fiber plants will be extended 
 through the Northern as well as the Southern States and extensive manufacturiug 
 works will be started for the extraction of fiber from fiber producing plants. Amer- 
 ican hemp culture will then take rank with other leading industries of our great Re- 
 public by building up competing manufactories at home. Like steel rail and other 
 protected industries in America it will bring down the price to the buyer and would 
 keep our wealth at home. We ask to be protected as well as the spinners of this 
 country. 
 
 [Here follow numerous signatures.] 
 
 We, the undersigned, members of the Dolphin Mills, of Paterson, N. J., representing 
 from nine hundred to one thousand employ<5s, do hereby ask you to use your best 
 efforts to get those parts of the Mills bill relating to jute yarns and jute carpets 
 amended. 
 
 We believe that the reduction proposed would either throw us out of work or else 
 reduce our wages to those of Scotland, which are less than half of what we .are getting. 
 
 We believe that a duty of 30 per cent, upon yarns, with jute free, would be as 
 small as should be permitted, for now under the present duty of 35 per cent, almost 
 none of the finer grades can be manufactured in this country. 
 
588 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 we would also ask that the duty on carpets be left as it is or not reduced below 
 5 cents per square yard. 
 
 We trust you will do all you can for us and not let this industry go entirly to Great 
 Britain, as it would under the present bill. We can not afford to live as the mill- 
 hands do in Dundee on their small wages, and ask you to help to maintain our pres- 
 ent wages, which this bill would greatly reduce. 
 
 [Here follow numerous signatures.] 
 
 New Orleans, January 8, 1890. 
 Dear Sir: Relating to the jute tariff, we have been informed that a majority of 
 those interested in same in the hearing before the committee have decided to ask for 
 free raw jute ; burlaps dutiable. If cents per pound ; bags dutiable, 2^ cents per 
 pound. 
 
 We respectfully request that j-ou use your influence to have the present tariff main- 
 tained, as free jute would destroy the infant culture of that commodity in this State 
 and would give to the Eastern and Middle States full control of jnte fabrics for sev- 
 eral years to come, as they are now prepared to manufacture burlaps and destroy 
 other bag manufacturers who manufacture bags from burlaps imported into the 
 United States. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 James McGrath & Son. 
 
 Hon. H. D. Coleman, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 New York, January 20, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : The undersigned, manufacturers of cordage in the United States, beg 
 most respectfully to submit their recommendation that in any proposed action on the 
 tariff the duties on Manilla, Sisal, Mauritius, and New Zealand fibers be removed. 
 
 In case of the removal of duties, or any part thereof, we recommend that a reduc- 
 tion be made in the duties on rope and binder twine, making Said duties on rope 1^ 
 cents and on twine 2 cents per pound above any duty that may be placed iipon the 
 raw material. 
 
 In case you deem it advisable, a committee of our number will wait upon you to 
 more fully explain our position in tliis matter. 
 
 We have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servants, 
 
 William Dbering & Co. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlby, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 [Telegram.] 
 
 Boston, Mass., January 3, 1890. 
 The undersigned, consumers of more than ."SOjOOO tons of manilla, sisal, aud other for- 
 eign hemps, jute, and jute butts are in favor of removing all duties on these materials 
 and are not in sympathy with the representatives of the American FJax and Hemp 
 Spinners and Growers' Association as represented to us. 
 
 Plymoutii Cordage Company. 
 Pearson Cordage Company. 
 . Boston Cop.dage Company. 
 
 Standard Cordage Company. 
 Sbwal H. Day Cordage Company. 
 Ludlow Manufacturing Company. 
 
 Hon. Wm. McKinley, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
KEVISION OF THE TAEIFE. 589 
 
 FOB, RENEWAL OF DUTY. 
 
 Boston, December 30, 1889. 
 
 Dear Sir : We are informed that your committee will, on January 4, give a hear- 
 ing ou the flax and hemp schedule of the taritf. As it will be impossible for us to be 
 present or represented at that time, we take this method of briefly expressing our 
 views. 
 
 It seems to us to be advisable, from every point of view, to remove the duty on all 
 hemp, viz, m,inilla, sisal, Russian and Italian, as well as on jute and jute butts or 
 cuttings. This would reduce the revenue, and at the same time the cost of manu- 
 facture, so that, with the present sharp competition, the consumer would immedi- 
 ately derive the full benefit of the reduction, and no one would be the loser. 
 
 Reference to the Government reports show that, some twenty-five years ago, there 
 was raised in the United States more than 60,000 tons of hemp annually. Since that 
 time the production has fallen as low as 3,500 tous, although a protective tariif of |i"25 
 per ton has been continuously maintained on foreign hemps; showing that the pro- 
 duction of hemp in this country is dependent upon other conditions than those of the 
 tariff for its continuance. 
 
 It seems to us that the first principle of protection would require that no American 
 interests sufi'er thereby ; that our manufacturers should have material on the same 
 basis as their foreign competitors ; otherwise, the protection on the manufactured 
 goods — as in the case of the flax and hemp productions — would be but a bareequiv.alent 
 for the tax levied upon the raw material. Manufacturers of hemp goods have not, 
 we believe, importuned in the past any ofHcials, or ask for a high schedule of pro- 
 tectiou. The result is seen in the fact that they have to-day and have had in the 
 past a lower relative protection than any kindred industry. 
 
 For ourselves, we are content with only such an amount of protection as would 
 express the difi'erence between foreign labor on foreign soil and American labor on 
 American soil. 
 
 Our consumption of raw material for this year exceeds 13,000 tons. 
 Yours truly, 
 
 Charles W. Hubbard, 
 
 Treasurer. 
 
 Hon. William McKinley, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 EAMIE. 
 
 In view of the immense prospective importance of ramie cultivation as a valuable 
 diversification of the agriculture of the cotton States, and in view of the equally im- 
 portant milling interests of spinning and weaving both North and South, it has oc- 
 curred to me that the Hon. J. M. Rusk, the National Secretary of Agriculture, could 
 make a suggestion which would be popular with both agriculturists and manufact- 
 urers by advocating in his annual report, now soon to be drawn, that Congress 
 pass a bill at the approaching session appropriating $100,000 to stimulate the culti- 
 vation of the ramie plant, the manufacture of decorticators, and the development of 
 chemical processes for degumming and bleaching, and experiments for the spinning 
 of the fiber into thread, which once practically and profitably accomplished will 
 revolutionize the textile interests of the world to the same extent as did the develop- 
 ment of the cotton gin. 
 
 The government of British India offered some years ago an award of $35,000 for a 
 satisfactory machine decorticating ramie, and the French government offered |7,000 
 for a similar machine, and during the late Paris Exposition $4,000 was ofl^ered for the 
 best machine exhibited meeting specific requirements. 
 
 In the United States a direct precedent has been established for encouraging the 
 development of new agricultural interests by the action of the last Congress, under 
 which $85,000 has already been paid out at four or five sugar factories, to cover the 
 costs of certain chemical and mechanical experiments. 
 
 It can not be doubted that the ramie interest is fully equal to that of sorghum, as 
 ramie can be successfully cultivated wherever cotton can be grown and on fields that 
 might otherwise be standing unproductive, and this without additional cost to 
 planter of either teams or implements. 
 
 Producing, as ramie does, two crops a year, the plant comparatively free from in- 
 sect ravages, comparatively little influenced by ordinai-y rains or droughts, standing 
 for years without replanting, requiring little cultivation when once established, it 
 
590 KEVISION OF THE TAEIPF. 
 
 certainly would be a most valuable addition to the list of plantation crops, -whiclilist 
 all Soutliern cultivators are so anxious to extend. 
 
 It ■will, however, be folly for planters to enter extensively into ramie cultivation 
 without machinery being perfected for the decortication of the stems, and equally 
 futile will be the decortication unless profitable processes are developed for degum- 
 ming the bark and bleaching and spinning the fiber into thread. The agricultural, 
 chemical, and mechanical processes are interlocked like links of a chain, all dependent 
 one upon the other. 
 
 Will you allow me, therefore, to suggest that you request your State Board of Agri- 
 culture or other representative agricultural organization to ask the National Secre- 
 tary of Agriculture to incorporate into his autumnal report a request that Congress 
 pass a bill this winter to encourage this most valuable agricultural and mechanical 
 industry now attracting the attention of the whole civilized world ; an industry 
 certain to be developed in some quarter, and where first developed possibly to retain 
 a leading place for many years. 
 
 I inclose you a suggestive draft of such awards as have occurred to me would be 
 proper and practical. 
 
 I will be glad to have a response to this communication. 
 Yours very respectfully, 
 
 Burnet Landketh. 
 
 To 
 
 Suggestive Competition in Ramie Culture and Fiber Production. 
 
 I beg to be allowed to ask you to consider the subject of asking your Representatives 
 in Congress to urge an appropriatien of $100,000 at this session of the Fifty-first Con- 
 gress for distribution during the year 1890, under the direction of the United States 
 Department of Agriculture, with a view of stimulating — 
 
 (1) The cultivation of ramie. 
 
 (2) The manufacture of machines for decorticating ramie. 
 
 (3) The development of processes for degumming and whitening crude ramie bark - 
 after decortication. 
 
 (4) The spinning of ramie thread from American fiber. 
 
 The total awards to amouot to $90,000, the balance of $10,000, so far as required, 
 to be expended in conducting the tests, comx-)ensation of judges, expenses of agricul- 
 tural engines for driving decorticators, wages of mechanics, laborers, salaries of 
 clerks, and expenses of correspondence, etc. 
 
 The agricultural competition to be conducted during the summer and autumn of 
 1890. The competition open to ramie-growers in any State of the Union, but only 
 one premium to be awarded in a class. All areas of crops to be measured and returns 
 to be weighed, attested, and presented by the State Board of Agriculture, or by the 
 Commissioner of Agriculture of the State where a competing crop is grown. . In every 
 case the minimum of 15 tons of green stalks per acre to be exceeded. 
 
 The premiums in the agricultural group to amount to $10,000, as follows : 
 
 Class I, $3,000, for the greatest weight of green ramie stalks cut on the field from 
 a measured 5-acre tract ; the crop cut and weighed in the presence of the testators as 
 provided. 
 
 Class II, $3,500, for the second greatest weight of green ramie stalks as cut on the 
 field from a measured 5-acre tract ; the crop cut and weighed in the presence of the 
 testators as provided. 
 
 Class III, $2,000, for the third greatest weight of green ramie stalks as cut on the 
 field from a measured 5-acre tract ; the crop cut and weighed in the presence of the 
 testators as provided. 
 
 Class IV, $1,500, for the fourth greatest weight of green ramie stalks as cut on the 
 field from a measured 5-acre tract ; the crop cut and weighed in the presence of the 
 testators as provided. 
 
 Class V, $1,000, for the fifth greatest weight of green ramie stalks as cut on the 
 field from a measured 5-aore tract ; the crop cut and weighed in the presence of the 
 testators as j)rovided. 
 
 decortication or debarking. 
 
 The competition in decorticators to be held between Septeujber 20 and 30, 1890, on 
 the grounds of the Dopartinont of Agriculture, The premiums in the decortioatiug 
 group to amount to $40,000, 
 
EEVISION OP THE TAKIFF. 591 
 
 POWER DECOKTICATORS. 
 
 In this division a minimum production per hour, the use of water during the test 
 being prohibited, of 100 pounds of green bark or 75 pounds of dry bark converted in 
 good condition as respects length of filament and freedom from wood. 
 
 Class VI, $8,000, for the best machine working green stalks. 
 
 Class VII, $4,000, for the second beat machine working green stalks. 
 
 Class VIII, $1,000, for the third best machine working green stalks. 
 
 Class IX, $8,000, for the best machine working dry stalks. 
 
 Class X, $li,000, for the second best machine working dry stalks.' 
 
 Class XI, $1,000, for the third best machine working dry stalks. 
 
 HAND DECORTICATOKS. 
 
 In this division there being required a minimum production per hour, the use of 
 water being prohibited, of 25 pounds of green bark or 15 pounds of dry bark con- 
 verted in good condition as respects length of filament and freedom from wood. 
 
 Class XII, $5,000, for the best machine working green stalks. 
 
 Class XIII, $2,000, for the second best machine working green stalks. 
 
 Class XIV, $1,000, for the third best machine working green stalks. 
 
 Class XV, $4,000, for the best machine working dry stalks. 
 
 Class XVI, $2,000, for the second best machine working dry stalks. 
 
 Class XVII, $1,000, for the third best machine working dry stalks. 
 
 SPECIAL AWARDS. 
 
 On highly meritorious single attachments for the higher perfection of ramie 
 decorticators, the inventions to be of not over three years' patent record, the follow- 
 ing awards to be made, the premiums in the group amounting to $3,000. 
 
 Class XVIII, $1,500, for ^hemost efficient single appliance. 
 
 Class XIX, $1,000, for th* second most elficient single'appliance. 
 
 Class XX, $500, for the third most efScient single appliance. 
 
 GREEN BARK AND PREPARED FIBER. 
 
 The competition in bark and fibers to be held between December 10 and 15, 1890, in 
 the buildings of the Department of Agriculture. The bark to be from stalks grown 
 in the United States, stripped by American decorticators, and exhibited in dry and 
 otherwise merchantable condition. 
 
 The fibers to be exclusively from plants grown, decorticated, degummed, and 
 whitened in the United States, and of satisfactory length and full tensile strength. 
 The premiums in this group to amount to $20,000. 
 
 Class X-XI, $5,000, for the best lot of 5,000 pounds of dry green bark. 
 
 Class XXII, $3,000, for the second best lot of 5,000 pounds of dry green bark. 
 
 Class XXIII, $2,000 for the third best lot of 5,000 pounds of dry green bark. 
 
 Class XXIV, $5,000, for the best lot of 5,000 pounds of degummed and whitened 
 fiber. 
 
 Class 'XXV, $3,000, for the second best lot of 5,000 pounds of degummed and whit- 
 ened fiber. 
 
 Class XXVI, $2,000, for the third best lot of 5,000 pounds of degummed and whitened 
 fiber. 
 
 RAMTT! THREAD. 
 
 Competition in this group to be held between December 10 and 15, 1890, and to be 
 confined to thread spun in the United States and from American-grown fiber ; the 
 thread to be of uniform quality and full tensile strength. The premiums in this 
 group to amount to $17,000. 
 
 Class XXVII, $10,000, for the best lot of 2,000 pounds of ramie thread, of assorted 
 sizes. 
 
 Class XXVIII, $5,000, for the second best lot of 2,000 pounds of ramie thread, 
 assorted sizes. 
 
 Class XXIX, $2,000, for the third best lot of 2,000 pounds of ramio thread, assorted 
 sizes. 
 
 Burnet Landkbth. 
 
592 EEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 New York, January 7, 1890. 
 Tlie Committee of JVays and Means, Souse of Bepresentatives : 
 
 The undersigned, the largest manufacturers of cocoa matting and mats in the 
 United States, respectfully protest against the proposed increase in the taritf on cocoa 
 or coir matting and mats. 
 
 We have noted the fact that such increase was proposed by the Finance Committee 
 of the Senate, but have had no information as to the statements, testimony, or rea- 
 sons given before that committee upon vhioh they base the proposed increase. 
 
 By that bill it is proposed, for the first time in the tarifl legislation of this country, 
 to provide specifically for cocoa matting and mats. The present tariff reads, Schedule 
 N, sundries : " Floor matting and flooi' mats, exclusively of vegetable substances, 20 
 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 We are now paying about $2 a roll on each roll of 50 yards of coir matting 1 yard 
 wide. This is equivalent to a specific duty of 4 cents yer yard; under the Senate bill, 
 proposing a specific duty of 10 cents (finally reduced to 8 cents) per square yard for 
 matting, -we -will pay a duty equivalent (at 8 cents) to about 40 per centum ad va- 
 lorem, an advance of about twice the present rate, as appears by the afiSdavit, here- 
 inafter referred to, and annexed schedule. 
 
 Upon mats we now pay 1.61 cents per square yard. Under the Senate bill it is 
 proposed to advance this to 4 cents per square yard — an advance equal to a duty of 
 about 50 per cent, ad valorem, and more than twice the present rate, as appears by 
 the said schedule. 
 
 Upon matting the present duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem is equal to a specific 
 duty of 4 cents per square yard ; on mats, the present duty of 20 per cent, ad 
 valorem is equal to a specific duty of 1.61 cents, or say, as an outside limit, If cents, 
 per square foot. 
 
 A certain statement, appearing in the " Congressional Kecord " and used in the 
 House, July 17, 1888 (Congressional Record, pages 6944, 6945), purporting to be 
 signed by W. &. J. Sloane and others (the genuineness of which, as to the signatures 
 of the firm of W. & J. Sloane and Lynn & Pettit, we question) is misleading and 
 untrue. It totally misrepreseuts the costs per yard in labor of the American as com- 
 pared with the imported matting. It does not purport to give a verified statement 
 by any person who claims to have ever manufactured in India, or who shows himself 
 qualiiied to speak on the subject. 
 
 We submitted before the Finance Committee of the Senate, for the information of 
 that committee, but not for publication, a sworn statement,->giving facts and figures 
 which utterly contradict the statements made in the said memorial. This sworn 
 statement, and the exhibits annexed, contain our proper business secrets, and we, 
 therefore, specially requested said committee that they be not disclosed and pub- 
 lished. Said original papers can not at this date be found by the clerk of the com- 
 mittee, although search for them has not been abandoned. We inclose copy of said 
 affidavit upon the same confidential conditions. 
 
 Any statement that may have been made (of which we are totally ignorant) by 
 any committee claiming to represent the Mat Makers' Association, or other laborers, 
 must have been made from necessity or ignorance of the facts. 
 
 As the largest American manufacturers whose capital is invested in the business 
 in this country, we feel fully qualified to address you on this subject. 
 
 The only foreign manufacturer, regularly sending such cocoa matting or mt«8 to 
 this country, is James Darragh, of our firm, who o wns a small factory at Alleppey, 
 East India. 
 
 We are, at the same time, the largest manufacturers of cocoa matting and mats 
 in this country. We employ upwards of two hundi'ed men at our factory in Brook- 
 lyn, East Division. No other manufacturers employ to exceed, as we are informed, 
 more than one-half of this number. 
 
 The imported mattings do not compete with the domestic. They are a high grade, 
 hand-made, fancy article, more expensive than American goods. The price of the 
 imported article principally sold here, but in limited quantities, is about 65 cents a 
 yard ; the average of the domestic article principally and very largely sold here, is 
 .50 cents. In selling in this market our discount on the domestic is much larger than 
 on the foreign article. 
 
 The total importation for the three years ending Jannary, 1889, was about 2,700 
 mils of coir matting ; the labor involved in the manufacture of these goods is equiv- 
 alent to less than the work of five laborers. One man can mimulacture here nine 
 rolls per week; and the importation, therefore, repre.-^cnts the product of the labor 
 of five men on matting. About ;!"25 dozen foreign coir mats are "sold in this market 
 per year, against 25,000 dozen manufactured and sold here. The labor on the im- 
 ported coir mats does not exceeil the woik of three laborers more. Thus, to protect 
 eight workmen, who do not and can not mate similar expensive, hand-made articles, 
 and who thus do not coiuiiete with the American workmen, the request was made in 
 the House, and repeated and allowed by the Senate Committee, by which tbo tariff ha^ 
 
EEVJSION OF THE TAKIIT. 593 
 
 been increased on cocoa or coir mats and matting from 20 per cent, ad valorem to a 
 specific duty of 8 cents and 4 cents on matting and mats respectively, equal to a 40 
 per cent, and 50 percent, ad valorem duty, respectively. If these or any increased 
 rates be finally allowed, the only foreign factory regularly sending such mats or mat- 
 tin "f to this country, which was established by an American manufacturer in India, 
 upon the faith of and relying upon the present tariff law, will be cut ofl' from a mar- 
 ket in tbis country. 
 
 This request can not be accounted for, except upon the ground that the smaller 
 manufactvirers wish to exclude these imported articles altogether, which do not com- 
 pete with them, hut the exclusion of which perhaps may, they thinlj, increase their 
 sales by compelling purchasers to take, if they will, the cheaper American article. 
 
 The total importations have decreased, and the American manufactures largely in- 
 creased, during ten years. Last year, 1888, they were — 
 
 Matting : 
 
 Imported, average for three years last past rolls.. 2, 700 
 
 Domestic manufacture for three years last past do 12, 000 
 
 Mats: 
 
 Imported, average sold during ten years 1 ast past dozen . - .325 
 
 Domestic, average sold during ten years last past do 25, 000 
 
 Ten years ago the importations were larger than American manufactures. 
 
 The memorialists claimed that their workswere running on half time. Our works 
 are not, and ours are the largest. We are all beginning to feel a dulhiess, due to the 
 competition which we meet from penitentiary-made goods, which are being sold at 
 considerably less than can be manufactured by free labor. 
 
 If any statement has been made before your committee by any laborers of the Mat 
 Makers' Association, that laborers on coir matting or mats are idle two days a week, 
 it is absolutely unfounded in fact, as shown by us, so far as importations are couoerned. 
 Dullness is due entirely to Pennsylvania (Western) Penitentiary labor. American 
 manufactures are increasing largely, while the diminished importations of the fancy 
 hand-made article, higher in price, is decreasing, as we have shown by our affidavit. 
 
 The warden of the Pennsylvania Western Penitentiary is offering cocoa matting 
 and mats at a discount, such as no American manufacturer can afford to give, and is 
 doing serious injury to our business, especially in the West. The competition is not 
 with Indian goods. We do not import more than one-third of the quantity of cocoa 
 matting we did some years ago, the fact being that the only imported matting which 
 we can sell is the high-grade and high-priced fancy article of peculiar yarn that is 
 worked by hand, and is not made in this country, and does not compete with domes- 
 tic goods. 
 
 We, therefore, respectfully request that the committee will make no change in the 
 present tariff of 20 per cent, ad valorem, which will prevent buyers in this country 
 from purchasing the foreign article sold here in very limited quantity, if they so de- 
 sire, upon the unfounded claim that thereby eight American laborers will be pro- 
 tected in the manufacture of fancy imported articles, in which they are not now en- 
 gaged. 
 
 Upon the facts, conclusively established, the duty might well be reduced, rather 
 than increased; we do not ask this, however, but only ask that, if a specific duty is 
 to he fixed, it be at a rate equal to the present rate of 20 per cent, ad valorem, i. e., 
 not to exceed 4 cents per square yard on coir matting, and If cents or 2 cents per 
 square foot on mats. 
 
 Kespectfully submitted, 
 
 America Cocoa Matting Company. 
 
 AFRICAN FIBER. 
 
 MoYOCK, N. C, February, 5, 1890. 
 Hie Committee of Ways and Means : 
 
 The undersigned would respectfully set forth that the preparation and manufact- 
 ure of corn husks for upholstering and bedding purposes has developed and grown 
 in the last twenty-five years or since the war, until it now reaches an aggregate of 
 8,000 to 10,000 tons of manufactured article yearly, approximating in value to $400,- 
 000. 
 
 That the material in its raw state is a product of the soil, grown and marketed by 
 farmers and planters. 
 
 That in the production of the manufactured article, by curing, cleansing, purify- 
 ing, stripping, and dividing the leaf, there is about 40 per cent, of waste; that the 
 labor of such conversion varies from |5 to $10 per ton, and that the farmers obtain 
 485 38 
 
594 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 for tha raw material from $10 to $20 per ton, and the manufacturer from $25 to |50 
 per ton. 
 
 That such material is regarded amongst the cheap materials for bedding purposes 
 as one of the cleanest, most heathful, and best. 
 
 I would furthermore set forth that there is a material imported from Africa, where 
 it is called " Grin Vegetal" or " Vegetable Hair"; that more or less of it is entered 
 at our ports as " sea-weed," and that it is known to the trade as "African Fiber." 
 
 That said material is a species of fiber plant growing wild in many parts of Africa, 
 That the same is gathered by the natives, slaves, and convicts of that country, pre- 
 pared and manufactured into a rope at comparatively little cost, and is brought into 
 this country in vessels principally as ballast at small cost ; that it comes free of duty, 
 and is put upon the market in large quantities at prices varying from $20 to $30 per 
 ton, and that the same to a very great extent takes the place of corn husks, and 
 seriously disturbs and unsettles its interests. 
 
 I therefore respectfully but earnestly ask your honorable committee that you will 
 recommend to be placed upon said material a specilic duty of $20 per ton, and thereby 
 protect, encourage and foster a small but growing industry. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 C. R. Van db Carr. 
 
 OAKUM AND TOW. 
 
 Jersey City, January 13, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : In answer to your letter of the lOth instant, we herewith send you a state- 
 ment to be presented with the sundries. 
 
 First. We would state that oakum is duty free, and is picked largely in poor-houses, 
 prisons, and by paupers in Europe. 
 
 Second. That, as the old rigging from which we formerly made oakum has be- 
 come so scarce by means of the use of wire rope, we are compelled to use Russia tow 
 which we are now prepared to tar, having put in machinery for that purpose at a 
 large expense. 
 
 Third. The Rtissia tow has to pay a duty of $10 per ton, while the tarred or manu- 
 factured article made from the same quality of tow is allowed to come in free. 
 
 We employ tifty men and boys; we pay out for wages $20,000 annually, and have to 
 compete with pauper laborontheother side of the Atlantic. We feel that under these 
 circumstances, our claim for protection is strong. We would ask, therefore, that Rus- 
 sia tow, imported for the manufacture of oakum be free, and a duty of one-half cent 
 per pound or $10 per ton be put on imported oakum. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Geo. Stratford Oakum Company, 
 Geo. Stratford, President. 
 Hon. William McKinlby, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 COCOA MATTING. 
 
 Brooklyn, January 9, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : I most earnestly appeal to you and all the members of your committee 
 on behalf of my fellow workmen of the cocoa mat and matting industry to not make 
 any alterations in the rates granted to us by the Senate committee in their bill. 
 (Page 158, section 42.3, line 1778.) This rate would alford us a fair measure of pro- 
 tection against the horrid coolie labor of India, which costs from 3 to 10 cents a day. 
 The goods made at this rate .are shipped to our market, and goods made by us can not 
 be placed on the market at the low rate of the India goods. This measure of relief 
 would set a large niimber of men on full time who have been obliged to go idle two 
 days a week for the past five years. 
 
 i Please answer if our request will be granted, or if your committee will require the 
 , presence of a committee from us. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 D. J. CURNBN, 
 Secretary Mat- TForkers P.r.atective Association. 
 ;Hon. Wm. McKinlht, 
 
 Jjhairman Ways arfd M^^na, Qornmiltef. 
 
SILK AND ITS MAISTUFACTURES. 
 
 Monday, January 6, 1890. 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 The Chairman. We will hear representatives of the silk interest, and will hear 
 first any gentleman opposed to the present rate of duty and who wants a lower rate. 
 Are there any gentlemen present who desire to be heard on silk interests ? 
 
 STATEMENT OF F. VT. CHENEY. 
 
 Mr. F. W. Cheney, of South Manchester, Conn., addressed the committee. lie 
 said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we have not any prepared argu- 
 ment to make in the presentation of this matter. We have only to say that the 
 Senate bill was very carefully prepared under Mr. Fairchild's administration of the 
 Treasury Department, and so far as it can be silk was placed upon a specific basis 
 instead of altogether an ad valorem basis. This bill is acceptable to the silk manu- 
 facturers generally. We think, however, that instead of 50 per cent, that this bill 
 gives us of protection, that on an average it is not more than 40 per cent. 
 
 The Chairman. This Senate bill is a reduction of the present law. 
 
 Mr. Cheney. We may say the Senate bill as it is written probably averages about 40 
 per cent, protection. There will be great inequalities in all duties in any specific 
 system. It is absolutely impossible to have uniformity under specific duties iji silk 
 unless you introduce many classifications, by which yon bring inruore complications 
 in ascertaining the foreign market value. You will readily understand that you can 
 take a pound of silk and make 5 or 50 yards of cloth, yet the duty at one end is 
 prohibitive and at the other it will roach a vanishing point almost. We are satisfied 
 that this Senate bill is an honest attempt to provide for a specific duty. Wo do not 
 know how it can be made better. All we can say about it is that we think tbe rates 
 are very low indeed on the better class of goods, goods which are worth fi om |2.50 to 
 %'A per yard. The duty on that will only be about 25 per cent. On goods that are 
 worth, say $1 a'yard, about 2 ounces to the yard, it will be 30 per cent., and when 
 you get down to the lower grades you will get about 50 per cent, and over. 
 
 If there are any points we can throw light upon we will be glad to answer any 
 questions. 
 
 The Chairman. Are there any questions to be put to Mr. Cheney ? That is all, Mr. 
 Cheney. 
 
 Mr. Cheney. Mr. Eichardsou is chairman of the association. He is here, and will 
 he glad to answer any question you may ask. 
 
 STATEMENT OF BRITON RICHARDSON. 
 
 Mr. Beiton Richardson, of New York City, next addressed the committee. He 
 said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, it might be in place to explain to 
 the committee what the Senate bill provision is. It has been some years in matur- 
 ing. In 1886, and in fact before that, our attention was directed to see if something 
 could not be done in the way of specific duties or compound duties, so the importers 
 of New York met. Plans were suggested from every side, and all these were sub- 
 mitted to the treasurer, and they sent them out to their custom-houses for the opin- 
 ions of the appraisers, and this came back as being the best thing. Ad valorem, 
 theoretically, is the best duty, but practically it is the worst. As Mr. Fairchild states 
 in his letter here, the experts which he employed, taken from Washington, I pre- 
 
 595 
 
596 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 sume, had six Imudred samples of goods. They modified our scheme a little. Our 
 scheme was a pound duty and a yaid duty, and they suggested in place of that a 
 scheme of a pound duty and .in ad valorerj duty. This is a little more elastic than 
 the other, but still it has the objectionable ad valorem feature in it. This thing has 
 been considered for years a good deal, and it is a crystallization of all the wisdom 
 that we could get together, and we are satisfied with it. It is in some respects a 
 reduction from 50 per cent. It is, perhaps, more fully collected than it was bo- 
 fore. There is a matter in regard to laces and ruchings which Mr. Cheney and 
 myself are not well acquainted with, but you have gentlemen here who will ex- 
 plain them to you. That is about all I have to say, unless you want to ask some 
 questions. 
 
 Mr. Geak. What proportion of the silk is manufactured in this country ? 
 
 Mr. EiCHAKDSON. We manufacture about half the consumittion; about fifty-five 
 million. 
 
 Mr. Gbae. What is the character of this importation ? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. Ribbons, dress goods, handkerchiefs, ladies' dresses of all sorts, 
 surahs, gros grains, and all sorts of things. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Does the quality of the goods made here compare favorably with the 
 foreign? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. Better ; because they are not so heavily weighted. The ladies 
 will tell you American silk will last longer. It is not loaded to so great an extent. 
 
 Mr. Gbab. How do the prices compare with the foreign goods ? 
 
 Mr. RiCH.\RDSOjSr. We make them a little cheaper than they can with the duty 
 added, if the duties were honestly paid and collected. 
 
 Mr. Gear, The great difSculties you have to contend with are the undervaluations? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. That is the great difficulty — a very great difficulty. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Where do you get your raw material ? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. From the East — Japan, Italy, France, and some little from 
 Spain. The tendency of manufacture has been to reduce the price of silk. People 
 who have looked into the matter are amazed. Silk is sold to-day at 50 and 60 cents 
 which sold two years ago at $2.50 a yard. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you get any silk from Kansas ? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. They make a little, but it is inappreciable. There are a few co- 
 coons there, and it is all taken and used in some way, bnt it is iu appreciable. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The climate of Kansas is, in the valleys, like that of Italy. Nearly 
 every farmer in Italy raises cocoons. 
 
 Mr. Richardson. That is a great mistake. In this country farmers can get the 
 silk-worms and hatch the cocoons, but the great trouble is in getting the cocoons 
 reeled. They apply a different rule in Italy. The proprietor gives out the worms to 
 the people there and they hatch the cocoons. They gather leaves and feed them on 
 shares. Then they sell the cocoons to the filature, where it is scientifically reeled 
 with proper attention. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What has been the eifect if any in regard to the price of foreign silk 
 since the silk industry in this country began? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. The reduction is very slight. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Is there any reason, so far as your investigation has led you to 
 believe, that raw silk can be successfully cultivated in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. When you remember the Japanese, to whom it is an instinct, 
 and the Italians, who will work for 10 cents a day — I have seen this on Lake Coiiio, 
 where you eould get labor at 10 cents a day — you can get a fair answer to the ques- 
 tion. The reeling of silk is the most tedious incident in the manufacture of silk, and 
 it is very slow. One woman can attend to but two threads. That is all she can do, 
 because the cocoons are continually running oS. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Did you state awhile ago the Italian peasant does not do this 
 himself, but it is reeled oft' by somebody else from the cocoons? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. In the factory. Then they get labor in the factory very cheaply. 
 The labor you get hero for the same thing you would pay |5.50 or |6 a week. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. If that industry was protected against the cheap labor of other 
 countries why could not it be built up here and let the raw material be produced in 
 the United States ? Why could not that be built up by protection as our manufact- 
 ure of raw silk has been built u^) by protection? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. That is difierent. There could not be adequate protection af- 
 forded to the raising of silk that would not cripple fatally the manufacturer. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. But if you had a compensatory duty added? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. I do not believe you could get a compensating duty for that pur- 
 pose. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You would have to have about 1,000 per cent, on the raw silk, and I 
 suppose about 1, .500 on your manufacture? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. Yes, sir. You can raise cocoons in this country fast enough and 
 allow the moths to come out. Then they are utilized for spinning silk, which is a 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 597 
 
 very large industry; bat for reeling silk in this country j'ou can not let the moths 
 come out, and when we get to raisiug these it would mean a very low state of aif'airs 
 for the mass of labor. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. You mean if they are brought in direct competition with the 10- 
 cent labor ? 
 
 Mr. RiCHAEDSOsr. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. But so far as raising cocoons is concerned that can be performed 
 usually by the average farmer without a very great outlay for labor ? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. I iiresume it cau. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. It merely comprises the gathering of the mulberry leaves and 
 the feeding. 
 
 Mr. Richardson. It comprises more tban that. Worms are exceedingly delicate 
 and require a good deal of attention. A thunder-storm will be fatal sometimes to a 
 •n'hole country side, and they have to be very well cared for if you want to get good 
 silk from them. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Take it in the section of this country where they are not 
 troubled much with thunder-storms, that objection you spoke of would be obviated 
 of course, and it would be simply supplying food to the worms. 
 
 Mr. Richardson. Of course. Then you have to care for them to protect them 
 from cold weather in the spring of the year, and the gas of the stove might prove 
 fatal to them in the night. It is not so easy work as some people imagine. When 
 cocoons are taken and carefully pierced and used for spinning silk they are pretty 
 nearly as valuable to the parties raising them as the oth»r. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Is reeling in Italy done by machinery ? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. Oh, yes. A Avoman sits with her basin fall of cocoons, and she 
 takes a little whisp like a coat broom, which takes up the ends of the cocoons. She 
 puts the ends together, as many as are wanted. The cocoon does not make a thread 
 itself, you have got to take so many cocoons — five, six, seven or eight, just as you 
 want them, and it requires care to get the threads separated, and the same number 
 of cocoous ruuning. She sits with this hot-water basin, and the threads run over 
 her on the reel she is to supply, and if she lets the cocoons run down then you get 
 an uneven thread, detrimental in quality. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Are you an importer of raw silk ? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. Yes, sir. 
 
 STATEMENT OP ALEXANDER E. KURSHEBDT. 
 
 Mr. Alexander E. Kursheedt, of New York, next addressed the committee. He 
 said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the committee may remember 
 that I have already appeared here twice with regard to manufactures of wool and 
 cotton. The company m which I am interested is also largely concerned in the manu- 
 facture of silk goods. New York is the principal center of these industries, not only 
 in this country, but for the entire world. Taking into account the operatives era- 
 ployed there who come from Long Island, Westchester County, New Jersey, aud other 
 places it probably gives occupation to representatives of more branches than could 
 be accommodated in the largest hall of the Cai)itol Building. Our factories represent 
 the most adva.nced form of the manufacture. In New York there are few, if any, 
 mills. The number of yam-spinning establishments is very small, aud there is al- 
 most no weaving of piece goods. Consequently, we are entirely dependent on other 
 places or other countries for every pound of the raw material which enters into these 
 advanced manufactures. 
 
 We desire to call your attention to what we consider certain grave defects in the 
 schedule affecting manufactures of silk in the Senate tariff bill, and to request tlieir 
 revision by your honorable body. 
 
 Section 376 of Schedule L reads as follows : 
 
 " Webbings, gorings, suspenders, bracings, beltings, bindings, braids, galloons, 
 fringes, cords, and tassels, any of the foregoing which are elastic or non-elastic, but- 
 tons aud ornaments made of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief 
 value, 50 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 Raw silk, the material from svhich these articles are made, would continue to be 
 imported free under section 687 of the Senate bill. The best grades, which are alone 
 available, cost $.5.25 and tH.7^) a pound. The process of throwing constitutes the iirst 
 stage of manufacture. This costs on an average !50 cents a pound. Dyeing, whether 
 black or in colors, costs the same, bringing the actual value of the silk to |6.70 a 
 pound. 
 
 But an important element must here bo taken into account. In the process of 
 dyeing the silk loses a quantity of gum, which reduces its weight from 30 to 40 per 
 cent. The return from the " jjure dye" black is thus about 12 or 13 ounces to the 
 
598 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF 
 
 pound, while the return from that dyed in colors is only Hi ounces. The cost of a 
 full avoirdupois pound of the " jjuro dye," after these preliminary processes, is there- 
 foie $8.32, and of the colored $9.38-J. The system of -weighting by the addition 
 of chemicals is, however, employed to make good this loss. By this system the 
 weight of the material can he increased 25 per cent, for 95 cents a pound, 100 per 
 cent, for |1.75, and 150 per cent, for $3.30. The subsequent expense of manufacture 
 is about 40 per cent, of the whole. Samples are submitted herewith. 
 
 Mr. Sloss, who is president of the Braid Manufacturers' Association, has a sample 
 of these braids and would be pleased to show them to the committee so as to make 
 this matter plain and answer any questions you may desire to propound. 
 
 Mr. Sloss. These are black-dyed samples, made out of silk after the gum has been 
 extracted. [Exhibiting samples.] This is what we call weighted or loaded silkiu 
 the black. 
 
 The Chairman. What change of duty do yon propose on this class of goods? 
 
 Mr. KuRSHBEDT. Seventy-five per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is it now f 
 
 Mr. KuRSHEEDT. It is about 50 per cent, in the Senate bill, the same exactly as the 
 piece goods. 
 
 Mr. Sloss. Those buttons are made out of the same silk as that braid. The braid 
 is manufactured and put into the buttons. This is an article that has been brought 
 over under a duty of 10 per cent. This is what is called loaded silk, and will be ex- 
 plained by Mr. Kursheedt further on. 
 
 Mr. Kursheedt. In Europe the same operations are performed at less than half 
 this coat. Our labor is not only much more expensive, but the cost of our dye-atuffs 
 is greatly enhanced by heavy duties. Even after the payment of 50 per cent, duty 
 the foreign article can thus be laid down in our market at nearly as low a figure as 
 our own product. Careful estimates show the comparative cost in New York of 1 
 pound of silk braid, black and colored, manufactured from the $5.75 grade of raw silk 
 in Europe and America, as follows : 
 
 Colored braid manufactured in America $13. 14 
 
 in Europe 11.64 
 
 25 per cent, weighted, manufactured in America 7. 56 
 
 in Europe 9. 00 
 
 100 per cent, weighted, manufactured in America . 5. 60 
 
 in Europe 6. 24 
 
 1.50 per cent, weighted, manufactured in America 4. 62 
 
 in Europe 5.18 
 
 This shows an average margin in favor of the domestic manufacturer of 14f per 
 cent, on the fine grades, and of only 8 and 9 per cent, on the low ones. This margin, 
 even with honest invoices, is altogether too close for safety. If the foreign manu- 
 facturer chooses to take advantage of our tariff laws, it is no protection at all. While 
 it may be possible not to undervalue defined grades, it is not possible, in most cases, 
 as official appraisers have testified, to define these grades for valuation. In other 
 words, unless the weighting is heavy, it can not be detected, and the invoiced mis- 
 representation of an article weighted 25 per cent, as one weighted 150 percent, would 
 probably escape notice. The successful evasion of the $1.^8 a pound difference in 
 duty would enable the foreign manufacturer to offer his article for sale in New York 
 at an equal price with us, if not for less money. In the case of a colored silk entered 
 as pure, but on which weighting has made good the 4| ounces last in the vat, dishonest 
 invoicing could save as much as $1.69 a pound of the duty. It is thus no wonder that 
 the importations of silk braids last year were valued at $2,500,000, although their 
 profitable importation under our present traffic is apparently impossible. The vital 
 importance to every manufacturer of a change in this section is emphasized by the 
 fact that there is almost no prospect of the home production of our raw material. 
 
 To pass to another subject, section 377 of Schedule L reads as follows : ■ 
 
 "Laces and embroideries, neck rufHings and ruchings, clothing ready made, and 
 articles of wearing apparel of every description, including knit goods, made up or 
 manufactured, wholly or in part by the tailor, seamstress, or manufacturer, composed 
 of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, not specially enu- 
 merated or provided for in this act, 60 per cent, ad valorem." 
 
 It will be observed that the rate of duty which existed before 1883 and was applied 
 equally to this and the preceding section is now retained only in the case of the 
 former. But its complete inadequacy is evident. Considering that 90 per cent, of 
 all iKck rufQings and ruchings are made cither by slow and tedious hand-labor or on 
 machines invented in America, we maintain that their assessment at the same rate as 
 the cloths from which they are manufactured is an unjust and oppressive discrimi- 
 nation, especially as 50 per cent, of tiheir cost is in labor. In Germany, laborers on 
 this class of goods receive only from 25 to 50 cents a day. Our payments are at least 
 $1.50 or $2.50, or from five to ten times as much. The fiber and fabric employed are, 
 
Revision of the tarIPf. 599 
 
 thoreotet, oi so extremely delicate a nature tbat only ttie most expert workmen are 
 available. It is important to note that the industry could never have been estab- 
 lished in foreign countries but for American invention, or its product imported but 
 for the unwise provisions of the tariff of 1883. 
 
 We therefore respectfully suggest the following changes in the sections under Con- 
 sideration. 
 
 Mr. Kisch, who represents the Ruffling Mannfacturers' Association of Ameincaj has 
 some samples which show the quality of these goods to which I am specially reffer- 
 ring. Of course, laces and embroideries you are already familiar with. Mr. Flower 
 knows all about them, anyway. 
 
 Mr. Flowbr. I have had a good deal to do with laces. 
 
 The CHiiRMAN. Proceed with your statement. 
 
 Mr. KuRSHKEDT. I will merely read the proposed changes. 
 
 PROPOSED CHANGES IN SILK SCHEDULE. 
 
 Amend paragraph 376 so as to read as follows : 
 
 "Webbings, gorings, suspenders, braces, beltings, bindings, braids, galloons, 
 fringes, gimps, cords, watchguards or eye-glass guards, cords and tassels, dress- 
 trimmings, headnets, buttons or barrel-buttons, or buttons of other forms for tas- 
 sels or ornaments, wrought by hand or braided by machinery, any of the foregoing 
 which are elastic or non-elastic, made of silk or vegetable silk, 75 per cent, ad va- 
 lorem." 
 
 Strike out section 377 and substitute the following : 
 
 " On laces, embroideries, lace window-curtains, and other articles of lace, or tam- 
 boured, braided, or embroidered articles, composed of silk or of vegetable silk, wholly 
 or partly manufactured, or hemmed or stitched, with the needle or otherwise, by hand 
 or machinery, including knit goods, 75 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 Amend section 378 so as to read as follows: 
 
 "All manufactures of silk not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, 75 
 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 The representatives of the silk association, Mr. F. W. Cheney, president, and Mr. 
 B. Richardson, secretary, were present and assented to the above statement. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Now you say since the duty has been 50 per cent, they are enabled to 
 import about two millions into this country ? 
 
 Mr. KoRSHKEDT. That two and a half millions are statistics for importatious of 
 braids. The importation of ruching is very extensive indeed. We are not able to 
 give figures. Owing to the unjust discrimination of the tariff law the foreign manu- 
 facturers take our American machinery and send the goods to our market at less than 
 we can produce. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Now, suppose you raise the tariif duty to 75 per cent., do you not 
 think they will cheat more ? 
 
 Mr. Kdrshekdt. No ; if you have the right laws and have them properly admin- 
 istered. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How would you amend this law ? Suppose you put it back to what 
 it was before the law of 1883, what would be the effect ? 
 
 Mr. KURSHBEDT. If you had never changed it possibly that would have been all 
 right. Now they are in the business and are making every effort to stay in. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is it not an incentive to cheat when you raise the duty ? 
 
 Mr. Kursheedt. You have the reports from the appraisers in our custom-houses. 
 You know exactly about this thing more than I could pretend to say ; but I should 
 say, as I said before, if we have a fair protection and the laws are sufficiently strong 
 we will have justice. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. If I understand you correctly, the cheapest labor with which you 
 have to compete in the making of these commodities is Germany. 
 
 Mr. Kursheedt. Germany and England. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Which is the cheaper? 
 
 Mr. Kursheedt. Germany is cheaper, but England is very cheap also. There are 
 some French goods likewise imported. But the chief competition which we have had 
 has been from England and Germany. Every day people who have been driven out 
 of manufactures — domestic manufactures — and in ord?er to keep their line of goods up 
 have to import manufactured foreign goods. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And the duty on the material which you make, that is what ? 
 
 Mr. Kursheedt. Two hundred per cent., and it is a specific duty; so much the 
 square inch. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The duty on your raw material is so high you can not manufacture ? 
 
 Mr. Kursheedt. Yes. I think Mr. Flower understands our present situation. He 
 can tell you we were right some years ago when the law of 1883 was passed. What 
 we want is compensatory protection in our different industries. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are any dye-stuffs made here T 
 
600 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. KuRSHF.EDT. They are all imported, I believe. 
 
 Mr. Geak. No ; none now made in this country. 
 
 Mr. KuESHEEDT. Not tbat I know of. 
 
 Mr. Geae. This is dye brought from abroad [exhibiting]. 
 
 Mr. Kuesheedt. Yes, sir. Mr. Cheney probably could enlighten you better than 
 I can about the dye-stnfifs. 
 
 Mr. (jEAR (to Mr. Cheney). Are your dye-stuffs made in this country or made 
 abroad ? 
 
 Mr. Cheney. They are almost all made abroad (the aniline). 
 
 Mr. Kuesheedt. Mr. Sloss has a paper to read which may not be pertinent to-day ; 
 but we have been here several days. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HENRY -W. SLOSS. 
 
 Mr. Heney W. Sloss, of Sloss & Sons, New York, next addressed the committee. 
 He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have the honor to bring before the 
 Committee of Ways and Means of the Fifty-first Congress an article of raw material 
 imported which is not made in this country. It is what is termed tinsel threads. 
 
 The Chaiemax. What do you make that into ? 
 
 Mr. Sloss. Into braid and various other articles. It is also used in embroidery, 
 epaulets, and such things as that. 
 
 The Chair.aiax. What is the present rate of duty ? 
 
 Mr. Sloss. The present rate of duty on the thread and manufactured article is 25 
 per cent. The Senate bill I believe calls for the same. We would like it changed so 
 that the raw material may come in at 25 per cent., but on the manufactured article 
 wo want a protection of about 35 per cent., mating in all 60 per cent. I have a brief 
 here, if you geutlenien would like to hear the changes we propose to make in this. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You say the raw material is not made in this country at all ? 
 
 Mr. Sloss. No, sir; it can be made here,butitis not at the present time. We have 
 no protection upon the manufactured article. We get it in this shape. It is made in 
 France and Germany largely, and is used all over the world. We get it in this shape 
 and manufacture it into braids. 
 
 The Chairman. You want a duty of 25 cent, on the thread and 35 on the 
 
 Mr. Sloss. We want (iO per cent, on the manufactured article ; that makes the pro- 
 tection about 35 per cent. 
 
 The Chairman. You can leave your paper with the stenographer and it will be 
 priutcd. 
 
 Following is the paper referred to: 
 
 To the Committee of Ways and Means of the Fifty-first Congress : 
 
 Gentlemen : As the representatives of the Braid Manufacturers' Association of the 
 United States, we desire to supplement our other applications with the following 
 brief memorandum concerning section 164 of the proposed Senate bill. This section 
 reads as follows : 
 
 " Bouillons, or caunetille, metal thread, fil6, or gespinst, and epaulets, galloons, 
 laccH, knots, stars, tassels, and wings of gold, silver, or other metal, 25 jjer centum 
 ad valorem." 
 
 The section is thus extended to cover more effectively certain staple articles of great 
 commercial importance which we manufacture on alarge scale. But it still contains 
 two important defects, (l)Us classification is iucomplete, and (2) it assesses the raw 
 material at precisely the same rate as the finished product. " Bouillons, caunetille, 
 metal thread, fil6, and gespinst " are the raw material referred to. They entered ex- 
 tensively into the composition of the other goods enumerated aud into the compo- 
 sition of many articles of women's attire, aud are also used in various ways for embroid- 
 ering and in the manufacture of dift'eront kinds of buttons. Samples are submitted 
 herewith. 
 
 The materials are not at present made in this country, but are imported from Ger- 
 many aud France. Yet we possess the necessary plant a^nd appliances for their manu- 
 facture in all the ways indicated, and could undertake it but for the unjust provisions 
 of the tariff. Previous to October, 1884, tinsel, braids, cords, etc., paid 45 per cent, ad 
 valorem. The profit on them to the American miinufacturer, even with that protec- 
 tion, was iuHnitesimal. Under the present conditions, with the increasing cost of 
 labor, the retention of the duty on the rawmaterial, and the lowering of thatonthe 
 finished article, their manufacture W(mld entail serious loss. 
 
 We therefore respectfully leijuost that section 164 be amended to read as follows: 
 
 "Bouillons, or caunetille, metal thread, filiS, lahn or gespinst, 25 per centum ad 
 valorem ; and epaulets, galloons, laces, knots, stars, tassels, regalia, beltings, bind- 
 
EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 601 
 
 ings, braids, fringes, gimps, ornaments, buttons or barrel-buttons, or buttons of other 
 forma for tasseled ornaments, cords, cords and tassels, dress-trimmings, and wings of 
 gold, silver, or other metal, 60 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 This would afford us a nominal protection of 35 per cent. The actual protection 
 would be considerably less. Our proposition, we believe, is therefore entirely rea- 
 sonable, and will meet with the approval of your honorable body. 
 
 We also request that section 390 of schedule N, concerning button forms, be 
 stricken out. This section permits the admission of braids ostensibly for the manu- 
 facture of buttons at the nominal rate of 10 per cent., and we are convinced is often 
 improperly taken advantage of. 
 
 STATEMENT OP PHILIP ■WALKER. 
 
 Mr. Philip Walker, of the Agricultural Department, next addressed the com- 
 mittee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the Agricultural Department has 
 been occupied for several years in examining into the feasibility of silk culture, and 
 I received iustractioos from the Secretary to appear here in accordance witli tlie re- 
 quest of your chairman to explain the position of raw silk in relation to the other 
 branches of industry. You will excuse me if I begin at the beginning, as I think the 
 matter is not so well understood as it might be. I have brought here some samples 
 of the reelable cocoons which have been dried and are ready for reeling. It has been 
 mentioned here that certain cocoons — I think Mr. Richardson mentioned it — that 
 cocoons that are pierced can be carded. These are pierced cocoons, such as are carded 
 by the manufacturers to-day. In fact, I may say these were obtained from an egg- 
 prodncer in France, from wliom Mr. Cheney bought the rest of the crop. These were 
 samples which they gave me. They are macerated chemically to take out the gum, 
 and generally worked up something as wool is. They are carded and formed into a 
 thread by a special process. 1 brought these cocoons simply to show the distinctions 
 in the diiierent grades in the raw material of the weavers. The reelable cocoon 
 makes what is called in the tariff raw silk. We take exception to this, because it 
 implies unmanufactured silk. It is a silk which has been improved in value at least 20 
 per cent, from the value of the raw cocoon. That silk [producing sample] was pro- 
 duced from cocoons raised in the United States. It is not the iirst quality, but it 
 happened to be all I had on hand. It has been made by the operatives at the Agri- 
 cultural Department more for the amusement of spectators while we were experi- 
 menting on machinery. 
 
 Now, the silk made from these cocoons will produce a continuous fiber. The fiber 
 of this skein of silk is continuous. It is the silk which is used in general iu the 
 United States for the production of domestic woven silks, and is the " raw silk" of 
 which gentlemen have been speaking. Raw silk is produced princi])ally in the ex- 
 treme Orient and in Europe. Of the production iu 1888^25,7.'')1,000 pounds — Europe 
 produced 10,500,000 pounds, the Levant 1,250,000 poundsj and the extreme Orient ex- 
 ported a little over 14,000,000 pounds. Of the production of the extreme Orient we 
 know nothing. The average annual production of raw silk for the nine years ending 
 1888 was 23,721,000 pounds. During all of these years the United States imported 
 more than 3,250,000 pounds, and in 1889 imported 5,329,648 pounds, being consider- 
 ably more than one-fifth the consumption of the whole of Europe and the United 
 States put together ; and this shows the importance of the silk industry in the United 
 States and the importance of the market, which in my estimation might be created 
 for the domestic reeled silk and which exists for foreign reeled silk to-day. The 
 Agricultural Department is interested in this matter solely from the farmer's point 
 of view, as the farmer produces the cocoons. He cannot find a market for the co- 
 coon to-day, that is, for his unpierced cocoons, because there is uo manufacture, or 
 filature, as it is called, of raw silk, which is the only legitimate place for marketing 
 his cocoons. There have been efforts made to produce raw silk in the United States 
 ever since the country was first settled. There have been obligatory laws and bounty 
 laws, and one thing and another, and in the early part of the century, the first half 
 of the century, there was a duty which I do not think ever ran above 15 per cent. 
 That duty was taken off just before the war. At' the Agricultural Departinciit we feel 
 that if a market for cocoons can be established by the establislinicnt of filatures of 
 raw silk, that it will greatly add to the income of the farmers. That 5,000,000 pounds 
 of raw silk that we import is estimated by the Treasury Department to have been 
 worth about 119,000,000, audi am away below the figure in saying $15,000,000 of that 
 is the value of the cocoons. Therefore, if we produce all of our raw silk we should 
 increase, under the present figures, the income of the fanning classes as much as 
 «il5,000,d00. 
 
 The grades of silk are classified in the tariff as raw silk (imported free of duty), 
 and carded or combed silk in the gum (which is dutiable at 50 cents a pound), which 
 
602 EEVISION OF THE TAElEP. 
 
 is an inferior prodnct made of these pierced cocoons, and thfo\^n eilk, the naann- 
 factiii f- of whicb follows the operation of reeling or of carding. I want it understood 
 that carded and combed silk in the gum is inferior to reeled silk, but that it must go 
 through some preparation in order to be prepared for the weaver. That operation con- 
 sists in taking the several threads and twisting them in various ways to make a strong 
 thread and one which will hold together. The gum which surrounds the threads has 
 been boiled off, which is necessary prior to the operation of dyeing. Thrown silk, 
 which I say is produced equally from spun silk and the reeling silk, has a duty of 30 per 
 eeut. placed upon it. That duty, if I am not misinformed, is absolutely prohibitive. 
 There is no thrown silk imported into the United States to-day. At any rate, it does 
 not appear in the reports of the Bureau of Statistics so far as I have been able to 
 find. That thrown silk is manufactured in various ways, and when manufactured, 
 as gentlemen have told you, it has a duty of 50 per cent, imposed upon it. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle, Fifty per cent, or 50 cents a pound t 
 
 Mr. Walker. Fifty per cent, on manufactured silk. After studying the question 
 pretty thoroughly, the oflicials of the Agricultural Department who have been in 
 charge of this matter h.ave come to the conclusion that reeled silk can be manufact- 
 ured in the United States with reasonable profit if a duty of $1 a pound is imposed. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Have you gone far enough in the experiment to determine what it 
 costs to produce it in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. There are two steps in the production of reeled silk. The production 
 of cocoons can be carried on as cheaply as in Europe, because they can be produced by 
 a class of people who are not otherwise employed. You have undoubtedly a great 
 many of these unemployed people in your district who would be glad to add a small 
 amount of cash to their incomes. Therefore we consider that the people of this 
 country will be compensated if cocoons can be sold for European market prices. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you not know that the State of Kansas i)ays a bounty for it ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. I think you are mistaken. They have given an appropriation for 
 experiments, but no bounty. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Have you made any investigation of how high a latitude these can be 
 produced in ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. I have a map of the United States showiug where cocoons were raised 
 this year. Although not amounting to a great extent, they were raised in Michigan 
 and WiscoDsin. The great producing belt is Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and 
 Kansas. Kansas produces more than one-fourth of the product in the United States. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That does not exactly answer my question. Could it be raised in the 
 other States in that latitude ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. It is a little doubtful. It is not the raising of the worms so much 
 as it is the living through the winter of the food plants. The mulberry is pretty 
 hardy, but it winter-kills it if it gets too far north. 
 
 Mr. LaFollette. Wherever the mulberry can be grown that industry can be car- 
 ried on successfully f 
 
 Mr. Walker. It can. There was silk raised in central Wisconsin this year, not a 
 great amount, hut the possibility was shown. We have even had silk raised up as 
 far as Flat Head Lake, in Montana. 
 
 Mr. Flow;er. Is it raised in California ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. Yes, sir ; the Agricultural Department purchased 799 pounds of silk 
 this year from California. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Silk in the hank is already on the free list ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is the price of that silk abroad now ? 
 
 Mr. Walkicr. That silk is constantly rising non-. It is quoted at 65 francs » 
 kilogram at Lyons, say about |6.50 a pound for the best silk, ajjprosimately, 10 francs 
 a kilogram is $1 a pound. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It is worth about $1 a pound, you say ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. Now, I say that would be worth about $6.50 a pound. The average 
 value of the silk imported into the United .States last year wa8'.^3.48, which was the 
 lowest since 18G9. That is according to the Treasury figures ; but that includes all 
 grades of silk. It was very low last year, but it has been rising owing to the failure 
 of the Italiau cocoon crop. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Will you just explain briefly to the committee the process of 
 raising tlie cocoons by the farmers ? 
 
 Mr. Walkhr. The silk-worui has been a domesticated animal for forty centuries, 
 now, and it has become utterly helpless, and if put on a tree and it falls to the ground 
 can not find the tree again. The result is they have to be raised indoors. Say we 
 take a nmm like this ; it would be fitted with layers of tables running to the ceiling, 
 about 2 feet apart, with just a passage of 3 or 4 fi'et between them. They utilize every 
 inch of space. On these the worms are placed. Then they sprinkle over them leaves 
 of the mulberry tree and the osage orange, on which they feed. As longas they are 
 kept fed they will not move from the table. We begin here in Washington to raises 
 
Eevision of the tariff. 603 
 
 silk- worms about the 1st of April, and in about thirty days they begin to mate their 
 cocoons. We generally allow about eight days for making the cocoons; it takes only 
 about three days, but we allow eight, and then we take the cocoons and put them in 
 a steam bath, and that kills the chrysalis inside. The cocoon is then dried. Unless 
 it is treated in this manner the moth will pierce through as happens when the cocoon 
 is nsed for reproduction. About 1 per cent, of the crop is used for reproduction, so 
 that item in the cocoon crop is of small proportions. The cocoon is a very firm pod 
 of silk, being one continuous thread made by the worm from the outside to the 
 inner. 
 
 In order to get the raw silk from that we take a certain quantity of them, about as 
 much as there are in this box, soak them thoroughly in boiling water to soften the 
 gum, as the silk does not come off unless the gum is softened. In carding silk this 
 gum is removed chemically. In reeling silk it is simply softened and remains on the 
 cocoon. The cocoons are then brushed with a brush of special construction, to which 
 the outside layers of the cocoons stick, and when the ends are got hold of each co- 
 coon hangs by its individual thread. That being done, the cocoons are ready for 
 reeling. We take four or more cocoons, according to the size of the thread desired, 
 and it requires eighteen or twenty of these threads to make a thread of sewing silk, 
 so it takes 100 cocoons to make a thread of sewing silk. They reel silk in France for 
 malting silk tulles, which require as high as fifteen or twenty cocoons. I do not think 
 they find much use for it in this country. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Yon stated that 799 pounds of silk came from California. What did 
 you pay for it — for these cocoons ? 
 
 Mr. Walkek. We paid about 35 cents a pound for them. 
 
 . Mr. Gear. Would that pay for the trouble ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. I think it would. I wish to explain that cocoons, if dried, are 
 worth $1.1.5 a pound, but when they are first made the chrysalis is full of water and 
 tbey weigh three times as much ; so the price of the fresh averages only one-third 
 that of the dry, and it is necessary to consider that question in giving the price and 
 weight of cocoons whether they are fresh or not. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Does the consumer dry them ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. As a rule, and the consumer always does the stiffling and drying, be- 
 cause the producer does not know how. In the United States the producer has done 
 both until now, because there is no market in the localities of production. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it harder to transport them in the crude state ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. They will bear transportation for a day or two. 
 
 Mr. Gear. They are apt to heat ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. Yes, sir ; and if shipped too late the moth is apt to emerge, but as a 
 rule, in Europe, they are sold to the mills, which are located in the immediate 
 vicinity of the producer. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. In what part of California did this silk come from ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. We had most of these cocoons sent from the ladies of the Silk Cult- 
 ure Society of California; so I can not answer that question precisely. We bought 
 some of the cocoons directly from Los Angeles. 
 
 Mr. McKexna. What does that society do now ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. That society was organized several years ago, and has a station at 
 Piedmont, located near Oakland. They own 15 acres of land, on which the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture erected a biiildiug three years ago which was finally sold at 
 auction and purchased by the society. It was essentially a gift under legal condi- 
 tions by the Government to the society. They are raising mulberry trees for distribu- 
 tion throughout the State, and making experiments in the culture of silk-worms of 
 different varieties. I have now at the Department a lot of cocoons not included on 
 this table which were raised by the society at Piedmont and sent to the Agricultural 
 Department for reeling and we are to send the silk back. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Mr. Richardson said it was impossible to introduce the reeling here, 
 and he hoped he would never see the country do it. 
 
 Mr. Walker. I take the liberty of differing from Mr. Richardson for several reasons. 
 I will admit he is right if raw silk remains on the free list, but I can not admit it if 
 a duty at all proportionate to the other grades of silk is placed on raw silk. The 
 cocoons under the best conditions of reeling are worth 87| per cent, of the raw silk 
 which they will produce. The balance, 12-} percent., is the cost of reeling the cocoon. 
 At .f5 a pound, $1 a pound duty would be '20 per cent., of which 62^ cents for the 
 labor — these are European, French, prices — we can get labor in this country in the 
 South for 50 to 75 cents a day of ten hours that can do this work. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much are the wages of reelers in Europe ? 
 
 Mr. "Walker. About fl.50 per day of twelve hours. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. What does the machinery cost that one hand can superintend! 
 
 Mr. Walker. The machinery probably costs about $60 or $80. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You say your labor cost per pound would be 62^ cents ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. On the basis of $5. 
 
604 EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That is the market price. 
 
 Mr. Walker. That is what it is selliog at to-day. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Yoa suggest a duty of |1 a pound ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. Yes ; that would be a duty of 20 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Carhslb. It would be more than that, given the labor. 
 
 Mr. Walker. Yes,- sir ; but it must be remembered it is an industry to be estab- 
 lished, an industry in which the losses will be great in the beginning, and this must 
 be compensated for and capital must be given a reasonable guaranty that the mat- 
 ter will be continued long enough to overcome those losses. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It is a large per cent., but this duty falls on very wealthy people, who 
 are the largest consumers of silk. 
 
 Mr. Walker. I do not think a tax of $1 a pound on raw silk will add 10 cents a 
 yard to the wholesale price of the best silk produced. There is about one-tenth of a 
 pound of silk in this skein [holding up same.] 
 
 Mr. McKenna. a pound of silk will produce how much 1 
 
 Mr. Walker. It is very difBcult and almost impossible testate that without taking 
 a piece and counting the threads. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That is due to the loading ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. That is due to the dyeing. In woven silks you can not get at the silk 
 in it without a vast deal of trouble. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That is loading. 
 
 Mr. Walker. No, sir. The dyeing necessary to make an honest black must pene- 
 trate the fiber, and when it has once penetrated you can not get at the amount of sills: 
 absolutely until you take the piece of silk to pieces and pick out the threads and 
 count them, and in that way you can get an idea of the amount of silk in it. I should 
 suppose there was one-tenth of a pound of silk in a yard of black gros-grain dress 
 goods. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What is the likelihood of this reeling being done automatically ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. We have a machine working at the Agricultural Department which 
 is working as automatically as a printing-press. I put in the material at one end 
 and it reels off the silk at the other end, no attention being necessary, except wlien 
 the thread breaks, and keeping the basin clean. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. If sucli machines were introduced, then there would not be any- 
 thing in the way of the production of silk in this country being very extensively car- 
 ried on? 
 
 Mr. Walker. Such machines are apt to be used all over the world. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. What does that machine cost ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. I should hate to say, because you know a Congressional appropria- 
 tion 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You should state it. 
 
 Mr. Walker. Congress has provided $20,000 a year for the last four or five years. 
 That has been expended in various experiments, for salaries, eggs, and experiiueutal 
 machinery. I suppose out of that we have spent $3,000 or $4,000 yearly in experi- 
 mental machinery. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. What I was asking about was what does that particular machine 
 cost? 
 
 Mr. Walker. That machine could be made for $50. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. Is there a patent that causes you to pay more than that ? 
 
 Mr. Walkkr. Yes, sir. There are also some features which have been invented 
 in the Department which might be patented for the benefit of the public ; but they 
 do not cover principles, the cover mechanical details. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Can one person attend to more than one machine ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. With one automatic machine one person ought to do what four peo- 
 ple do. You can keep twenty-four threads running constantly. This is one point I 
 wish to correct. It was stated here that two threads are reeled by one person. In 
 the Italian mills to-day they reel four and six threads with first-class cocoons. Poor 
 cocoons are expected to run only two or three. I am speaking of the ordinary size 
 thread which enters into commerce. ■ When I went to France to study tliis industry 
 in 1881 they were reeling .about half a pound of silk a day to the operative. Now they 
 are reeling about a pound of silk a day to the operative. That is to say that labor is 
 so divided up that each operative who is reeling reels about a pound of silk a day, 
 which is twice what he was doing ,six or eight years ago when the work was not di- 
 vided up, and tliat is entirely duo to an American invention. It has been driven out 
 of this country because there was no field for its work. We have produced in this 
 country only 18,500 pounds of cocoons this year. To produce the silk we consume (I 
 would state it takes 12 pounds of fresh cocoons to produce a pound of silk on a low 
 average) it would take 64,000,000 pounds of cocoons. Ho our small production is not 
 even a drop in the bucket. The Italian crop of Irt^i-f was 90,500,000 pounds, half as much 
 again as we would need to produce our raw silk. That was raise(l by .50!), .5.55 silk raisers. 
 It would take :!70,800 silk raisers to produce the 04,000,000 pounds necessary in the 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 605 
 
 United States. In other words, if cocoons were raised in the United States at the 
 same rate as they are now raised in Italy, tliis matter would benefit more than 370,- 
 000 farmers to tlie extent of $15,000,000 in the aggregate. It seems a big juni]) to go 
 from 70,000 to 60,000,000, but Hungary is going toward it very fast under a system of 
 goverument protection. lu 18ti0 tUey produced about what we produced this year; 
 in 1889 they produced 1,790,683 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What protection did Hungary give? 
 
 Mr. Walker. It provides for the reeliug of cocoons in government filatures. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Free ? 
 
 Mr. Walkek. No; they buy the cocoons; they furnish the raiser the eggs and 
 leaves, and then they buy the cocoon for two-thirds of the. market price. Tbey fur- 
 nish the eggs free and forbid everybody from selling them in Hungary. They also 
 furnish the trees, which, by an act one hundred years old, have been plauted on 
 goverument land. So they have got iuto the position of the landed prox^rietor who 
 works on shares in Italy. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That has been done by free labor? 
 
 Mr. Walker. No, this work is done on shares. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it done by the free labor of tbe country ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. As distinguished from convict labor, certainly. It is done by the 
 peasants, not by convict labor at all. They are not obliged to take it up, but 50,091 
 persons raised silk in 1889. The silk raiser, if he works on shares, only gets half the 
 market price where the eggs and leaves are furnished, but in Hungary the Govern- 
 ment has paid two-thirds of the market jtrice, and it makes no profit on these leaves 
 anil eggs. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the ordinary price in Europe? 
 
 Mr. Walker. For tbese cocoons about $1.25 a pound. Those cocoons when first 
 purchased are only worth about 40 cents a pound. Tliese are the European prices as 
 they existed this spring. The price has gone up, as the Italian market was very 
 short. When I left Lyons in October they were placing orders for cocoons so that 
 the raw material cost more than the market price of the product, but the product has 
 gone up to meet it. That was due to one bad year. Lombardy having only one- 
 twentieth of an ordinary crop, and the falling off of about two-thirds of the crop for 
 the whole kingdom, has sent up the price of cocoons all over the world. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. The production of the cocoons in this country by the farmers 
 would not require any special outlay of capital. 
 
 Mr. Walker. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Or any special skill. 
 
 Mr. Walker. Or any special skill, and it would amount on .in average to $10 or f 15 
 additional income for the work of four or five weeks. I have paid one raiser this year 
 $142 for cocoons raised in Johnson County, Mo. I have paid a good many of them 
 more than $10. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Have you gotten any from the State of Iowa ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. We have got some, but not many There is only one county that 
 produced more than $35 worth this year. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. With j'our exiieriments, what is it estimated it will cost the Agri- 
 cultural Department to produce silk and get it ready to sell ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. Always with the xwovision it costs the Agricultural Department or 
 any other Department more than anybody else 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. That is the experience of mankind. 
 
 Mr. "Walker. I presume it will cost twice as much as we can get for it, but we pay 
 operatives $1 a day for Department hours. I have endeavored to run up to eight hours 
 but I cannot do it. tinder our condition there in the museum they are bothered all 
 the time by visitors. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The Department is more for instruction to the people than it is to make 
 money ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Are you making this now? 
 
 Mr. Walker. Yes. They were running Saturday when I left and it is now work- 
 ing. We have got machinery that we could run all right. I said that it took in 
 above 62|- cents for labor. I venture to say the automatic machinery will reduce it 
 one-half. That would not lower the price of silk as much as it would appear on the 
 face, becau.se the work of making it is such a small item in the ultimate value. It 
 was stated that Italian silk reclers could be obtained for 10 cents a day. That is true 
 but it. applies only to small children, and they work fourteen hours for it. I made 
 this year a second rrip to Italy to investigate the matter. I have lived among them 
 and know the trade thoroughly. 
 
 I have been employed in the silk mills there, and 1 have seen girls so small they 
 could hardly reach the winding frames at which they were obliged to work. The 
 mpression in Italy seemed to be that it cost more to hire girls at lO cents a day than 
 women at 25 cents, as they do so much less work and require so much more superin- 
 
606 REVISION OF THE TAKIFP. 
 
 tendence. There has been an impression in the country that the Chinese labor was 
 BO cheap. So it is ; but the silk has to be passed over and re-reeled, and the recent 
 report of the consul-general at Shanghai says that the reeler of China gets 24 cents a 
 day. It has been published that he got only 6 cents a day, a matter we would hardly 
 care to compete with; but 24 ceuts a day is small Italian wages for women. In 
 France they get 30 cents, and I have often known reelers iu the mill where I was em- 
 ployed getting 42 cents for twelve hours' work on account of superior production. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. This is work by handf 
 
 Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You spoke of machinery used to do this work T 
 
 Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. The machinery I use is experimental machinery. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you mean the automatic machine is not used f 
 
 Mr. Walker. No. The best machinery to-day prepares the cocoons for reeling au- 
 tomatically. It has reduced the cost of making silk in certain mills in France, Italy, 
 and Austria from 10 francs a kilogram — $1 a ])ound— down to 6^ francs a, kilogram, 
 which is 62| cents a pound, and those are the prices I went on. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How long has this machinery been in use? 
 
 Mr. Walker. About three years. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. This experimental machinery yon spoke oft 
 
 Mr. Walker. In France or here T 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Here. 
 
 Mr. Walker. For a short time only. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is that similar 1 
 
 Mr. Walker. No, sir; we use this preparatory machine, and we are endeavoring 
 to go further and make the whole process automatic. The preparatory machinery is 
 used in the Department. ' 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You say the machinery has been in use about three years 1 
 
 Mr. Walker. Yes, sir ; the preparatory machinery. 
 
 Mr. Bayxb. Then it has passed beyond the stage of experiment ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. It has been Introduced in a dozen or fifteen mills, aggregating seven 
 hundred basins, and they are negotiating for increasing the plant, and there is a 
 shop with forty men making that machinery all the time. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there anything further? 
 
 Mr. Cheney. In regard to Mr. Walker's automatic machine, it is the invention of 
 Mr. Serrell, and it has been a good many years in operation abroad. 
 
 Mr. Walker. He went over in 1888. He worked on this thing two years prior to 
 that. 
 
 Mr. Cheney. But before that he was abroad. His machine is yet in an undevel- 
 oped state. It is not a practical working machine ; it is not in successful operation 
 in a single village in Europe. Mr. Walker says it runs there automatically 
 
 Mr. Walker. Mr. Cheney has had an opportunity to see it. 
 
 Mr. Cheney. It is undeveloped. Mr. Serrell was an ingenious mau and introduced 
 a good many improvements into the filature, and this is only a pet of his. He has 
 not yet put it in operation. In regard to the cost of the production of silk in this 
 country, we never can produce silk here at all. We can not work exactly under the 
 same conditions as other silk-producing countries. I have seen the silk produced in 
 France, Italy, China, Japan, and India, and under the conditions that exist there, 
 when we can work under the same scale of wages as they have, we can produce silk 
 in this country but not before. If you put a duty upon raw silk you would have to 
 put a duty upon manufactured silk at 75 per cent, ad valorem. The beginning of 
 silk culture in America extends away back to the earlierdays of Virginia, wheu King 
 James tried to establish it there, and it has been tried every few years since up to the 
 present time. 
 
 Mr. LaFollbttb. About what is the difference between the wages of labor in the 
 manufacture of silk in the countries with which you compete in your manufacture? 
 
 Mr. Cheney. We pay about twice as much as they do in England, about three 
 times as much as they do in France, three and a quarter times what they do iu Italy, 
 and probably ten times as much as they do in China or Japan. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. Then there is not much greater difference between the scale of 
 wages paid in the competing countries where they manufacture silk as compared 
 with the markets where they produce the cocoons and this country. If you can suc- 
 cessfully manufacture silk in this country, notwithstanding the difference in the 
 wages here, why could you not produce the cocoons in this country and the raw silk 
 in this country notwithstanding thediflereuce iu wages? 
 
 Mr. Cheney. It requires a good deal of investment of capital. In the first place 
 you have to plant the mulberry tree. There is the Agricultural Department who 
 cultivates the tree. Then the care of the worm is something that requires the great- 
 est nicety and faithfulness. They have to be arranged as carefully as babies, and 
 s))are room given to them. It is not unskilled labor that can be applied to them. 
 You can not turn silk-worms loose and let them grow. 
 
KEVISIOK OF THE TARIFF. 607 
 
 Mr. La Follete. It isnot unskilledlabor tbat is employed in the manufacture of silk f 
 
 Mt. Chbnby. I am speaking of 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I am speaking of tlie manufacture of silk. 
 
 Mr. Cheney. What was your question ? 
 
 Mr. La Follette. It is not nnskilled labor employed in the manufacture of silk ? 
 
 Mr. Cheney. No. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. It requires the greatest nicety and superior intelligence and 
 Ion"' practice to educate one in the art of manufacturing silk, does it not ? 
 
 Mr. Cheney. Well, I have summed up everything I have to say, and I say we can 
 not produce silk in this country at all. 
 
 Mr. La Follette, Yet we manufacture silk in this country under conditions with 
 competing countries ? 
 
 Mr. Cheney. We do that under the tariif. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Yes, sir ; under the tariff. If we can compete with other coun- 
 tries under similar conditions in regard to manufacture, if wo were to apply this in 
 reference to the production of raw silk, why would it not be just as effective to en- 
 able us to produce it? 
 
 Mr. Cheney. The experiment has been a very long one. It dates back to the early 
 settlement ot Virginia, and there has been no success in it. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Sixty-four million jjounds of raw silk are imported into this country. 
 
 Mr. Walker. Sixty-four million pounds of cocoons would be sufficient to make the 
 raw silk imported into the country, say 5,329,648 pounds of silk. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Then 5,300,000 pounds of raw silk is imported into this country. 
 That comes in free now, and you wish to impose a duty of a dollar a pound ou that ? 
 
 Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. 
 
 The raw silk produced for consumption in the western world was as follows iu the 
 following years: 
 
 Ponnda. 
 
 1884 21,837,200 
 
 1885 20,497,400 
 
 1886 23,790,800 
 
 1887 26,732,200 
 
 1888 25,751,000 
 
 1889. (Not yet reported.) 
 
 Annual average - 23, 721, 720 
 
 During the same period tbere were imported into the United States : 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1883-'84 3, 222, ,'>46 
 
 1884-'85 3,424,076 
 
 1885-'86 4,754,626 
 
 lr]36-"87 4, 599, .574 
 
 lt87-'88 5,173,810 
 
 1888-'89 5,329,648 
 
 About one-half of the above importations came from Japan, one-quarter from China, 
 and one quarter from Europe. 
 In 1888 the raw silk of the western world was produced in the following countries : 
 
 Western Europe : Pounds. 
 
 Italy 7,845,200 
 
 France 1, 455, 600 
 
 Austro-Hungary 675, 400 
 
 Spain 182, 600 
 
 Total 10,458,800 
 
 Levant: 
 
 Anatolie 374, 000 
 
 Salonica, Volo, Adrianople 264, 000 
 
 Syria 508,200 
 
 Greece 39,600 
 
 Caucasia 110, 000 
 
 Total 1,295,800 
 
 Extreme Orient: 
 
 China, exported from Shanghai 4, 963,200 
 
 China, exported from Canton 1,529, 000 
 
 Japan, exported from Yokohama 5, 280, 000 
 
 India, exported from Calcutta 2, 224, 200 
 
 Total 13,996,400 
 
 Grand total 25,751,000 
 
608 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 RIBBONS AND HAT TEIMMINGS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF BRITON RICHARDSON, OF NEW YORK. 
 
 Mr. Briton Richardson, of New York City, addressed tlie committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and ^eut.lemen of the committee, we were before you last week in re- 
 gard to nilk duties. Oa that day a storm broke upon us, which brings us here again 
 to-day. That was a decision of the Supremo Court, which has thrown us back very ma- 
 terially by 1 heir iutorpretation oi what is known as the hat trimmings clause, which 
 Mr. Ketchaiu alluded to this morning as being very uncertain and ambiguous and 
 misleading. That interpretation of it has included silk goods which can be used 
 for trimming hats and bonnets, and dutiable at ouly 20 per cent. Now, this has been 
 an evil we, have been wrestling with since the passage of the act of 188:1, since Judge 
 Folger's time, and the evil lias been somewhat temporized with and modified by the 
 action of the Treasury, but we fear now the Treasury will go into this matter of re- 
 funding, and admit goods we think ought to be, and we know it was the inten- 
 tion that they should be, admitted at 50 per cent, instead of 20 per cent. duty. This 
 evil we feared for a long time, and during Mr. Hewitt's time here in three sepa- 
 rate sessions he introduced a bill for the correction of this evil. It has been in every 
 bill for administration or for tariff since then. It was in the bill which Mr. Mills pro- 
 posed. There was a little bill with a promi.se of safety which we got introduced at 
 the last Congress ; but the time was so short we got nothing done. We were not 
 suffering then as now by the decision made in the Supreme Court on Monday last. 
 We jiropose to repeal that part of the clause that is defective, inasmuch as the word 
 " vegetable" was inadvertently left out, and to take verbatim the words in section 
 6, act, of March a, 1883, which reads as follows : 
 
 '' Hats, etc., materials for: All goods, wares, and merchandise not specially enumer- 
 ated or provided for in this act, made of silk or of which silk is the component ma- 
 terial of chief value, 50 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 That clause referred al waj's to things of that sort and orn aments ot hair and whale- 
 bone, and by the omission of the word "vegetable" and the word "material," 
 which was for the first time omitted, we were laid o]ien to attack on silk goods 
 which could be used for trinmiing hats, which pays as trimmings a duty of only 20 
 per cent. We fought against that as long as we could, and now we are at a crisis, 
 and we ask your help, gentlemen, in completing this bill, which was presented by 
 Mr. Fitch on the 18th of December, and is now, I believe, before this committee. 
 We ask that it be reported and put upon its passage immediately. We are in extremis, 
 and the victim is bleeding to death, and we want surgical aid quickly. In the opinion 
 given by Judge BlatchJbrd, the said ribbons not being mentioned in the silk clause, 
 he interpreted it to mean they should come in a clause in the sundries admitting them 
 as trimmings. The ribbons were nieutioiied in all the tariff acts uji to 1875. They 
 were then omitted lor a purpose which we (juite understood. 
 
 In 1874 we had to give heavy refunds on some ribbons which were always called 
 silk ribbons, and hail been sold and bought as silk ribbons, but because they put a 
 thread of cotton on the edges a claim was made for a refund of 10 per cent, on ac- 
 count of the admixture of cotton, and finding it was impossible to specify them from 
 other kinilsof silk goods, the phraseology of the act was changed in 1875 to "all 
 goods, wares, and merchandise made of silk, and of which silk is the con)ponent 
 material of chief value, 50 per cent, ad valorem," and that same phraseology is 
 adopted verbatim in the tarilf act of 1883. So wo got rid of one trouble, and now we 
 are in another, and we want to reintroduce that word " vegetable," which was inad- 
 vertantly left out. It has been in all the bills which have been proposed for passage, 
 and we ask you, gentlemen, to consider our condition, which is perilous in the ex- 
 treme ; and we ask you to be kind enough to put this bill upon its passage. Senator 
 McPherson tells us this morning that he is prepared to facilitate its passage in the 
 Senate, and that be will lay it before the Finance Committee. 
 
 The Chairmaj^. Did you say this correction was in the Hewitt administrative 
 bill? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. Yes, sir ; it was in the administrative bill and the tariff bill. 
 
 The Chair.ma.m. Do you remember what .section of the Hewitt bill it was? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. I do not; but I will endeavor to find a copy of the bill ? It is 
 bill No. .564. 
 
 STATEMENT OP JOHN W. GRIG-GS. 
 
 Mr. John W. Griggs, of Paterson, N. J., addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we are here as delegates of the 
 
 Silk Association of America and also of the Silk' Association of New Jersey. The 
 
 difiticulty arises on account of a construction that the Supreme Court of the United 
 
 States has given to the two clauses in the tariff act of 1883. I have a copy of the court's 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 609' 
 
 opiniou hero wbicli was delivered on the 6th of January, 1890, in the case of Roljert- 
 8on against Edelhoft'. By the act of 18d^ the silk schedule was arranged as ibllows : 
 
 "Silk and silk goods : All goods, wares, and merchandise not specially enumerated 
 or provided for in this act, made of silk or of which silk is the component material 
 of chief value, 50 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 From that time to this silk ribbons and all other silk goods, no matter what use 
 they were chiefly adapted for, whether for hat trimmings or anything else, were 
 charged 50 per centum ad valorem, as coming under that clause, for the reason tlint 
 the Secretaries of the Treasury held that distinction that if silk was the component 
 material of chief value in the goods, then those goods were providbd for in this sec- 
 tion. The courts, however, hold that this is not so, but that goods, no matter if the 
 silk is the component material of chief value, if they are adapted for hat trimmings 
 are to be admitted under another section of that act, which reads as follows: 
 
 "Hats, etc., materials for: Braids, plaits, flats, laces, trimmings, tissues, willow 
 sheets, and squares used for making or ornamenting hats, bonnets, and hoods com- 
 posed of straw, chill, grass, palm-leaf, willow, hair, whale-bone,, or any other sub- 
 stance or material not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, 20 per centum 
 ad valorem." 
 
 The court holds that this clause fixes a specific duty upon all goods, no matter 
 what material they are composed of, which are to be used in hat trimmings. 
 
 Mr. McMlLUN. I believe the word "vegetable" was left out of that section, and 
 that is what they lay stress on in that decision. 
 
 Mr. Gkiggs. Yes, sir; because in prior legislation on this subject it has been in- 
 serted, of which there is a full record, and it will be laid before the committee if it 
 is so desired. Ribbons were specifically mentioned under the silk schedule. Mr. 
 Eicliardson has told you why they were left out. In the former schedule it read : 
 "Or anj' other vegetable substance or material." But the word " vegetable " was 
 left out of the hat schedule, and word " ribbons " left out of the silk schedule, and now 
 the court says all material, no matter if it may be composed of silk which is adapted 
 for use as hat trimmings. They hold that ribbons under that clause shall be admitted 
 at 20 per cent. Now, about one-third of the silk manufactured in this country, and 
 I think the aggregate production in this country would be twenty millions, is rib- 
 bons. Many large concerns produce |1, 000,000 of goods a year, and are devoted ex- 
 clusively to the manufacture of ribbons. Their stocks are manufactured and ready 
 now to be put upon the market for the spring-trade. They have been manufacturing 
 at the high rate on raw silk that has prevailed for the last six months, and they have 
 been manufacturing at the current rates of labor, and I think the percentage of profit 
 to them is not large at all — is not largo enough to cover this difterence. If this dam- 
 age is not immediately repaired the market will be flooded with the product of the 
 foreign factories and our manufacturers will bo forced to put their goods upon tho 
 market at a great loss, the amount of which I can not state, and the mills will have to 
 be closed. That is all the result of a misconstruction, either by the draughtsman of tho 
 bill of 1883 or the Supreme Court ; it does not matter which. Everybody had sup- 
 posed that silk ribbons and all other goods in which silk was a comi)onent material of 
 chief value had to pay 50 per cent. duty. We find now they have only to pay 20 per 
 cent., if they are adapted for hat trimmings. 
 
 All that has been said by Mr. Richardson is true in regard to tho tariff bills that 
 have been prepared since. The point in this case was raised in August, 188;i, imme- 
 diately after the jiassage of tho tariff bill of 1883. All bills prepariid since lH8o have 
 corrected that mistake by inserting the word " vegetable" in the hat clause, and it 
 read : All goods, wares, and merchandise in which silk was the component material 
 of chief value should pay a duty of 50 per cent., and we merely say that that be im- 
 mediately put on its passage. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I was not in here during the early part of the testimony. 
 Have you stated the difference between the duty as determined by the court and the 
 duty as you understood it to be contemidated by the existing law ? 
 The Chairman. That is in tho record. 
 
 Mr. Griggs. It is the difference between 50 and 20 per cent. The bill which we 
 ask you to pass reads as follows : 
 
 " Hats, materials for: Braids, plaits, flats, willow sheets, and squares fit only for 
 use in making or ornanjcntiiig hats, bonnets, and hoods, composed of straw, chip, 
 grass, palm-leaf, willow, hair, whalebone, or any vegetable material, not specially 
 enumerated or provided for in this act, 20 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 STATEMENT OF "WILLIAM STRANGE. 
 
 Mr. William Strange, of Paterson, N. J., next addressed the committee. He said: 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I wish to state if ribbons are to 
 be dutiable at 20 per cent, and 50 per cent., according to their use, the tariff would 
 have to be changed. If they are coming to be uaed as hat trimmings to-day chiefly, 
 485 39 
 
610 EE VISION OP THE TAEIFF. 
 
 thoy may to-morrow be used for other purposes than hat trimmings, which now, 
 according to the decision of the Supreme Court, do not come under the head of the 50 
 per cent., so the tariff would have to he changed from time to time, and it seems to 
 me that a tariff that would thus have to he changed would be a very poor tariff for 
 the American people to have. Jhis is the only addition I would make to the previous 
 statements. 
 
 The Chairman. I will submit this question to the committee in executive session 
 whether we take up this question separately or not. If the committee sees fit, we 
 will take up this question at once. 
 
 CORDS, BRAIDS, GALLOONS, ETC. 
 
 New York, January 11, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : We represent the American producers of goring, suspender webs, gai-ter 
 webs, in every variety ; cords, braids, beltings, bindings, galloons, etc, made both 
 clustic and non -elastic, and tariff legislation interests us under silk, wool, and cotton 
 schedules. 
 
 Silk : In this schedule, by an inadvertence in law of 1883, an enumeration of 
 our articles was omitted, which resulted in the assessment of duties under the 
 final webbing clause at 35 per cent. This having been successful the attempt has 
 been made lately to reduce the amount of duty to that of the India rubber clause or 
 'SO per cent. ; in fact, the attempt has lately been made to import silk, wool, and 
 cotton goods of our make under this rubber clause, and contentions now exist in the 
 courts in reference to this matter, although our understanding is that the Supreme 
 Court has decided that the goods shall be known by the customs exactly as they are 
 known in the trade, and the words "India rubber" are never applied to our goods, 
 although a small portion of the make of these goods is of India rubber thread, the 
 rubber thread being inserted to give elasticity to the silk, wool, or cotton fabric. 
 It is proper to note here that in all instances silk, wool, and cotton are the "compo- 
 nent parts of chief value" in the make up of our goods. 
 
 Without going into unnecessary detail we bog to state that a careful study of the 
 Senate bill introduced January 18, 1869, seems to cover all points which have caused 
 so much unnecessary misunderstanding and litigation arising therefrom, so that we 
 are ready to say that as we are able to understand Schedules I, paragraph 325, K, 
 paragraph 360, L, paragraph 376, in their effect they cover the points which are so 
 important with us; as far as silk is concerned it is thoroughly and effectually dem- 
 onstrated that we can not make the goods in competition with the foreign without 
 the 50 per centum protection. 
 Yours, 
 
 Edv^ard D. Cajstdeb, 
 
 Hon. William MoKinley, Chairman Committee. 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 EYEGLASS CORDS. 
 
 Sandwich, Mass., January 17, 1889. 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 I manufacture in a small way silk eyeglass cords, and silk guards or watch-chains. 
 There are many thousand dollars' worth of eyeglass cords imported, which can he 
 laid down here, duty paid, for 96 cents i)er gross, and it is impossible to manufacture 
 the same article in this country for less than $1.42 per gross. We have no protection, 
 and can only be protected by a specific duty of not less than 87 cents per gross for eye- 
 glass cords, and 75 per cent, ad volorem for goods worth over $2 per gross. 
 
 There is not to exceed $2,000 worth of eyeglass cords manufactured in the United 
 States per year because of insufficient protecMon. 
 
 A. H. Armstrong. 
 
 New York, January 16, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : The inclosed is a copy of a petition which was placed in the hands of 
 the Hon. Frank Hiscock December 21, 1888, together with the original signers. We 
 respectfully urge your honorable committee to give this your careful consideration, 
 as foreign competition, especially in low-priced silk and cotton goods, is becoming 
 ruinous to our industry. If there is any further information desired, we shall gladly 
 furnish s.ime. 
 
 Very resjjectfully, 
 
 Ifon. William McKinley, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 611 
 
 SCARFS AND NECK-TIES. 
 
 To the honorable Finance Committee of the United States Senate : 
 
 We, the undersigned manufacturers of scarfs and neck-ties, respectfully represent 
 that the present rate of duty on these goods is inadequate to protect us from the 
 competition of foreign manufacturers, who, by reason of undervaluation, and the 
 extreme low rate of wages, import and sell at such low prices as to destroy this in- 
 dustry to a very large extent. 
 
 It is estimated that out of our population of 60,000,000 of people at least one-half, 
 or 30,000,000, wear neck-ties of some sort. Calculating that each jjerson wears out at 
 least three ties or scarfs per annum, it would consume ninety million ties, or seven 
 million five hundred thousand dozens. These are made principally by women, at a 
 cost varying from 50 cents to |1.50 per dozen, and would produce the sum of $7,500,000, 
 distributed among a needy class of female operatives. 
 
 The above labor, however, is but a small part of the money entering into the cost. 
 There are other industries hinging largely upon it. The boxes in which such goods 
 are sold necessitate the manufacture of ten million paper boxes, at an average cost 
 of 10 ceuts, supplying another needy class of workmen with at least $1,000,000 per 
 annum. 
 
 An average of one yard of cotton flannel enters into the composition of each dozen, 
 or 7,500,000 yards, all manufactured in thiis country, costing 12 cents per yard, or 
 $900,000. 
 
 The goods are not yet ready for market until the paper manufacturer and the 
 printer are called into requisition. Their labor and material, to the extent of 10 
 cents per dozen, contribute to the sums previously named a further one of $750,000. 
 
 It appears by the above that this industry, when fully protected, will distribute 
 among our workmen as follows : 
 
 Wages $7,500,000.00 
 
 Box-makers 1,000,000.00 
 
 Domestic manufacturers of linings, etc 900,000.00 
 
 Paper, and printing bands, labels, etc 750, 000. 00 
 
 10, 150, 000. 00 
 
 In contrast to the above, we can state from actual knowledge that the cost of the 
 items named is 75 per cent, greater in this country than in London, Paris, and Berlin. 
 
 One-half of the average cost of these goods made in this country is that of the 
 labor, etc., to make them. It can therefore be readily seen why we need the protec- 
 tion desired, which is afforded by the tariff to other similar articles when brought in 
 manufactured. 
 
 For instance, leather, ready manufactured, pays one rate, but when made into 
 shoes a higher one. Skins for gloves, tanned, finished, and colored into leather, ready 
 for cutting into gloves, pay 20 per cent., but when manufactured into gloves, 50 per 
 cent. The same applies to various manufactures of cotton, flax, and wool. 
 
 It may be with reason asked why we now ask for this protection. We answer, so 
 long as European exporters manufactured these goods themselves, we did not feel 
 the competition as at present. Now, exporters to the United States employ a system 
 of labor known as the "sweating system." No self-respecting American manufact- 
 urer is willing to resort to this extortion to compete with the foreigner. 
 
 We propose to change the rate of duty of 50 per cent, ad valorem to read as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Neck-ties or scarfs, of silk or silk chief value : Costing $4 per dozen or under, 15 
 percent, and $2 per dozen=$2.60; present duty, $2. Costing over $4 and under $8 
 per dozen, 15 per cent, and |4 per dozeu=|5.20 ; present duty, $4. Costing $8 and 
 not exceeding $12 per dozen, 15 per cent, and $6 per dozen. Costing over $12 per 
 dozen, 50 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 All neck-ties or scarfs, of whatever material other than silk, costing $2 or under per 
 dozen, $1 per dozen ; present duty, 35 per cent. Costing over $2 and not above $4 per 
 dozen, $2 per dozen ; present duty, 35 per cent. All above $4 per dozen, $2.50 per 
 dozen ; present dutyj 35 per cent. 
 
 [Here follow the signatures of petitioners. ] 
 
612 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JOSEPH NEUMANN. 
 
 Jc isnpu Neumann, of San Francisco, Cal., appeared before tbe committee and said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman, onr of the speakers before me, Mr. B. Richardson, of New York, in 
 answer to a (]nestion in reg.ard to the production of silli, stated that silk can not be 
 produced prolitably in the United States, on acconntof toohis'U wages paid to labor 
 and unsuitable climate, such as thunder storms and rains, AYhich are detrimental to 
 thr^proper progress ofthe cause. In answer to anothc'r question, on the same subject 
 of the climate of C.'ilifornia, he conceded that California could produce cocoons, 
 but objected to the success ofthe cause on account of the too high wages paid to 
 reelcrs for unwinding the silk from the cocoons against the wages paid to reelors in 
 Europe aud Asia ; but, said bo, the cocoons can be raised, and by lotting the moths 
 come out, so that it will clear the silken shell from its grab, the perforated cocoons 
 can then be marketed. Now, gentlemen, this matter is erroneous and absurd, and 
 shows very clearly the obstacles put in the way to the development of silk culture 
 within the limits ofthe United States. 
 
 Notwithstanding my twenty-six years' labor in behalf of the cause, with all the 
 proofs that I have bronght to bear upon the subject, and notwithstanding that the 
 climate of California is highly favorable, its superior does not exist in any part of the 
 globe, it must be apparent that a persistent opposition, based upon prejudice and 
 ignorance, was the reason why I did not succeed to advance the enterprise to a suc- 
 cess. By permitting the grub to escape, it turns the iierfect cocoon into the category 
 of a rag, from which nothing else but shoddy silk can be made. What an idea! To 
 permit the grub to escape means nothing less than to destroy the prospects of silk 
 culture. 
 
 Silli culture means to stifle the grub or chrysalis, and preventing the same from 
 destroying the cocoon, as it is a continuous fiber of upwards of 1,200 yards, while the 
 perforated cocoon fiber is from one-sixteenth to one-half inch in length. For illustra- 
 tion the following is the cause of the nuitter: Between 500 and (500 cocoons of thobest 
 viiriety, well seasoned, will weigh 1 pound and will be worth .i;l.r>0per pound, and it 
 will take 3 pounds of the same to manufacture 1 pound of raw silk, which will bo 
 worth, according to the jjresent price, about |8 per pound, from which only the best 
 silken goods can be manufactured; while the perforated cocoon, meaning to permit 
 the grub to emanate as a butterfly, destroys its long fiber, which eouverts it thereafter 
 intoarag, from which only shoddy silks can be made. Thisclassof cocoons will take 
 6,000 to make 1 pound, worth from 25 to 35 cents per pound, and its threads when spun 
 into skeins, may be worth from -.11. .50 to $2 per pound, against tlie $8 per pound for 
 the raw silk from the perfect cocoons, which take 600 to the pound. From this it can 
 readily be seen where the opposition to the development of silk culture comes I'rom. 
 
 The idea that a ruan or set of men, who enjoy the benefit of a privilege given to 
 theiu ijy a law of Congress, of a protection as it originally was of 60 per cent, ad valo- 
 rem, now 50 per cent, on finished manufactured silks, and removing the duty from 
 raw silks and all articles of the same which they could blassify as such — that they 
 should have tho audacity to advocate the destruction of the cocoons, by permitting 
 the moth to escape, and thus destroying the original value of its liber, which means 
 to destroy silk culture, for fear that the producers will ask Congress to place a duty 
 upon the raw silk, can only be classed as erroneous and absurd. 
 
 The production of raw silk alone is the foundation of the future success in silk 
 maunfacture. While the production of raw silk is the fundamental principle of its 
 manufacture, we should naturally think that these people who are here to-day de- 
 manding from Congress the highest protection on the manufactured .silks and speak- 
 ing against the fundamental principles, stand as reasons why I, in my twenty-six 
 years' Labor in silk culture, could not succeeil. This shows very clearly that Congress, 
 in the early sixties, erred when they were revising the tariff by putting atarilf of 60 
 per cent, ad valorem upon finished manufactured silks and letting the raw silk come 
 in free. Let us investigate tho matter in regard to how the tariff stood upon silken 
 goods prior to our civil war. Then there was a duty of 25 per cent, on finished man- 
 ufactured silks and 15 per cent, duty oh raw silk as it came from the original filature; 
 this left 10 per cent, only for protection for finished mauv.factured silks. 
 
 Ever sinci! the close of the war, by the revision of tho tariff finished manufactured 
 silks rieeived a protection of 60 per cent, ad valorem, now 50 per cent., and allowed 
 the raw silk to Ije imported free of duty ; the importers of raw silk sent machinery 
 to China and Jajian, and having the raw silk as originally reeled in the filatures of 
 those countries re-rei'led, and classing the same as raw silk as originally reeled in 
 tin; filature, called it " filature silk," and this advanced the silk another 15 per cent, in 
 its manufactured state, still liriugiug it into this country free of duty. Through this 
 onr Governnient is out and out injured to about |8,500,000 annually, which it ought to 
 
 collect as duty upon raw and ro-roylod tiilks so imported. Thus'it cau bo eeeu, that 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 613 
 
 a sliarp-edged knife was put into the liantla of importers of raw silk, and also those 
 who are agents of foreign producers, to prevent Congress to pass a law to settle this 
 vexatious question for the development of this particular branch of industry. 
 
 The consumption of silken goods annually iu the United States amounts to about 
 $150,000,000, summed up according to my statistical view as follows: About $55,- 
 000,000 worth of silk goods are manufactured in the United States, $24,000,000 of 
 which goes abroad for raw silk and shoddy. Of this $6,000,000 to $8,000,000 goes 
 annually for labor and the balance to capital. About $55,000,000 passes through the 
 custom-houses as imported of foreign manufacture. Now let me say that the under- 
 valuation of the invoices of the same annually will amount to abovit $15,000,000 and 
 the smuggling, which only pays when the tariff upon the article is too high, amounts 
 to about $20,000,000 annually. This shows that we are consuming very near the 
 amount which I stated without a cent's worth of home production. 
 
 Shall we say that it is impossible for the people ,of the United States to enter into 
 competition as silk producers on account of the cheap labor of Europe and Asia ? 
 The (piestiou naturally arises, is the production of cocoons subject to labor or cli- 
 mate 1 I say that it is principally climate, and where the climate for the perfection 
 of the worm does not exist it can not be accomplished. The production of cocoons 
 runs iu parallel line with all agricultural products. If the farmers have a successful 
 crop in any agricultural product it, makes them rich, and if a failure it makes them 
 poor. In the production of cocoons it is entirely difi'erent ; the failure of a crop is 
 not a universal one; it only aH'ects those farmers who through neglect and natural 
 phenomena lose their crop while their next door neighbors may succeed very well. 
 
 Shall we believe that within the limits of the United States there does not exist 
 climatiis equal to that of France or Italy? I say that the most of our Southern States 
 are even more favorable to the development of silk culture than are France or Italy, 
 and the climate and soil of our wonderful State of California has not its equal in any 
 part of the globe. Notwithstanding the great wonders accomplished in the silk cul- 
 ture iu the years 186G to 1870, say principally iu the three years, that is 1808, 1869, 
 and 1870, the State produced 34,000 pounds of cocoons, and notwithstanding these 
 proof's Ijrought to bear the enterprise went back upon us, on account of the same 
 opposition which existed. in those years and which hiis now become more visible than 
 heretofore. From the very simple remark made by Mr. B. Richardson, that the 
 moth should be allowed to escape, meaning the destruction of silk culture, this was 
 accomplished in the years 1868, lt69, and 1870 in California, by the same class of peo- 
 ple, by paying as high as $6 per ounce for silk-worm eggs. This price was an induce- 
 ment for the producers to destroy the cocoons, and this was what the majority of 
 them did, and this was the reason of the destruction of the prosj)ects of silk culture. 
 
 1 was induced iu 1865 to prepare machinery to utilize the crops of cocoons and to 
 manufacture them into fabrics. Iu the spring of 1866 I traveled across the Isthmus, 
 as there were no railroads in those days, and bought machinery in the East, about six 
 hundred and fifty spindles, for all kinds of work iu silk industry, together with ten 
 weaving looms of the old style, which are still used in Europe.for manufacturing the 
 best grades of silk. I could not find any reeling machines for unwinding the silk from 
 the cocoons, and I did not deem it necessary to go to Europe for one, as I knew bow it 
 ought to be made. I returned home in August, after having had all of my machinery 
 shipped by steamer across the Isthmus at heavy expeuse. I temporarily set up two 
 looms and wove about 200 yards of gros-grain and taffeta, from silks which I bought 
 in New York ready for weaving purposes. This work of mine stimulated'tho country 
 and silk culture was the order of the day, as it appeared very clear that a market for 
 the cocoons had been established. I then went to work and invented a reeling ma- 
 chine and completed it in the year 1867, and in July of the same year I reeled the first 
 skein of raw silk upon it, a sample of which I forwarded to the Department of Agri- 
 culture in Washington, D. C. 
 
 After everything was in order, and I was ready to receive cocoons, it became ap- 
 parent that the production of the same had not reached a sufficient quantity to make 
 it advisable for me to sot my machinery in motion. In 1868 the first lot of cocoons, 
 produced on a large scale in the city of Santa Barbara, Sauta Barbara County, C.al., 
 were exhibited at the State board of agriculture fair, held at Sacraiiieuto in the fall 
 of the same year. I also exhibited my silk reeling machine and weaving loom, and 
 had them both in operation during the continuance of the said fair. The Hon. Loland 
 Stanford was then a resident ot Sacramento, and will testify to the truth of my state- 
 ment. The State capitol building, which was in process of erection, had to be fin- 
 ished for occupation in 1870. The governor of the State at the time, the late Henry 
 H. Haight, visited the exhibition and became infatuated with the concern and made 
 an agreement with me that the first cocoons so produced should be manufactured into 
 two national flags, the one for the State and the other for the Natioual Government. 
 
 I bought the cocoons produced in Santa Barbara and paid $1. 50 per ])Ound for the 
 same,. There were about 800 pounds of well-dried cocoons and I! pounds of them 
 manufactured 1 pound of raw silk. I started to operate the reeling machine, of my 
 
614 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 invention, in February, 1869, <aud by August I had ISOpoundsof rawsilkmanufactOred, 
 ■wbich I exhibited at the State board of agriculture fair in 1869. After returning 
 from the fair I set the balance of my machinery in motion. 
 
 Among my helpers I had no lesa a personage than the present manufacturer of 
 silks, Mr. William Ryal, of Patorson, N. J., and his young wife, who were sojourning 
 in California at that time. He and his wife will also testify that the flag is entirely 
 of homo production and manufacture. I had both flags completed by February 10, 
 1870, and exhibited them at the State capitol on February 14, 1870. Each flag meas- 
 ured 20 by 36 feet, and with embroidered stars. On the IvJth day of July, 1870, I pre- 
 sented one of them to the Senate of the United States, and it was accepted by the 
 same, as will be seen by the following extracts from the records of that body. 
 
 " In the Senate of the United States, July 12, 1870. 
 
 " The Vice-President laid before the Senate a letter addressed to him by Joseph 
 Neumann, of California, presenting to the Senate a National flag, manufactured by the 
 said Neumann from California silk. 
 
 " Mr. Cole submitted the following resolution, which was considered by unanimous 
 cou.sent and agreed to : 
 
 ' "Resolved, That the Senate accept the silk flag presented by Mr. Joseph Neumann, 
 and tender him their thanks for the same." 
 
 " In the Senate of the United States, April 25, 1884. 
 " Eesolced, That the silk flag presented by Mr. Joseph Neumann, of California, to 
 the Senate, and accepted by the Senate on the I'ith day of July, 1870, the said flag 
 being, it is believed, the first American flag made of American silk, be deposited in 
 the Smithsonian Institution for exhibition and preservation. 
 
 " I certify that the foregoing is a correct copy of the resolution of the Senate of the 
 United States adopted April 25, 1884, relative to the silk flag presented to the Senate 
 by Sir. Joseph Neumaun, of California. 
 
 "Anson 6. McCook, 
 " Secretarij United States Senate." 
 
 I will state here that raw silk was worth $16 per pound at the time I manufactured 
 the flags, and, as a proof of this statement, Mr. 15. Richardson, of New York, is a 
 witness that the late Mr. Hamill, of the lirm of Hamill & Booth, at the end of July, 
 1870, after closing up my silk culture exhibit in the rotunda of the Capitol, on my 
 arrival in New York paid me |)22 per pound for organzino in gum. His object was to 
 make a dress for his wife out of the tirst silk produced in the United States. Not- 
 withstanding all this labor of mine, with the proofs brought to bear, silk culture 
 went back upon us. This was because of the same opposition which always did ex- 
 ist, and still does exist and will continue to exist until Congress will pass a law to 
 piovide for the proper development of silk culture. 
 
 We are consuming now about $150,000,000 worth of silk goods per annum, and with 
 the growth of our Republic through the development of our resources more wealth 
 and riches and better intellect ensues and! will increase the wants of our people for 
 more reUned dress. Who will say that within another quarter of a century the con- 
 sumption of silk goods will not amount to $1100,000,000 per annum ? 
 
 Congress in the past six years has appropriated in all about $130,000 to encourage 
 till' enterprise, and to my knowledge this money was used to uphold a sham show 
 and actually used to destroy the prospects for the development of silk culture. 
 Proofs Off my statement I havo plenty at hand. The defeat of the silk-culture bill, 
 which was pending in the Fiftieth Congress, is mostly the fault of those people who 
 had received mouey from the Government to promote its cause. This can be easily 
 seen from the remarks made by Mr. Cheney, one of the oldest and richest silk manu- 
 facturers of the United States, who imports that class of cocoons which are only fit 
 for manufacturing shoddy out of what is called spun silk, as well as from those of 
 Mr. Richardson, who is a large importer of raw silks, and who denies the possibility 
 of producing silk in the United States, for fear that the raw silk will have to pay ii 
 duty in proportion to the finished manufactured silks as soon as we enter the field as 
 competitors. 
 
 It should be understood that raw silk from the original filature is one-half fiuished 
 and the re-reeled silk is three-quarters finished in the manufactured state. The 
 original filature silk as it used to come to this country ought to pay 25 per cent, and 
 re-ieeled silk 35 per cent, duty udvalorem, as long as finished manufactured silks 
 pay 50 per cent, duty ad valorem. It can be readily seen that the Government, the 
 w;iy the raw silk now comes in, is losing annually $8,500,000. 
 
 Notwithstanding that the o|i|)osition Wii.s so clearly shown before your committee, 
 1 am not advocating an immediate tarilf ii]ioii raw silk, for the lollowiug reasons: 
 First. The placing of a tariff uimn ra,w silk now will not liel|) the development of 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 615 
 
 silk culture, but the passage of the bill for the development of silk onltnre now i)end- 
 ing before Congress is of urgent necessity. Other countries in which silk culture is 
 carried on are still encouraging the same through bounties, though it lias been estab- 
 lished for hundreds of years, and our Government will have to do likewise if it wants 
 to see silk culture successfully established in the United States. Second. A tariif 
 now -will upset the existing ordfer in the manufacturing districts. The manufacturer, 
 by having to pay a duty upon raw silk just now, will naturally go back upon the 
 laborer by reducing the wages to balance the duty which he pays, aod as the niann- 
 facturing has already accomplished some good, as out of the $55,000,000 so manufact- 
 ured 'about $30,000,000 remains at home to pay the laborer and, as 1 understand, 
 there must be 50,000 to C0,000 hands employed in the various stage.? of silk manu- 
 facturing. All that I wish these gentlemen to do is to take their hands off and stop 
 interfering with the development of silk culture, as it will finally benefit them as 
 well as the country at large. 
 
 While the same bill, of which I have spoken, was pending before the Fiftieth Con- 
 gress, raw silks were sent to the United States and sold for prices far below the cost 
 of production in Europe and Asia. This was done for the very purpose to defeat the 
 said bill and to discourage capital from takiufj hold of this industry. As soon as it 
 became apparent that the bill had been defeated raw silk advanced in price from 
 |2 to |3 per pound, and we were fleeced out of $10,000,000 to |15, 000,000 on the 
 5,500,000 pounds of raw silk so imported. 
 
616 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 WORKS OF ART. 
 
 STATEMENT OF J. CARROLL BECKAWITH. 
 
 Mr. J. Carroll Beckwitii, of New York, appeared before the committee and made 
 the fclloning statement. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have the honor to he present 
 heforo your committee with ray colleagues as representatives of the executive com- 
 mittee of the National Free Art Le.igue, a body composed of something over seven 
 hundred American artist^, sculptors, and painters of higli standing throughout the 
 country, who desire the removal of all duty on works of art. We are in the excep- 
 tional position, I think, of having a duty on Avorks of art which wo do not desire. 
 This duty was placed on works of art without the consent of th<'. painters and sculp- 
 tors of America, and has beeir kept on against their wishes. I refer you now to our 
 secretary, Mr. Kenyou Cox, who will address you. 
 
 STATEMENT OF KENYON COX. 
 
 Mr. Kenyon Cox, of Now York, secretary of the National Free Art League, ap- 
 peared belore the committee and addressed them as follows; 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, tlie position we occuiiy is Ihat we 
 do not want to be protected. There is a duty on foreign works of art of 150 per cent, 
 ad valorem. We believe that we represent almost the entire body of American art- 
 ists in saying tliat protection does iv)t protect us, and is rather a, hindrance to the 
 progress of art in this country. The first tariff on art in this country was (lassed in 
 1861, putting a tariff on works of art as a war measure, and that continued until iss:i. 
 Up to that time works of art had been admitted iulo the country free of duly, as they 
 now are in every other highly civilized country of tlie world. In IJ-'S'.t there was a 
 petition signed by a largo nnmlier of American artists, asking that that tariff of 10 
 per cent, shonld be taken off works of art. Nevertheless the tariff on works of art 
 was raised to :W per cent. Jly impression is tluit this was done in a cimforenee eom- 
 mittee thrcuigh the influence of one Thomas Donaldson, who went betorc thi^ com- 
 mitteo on that matter. Tlie 30 per cent, duty had not been r(^comnieuded by the 
 tariff eommi.ssion, had never been proposed in either house of Congress, and never 
 had lieen before tlie public in any way, .and never h.ad been demanded by anybody 
 that I know of. From that time the artists began to agitate its removal. 
 
 The CiiAlKMAN. Do you remember what the Mills fill did vvil h works of art ? 
 
 Mr. Cox. As originally drawn it placed works of art on the free list. 
 
 The Chairman. I mean, as it passed the House ? 
 
 Mr. Cox. The clause admitting works of art free of duty was finally struck out in 
 the Democratic caucus. 
 
 Tne Chairman. What did the Senate bill do ? 
 
 Mr. Cox. It did not touch the matter at all, but left the tax as it is now. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the reason of the opposition of Donaldson and others ? 
 
 Mr. Cox. We have never been .able to lind out whom In! spoke for nor what Ills rea- 
 sons may be. In ihe first pl.aco the artists began by petitioning for tho .abolition of 
 the 10 percent, duty, which they did not believe in, but neverthele.ss in spite of that 
 jietition the duty was raised to 30 per cent, ad valorem. In 1^8!, one year later Iho 
 yociety of American Arti.sts passed a resolution declaring against the continuance of 
 tho tarift' on works of art. They appointed a committee whicli appeared before the 
 Ways and Means Committee on that subject, and I believe that a bill w.as introduced 
 taking off that tax, ijut it did uoi pass t;he House. Some time later, I think in 18-."), 
 a committee of the Union League Club of New York, of which C. B. Curtis was chair- 
 man, determined to find out the sentiment of the artists of the United States on tho 
 (juestion of a faritl'on works of art. It circulated throughout the country ii circular 
 and sent it to e,very artist and every art institution ;i,nd teacher of art whose address 
 could be found, asking what duty in their o|iJnion should lie imposed on works of 
 art — whether there should lie any duly, and if so, wliat duty. Tot^hat circular of the 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 617 
 
 Union Longne Club tliey recoiTod l,4"ri answers. Of the 1,435 artists or art-institu- 
 tions wlio answered this circular letter, only 7 answered that they favored a reten- 
 tion of the duty of 30 per cent. ; 28 answered in favor of the old duty of 10 per cent.; 
 there were 34 in favor of :i speci lie duty ; there were 21 answered in favor of various 
 grades of duty, some wanting a high duty on certain articles and less on others. But 
 of the 1,435 answers, 1,345 were in favor of a total .abolition of the tariff on works of 
 art. That would seem to show pretty well whore the artists stand. 
 
 The Chairman. How mauy artists or institutes of art are there throughout the 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. Cox. It is hard to say. When you begin to ask who are artists it is hard to 
 draw the line. There was at th.at time a publication which has been disoontiuued 
 in this country called the Art Year Book. That publication gave the addresses, as far 
 as was known at th.at time, of every artist v/ho was suiHcii^ntly advaiiced to enter his 
 work in any of the well-known art exhibitions of the country. If his works were 
 received at the exhibitions he was considered an artist. It was from that Art Year 
 Book that those petitions were sent out. Only a small part did not answer. The 
 list of artists included all of the best-knowu men of the country and a great many 
 of lesser note. 
 
 At its last annual meeting, in 1889, the National Academy of Design pas.sed the fol- 
 lowing resolution : ' 
 
 "Resolved, That the present ad valorem duty on foreign works of art is injurious to 
 the best interests of art in this country, and that it should bo replaced by a moderate 
 specific duty oriabolished altogether." 
 
 The Chairman. What would you call a moderate specific duty ? 
 
 Mr. Cox. I wonld say, so far as I represent, the .artists here, we are iu favor of no 
 duty "whatever. While we admit that a small specific duty would be better thau the 
 present ad valorem duty we favor the unconditional abolition of the tariff on works 
 of art. AVe have formed a National Fr( 6 Art League, and it met for the first time on 
 the 21.st of March last. It has not been much more than nine months iu existence, 
 but I' think we can say we have a pretty good backing among the artists of the 
 coujitry, for in that nine months the membership has reached 1,163, of whom 913 aro 
 artists from every part of the country, from Sau Francisco to Now York. In New 
 York and Philadelphia we have the largest membership, but they are all over the 
 country. They are not jirotectionists or free traders or anything else, but agree th.at 
 a tariff' on art is not a good thing for the artists or for the country. It includes 
 pretty nearly the wliole of the Society of American Artists, aud includes academicians 
 and the president of the National Academy of Design. This league was organized 
 siiecially to procure, if possible, the abolition of the tariff on works of art. It favors 
 the total abolition of that duty. We have one reasons, of course, for this. We would 
 not come here favoring the takiug off of the tariff without having what we consider 
 good reasons. It is not quixotism with us. We think it is sound seuse. Mr. Coffin, 
 of our executive committee, has taken pains to prepare a statement giving our 
 reasons. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Works of American artists abroad are now admitted free, I believe. 
 
 Mr. Cox. They are, but they ought not to be, in my personal opinion, unless all 
 works of art are so. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do not gentlemen abroad buy works of art aud place them in the 
 hands of American artists abroad to be shipped in free ? 
 
 Mr. Cox. I have never heard of that before, but it seems to me most unlikely, as 
 the value of a picture, for instance, depends upon the reputation of the painter, and 
 its identity would be destroyed if it were imported as the work of an unknown 
 American. No American artist of reputation wonld lend liis name for such a pur- 
 pose. I would say that I think it is the feeling of :i great many artists that if there 
 is to be a tariff on works of art, it ought not to be a discriminating one, but we do 
 not believe there ought to be any at alb If you will allow me to call Mr. Coffin, he 
 will discuss this matter. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. 'WILLIAM A. COFFIN. 
 
 Mr. William A. Coffin, Secretary Society of American Artists aud member exec- 
 utive conmiittee National Free Art League, next addressed the conmiittee. He 
 saiil : 
 
 Mr.'Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I suppose it is scarcely necessary 
 since you have heard Mr. Cox's figures for me to say that we represent the great 
 body of artists not only in New York but in the United States ; that we represent no 
 particular coterie oi' society, but the artists as a whole, and not those of one set as 
 against another. We do not consider that the present tariff upon works of a.rt is in 
 the nntnic of a protective tax. The price of a work of art depends upon the indi- 
 vidual reputation of the artist; it sells for acertaiu price because a particular mau 
 
618 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 painted or modeled it, and a cause wLich enhances the price of foreign works of art' 
 has no beneficial effect upon domestic production. It does not follow that because 
 there is a tax on works of art, it will help American artists, tecause a man will buy 
 the pictures he wants only, and no others. We therefore hold that by taxing foreign 
 works of art, you do not help us but rather put us in an inferior position as appear- 
 ing to be afraid of unrestricted competition, and the 30 per cent, duty works to our 
 disadvantage. I believe that one of the arguments in favor of the retention 
 of this duty is that it is a tax upon luxury, bat it is a difficult thing to say 
 whether it is or not. We can at least say this, that works of art are not actually 
 consumed, and unlike silks and champagnes, which are luxuries, they can 
 neither be worn, eaten, nor drunk. It is true tliat when the be.st works of art come 
 here they are bought by the wealthy, but they eventually find their way into 
 museums, and their influence as an educator is very great. I would like if I had 
 time and the statistics at hand to give you some notion of the value of good art to 
 the country in an industrial way. I am sure that France gets great advantage from 
 the way in which she has fostered art, and much of her wealth may be traced to the 
 fact that her designers excel all others. In our country we need the influence of the 
 good art of other countries — we need it for our wall-papers, our furniture, and hun- 
 dreds of other things. This duty is a tax upon education. In so far as it succeeds in 
 its object, it tends not only to retard the advance of general culture and to restrict 
 the opportunities of our artists for study, but to hinder the proper education of large 
 classes of artisans and to prevent the attainment of a high standard of work in many 
 industries. 
 
 It is a tax levied by no other government of a country pretending to high civiliza- 
 tion. That is a question which concerns international courtesy. The imposition of 
 this tariff is resented by other governments. I know that Prance and Italy resent it. 
 I am sure it has been the subject of correspondence between those Governments and 
 ours. I understand that Mr. Wiiitelaw Eeid, our present minister to Prance, has had 
 some correspondence on the subject to present to our Government, and I know that 
 his newspaper favors the abolition of tlie duty. Now this is purely a non-partisan 
 question. We represent all shades of political opinion. Cultivated men who want 
 higher civilization, and who believe in good art and good literature, are in favor of 
 the abolition of this duty. The point that we do not need the revenue I shall not at- 
 tempt to discuss. If we do not, here is one tax that those who are supposed to be 
 benefited by it want removed. Leaving out of the question the important point of 
 the value of art on the industry of the country, the American painters and sculptors 
 ask for the abolition of the duty because we hold that the American buyer can not be 
 forced to purchase pictures in this country by keeping out those of foreign artists. At 
 present enormous prices are paid for foreign pictures, while those by American artists 
 sell for more modest figures. We shall certainly never get to a place where our works 
 will be preferred or sell on a level with foreign works under this duty. It is likely 
 enough buyers in general do not know th.at the artists oppose this duty, and it is used 
 as an argument against our work. We should like to have the best work we can get 
 here, for if a man brings in a good picture it is to our advantage. We are American 
 painters, and we want to stay and work in New York, or Boston, or Philadelphia. 
 We do not want to go abroad to take advantage of the art atmosphere that exists in 
 the European art centers ; we want to create such an atmosphere at home. We intend 
 to work in America, bnt good art will not grow here of itself, for it is well known 
 that the art of painting is simply transplanted from one nation to another. The 
 Prencharo now the leaders. That is incontestable. They got it from the Italians at 
 the time of the Renaissance, tlie Italians got it from the Greeks, the Greeks got it from 
 the Egyptians, I suppose, and where the Egyptians got it wo do not exactly know. 
 
 Now, American art will be helped by the introduction hero of the best work by for 
 eign artists. We hope our country will lead one of these days. Our showing at the 
 Paris Expositiim this last summer was very creditable, but we can do very much 
 better if we are left untrammeled and if we tre given, so to -speak, a fair, open field 
 and allowed to compete with others without any protective or any other sort of a 
 tariff. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Are you painters or sculptors? 
 
 Mr. Coffin. We are painters, all three of us, but we have many sculptors in our 
 organization. Mr. Augustus St. Gaudens, for example, is a member of our executive 
 committee. So far as that goes our interests, painters and sculptors, are practically 
 the same. For instance, I rarely ever paint a water-color while other painters do, 
 and we hold the same views on this question. The same thing is true of landscape, 
 of figure and animal painters and sculptors. 
 
 Mr. Plowisk. Is it a fact that anybody who imports these pictures, any of the 
 wealthy men, are always willing to lend them or show them to you ? 
 
 Mr. Coffin. A great deal of good has been done, in that w:iy. Owners of pictures 
 in New York have been very lilicni,! iind v<Ty good in that respect, and that has been 
 of great value to us. Mr. Henry G. Marquand is one of those, and is a conspicuous 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 619 
 
 instance of a wealthy man liplpiug tlio general cause of art education. What he hns 
 done for the Metropolitan Musenm in New Yorlc ia -n-ell known. Of course it is only 
 the wealthy who can liuy the best works of art. As in other things avc must look to 
 private enterprise in this matter. Our Government does not buy pictures and stat- 
 ues for public museums, and the only way we sh.all get them here is through these 
 ■wealthy citizens. They find their way into the museums eventually. 
 
 The Chairman. You think that men will buy foreign xiictures whether there is 
 duty or not? 
 
 Mr. Coffin. I certainly do, sir ; and they will sometimes buy cheap things. Col- 
 lectors often begin by buying cheap and trashy things, and then learn to appreciate 
 better art. Then tliey sell the trash and buy better, and so go on improving tbeir 
 collections and finish by having a good one if they live long enough, though it does 
 sometimes happen that they die with a bad lot of things on their hands. On this 
 point, however, of men buying foreign works whether there is a duty or not, I would 
 lil?6 to add that the duty jjrevents very often the importation of valuable works that 
 it would be to our best interests to have in this country, and I know of instances 
 where such works have been actually purchased abroad aud have not been bixuiglit 
 here because their American owners prefer to have them held for tliem over tliore, 
 hoping that the duty will be taken off. Many of these works are such as can only be 
 obta.ined at rare intervals and the opportunity has to be seized when it presents itself. 
 Were it not for the duty these works of art would be brought here at once and wo 
 would get the benefit of them. 
 
 VIEWS OF THOMAS DONALDSON. 
 
 THE PROPOSITION TO ADMIT FREE OF DUTY FOREIGN WORKS OF ART USED FOR 
 
 LUXURY. 
 
 Three gentlemen appeared before the honorable Ways and Means Committee of the 
 House of Representatives, on December 30,. 1839, and asked that foreign art for the 
 purpose of luxury be admitted free of duty. 
 
 Mr. J. Carroll Beckwith, Mr. Kenyon Cox, and Mr. Wm. A. Coffin, allof New York 
 City, were the gentlemen. It will be especially observed that they all come from 
 New Y'ork City. Mr. Beckwith said nothing, but advertised a new, nine months' old, 
 organization called the National Free Art League, and had noted the fact that he 
 ■was of tlie executive board. Mr. Cox said that he was also of the executive board of 
 this new art experiment, and Mr. Coffin also notified the expectant committee that 
 he was of the same board. The board probably consists of three. Beyond this what 
 he said was of little real moment, as it was statement, not reason. These tliree gen- 
 tlemen did not file a petition or present a line from any artist, layman, dealer, or 
 huyer, asking for the admission of art works free for luxury. 
 
 Mr. Cox was tlie chief spokesman, and he labored under the difficulty of not stat- 
 ing what was true, and being ignorant — unintentionally, of course — of both the law 
 and facts. He demanded the free admission of foreign art for educational purposes. 
 It is so admitted now. 
 
 FOREIGN ART IS ONLY DUTIABLE "WHEN USED FOR LUXURY OR TRADE. 
 
 The act of March 3, 1883, the existing tariff law, provides that all foreign art for 
 education, culture, exhibition, museums, churches, associations, etc., enters free. 
 See also sections 2503, 2508, 2500, Revised .Statutes United States. 
 
 Foreign art imported for private use, luxury, decoration of private houses, trade or 
 commerce, as are silks, feathers, diamonds, ribbons, velvets, champagnes, brandies, 
 Persian rugs, only, is now taxed for expenses of the Government. 
 
 Mr. Cox stated : "The first tarilf on art in this country was passed in 1861, putting 
 a tarilf on works of art as a war measnre. » « • Up to that time works of art 
 had been admitted into the country free of duty." 
 
 Of course he doesn't know anythmg about the law, and so is excusable. The 
 several tariffs on foreign art used for luxury have been as follows : 
 
 In the tarifi: of 1790-'91, 1792, 10 per cent, ad valorem ; acts of 1794 aud 1795, 10 
 per cent.; acts of 1797-1800, 12^ per cent.; acts of 1804, 1807, and 1808, 15 per cent.; 
 acts of 1812, 1813, 1815, and 1816, 30 per cent.; acts of 1811 and 1842, 20 per cent.; acts 
 of 1812 and 1846 paintings on glass, 30 per cent.; act of 1861, to March 3, 1883, 10 per 
 ceat.; act March 3, 1883, 30 per cent. 
 
 The committee, with the above knowledge in their minds, must have smiled .at tho 
 law statement of Mr. Cox. 
 
 Mr. Cox also evidently knows nothing of the Tariff Commission of 1882 and its acts. 
 
 That Commission was charged with the investigation of the tariff, aud to advise 
 as to reductions or increases. The free foreign art clause for luxnry was considered 
 in open session ; testimony was taken ; reports of special agents of the Treasury were 
 used, and one especially, that of Col. George C. Tichenor, now Assistant Secretary of 
 
620 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 tbe Treasury, in line with retention of this duty, .and tbe Commission reported to 
 Congress tliat tlie dnty on foreign art bronght into tlie United States for luxury and 
 trade and commerce be made 30 per cent., and the House Committee on Ways and 
 ilruiia so (irdeied, and it became a law March 3, 18.S3, more than seven years ago. 
 Tlie petition tiled at that time from American iirtists was one to reduce the duty on 
 fr.'uiies. From that moment to the present the battle has been incessant by a hand- 
 ful of n\en to repeal this law and adnjit foruinii ait free for luxury. They have been 
 millionaires, art dealers, art hucksters, artisis who earnestly believe in free trade, 
 artisrs who ans ileiicudent, and some cranks, almost all of these urged on by rich 
 iiic-ii. Injustice to a majority of them, it must be stated they h.ave asked that oil 
 jiaintings, water-col<jr.s, statuary, etchings, eugiavings, and lithographs be admitted 
 free. 
 
 Almost all of these movements have originated in Europe and arc aided by 
 American artists who received their art education in Europe, and arc " so tbauknil, 
 you know." In May, 1HS4, ,so incessant was this deniand that the Ways and Means 
 reported a bill on the suliject. It w.as a less vicious proposition than this present 
 scheme. It was a bill to merely reduce the present 30 per cent, duty to 10 percent. On 
 the 19th day of May, IfSJ, on ithis bill, reported by Mr. Hurd, of Ohio (got left the fol- 
 lowing fall in a manufacturing or laboring district), the House of Representatives, 
 .after a full discussion on the question of anspeuding the rules for the passage of H. 
 R. No. 0,7.51, the above bill, which was to reduce "the duty on foreign art used for 
 luxury from 30 to 10 per cent., in 35 minutes set its eyes in death by a vote of .52 in 
 its favor to 17L) against it, and 92 not voting. Of the 52 who voted .aye only 17 
 survived in the Congressional election of that fall. 
 
 Make a note here, brethren ; free luxuries and taxed necessities do not work well 
 together in a popular government and under a protective tariff. 
 
 Brethren, on pages 4294 to 429H of the Ri'cord " of the first session, Forty-eighth 
 Congress," you will find some mighty interesting reading in this matter. By the 
 way, the dinner-pail frecjuently has brains at the handle. During 1SS5, b'^-ili, and 
 bs,«7, the free foreign art for luxury pcQnle never ceased their efforts. In 181^8 the 
 Mills bill placed foreign art for luxury on the free list. The indignation aroused by 
 this was so great, that in the caucus of the Democrats of the House, held in May, 
 1888, on motion of Mr. Holmaii, of Indiana, the free art for luxury clause was 
 stricken out and almost without opposition. July 9, following, in the House, Mr. 
 Breckinridge made the motion to concur in this, and so monstrous was the proposi- 
 tion considered that at once his motion was unanimously agreed to, and this in the 
 midst of a hea,ted partisan tariff di.scussion. The Finance Committee of the Senate, 
 during fsy."<, weio urged to insert free foreign art for luxury in their bill (see the 
 Record). On, no; too much ex])crienoe in that committee to be caught, and the 
 matter was not inserted. The appearance of the three gentlemen from New York is 
 the next move. It will be noted here that the Secretary of the Treasury, in his rec- 
 ommendations for tariff reduction in 1689. did not suggest free foreign art for luxury. 
 He fully understands th.at dnty is only paid on paintings or statuary when entered for 
 privateuse, luxury, ortrnde, or commerce, and that for every purpose of education, art 
 education and culture, exhibition, decoration of public places, etc., such articles are 
 admitted free by the present law. Art for private use and purposes of decoration is 
 purely luxury. You can not eat. drink, or wear it. 
 
 Permit me in this connection to suggest that in revision of tariff laws no dnty now 
 fixed hy the law of March 3, 1883, on an article of luxury, should be removed until 
 taxes are first removed from articles of necessity, and further in this connection, the 
 following lines from the platform adopted by the Repul)lican party at Chicago, 111., 
 June 21, 1888, and upon which the present Ways and Means Committee obtained 
 power, are of interest: 
 
 "The Republican party would efi'ect all needed reduction of the national revenue 
 by repealing" » » * etc., and " release from import duties those articles of for- 
 eign production [except luxuries], the like of which, and etc." • * » 
 
 This means that articles imported for luxury are to remain upon the dutiable list 
 so far as the action of the Republican party can all'ect them. 
 
 Do not be mistaken, gentlemen; you are not asked to relieve the poor or to take a 
 duty olf of a necessity. 
 
 You are not asked to aid education. You are asked to further aid the rich and 
 provide; them with free art-luxuries, and the poor are to pay duties on necessities to 
 the end that revenues may come from customs to pay interest on the public debt and 
 expen.se of Government. ' 
 
 Why not take the iluty off of champagne? Every drinker will petition for it — vote 
 for it. Why n(]t give him free champagne as well as Vanderbilt, Marquard, Belmont, 
 or other rieli picture-buyers their fmeign pictures free? 
 
 Let us balance the books , a moment. 
 
 Tbe following is a newspa,per statement of the American workingraau's burden of 
 taxes under the tariff of March .3, 1SH3: 
 
REVISION 01)" THE TARIEF. 621 
 
 [From the Pliiladt'lpliia EvL-iiiiij^ Cal], May, I)S8S,1 
 "something fob CONGKESSMEN to read and I'ONDER ON. 
 
 "The Amevioan ■workingtniiui returns at niglit from his toil clad in a woolen suit 
 taxed 55 per cent., stockings and undershirt taxed 75 per cent., a cotton shirt laxed 
 45 per cent., a woolen hat taxed 75 X)er cent., and, perchance, a pair of gloves in 
 •winter taxed 75 per cent. 
 
 " He carries in his hand his tin dinner-pail taxed 45 per cent., and greets his -wife 
 ■with a cheery smile as she locks at liim thronjj;li the window-pane taxed 60 per cent., 
 from which she has drawn aside the curtains taxed 40 |)er cent. 
 
 "After scraping his boots on a scraper taxed 45 i)er cent., lie wipes them on a mat 
 of bagging taxed 4U per cent., he lifts tlie door-latcli taxed 45 per cent., steps in on a 
 carpet taxed fi:! per cent., and gives a kiss to his wife in a woolen dress taxed 70 per 
 cent. She has a needle taxed 25 per cent, in her hand witli which she has been mend- 
 ing, with thread taxed 4(j i^er cent., an alpaca umbrella taxed 50 jjer cent. 
 
 "It is a small brick house, whicli they have bought with their hard earnings of a 
 building association. The bricks were taxed 20 per cent., the lumber taxed 16 per 
 cent, and the paint .54 per cent. Tlio wall-papor taxed 25 per cent, malies the 
 room brighter, with its plain furniture taxed ;i5 per cent. 
 
 " Hanging his hat on a brass piu taxed 45 per cent., he hangs his pail on a steel 
 pin taxed 45 per cent., and proceeds to get ready for his supper. He washes his 
 hands with castile soap taxed 20 per cent, in a tin basin taxed 45 per cent., and wipes 
 tliem ou a cotton towel taxed 45 per cent. He then goes to the looking-glass taxed 
 45 per cent., and fixes his hair with a brush and comb taxed 30 per cent. 
 
 " He is now ready for Iiis snpper, which his wife has cookeil ou a stove taxed 45 
 percent., with pots and kettles taxed 53 per cent. The table is spread with the 
 commonest crockery taxed .55 per cent., and ho drinks his water out of a cheap glass 
 tumbler taxed 45 per cent. His meal is a frugal one, becanse hard tiuu'S have cut his 
 wages down, and he is saving every cent he can to pay the next installment due ou 
 liis house. 
 
 " With an appetite worthy of an ampler meal he takes up his knife a.nd fork taxed 
 45 per cent, and begins to eat a piece of salted fish taxed 25 per cent. He pours on it 
 a little vinegar taxed 36 per cent. Upon his boiled potatoes, taxed 40 per cent., he 
 sprinkles salt taxed 80 per cent., and eats a small pickle taxed 35 per cent. He ends 
 his meal with a pudding of rice taxed 112 per cent., and an orange taxed 20 per cent. 
 
 "After supper he smokes a pipe and enjoys the happine.ss of his wife, who has this 
 day bought a woolen shawl taxed 65 per cent., a black silk dress taxed 50 per cent., 
 and a pair of scissors taxed 45 per cent." 
 
 The rich man is now said to be the real recipient of all of this, and that he gathers 
 the whole profit crop. The wage-earner is said not to get his share of the boodle. 
 It seems to be a question, brethren. 
 
 Will free foreign art for luxury to rich men change the above? If the poor man 
 wants a chromo or a -lithograph must he continue to pay a duty ? No one iiroposcs to 
 give him these free. It is only the rich man who is to be aided. 
 
 JUSTICE SHOULD BE THE RULE. 
 
 If one kind of art is to be free, why not all ? Why should not tins free art clause 
 embrace the art of engravfng, etching, lithographing, and all carving and statuary? 
 And why not porcelains and bronzes? All are pleas.ant aids to culture. 
 
 Give the poor man his low-priced picture free, if you give the rich man his high- 
 priced one free. 
 
 IF ART IS TO BE FREE, WHY NOT ARTICLE.S ENTERING INTO ITS MANUFACTURE? 
 
 In justice to American artists residing in the United States, if oil-paintings and 
 water-colors painted by foreign artists (in countries whore materials are free and all 
 living expenses (juite 30 per cent, lower than in the United States) are to be here- 
 after admitted free, all articles in aid of art progress and culture, or for art instruc- 
 tion, or used in the making of jiiotures, should also bo admitted free. 
 
 Our artists residing in America now jiay very heavy duties on almost all of the 
 materials they use; they are as follows: On linseed-oil, 25 cents per gallon; white 
 lead, 3 cents per pound; turpentine, 20 cents ]ier gallon; varnishes, 40 cents per 
 gaUou and $1.25 in addition if spirit varnishes; colors and paints, water, tube, or other- 
 wise, including lakes, 25 per cent, ad valorem ; jialette-knives, 45 per cent, ad valorem • 
 gold leaf for frames, fl.50 per jiackage of 500 sheets; silver leaf for frames, 75 cent.s 
 per package of .500 sheets ; drawing-paper, 25 per cent, ad v:ilorem ; hair pencils and 
 brushes, nsed by painters, 30 per cent, ad valorem ; painters' canvas, 35 per cent, ad 
 valorem ; gold frames, 35 percent, ad valorem. 
 
 If foreign oil-paintings and water-colors are to be admitted free, the followiuc 
 ehonld be added to the free list, in aid of art culture and instruction : 
 
 " Lithographs, etcliiugs, engravings ''—bound or unbound— " art books and pam- 
 
622 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 phlets, statnary of whatever materials, such as marble, stone, wood, ivory, metal, or 
 plaster," all being indispensable aids to art progress. 
 
 "Linseed oils used by artists,'all tube and water colors, including lakes, all var- 
 nishes used by artists, drawing-paper, hair pencils, brushes used by artists, painters' 
 canvas, palette-knives, palettes, easels, frames for pictures (oils and water-colors), 
 and gold and silver leaf used in making picture-frames." 
 
 If statuary is to be admitted free, "all marble for statuary and ornaments" should 
 also be admitted free, as our sculptors and designers will be much benefited thereby, 
 and the work or cutting can be done here, and another industry thus be created. 
 
 Frames are indispensable to pictures; why should not they also come in free? 
 Why not have a general clean up in this matter and brash all of these things out of 
 the tariff? 
 
 Mr. Cox in his statement mentioned that another man — sometime ago, in fact 
 several years ago — another New York man, a member of the Union League (the 
 members of which are generally high-tariif men wheu they want to sell or manu- 
 facture anything, but low-tariff when they buy), sent out a circular on the art ques- 
 tion and received some 1,435 answers. These were from artists, of which 1,345 were 
 for the total abolition of tariff on works of art. No petitions were filed, it will he 
 noted. The chairman — evidently surprised at the small showing of artists made in 
 a country containing 67,000,000 of people— asked Mr. Cos: "How many artists or 
 institutions of art are there throughout the country?" 
 
 Mr. Cox promptly answered ; "It is hard to say." Of course he doesn't know, and 
 then sliowing his first real knowledge, he continued : "When you begin to ask who 
 are artists it is hard to draw the line." Mr. Cox probably had in miud the other fel- 
 low's idea of what an artist is and who is an artist. 
 
 There are more than 3,500 artists, male and female, in this country, Mr. Chairman, 
 and more corning each year, and never so many as during the past seven years since 
 the art tariff for luxury has been 30 per cent. The effect of this has been to keep 
 out cheap foreign pictures which come in competition with onr artist beginners; now 
 they find a market. During the past few years, and especially since the 30 per cent, 
 duty on foreign paintings for luxury or trade, we in the United States have purchased 
 the best examples of foreign contemporaneous art, so that now in this we excel 
 Europe. Mr. Cox admitted that such artists as he knew were divided as to whether 
 there should be any duty, or an ad valorum or a specific duty ; and concluding, he 
 said: " It (the League) favors the total abolition of that duty (on art). We have 
 our reasons, of course, for this. We would not come here favoring the taking off of 
 the tariff without having what we coUsider good reasons." And then he proceeded 
 to say that another gentleman had them. They were inferentially something in a 
 lump, or in a box, or something to be sort of passed around. 
 
 Mr. Coffin, he said, had them (ominous name), and he proceeded to yield these 
 reasons up to the committee. They must, however, have been mislaid before the 
 copy went to the printer, as no reasons for free foreign art for luxury can be found 
 in the ten minutes of pleasant conversation Mr. Coflin, aided by some dialogue, held 
 with the committee. He did mention one to be expected use of free foreign art for 
 luxury: " In our country we need the intiueuce of the good art of other countries 
 for our wall paper, our furniture, and hundreds of other things," The other things 
 isgood; equal to, "etc." in a legal pleading. Mr. Coffin insisted that free foreign art 
 for luxury would aid American art, saying: "We shall get pictures and statuary 
 here through * • * wealthy citizens." 
 
 The Chairman now asked : "You think that men will buy foreign pictures whether 
 there is duty or not?" 
 
 To which Mr. Coffin replied and gave away his case, and the case of Beckwith and 
 Cox, and the European educated artists,' who want to help the boys out on the other 
 side, don't you know; and the rest, "I certainly do, sir!" So the exisiting tariff 
 doos not keep foreign art out at all, and our artists are not deprived of art examples 
 from abroad by the present tariff'. Mr. Coffin, near the end of his conversation, let 
 the truth out handsomely, and most likely explained one reason why he was present. 
 
 " 1 know of instances where such works (valuable works of art) hane been actually 
 purchased abroad and have not been brought here, because their American owners 
 prefer to have them held for them over there, hoping the duty will be taken off." 
 
 Thanks, Mr. Coffin ; if this is not reducing the divine art of painting to the level of 
 commerce, language does not convey meaning. 
 
 Mr. Coffin placed this free foreign art for luxury on the ground it should be treated 
 by a tariff for revenue or protection, purely a commercial one, and showing the com- 
 mercial side as well of some of our rich American foreign art buyers. The Committee 
 of Ways and Means have nothing to do with art differences or theories. It faces an 
 existing law. It either is a law by reason of facts or usefulness, or has become obso- 
 lete by non-use or change of conditions. This law has stood almost continuously 
 since 1790. It has been attacked by rich men, speculators, foreign governments, 
 foreign ministers, mistaken men, so-called art zealots, long-haired men, and ftlways 
 by New ■Jforkers, but it has stood rock-ribbed and flrui, becauae right. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 623 
 
 The three young men from New York did not propose that all art should bo admit- 
 ted free. They only asked that oil-paintings, water-colors, and statuary, for private 
 use and luxury, be heieafter admitted free. Please bear this in mind. 
 
 It is only nine months, gentlemen, until another Congressional election, and yon 
 should tread softly on the ice, because it is thin in places — awfully tUin — and such 
 bald legislation as free foreign art for luxury, in the interest of one class, is out of 
 line with justice, in the face of the continuance of taxes on the necessities of life used 
 by the average citizen. 
 
 The three gentlemen from New York bounded into the arena, accompanied with a 
 gust of foreign air, which must have quite unnerved some of the new luembors of the 
 committee. They thought they were presenting something new. It is an old theme, 
 well worn, and frequently sat down upon. They are simply new recruits and con- 
 trolled by opinion, friendship, or prejudice. They did not know the existing law as 
 to art. They did not tile a petition, they simply conversed. They mentioned " our 
 society" and the fact that they were of the executive board. They did not mention 
 the probable fact that they three constituted the board and passed what resolutions 
 they liked. They attacked an old aud settled law, and askeil its repeal without say- 
 ing why, only thdt they wanted it done. 
 
 The committee will observe that the petition from American artists asking for the 
 retention of the duty on foreign art used for luxury, and duly filed withMajorCar- 
 eon, the clerk, contains the names of some American artists of standing — great stand- 
 ing — amongst the hundreds of signers. 
 
 In conclusion, let it be understood that this raid on the present duty on oil-paint- 
 ings, water-colors, and statuary, when used for luxury, is a foreign raid dictated by 
 Parisian and other art dealers and rich men who want luxuries as cheaply as possi- 
 ble, and aided by some zealous young men who think they have found something. 
 
 In reaching a conclusion in this matter the one great fact must be kept constantly 
 in mind, that under the present law all art for education, culture, museums, colleges, 
 institutions, or free instruction in any way enters free. Also exhibitions of foreign 
 art are permitted for one year, free of duty, and that any person desiring to present 
 a museum or collection with iiaiutings or statuary pays no duty on them ; but where 
 they are used as commerce for barter and trade, as silks are, or wines, or iron, or as 
 luxury, they pay duty, as do other commercial commodities or luxuries, and this is 
 what you are now asked to change. 
 
 The duties collected in 1888 from foreign art and statuary for luxury or commerce 
 amounted to .$432,2-25.83, and for the year 1889, $357,9'il.47. 
 
 ^ It is sometimes urged that we should make all foreign art' free because in France 
 or abroad our students get free art education and courtesies. They get just what 
 they pay for, aud just what the people of all and every other country get. Not one 
 favor is accorded them but which an Afi-ican negro or a Chinaman receive, and not 
 one would they receive if they did not have gold, shining, rattling gold. 
 
 Another idea should be at once got out of the committee's mind. The American 
 artists are not beggars or charity patients, at home or abroad. True, their calling 
 is precarious, and they depend for patronage on the rich (a very weak aid in the 
 case of American art in most cases), and this may account for the zeal of some of 
 them in trying to aid iheir patrons at the expense of the many. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 Thomas Donai,d.son, 
 No. 326 Nortli 39th Street, Philadelphia, Fa. 
 
 VIE"WS OF EUGENE F. AUCAIGNB. 
 
 New York, January 15, 1890. 
 Deak Sir : I think my name is not unknown to you, as my father is well known 
 by you, and I think he has spoken to you of our bronze foundry. 
 
 Why I take the liberty to write to you is because I have noticed a great deal 
 lately — articles in newspapers — about reducing duties on works of art. Suppose duties 
 were reduced or taken ofl' bronzes imported into this country, every bronze foundry 
 in this country W(rald have to close up, because people can get bronzes cheaper 
 on the other side than here ; because we pay our workmen three times more wages 
 than they receive in Europe. We, alone, have sjient something like |300,000 in five 
 years to establish a bronze foundry, equal to any European foundry, and what is 
 more, we will cast larger piecos.and risk more than any one of our craft would dare 
 to. Besides, we think and we know we can do as good work as can be done anywhere 
 becanse, as this is a new industry in America, we can not afford to slight any work. 
 I have the honor to be, j our obedient servant, 
 
 Eugene F. Atjcajgne, 
 General Superintendent The ff'enri/-J}gnnar4 Bronze Comvanv, 
 Hon. R. R. HiTT, M. C, 
 • ■•""-" WmUngton, j), Q, 
 
624 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 SUG-AR. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JOHN DYMOND. 
 
 Mr. John Dymond, ot'Louisiuria, addressed tUc coiumittce. He said: 
 Mr. Cljaivrnan aud Keutleinen of the conimitteo, wo como from Louisiiiua — a com- 
 mittee composed of Professor Stubbs, Goveruor Waruioth, Mr. Foos, and myself — 
 roprcscutiiis tbo sugar -planters of that State, and we were appointed by the Planters' 
 Sugar Association and Exchange. I pause lirst to present their memorial. 
 
 A MEMORIAL FROM THE SUGAR-TLANTERS OF LOUISIANA. 
 
 The domestic sngar industry of the United States is one of the most promising, if 
 not the most iiromising, of all the agricultural industries of the country, and since 
 the beginning of the new sugar industry in lKli4, when the crop was but rifiOO tons, 
 it has made more rapid progress under more difficult conditions than has any other 
 agricultural industry of the country. 
 
 The chief development occurred in Louisiana, and during ilio rest of the decade 
 ending with 1870 the annual production so increased that the average reached 
 38,000 l]ons per annum. During the next decade ending witli 1880 tlie annual aver- 
 ago rose to Do, 000 tons, an increase of about 145 per cent. The nine j^ars of the 
 XJresent decade thus far show an annual average of 13;!, 000 tons, an increase of 43 
 per cent., and it rerjuircs no sanguine jadgment to say that the average for the next 
 decade will double the increase of either of the past. The average of the past three 
 years has been about 165,000 tons, which quantity exceeds the production of any 
 other country from tropical cane, except Cuba, .Java, and Brazil. 
 
 This great increase in our domestic sugar production has been brought about under 
 difificnlties without parallel in its history, and which made success seem ahnost im- 
 ix)ssible. The cost of labor remained comparatively constant, while the prices of 
 sugar fell off two-thirds. The enormous increase of the beet sugar crop of Europe 
 steadily lowered prices of sugar, and it was only the most intense eJiorts in the direc- 
 tion of excellence and economy that enabled the planter.s of Louisiana to withstand 
 the shrinkage in values and to increase their ciops. 
 
 These eflbrts in Louisiana for better work have gradually led to the adoption of all 
 the best methods, and have i)laced Louisiana in the front rank of enterprise and ex- 
 cellence in sugar mannfacturo. Scientific investigations have been inaugurated, all 
 that had been done by the General Government in Kansas for sorghum was availed of, 
 and all that had been done in Europe for the beet was also utilized so far as it was 
 !il)plica.ble to our tropical canes. 
 
 Concurrently with our work in Louisiana has come the development and success of 
 the beet-sugar industry in California and of sorghum in Kansas. The great amount of 
 light thrown upon sugar production, the outcomeof the scientific investigations of the 
 General Government and of our own experiment station, have now awakened every man 
 interested in sugar to the enornmns capacity of this whole country for sugar produc- 
 tion. Louisiana, Texas, and Florida are now actively engaged in enlarging their sugar 
 culture, and Mississipi)i, Alabama, and Georgia have thousands of acres of lands well 
 adapted to cane culture, that with our increasing knowledge will soon be brought 
 into it. Kansas has had its drawbacks; has gone too fast, perhaps, in a difficult in- 
 dustry ; has expected too much and is somowhat disappointed; but the fact remains 
 that she has discovered a croj) that is bettor adapted to her lands than any other 
 crop; that will make sugar in paying quantities, and which only needs time, pa- 
 tience, and investigation to enable it to overcome all obstacles to success. 
 
 The beet-sugar industry has become au accomplished success in California, and 
 while it takes sometime to induce a farming eomnuuiity to engage in any new in- 
 dustry, yet it has been done in California and is made a linaueial success. A luost 
 brilliant success has .just been made in beet sugar in Kansas, where lOG pounds of 
 sugar 09 per cent, pure have been made per ton of beets from an experimental field 
 of 4 acres, the total cro[i of (iO tons giving this lesnlt. 
 
 AVith the new discoveries that liave been made, with the application of all the skill ~ 
 of the chemist and ot tlie mechanic, the domestic sugar industry of the country 
 stands to-day more promising from an agiicultural aud utautil'acturiug point of view 
 than over before in it« history, 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 625 
 
 The capacity of the United States to produce its own sugar admits of no douht. 
 The alluvial lands of Louisiana that are readily drained are not yet one-third under 
 cultivation, and adequate drainage works will bring millions of acres more into use. 
 The introduction of new and hardy varieties of tropical cane that will withstand 5^ 
 to 6° Fahrenheit greater cold than the old varieties, will extend the culture above the 
 northern line of Louisiana, and where tropical cane culture ends sorghum culture 
 should begin, and this plant seems to flourish up to the northern limits of Kansas, 
 and here beet culture may begin and extend a long distance north. This culture, 
 now inaugurated in Kansas, will be increased there this season, and a new factory is 
 constructing for Nebraska. Tropical cane culture is now a success in Florida, and 
 thousands of acres of fertile lands there are now preparing for it. Texas has an im- 
 mense area of lands well adapted to cane culture, and has gone extensively into it 
 during the last few years, adopting all the new methods, including diffusion. 
 
 It maybe proper to speak of sugar from a politico-economic point of view. Its pro- 
 duction has been fostered in Europe for nearly a ceutury, and yet the extraordinary 
 advance in methods and increase in results that now affect us have only become 
 apparent during recent years. Fifteen years ago beet sugars cut no figure in onr mar- 
 kets. Now they control the values of sugar throughout the world. 
 
 All this seems to have been brought about by legislation favorable to beet sugar ; 
 and the various European governments that have been requested by Great Britain to 
 enter into a convention for the suppression of the so-called sugar bounties, seem now 
 without exception to refuse to make any change in their laws, fearing to do anything 
 that might imperil the sugar industry, it being of such vital importance to the state 
 wherever carried on. 
 
 To show how sensitive is the beet industry of Europe to favorable or unfavorable 
 condition, we should state that the recent rise in sugar, brought about by a clique of 
 German speculators, so stimulated the production of sugars there that the present 
 crop shows an increase of some 500,000 tons. 
 
 This 500,000 tons is a surplus that must be dumped chiefly upon the American 
 market, and must of course seriously affect values here. France, Germany, Austria, 
 and Eussia, thus making their own sugar, and about all else that they consume, will 
 want to sell us their sugar and to bny nothing from us, but to take our money. 
 This absorption of our money for sugar assumes a serious aspect when we consider 
 that we send abroad $100,000,000 now, and that we shall soon need to send 
 $200,000,000 unless we develop the domestic sugar industry. 
 
 To us in Louisiana the sugar industry is of vital importauce. We have invested 
 over $100,000,000 of capital, and the industry gives employment and su])port 
 to over one-half our people. Our lauds are better adapted to cane culture than 
 to any other. The crop is the most certain one we know of and withstands the 
 vicissitudes of the season better than any other. A total crop failun- is unheard of, 
 the most disastrous seasons yielding one-half a crop. With these advantages have 
 come the disadvantages of old methods, imperfect machinery, high cost of labor, and 
 falling markets. We have been struggling against these disadvantages all these 
 years, but with the success we have stated, and we are anticipating better results 
 every year. 
 
 Our levee system has been so strengthened that we are now hoping for entire im- 
 munity from the floods formerly so disastrous. 
 
 The sugar crop of Louisiana is of especial importauce to the whole country in this, 
 that its advent lowers the level of sugar values for the whole country. This reduc- 
 tion of values on all sugar, foreign as well as domestic, gives the consumer a benefit, 
 as long as the Louisiana crop lasts, that largely counterbalances the tax he pays on 
 sugar. 
 
 The sugar crop of Louisiana is of vital importance to the whole country because of 
 the immense inter-state trade arising from it. This now amounts to some $40,000,000 
 per annum. No other State buys from the North and West so nearly all it consumes. 
 The $20,000,000 received for the sugar crop goes to the coal, ircnj, and oil men of Penn- 
 sylvania; goes for the corn and meats of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kansas; goes 
 for the furniture, dry goods, boot and shoes, hardware and harness of the Northern 
 States, and creates a trade almost equal to that of the United States with all tlio 
 West Indies. 
 
 We submit that if our statements to you are found to be based on facts, is it not 
 wise and just that our industry should be protected to the extent that will enable us 
 to produce our own sugars? 
 
 We submitthat there is no other agricultural interest in which the possibilities are 
 to-day so great. We ask only a calm, deliberate consideration of the industry. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 John Dymoxd, 
 John Foos, 
 W. C. Stubbs, 
 H. C. Wakmotii, 
 
 Washington, January 6, 1890, Commilice. 
 
 ^6b iO 
 
626 REVISION or tue tariff. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I would like to ask you one question. Do you call your sugar farms 
 in Louisiana suj;iir plantations orsugar farms? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. 8ns,ar plantations. 
 
 Mr. Flowku. IIuw many acres have you in the large ones? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. In a large one there are ahout 1,000 acres. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How much plant in actual value have you on each plantation? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. When you say plant do you mean machiner3'? 
 
 Mr. Flower. Yes; machinery. 
 
 Mr. Dymond. It is rather hard to say, because there is some old machinery on every 
 plantation ; but to organize a new plant suitable for 1,000 acres would cost at least 
 $100,000 to do the work well. There are plantations on which the sugar liousc costs 
 more than that money. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How much time is this plant occupied during the year in the man- 
 ufacture of sugar ? 
 
 Mr. DymoN'd. From seventy-iive to eighty days. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Could not you make sugar cheaper in Louisiana by taking a plant 
 for 75,000 acres instead of say 1,000 acres? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. Tliat conviction is now creeping over the people of tli.it State; and 
 that system is being adopted as rapidly as the necessary organization of capital cau 
 be cfi'ected. 
 
 Mr. Flower. A larger plant could be made available for 50,000 acres of land ? 
 
 Mr. Dy'Mond. Of course that is far beyond any experience we have had. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Exactly ; but a combination of farms just as they do in the Northern 
 States with cheese and butter. 
 
 Mr. Dymond. Yes, sir; exactly. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You state also in California the beet sugar is a financial success ? 
 
 Ml. Dy'mond. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Notwitbstanding the free sugar from the Hawaiian Islands? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. That free sugar from the Hawaiian Islands comes into the American 
 market on the general level of American values. 
 
 Mr. Flower. It comes into this market nearly exclusively ? 
 
 Mr. Dymo.xd. It comes into California and reaches as far as New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is there any competition with the prednetion of the sugar grower 
 except tbe free sugar from the Sandwich Islands? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. There is no possible competition thus far with the California sugar 
 grower. We consider him a friend to us. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The sugar in the Eastern States, New York, Massachusetts, and 
 elsewhere, does not compete with Spreckles' Sandwich Island sugar of California ? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. That sugar comes in, I believe, under the law at not above 13 Dutch 
 standard. Therefore it is refined in the United States bj' some on<\ 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How far docs that sugar come and compete with the sugar refined 
 in the East. 
 
 Mr. Dymond. It comes east as far as New Orleans and has been sold in that ujarkot. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It goes to New Orleans by water? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. No, sir; it goes over the Southern Pacific Railroad. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it refined or raw ? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. It is raw sugar sent to New Orleans. California sells sugar, I be- 
 lieve, in Kans.Ts City. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Does it come east of that ? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. I think possibly it may be sold in St. Louis. 
 
 Mr. Caullsle. The point is simply tbis. You say the production of beet-sugarhas 
 been a success financially in California. Now, I want to see whether it is protected 
 or not. 
 
 A BYSTANDER. The sugar of California does not sell any cheaper because it conies in 
 free, but rather the sugar plantations on the Sandwich Islands make just that much 
 more. 
 
 Mr. Dymond. The free sugar from the Sandwich Islands does not depress the price 
 of iSn_;ar in the Umted States. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Tb(^ret■ore the free importation of the Sandwich Islands has not in- 
 jnied the sugar of this country? 
 
 Mr, Dymond. Ir has been no source of injury so far. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What do you use for fuel on your plantations? 
 
 Mr. Dy'mond. Coal, chiefly. We are vei'y large consumers of coal. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you use baggasso ? 
 
 Mr. Dy.mond. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It is only of recent ye.ars you have used it ? 
 
 Mr. DyjIioxd. With any etfeetiveiiesM. 
 
 Mr. Gt;AR. Does C'ulia use that in tlie pr(^paration ? 
 
 Mr. Di'.MOND. They use it by drying it in the air. 
 
 Mr. Gjsak. The climate is of sucn character that permits them to dry it? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 627 
 
 Mr. Dymond. In the jjast we had slave labor (a large amount of labor) to dry it. 
 Now tbey uro none. 
 Mr. Gear. That is the difierenoe between the cost of labor of Lonisiana and Culja ? 
 Mr. Dymond. We think it is about four times the cost in l^onisiana that it is in 
 Cuba. I suppose the cost in Cuba is ordinarily about one-fonrth of ours. 
 Mr. Gear. What does the ordinary plantation labor cost now? 
 Mr. Dymond a dollar a day. 
 Mr. Gear. What did it cost with slave labor? 
 Mr. Dymo.M). Wo have had no experience with it. 
 Mr. Gear. Other gentlemen here, I presume, could tell. 
 Mr. Dymoni). There is not a gentleman, in this delegation who used slaves. 
 Mr. Gear. But they know about it? 
 Mr. Dymond. But that was thirty years ago. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I understand that; buti want a comparative value of the labor thou 
 and now. Some of you ought to know. 
 
 Mr. Dymond. That involves the whole matter of the increase of slaves by birlh, 
 and all that comes in and complicates the problem. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You can say it was valued at so mncli by Ihe year and the value proba- 
 bly was understood in a money price according to his skill. I want to see how it 
 compares then and now. You could answer that questiou ? 
 Mr. Dymond. No, sir; I do not think I could. 
 Mr. Gear. You did not go to that country until after that time ? 
 Mr. Dymond. No, sir; I used to soil you goods iu New York. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Yes; and I am very glad to meet you again. How many acres of cane 
 are there in your country? 
 Mr. Dy'mond. Two hundred thousand. 
 Mr. Gear. That includes all the acreage? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. No, sir; there is an immense quantity of siigar-caue being jiroduced 
 in all the Southern Istates which are converted by small mills into sirup and sugar. 
 Mr. Fj.ower. Just as the loom was used in every household? 
 Mr. Dymond. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You had2d7,000 acres of cane in 1880 ; do you think you have that much 
 now? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. There has not been any material change. The chief change that has 
 occurred with us has been the increase iu our cultivation and the increase in our 
 manufacture. 
 Mr. Gear. What amout of sugar do you make in Louisiana ? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. According to a fair average, it would yirld from 1.5 to 20 tons per 
 acre, and perhaps a fair estimate would be that this cane will yield 125 jiounds pei 
 ton. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That is 2,000 to 2,500 pounds of sugar to the acre. Is not that a full 
 estimate ? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. It is not anywhere near what we would do should we adopt the ad- 
 vanced styles of machinery. That is probably above the average of the iState now. 
 Mr. Gear. That is above the average ? 
 Mr. Dymond. Yes, sir. 
 Mr. Gear. Has the acreage increased ? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. I believe it has; but not very rapidly. We are trying to develop 
 more intense culture. We wish to get more cane from an acre, and to get. more sugar 
 from that cane. 
 Mr. Gear. Ai-e the planters generally putting in refining apjiaratus ? 
 Mr. Dymond. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you not lease a good deal of land ? You take the cane and grind it 
 on shares? 
 Mr. Dymond. That system is developing, and is about to start. 
 Mr. Gear. What per cent, would you lease ? 
 Mr. Dymond. Not much ; not 10 per cent., perhaps. 
 Mr. Gear. How often do yon plant the cane? 
 
 Ml-. Dymond. Once in three years. The custom is to plan t cane and get three crops, 
 and then rotate the crop with held peas or corn, and then resume with the sui'ar- 
 cane. 
 Mr. Gear. How often do they plant in Cuba on an average ? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. They are planting much more frequently than formerly. They used 
 to plant once in five or six years. 
 Mr. Gear. Do yon import any cane for rotation ? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. For seed? No, sir ; we have all the cane coming from forei'Ti coun- 
 tries through the experimental station. Professor Stubbs haschargeof that,'and will 
 represent the scientific side of the industry. 
 Mr. Gear. What has been the average crop of Louisiana for ten or twenty years? 
 
628 REVISION OF THE TAEIPF. 
 
 Mr. Dymond. I should say 165,000 tons for the last three years and 133,000 tona 
 for the vast nine years. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Have not the last three or four years been much more profitable than 
 the ten years before ? Have there not been better seasons for production ? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. 1886 was bad; 1887 was good ; 1888 was indiflerent, and 1889 was a 
 season of unexampled drought. 
 
 Mr. Geab. Are Bouchaeau leports con.sidered the standard 1 
 
 Mr. Dymond. No, sir ; I hardly think them so. 
 
 Mr. Geak. Are they fairly accurate in regard to the production of sugar ? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. 1 think so, except there is an error in the total crop of 1889, which 
 he has corrected in most of the books he sent out. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I uoticed that. They are fairly correct in other particulars? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. That would be a matter of calculation on his part. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I suppose they would be considered fairly reliable, as a man living in 
 Louisiana would not want to represent the matter worse than ic was. 
 
 Mr. Dymond. This man is not a practical man, and does not go at it in that 
 way. I would answer that any man who makes a reasonably fair inquiry would 
 arrive probably at about the truth ; but not being an expert, his judgment may be 
 inaccurate. Hut I believe his reports are fairly accurate. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And so considered by the trade ? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the comparison of sugar produced in Louisiana compared with 
 the per cent, imported into this country? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. About one-eighth. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Now this last year. 
 
 Mr. Dymond. We have no statistics for 1889. In 1888 we had 240,000 hogsheads. 
 
 Mr. Gear. This is the largest yield since the war? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. The year before was still larger. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The year before the war was the largest production ever made in the 
 country? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. Yes, sir; I think so. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Are yon a resident of Louisiana? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. Yes, sir. If it pleases the committee, I would be glad to have Dr. 
 Stubbs explain the scientific side of the sugar industry. 
 
 STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM C. STUBBS. 
 
 Dr. William C. Stubbs, of New Orleans, La., next addressed the committee. He 
 said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my connection with the sugar in- 
 dustry of Louisiana is purely scientitieal. Five years ago when the sugar industry 
 had been depleted by disasters, floods, low prices, and unskilled labor, they detei- 
 mined by private contribution to call science to their aid. TUey therefore establisbed 
 and have since niaintained a sugar experiment station. Heretofore the sugar-cane 
 iivdustry had had very little attention from scientific investigators. This, I believe, 
 was the first experiment station that had ever been established in the interests of 
 tropical sugar-cane. I am and have been the director of this station, and for four 
 years I have watched with close observation and patient stuily the habits, character- 
 istics, and feasibility of both sugar-cane and sorghum. We have grown them bolh 
 each year, and when I look back to-day at the condition of aifairs in Louisiana when 
 I went tiiere lour years ago and compare thi'm with the conditions as tliey exist to- 
 day, I can say to you gentlemen that there is not an industry in the world that has 
 made such progress. There was not a filter process in the State of Lou i.",iana four 
 years ago, and to-day all scums and settlings from each sugar-house instead of being 
 thrown away is utilized by this i>rocess. 
 
 To-day there is not a representative house that has not one of these filtering proc- 
 esses for utilizing the settlings and scum that formerly wont to waste. A few yi'ars 
 ago the three-roller mill crushed the eaue. To-day diffusion batteries are competing 
 with each other for (■on]i)lute extraction. Our juico was formerly evaporated in open 
 jians, entailing groat loss. To-day the vacuo is used by all large sugar-houses in the 
 State. This is due to the National Government and to the able and wise administra- 
 tion of Dr. Wiley, the chemist of the Agricultural Department, who has given valu- 
 able contribiiticuis to the sugar industry of Louisiana and also successful diffusion to 
 Kansas and Louisiana. Only three yijars ago the first trial was made in our State, 
 and we hav(^ during the past season successfully operated ten complete diffusion bat- 
 teries in our .Stale and the ail.joining State of Texas. It was, I think, uimsual five or 
 six years ago lor an open-kettle sugar-houhe of our State to obtain on the average 75 
 to 80 pounds to the ton, theieby reducing the average of the State to about 100 pounds 
 to the ton. I rememlier well the first year I was iu Louisiana when my friend, 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 629 
 
 Governor Warmotl), annonuced to the public lie had secnred a yield of 169 pounds 
 to the ton what a startling cry of amazement weut up froui one end of the State to 
 the other. Since that time yields of 200 pounds to the ton are becoming common 
 with the diffusion batteiiea. Duriug last year I extracted on an experimental run 
 250 pounds to a ton of cane. This shows what science so far has done, or rather I 
 might say the experimental station has created a stimulus in that State, aided by 
 investigations of the National Government. 
 
 In regard to agriculture our success has been almost as great. Five years ago 
 there was not a thousand pounds of fertilizer .sold in the whole State of Louisiana. 
 Last year the sugar-planters used alone 1.5,000 tons, exclusive of many thousand tons 
 of cotton-seed meal. Our cultivation has also improved, and the station has been 
 introducing, through the kinduessof our Department of Agriculture here and onr con- 
 suls in foreign ports, over twenty-five varieties of sugar-cane, and we have them now 
 grown upon onr sugar experimental station, and during the past season they were 
 distributed in considerable quantities over the State of Louisiana. Some of these 
 canes we find possess a hardiness and vijor of growth that will enable them to with- 
 stand the seasons fnrther north of us. I went to Kansas last spring for the purpose, 
 and I am watching with a great deal of interest to see if we can not domesticate it 
 in the State of Kansas. Now this is from a chemical and agricultnral standpoint. 
 There is another thing that you gentlemen cauappreciate when I call your atti-ntiou 
 to the fact that the manufacture of cane sugar from sugai-cane and sorghum is ono 
 of the most intricate problems of which wo have any knowledge, and I wish to say 
 that since my early boyhood I have spent my life in the laboratoiy. There is no 
 process, perhaps, of any manufacture that involves so many conijilications as the 
 manufacture of sugar. When I went to Louisiana we had a great many old negroes 
 and profoundly ignorant sugar-makers who were marvelous in their lino. There 
 was not 11 sngar cliemist in the State of Louisiana, and this year we have been able 
 to furnish over thirty sugar-houses with educated, practical chemists. 
 
 These three branches of the sugar industry have been under my control as director 
 of Ihe sugar experimental station, and we have been patiently investigating the cane 
 as to its field requirements and manural wants, to determine what fertilizers will both 
 increase the tonnage .and sugar content, and also determine the question of germina- 
 tion. The qnestion of germination has always been of interest to the sugar-plauter. 
 We have a sngar-house in which we have been testing all varieties and methods of 
 manufacture of sugar, and at the same time the many new ways which have been 
 constantly olfered to us by the sugar-planters. In the laboratory we have had a 
 chemical invesfigaliou going on, not only of the sugar plant when matured and dur- 
 ing its growth, but to see if we can not study the wonderful transformations which 
 take place in the plant in storing up that sugar, and at the sauu^ time the proiluclion 
 of the sugar in this manufacture. Along with this we have been educating there 
 people taken from every class throughout the country, and have had them in training 
 one or two years. We have not been able to su|)ply the sugar-houses at all during 
 the past year. Now, geutlenien, this is the progress we have made since I have been 
 in the State of Louisiana. Of what took place before I went there I can not, of course, 
 authx)ritatively speak ; bnt this much I can say. During the last five years, I believe 
 (and I have a very good evidence lor making the positive assertion), every didlar of 
 income that has been received by the planters of Louisiana has been invested in the 
 land, and nothing to-day prevents Iheir open-kettle sugar buildings in the State from 
 disappearing and in their place making a central factory except the want of capital, 
 and nothing prevents capital from going to the State and developing the land but a 
 want of confidence in the permanency of the sugar industry in the State of Louisiana. 
 A few years ago such a thing as selling cane by the ton was almost unknown in our 
 State, and yet this past season I presume more cane was sold by the ton than all the 
 previous years of the raising of cane in Louisiana. Central factories did not exist in 
 name, but many ofour planters have erected large maehlneries. 
 
 My friend, Mr. Foos, over there, this year harvested 1,340 acres of cane that will re- 
 quire a battery of 400 to 500 tons capacity per day, and it leaves him very little time 
 to buy outside cane, although he is now contemplating extending his plant for the 
 benefit of the small farms. The tendency in Louisiana to-day is towards central 
 factories. It is an object for which we have been working for years. The railroads 
 which are pernieating our country are chiefly engaged in transporting the cane from 
 the field to the sugar-house, to thesugar-planter. Wliat we call sugar-planter should 
 now be called sugar-manufacturer. He buys this cane from the sugar-planter at a 
 price which will enable him to divide with the agrlcultui'ist. This is south Louis- 
 iana. At the same time while this is going on in south Louisiana a feeling that they 
 could grow their own sugar has been manifested through all north Louisiana dur- 
 ing the last two years, and we have an experimental station now under our con- 
 trol near Baton Rouge, in Baton Rouge Parish, and one opposite Vicksburg. We 
 have grown both the tropical cane and the sorghum plant. Last year we shipped 
 sorghum both Irom Baton Bouge and from the station opposite Vicksburg down to 
 
630 
 
 EEVlSlON OF THE TAElFP. 
 
 tbe experimental station. At the same time we have been growing tlie tropical 
 sngar-cane, and we suppose during last season the sugar content was equal to the 
 lower part of the State, and the tonnage somewhere approximating it. That is due 
 to the fact that in the northern part of the State we have a number of one-horse 
 farmers who do their own work, and have their own farm, and therefore the cane 
 raised had better attention than when it is raised by the gang system, such as pre- 
 vails in the southern part of the State. It is so much so that we are now enlarging 
 the sugar industry in Louisiana, and we believe the time is not far distant that from 
 one end of the Arkansas line to the north of Mexico will be planted in sugar, except 
 as much as is needed to produce products for home consumption. Nor is this idle 
 talk. 
 
 We have demonstrated it in tliree parts of the State. In the production of these 
 varieties to which I alluded just now we can easily succeed with suitable cane up in 
 the northern portion of our State. If we find we can, I may remark further, there 
 are thousands upon thousands of acres of land in Louisiana that tq-day will yield 
 sugar-cane of the highest quality, provided we can get the means to develop the 
 central factories. 'Ihat seems to be the only drawback to developing the industry 
 to its fullest extent. You must remember our people are poor and that every dollar 
 of their capital invested in the sugar-houses has been produced by the toil of these 
 men since the close of the war. I am informed that every sugar-house in Louisiana 
 was dismantled. And here let me remark it takes longer to get a cane crop than any 
 other croj). It takes three years to get its first plant. The cane must be planted 
 three years before the harvest can be expected, and it takes a large quantity of cane 
 to plant an acre. The average quantity of cane planted to an acre is 6 tons, and 
 you can iniagine what 1,000 acres is at the rate of 6 tons to the acre. It would con- 
 sume a large quantity of cane. 
 
 Mr. Geak. What is the average product of an acre? 
 
 Mr. Stubhs. From 1.5 to 20 tons. 
 
 Mr. Geau. And it takes 6 tons of seed to plant an acre. 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. It takes one-fifth of the crop of the State of Louisiana every year, 
 unless I can get them to adopt the policy which I earnestly recommended, that is, 
 to pl.ant the tops, which are of no practical value for sugar, and which germinate, 
 as I have demonstrated, very well, and then harvest the whole crop. I received, 
 the day before I left Louisiana, a bundle of cane seed Irom the Barbadoes Islands, 
 and it was never known to seed anywhere until last year. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You say it is unu.sual for it to seed. 
 
 Mr. Stcbhs. Yes, sir. I am going to plant this and try to propagate it. With 
 these facts before us, and with the fact that we have a most magniUcent country 
 extending north of Louisiana, which I had the pleasure of visiting this summer, 
 in Arkansas and in Kansas, and I had the good fortune to be entertained h.y the 
 planters of Kansas and of examining their sugar works, and I honestly believe 
 (and I have made these utterances many times before) that the time will soon 
 come — I do not mean to-day or to-morrow, but ultimately — when the smoke of sugar 
 houses will rise in one continuous colunm from Nebraska down to the GulfofMex- 
 ioo. There is no reason on earth why every single farm between Nebraska and 
 the Gulf ofMexieo should not put in a sugar-producing plant and immediately pro- 
 duce sugar. • 
 
 Mr. Gear. You include sorghum and the sugar made of beets? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Yes, sir; but I am speaking of sorghum and sugar-cane. Beets are 
 not adapted to south Louisiana. They can not grow there, first, on account of the 
 labor, and then it is too wet. I have been giving every aid and assistance to tlie ex- 
 jieriuiental station of Kansas looking towards the development of the sorghum plant. 
 Last year we grew over a hundred and odd varieties of sorghum, and I desire to say 
 that the plant showed in the lalxn'atory as high as 18 and 20 per cent, sugar and less 
 than 2 per cent, of glucose, and I think with a proper use of fertilizers and scientific 
 selection we can raise that plant to the dignity of the cane plant from the State of 
 Kansasdowu to the Gulf of Mexico. It will also prove a valuable adjunct in Louisiana. 
 It ripens early in July, and our sugar-cane does not ripen until late in October. We 
 have been trying for three or four years to introduce sorghum into Louisiana plant- 
 ing, so as to have an early crop in July running straight along until October, and 
 then the sugar cane comes in from October until January. We are aiming to do that 
 in north Louisiana. South Louisiana is not so well adapted to the sorghum crop, be- 
 cause they are alluvial lands that require heavy draining. Our soils are too heavy 
 and the climate too moist. With this remark I suppose I can rest at least the scien- 
 tific side of the question, that that section of the country is capable of producing all 
 the sugar we nee<l. 
 
 Mr, Gear. What is the mean temperature of Louisiana? 
 
 Mr. SnjijiiH. The mean ti^mperatiire of south Louisiaua varies, but it is somewhere 
 about 70'^. 
 
 Mr. Gkar. What is the mean temperature of north Louisiana? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 631 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. It 18 about 4° or 5" colder; tbo elevation is very nearly 200 feet. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It is hardly that at Baton Rouge ? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. No, sir; the highest point in Louisiana is abonb 300 feet; that is in 
 the hills. Baton Rouge is only 45 feet. 
 
 The Chaikman. How many acres of land in Louisiana could be utilized for cane 
 sugar ? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. There are 45,000 square miles in the State of Louisiana, and I thinlc 
 about one-half is alluvial in South Louisiana. Of that anionut, with drainage, I sup- 
 pose one-third is fit for the cultivation of sugar. We are draining every year. Wo 
 have companies running exclusively on that kind of work and bringing whole prop- 
 erties outside of cultivation into cultivation. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That is 22,500 square miles ? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. About 12,000,000 acres ? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Yes, sir. We have lands enough to grow all the sugar consumed in 
 the United States and all the cotton used in the United States if we had the capital 
 to develop it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You stated that you had aB experimental station for sorghum sugar. 
 How many acres have you? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Five or 6 acres. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What does it cost a ton ? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. This is an experiment, and we do not get the price per ton. Some- 
 times I have a man employed to whom I give |2,500 a year. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the average cost of the sorghum sugar produced per iiound in 
 Louisiana? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. I assume the sorghum lands in Louisiana can be cultivated, according 
 to the lightness of the land, at from $2.50 to .$10 an acre. ' When we cultivate it in 
 the lower portion of Louisiana they take four mules and two hands, and it costs four 
 times as much as it does in north Louisiana. When we glance at the difference be- 
 tween the two we estimate it costs in Louisiana from $2.50 to $10 an acre. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How many planters are in Louisiana? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Eleven hundred, they are stated to be. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the average size of the plantations? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Mr. Dymond responded to the question that the average plant.ation 
 was 1,000 acres. I should say the average size is greater than ho stated, because 
 all the land is not used for sugar-cane purposes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you get as little on the river front as you can ? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. We want all the river front we can get. It runs 40 arpents deep; 
 hence what is calculated as an average large plantation in Louisiaua will average 
 1,000 acres in cane. Then we have quite a number of small plantations, rnnning 
 from 300 to 500 acres, with open-kettle houses, which make only molasses. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The plantations lie mostly where? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Below Baton Rouge. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Down towards Morgan City? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Yes, sir. There are three Congressional districts representing the 
 sugar industry in Louisiana. Mr. Price represents more than half the sugar indus- 
 try. This is called the sugar-bowl of Louisiana all down the Mississippi. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. You stated there are 1,100 sugar-planters. Have you any estimate 
 of the number of hands employed ? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Yes, sir; I can give you that for this reason : I am connected officially 
 with the State of Louisiana, and every year we get these st.atistics rendered. The 
 exact number of hands employed on each plantation is very hard to get. The whole 
 number engaged in the southern part of Louisiana in the making of sugar is from 
 400,000 to 500,000. Then I want to make the statement, in addition to that, a large 
 amount of labor from Mississippi is used. We send to Mississippi and get cotton 
 hands. I believe it takes twice as many hands to take off the crop as to make it, and 
 80 we import them in large quantities from Mississippi. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You mean these four or five hundred thousand are men, women, 
 and children? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Yes, sir. 
 • Mr. McMiLLiN. You spoke in regard to making the cotton crop and the corn and 
 pea crop. This is a necessary process in the preparation of the ground for replant- 
 ing ? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Yes, sir. Our regular rotation consists in going once in three years 
 hack to peas and com. The corn crop is merely an incidental crop. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You stated that at a comparatively ri'cent period you succeeded in 
 extracting more saccharine matter from cane than was obtained some years ago. 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. That was last year, not this present year. This last year the highest 
 vield was 206 pounds. Our cane was not so rich. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Was that the result of better appliances? 
 
632 UEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Precisely, sir. We have liad three hundred and odd fiehl experiments 
 with different kinds of fertilizers going on for four years. We are trying to find a 
 combination of fertilizers that will give a large tonnage and a large sugar content. 
 The year before last we had a very exceptionally rich cane and we made 250j)ouiida 
 of sugar to the ton of cane, and it simply demonstrated the fact of what can be done 
 if we get our planters and our sugar-makers and our engineers educated up to a proper 
 degree so as to manipulate the sugar-cane. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Are more acres in cultivation now than four or five years ago? 
 
 Mr. Stubhs. I should say it was smaller; I do not think it is more. 
 
 Mr. IJAYNB. Are any more persons investing capital there? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Yes, sir. The sugar lands are more valuable to-day, and find more 
 ready sale to-day. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. There has been considerable capital taken there from the North? 
 
 Mr. Stobbs. Wehavemuch Northern capital there. Oar present successful sugar- 
 planters are Northern men. I am the only Southerner of these four gentlemen who 
 represent this delegation here. All the rest are Northern men. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Have they been making money in the last three or four years? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. I can say I think they have from my stand-point, but they do not think 
 that they h:ive from theirs. The sugar-planter does not count the money made at all 
 which he puts intcp improvements and machinery. They can better answer that them- 
 selves. I should think he has made money, because the improvements have been 
 very great. I have never seen such a real awakening among tlie sugar-planters and 
 the putting in of every class of improvements as during the past year. 
 
 Mr. McMil.LiN. I will get you to state if it is not a fact instead of making rapid 
 increase in the acreage they have been making an effort to improve the character of 
 the product per acre by the addition of expensive machinery rather than extending 
 the acreage at present? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. There are two kinds of sng.ar-planting. First, be is trying to almost 
 double the crop in the field .so as to get twice the tonnage, and then in the sugar-house 
 he is endeavoring to get twice the quantity of saccharine niiitter from that cane. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Have yoii .any agricultural societies or associations that give you the 
 acreage of crops in your State 1 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Yes, sir; we have a thorough agricultural organization throughout 
 the State. We have a State Agricultural Society; then the Sugar-Planters' Associa- 
 tion. Then there is the North Louisiana Agricultural Society. These have branch 
 .associations, etc. 
 
 Mr. Geak. These societies get out statistics in regard to the acreage ? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is the report of the State Agricultural Society fairly accurate? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Yes, sir; we have a commissioner of agriculture whose duty it is to 
 collect statistics. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are his reports fairly accurate ? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. I should say so. I presume it is as reliable as any other data you can 
 get. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It would not be as reliable as the census ? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Give us the stati.stics of your commissioner of agriculture in regard to 
 the acreage. Does he give it as being changed since 1880 ? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. In 1880 it was 177,000 acres, .and this year it is estimated between 
 180,000 and 190,000. If you look at the census of 1879 you will find the acreage 177,000. 
 This year we estimate it at 185,000 to 190,000. I will explain that in a moment. You 
 are referring to the entire State of Louisiana ? 
 
 Mr. Gear. I was referring to the whole of Louisiana. 
 
 iMr. Stubbs. I was referring only to the sugar district of Louisiana. Aslremarked, 
 in North Louisiana we have small farmers caring for 1 or 3 acres ; that does not 
 enter into the sugar calculation at all. 
 
 The Chairman. What would be the effect upon your industry if the duties upon 
 sugar were abolished ? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Tliese gentlemen could answer better than I could. I could say one 
 thing. During the past year, from an •unprecedented drought, lasting from the 13th of 
 April to the 20th- of June without any break at all, no jilauter in our State has made 
 any money. 
 
 The Chairman. Is the reason why you can not compete with other sugar-growing 
 countries on account of the labor? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Seventy-five per cent, of the expense of making sugar by the domes- 
 tic planters is the labor. 
 
 The Chairman. You have much higher labor than competing countries? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Very mueh so. We pay $1 a day for bands. I am now paying that 
 at all thuMi of iny stations to laborers who have no skill at all. 
 
 The Chairman. Wliat is paid iu other eoiintruis ? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 633 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. I was reading in one of the sugar papers that the labor of Cuba was 
 25 cents a day ; but I have never been there, and I do not know. 
 
 Mr. La Follkttb. You say you pay the labor at the experimental stations. Is 
 that the average rate paid ou the plantations ? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Yes, sir. I pay just what the farmers around me pay. X can not 
 afford to jiay higher. 
 
 Mr. Gkak. You say the average price of field labor of Louisiana is |>1 a day in the 
 sugar district? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Yes, sir. Some men get a little cheaper than that, but that is the av- 
 erage for three parts of the State. During the grinding we pay $1.50 a day. 
 
 The Chairman. And because of this difference in the price of labor you think 
 this duty ought to he maintained ? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. I think so. 
 
 The Chairman. If the labor was the same here as in competing countries would 
 you need this duty as a protection ? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. I do not like to answer that question, not having given the political 
 side of this question any atteutiou at all. I will say this ; I have never found any 
 plant that was more thoroughly at home than sngar-caue is in south Louisiana. As 
 a proof, on the 19th day of August, at Baton Eouge, I had over forty grades growing 
 in the field. We had a tornado and the cane crop was the only one that resisted the 
 storm. The cotton was torn out by the roots, but the cane resisted the storm and I. 
 made a most excellent crop of sugar. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. The life of the cane in Louisiana is not as long as it could be made ? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. Probably nqt. We cut at nine months old and at eighteen. There 
 are stalks weighing 8 and 10 pounds, and we consider ourselves fortunate if we run 
 the stalk up to 5 or 8 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Geak. What is a fair average in Cuba? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. It would be 30 or 40 tons to the acre. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much sugar would that make? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. If worked in the new diffusion process it would make 250 pounds. If 
 worked by the old process they would get very little more than Louisiana. I wish 
 to say, gentlemen, tjiat I am iu almost daily correspondence with sugar-growers in 
 every direction, and there is hardly a day we are not in receipt of letters compliment- 
 ing ns in Louisiana on the great progress we are making in sugar-making. Only a 
 few days ago I had a letter from New South Wales calling upon uie for information, 
 and asking if Georgia was really making such progress as wos attracting the atten- 
 tion of the sugar world elsewhere. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What was the total number of pounds produced in 1889 ? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. That has not been estimated yet. 
 • Mr. La Follette. For 1888 ? 
 
 Mr. Stubbs. These gentlemen can tell you better than I. 
 
 Crops of sugar made in Louisiana since the war, in tons. 
 
 1864 5,000 
 
 1865 11,209 
 
 1866 25,625 
 
 1807 23,529 
 
 1868 52,636 
 
 1869 54,375 
 
 1870 90,551 
 
 1871 80,288 
 
 1872 67,825 
 
 1873 55,936 
 
 1874 73,042 
 
 1875 90,091 
 
 1876 106,232 
 
 1877 79,846 
 
 1878 133,263 
 
 1879 106,233 
 
 1880 136,446 
 
 l.-Sl 76,804 
 
 1882 150,762 
 
 1883 138,447 
 
 1884 100,519 
 
 1885 144,.556 
 
 188G...,. 91,230 
 
 1887 178,224 
 
 1888 167,429 
 
 1889 not in. 
 
 STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR H. C. -WARMOTH. 
 
 Governor H. C. Wabmoth, of Lawrence, La., next addressed the committee. He 
 said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I do not think that I can add 
 anything to the statement of Dr. Stubbs. All I can say is, it is a remarkable thing 
 in the history of legislation that Pennsylvania, from whom we are buying all our 
 coal, should be in favor of cutting down the duty ou sugar. We buy an enormous 
 amount of coal from Pennsylvania for our use. We buy hundreds of thousands of 
 dollars worth of cooperage machinery from them, and I think it is a remarkable thing 
 that they should be the people who should wish to cut down the. duty on sugar. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you not manufacture any hogsheads? 
 
 Mr. Waemoth. No, sir; we use barrels almost exclusively. We get cooperage 
 machinery from Pennsylvania and Ohio. We buy materials from Tennessee and Ken- 
 
634 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 tucky, thousands and thousands of dollars of them. We get all of onr meat and 
 bread from Iowa, Missouri, aud Kansas. Wo buy about everything we use in Louis- 
 iana from the North and West, and yet these high-protected industries in the North 
 are crying continually for free sugar, which does nob mean free pork to us. This is 
 hard on these people in Louisiana, who believe in the protection idea and sustain the 
 protection party, who voted the Eopublican ticket; and of these four or five ban- 
 died thousand people 90 per cent, of us did it. We think it a rather remarkable 
 thing that our Republican friends are continually crying for a reduction of the duty 
 on sugar aud nothing else. You will excuse me, gentlemen, for this lecture. I speak 
 ■with some feeling. 1 have been conducting some political campaigns iu Louisiana. 
 When I go to a sugar-planter and ask him to vote he says to me : " Don't the people 
 of Pennsylvania and Ohio, etc., want to cut us down 50 per cent. ?" I do not think I 
 have made progress in converting the Democratic vote 
 
 The Chairman. What do you think of 20 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Warmotii. I think it is just as bad as 40 j only half the degree. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you not fiud it pretty diiBoult making conversions of yonr Demo- 
 cratic friends? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. There is not much difficulty in converting our Democratic friends 
 and getting them to vote right, but the great difficulty is to get the votes counted. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. How would a bounty operate ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. It would be destructive to the industry. 
 
 Mr. Bayxe. Why so ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. BecauiBe it would disclose the fact, which everybody understands 
 that the tariff is a bounty, and the moment it is understood that we are singled out 
 and a bounty paid into our bands there would be a universal cry for the destruction 
 of that bounty. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. From whom would the cry come ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. Unanimously from the country. 
 
 Mr. Bay'Ne. Suppose the eiibct of paying a bounty would be to develop your in- 
 dustry and make it produce an adequate sujiply for the consumj)tion of the country? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. A'o bounty would be of any benefit to us, because it would be very 
 short-lived. We could not get a man to put capital in the sugar industry under a 
 bounty. 
 
 Mr. Bay'ne. How much more sugar do you produce now than ten years ago ? 
 
 Mr, Warmoth. We produce much more for the acreage under cultivation. 
 
 A By'-stander. Thirty thousand tons per annum. 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. You must bear this in mind in regard to the acreage in Louisiana 
 used in the ctiltivation of sugar, that in 1884 we h id a crevasse that swept away one- 
 third of the sugar industry. It eummenced 20 miles above New Orleans and extended 
 to the Gulf, and it ruined the sugar-planters. That was a disaster that could not be 
 overcome in a year. It required replanting and these people were all ruined. It has 
 been demonstrated by experience the longer the levees are maiutaiued the less liabil- 
 ity there is of overflow. Owing to the war the levees of the river were allowed to go 
 down. The result was an annual overflow spreading over the whole country, and in 
 consequence of that there was a general rising of the bottom of the Mississippi Kiver ; 
 so after the war we began to construct levees. We built long levees, costing hun- 
 dreds of thousands of dollars. We kept building these levees until we have now got 
 a continuous line of levees from Arkansas on both sides of the river to the Gulf, aud 
 the result is we have not had a single crevasse since 1884, five years. The longer wc 
 maintain the levees, which we do with watchfulness au<l prayerfulness, we will be 
 able to keep the Mississippi River from the land. 
 
 You must not interfere with the sugar industry if you want friends iu Louisiana. 
 The people of Louisiana are dependent upon that industry. The city of New Orleans 
 would be vacated of its people if it is destroyed. Our whole business would be de- 
 stroyed if the sugar interest is destrojed. 
 
 The Chairman. You make the claim because of the difference in the cost of labor 
 tlu^re and in competing countries. 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. Because of the difference of the price of labor; because of the 
 fact we can not produce enough at present to make the sugar business pay ; but the 
 time will come, under proper treatment of our seed, b.y careful selection of our seed, 
 by getting proper fertilizers and proper cultivation, which we have just begun, and 
 I believe in ten years from to-day we will produce sugar as cheap in Louisiana as 
 anywhere in the world. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How many acres did you have in cultivation last year? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. Eight hundred acres. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How many, taking a number of years back? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. I had less acreage last year, for the reason I plowed out 150 acres. 
 
 Mr. BaYjNE. How many acies do you have in cane? 
 
 Mr. Wm;motii. About 1,000 acres altogether. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. For a number of years you have had .about 1,000 acres ? 
 
REVISION 015' TItE TAEIFF. 635 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. No, sir; I have increased my acreage from ahout 700 to 1,000 
 acres in the last five years. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Are you going to plant any more next year? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. I am going to plant so that instead of having 450 acres to the 
 factory this year I shall have 600 for the factory. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you find the business profitable? 
 
 Mr. Waemoth. Ifes; when we have good seasons, for the reason that I get the 
 very best results attained in the State of Lonisiaua. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How often do you have a goo'd season ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. About two good seasons iu three years, or three good seasons in 
 five. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How long has sugar been cultivated in Louisiana? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. I think since about 1820. 
 
 A By-stander. 1794 was the first crop. 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. The cultivation of sugar-cane amonnting to anything began in 
 1830. 
 
 Tbe Chairman. What amount of increase of acreage do you think there will be ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. I will increase my acreage until I am "busted," which will not 
 be a great while if you reduce the duty 20 per cent. We can not stand a reduction of 
 half a cent a pound at the present prices. Owing to speculative prices last summer 
 sngar was put up to 7 cents a pound for raw sugar. The result was Germany, France, 
 and Austria went to work and increased their output so that Germany itself would 
 have .500,000 tons more sugar this year, and that will tend to reduce the price of sugar 
 all over the world. If you get the prices down 20 per cent., which is half a cent a 
 pound on raw sugar, we can not make a living. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Suppose Congress gives you a bounty equal to that? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. So far as I am concerned I would just as soon have a bounty as a 
 tarifl:'. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The duties are a trifle over 2 cents. That makes the average sugar 4.77 
 cents a pound exclusive of freight charges. This 2.02 cents is a direct tax, and we all 
 feel that it means to us a larger per capita on man, woman, and child in this country. 
 If we give you that 2 cents would not you make just as much money ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would not the people be relieved of the direct fax imposed by the 
 duty of 2 cents a pound as compared with a bounty ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. But you have got to collect and pay this bounty ; so it is as 
 broad as it is long. 
 
 Mr. Gear. We do that on the refined sugar. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. By that arrangement where would your market bo ? If you have 
 this bounty system and let the doors be opened to foreign sugar, where will you 
 get a market? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. We get the same price as the foreigners; but if you opeu the doors 
 to the European beet sugar that will supply the United States all the sugar we want, 
 and they pay a bounty to encourage the production and export. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. They pay a bounty only on that exported. 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. On that which is exported. They pay on that exported, and that 
 necessarily floats it level with that consumed at home. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. So you would have thus to compete with sugar made in Ger- 
 many under a bountj' given to the product for the purpose of sending it away. 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. Lord Derby was waited upon by colonial sugar-growers, who 
 protested against the bounties of Germany, France, and Austria. He said: "Gen- 
 tlemen, why should not they furnish the sugar to the colonies. " The result was 
 sugar was so cheap they fed it to the stock. We could not compete against them. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. It seems to me a bounty of 2 cents a pound would stimulate your indus- 
 try infinitely beyond anything derived from that produced from the tariff. 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. You give us a bounty of 2 cents a pound and give us a guaranty 
 that the next Congress will not come here and repeal it. If you can do that I will 
 take a bounty, as far as I am concerned — If you take the responsibility of giving us 
 a guarantee; but you can not do it, in my judgment. You will not be able to do it. 
 What I am willing to do, and what we claim you should do as members for the pro- 
 tection of this industry in this country, are different things. We want to stand on 
 the same basis as other protected industries. 
 
 Mr. Baynk. You want this because you do not produce an adequate supply? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. You must remember that m Louisiana during the war we burnt 
 up all the sugar-houses, we destroyed all the property, we took away all the labor 
 and demoralized it. We rode our horses over their fields. You could see. chimneys 
 standing with no buildings attached to them. Tliese people can not recover them- 
 selves in a few years. A sugar plantation of 1,000 acres, with the sugar-house and all 
 that sort of thing ; costs from |i250,000 to $300,000. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it not a fact that we have had a varying tariff on sugar for ten years! 
 
636 EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. I know that. 
 
 Mr. Geak. I take it for granted that sugar-producing land is not confined to Lonisi- 
 ana, southern Alabama, and Texas, but it runs away up to the Red River of Arkan- 
 sas, where there are sugar-growing lands under certain conditions. If it is a fact that 
 that is the case, why has not this industry been developed in one hundred years 1 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. It is a sufficient answer to the question to say we have just found 
 out how to make sugar. 
 
 Mr. Gear. So they are not up with the average American farmer ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. I beg your pardon. When I began planting sugar fifteen years 
 ago the plantation I now own yielded 100 pounds of sugar per ton, and about 12 or 15 
 tons to the acre. I have rebuilt that sugar-house about three times. I have got in 
 my siigar-honse one single piece of machinery that was there when I went there, and 
 that is an old pump. I have put in entirely new apparatus, a new mill, and then I 
 did not get enough. I put in a diffusion battery, and now 1 have not got enough. I 
 find a man at Newark, N. J., has invented a machine that will beat diffusion. He is 
 now experimenting on it under the supervision of the chemist the Agricultural De- 
 partment at Washington. So we have gone on improving our methods until we are 
 able to get 20 tons of cane to the acre, and to get over 200 pounds of sugar per ton. 
 Can yon .show me an industry in this country that has increased as rapidly as that in 
 the last ten years under such difficulties f In other words, we grew enough cane 
 last year to produce 500,000 hogsheads in Louisiana alone. 
 
 Mr. Geai!. And you do not produce more — — 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. Simply because we have not the machinery and the money to put 
 it up. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Some gentleman stated there were eleven hundred planters. Then I 
 understand there are also very small planters. Do you take any cane from them? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. Yes, I have bought cane. I buy cane because a man may have 
 his machinery at a point very distant from his sugar-house. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You have not yet got the improvements of modern machinery to make 
 sugar of the highest grade 1 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. Only whites and low clarified. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You could do that with additional protection on your sugar? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. We do not compete with the refiners because it costs so much. 
 We can not refine against the refiners, as it costs from half a cent to three-quarters of 
 a cent a pound. 
 
 Mr. Gear. But you would get a higher price ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. It costs a great deal more to make it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You get a higher price for the raw if you refine it ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. Yes, sir. The sugar-growers of this country get no benefit from 
 the tariff', except on the low grade. 
 
 The Chairm.\x. Do you send it to he retiued ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. Some is refined and some is consumed as it is. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The tendency is to make the.se refined sugars. 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. Yes; but here is the trouble — leas than half of our people are able 
 able to do it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Therefore, if the discriminating schedules in the tarifT in favor of re- 
 fined sugars he extended it will cost you hut little more to refine them. 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. I can not answer your question affirmatively for the re.".son, if we 
 consider the facts in the case, that our capacity to put up establishments for refining 
 these sugars is so much less th.au those who compete with us — the reliners. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Because you run your mills eighty days? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. That is the only reason ; and we do so small an amount of work 
 each day. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you import sugar into New Orleans? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Why do you do that? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. It goes to the refiners. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. So you do not supply Louisiana? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. We supply Louisiana refiners for about throe months with a low 
 grade of sugar. Besides we furnish a very large supjily of sugars that are not first- 
 cla.ss sugars, 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What proportion of the refined sugar of New Orleans do you supply to 
 your refiners at New Orleans? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. I can not tell the proportion. I can tell you that the sugar I m.ake 
 is about 70 per cent, refined sugar. 
 
 Mr. Baynk. I mean of the total consumption of refined sugars of New Orleans, what 
 proportion does Louisiana supply to them ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. I really can not tell you because I am not familiar with the sta- 
 tistics. 1 know that for sever.al montlis they would be working on Louisiana sugar, 
 
 Mr. Bayxe. How many months iliithey roiino? 
 
REVISION' OF THE TARIFF. 637 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. Seven or eight. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. And yoii supply about three mouths? 
 
 Mr. Waumoth. I should thiuk so. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Aud five or six mouths' tiuie they run on imported sugars ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth, Yes, sir; they bring them fiom the Hawaiian Islands, and large 
 quantities of sugar are brought from the Sandwich Islands and dumped into tbe 
 market of New Orleans every time we are marketing our crop, and that is free sugar. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are the refiners of sugar of San Francisco shipping into your country ? 
 
 Mr. Dymond. Some few have been. These two great refineries of New Orleans 
 supplied our Mississippi Valley 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. I beg your pardon. There is not a pound sent north of St. Louis. 
 
 Mr. Dymond. These two refineries are shipping clear to Minnesota. 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. That is a very recent arrangement. These two refineries are doing 
 an enormous business, turning out an enormous quantity of sugar per day. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. You have stated that the trouble in the increase of the yield from 
 your cane is the lack of improved machinery that has recently been invented for se- 
 curing a great amount of sugar out of the cane. You have also stated that the ab- 
 sence of that was accounted for by the fact that the people were not able to purchase 
 it. Now, under the bounty system, will the mass of the people there invest money 
 in the introduction of machinery? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. I think not. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. They lack confidence in the result? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. In other words, if it was understood, as I had the honor to state 
 before this committee some years ago, that Congress would let us alone capital would 
 have confidence in our industry and invest in it. It has only been in the last fifteen 
 years that I have had anything to do with it. There have been a number of bills in- 
 troduced in Congress to put sugar on the free list, and nearly every Congress (espe- 
 cially the Democratic Congresses) has introduced a bill to cut the duty ou sugar. 
 That is what has been scaring them 
 
 Mr. Flower. You must he scared worse with this Eepublican Congress which pro- 
 poses to cut it 1 cent a pound and put it on the free list. 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. I think I can confidently say that this Republican Congress will 
 not strike down any industry in the United States. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Have you read the Senate bill ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. That was a Presidential year, and the Mills bill was gotten up for 
 the purpose of electing Cleveland, and the Senate bill was gotten up as a reply to that. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You are a large planter — larger than the average ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Any payment of bounty by the Government to these small farmers who 
 have 0, 10, and 20 acres would stimulate them to go into the cultivation when they 
 know they could go to the Government at any time and draw that bounty. 
 
 Mr. Warmouth. That is if you maKe it permanent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would you not thus stimulate the small grower of sugar and add to his 
 meager resources ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. It will do no possible harm if you make it permanent. If this 
 proposition to pay a bounty should prevail everybody would believe it would not last 
 one year and you could not find an Iron man in Pennsylvania or Ohio or anywhere 
 else that will sell machinery to a Louisiana planter on time— aud they have to buy 
 on lime — if they had to get it out of this bounty. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Do you not have the same difficulty under the present system ? 
 
 Mr. War.moth. We do have it in a very great measure, because we are constantly 
 menaced wilh the fear of a reduction of the duty, and the result of that places the 
 Louisiana planter in a very hard position. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it not an actual fact that merchants do not take that into considera- 
 tion ? If you go to a manufacturer to buy anything it is the same. He does not look 
 at your reference in regard to your ability to pay. It does not make any difference 
 what your resources are, if your refereuces are all right he will sell to you. 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. If he is not satisfied that there is going to be prosperity in Uiat 
 branch of business he will shut down ou them, aud he will not let them have the 
 articles. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Say Mr. Dymond and I would go and buy sugar or anything else. The 
 man would say, "Mr. Gear, who is your reference?" and I would say, '' So-and-so," 
 and if that reference was satisfactory I would get my goods. They do not say : " How 
 many acres of sugar are you going to make this year ? " 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. It is not that way ? The majority of tbe Louisiana planters go 
 to the factory and get money to run the crops. The majority of them go to the mer- 
 chants and borrow money to make the crop. They put a mortgage upon the planta- 
 tion — upon the crop. If they have a bad-crop year they pay pretty big interest and 
 largo commissions, so in a few years the merchants own the plantations, 
 
G38 KE VISION OF TUE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What are the average wages of farm-hands in Louisiana, such as is 
 paid on the phiutations ? What do you pay men for hauling and plowing and that 
 kind of work ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. From $1 a day to 60 cents. Our best hands get $1 and hoard. 
 Then, in addition, wo furnish a house ; we furnish fuel ; we furnish 2 acres of ground, 
 and we furnish a team to cultivate that in corn or anything else. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I see by the report of the Bureau of Statistics for the year ending June 
 30, 1888, there were imported into New Orleans 4-2,525,889 pounds of cane sugar. How 
 does it compare with your product for that year? 
 
 Mr. Warjiotii. I really do not know. I am not quick enough at figures. 
 
 Mr. Dymoxd. Tiiat would be about one-ninth as much as the Louisiana crop. We 
 had about 180,000 touj. It would be about one-ninth of the crop. 
 
 Mr. Breckiniudgb. Do you furnish pretty steady employment there to the women 
 and other members of the family suitable to their strength ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. Yes, sir ; everybody works. 
 
 Mr. Brbckinhidge. They have no lack of opportunity to work? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. No. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You lie side by side with the cotton-produoing industry, in 
 some places overlapping it a little? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. Yes, in the upper part of the State. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Fvery wage-worker ia in competition with the other. 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. The result of that is that a large number of the people are getting 
 ready along the cotton belt to go into the sugar industry. It is being done, and it is 
 a marked improvement on the line of the Red River in the increased sugar-culture. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is there abundance of labor sufficiently skilled to meet any 
 demand there may be in case the sugar industry is enlarged to that extent ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. I think they are getting a large invoice of labor north of Alabama. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it your opinion if raw sugar is put on the free list and the 
 duty on refined sugar brought to a nominal rate that it would stop the sugar pro- 
 duction of Louisiana ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. Signally and absolutely. I do not believe there would bo a crop 
 made. All the capital iniJ^ested in machinery would be destroyed and our people 
 would be forced to entirely change that industry. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Cotton is not grown in your region at all ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. No, sir ; we entirely devote ourselves to sugar-raising. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. If the duty on sugar w.ere cut down, as proposed by the Senate bill, fjO 
 per cent., is it your opinion it would largely increase the importation of sugar into 
 the country ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. I think it would certainly increase the importation into the country 
 to supply the deficiency that would be created by our going out of the production 
 of it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The qnestion was asked here the other day if there was not some 
 organized effort in your section of the country to restrict the price of labor, the rates 
 of wages? Do you know of any effort to reduce the wages of labor except the ordi- 
 nary law of supj)ly and demand? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. No, sir ; I do not think it exists in any part of our State. 
 
 The Chairman. I never heard that charged. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Governor Gear asked somebody in regard to it. 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. There is no organization except the sugar organization. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is not the tendency in Louisiana towards a concentration in the owner- 
 ship of those plantations? I am speaking ot the wealthy idanters. 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. There is such a tendency, you might say, nuder these improved con- 
 ditions. 
 
 Mr. Gear. There is a general tendency to concentrate the business? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. I think that is the case where I said in regard to the merchants 
 who advance to these planters and where the people get behind and are obliged to 
 sell out and the merchants have to take them in. I think in those cases there is a 
 concentration to some extent. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. Have you got the product of sugar of Louisiana for the last 
 ten years '? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. Of each year? 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Can you get it for each year ? 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. Yes, sir. Mr. Gear has Mr. Bushrow's report here and has this 
 statement, which contains his statement of the amount. I will submit that to-mor- 
 row. 
 
 Mr. Warmoth. I wish to call the attention of the c<inimittee to this article, taken 
 from the Washington Post of January 0: 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 639 
 
 BEETS INSTEAD OF WHEAT. 
 
 Ekading, Pa., January 4. 
 
 The farmers of Berks County inteucl to go extensively into sugar-beet culture. At 
 the meeting of the county agricultural society yesterday a special committee of five 
 who were appointed to inquire into the subject reported that they had thoroughly 
 canvassed the county ; that nearly every farmer promised to put out during the first 
 year 2 to 5 acres in sugar beets, and that the total would amount to thousands of acres. 
 The farmers have obtained assurances that Claus Spreokols will erect a sugar fac- 
 tory near here and consume their products. The society at once appointed another 
 committee of one hundred and fifty well known farmers to pu,sh the project. 
 
 The farmers are thoroughly alive on the subject. They see that farming wheat no 
 longer pays, and they are anxious to go into something else. In a letter written here 
 recently Mr. Spreckels assured the Berks farmers that sugar-beet culture would 
 pay them twice as well as wheat. The sherifi:' is selling farms and farm stock nearly 
 every day. Many farmers will retire in spring, while numerous farms are for rent. 
 The farmers who.will remain in the business are eager to go into anything which will 
 pay them better. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HAMILTON DISSTON. 
 
 Philadelphia, January 4, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: Owiugto illness I am unable to appear before the Ways and Means Com- 
 mittee on Monday the 6th instant, and, therefore, take this method of saying a few 
 words regarding the sugar industry in the State of Florida. 
 
 We have successfully demonstrated that the rich muck lands of the State are capa- 
 ble of producing a large amount of sugar per acre, probably exceeding 2 tons, and the 
 number of acres that are susceptible of reclamation and cultivation can be placed at 
 not less than .500,000, which would give about 1,000,000 tons of sugar. 
 
 In addition to this there are other lands in Florida which can be made to produce 
 a fair yield of sugar by the use of fertilizers. 
 
 You will see from this statement, which can be verified by an actual examination, 
 that Florida is about to become a very important factor in the sugar business, pro- 
 vided, of course, there is to be sufticieut protection given by Congress to enable us to 
 compote successfully against foreign sugars.- 
 
 As to the amount of protection required, I wOuld prefer to have those who are 
 more conversant with the business give the figures, but my judgment is against a 
 bounty — from the fact that it would be an unpopular measure, and the outcry might 
 become so great against it as to cause its repeal, thus leaving the sugar industry with- 
 out sufficient tariff protection and no bounty to aid the producers. 
 
 I shall be glad to furnish the Committee on Ways and Means with further informa- 
 tion if it should bo required. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 Hamilton Disston. 
 
 Hon. Thomas M. Bayne. 
 
 PRODUCTION OF BEET SUGAR. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. S. R. PETERS. 
 
 Hon S. R. Petebs, a Representative from the State of Kansas, next addressed the 
 committee. He said: • 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am interested in the throe S's, 
 Bilk, sugar, and salt. The hearing upon the question of silk was not completed when 
 the committee took arecesH, and I did not come in in time to renew it directly after. 
 I want to say a word in regard to it, although it may be a little out of place. There 
 are more cocoons produced in my Congressional district than in any other in the 
 United States, and perhaps, in order to exjilain something about the production of 
 silk cocoons, I might state in the outset that my district is a large one, composed of 
 thirty-seven counties in southwestern Kansas, and having a population of about 
 four hundred and twenty-five thousand people. The aggregate vote at the last Con- 
 gressional election was between seventy-three and seventy-four thousand, so it is not 
 a barren desert that I represent, nor people that are not industrious. Now, we had a 
 legislative enactment, a law passed some years ago, by whicli we established a silk 
 station at Peabody by the legislature of the State of Kansas. Under the stimulus 
 of that act the production of cocoons in the State of Kausas has been largely in- 
 creased in the last two years. In short, to state it more definitely and Buociuctly, 
 
640 REVISION or the tariff. 
 
 the crop of cocoods for 1889 was over 5,000 pounds, or a little over one-fourth 
 of the euliio production of the United States. This silli staliou is siiuated in 
 Marion Couuty. Mnriou County ahiuo, under the stimulus of that silk station, 
 produced more cocoons iu IhS'J than was pi'oduced in the entire State any pre- 
 vious year, showiug that there is some logic and argument and force to th^s question 
 of stimulus, aud that was the only stimulus we had, namely, the location of this 
 silk station, which would purchase these cocoons fiom the various parties who raised 
 them, and under such a stimulus the productiou of that one couuty alone in which 
 this station was located increased so it exceeded the entire production of the State 
 in any prior year. 
 
 Mr. Okak. What was the value of that? 
 
 Mr. Pkters. The value of those 5,000 pounds of cocoons would be $1 a pound or 
 81.12 a pound. Of course, this is entirely in its iufaucy as yet, but it is one of the 
 most feasibly and practical matters of bringing legislation home to the poor people 
 aud to the farmer upou his farm that can be brought before Congress, because the 
 parties who raise those cocoous, which bring to them from $25 to $150 a year, are not 
 required to make any outlay ; it is absolutely that much money brought iuto the 
 farmer's household without auy outlay and without any investment, except the mere 
 inconvenience of attending to these silk- worms for a period of four weeks in the year. 
 We have a large class that came from Russia who were familiar with this business 
 there. They brought with them their customs, and they have gone into this business 
 largely. Our country is a groat country lor the Russian mulberry, as it is our best 
 shade tree, because it is sure and rapid in its growth, and these Russian mulberiy 
 trees supply food tor the worms. We have millions aud millions of osage orange 
 hedge, aud the party who sees tit, in connection with his farm business, to raise from 
 $25 to :};150 worth of cocoous does so without any outlay at all, and it simply brings 
 into his pocket that much in cash that would not have been received, and for only 
 about four weeks' work. A large number of eggs were distributed in my district the 
 last year with the most gratifying result. This legislation will benefit the farming 
 population not only in Kausas, not only in my district, but wherever the Russiau 
 mulberry and the Osage orange hedge can grow. Of coiiise, we sell all the cocoons 
 now to the silk station at Peaijody and the Agricultural Department at Washington. 
 
 What we want is to have that trade stimulated iu some way by legislation that 
 will insure us a sale for those cocoons. I am not iuterested particularly iu these 
 manufacturers of silk. I do not care how much you increase the protection on their 
 manufactures. I do not care, nor do my people care, because whatever you do add 
 it is simply a luxury and whatever is paid for it comes from those who can afford it. 
 So you can increase the protection to the manufacturers of silk as jiiuch as you please. 
 But I want protection for these jieople out there in my district. I want a protection 
 on raw silk that will stimulate this industry. I am talking for those people wlio 
 can raise from $100 to $1.50 worth of cocoous a year, and I want you to give them a 
 fair, reasonable, and certain market for what they may produce. 
 
 Now, I believe that is all I care to say upon the silk question. Mr. Walker dem- 
 onstrated very clearly, I think, that it is feasible to give protecllou to this indusfiy. 
 The simple stimulus given by the State of Kansas brought results Ijeyoud the e\- 
 jieclation of anybody and shows what the stimulus of legislation coming from the 
 national capital would do for this indu.stry. 
 
 The C'li AIRMAN. Did the State of Kansas pay a bounty ? 
 
 Mr. Petkks. No, sir. All the State of Kansas did was to make an apjiropriation to • 
 carry on the silk station aud thereby furnish a market for cocoons. 
 
 Now I come to the next ([uestion, the question of sugar, I want to eliminate all 
 the Louisiana business from the (piestion. I do not exijcct to speak for Louisiana. 
 I will let them speak for themselves. I simply speak for the sugar industry which I 
 have the hnnor to represent in Congress. I believe, so far as my observation goes, in 
 all that has been said in regard to the sugar industry of Louisiana. In the district in 
 which I live there are seven sugar plants. In the first place, I would start out by 
 saying the productiou of sugar from sorgl.um amounted to 1,200,000 jjouuds. 
 
 The CitaiTlMan. Did you say sugar plants ? 
 
 Mr. Peteks. Yes; seven sugar plants. 
 
 The C'HAtHMAN. You m(^an mills? 
 
 Mr. Petehs. Yes, sir. That does not include the sugar that will be made from the 
 seconds which is now being made. The estiuiate of the State sugar inspector is that 
 about 200,000 pounds of sugar will be made from these seconds that are now being 
 run through the mill, so wo will have a product of sorghum sugar in Kansas of 
 1,400,000 pounds, perhaps 1,500,000. Now, in 1887, we only produced about 300,000 
 pounds of sugar. In 1888 we produced a little over 600,000 pounds of sugar. In 
 1880 we produced 1,200,000 pounds, to say nothing about the sugar that is to be secured 
 Irom these seconds. So you see, we have doubled our production for the last 
 three years. We had an experience similar to Louisiana in 1883. We brought frcnu 
 New Orleans a large sugar-mill and went to raising sorghum and made sugar by the 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 641 
 
 old crushing process, this three-roller mill process. We continued to make sugar 
 that year and the nest year, ls>d4, but tlio trouble was we could not extract enough 
 juice from the cane to make it prodtable, and that mill stands there to-day as a mon- 
 ument to flie industry and its failure at that time, the result of the lack of proper 
 machinery, for the simple reason that we could not extract enough juice. In- 
 stead of extracting 97 per cent, of saccharine matter as is now obtained by the diffu- 
 sion process, we only got 60 per cent. Instead of making 70 pounds, we could only 
 then make 50 pounds of sugar from a ton of cane, and the result was we could not 
 make enough sugar to pay, and the mill stopped. There was no further experiment 
 made in that industry in Kansas until this diffusion process -was introduced by which 
 a larger extraction of saccharine matter could bo obtained from the cane. It is yet in 
 its infancy, but it is becoming a very lively infant. If you let it alone, if you do not 
 trouble it, there will be no need to talk of paying any bounty. 
 
 The Chairman . What do you think of a bounty? 
 
 Mr. Peters . I think it is a contemptible thing so far as legislation goes. I stand 
 here as a protectionist 
 
 The Chairman. What objection have you to a bounty? 
 
 Mr. Peters. My objection is, in the first place, it can not be made permanent. 
 There is no Congressional legislation that the Fifty-first Congress can place upon the 
 statute-books that can not be ohauged by the Fifty-second. 
 
 The Chairman. Is not that equally true of the tariff law ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. Of course, the Fifty-second Congress can revise the tariff, but the 
 tariff is something that has been the growth of a series of ages, certainly of a series 
 of years in this country, and the people know about it, but a bounty is something 
 that nobody knows anything about, something that has never been attempted be- 
 fore by legislation in this country. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I believe a Democratic Congress in 1857 reduced that tariff to 24 per 
 cent. What effect would that have upon your industry ? Now you have got 80 per 
 cent. 
 
 Mr. Peters. There was no sugar made from surghum in 185G and 1857. This 
 making of siigarfrom sorghum is an entirely new industry. In Louisiana sugar was 
 made from the tropical cane, and subsequently 
 
 Mr. Gear. I am speaking about the uncertainty of tariff legislation. Tariff laws 
 are just as uncertain. 
 
 Mr. Peters. What was your question ? 
 
 Mr. Gear. You stated in your reply to the chairman's question that a bounty was 
 uncertain. Now, we had a tariff law which was equally uncertain thirty-three years 
 ago; we had a tariff of 24 per cent., while now we have a tariff of 80 per cent, on 
 sugar. That illustrates the uncertainty of the tariff? 
 
 Sir. Peters. I do not think it does, for this reason, as I stated, the tariff' is an ac- 
 cepted feature of this Government. It is the accepted law ; both the Democrats and 
 the Republicans recognize the essential necessity of a tariff. We hear, of course, 
 sometimes in our political arguments about free trade. There is no such thing as 
 free trade in this country, and can not be. The most ardent Democrat is not a free- 
 trader. The next objection to. a bounty is that it invites from year to year an agita- 
 tion of this very question. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Does not the tariff? 
 
 Mr. Peters. Not necessarily. The agitation of this tariff question is brought 
 about by political discussions. There would be a strong element of agitation which 
 would enter into the question of bounty, and that would be this : Suppose you raise 
 one-half the consumption of sugar in the United States and ran that bounty up until 
 $25,000,000 of money was paid directly from the Treasury. There would not be a 
 school-house in your district where they would not have meetings and pass resolu- 
 tions demanding its repeal. Why ? Because it is paying $25,000,000 directly in 
 money from the Treasury instead of paying it, as under the tariff, by briugiug in 
 almost imperceptibly the money from those who import the sugar. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I imagine the people in my district would not complain very much. 
 
 Mr. Peters. The difficulty about it is that your bounty is not given to the proper 
 person. It is a bounty on sugar, and a farmer who needs the benefit of legislation 
 has nothing to do with the making of sugar. It requires capital, and the farmer 
 can not usually afford to put up a plant of |75,000. What ho desires upon his little 
 home of 160 acres of laud is to have a market in his neighborhood, so that he can dis- 
 pose of what he can raise. We have not the capital in Kansas that you have in Iowa. 
 It requires a plant costing $75,000 in every township, and wo have not the money to 
 build them. The farmers of a township can not raise it. We must go to capitalists ; 
 we must go to Boston, New York, to the money centers, and say we want money to 
 pnt up a mill. They ask us, ''• What assurauce have you in regard to this business ? " 
 We show them the tigu,res; we show them we can make so many pounds of sugar; 
 that we can raise so many tons to the acre, and by the use of this money we can put 
 in this machinery, and at the present prices of sugar it is a good investment for their 
 485 41 
 
642 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 capita,!. But when you go to them, as I did last year and year before last, when the 
 ■question was being agitated in the Fiftieth Congress, they said, "What assurance 
 have you of a continuance of this bounty ?" I could not tell them. They said, "Then, 
 we can not invest." 
 
 Mr. Bayne. The Republican Senate now has a majority of ten ; with two from 
 Montana, they will have a majority of twelve. It will take ten or twelve years to 
 displace that Republican majority. Suppose under the auspices of the Republican 
 majority of the House and Senate a bounty be given ou sugar. Of course, for four, 
 five, sis, or seven years that bounty would encourage the production until it would 
 reach an enormous amount, which would be paid to the producers of sugar. 
 Therefore a vast consumption of sugar would follow. Suppose that right hand in 
 hand with this the price of sugar to the consumer of the country would be very much 
 less, selling, we will assume now, atC cents a pound and brought down by that opera- 
 tion to '.i or 4 cents a pound. Do you 8uj)pose that anybody that has any sense in 
 this country would look upon that result otherwise than as advantageous to the 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. Pbtbrs. I know this, however, that when you go to capitalists they say they 
 can not rely upon it. That is an answer to all the theoretical propositions you can 
 advance. They will not listen. They simply say, we will not invest this money. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I am simply stating to you about the bounty. 
 
 Mr. Peters. These capitalists will not furnish this money if there is a bounty. 
 
 Mr. Geak. You said if the bounty amounted to 25,000,000 — we will suppose that — 
 in ten years it will be 250,000,000. In ten years under the present system, according 
 to your own figures, the duty on imported sugar consumed in this country would be 
 $640,000,000. 
 
 Mr. Peters. You can make the same argument of protection on every other thing 
 in the United States. You must either abandon the protection of every other in- 
 dustry in the United States, or stand by the principle of protection for all industries. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I do not see it in that light. 
 
 Mr. Peters. I do, and the iieople of my district do, who are strongly Republican, 
 and it is a district that gave me a plurality of 16,000. Among the farmers of that 
 district there is a feeling of unrest, a feeling of something wrong, a feeling that they 
 are not properly protected, that their interests are not looked after. Unless there is 
 some legislation coming from this Congress which shows them their interests are 
 looked after, there is no -telling what the result will be. In Kansas we have 82,000 
 Republican majority. This is not a feeling confined to Kansas. It prevails in Texas 
 and Missouri and all agricultural States. And so I am here pleading for these farm- 
 ers. They are raising corn and selling it for 10 cents a bushel. There have been over 
 90,000,000. bushels of corn raised in my district and it is selling for 10, 12, 15 cents, 
 and some portion of it has been used for iuel. You can not go to a farmer and argue 
 that there is not something wrong when this is the case, and he says, " if I can get|2 
 a ton for cane, I can raise on my farm, and if Congress under Republican auspices 
 causes the destruction of that industry," you can not go to them and talk and argue 
 that that is the result of statesmanship. They say, " we do not care ; we know there 
 is something wrong and we are going to have a change." 
 
 Mr. Gear. What does 1,200,000 pounds of sugar cost ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. I can not tell you. My own judgment is from my own observation and 
 experience in the matter, that we can make sugar under ordinary circumstances at a 
 cost of from 4 to 6 cents. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Does the State of Kansaspay a bounty? 
 
 Mr. Peters. Yes, of 2 cents. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Have you heard the farmers complain of that ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. Yes, sir; the fact that the State of Kansas pays a bounty is no argu- 
 ment that the Government should pay it. Kausas could not adopt a protective tariff 
 and it was the only thing to do. The only way we could encourage the sugar indus- 
 try was by paying a bounty, and I have heard the cry among the farmers saying, 
 this is too much mouey to be paid out for this industry by the State; it should be 
 protected by the United States; why is the State paying this out? 
 
 Mr. Gear. In other words, the State paid the bounty'instead of the Government ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. The Government should help the farmers by protection, the same as 
 all other iudustries. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Has the bounty paid in your State resulted in bringing about the 
 present development? 
 
 Mr. Peters. I do not believe the payment of the bounty had much to do with the 
 development, for this reason : There were sis mills built in my district this year, 
 They were not stimulated to do this by the bounty )>aid ujion sugar. It was some 
 stimulant, because a man who went into it knew tjje law could not bo I'epealed until 
 a certain time, because the legislature does not meet until a certain time. 
 
 Mr. GEAJi. Has there been any efibrt to repeal it? 
 
 Mr. pH'j)cr!.8. Tbelegi-slature busiiever met but once. When it met, the production 
 
KE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 643 
 
 of Kansas did uot amount to very mucli. There was only a production of about 
 300,000 pounds, and the aggregate bounty was not formidable. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. Have yon always favored the State bonnty ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. Yes, sir ; I favored it because it was the only thing we could do. It 
 was the only encouragement we could give. My people are for protection, and they 
 want this protection to extend to their own Jiomes as well as the homes of the steel 
 manufacturer or any other manufacturer. They are willing to live and let live, but 
 they do not want to be discriminated against. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What are your principal products ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. Corn, wheat, rye, oats, sugar, salt, and silk cocoons. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Pork and beef? 
 
 Mr. Peters. Oh, yes. I suppose we have three million hogs, and perhaps five mil- 
 lion head of cattle in my district. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If you have wheat and pork and beef and corn, what per 
 cent, do they constitute of what your farmers self; that is a pretty large total which 
 they sell ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. Yes; it will amount to a large sum. We have a large production of 
 salt in my district, also. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Salt, however, is not an industry of comprehensive employ- 
 ment. It is only worked in given localities. 
 
 Mr. Peters. There is one section in my district where there are fifteen salt plants, 
 and I think the annual product of salt is 2,000,000 bushels. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I referred to the farmers. 
 
 Mr. Peters. The farmers only receive an indirect benefit. Wherever a salt plant 
 is erected the benefit the farmer gets is from the employment of labor and the en- 
 • hanced value of farm land. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You receive a protection, I believe, in your country ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. We have 10 cents a bushel on corn. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it possible to protect corn 1 
 
 Mr. Peters. It is possible to protect it. We should increase the tariff upon wheat 
 and corn. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What good would it do? 
 
 Mr. Peters. It would give to our farmers better prices than they now get. Our 
 meu have to compete with India wheat. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How would yon get the benefit of protection when there is an 
 overproduction ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. We only consume 90 per cent, in the United States of our farm prod- 
 ucts ; the rest of the 10 per cent, goes abroad. It is not the competition, but the cost 
 of transportation and the existence of grain-gambling hells, if I may be allowed that 
 expression. 
 •Mr. Breckinridge. Is it not a fact, under the conditions of trade such as have ex- 
 isted since yon have known anything about this, that wheat and corn and beef and 
 pork are not capable of Ijeiug protected in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. I concede that at present they are not protected, but there are two 
 ways by which they can be protected. One would be by a general system of protec- 
 tion increasing the number of laborers or employ(5s in the mines and manufactories 
 of the country, so that farmers may have more consumers in this nountry. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge Are we not suffering from an overproduction of the mines and 
 manufactories ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. I am simply speaking of it in a general way. There ar6 a great many 
 articles manufactured at a large rate of profit, and the farmer who raises the produce 
 feels that. I speak of the general feature of i^rotection. I think the system of pro- 
 tection can be so arranged that we may consume our own produce, or, in other words, 
 to market them ourselves. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Isthis consuDjing class capable of further enlargement as com- 
 pared with the producing class ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. We are enlarging it in my district. This question of sugar is enlarg- 
 ing it. You take a plant that makes 500,000 pounds of sugar and it gives employ- 
 ment to sixty-five or a hundred men. The.se men are taken from the farms and be- 
 come the consumers of the farmer's produce. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You are speaking of the development in one industry, but as 
 a general proposition, looking at our national manufactories and mining establish- 
 ments that to-day are suffering from overproduction and underconsumption of their 
 productions. 
 
 Mr. Peters. I think so, but I do not wish to discuss that matter. 
 
 The Chairman. Do not you think you and Mr. Breckinridge can have ttiat out on 
 the floor? 
 
 Mr. Peters. All I want is to get on with this sugar business. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am looking after the interests of your people out there, to 
 get information about Kansas. 
 
644 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is tbe bounty paid by Kansas ? 
 
 Mr. Peteks. Two cents a pound on all that polarizes above 92. In my district at 
 one mill tbe proprietor planted 4.4 acres of beets. He raised 60 tons of beets and 
 from these 60 tons of beets, by using the same machinery he made sugar of sorghum, 
 he made 10,000 pounds of sugar that polarized 99 per cent, and over, a fine class of 
 sugar. The great trouble with the sorghum-sugar industry of Kansas is that the 
 sugar season is not long enough now. It tak6s'|75,000 to |80,000 to erect a plant 
 that will consume 200 tons of cane a day, and tbat is a very expensive plant to be 
 only used forty or fifty days dnring tbe season. This beet-culture comes in immedi- 
 ately after the cane, because in cane, as soon as a freeze comes it inverts the saccha- 
 rine matter so that it can not be used for making sugar, but the sugar season, bo far 
 as the beet is concerned, can be extended perhaps two months, which will give us an 
 ample sugarseason, by the use of nearly the same machinery. Thisis a small experi- 
 ment in a small way, but it has demonstrated that the beet can be grown and that 
 it is a very fine quality, so far as the saccharine matter is concerned, as we can make 
 160 pounds from 1 ton of beets. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How many tons of beets are there to an acre 'I 
 
 Mr. Peters. We raise about 15 tons to tbe acre. Not only can that be done there, 
 but it can be done all through that country. Now, I said we have seven mills, and 1 
 want to explain that, because yon may think tbe production of sugar is very small to 
 each mill, but the fact was four mills were not completed in time to do anything in 
 the making of sugar this year. This entire product of sugar from the State of Kansas 
 was made from four mills — one at Fort Scott, one at Modiciue Lodge, one at Conway 
 Springs, and one at Attica. One of the best mills i.i the State burned down a short 
 time before the sugar season began. That would have undoubtedly produced 700,- 
 000 or 800,000 pounds more, which would have increased very materially the sugar o 
 product of Kansas. So this product of 1,400,000 pounds of sugar has been made from 
 four mills. That does not count anything for the sirup. There are from 10 to 14 gal- 
 lons of sirup per ton. This is a very small item, but of course it goes in to swell the 
 general productiou. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do they pay 40 or .50 cents a gallon? 
 
 Mr. Peters. Nu, sir ; the best we can do is about 14 cents a gallon for sirup. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Was any cane lost ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How many acres? 
 
 Mr. Peters. About 2,000 acres. This is a new business for us, and I know the 
 Louisiana men will laugh at me when I say that for one week during the sugar sea- 
 son our mills could not run. Why? Because we had such bad roads and so much 
 rain that w6 could not get cane to the mill. That of course could be obviated by ex- 
 perience. We will make provision so that if an occasion of that kind over occurs 
 again we shall be provided with jilenty of material near the mill. I call attention 
 to the fact that we have made a success of this and our farmers are interested in it. 
 Any farmer with a team of horses can plant and grow from 40 to 60 acres of cane, 
 and all be needs is a lit'tle assistance in harvesting. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What time of year does this cane mature ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. We are aiming to get a quality of cane which will mature as early as 
 the 1st of August, but we have not succeeded in getting it yet. 
 
 Mr. La Foleette. What time does it mature now ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. The earliest sorghum matures about the 26th of August. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. How long does the sugar season last? 
 
 Mr. Peters. Until a freeze comes ; that of course we can not tell, but we can safely 
 count to tbe 1.5th of November. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Have you time enougli to really uiake the cane sugar business 
 in your latitudu certainly profitable? 
 
 Mr.-PBTBES. Yes, sir; I think we have demonstrated that. With seventy days 
 alone we can make the business profitalile. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The season is not thoroughly relial_)le ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. This year we had a long enough season. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is not tbe lijth of September the time your cane matures best ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. We have two varieties of cane, the amber and orange, and it has been 
 demonstrated that a cross of these two canes y>roduced the best sugar. I think the 
 highest analysis was 20 per cent. We can take the amber, which is the earliest cane 
 to ripen, and by cultivation and care in the cultivation it can bo ripened as early as 
 the 10th of August. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. You spoke of a frost ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. No, not a frost but a freeze, which breaks the cells in the cane. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The sorghum is raised on land that will not mature any corn, near 
 the hundredth parallel, and you can raise it where you can not raise corn? 
 
 Mr. Peters. Of course; this whole section I speak of is right in the corn produc- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 645 
 
 ino- section, but you can go 100 miles west wbere the nights are too cold to raise corn, 
 and can raise cane. ■ i n, i 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. You say it matures as early as the middle of August, and that 
 this work must be done before a freeze. So that if it matures later than that you would 
 not have time to make cane sugar business a really profitable business ? 
 
 Mr. Peters, I say it would curtail the production of a mill. When you start a 
 ponderous amount of machinery and stop it, it is a loss. When the mill is started 
 and the cane ripens right along there is no trouble. For instance, at one of the mills 
 they demonstrated they could make, when running twenty-four hours, over and 
 above expenses about $300. Whenever the mill stops they lose that |300. And when- 
 ever they lose that there is also a loss to the farmer. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Will you state what you pay your agricultural labor ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. About |l.-i5 to $1.50 a day. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. For working in the fields 1 
 
 Mr. Peters. Yes, sir; $1.2.5 to $l..')0. There is some labor by the month. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I mean where they are regularly employed ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. Most of the labor employed in these mills is 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am talking about the farm now, the farm laborers. 
 
 Mr. Peters. There is very little farm labor employed that way, but they get about 
 $25 a month. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is that with board ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does he receive a house for his family ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then lie has his own house ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. His board includes board and lodging for himself alone. When a 
 farmer hires a man for $25 a month, the man comes and stays at his house. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. This simply is not wage and it includes board for a single 
 man ? 
 
 Mr. Peters. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But if a man has a family, does be have a house for his family 
 or does he provide it himself? 
 
 Mr. Peters. I do not know how it is with a man who has a family, working by 
 the month ; in my district most of that class of labor is by the day. 
 
 There have been six establishm^ents put up this last year in my district, and I 
 think if there is no unfavorable legislation we will do well in this industry. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HENRY T. OXNARD, OP NEBRASKA. 
 
 Mr. Henry T. Oxnard, of Nebraska, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, before I begin my remarks I will 
 state thai I am representing an industry which is a new one. It is the beet-sugar in- 
 dustry. I got a telegram from Mr. Spreckels, informing me he could not be present to- 
 day and stating that Mr. Burr, of Aivarado, Cal., who is onhis way to Europe to double 
 his plant, would like to be heard sometime in the future. If you want to interrupt me 
 at any time ijlease do so. 
 
 I come before you to-day in behalf of the beet-sugar industry and ask that the pro- 
 tection that has been granted for the past twenty years or more to the sugax industries 
 of the United States be continued some years longer and thereby allow a now indus- 
 try of great promise to demonstrate its ability to supply in a few years the home 
 market with all its sugar at a cheaper price than it has ever before enjoyed, and at 
 the same time state the fact that this is the only course for the Government to take 
 if-it wishes to supply its inhabitants permanently with sugar at the lowest possible 
 price. For it is au undeniable truth that the only way to decrease^ the cost of an ar- 
 ticle is to increase the production of that article beyond the actual consumption, and 
 by this method, practically appliedin the beet-sugar producing countries of Europe, we 
 are to-day enjoying sugar at a very much lower cost than would ever have been possi- 
 ble had not those countries, by a high protective tariff, fostered and developed an in- 
 dustry which produces to-day more sugar than all the rest of the world, and this 
 broad and far-seeing policy, m ten years, if applied to this country with same energy 
 as in those countries, will still further reduce the cost of this article, not only to our- 
 selves but to the people of the entire globe. 
 
 Any deviation at this time from that policy by our Government will not only have 
 a contrary effect to the one desired, namely, cheaper sugar, but may permanently 
 destroy in the United States an industry which is to-day the source of great — I may 
 say the greatest— national wealth to Germany, France, and Austria, and which is 
 the great commercial, agricultural, and manulacturing industry oh the continent of 
 Europe to-day, and all this has been accoipplished within the'la.st fifty years by a 
 
646 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 protective tariff, wliich is contiuued to this day iu every country in the world which 
 can produce a pound of sugar. To-day France has a protection on sugar of 5 cents 
 a pound; Geriuany, 'Si cents, and Austria, a little over 4 cents, while we have only 
 a protection ol' 2 cents. But, gentlemen, we will not have to waitfifty, years for we 
 can talso advantge at once of that which the science of Europe has discovered and 
 developed in the art of sugar producing and sugar relining, agriculturally and manu- 
 facturingly speaking, during the last fifty years. In 1829 the sugar-beet only con- 
 tained 5 per cent, of sugar to the weight of the beet, and by careful selection of the 
 best types they have raised that standard to an average of 9 per cent, in 1879, whilst 
 in 1889 the average of over 14 per cent, has been obtained. Now, every per cent, 
 means an increase of 20 pounds of sugar to the ton, and about .300 pounds to the acre, 
 so that the refiner with the same cost of labor, with the same fuel, the same plant, 
 and the same capital invested, obtains 100 pounds more sugar than he did ten years 
 ago. The natural result of this is to decrease the cost of sugar to the producer and 
 eventually to the consumer, and by this same process of selection and breeding, if I 
 may so use the term here, in the next fifteen years the average will be 20 per cent, 
 of sugar to the weight of the beet. 
 
 I have polarized beets in Nebraska which contained 23 per cent, of sugar, and by 
 selecting those beets and breeding from them in the course of a few years we will 
 be able to obtain a crop with a general average up to that standard. And for this 
 very reason the sugar-beet is destined to outstrip all other sugar-producing plants. 
 Now in this country five States which can to-day be called sugar producing, namely, 
 Louisiana, Texas, California, Kansas, and Nebraska, have an area of 619,000 square 
 miles — more than that of France, Germany, and Austria together. And I may add, 
 in all truth, that nearly every one of our Northern States is just as well adapted to 
 the growth of the sugar-beet. My experiments have taught me that the seeds im- 
 ported from Europe and planted here in our rich soil give better results than iu Eu- 
 rope. And to bear this out I can give no better example than to inform you that 
 Mr. Spreckels had an average of 17 per cent, the past year, whereas in Europe the 
 beets contained only a little'over 14 per cent. In Nebraska three hundred and eighty- 
 five analyses of different beets gave me an average of 16.1 per cent. These are fact-s, 
 and show that the soil and climate in this country are better adapted to the growth 
 and development of sugar-beets than that of Europe. The Alvarado factory in Cali- 
 fornia during September and October, when I was there and verified the report, 
 showed over 18 per cent, of sugar. For many reasons I prefer our Northwestern 
 States, but if nothing detrimental in legislation 'occurs I feel confident that in 1900 
 we shall see beet-sngar factories started and working successfully in every one of our 
 Northern States east of the Rocky Mountains and right up to the Atla.ntic Ocean. 
 Near Oswego, N. Y., with scarcely any knowledge on the subject, beets have been 
 grown and analyzed by the Department in Washington containing over 14 per cent, 
 of sugar, which is the highest standard of Europe to-day. 
 
 I do not mean to say that every soil is adapted to the growth of the sugar-beet, but 
 I firmly believe that enough soil exists well adapted to grow sugar-beets in quanti- 
 ties and quality suiiScien't to supply the home market of that particular State with 
 refined sugar. But the supply of the home market is not the only advantage to be 
 gained ; I refer to the effect of the beet crop on the soil. Properly carried on, the 
 cultivation of the sugar-beet is greatly beneficial to all other agriculture. The deep 
 and careful cultivation which the beet requires greatly improves the laud, the soil 
 becoming thereby deepened and the disintegration and solution of the miueral ooustit- 
 uenta greatly accelerated. The tap root of the beet descends to a great depth, loos- 
 ening the soil which most other plants fail to reach. The nourishment thus obtained 
 passes partly into the leaves and is left with them on the ground at the time of the 
 harvest, and to-day in Europe, where the farmers do not make a direct profit, they are 
 willing, and even anxious, to plant beets, as they find their next crop grown on the 
 same soil is increased 33 per cent. The pulp after the sugar is removed makes an ex- 
 cellent food for fattening cattle, and can be sold to the farmers for little or nothing. 
 It is not the price of sugar, or even the clothes he wears, that makes the farmer so 
 poor in Nebraska, but it is the fact that he is only getting |7..'50 for the total gross re- 
 ceipts of his acre of corn ; and there is no remedy for this unless something like the 
 beet crop is introduced, which will yield him a gross receipt of from $40 to |60 per 
 acre and a net profit of more than twice as much as his present gross receipts from 
 corn, and ho knows beforehand when he sows his seed in the spring exactly how 
 much ho will receive for his crop at harvest— unlike corn, wheat, oats, and other 
 staples, which are subject to the fluctuations of speculation. 
 
 Mr. Gkar. You assume the farmer sells all his corn in Nebraska ? 
 
 Mr. OxN'ARD. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I presumed by conclusion that a good farmer did not sell corn in Ne- 
 braska. Do you not thiuk if he feeds it to his hogs it pays better i 
 
 Mr. OxNAKD. He can feed this pulp to the cattle, which will be better, because he 
 can buy lean cattle and fatten them up. And this applies to all the farmers of the 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 647 
 
 West. I do not beliove President Harrison in his last message to Congress had a 
 lietter example jn view when he said, speaking of the tariff, "The inequalities of the 
 law should be adjusted, but the protective principle should be maintained and fairly 
 applied to the products of our farms as well as our shops." And, gentlemen, sugar 
 raising is farming on a high scale. Right here I wish to call attention to a popular 
 error. People often speak of raw sugar as being raw material, but no one can deny 
 that raw sugar is a manufactured article which comes directly into compelition with 
 all sugar factories which produce sugar from the original plant. Why should we not 
 retain the profit to be derived from that source in our own country and at the same 
 time develop an industry which benefits onr fanners and is the only sound basis on 
 which we can ever build our hopes for cheap sugar. Europe in 1829 only produced 
 2,695 tons of sugar, while in lb'89 the jiroductiou will exceed 3,000,000 tons ; and this 
 result, as I have said before, has only been accomplished by a high protective tariff. 
 
 It is useless to attempt to build up this industry in the United States without a 
 protective tariff and one in which people can feel a stability ; for capital will not em- 
 bark in this enterprise with a sword of Damocles hanging over the industry ; and I 
 feel sure that no bounty can be substituted for protection if the United States wishes 
 to see this industry thrive, and become iiot only the largest sugar consuming but 
 also the largest sugar producing country in the world. In 1887 we produced from 
 the sugar beet 200 tons of sugar. In 188S about 1,800 tons. In 1889 about 3,000 tons. 
 In 1890 12,000 tons will be produced, an increase in 1890 over 1887 of about 5,000 per 
 cent, and if any one doubts that this is the beginning of a new era in the sugar pro- 
 duction of the United States he has only to go to California, Kansas, or Nebraska and 
 he will see that the people of those States are in earnest and the whole West is 
 to-day ready to develop this industry. We have the climate, the soil, and skill, and 
 as soon as we have the assurance that Congress will permanently support this indus- 
 try capital will be ready to invest. Previous to 1887 some attempts were made but 
 on such a small scale and under such poor management that they could hardly be 
 called attempts and were really doomed to failure before they began. The first fac- 
 tory able to work under economic conditions ever built in the United States was 
 erected in California last year at WatsonviUe. There are at present two beet sugar 
 factories in the United States. 
 
 First. The Alameda Beet Sugar Company, situated at Alvarado, Cal., with a 
 capacity of working 150 tons a day, which will be increased to 250 tons next year. 
 
 Second. The Western Beet Sugar Company, situated at WatsonviUe, Cal., with a 
 capacity of 300 tons. Another factory with a similar capacity will be pixt up by the 
 same company next year, if tariff legislation does not prevent ; situation not yet de- 
 cided. , 
 
 Third. The Oxnard Beet Sugar Company at Grand Island, Nebr., with a capacity of 
 350 tons, now building, will bo ready to start September 1, 1890. 
 
 Each one of these factories cost about $500,000 to build and run, using 50 tons of 
 coalperday and employing about two hundred men ; turns out about 30 tons of sugar. 
 And in 1900 we shall need about seven hundred factories of this size to supply our 
 home market, at an investment of about §350,000,000 to build. This would stimulate 
 within the next ten years all our industries, such as iron, coal, etc., employ many la- 
 borers, give all the machine shops in the country more work than they can do, employ 
 140,000 men in the factories and about 2,000,000 in the fields. Each factory would 
 distribute about $200,000 around each community where it was located and add to 
 the general welfare of the surrounding country, build up the new country and greatly 
 increase the traffic of the railroads, thereby decreasing the cost of same to the inhabi- 
 tants, and in all, keep in the country annually upwards of $100,000,000 spent in buy- 
 ing sugar abroad, and probably, yes, almost certainly, reduce the price of sugar to the 
 people of the United States about $50,000,000 per annum. And, gentlemen, the per- 
 manent foundation of this great industry, its retard, or destruction rests in a great 
 measure with you. 
 
 Having spoken of the advantages of the beet-sugar industry from a commercial and 
 manufacturing stand-point, I have hardly touched upon the most important benefit de- 
 rived from this crop in Europe. I have reference to the agricultural advantages. The 
 advantages dei*ved from the improvement to the soil was recognized as far back 
 as 1835 in Europe. The beet as a biennial plant enters readily into rotation with 
 annual plants and particularly with those considered as exhausting. It prepares 
 the soil, in a manner at present unknown in this country, for the next crop, owing 
 to the physical cultivation given on this crop by deep plowing and frequent cul- 
 tivations which it can readily absorb owiug to the j)rice which the farmer re- 
 ceives for his crop per acre, which is on the average from |50 upwards. In fact, in 
 Europe, wherever the beet is grown, the selling value of the land has increased in a 
 most noticeable way, the wages of workmen have followed the same ascending progres- 
 sion, and the general welfare has improved in a wonderful manner. By the aid 
 of tills industry cattle raising is encouraged and made profitable to the farmer, ro- 
 tations ai'6 favored, the mass of manures increased in countries where this kind 
 
648 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 of industry lias been established; and the culture of other plants has been super- 
 ceded by the be(it to the great benefit of the community where it was introduced 
 Again, iu localities in Europe where itthrivesthere has beenavery marked increase in 
 the average weight of beef cattle amounting to from 30 to 50 per cent., and this 
 increase is directly a,ttributable to the extensive use of beet-root pulp for food. 
 
 In this industry nothing should be lost to the farm, as the marketable constituent 
 of the crop, namely, the sugar, takes nothing from the soil in its formation. All its 
 constituents are derived from other sources, chiefly atmospheric, for it has been 
 thoroughly demonstrated that sugar is primarily elaborated in the leaves under the 
 influence of light. The sugar in the beet is formed bj' the absorption from the at- 
 mosphere of its chemical constituents, by means of its foliage, and this organic com- 
 pound, namely, sugar (Cj2 H22 On ), being eliminated from the beet allows every- 
 thing else to be returned to the soil, by far the largest portion of which is returned 
 immediately at the time of harvest by cutting off the top with the leaves of the best 
 and leaving them in the field. The largest portion of the salts detrimental to the 
 formation of sugar and necessary to the fertilization of the soil is found in the tops 
 OiUd leaves. The balance is returned later after going through the process ot refin- 
 ning. 
 
 Tlius we see that the beet in itself is a sugar-factory drawing its raw material from 
 the air and by the aid of the sun's rays through its foliage combines the elements ob- 
 tained into tlio chemical compound known as sugar. After yielding its sugar to the 
 art of the manufacturer all the chemical constituents drawn from the soil can be re- 
 turned, so that it can be justly said that of all crops this particular one is the least 
 exhaustive to the soil, and in countries wlierc this industry flourishes such a thing 
 as fallow is unknown. Owing to the value of the crop the farmer can afford to spend, 
 and does spend, from all statistics obtained, about $25 per acre in labor on the soil and 
 in the harvesting of this crop, thereby greatly improving the physical condition of 
 the soil and reaping the benefit of this labor iu a,n increased yield of the next crop, 
 whether it 1)0 wheat, oats, corn, or barley, etc. The introduction of this crop will 
 increase the prosperity of our farmers directly and indirectly to an extent at present 
 unforseen and certainly unthought of by our farming populations. The importance 
 of sugar xiroduction in the United States from the beet would .seem to make it worthy 
 of extended encouragement from the National Government, and in so doing buildup 
 a new industry which benefits at the same time the commercial, manufacturing, and 
 agricultural interests of its inhabitants. 
 
 Germany exacts a tax of 20 cents ou every 100 pounds of raw beets as they enter 
 the factory. This tax is paid by the manufacturer. Germany says to the manufact- 
 urer that she will remit as a drawback; 20 cents ^r every 10 pounds of sugar which 
 he produces and exports; but as a matter of fact the njanufacturer extracts to-day 
 in Germany not 10 pounds but 12 pounds from 100 pounds of raw beets, and I'eceives 
 from the Government a drawback of 4 cents on the extra 2 jjounds for which he has 
 never paid a tax to the Government, and this is undoubtedly an equivalent of a 
 bounty of 2 cents a pound given by the Government to the mauufacturer exporting 
 that sugar ; and this bounty paid sugar would, if the protective tariff was removed, 
 come into competition with our beet-sugar industry in its infancy and at a time when 
 it most needs the aid of the Government in developing itself. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You are a sngar-reijuer, or rather your house is, if I recollect? 
 
 Mr. OxxARD. Yes, sir ; my father was in the sugar-refining business in Brooklyn. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you think there is a pretty large difference between the refined and 
 raw sugars in the schedule of rates ? It is .^i.TS, and so on. 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. I do not know, sir, there is. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What do you think would be a fair discriminating duty on raw sugars 
 and the refined ? 
 
 Mr. OxyARD. I should think the present duty would be a fair one. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you not think it is too much ? 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Why is it the refiners, when there is such a diff^erence between them, sell 
 at IJ and li above present prices of raw sugar 1 
 
 Mr. Oxxard. I do not know ; I am not in the refining; I am in the beet-sugar bus- 
 iness. 
 
 Mr. Gear. But you have been a refiner ? 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. Not recently. Some years ago. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Tho rates are the same. Was not that the case, then, that the refined 
 sugars were 1 cent and IJ cents below the discriminating duty ? That is to say, they 
 had S2.75. 
 
 Mr. OxN'AUD. That I could not tell you, as I did not pay any attention to that part 
 of the business. 
 
 Mr. IjRECKInridge. What is the price of rorn in Nebraska? 
 
 Mr. OxnarI). Fiffci;ii rents a bu.shel. 
 
 Mr. BreckLnridge. Wheat? 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 649 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. I could not tell you, but I know corn is the staple crop. Everybody 
 raises corn, and they raise very little wheat. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much corn do they produce to tlie acre? 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. About 40 or 50 bushels, and it sells all the way from 12 and 15 cents. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. How long have you been in the beet-sugar business ? 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. In the first place I made a study in the sugar refinery at Brooklyn. 
 We imported beet-sugar from Europe. Then I have been two years abroad studying 
 and trying to find out what developments may be made in that industry, what it costs 
 over there, and what we ought to produce sugar here for, and I have come to the con- 
 ' elusion that they produce that sugar over there at about 3} cents, and there is no 
 reason why in time we could not do the same if we develop that industry. But as a 
 matter of fact it is a new industry, and is one difficult at the start from an agricult- 
 ural stand-point. The farmers have to be educated and taught bow to cultivate beets, 
 and it takes several years. I think the price it cost Mr. Spreckels last year was 5 
 cents, and this year he will reduce it to 4| ceuts. There is no doubt that if wo pro- 
 tect this industry it will give us cheaper sugar than we can possibly get any other 
 way. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is this making of sugar from beets susceptible of having great 
 certers like cane ? 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. No, sir ; it dwells with agriculture. You have got to get first the 
 product from the soil and produce your refined sugar right in the factory. That is 
 what I propose to do. I propose to turn out about 200 barrels a day of refined sugar. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You can do both, and make them cheap ? 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. Yes, sir ; it can be done, and I am going to .start as a refiner of the 
 product right from the field. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You think this industry must be distributed and not concen- 
 trated ? 
 
 Mr. OxNARD. You do not want more than one factory for more than one town to 
 produce what they need there. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Will you explain to the committee bribfly why in this business 
 it would not be possible to have, say, one factory in a State, or one m a city that would 
 do all the beet refining. 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. You can keep increasing the capacity of the factory, if you get beets 
 carried cheap enough to the same. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it practical to concentrate this in centers like tropical cane? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. No, sir ; I should thinkthere should be a dozen or twenty factories in 
 each State, distributed all over the States. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The beet is an .article, as I understand you to say, that has to 
 be provided near the factory. 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. Yea, sir ; the beets are grown in the neighborhood, hauled to the 
 factory, the sugar extracted by the diffusion jirocess, and the pulp is sold back to the 
 farmer for, say, 25 cents per ton. Now, in this way the farmer gets as much food for 
 his cattle per acre as if he had raised corn on that acre, and this after selling his 
 crop to the sugar manufacturer at a good profit. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are there not beet factories in Europe that make what you call 
 raw sugar and then ship that to what is known as refineries ? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. A vast majority does that. Now this would be an immense benefit 
 to the farmers of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Say you take the products of 3,000 acres? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You would have to haul that 2 or 3 miles. 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. I have a contract with the Union Pacific Railroad, who want to en- 
 courage that industry and has given terms and a ten year contract — a thing which 
 they have never done before for anybody. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much is this ? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. It is for 45 miles. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the rate 1 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. Within 1 and 25 miles, 30 cents a ton. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The farmers load and you unload? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. Yes, sir; I expect to get about half the crop by the cars and the other 
 half hauled by the farmers. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the rate for 45 miles ? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. Fifty cents ; between 25 miles and 45 miles 50 cents a ton. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. As a practical sugar producer what is your opinion of the effect of 
 a bounty in lien of a tariff? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. I can only say this: That in Europe where this industry in fifty 
 years has been so wonderfully developed, the way this industry has been developed 
 there has been by a high protective tariff and bounty besides. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you think it would bo destriic'tive to the industry here ? 
 
 Mr. Oxnard. I think it would kill it. 
 
650 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Fi.oWKR. Ilave you any .statistics by which you ooxild give us the amount of 
 Bui;ai' raado from 1hi~ beet, sorghum, and from this oaue ? 
 
 Mr. Oxs.vr.D. The beet outstrips every known sugar plant in the world for the 
 reason it is susceptible of producing so much sugar. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How many tons of beet do you average to the acre 1 
 
 Mr. OxNARti. I should say about 15 tons. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What does the bushel weigh ? 
 
 Mr. OxNAKD. About the same as potatoes, 60 or 65 pounds to the bushel. 
 
 STATEMENT OP PROP. HARVEY "W. WILEY. 
 
 Prof. Harvey W.Wiley, of the Agricultural Department, next addressed the com- 
 mittee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and geutlemen of the committee, I was requested to appear before 
 your honorable body to-day. I do not know what I represent here ; whether it is the 
 sugar-caiie, sorghum, or the sugar-beet industry, or all of them together. I have been 
 engaged for some years in the investigation of our indigenous sugar industry, and it 
 has been one of the hoj)ea of the Agricultural Department to see the United States 
 produce its own sugar. W'hile it is true the progress of this production has been slow, 
 yet it has been positive, and we are just now reaching a point whSre the greatest dif- 
 i&culties which are in the way seem about to be removed, and have reached a point 
 where we may expect a rapid growth. In this industry it is very much like a plant 
 at the commencement of its life. In the beginning of its struggle for existence, it 
 seems, from our observation of it, that it never could reach any magnitrrde. After a 
 while, when the roots have penetrated the soil and all its preparations are made for 
 growth, it shoots up in a growth that is almost magical. So with the sugar industry 
 of the country. If it can be fostered a while longer its growth will I)e marvelous. 
 
 In looking at this industry from a general point of view I may say this country is 
 divided for sugar-making, like CjBsar's Gaul, into three parts. On our southern 
 borders we have a belt of land and climate suitable for the production of sugar from 
 the sugar-cane. In the intermediate belt we have a soil and climate in which it 
 seems possible, with proper direction and scientific treatment, to produce sorghum 
 sugar. On the northern borders and the high plateaus of the middle belt we have a 
 region suitable for the production of the sugar-beet. You listened to the address of 
 Dr. Stubbs, which I am sorri,' I did not hear, in which the scientific possilailities and 
 requirements of cane sugar were very well presented to your view. You also listened 
 to the remarks of .Judge Peters, who laid before you the agricultural and manufactur- 
 ing possibilities of sorghum. Mr. Oxnard has done the same in regard to beet sugar, 
 and there seems to be little left for me; but I would like to call your attention to 
 some agricultural problems which we are now discussing, and I will confine myself 
 to two sources of sugar which have been mentioned, viz, the sorghum and the sugar- 
 cane. 
 
 Mr. Oxnard has shown the possibility of the development of the sugar-beet. I be- 
 lieve we can show in a few years the same possibility with sorghum. We have in the 
 Agricultural Department been carrying on experiments for two or three years in a 
 certain lino of investigation, namely the process of improving sorghum by seed se- 
 lection. We have carried it on precisely in the same way that it is carried on with 
 the sugar beet. We are saving the seeds from the analyzed stalks. As you know, 
 the sugar beet is a biennial plant. It produces the beet in one year, the seed in the 
 next. Sorghum is an annual plant and produces both cane and seed the same season. 
 We have now in the Department of Agriculture seven thousand seed heads which we 
 have selected the past year by a direct analysiw of the plant. We have saved only 
 those showing a high content of sugar. We have rejected many others showing a 
 low content of sugar. Now we find certain interesting features developed in this 
 seed. Wo find thai; the production of abundant seed and the production of sugar are 
 not co-ordinate. Therefore, if you select the seed from the largest and finest head, 
 you make a mistake, because the production of sugar is one function and the produc- 
 tion of seed is another, and while it is true both of these are produced in the same 
 physiological process, they have distinct functions in the plant. Therefore, wo select 
 seeds by careful examination and Ijy scientific analysis. Wo have now practiced this 
 method for two seasons and with most encouraging results. 
 
 We find to be true what is true of raising other plants by selection, that is, the 
 possibiiity of developing any given feature of any given plant or animal by proper 
 selection and scientific observation, and that method must be adopted to get the 
 highest practical results. Here are cases where science and practice touch each other, 
 and the value of purely scientific work makes itself apparent. We found there was a 
 tendency, not an absolute certainty, of the seed of a given stalk to produce canes re- 
 sembling the parent form. It is so with other plants. The great difiiculty in the 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 651 
 
 production of sug.av from the sorg'bnm plant (iind that difficulty has lieen mentioned ), 
 as it has been heretofore produced in the United States, is the poor sugar-producinj^ 
 qualities of the plant. It does not contain a large amount of available sugar. 
 
 I find the sorghum plant does not come up in production of sugar as high as the 
 sugar beet or the cane, for the sugar it contains is mixed with other substances which 
 prevent its crystallization, and which, when crystallized, prevent its being easily 
 purified and refined. This, in fact, has been the greatest difficulty which heretofore 
 existed in regard to the production of sorghum sugar. But now I can state that on 
 account of selecting these seeds and developing the plant canes have been developed 
 in which this difficulty has been diminished. There is no doubt about the fact that 
 these dilficulties can be largely removed. We are gaining every year in the percent- 
 age of sugar. It is like learning a game of skill. A young man or boy when he be- 
 gins to practice a game of skill makes rapid progress to a certain point ; when he 
 reaches that point he makes further progress with a great deal of di fficulty. It is the 
 same with the sugar-beet ; its progress was at first rapid, and now it is slowly pro- 
 gressing. So it is with the sorghum ; it will at first develop rapidly until it reaches 
 a certain degree of perfection, afterwards more and more slowly. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Which is the more promising, the beet or the sorghum ? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. The beet has much more development. It is now simply a question 
 of growing the beet. With the sorghum industry the task is more difficult ; we have 
 to study the agricultural, the physiological, and the chemical problems. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Then all that prevents the beet-sugar industry of this country from 
 development to the extent of supplying the country with sugar is for the farmers to 
 grow the beets and the capitalists to erect the factories ? 
 
 Mr. WiLKY. That is all. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. It is beyond the domain of experiment ? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You have heard it stated the cause of the failure was that there was 
 some chemical agent which the beet received from the soil which made it refractory ? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. In regard to making the sugar ? No, sir ; not at all. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Then it is practically settled. 
 
 Mr. Wiley. Of course we have scientific methods of securing sugar from the beet. 
 There is this about the beet ; it produces practically only one kind of sugar, and that 
 is what we call pure orystallizable sugar, while sorghum produces several kinds, 
 only one of which is orystallizable. The sugar from the beet is 99 percent, orystal- 
 lizable, while sorghum sugar is only 60 or 70 per cent, sucrose ; so our object is to 
 eliminate the uncrystallizablo sugar through a process of selection, which we can do 
 in the course of time. The problem is a more difficult one in regard to the sorghum 
 than in regard to the sugar-cane and the beet, and therefore I think the sorghum in- 
 dustry needs more fostering care than the beet or cane. 
 
 Mr. Flower. WUl you allow me to ast you a question there? How far South will 
 beets grow ? I do not believe there is any trouble in the North. I see, a man who 
 lives 1,250 miles northwest of Winnipeg raised better beets than any place south 
 of it. 
 
 Mr. Wiley. Beets do better the farther north you take them, provided yftu have a 
 season long enough for proper maturity and harvesting. There must be a season - 
 for cultivating and harvesting. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. What about the soil ? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. Any good soil will produce beets. Any sandy loam which will allow 
 the roots of the beet to peuetrate to a great depth is a preferable soil. It is not the 
 class of soil so much as the climate. The sugar-beet is a northern production. It 
 grows well ou the Pacific coast as far south as Los Angeles, because they have 
 really no hot weather along that coast. The mean summer temperature of Los 
 Angeles is scarcely 70 degrees. Some years ago I drew lines across the map of the 
 country showing where I thought the northern limit of the sorghum industry to be, 
 and the southern limit of the beet industry, and I took the mean temperature of 70 
 degrees Fahrenheit as shown by ten years' observation of the United States Signal Office 
 for tracing this limiting isotherm. I still hold to that. When you go north of that, 
 sorghum fsnot a safe sugar crop. Judge Peters spoke of the sugar-beet in Kansas. 
 I do "not believe myself in the possibility of an indigenous beet-sugar industry in 
 that country where the sorghum grows so well. This year they had a peculiar sum- 
 mer, and they did produce beets. They produced beets that had an average 10 per 
 cent, of sugar, while beets grown in Germany had nearly 14 per cent, of sugar. 
 
 Mr. LaFollette. What is the limit in regard to the time of harvesting and work- 
 ing up the beet 'I 
 
 Mr. Wiley. The only limit to harvesting is time to get the crop into the silos. A 
 freeze injures the beets. The silos will ;Totoct the beets from the frost. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. How soon must the work bo done when they are put in the silo 1 
 
 Mr. Wiley. In a cold climate they work them up to the spring. It does not make 
 any difference how long beets are kept, just so they are cold enough not to sprout 
 
'652 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 and uot too cold to freeze. The colder it is, not to freeze, the better it ia for the si- 
 loed beets. The manufacture of beet sugar can be continued through the winter up 
 to the 1st of March or April. 
 
 Mr. MoKenna. Has your attention ever been called to the making of alcohol used 
 in the arts ? You can make good alcohol from the beets. 
 
 Mr. Wiley. Xes, sir. You can make it from the refuse beet molasses, but more ■ 
 abundantly from sorghum molasses, because there is a much larger quantity. There 
 is where Kansas has been in its own light, if I may say it, when it refuses permission 
 to make alcohol from the refuse of the sorghum factory. At the present time it 
 would appear to be more proiitable to ferment sorghum molasses than to do anything 
 else with it. There is no demaud for it for tal>le u.se. It can be used for cattle feed, 
 but it does not appear with much ])rofit. 
 
 Mr. Breckinmdge. What per cent, of sugar in sorghum is crystallizable ? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. About 60 or 70 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. For what is the rest of sorghum sugar suited ? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. It may be used for molasses, cattle-food, or for makiug alcoiiol. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does it make suitable molasses? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. It is not the best in the world, but it is wholesome and nutritious. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does it make good alcohol? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. It makes excellent alcohol, and large quantities of it. It ia quite 
 ready for fermentation. 
 
 I would like to state that the Department is pursuiug an investigation the present 
 year in the line of the sorghum and sugar-beet culture, and we have collected sam- 
 ples of the sugar-beet from several States. The results are most favorable. We 
 have results from northern Indiana, where the sugar-beet produces 25 tons per acre 
 and coutained 13 p er cent, of sugar. I have 'tifteen or Twenty different analyses, 
 showing the beet as high as 16 per cent., from Michigan. From Nebraska it has 
 shown remarkable results. The meau of many analyses shows 2 per cent, higher 
 content of sugar than the average from Germany. It was certainly a remarkable 
 production. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You state it has been your mission to secure an indigenous product of 
 sugar throughout the United States. Do you consider you have done it with the 
 beet ? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. I consider the results most favorable. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What do you call indigeuous? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. I mean the sugar industry at home. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you think you have I'ouud it in the beet? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. I think I have found it in all three of these, the sugar-cane, the sor- 
 ghum, and the beet. America can make sugar from three sources. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Which Avould be the most proiitable ? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. That is a question to which I have not given much attention. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That ia a question in your line of business. 
 
 Mr. Wiley. My profession is not working out problems in regard to price, but in 
 regard to the scientific questions which arise. It seems to me if I were a capitalist I 
 would jather invest in the beet from a scientific stand-point. The average per cent., 
 of sugar in the cane of Louisiana is probably about 13 at the present time. As far as 
 the content of sugar ia concerned the sugar-beet is ahead of it jirobably 14 per cent., 
 while sorghum is scarcely 11 per ceut. 
 
 The Chairman. How long since the Government took any steps in this direction ? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. I have been engaged for seven years in this business, but experiments 
 were first commenced about twelve yeara ago. I have given four or five months 
 every year to the study of it. 
 
 I will say a word in regard to the bounty or bonus upon European sugar. Now, it 
 is commonly reported that the countries of Europe pay a bounty for the production 
 of beet sugar. Instead of paying a bounty they are continually taxing every ton of 
 beets grown in those countries, so that the actual cost to the manufacturer of sugar 
 beets is about $8 a ton. Every ton of beets which enters the factory in Germany, 
 France, or Austria coats about $18, including the tax. 
 
 The Chairman. The cost ia enhanced about S8. 
 
 Mr. Wiley. Four dollars paid for the beets and |4 tax. Then the Government 
 gives what it calls a rebate on export.atiou. This is placed m such a way as to en- 
 courage the production of sugar, and it shows what wise legislation and science can 
 do to aid agriculture 
 
 Mr. Gear. How is it adjusted? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. The rebate tax is paid in this way : The law assumes that the beet will 
 make a certain per cent, of sugar. If they get 2 per cent, more of sugar theexporter 
 gets the whole tax on rebate im its estimated per cent., and at the same rate for the 
 2 per ceut. excess. Well, the Government gives a rebate tax on the sugar from the 
 beet to e.\ii(uters, wliicli rebate is placed ou the supposed production. In Germany, 
 say, it is supposed tiiat they will make that production 10 per ceut. on the average. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 653 
 
 When this rebate is given it is given at that rate. So on the basis of production of 
 200 pounds per ton, the German producers of beet sugar who make 240 pounds of 
 sugar per ton really get a bounty on the 40 extra pounds. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How much would it cost? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. I do not know. 
 
 The Chairman. There is no hounty paid on -the domestic sugar not exported ? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. It is only for exports? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. There is no country except Kansas and oue or two other States that 
 gives a direct bounty. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiK. The result of the system in Germany was to give Germany a chance 
 to sell cheaper to other parts of the world than to the home consumer. 
 
 Mr. Wiley. That would seem to be oue of the results, but the heavy duty laid on 
 imported sugar has enabled the industry to grow in Germany until now the annual 
 production of sugar is over one million l;ons. 
 
 Mr. Flowek. Anywhere in the State of New York we can raise these sugar heets. 
 
 Mr. Wiley. Not anywhere ; but I should say near your lakes you could. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That is where I came from. 
 
 Mr. Wiley. Then you are the man I want to talk to. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You can raise it there. 
 
 Mr. Wiley. Yon can raise 20 tons to the acre on an average. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is that worth ? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. To the farmer, $80. 
 
 Mr. Flower. And it does not cost much more than potatoes ? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. Yes, sir. It requires very high farming to cultivate these beets. 
 Wherever you introduce sugar-culture there you introduce an element of education 
 in agriculture the value of which is hardly to be estimated. It takes the best, the 
 most scientific agriculture to grow sugar. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What does .a factory cost? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. It costs more to build one for beet sugar than for cane or sorghum 
 sugar. It costs more because the manufacture of beet sugar is a more scientific and 
 highly developed process. A good beet sugar factory capable of using 250 tons of 
 beets a day would cost .f200,0(X). 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. What amount of cultivation to raise an acre of beets would be 
 required as compared with tobacco ? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. It would be very much the same. The tobacco farmers must under- 
 stand exactly how to raise this tobacco or they will have a failure in the crop. I 
 think the beet culture is even a higher form of agriculture than the cultivation of 
 the tobacco plant. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would it not be of great advantage in tlie sugar-beet industry in the 
 West to have these factories dotted hero and there, one to one towuship and an- 
 other to another township, so as to give the i^roducers of beets a market ? 
 
 Mr. Wiley. Most undoubtedly. 
 
 REDUCTION IN DUTY. 
 
 VIE'WS OF CURTICE BROTHERS COMPANY. 
 
 Rochester, N. Y., Fehraary I, 1890. 
 
 Sir : Permit me to address you ujion what may possibly be a new line of argument, 
 showing why a very material reduction of the tariff on sugar should be made, or an en- 
 tire removal of it. This argument is not only in the interest of the consumer, \n\t in 
 the interest of the very large fruit-producing districts, as well as those engaged in 
 the preserving and canning of fruits. 
 
 You are doubtless aware that there are millions of pounds of preserved fruits and 
 .fruit jams imported yearly from England and Germany for consumption in this, the 
 most prolific fruit-growing country in the world : and yet the English and German 
 fruit preservers have to pay a price for the raw fruit that would be amply remunera- 
 tive to our fruit-growers here, for the same varieties, but on account of the very low 
 cost of sugar to tliem they are able to ship their goods here at a cost much Ibelow that 
 which they can be offered at by American preservers, with the cost of sugar to them • 
 this, notwithstanding the imported article, is scheduled to pay a duty of 20 to 35 per 
 cent. 
 
 No other country can produce either the quality or the quantity of fruits that can 
 be produced in the United States, and with the great variety of soil and favorable cli- 
 matic influences in the different parts of this country, we are able to produce a 
 greater variety than in any other country, and at as little cost. 
 
654: 'KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 With the present low prices of nearly all farm products, no greater boon could be 
 given the farmer, especially those where fruits can be grown successfully, than to 
 furnish him a reliable market for the fruits that he can produce ; besides it would 
 lessen the overproduction of ordinary farm products, to the benefit of those in local- 
 ities where fruits can not be grown, and where they need to depend upon growing 
 only the different grains, vegetables, etc. 
 
 With sugar at the same cost to the American preserver as to the English, we could 
 not only supply this country with all the preserved fruits needed, but could export 
 directly into England and Germany these goods in very large quantities ; besides we 
 would be able to successfully compete for the trade of all other foreign countries for 
 these articles, which trade is of very large proportions. It seems to us a pity that 
 for the one obstacle of high cost of sugar our American fruit-growers should not be 
 allowed to furnish the fruits for all these different markets. 
 
 American fruit cauners, on account of the superior quality of our fruits, are able to 
 export largely to Great Britain our heavily siruped fresh fruits in tin cans, but 
 with being able to reduce the cost 5 or 10 per cent., a very much larger business could 
 be done, as our fruits are acceptable to the best communities wherever they are in- 
 troduced, with a rapidly growing demand for them, which demand could be largely 
 and quickly increased if they could be offered as above noted at a slight reduction be- 
 low jjresent prices; and the only thing that stands in the way of this necessary reduc- 
 tion is the cost of sugar. This pertains to only the higher grades of canned fruits in 
 which large quantities of sugar are used in the manufacture of sirups for them. 
 
 Eight here, too, is a strong argument why we should have no increased tariff on 
 tin-plates, but rather free tin-plates. Our company here at Rochester consume the 
 products of upwards of one thousand acres each year, of such items as tomatoes, corn, 
 and peas, and by producing only high grade in these articles canned, we are build- 
 ing up a trade in many different foreign markets, which markets the fruit and vege- 
 table packers of this country should control, and would in a very short time, if we 
 were able to meet a competitive lower price with other countries that enjoy free tin 
 plate and free sugar, and so utilize a large amount of territory in the production of 
 these articles for their use. 
 
 Then it strikes us that another argument in favor of a radical change of the tariff 
 on sugar is from the fact that as now scheduled there is little or no sugar imported 
 into tlris country that is of a quality suitable for consumption without going through 
 the hands of the refiner, and therefore all the sugar consumed in this country needs 
 to x)ay a profit to the refiner. Not only this, but with the limited number of refineries 
 now in operation they have been able for the last year and a half to name their 
 prices without fear of competition, which, with the present thoroughly organized 
 associations of the wholesale grocers throughout the country, they too are able to 
 fix their prices without competition, and in turn the retail grocers have their asso- 
 ciations in nearly every city and town for the purpose of fixing their prices, which 
 prices the consumer needs to pajr. And when we learn that by these associations the 
 wholesale grocers of the State of New York have realized |2,000,000 more during the 
 last year for their handlings of sugar than they would have done without their associ- 
 ation, and with the belief that the retailers have realized another |2, 000, 000 for their 
 handlings of the same goods for the year, we iind that the consumers of sugar of the 
 State of New York have parted with $4,000,000 for this article within the past year 
 in excess of what they would have done had not these associations been formed — 
 this, to say nothing of the extraordinary profits made by the refiners ; all of which 
 conditions could not exist were sugars admitted free of duty, for the reason that if a 
 larger percen tage of the sugars imported were of a quality to go to the consumer 
 without passing through the refineries it would naturally stimulate very many more 
 importers of sugar, who each in turn would be socking a market for his goods, which 
 of itself would destroy the combination of the channel through which sugars are 
 now having to pass, and yet the dealers, both wholesale and retail, make their 
 margin of profit same as heretofore, and so give the consumer the privilege of using 
 raw sugars (such of them as are suitable for domestic use in their raw state), and 
 consequently at a much lower cost to them for this indispensable article to every 
 household than now. 
 
 From the foregoing it will be seen that with the annual revenue of ;$60,000,000 from 
 the present Government tariff' on sugar (being |] per capita for our entire population), 
 and with the same excessive profit to the wlaolesalers and retailers in all the other 
 States as is obtained in this as previously shown, which you will see figures 50 cents 
 more per capita in this State, being $4,000,000 for its estimated 8,000,000 of popula- 
 tion, this item Avould cost the consumers of the United States |90,000,000 more than 
 if we had free sugar with its accompanying necessary methods of handling it. 
 
 While it is claimed that the tax can be more evenly levied upon the entire com- 
 munity by a tariff bdiug laid upon the article of sugar than any other article paying 
 duty, yet is it not equally true that by lessening the price of this article a more geu- 
 i-ral beuctaotion can Vhs distributed over this country than iu any other way? A 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 655 
 
 benefaction that reaches the laboring and poorer classes with whom it is an article of 
 every day use for their subsistence. 
 
 We note down these ideas hurriedly as they have occurred to us, which we trust 
 have somewhat of merit in them, and that they may receive due consideration at your 
 hands. 
 
 We have already written to a number of fruit growers and fruit fireservers through- 
 out the country, and from the response received from some of them it is evident that 
 they are in full accord with our views as above expres.sed upon this same subject. 
 
 Please do not interpret the contents of this letter as from " free traders" or any 
 other than life-long Eepublicaus and such as believe in protection of American in- 
 dustries, but nofra protection of a few to the detriment of the many, but a protection 
 that will do the greatest good to the greatest number. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 CUKTICE BrOTHEKS Co., 
 
 S. G. Cdktice, President. 
 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 PROTEST FROM GOVERNOR THAYER. 
 
 State of Nebraska, 
 
 Executive Department, 
 
 Lincoln, January 31, 1890. 
 My Dear Sir : Permit me to express myself briefly to you and the members of your 
 committee, and very strongly too, against any reduction of the present tariff on sugar. 
 Nebraska is purely an agricultural State; our people are now establishing beet-sugar 
 industries, and they want every encouragement which the Government can give them. 
 They are investing largely of their means in beet-sugar plants; therefore, in their 
 behalf, I enter a respectful protest against a modification of the tariff on this article. 
 Our farmers are a long distance from market, and it takes about one-half of what 
 they raise to send the balance to market. By the manufacture of beet sugar a home 
 market is created for them. They will be enabled to sell their beets almost at their 
 own doors. 
 
 Very respectfully and truly yours, 
 
 John M. Thayer, 
 Governor of Nebraska. 
 Hon. Wm. McKinxey', Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 Souse of Representatives, Wasliinylon, D. C. 
 
 REFINED SUGAR. 
 
 STATEMENT OF R. E. C. KNIGHT. 
 
 Mr. E. C. Knight, of Philadelphia, sugar refiner, said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, 1 came hero in the capacity of a listener, not to say 
 anything myself; but as I see nobody else prepared to speak in the interest of sugar 
 refiners I will say a few words to the committee. 
 
 I have had no conversation with other sugar refiners, and am expressing entirely 
 my own ideas, from my own knowledge of the business, having been at "it a good 
 many years. 
 
 I am going to assume as a basis that our house manufactures 5 per cent, of all the 
 reiined sugar made in this conn try . I do not think that we come quite up to that, 
 but I will take that as a basis. On that basis, if we melt 500,000 pounds a day, cost- 
 ing 5 cents a pound, the raw sugar costs us §25,000 a day, and on that 500,000 pounds 
 we pay 2 cents a pound duty to the Government. In refining that raw sugar there is 
 4 per cent, of impurity — a sample of which X have here. [Exhibiting it to the com- 
 mittee]. This 4 per cent, of impurities costs us |1, 000 a day, and, assuming that we 
 work three hundred days in the .year, it costs us |)iOO,000 a year. Now, if wo have 
 but one-twentieth of the entire refining business of the country the total loss to re- 
 finers from this source is |i6,000,000 a year. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Yon say that the loss from impurities is 4 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. Yes ; 4 per cent. That would be on a grade of good 90-degroo sugar. 
 If we were to manufacture the centrifugal sugars, polarizing 96 degrees, the loss wiMild 
 not be so great. The business of the United States is about 1,500,000 tons a year now. 
 
656 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 In 1881 it was a little leaa than 1,000,000 tona; but it lias increased iu proportion to 
 the increase of population. 
 
 Mr. Gkau. Wijat is the consumption per capita in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. We use in this country 52 pounds per capita. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is that larger than the English consumption? 
 
 Mr. KsTiGHT. No ; England consumes more than we do. The consumption in Eng- 
 land is 60 odd pounds per capita and ours is 52 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Gear. We are the next largest consumers after England? 
 
 Mr. Knight. Yes, the next largest. I have a sample here also [exhibiting it] of 
 pure refined granulated sugar that will polarize 99.8. As I said before, the consump- 
 tion of sugar in this country for the last two years has been about .200,000,000 tons. . 
 It varies a little with the prices of sugar. The growing crop is very large. The 
 product of the beet sugar in Europe is very large, and that of the West India Islands 
 is probably 100,000 tons more than the average. Therefore we are most likely to have 
 cheap sugar. We are to-day selling granulated sugar like the sample I have shown 
 the committee at (ii cents a pound, and on that we are paying a duty of 2.40 to the 
 Government; that is, the public is paying it through us. Therefore we aro selling 
 it at net, 4.1 cents per pound, and are selling it at a loss. I would give anybody 
 $1,000 a day to pay my losses in sugar, so that there is not much glory in the busi- 
 ness at this tune. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you sell any sugar abroad ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. No ; we can get no drawback now. Two years ago we got a draw- 
 back of 2.80 on refined sugar exported. Then the drawback was put down to 2.40, 
 so as we pay a duty of 9.40 on it we can not afford to send it abroad. I do not know 
 that I have a great deal more to say, except that the present plan of ascertaining the 
 quality of the raw material is, in my judgment, very perfect. In the first place the 
 seller has a chemist, the buyer has a chemist, the Government has a chemist, and 
 every refiner has a chemiso. So that when the ijolarization comes before the four 
 parties, if there be any great variation, it is likely to be corrected. The only diffi- 
 culty is, that the Government does not give us exactly fair play. I will tell you how : 
 If a cargo of sugar polarizes 88.1 the Government charges it as 89. We buy it per- 
 haps at 89. if it be muscovado sugar, or at 96. if it be centrifugal. If it be less we are 
 still charged with it at 89. and 96. The Government takes advantage of all the dif- 
 ferences. I have in my pocket now a statement where a New York house sold us a 
 cargo of sugar where, according to the Government teat of polarization, the mercan- 
 tile value should have been .$21,870, but that was $557 more than the actual com- 
 mercial appraisement of the cargo. (The statement is appended.) 
 
 Mr. Gear. Ho?r does the granulated sugar compare with the !Dutch standard sugar 
 above No. 20 ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. I suppose that this sample of granulated sugar is over 20 degrees. It. 
 is the very highest grade that can be made. There is no sugar made that can be 
 better than that. It is made from cane ; and we all know that beet sugar is not up 
 to the standard. 
 
 Mr. Flower. About what rate of duty per jjound would you want on the refined 
 sugar over the raw sugar 1 
 
 Mr. Knight. I am speaking entirely for myself and do not know the views of other 
 refiners. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the average cost of the raw sugar that you use ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. About 5 cents a pound for sugar te.sting 83. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I find by the book of statistics that the average cost of sugar at the 
 port of debarkation 2.77 for the sugar, 2 cents for the duty, and the remainder for 
 commissions, etc. 
 
 Mr. Knight. The duty on sugar testing at 96. (which is about the average melting) 
 is 2.24 cents per pound. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The average cost of sugar is 2.77 cents and the average duty of 2 cents 
 would make the average cost 4.77 cents per pound. 
 
 Mr. Knight. I think that is very near it. Sugars are better now than they were. 
 
 Mr. Gear. If the cost is 4.77 cents per pound at the port of debarkation, the diiference 
 between that and 5 cents per pound would go to the co.st of port charges, commis- 
 sions, etc. 
 
 Mr. Knight. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Then you are getting for refined sugar the difference between 5 cents 
 (the price of raw sugar) and 7 cents (the price for refined sugar) ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. Yes ; but wn are selling our refined sugar at 100 test, and we arc get- 
 ting the raw sugar at >i'.}. 
 
 Mr. (jEAK. Do yiiu make all of your product into refined sugar? 
 
 Mr. Knight. No; we get a certain amount of sirup out of it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What do yon think ought to bo the specific duty on the raw sugar yon 
 turn out 1 
 
 Mr. Knight. The labor is ranch higher hero than in Europe, and wo use in our 
 
EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 657 
 
 business a gresit many Ameiiean materials — for instance, bone-black and cooperage.' 
 "We have paid this past year nearly ,§150,000 for packages, and nearly all our lumber 
 comes from the West. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would you favor a specific rate on refined sugar, or would you prefer 
 an ad valorem duty ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. I aui not prepared to say. All that I want is to have a moderate 
 proteetion on all sugar above No. 13, Dutch standard. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The present' tariff makes No. 13, Dutch standard, the line, the duty 
 being- 2 cents a pound on all sugar up to that. Now, you as a refiner want an addi- 
 tional protection over and above that in order to protect your labor. 
 
 Mr. Knight. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. About what rate do you want ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. I wUl allow my friend, Mr. Frazier, to answer that question. But 
 the skilled labor at refineries here it is very hard to get, and we have to pay very 
 high for it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I suppose that the large bulk of your labor is unskilled. 
 
 Mr. Knight. No. We pay our coopers $3 a day. I have one man in my employ- 
 ment who got .'jilO.oO a week in Scotland as a boiler, and I pay him more than five 
 times that rate. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Still the large majority of the men who handle sugar would be classed 
 as unskilled labor ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. No ; we must have men in boiling who have a great deal of experience. 
 The business has been very largely improved and increased. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Where are your works located ? 
 
 Mr. KJNIGHT. In Philadelphia, between South and Bainbridge streets. We use a 
 thousand gallons of water a minute. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Suppose you got your raw material free of duty entirely, what rate of 
 duty would you want on the refined product? 
 
 Mr. Knight. Above No. 13, Dutch standard? 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Yes, sir. • 
 
 Mr. Knight. I am not prepared to answer that question exactly. It costs us a 
 great deal more to refine sugar here than it costs refiners in Europe. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Can you approximate -the rate of duty you would require ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. I would say that we could get along with a duty of from half a cent 
 to 1 cent a pound. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You think that that rate would be ample ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. Ithinkso. We do not expect to make money very fast or very largely. 
 We consider ourselves to be public benefactors when we talie raw sugars that cost us 
 5 cents per pound, containing 4 per cent, of impurities, and give to the public re- 
 fined sugars at 7 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would it be any advantage to you to import No. 16 sugar of the same 
 strength ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. No ; we do not want anything above No. 13 Dutch standard and test- 
 ing about 90. That is about the sugar we want. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would No. llj of higher test be of any advantage to you ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. Not if we had to pay an additional price for it. It would if we got it 
 at the same price. 
 
 Mr. Gear. No. 1G sugar is refined a little, is it? 
 
 Mr. Knight. It is washed a little. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You say that licet sugar is much inferior to the cane sugar ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. In my own opinion it is. In my house we have never used a pound 
 of l>eet, or glucose, or chemical. This sugar [referring to the sample exhibited] is as 
 pure as can be made. We have used this year over a hundred cargoes of sugar, 
 and my friend, Mr. Frazier, over three hundred cargoes. The sugar refiners of the 
 United States have used up this year, I suppose, two thousand cargoes of sugar. It 
 is a very large business, indeed. The expense in my refinery is $1 a minute, night 
 and day. 
 
 Ml'. Gear. What is the amount of cajjitiil that is engaged in sugar refineries in 
 this countiy '? 
 
 Mr. Knight. I suppose that the plant has cost between |50,000,000 and |75,000,000, 
 but the capital to carry on the business is that much more 
 
 Mr. 1''lower. How much of it is in the Trust ? 
 
 Mr. KniGUT. I should think about 70 per cent. The only houses outside of the 
 trust are Nash, Spauldiug & Co., of Boston ; Harrison, Frazier & Co., of Philadel 
 phia ; iiur house ; the houses of Spreckles, in California and Philadelphia ; and a small 
 house in Philadelphia. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How can you compete with Spreckels in Philadelphia, when he gott 
 his raw sugar free ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. I am very glad you mentioned that. Spreckels gets 100,000 tons a 
 year from the Sandwich Islands free of duty. There is no reason why we and the 
 485 42 
 
658 EEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 other sugar refiners shonlcl not be put on tlie same footing or else have the duties on 
 our raw sugars lowered. 
 
 Mr. Gbak. Was not the San Francisco house of Spreckels able to control the sugar 
 mariet as far east as Omaha ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. Yea; and if reports are true, they were helped to it by some of the 
 railroad companies. 
 
 The Chairman. You have the same right to buy sugar at the Sandwich Islands as 
 Spreckels has ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. I suppose we have ; but it would cost us a great deal more to take it 
 to Philadelphia than it costs him to take it to San Francisco. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Does he try to undersell you ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. I do not know that he does. 
 
 Mr. McKk.nna. If you can buy sugar at the Sandwich Islands as well as he can, 
 how is it a detriment to you that he gets his sugar there? 
 
 Mr. Knight. He went over there Avheo ihe treaty was iirst made and bought a good 
 deal of pioperty in the islands, and he raises sugar there. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Does he not raise the major part of the sugar that is raised in the 
 islands ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. He does, and takes it to San Francisco and pays no duty on it. Very 
 little of it oomeH East, however; I think only three cargoes of it have come East. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLUsr. Is there any agreement on his part not to send it East ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. I do not licnow of any such agreement. What the refiners would like 
 is that the Goverument, in ascertaining the quality of sugar, would put it on a mer- 
 cantile basis ; that is, if there is a cargo of sugar polarizing 88.1, or 88.2, or 88.3, that 
 the d uties shall be put at that rate, and not put at 89, as is now done, greatly against 
 our interest. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does the Government do that now ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. Yes,; it takes the benefit of the fraction. If the sugar polarizes 88.3 
 or 88.4, the duty is lixed as if the sugar polarized at 89. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. Wher5 the fraction is even below one-half the Government charges 
 for the full unit? 
 
 Mr. Knight. Yos. 
 
 The Chairman. I do not know whether you understood Mr. Flower's question a 
 while ago. Ho said that Mr. Spreckles raised the major part of the sugar raised on 
 the Sandwich Islands. Is that- quite true ? I am informed that he raises only about 
 'S3i per cent, of Hie annual product there. 
 
 Mr. Knigiit. I think you are quite right in that respect. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I understood that to lie the ease when the treaty was formed. I do 
 not know how it is now. Would it not cheapen the price of refined sugar to the con- 
 sumer if we had free raw sugar, and would that not be a benefit to the manufacturer? 
 
 Mr. Knight. I would be perfectly satisfied to have free raw sugar if you would give 
 us a little duty on the high grades above No. 13 Dutch standard. If we were to go 
 into competition with that sugar free of duty, I suppose lialf of the refineries of the 
 United States would be broken up. If we had refined sug;rr down to 4 cents a pound, 
 instead of H cents, or 6^ cents, the probability is that the consumption per capita iu 
 this country would go up to CO pounds a year. 
 
 Mr. Gear. If No. 16 sugar were admitted free, and if tliere was a combination 
 -among sugar refineries to increase the price to consumers, would not competition 
 from other countries break up that combination ? 
 
 Mr. Knight Not under the present tariff. None of the liigh grade sugars come in, 
 and we can not send any out. 
 
 Mr. Gear. But would they not come in and relieve the community, if a combina- 
 tion undertook to put up the prices ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. They might ; but the people of the United States are so used to good 
 sugar that they want first-class sugar delivered at the door iu the original packages. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You have been in the business for a good many years " 
 
 Mr. Knight. For fifty years. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you not know that the regular grocers' sugars have not been im- 
 ported into the country for many years ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. Very little. They make very good sugars in Louisiana, on the piau- 
 tations, and there an- two houses running iu New Orleans all the time, making these 
 granulated sugars. I do not think that any of it has come Nortli this year. I have 
 not seen a hogshead of New Orleans sugar this year. Ninety-nine per cent, of all the 
 sugar consumed in the Uniti-d States is refined sugar. 
 
 Mr. Guar. Does not that come largely from the fact that under the tariff arrange- 
 ments the people can not get the better grades of the raw sugar that they used to get ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. The sugars that come from Bailiadoes are very good ; but they are 
 just a little below the No. 13 Dutch standard. The Porto Rico sugars are also very 
 'good. 
 
 Mr. Gear. But they are mostly above No. 13 Dutch standard. 
 
EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 659 
 
 Mr. Kmght. No; they. are mostly below it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It is t he arrangement of the tariff, is it not, that has thrown all the sugar 
 industry into the hands of the refiners ? 
 Mr. Knight. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And you think that if you had raw sugars free, a specific rate of 
 about three-fourths cents per pound for refined sugars would be a fair compensation 
 to the refiners 'I 
 Mr. Knight. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You spoke of a duty of three-fourths of a cent per pound on 
 refined sugar, -which you think would be fair. Does it cost three-fourths of a cent a 
 pound to convert raw sugar into refined sugar? 
 Mr. Knight. It costs us more than that if you take the waste into account. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am speaking not of the waste but of the cost of the labor. 
 Mr. Knight. It does not cost us that much for the labor. When you speak of the 
 labor I can give you an idea about it. A few years ago, before we were fairly estab- 
 lished our wages for the year amounted to $170,000, packages to $80,000, fuel $70,000, 
 bone black |1'J,000, insurance $6,000, gaa |4,000, cooper's shop $15,000, all running up 
 then to nearly $400,000. 
 The Chairman, How much sugar do you refine in your establishment ? 
 Mr. Knight. About 350,000 pounds a day. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you ruu steadily throughout the year? 
 Mr. Knight. We nave to stop ten or twelve days in the year. We calculate about 
 three hundred days to the year. Wo could refine now about 500,000 pounds a day, 
 but the market is so dull that we do not refine more than 400,000 pounds a day. 
 
 The Chairman. The expense list that you gave does not include interest on the 
 capital, does it? 
 Mr. Knight. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Your proposition to the committee is to lay a tax on tbe con- 
 sumers of the country that will compensate you for the difference of cost between the 
 refining of sugar in this country and the refining abroad. Is it not fair, when you ask 
 us to tax the consuiners for your benefit, that we should know exactly what that dif- 
 ference in cost amounts to? 
 Mr. Knight. I think you may put it down at 1 cent a pound. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. We should have proofs, not assumptions. 
 Mr. Knight. I have not made the calculation. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You can tell the committee what your wage-roll is, and what 
 you output is. . 
 
 Mr. Knight. Our output is 500,000 pounds a day, if we could work fully. Our ex- 
 penses are not less than $500,000 a year without any allowance for interest on the 
 capital. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are you prepared to tell us what your wage-roll is ? 
 Mr. Knight. Our wage-roll for la89 is not yet made up, but I suppose it will amount 
 to $150,000. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And this output that you have given us is good for this year, 
 is it '! 
 
 Mr. Knight. Yes ; I can give you an idea of our expenses. Our package charges 
 were $80,000 m 1887. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Come to tbe year 1889. 
 
 Mr. Knight. Our package charges were $125,000 for 1888, and for 1889 about 
 $145,000, as against $80,000 in 1887. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Can you give the exact figures ? 
 Mr, Knight. No ; I can not. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You were operating, I believe, in 1889, on quite different con- 
 ditions from 1887. You spoke about not being well prepared during the first period, 
 therefore, it is important that we should have data down to date. I would be glad 
 if you would furnish the committee with an accurate statement of your output for 
 1889, and of your wage-roll for 1889, 
 Mr. Knight. It will be a week or ten days before I can do that. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That will be time enough ; and you may insert any other items 
 you wish ; but be sure to insert these two, tho wage-roll and the output of sugar, 
 iiad you can insert such allowances as you please for casualties and interruptions. 
 
 Mr. Knight. What I would like very much would be that you would change the 
 mode of ascertaining the value of sugar so that we would only pay for what wo 
 actually get. Next to th.at I would like you to charge the same duty on sugar com- 
 i iig from the Sandwich Islands as on sugar coming from other countries. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I agree with you in that. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Does not the planter in the Sandwich Islands get the same price for his 
 sugar as the planter elsewhere ? 
 
 ivir. Knight. I can not answer as to that. I think there have been but three 
 
660 
 
 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 cargoes of Sandwicli Island sugar sent East — one to Philadelphia, the other two to 
 New York. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And those sugars wore sold on their merits like Cuban sugars ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. Yes, sir. 
 
 The following are the papers referred to by Mr. Knight in regard to the commercial 
 and custom-house tests of sugar : 
 
 Outturn of tents of cargo of sugar ex. Albert SchuUs, imported at port of Philadelpliia, 
 
 December 18, 1889. 
 
 
 Marks. 
 
 Commercial tests. 
 
 Custom- 
 house 
 
 test. 
 
 
 Grand. 
 
 Wallace. 
 
 Average. 
 
 
 87.7 
 87.7 
 
 87.8 
 87.8 
 
 87.75 
 87.75 
 
 88.7 
 
 289 liogaheads - - - - - 
 
 88.6 
 
 
 
 
 
 87.75 
 
 88.65 
 
 Dntytobepaid umler 88 6.5^ woulfl lie taken at 80° j 1,115,847 pounds at 1.90, would be $21,870.60 
 
 Duty on actual commercial teat, 87.75, at 1.91 21, 312. 68 
 
 OTercliarye, at 5 cents per 100 pounds • 557. 72 
 
 Philadelphi.-v, December 26, 1889. 
 Dear Sirs : We have seen the appraiser in regard to resampling the Schults' cargo, 
 and hi.s reply is that under Treasury regulations, a large part of the sugar having been 
 used, he can not order a resampling. 
 
 He agrees to retest the original sample, and if that shows a lower test he will com- 
 municate ivith the Treasury Department, asking permission to siLbstitute the lower 
 test. The timi) for appeal from the appraiser's test is twenty-four liours, as shown by 
 the printed forms. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 E. C. Knight & Co. 
 Messrs. L. W. &. P. Armstrong, 
 
 New York. 
 
 New York, December 27, 1889. 
 Dear Sirs : We thank you for the information that the sugars on ScUults would be 
 retested by the custom house, and we feel certain that unless they have dried out 
 much the officers will fiinl they were wrong in the original t.est. 
 
 We trust that under your good auspices such vrill turn out to be the case, and that 
 you may bo able to obLain us a corresponding rebate. 
 We wait yoar further reports on the matter, and remain, 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 L. W. & P. Armstrong. 
 Messrs. E. C. Knight & Co., 
 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 Port of Philadelphia, Pa,, 
 
 Appraiser's Office, December 27, 1889. 
 Gentlemen: Referring to our interview yesterday relative to the tests made on 
 579 hogsheads, A mark, from the cargo of the Albert Schultz from Barbadoes, wherein 
 you stated that the Government's polariscopic tests were a full degree higher than 
 the private chemist's tests, yierojit me to state that I had a test made of the sample of 
 this sugar this morning, aod the chemist's return of polarization was 88.6, 88.7. 
 This would seem to corroborate our original tests. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 I. Granville Leach, 
 
 Appraiser. 
 MesKis. Samuel and Frank Field, 
 
 Plilladelphia. , 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 661 
 
 The following letter was subsequently received from Mr. Knight : 
 
 Philadelphia, Januarij 6, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : What we desire is that the importers and sugar refiners should not pay 
 on a higher test than tliat fairly determined upon by the Government, the seller, 
 and the purchaser. 
 
 Sugars above 1:5 Dutch standard, for the benefit of xilanters, refiners, and the coun- 
 try at large, should be properly protected. The Senate bill, reducing the rate of duty 
 on 90'^ test sugars from 2 cents to 1 cent, accomplishes this. 
 
 The sample of grauulated sugar left with your committee on the 4th instant is worth 
 to-day 6i cents per pound, and is made principally from centrifugal sugar, testing 
 90°, and worth 5.9 cents per pound, the cost of manufacture representing more than 
 the diiference. 
 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 E. C. ICnight & Co. 
 Hon. William McEinlet, 
 
 Chairman of Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. HENRT R. REED. 
 
 Mr. Hbnky E. Eeed, of the sugar refining house of Nash, Spaulding & Co. , of Bos- 
 ton, Mass.. next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman audgeutlomen, I appear here as a rejjresentative of the owners of 
 the Revere Sugar Refinery of Boston, a private institution and not a corporation. I 
 come as an act of courtesy in reply to your invitation to refiners to appear bore ; and 
 I also come without any argument and without any figures of any kind. to submit ; 
 •and for this reason, that I am entirely ignorant as to the basis of duties on raw sugar 
 on which you invite us to submit our desires and needs for your consideration. I can 
 only say this much, that all that "we want is a relative duty on refined sugar (whether 
 you leave the duty on raw sugar as it is now, or whether you reduce it one-half, or 
 whether you make raw sugar free), which will be just sufficient to give us a rea.son- 
 able return for doing the business — such a return as you, gentlemen, or any fair-minded 
 men would say is a reasonable return for doing the work. 
 
 So far as I am concerned, I want to say that we expect and desire that you make 
 the dnty on refined sugar small enough, so that the consumer will have reasonable 
 protection (on the other side) against any exorbitant demands that we might be 
 tempted to make. That mucli we expect. We do not want any undue profit in this 
 business. We believe that it is a legitimate business to be pursued in this country. 
 We do not believe that you or anybody else want to transfer this industry to any 
 other country where there are bounty-fed refineries, or where labor and other consid- 
 erations are less than here. But if you ask me to sit down and give you exact fig- 
 ures it is impossible for me to do it. If you should care (either officially or otherwise) 
 to indicate any schedule of duties on which you would ask ns to submit our views, 
 we would be very glad to do it, to take them and figure them out to the best of our 
 ability, and to figure out that which we thiuk absolutely necessary in order to give us 
 a reasonable return. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What percentage do you think of all the refined sugar produced in 
 this country is produced by the refineries that are in the trust ? 
 
 Mr. Reed. I do not know about that. My impression is that, as it now stands, 70 
 per cent., as stated by Mr. Knight, was a high figure, I doubt very much if the asso- 
 ciation of refiners, known as the Sugar Refiners' Company, is refining 70 per cent, of 
 the sugar consumed in this country. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you think that the high price of sugar which prevailed during 
 18d9 was chargeable directly to the trust 1 
 
 Mr. Reed. Hardly. These are the facts: during some of the summer months when 
 the price of sugar to the consumer was the highest of any period during the year, the 
 margin to the refiner was the smallest of anytime in the .year, except during the last 
 few weeks. Forexauiple, in July, or thereabouts, tho price of refined granulated su- 
 gar was about 9^ cents to the consumer, and as a matter of factthe refiner, going into 
 the open market, and buying his raw sugar and refining it and selling his products 
 at the market price of that day on the same day, made less jiroflt then than he did at 
 any other time of the year. 
 
 In other words, I hold that the refiners of this country were in no sense responsible 
 for that high price, but that it was entirely due to a combination of individuals or 
 companies on the other side, banded together to attempt to control the raw sugar of 
 the world — to comer it, if .you please. They advanced tho price in a very unusual 
 manner, so unusual that those of us who have been refining sugar have been working 
 
G62 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 against a steadily declining market since that time. That combination (as usually 
 happens when a set of men get together to corner a great staple) found its.fingers so 
 severely pinched that it will probably not try it again. At all events it will not 
 have the capital to do it with. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What do you mean by a combination on the other side ? 
 
 Mr. Reed. I mean that it was a combination of individuals or companies located 
 principally in Germany and England. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Can this trust permanently raise the price of sugar to the consumer 
 in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Eked. No. Nobody can continue the business of refining sugar for any great 
 length of time and get any great profit out of the cousumer, unless he can absolutely 
 control the world's supply of raw sugar. The world's supply is open to anybody who 
 sees tit to embark in tlie refinery business to-day. There ia no monopoly that I know 
 of in the sugar refinery business. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Would that be the only remedy against the trust ? That remedy 
 would take time. 
 
 Mr. Reed. That remedy has been always found adequate in any business where 
 the profit is sufficient to tempt it. 
 
 Mr. Flower. If the trust can put up the price of sugar (as it is generally supposed 
 they did last summer), what would be the course of a corporation like yours when 
 the trust fleeced the people to a point where it was making a great deal of money? 
 Suppose it was making double the profit you were making, what would be your 
 course ? 
 
 Mr. Reed. I do not understand the question. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Suppose you had sold your refinery to the trust and had taken certi- 
 ficates, what would be your course when you found that thi- trust was fleecing the 
 people and making double the profit you bad made. Would your course be to start 
 anothtr refinery ? 
 
 Mr. Reed. If I had sold the property, and there was no understanding, either ex- 
 presK or implied, that I should not go into business again, I think I would. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You would sell your certificates ;ind build a new refinery ? 
 
 Mr. Reed. Yes, if 1 had not promised not to do so. In other words, the door is 
 open. 
 
 Jlr. Breckinridge. For what purpose was the trust organized ? 
 
 Mr. Reed. I suppose the members of it organized in the first place because 
 the business was a pretty poor one. For some time there had been no reasonable 
 return for doing the business ; and for that condition of things the Government of 
 the United States was largely responsible. It was responsible in this way, it had 
 been paying, in efiect, a bounty to the refiners of the country upon all refiued sugars 
 exported beyond our bo rders. In other words, the Government had allowed a draw- 
 back in which there wa s a certain amount of premium, a certain percentage of profit, 
 and that percentage of profit tempted many of the refineries to increase their pro- 
 ductive power. They enlar ged their plants just because that profit was in the busi- 
 ness — that sort of a hot-house stimulant. 
 
 That left the country with more producing power than the actual conditions re- 
 quired, so soon as this bounty was removed (as it was by reducing the drawbark) ; so 
 that the Government is responsible in a certain sense for the conditions that made that 
 association.desirable. 
 
 Mr. Breckixridgk. The Government had been too indulgent? 
 
 Mr. Reed. Just that ; and we suifered by reason of it. The refiners found them- 
 selves with uot a reasonable return for thei(- capital, working a large part of the time 
 at a loss, and making what little money they did make in the summer when the de- 
 mand for refined sugar comes nearer to the producing power. They simply got them- 
 selves together, as I understand (not being in it myself), for the purpose of control- 
 ling the production, keeping it down to a proper point in the months when the de- 
 maud is less, and also for the purpose of reducing the cost of doing the work. Under 
 the working of this association all the talent that was in any Of the refineries is util- 
 ized. If any one house had any better method of doing the work than the others had 
 it was adopted by the association. The house that was the best equipped and had the 
 best talent had been in the past closed to the other houses ; whereas now all this 
 talent is at the disposal of all the people in the association. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Then it has produced no injury and has only prevented losses to the 
 refiners ? 
 
 Mr. Reed. I do not know of any injury that it has produced. I can not conceive 
 of any injury that it has come out of it. ' 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do they inauufacture now cheaper than they did? 
 
 Mr. Reed. Undoubtedly; beyond all question. In the city of Boston there were 
 four or five houses, each one maintaining an expensive office, all of which entailed a 
 large CKpense ; and that expense had to be all covered before they got to the point of 
 getting a reasonable return. The association has taken these houses and yoked them 
 
EEVISIOK OF THE TARIFF. 663 
 
 togetber. For instauce, tliere are two Iionaes in Bostoti situatetl not very far apart, 
 one ■with its worts down near tlie water anil one a little farther inland. By means 
 of a pipe nndor the street these two houses are brought together, so that all the sugars 
 are melted right at the water's side and pumped to the two houses. Their product 
 has been increased and the work is being done materially cheaper. 
 
 The Chairman. They have got rid of one organization. 
 
 Mr. Eeed. They have got rid of one organization ; and the same thing has been 
 done in several instances. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. If this association has any power of abusing its position, do you 
 think that the factories that have not gone into it have prevented the abuse ? 
 
 Mr. Eeed. Undoubtedly. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. If you were all in it it would be a monopoly, and would have the 
 power to control the market ? 
 
 Mr. Eeed. The remedy is in your hands, absolutely ; that is, by putting just so 
 much duty and no more on refined sugar as that, if we undertake to get more profit 
 than we ought to, England and Germany and France can send in their refined sugars. 
 The remedy is entirely with you, and we expect you to apply it. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That is, if we should put raw sugar on the free list, and put 1 cent 
 per pound duty on refined sugar there could not be any trouble from the trust ? 
 
 Mr. Eeed. I do not think there could be. I do not know exactly what the duty on 
 refined sugar should be. It might he a specific duty, but perhaps it might be better 
 graduated by an ad valorem rate. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you think that the duty on reiined sugar should be uniform f for in- 
 stance, should the duty be as high on highly refined sugar as on white extra C or A, 
 or ordinary yellow C ? 
 
 Mr. Eeed. I suppose it should be higher. The whiter the sugar is the more expen- 
 sive it is to make. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Take a white extra C sugar ; the expenses of making that are not so 
 great as the expenses of making granulated sugar ? 
 
 Mr. Eeed. I suppose there is a difference, but I do not know. We make almost 
 entirely hard sugar. 
 
 Mr. Flower. If this trust manufactures sugar cheaper than the corporations that 
 are not in it, will not the result be eventually to displace those corporations ? 
 
 Mr. Reed. I have no doubt that in time that will be the result. I believe that the 
 association of refiners can refine sugar cheaper than any individual houses in the 
 country with the exception, iierhaps, of my friend Mr. Frazier's house. I am per- 
 fectly satisfied he can do it cheaper than we can. Our house is a very small house, 
 making but about 300,000 pounds a day. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Still you think the duty could be fixed so that there would be no 
 danger from the trust ? 
 
 Mr. Reed. I have no question but that it can be fixed so that the consumers shall 
 not be abused, and so that the manufacturers shall not be abused. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Why do except Mr. Frazier's house ? 
 
 Mr. Reed. It is a larger house than any other that I know of outside of the trust, 
 and perhaps can do that sort of work cheaper than small houses. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Spreckel's establishment is a large one and may bo able to do the work 
 cheaper. 
 
 Mr. Reed. Perhaps it can do the work cheaper than any of us. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Was not the world's supply of raw sugar in the year when 
 this foreign combination that yon speak of took place a somewhat reduced one ? 
 
 Mr. Reed. Yes, it was somewhat reduced ; and that, of course, was the temptation 
 to embark in the enterprise. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It seemed to them a good opportunity ? 
 
 Mr. Reed. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How short was the sugar crop that year 1 
 
 Mr._ Eeed. I can not tell you that ; it was considerably loss on the other side — very 
 much less than we have this year, for example. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And a great deal less than in former years? 
 
 Mr. Reed. Less than in some former years ; not so much loss either. It may have 
 been equal to that of preceding years; bur, it was less, relatively, on account of in- 
 creased consumption. But this year we are confronted with an imiueose sugar crop, 
 while the increase in beet sugar alone is more than the entire crop of Cuba. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Where is that increase of beet sugar, principally if 
 
 Mr. Reed. In Germany, France, and Austria. 
 
664 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 STATEMENT OF "WILLIAM "W. FRAZIER. 
 
 William W. Feazier, sugar refiner, of Philadelphia, next addressed the committee. 
 He said : 
 
 I felt it important, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, to call your attention to some in- 
 equalities in the present tariff and also in the tariff proposed by the Senate Finance 
 Committee. I indorse all that Mr. Reed has said in regard to the question of duties 
 on sugars above No. 13 Dutch standard. Sugirs above No. 13 Dutch standard are 
 understood to be refined, more or less, and can go directly to the consumer. On such 
 sugars the refiners only ask for such protection as will enable them to make a mod- 
 erate profit. I am not prepared to say what that duty should be ; but we can give 
 the figures later on. 
 
 The Chairman. The committee will be very glad to have them. 
 
 Mr. Fkazier. But in reference to sugars below No. 13 Dutch standard (which are 
 the raw materials of refiners) the present tariff is so arranged (as is also the tariff 
 proposed by the Senate Finance Committee) as to bear a relation to the commercial 
 value of each grade of sugar. That is, it was intended to do so; but it does not do 
 80 adequately. I have brought samples [exhibiting them] of the various grades 
 used in refining. A house working as ours does requires to have all grades of sugar. 
 The average quality of sugar imported (and which is taken as a basis of duty by the 
 Finance Committee) is a 90 test sugar. It pays now a duty of 2 cents a pound, and 
 under the Finance Committee's bill would pay a duty of 1 cent a pound. Sugar te,st- 
 ing by the pol.ariscope 75 per cent, now pays a duty of 1.40 per pound; under the 
 Finance Committee's billit wouldpay a duty of .70. The next grade of sugar, testing 
 89 (a fair refining sugar), nows pays a duty of 1.9G per pound. The Barbadoes 
 sugar p.ays 2 cents a pound; and the centrifugal sugar, testing 96, pays 2.24 cents 
 per pound. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That is because they are refined ? 
 
 Mr. Feazier. No, .sir ; they are below No. 13 Dui ch standard in color, but they test 
 liigh. We use largely low grade sugars. Here [exhibiting] is a sample of sugar from 
 the East Indies, testing 83, and here [exhibiting] is a sugar from Brazil, testing 83. 
 Under the present tariff they would pay a duty of 1.72 cents per pound ; under 'the 
 Senate bill a dnty of .86. I have calculated here the ad valorem jierceutage which 
 these several duties would amount to. The percentage of centrifugal sugars under 
 the present tariff is 71-jS,y ; of Barbadoes sugars, 711 ; of Cuba suLjars, 71^, and on these 
 low grade sugars the ad valorem percentage is 71|. It is to that inequality that I 
 want to call your attention — that the coarser sugar pays the higher rate of dnty. 
 We do not want as refiners the higher grades of raw sugars, because we are able to 
 refine them higher; and the lower the grades we use the moreAmericanlabor we put 
 upon them. If the lower grades are brought into this country and encouraged to 
 come in the more American labor is used to refine them. Instead of being advanced 
 in the place of production they are refined here. There will not be as much labor 
 spent in refining this sugar [indicating a sample] as in refining this sugar [indicating 
 another sample]. 
 
 Ml. Gear. What would be the difference? 
 
 Mr. Feazier. I came here unprepared, and I can not give the figures. The lowest 
 sugar on which most would be spent here pays 78 per cent, of its value in duty, 
 whereas this higher grade sugar [iudicating sample] pays only 71 per cent, of its 
 value in duty. I am speaking now of what it pays under the existing law. The Sen- 
 ate bill reduces the rates one-half, but retains the same inequalities. We simply want 
 to make this suggestion, that instead of starting with 7.5 degrees at70 cents (orone-half 
 the present duty) .and only making two one-hundredths as the increment for every 
 additional degree of polarization, you start at fifty-five one-hundredths of a cent with 
 75 degrees and make the inrcement three one-hundredths for each additional degree 
 of polarization. You would thus arrive at 1 cent a pound duty on sugar testing 90, 
 only you must let in these low grade sugars at about the same proportion. That is, 
 if No. 75 sugar should start at fifty-five one-hundredths of a cent, instead of at seventy 
 one-hundredths as proposed, then these low grades would pay 36 per cent, of their 
 cost value instead of 39J jjer cent, as i)roposed in the Senate bill. 
 
 There are certain grades of sugar that are lower in quality. For instance, this 
 sugar [indicating sample] commonly called jafirey, made in India, is a veiy crude 
 sugar and will not test as high as 75. The test will run from 68 to 72. That sugar 
 is sometimes deterred from coming here because it is a very chea\i sugar and can not 
 afford to pay as much duty as is charged upon it. Therefore I would further suggest 
 that instead of st.irting as 75 at the lowest rate, yon start at 70 in oidi'r to bring in 
 some cruder sugars. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Youi-idoa is to bring in the lowest grades of sugar? 
 
 Mr. Frazier. Precisely. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And to put more labor upon them ? 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 665 
 
 Mr. Feazier. Yes. 
 
 Mr.BKECKiNRiDGB. Why would you advan'oe at the rate of three one-hundredths 
 instead of two oue-hundredth3 i 
 
 Mr. Frazier. Because two one-huudredths is too small a difference by the degree. 
 It is not as much as is given commercially. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The effect of that would be to widen your purchasing countries ? 
 
 Mr. Frazier. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What would you think a fair differcDce in duty between raw sugar and 
 white sugar ? 
 
 Mr. Frazier. I really can not answer that question off hand. The present duty on 
 raw sugar above No. I'.i Dutch standard is 2f cents a pound, and above No. 20 Dutch 
 standard 3+ cents a pound. The Mills bill(and the Senate bill, if 1 recollect rightly), 
 while reducing the rates, preserves nearly the same percentages on grades above 20 
 as on OTades below 20, and consequently that protective feature of the tariff is lost 
 sight ol. I am not prepared to say what the specific duty should be. If the present 
 tariff' is rightly arranged, then we maintain that if you are going to reduce tho duty 
 on raw sugars below No. 13 Dutch standard to an average of 1 cent a pound (that is, 
 if you are going to take a cent a pound duty off our raw material), you should take 
 a cent a pound off the sugar above No. 13 Dutch standard. Whether that protection 
 is too much, or how much it is too much, 1 hai^e not the tigures to state. 
 
 The Chairman. Will you take time to make up a little statement about what you 
 think would be a juat and equitable rate of duty ? 
 
 Mr. Frazier. On sugar above No. 13 ? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Frazier. I shall be glad to do it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the capacity of your works ? 
 
 Mr. Frazier. About 1,000 tons a day. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you know anything about the trust limiting production in order to 
 control prices ? 
 
 Mr. Frazier. That is the only way in which it could control prices. 
 
 Mr. Frazier handed in the following table of calculations iu illustration of one por- 
 tion of his statement : 
 
 
 Value, 
 cost, and 
 fteiKht. 
 
 1.40 cents for 75° + 
 . 04 per degn^e. 
 
 .70 cent for 75° -I-. 02 
 per degree. 
 
 55 cents for 75° + 
 .03 per degree. 
 
 
 Rates. 
 
 Ad valo- 
 rem equiv- 
 alent. 
 
 Kates. 
 
 Ad valo- 
 rem etiuiv- 
 aleut. 
 
 Eate.-(. 
 
 Ad valo- 
 rem equiv- 
 alent. 
 
 96° centriftigals 
 
 3.12i 
 
 2.81i 
 2.75 
 2.18J 
 2.18i 
 
 2.24 
 2.00 
 1.96 
 1.72 
 1.72 
 
 Per cent. 
 ■71i«o- 
 .Hi 
 
 .78i 
 
 1.12 
 
 1.00 
 
 .98 
 
 .80 
 
 .86 
 
 Per cent. 
 .36 
 .35J 
 . 35-i 
 .39i 
 .39J 
 
 1.18 
 
 1.00 
 
 .97 
 
 .79 
 
 .79 
 
 Per cent. 
 .37i 
 .351 
 .36i 
 .36 
 
 89° Cuba mu.scavado 
 
 83° Ilvilos 
 
 83° Bahias 
 
 .36 
 
 
 
 Note. — The above calculations are made on the " cost and freight " prices. The freight is not an el- 
 ement for the aaseasment of duties, and as the lower test sugars come from the most distant points, if 
 tho calculations had been made upon the " free on board " prices the result would have been to in- 
 crease the ad valorem equivalents of the lower grade sugars, thus emphasizing the statements which 
 I have made. 
 
666 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 LEATHEB AND MAIs'UFACTUEES. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HENRY VAN GELDBH. 
 
 Mr. Hbxry Van Gelder, of New York, addressed tbe committee. Hg said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in presenting ourselves before you to-da;/ tp speak 
 on the leather matter we represent as many different industries as a college does 
 professorships. The leather business is a vaster industrj' than would he supposed, 
 from the fact that there are many different departments of leather, each one appar- 
 ently foreign to the other. I myself am a fancy leather man, and my conferee here 
 is a morocco man. There are men here from Wilmington, Del., representing shoe 
 morocco work, and other gentlemen from Boston representing Indian tanned goat. 
 We propose to divide onr work to-day into two parts: one is to ask relief in the 
 amount of protection that we have on our products, and the other is to call attention 
 to the gravity of the utter failure of the present law by reason of gross under-valua- 
 tions in our city of New York — so gross that they bid fair, if continued, to extermi- 
 nate the whole industry in this country. The particular line of business which I rep- 
 resent is sheep-skin. Sheep-skin all comes from England. We produce nothing of 
 the kind here. It comes from Engl.nnd free, in salt. We put the tinish on it in the 
 way of tanning, curing, and dre.s..ing, and wo produce the finished article out of it. 
 
 The amount of duty levird on these goods is entirely inadequate to be a protection 
 to us, especially considering the price of labor on the other side, and also considering 
 one other element, to which most of you are strangers, but which is, I fear, dangeroiis 
 tons: that is, the magnificent discipline in foreign factories. A man in Europe in 
 his twelve hours' labor produces a result entirely superior to what a man can do here, 
 and at a cost oftentimes of not more than one-half of what we pay. The result 
 would be, as we are oftentimes told, that we can not compete with these men, and 
 that if we reduce the wages of our workmen until we can com))ete with the prices 
 abroad, the foreigners would take onr market, because they would m.ake twice as good 
 an article for the same price as we can. Another thing is this fable that a man can 
 live cheaper in Europe at less wages than he can here. Now I beg to tell you that a 
 man can live as cheap here as in Europe, if he will live on the same stuff. The la- 
 boring man in England lives on his beans, hisontmeal, his brown bread, and his mug of 
 ale. He will live on a shilling a day, and he will take ashillingaday and make it go as 
 far as a dollar a day here. He has to give twelve honest square hours of labor, skillful 
 andweUputin, for an amount of pay which our men would not think of taking. Then, 
 again, they have an experience in all their manufactures in England of from six 
 hundred to seven hundred year.s. A tanner in England is the son of a tanner, is the 
 grandson of a tanner, is the great grand-son of a tanner, until these men in their 
 different vocations becouie experts. We pick up a man auywhere in the street and 
 have to pay him in tbe neighborhood of from $12 to .fl5 per week. He lives some- 
 thing like a man. He brings up bis son and daughter on a carpeted fl(jor. Hedresses 
 himself before a looking-glass and becomes a decent citizen. The same men in Eu- 
 rope will use a dirt floor. They arc not the best citizens in the world, or we would 
 not have so many of them here. 
 
 We are here to ofter you a classification and to ask for adequate protection. We are 
 here to show you (if you can spare us the time) what it costs to produce these arti- 
 cles in this country, and to show the dreadful condition of affairs in our city under the 
 system of under- valuations. The tariff laws are so illy constructed and so weak and 
 feeble that they are susceptible of five hundred different constructions, and almost 
 adjust themselves to every want, as it is said the Bible does. Men get in their goods 
 and give them false names, and we have no jjrotectioii ng.'iinst that. Importers 
 are banded together to undervalue goods, and they have a law which allows them to 
 have a merchant appraiser of their own calling. So we Americans go before an ap- 
 praiser to-day with our hands tied, because the importers have a man engaged to sit 
 as a merchant appraiser upon tlieir goods. Mr. Rose and myself had the honor to ap- 
 pear before the Finance Committee of the Senate List session, and that committee ac- 
 cepted some of our constructions in regard to leather and incorporated them in the 
 Senate bill that was passed last session. 
 
 I am aware of the necessity for ti.-vser.ess. I do not think I am master of words, and 
 I iun afraid it would take more of your time than you would allow me to go into the 
 details of cost in this production ; but I aiu instructed to ask you for a rating of 00 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 667 
 
 per cent, on manufactures of leather, that is, for hoolc-binclinga, hat leathers, pocket- 
 book cases, and anything that is susceptible of being put immediately into work. 
 The ■work of making that a mauufacturo of leather is equal in volume to the original 
 labor of producing it from the skin, so that virtually there should be two rates of duty 
 on leather. Then we are charged to ask you to give us 35 per cent, on skivers, or 
 that surface of the sheepskin which is the green side of it. The Senate last session 
 conceded us 5 per cent., but that is entirely inadequate even if we had an honest en- 
 forcement of the tariff law. Mr. Rose is here to speak on book binding and shoe calf. 
 There is a difference between the calf-skins adapted to the two classes of work. Calf 
 skin for book covers would weigh from 5 to 7 pounds per dozen. The same class of 
 skins adapted to shoe work would weigh from .50 to 100 pounds per dozen. During the 
 consideration of the last Senate bill Senators Allison and Aldrich and others enter- 
 tained the idea of putting a duty per pound upon these goods with a view of stopping 
 under- valuation ; but we showed them that the duty per pound, while it would in- 
 crease the duty upon 100 pound or 150 pound skins, would virtually decrease the pro- 
 tection on the 5-pound skins. I have a letter here, written by one of the largest 
 manufacturers in New York, relating to this calf matter, which I will read — a letter 
 by R. Neumann & Co., the largest manufacturer of calf-skin in New York. 
 
 The letter is as follows : 
 
 Januart 7, 1890. 
 
 Calf-skins in the hair, adapted for our purposes, i. e., for book-binding, pocket- 
 books, card-cases, boxes, all kinds of fancy leather goods, are worth at present from 
 $8 to $10 a dozen in this country, as well as in Europe ; but it costs here about $8 a 
 dozen to finish the goods, while they can be finished for about 16 marks, or one-half 
 the above amount, in Germany, as we know by experience, having, in former times, 
 such work done in Germany. The dilference is principally the result of cheap labor 
 in the small German towns where such goods are made and where men earn from 20 
 to 40 marks, i. e. , |5 to $10 a week, while our hands are earning from $12 to $25 for 
 doing substantially the same work. Besides that, all the tanning and dyeing ma- 
 terial we are using in this country costs from 25 to 50 per cent, more than in Europe. 
 Now, it will be seen that by giving us a protection averaging $4 to the dozen we 
 have a scanty protection, as the following figures will show.: 
 
 Marks. 
 
 Average price of a dozen skins in the hair in Germany, $9, equal to 36. 00 
 
 Wages '. 20.00 
 
 Total 56.00 
 
 Manufacturers' profit in such staples, say 10 per cent 6. 00 
 
 Price of a dozen finished skins 62. 00 
 
 25 per cent, thereon, as proposed in the Senate bill 15. 50 
 
 Which equals $3.75, which hardly covers the increased cost of manufacturing in this 
 country, as shown above. 
 
 Our calf-skins, i. e., the calf-skins used for the purposes stated at the head of this 
 letter, are of a very light weight, weighing when finished from 3 to 7 pounds a dozen, 
 and in wording the tariff very great care has to be taken that they can not be clas- 
 sified with the calf used for boots and shoes, weighing from 20 to 50 pounds a dozen, 
 for which a duty of 25 cents a pound is proposed. The Senate saw the justice of this 
 when it made the duty on book-binder's calf 25 cents ad valorem, but, although the 
 calf skins used for pocket-books, card-cases, boxes, and fancy leather work — every- 
 thing excepting boots and shoes — may be called book-binder's calf. It will be neces- 
 sary to expressly enumerate all the various purpo.ses such calf may be used for in 
 order not to give the European manufacturers a loop-hple through which they might 
 send their goods over at a duty of 25 cents a pound, or about 5 per cent, ad valorem 
 on this particular class of goods. This would destroy an industry giving employ- 
 ment to many hundred hands and in which large capital is employed, completely. 
 By spending large amounts of money in experimenting the manufacturers in this 
 country have at last succeeded in producing goods which, in colors and finish, are 
 equal if not superior to those produced in Europe, and besides the pecuniary loss, it 
 would be a great mortification if we had to go back to importing the goods. 
 
 R. Neumann & Co. 
 
 Mr. VanGelder (continuing). I have also n letter which the auditor of the New 
 York custom-house gave me, showing the importations of leather in New York for 
 1888 and 1889. The amount imported there will give the proof to my allegation that 
 the duty is not sufficient'to give us protection. If this importation could be shut off 
 by adequate protection, every leather factory in the United States would have abun- 
 dance of work during the business portion of the year. This letter shows the impor- 
 tation at the New York custom-house of the different kinds of leather. 
 
668 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The letter is as follows : 
 
 New York Custom-House, 
 Collector's Office, January 7, 1890. 
 Sir: The imports of calf-skins, leather manufactures, etc., received into this port 
 during; the fiscal years of 1888 and 1889 are ;i3 follows : 
 
 Calf-skins, tanned or tanned and dressed, 1888, |1,312,217 ; 1889, $1,134,690. Skins 
 for morocco, finished, 1888, $858,3.57 ; 1889, |880,6.50. Upper leather of all kinds, 
 dressed, andekins dressed and finished, 1888,i|l, 825, 0.59 ; 1888, $;1,258,.5.'5.'5. All leather, 
 not especiiilly enumerated or provided for, 1888, $22,429; 1^89,24,036. Gloves, kid 
 or leather, wholly or partially manufactured, 1888, $1,312,217; 1889, $1,134,690. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 J. S. Knapp, 
 Mr. H. Van Gelder, ' Jjitditor's Department. 
 
 163 Bleecker Street, New York. 
 
 Mr. Van Gelder (continuing). We have here a number of requests from the New 
 York United Leather Industries for a classification of leather in the bill about to be 
 prepared by this committee. When we went before the Finance Committee of the 
 Senate last year I went there, as we supposed, full of knowledge on the subject, but 
 immediately after that hearing I, with Mr. Rose, entered into a long and terrific fight 
 with undervaluera in the New York custom-house, and became conversant with the 
 facts which make me now ask for modifications of what wo then requested. Among 
 other things I am instructed to ask you, gentlemen, and to urge, if possible, the re- 
 enactment of the old confiscation clause. There is no man undervaluing goods com- 
 ing to New York -who is au honest man. They who are practicing undervaluation 
 would doubtless raise a howl .against the confiscation clause, but the old adage will 
 apply to these men that " No rogue e'er felt the halter draw, with good opinion of the 
 law." There isn't an honest man among those who undervalue goods. We have no 
 remedy against them. They bring every facility th(!y have got to bear to bring 
 about false swearing and false entries, and we have no remedy. We are bound 
 hand and foot and wo see no remedy except the enactment of a law which would 
 make the practice so unprofitable to them that they would not attempt it. 
 
 During the late war it was estimated by English merchants that if, among the 
 block.ade runners, one vessel in twelve got in safely the profit on that vessel would 
 be sufficient compensation for the loss of all the rest. And so an importer says that 
 if he can get some of his goods through without a penalty he will take the risk on 
 the rest. The consequence is that there is scarcely an honest invoice presented to 
 the New York custom-house ; and if petitions be preei^nted to this committee asking 
 that the tariff be undisturbed, I ask you to read the names that will be pinned to 
 them and I will rest the case there. 
 
 I hold iu my hand the revision of the tariff on leather which we propose. It is as 
 follows ; 
 
 (1) Calf-skins, tanned or tanned and dressed, or upper leather, including patent, 
 enameled or japanned leather, goat, morocco, imitations of morocco, not otherwise 
 specified, 35 per cent. 
 
 (2) Sheep skivers or splits, roans and fleshers, tanned and finished, .35 jjer cent. 
 
 (3) Kangaroo leather, tanned, or tanned and finished, or imitations thereof, not 
 otherwise specified, 35 per cent. 
 
 (4) Kid leather, or imitations thereof, for shoes, plain or glazed, 35 per cent. 
 
 (5) Sheep, lamb, goat, kid, or other skins tanned and finished into kid for glove 
 manufacturing, not otherwise specified, 20 per cent. 
 
 (()) Seal-skins, tanned and finished, without hair or fur, 20 per cent. 
 
 (7) Chamois-skins, 10 per cent. 
 
 (8) Scrap leather, 3.5 per cent. 
 
 (9) Sheep-skins, fleshers, or shearlini.s, with wool, not exceeding 1| inches, or other 
 skins not speciliud, tanned in crust, but not colored or finished, 10 percent. 
 
 (10) All leather cut into shoe vamps, hat sweats, or other forms suitable for use or 
 conversion into manufactured artiiles, shall be classed as manufactures of leather, 
 and pay a duty of .50 per cent. 
 
 (11) Manufactures of leather, or of which leather is the component material of chief 
 value, not otherwise specified, 50 per cent. 
 
 (12) Hides raw or cured, whether dry, salted, or pickled, bat unmanufactured, ex- 
 cept sheep-skins with dutiable wool on, free. 
 
 (]:i) Hide cuttings, raw or without hair, and all other glue stock, free. 
 
 (14) Sheep shearlings with wool, not exceeding IJ inches in length, not tanned or 
 finished, free. 
 
 (15) Any imitation of leather, .50 pe- cent. 
 
 (16) All finished leather not otherwises provided for, 35 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Van Giclder (continning). 1 am ie(iui>st<Ml lo say that i here is no protection 
 short of 50 )ier cent, that will in auy sense jiroteot the manufacturer of leather in 
 this country. I have ilgiiros wilh me, wliicli 1 will not afflict you with (I do not pre- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 669 
 
 8ume tbfit you could concede tlie time to me), to sbow that the cost of producing the 
 article in Europe is just one-third of what it is here. Then comes the frigtitful 
 advantage that I spolce to 5'ou of before, of their producing a more merchantable 
 and better article than we can at the same price. 
 
 Mr. MoKJENNA. Put those iigures iu good form and shape and send them to the 
 committee. 
 
 Mr. Van Geldee. Yes ; with pleasure. We have to get all our surface sheep-skins 
 from England to tan and dress in fancy leather here. We can not produce any sheep- 
 skin in this country fit for faucy leather work. The English are great mutton eaters 
 and great sheep breeders. If you took two men, one who is cleanly in his habits and 
 who bathes regularly, and the other who is not cleanly in his habits, and if you 
 tanned their hides, the bather's skin would produce a silvery, soft, flexible, beautiful 
 leather, and the other man's skin would produce a coarse, gray, filthy-looking leather 
 unfit for ordinary work. Now, your farmer iu the West or East, who lets his sheep 
 tun around wild, produces no such sheep-skiu as the Englishman, who cleans and 
 shears his sheep and takes pride in the breed. The consequence is that where a 
 tanner requires a skin for faucy work he has to send to England for it. 
 
 There were imported from England during the year 1888 (raw in the salt) 850,000 
 dozen skins to be manufactured into fancy leather. These skins were taken to the 
 American factories, tanned, dressed, colored, and made into handsome leather. In 
 1889 there were G07,000 dozen skins imported, being a deficit of about 250,000 dozen 
 skins as compared with 1888. I suppose nobody will tell me that we consumed less 
 skins in this country in 1889 than we did in 1868 ; and the whole secret of that deficit 
 is undervaluation. You will find that there has been a vast increase in the importa- 
 tion of this very article ; so that we are losing the market here by underproduction 
 and by undervaluation. And (to reduce my statement to a few words) we ask the 
 rate of duties that we have presented here, and beg that you will re-enact the old con- 
 fiscation clause in the new tariff bill. Of course it will do no honest man harm. 
 
 Mr. Geak. Do you give any effect whatever (in this matter of the deficiency of 
 sales in the United States) to the fact that we do not produce as good an article as 
 they produce in England ? 
 
 Mr. Van Geldee. No, sir. The foreign i^eople produce a better job than we do, and 
 there is always among the finer sorts of goods a certain number of imported goods 
 used. The price paid for them (even though there may bo a high rate of duty) does 
 not deter the manufacture of the usual proportion of finer goods. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you know whether there is any falling off, or any increase, in the 
 importation of that kind of goods ? 
 
 Mr. Van Geldee. Yes, I know that a great inroad has beeumade in our trade on 
 account of these goods. 
 
 Mr. Geak. Iq such goods as we make as well as they ? 
 
 Mr. Van Gelder. Yes. I am a manufacturer myself and we are busy from January 
 to June. We have six months busy time and six months idle time. While the nom- 
 inal compensation of our men is ahead of that of any other workmen, still they are a 
 good deal of time <iut of work ; and all that is traceable to the fact that these goods 
 come by the ship load into our ports. If these goods could be shut out our industry 
 would be increased 100 per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMlLElN. What is the increased percentage of duty that you propose? 
 
 Mr. Van Geldee. Up to within four years the duty on manufactures of leather 
 was 30 per cent., but by a construction of the law, as weak as the Wanamaker de- 
 cision, a great many goods have been put under a lower classification, and the con- 
 sequence is that there has been a great increase of importation and a great decrease 
 of manufacture. I was a, committee appointed to wait on the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury to ask him to re-estab!i.sh the old rate of 30 per cent., although we claim that 30 
 per cent, never was, and never can be, an adequate protection. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You ask how much ? 
 
 Mr. Van Gelder. Fifty per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. You say that the Wanamaker decision affects you ? 
 
 Mr. Van Gelder. In this way: For instance, hat leather is made entirely of 
 leather, but if it is going into a hat the construction under the Wanamaker decision 
 is that it would be a hat trimming and lial)l6 to the duty of hat trimmings. They are 
 raising Gain-about that decision now. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. G. L. ROSE. 
 
 Mr. G. L. Rose, of New York, addressed the committee. He said : 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, as Mr. VanGelder has stated, this business is divided 
 up into several different branches. I .am here on two conjmitteos, one from New 
 York, representing the sheep-skin, skiver, and fancy calf-skins, and the manufacture 
 of leather, chamois-skins, etc. I am also one of the committee of the Morocco Associ- 
 ation, which represents the interests of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Wil- 
 
670 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 niington, Del. I would say m relation to the first committee, the interest which Mr. 
 VanGelder and I represent particularly, that we do not aslj for an advance of duty 
 on all our products. There are some of those goods imported and not manufactured 
 in this country, such as chamois-skins, that now pay a duty of 20 per cent. That 
 duly we wi.sh reduced to 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Why can they not bo put on the free-list if we do not produce them 
 here? 
 
 Mr. Rose. For the simple reason that we are improving the manufacture of leather 
 here all the time, and the time may come when we will want to try our hand at 
 something that will take the place of chamois. That is a manufacture of oil leather. 
 We manufacture oil leather here, but these skins como from England in the raw 
 state free. They can not be made iiito chamois-skins, although they are the fleshy 
 side of the sheep-skin, which is the san^e identically with the other, only that cha- 
 mois-skin bas to be split twice. 
 
 The English sheep and our sheep are of entirely difi'erent natures. The English 
 sheep are the only sheep whose skins can be properly split a.nd made into skiver. The 
 skiver comes over here in the raw state free, and is manufactured here. I can recol- 
 lect the time in my day when there were not as many skins manufactured here in a 
 year as there are now in a month. These skivers (as 1 said) are brought here in the 
 raw state and manufactured, and we are gradually improving. But we are not yet 
 up to the English standard. They have cheap labor there, and, as Mr. VanGelder 
 stated, they have system in their factories which dates away back, and they are 
 therefore able to produce at present better goods than we can. Therefore we want 
 all the protection. Not only is the labor of the English manufacturer cheaper, but 
 he has free material. Everything used in the manufacture of leather is free. There 
 is no tax. Here we pay a tax on the twenty diflerent articles that wo use in the 
 manufacture. All that goes to enhance the cost of our goods. With these advan- 
 tages combined the English are, at present, turning out these goods and they can bring 
 them liera and undersell us. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do they work their men twelve hours a day ? 
 
 Mr. Rose. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How many hours a day do you work your men ? 
 
 Mr. Rose. In my factory ten hours a day. 
 
 Mr. McKexxa. Do the English get a larger product per man ? 
 
 Mr. Rose. Yes, the men over there have to work longer than our men do. 
 
 The Chaiemax. Have you stated, what is paid for labor on the other side? 
 
 Mr. Rose. No. I can not tell you what the exact figures are, but I know from gen- 
 eral repute in the trade that their wages are a good deal lower than ours. 
 
 Mr. Van Geldei:, (to last witness). I came here armed with statistics on that 
 very matter, and I can answer your question if Mr. Rose will yield now. 
 
 The (Chairman. You may answer it, 
 
 Mr. Vax Gelder They pay (in short) on the other side for their labor about one- 
 third of what we ]'ay. 
 
 The Chairman, f repare the figures in detail. 
 
 Mr. Rose. I know that the laljor on the other side is a great deal less than on this 
 side, and the difterence is enough to c.iuse us to request ?.:') per cent, duty on that class 
 of goods. Mr. Van CJelder has not read all the items. There are some of these goods, 
 the glove kid, for instance, which I would call your attention to. The glove kid is an 
 article which I know considerably about, as I have imported these goods myself for 
 a number of years until recently, until (as Mr. Van Gelder has said in regard to un- 
 der- valuation) we were driven out of the business. Wo used to have an agent on the 
 other side who did nothing but buy these goods. We found that the manufacturer 
 over there would manufacture these goods and send them to an agent here, and they 
 would be sold at a less price here than we could buy them for in cash on the other 
 side. How they do that, I imagine, is in this way, they undervalue the goods. No- 
 body can buy them of the manufacturer. He sends thenv to his agent here, and 
 invoices them as he sees fit, or according to instructions, so that the goods do not pay 
 more than one-half or one-third of the dutj' that they ought to pay. That forced us 
 to give up that business. 
 
 Mr. McKexxa. Do you know of your own knowledge that they can sell goods 
 cheaper than you can buy them for with cash in your hand? 
 
 Mr. Rose. Probably I overstated tliat a little. You can not, with the money in 
 your hand, go ov"r there and import these goods here to-day and get cost for them. 
 When we Ktop)je(l importing these goods we had $20,000 or |:-!0,000 worth on hand 
 and we did not get cost for one dozen of them, and some of them we sold at 25 per 
 cent, less tlian c<JSt. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And that, you say, is the result of undervaluation ? 
 
 Mr. Rose. Yes, sir. All tliat we ask for this glove leather is that the present duty 
 be retitined, for the siruplc reason that these goods are made from skins different from 
 our domestic skins, and we think that 20 per cent, (if we can have these fraudulent 
 
EE VISION VP THE TARIFF. 671 
 
 entries done away -with) will protect us. We do not want to be unreasonable in any 
 of our demands. 
 
 I sbould like to say one word in reference to these books, and pocket-books, and 
 case calf-skins used for the I'aicy leather bu.siness. Mr. Van Gelder has presented a 
 letter from a representative of the largest house in that line in New York. He used 
 to be an importer of these floods and has for a number of years been manufacturing 
 them. They have been gradually improving on their manufacture. He states in his 
 letter that labor on those goods on the other side is only one-half what it is here ; and 
 he gives the actual figures. Not only are we at that disadvantage on this side, but 
 we have also to pay duty on all the materials that we use in The business, as high as 
 35 per cent, on some. All that adds to the cost. And that is why he claims 35 per 
 cent, instead of 20. 
 
 As representing the committee of the Morocco Association I would say that last 
 year the Finance Committee of the Senate allowed 25 per cent. duty. We contend 
 that that is not enough on finished Morocco for shoes. We think that a duty of 35 per 
 cent, is what we ought to have. The same question of dillerence in wages and the 
 same question of duty on materials add to the cost of the production of these goods 
 here to such an extent that, unless we have a duty of 35 per cent, on finished Morocco, 
 they can send over their Morocco, manufactured, and undersell us very materially. 
 
 There is one other committee here from Boston representing the importers of East 
 India tanned goat-skins. That committee is represented by Mr. Barrett. There has 
 been some division of opinion on the subject of what we require. The Morocco As- 
 sociation contends for a higher duty than Mr. Barrett asks, but we have talked the 
 matter over and h.ave finally come to the conclusion that if we can have 35 per cent, 
 on the fiished article we will rest contentwith lOpercent. on the India tans, although 
 we think that we ought to have 15 ; still we will let the matter rest at 10 per cent. 
 
 These India-tanned skins are tanned in India, where labor is only from 7^ to 10 
 cents a day. Their material is very cheap ; there is no tax on it, and the conse- 
 quence is that they can manufacture these goods, tanned and unfinished, and bring 
 them on here so that unless we are amply protected they can finish these goods and 
 prevent us morocco manufacturers from doing a profitable business by underselling 
 us on all the medium and low grades of goods, and that has a certain eflfect on our 
 best qualities, so that with a less duty than 10 per cent, it would be impossible for 
 us to manufacture our goods at all. The importation of raw goat-skins this last year 
 was about 28,000,000 skins, equal to about 2,200,000 dozen ; and the India-tanned 
 skins were rL'presented by 450,000 dozen, so that we require the amount of protec- 
 tion we ask for. 
 
 Mr. Van Gelder (the pn^ceding witness). Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I desire 
 to say a few words before closing this discussion. We supposed in coming here that 
 we would meet a very austere set of politicians, but instead of that we have found a 
 very genial set of gentlemen. \Vi5 thank you for your courtesy and congratulate you 
 all on your ability to non-commit yourselves. I do not know whether we are going 
 to get anything, but I assure you that if I go back to New York without being able 
 to tell my associates there that they are going to be protected I will not be very 
 favorably recuived. I would like to have the committee give us some gleam of hope. 
 
 The Chaiemax. You must have some conversation with your Representative (Mr. 
 Flower) . 
 
 Mr. Flower. My constitutent is genial, accomplished, and courteous. He did all 
 that he could to have me kept at homo, and [ wish sometimes that he had succeeded. 
 
 Mr. Van Geldee. I make my apology to Mr. Flower. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES BAIRD. 
 
 Mr. Charles Baird, of Wilmington, 'Del., said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I wish to add a word or two on a subject overlooked 
 by the other gentlemen. I represent in part the morocco interest. What we are 
 asking for is that we shall have protection, at least to the extent of the difference in 
 labor. You will find by consulting the reports of the Bureau of Statistics and the 
 reports from the consul at Calcutta and other sources of information that the wan-es 
 paid in India per day are from 7J to 10 cents, while we pay from iL.'iO to $2. In Wil- 
 mington, where I reside, the average is |1.50, and in New York, |'2. Of course that 
 is a very great difference, and we compete successfully with that labor. We would 
 like to be on an equality with the world and we would fight for our livin'"-. We do 
 not ask for anything unreasonable. We merely ask that this duty on tanned goat 
 and sheep skins shall remain as it is. We intended to have asked for 5 per cent, ad- 
 vance; but, on consultation, we do not w.ant to be beggars, and we have agreed to 
 ask you to fix the duty on finished stock from abroad at 35 per cent, and let the 
 others, partially fipished (what we call "in the crust"), remain as thev are. This 
 benefits not only the morocco men, but helps the sumac-grinders in Virginia. A 
 
672 REVISION OF THE TAKIFF. 
 
 large amount of snmac is used in tiinnirig, and, of course, if these skins come here 
 tanned that interest sutters. We asli; you, in the name of the trade, to concede us 
 this request. 
 
 The Chairman. Your raw material is free ? 
 
 Mr. Baibd. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. And you find, even with free raw material, that you have sharp 
 competition from the other side ? 
 
 Mr. Baird. Yes. I feel that if we can not make as good an article they will beat 
 us, but if we can produce a good article in this country and meet the world on that 
 thing, yon ought to give us a chance in order to maliie up for the difference in labor. 
 
 Jlr. Flower. Even Mr. Moore, whom some people call a free-trader, yields that 
 point, and would give you a protection equal to the difference in labor. 
 
 Mr. Baikd. I hope that we have made a lasting impression on the committee. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. EDWIN S. BARRETT. 
 
 Mr. Edwin S. Barrett, of Boston, said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent a committee of Boston importers, as well 
 as of New York importers, of tanned and raw goat-skins; I also represent a section of 
 morocco manufacturers. Goat-skins are, essentially, a raw product. They are im- 
 ported into this country to the extent of from .'Ji;:i8,000,000 to $:-iO,000,000 a year in 
 value. Raw goat-skins are free. The tanned goat-skins (tanned in India, France, 
 and England) pay a duty of 10 per cent, ad valorem. Out of this ^iW, 000, 000 or 
 $30,000,000 worth that come into the country about !};6,000,000 worth come in the 
 tanned state. They are tanned abroad. They are tanned cheaply and poorly, and 
 make very inferior leather compared to the skins that are tanned in this country by 
 our own manufacturers. Consequently, making a poorer leather, they fill in a place 
 which the better classes of leather do not occupy. For instance, they are used in 
 ladies' shoes costing $1 or ifilSjO a pair ; whereas the native tanned goat-skins make a 
 better leatlier and are used in ladies' shoes costing from 12.50 to $3 a pair. Therefore 
 these foreign tanned goat-skins fill that part of a woman's low-grade shoe. 
 
 The Senate bill assessed tanned goat-skins 15 per cent., but on our three committees 
 here to-day we have come to the conclusion that it is better to leave the existing 
 duty of 10 per cent, on tanned skins. The Germans are the worst competitors that 
 we have. They are manufacturers of morocco leather, as well as of almost every- 
 thing else. They got their tanned skins from India. They finish them at half the 
 cost of what we have to pay in this country. In other words, the German pays 3 
 marks a day for his labor and the American pays I1..50 or $1.75. Tlujre is another 
 point that has been touched upon. The German manufacturers have their agents in 
 New York. We can go to those agents and can buy morocco cheaper than we can 
 import it ourselves by any possibility. What is the presumption ? That these goods 
 are undervalued: and there is no question but they are. In Vienna, last year, I was 
 offered merchandise to be shipped to Boston, and I was told that they would make 
 the valuation as I desired. I told them that I never did that kind of business. That 
 is the great difliculty in the Now York custom-house to-day. I instance New York 
 because they are too virtuous in Bostcm to do anything of the kind. A change ought 
 to be effected in the interest of the honest merchants of New York, who can not com- 
 pete with the agencies of foreign houses. The agent has two sets of books ; one for 
 extra occasions and one for ordina/y use. How are we going to meet it ? You have 
 got to employ very sharp men to trace out their acts, because they are so closely con- 
 fined to tlreir agents. Ask a German manufacturer in Europe where he will deliver 
 the goods, and if he says "I will deliver them at New York at such a place, through 
 my agent," the presumption is that the goods are undervalued. There is no doubt 
 of it. 
 
 As to the duty on finished morocco, it must be remembered that the German gets 
 all his raw material without duty — his dye-stuffs and everything that enters into the 
 coloring and the manufacture ; and then lie pays his workmen 3 marks a day, while the 
 American pays his workmen $1.50 or $1.75. Furthermore, the German manufacturer 
 is willing to do business at a profit of 5 per cent. A German manufacturer told me 
 that if their American business pays them 5 per cent, they are glad of it, and that it 
 ia all they exiieet. 
 
 Mr. Baird (the preceding witness). Mr. Chairman, in speaking of East India tanned 
 skins, I want also to include French tanned skins, or goat-skins, to jiay a duty of 10 
 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Van Gklder. Jlr. Chairman, before leaving New York we were informed that 
 a document was being circulated for presentation before this committee by a body 
 of inqiorteis ; and 1 "voiild say that that body of importers are engaged, in under- 
 valuation. All that I ask this committee to do in connection with that document is 
 to lead the names signed to it. 
 
KT5VISI0N OP THE TARIFF. 673 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. LEONARD, MYERS. 
 Mr. Leonard Myers, counselor at law, of Philadelphia, said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent the large body of morocco manufactur- 
 ers. I represented them last year before the Senate committee and aided, as I be- 
 lieve, in having the 5 per cent, additional duty put upon finished and unfinished, as 
 well as upon tanned and finished, goat and sheep skins. I merely wish to say that a 
 committee from Philadelphia, and perhaps from Wilmington, had expected to be 
 here to-day, and will be, I think, here to-morrow. If they agree to the proposition 
 of these gentlemen as to asking no increased duty on the merely tanned skins, I 
 shall be very happy, because they know their own business best. I should not like 
 to attempt to put myself against my friend Baird, who has just spoken. I heard him 
 make an after dinner speech once in Philadelphia, and he captured the assemblage 
 there just as he (as an importer) has captured the morocco men here, who came to 
 ask more protection on tanned skins. 
 
 Mr. Van Geldek. They all agreed and voted with him. 
 
 Mr. Myers. They had voted for the 5 per cent, increase. They came here and ad- 
 vocated it and have sent letters and circulars about it. But it may be that those 
 gentlemen, who know their own business best, are right in saying that the 3.5 per 
 cent, duty will protect them. Formerly we bad 35 per cent, duty on finished skins. 
 Then the tariff was altered and a duty of 25 per cent, was put upon both tanned and 
 finished and untanned and unfinished — leaving no discrimination between the two 
 (and I think there ought to be discrimination). Then came the act of 1W2, in which 
 my friend Mr. Baird, as an importer, induced Congress to lower the duty on finished 
 skins to 20 per cent, and on unfinished skins to 10 per cent. I protested on the floor 
 of Congress at that time on behalf of the morocco interests of my district. Mr. 
 Eandall also did so then, and has done so since. I protested that they were making 
 a mistake, and that that rate of duty (20 j)er cent.) was too low, although at that 
 time we had in addition the gold premium and also a 10 per cent, discriminating 
 duty for goods coming from east of the Cape of Good Hope. But if the views of 
 this committee agree with the views of those gentlemen, that will be an end of the 
 matter. Acting on behalf of my clients, I felt it my duty to say this much. 
 
 Mr. Baird spoke of the low rates of wages in India, ranging only from 7| to 10 cents 
 a day, whereby they are able to have these goat and sheep skins tanned so cheaply 
 so that they come into such sharp competition with us. That argument goes to show 
 that the merely tanned skins ought to have an increased duty; and all these argu- 
 ments in favor of the American laborer and of the American sumac grower and of the 
 American tanner are just as strong to-day as they were then. But if the 35 per cent. 
 duty on the finished article covers them, it is for these gentlemen themselves to say, 
 and not for a mere advocate. In conclusion, let me refer to something which they 
 may have forgotten in reference to these tanned goat and sheep skins. It is that 
 they are nearly all sent to London and are there sold at auction. They sell them 
 once in every six weeks. I havf here the list of auction sales in London reported by 
 Barrow & Bros. It is the list of imblic sales of East India tanned goat and sheep 
 skins from April 8 to April 16, 1889. It shows that there were sold at auction within 
 that time 1,118,240 goat-skins and 609,017 sheep-skins. 
 
 Mr. Barrett. Mr. Myers is attorney for the local association in Philadelphia ? 
 
 Mr. Myers. I beg your jiardou. 
 
 Mr. Barrett. He does not represent the national association. We held a meeting 
 yesterday and this committee comes right from the association. Therefore we rep- 
 resent the association. I have got nothing to say against what Mr. Meyers has said. 
 
 Mr. Myers. I am glad to hear that. 
 
 Mr. Barrett. We only wish to set ourselves right as to the power of the commit- 
 tee which appears here to-day to represent our interests. 
 
 The Chairman (to Mr. Barrett). I understand you to ask simply what the associa- 
 tion has agreed that it wants? 
 
 Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Mybes. I am glad that my friend says that what I said was in the interest of 
 the trade ; but I did and do represent the national association, not, however, as to 
 what it agreed to lately. There were thirty firms that made my employment very' 
 tangible to me. 
 
 Mr. Flower. A,re you an attorney for them ? 
 
 Mr. Myers. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Barrett. Although I have been an importer for twenty-five years, this is my 
 first appearance before the Committee on Ways and Means, and I only come at the 
 solicitation of a large body of manufacturers of New England and many of the im- 
 porters. Mr. Myers has said that the bulk of these skins is sold in London, and that 
 the American manufacturers supplieel themselyes in London. That is unmistakablj- 
 
 485 i3 
 
674 REVISION OF THE TAKIFF. 
 
 true. We have, liowever, imported direct from India last year ourselves. We buy 
 more or Jess in London, but ludia is the cbeapest market. We represent three com- 
 mittees here to-day— one in New York, the other representing the National Morocco 
 Exchange, and myself representing the importers and a section of the manfacturers 
 of Massachusetts and New England. 
 
 Philadelphia, January 22, 1890. 
 Dear Sih : The morocco trade of this city (one-third of that industry in the coun- 
 try) a.sk me to state to your committee that the very proper increase of duty proposed 
 for "finished" morocco skins can not possibly protect those skins which are merely 
 " tanned," and which should have, at least, the increase of 5 per cent, placed on them 
 by the Senate bill. 
 I inclose a letter from their committee. 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 Leonard Myers. 
 Hon. WiLLl.iM McKiNLBY, Jr., 
 
 Clialrvian Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 Philadelphia, January 21, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : The committee of the Philadelphia morocco manufacturers met yester- 
 day, and I was instructed to inform you that no amount of duty on the finished stock 
 would conijiensate us for the tanned and unfinished. This latter article can be 
 brought in here and finished in barns without either plant or capital, and is great 
 detriment to legitimate manufactures, and Philadelphia trade, representing one-third 
 the morocco interest of the country, want duty as miich on the tanned as on the 
 finished. 
 
 Yonrs, respectfully, 
 
 John W. Sblsbr, 
 
 Secretary. 
 Leonard Myers, Esq. 
 
 ■ STATEMENT OF A. P. KBTCHTJM. 
 
 Mr. A. P. IvETCHUM, of No. 4 William street, New York City, attorney for import- 
 ers and manufacturers, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairmau and gentlemen of the committee: I do not want to disturb you 
 by what appears to be a collection of papers here. They only contain notes of the 
 points I will be glad to bring to your attention, and which will help me to be brief. 
 We are here as importers and manufacturers, both, of leather. We ask only that the 
 present duties upon such goods be retained. As you will recollect, the duty exacted 
 on dressed and finished leather is 20 ptr cent, and the duty exacted on unfinished 
 leather is 10 per cent, and that the duty exacted on the manufactures of leather is 30 
 per cent. The inten-sts here represented have to do with skins, which I will par- 
 ticularize for your information, and are what are known as 'chamois-skins. We 
 are all familiar with that article ; then leather for making shoes, then morocco, then 
 what are called skivers, out of which ent leathers for hat sweats are made. The 
 skivers are imported in the whole skins and the leathers are cut from the skivers. 
 
 The Chairman. What are skivers ; what kind of skin ? 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. They arc eut skins about that size perhaps [illustrating]. We 
 are earnestly opposed to allowing so-called unfinished skins to be imported at a duty 
 of 10 percent, unless thefinished goods retain the duty as it is now, at 20 per cent. 
 The importance of this point is shown in connection with chamois-skins in a very 
 marked degree. In the first place the chanjois-skins are brought from the condition of 
 the wool, made from the sheep-skins, into what is called the unfinished state. The chief 
 expense incidental to bringingthe chamois from the original condition into thefinished 
 condition attends the bringing of tbeni from the original condition in the wool to what 
 is called the unfinished condition, or perhaps the salted condition. The expense of 
 bringing the chamois from the unfinished condition into the finished condition is 
 scarcely more than from 2i to 5 per cent. This is not always understood. It has been 
 supposed that the expense was very much greater than that. Now, we have no ob- 
 jection to the unfinished chamois coming in at a duty of 10 per cent., as we under- 
 stand it has been advocated by some gentlemen, whom we will take the liberty to de- 
 scribe by styling them our opponents. 
 
 Mr. La Follktte. What is the present duty of the unfinished chamois? 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 675 
 
 Mr. Ketch UM. It is 10 per cent. Now, all that it is necessary to do to bring tlie iin- 
 iinished chamois into the coudition of iinished chamois is to pass it over a certain 
 knife or roller — it is called a kuife — at an expense, as I have stated, of only 2| to 5 
 per cent. The importers are able to stand the additional duty of 10 per cent, on tlie 
 finished chamois, notwithstanding the slight percentage of expense it takes to 
 bring the uniinished chamois into the finished coudition. Now, there is a reason for 
 that. The finished iuiported chamois has its uses, and there are some persons who 
 prefer it to the chamois that is finished here. But to put the unfinished chamois at a 
 duty of 35 per cent, and to make, therefore, the ditference between the tax on the un- 
 finished article and the finished article 25 per cent, when the expense of converting 
 the article from the one condition into the other is only 2J to 5 per cent. I think 
 seem to all of us as unreasonable. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge.' 1 think you jjerhaps inadvertently mentioned different rates 
 there in the same connection. I understood you at first to say that certain parties 
 were now asking for 10 per cent, on the unfinished chamois. 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. Yes, sir. 
 
 Sir. Breckinridge. And then, in reply to a question, you stated the present rate 
 was 10 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Now, I understand you to say they are asking 35 per cent, on 
 the unfinished chamois. 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. That is on the finished chamois. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are they asking anything on the unfinished diflTerent from the 
 present law? 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. No, sir, they are not, for the reason that theunfinished chamois 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I just wanted to know the fact. What they want is 35 per 
 cent, on the finished chamois. 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Now, I understood you to say that the present rate of 10 per 
 cent, on the uufiuished chamois is seven-fold greater than the entire cost of finishing 
 it? 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The present rate of 10 per cent, is the rate now on the unfin- 
 ished chamois. What is the present rate on the finished chamois? 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. Twenty per cent., which is an additional 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The present margin of 10 per cent, between the tax on unfin- 
 ished chamois and finished chamois is at prestut seven-fold greater than the entire 
 cost of the finished? 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. Yes, sir; two or three times as great as the relative cost. 
 
 The Chairman. Would you like a change in the existing law of 10 and 20 per cent? 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. Yes, sir. We would like 
 
 The Chairman. You are resisting the proposition to make the finished chamois 25 
 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. One point right there. You speak of chamois finished abroad 
 differing at least, according to some i)eople, in quality, etc., and uses, from tjiat fin- 
 ished at home; that each has its sphere. 1 understand, then, that the added tax would 
 not be for the purpose of making any additional expense in this country, but to com- 
 pel people to use goods lacking an element of quality against their choice, the ex- 
 pense being already fully covered by the present tax ? 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That is as far as I wanted to go. 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. Perhaps I ought to explain here that the gentlemen who have dif- 
 fered from us in our views are inconsiderable in number. 1 do not find that any of 
 the large manufacturers of the country have taken the ground against us that' has 
 heen taken by some, we understaud, who have appeared Ijclore the committee. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it not true that at some of your national reunions in past 
 years it was concurred in without dissent that the trade was in a prosperous condi- 
 tion and that it was progressive ; that it was more and more taking the place of im- 
 ports upon the changes which have occurred in the art of manufacturing, and that 
 nothing was needed but the present law? 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. Yes, sir. I have extracts here of speeches delivered at the last two 
 conventions in exactly that line, 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Those were from the president of the Leather Manufacturers' 
 Association ? 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And there was no dissent from this in any of these gather- 
 ings? 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. No, sir; and I have statistics to show that whereas in 1883, when 
 the present tariff law was passed, the income from finished leathers was something 
 
676 EE VISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 like $8,000,000, and it laas steadily dwindled down until now it is in the neighbor- 
 hood of only $2,000,000, and perhaps less. I have the exact figures. While the in- 
 come from the fiuislied article in 1883 was relatively small, that has increased, so 
 that the revenue from the unfinished article has gone beyond that of the finished 
 article. They have crossed each other on the way, and now the revenue ou the un- 
 finished leather is greater than that ou the finished leather. 
 
 The Chaikman. This import of the unfinished leather has increased. 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. Yes, sir; it is demonstrated unquestionably that the domestio 
 manufacturers have all the protection they need in the 20 per cent, on the finished 
 article. Eight here with me to-day is a very extensive domestic manufacturer of 
 shoe leather. His manufacturing interest very far exceeds his importing interest; 
 yet he is here in advocacy of the position which I have the pleasure to take. 
 
 The Chairman. How much work is done on the unfinished skins of chamoislm- 
 ported ? 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. Nothing at all except to pass them over what is called a knife, a 
 machine which makes them soft and which gives them the soft finish that we are all 
 familidr with. The chamois before it passes over that knife is in a sort of stiff and 
 hard condition. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the percentage of labor on the unfinished as contrasted 
 with the percentage of labor on the finished ? 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. You will see at once the percentage is only from 2^^ to 4 and 5 per 
 cent, to bring the unfinished article into a finished condition. The great proportion 
 of the labor consists in bringing the skins from the condition of the wool into the 
 salted or tanned condition, this unfinished condition. 
 
 The Chairman. There is more labor in putting the skins into the unfinished condi- 
 tion than into the finished? 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. Very much more; the labor beyond the unfinished condition is 
 trifling. Yet, as I say, we do not object to the additional difference of 10 per cent., 
 because the imported chamois has ils line of trade in this country and some people 
 preterit. Now, the chamois is an article which is used by everybody, poor as well as 
 rich, in the ordinary avocations of life, for cleaning and polishing, and so on and so 
 forth. It is peculiar in this respect, but, as I say, the progress here in the United 
 States in connection with the chamois, skin, as well as the other kind, has been very 
 great under the tariff as it now stands. 
 
 The Chair.man. Do we prepare the skins in the unfinished condition here? 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. Yes, sir; I think. that is done to some extent. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you know where? 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. At Gloversville, N. Y. The system of preparation is somewhat 
 different, I think. 
 
 A Bystander. It is precisely the same. 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. Only they are fitted finally as lamb-skin gloves. Now, there is an- 
 other thing, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, which is of very great 
 importance in connection with the matter of undervaluation. Theic are degrees of 
 value connected with the unfinished chamois skin which it next to impossible for any 
 experts that the Government could secure to fix. Theie are degrees of progress in 
 respect to the unfinished skin which it is hard to determine. Nobody does know act- 
 ually the value of the unfinished chamois skins but the man who sold the skiu and 
 the man who paid for it; and there would, therefore, be great hazard in putting a 
 liigh rate of duty on the unfinished skin, and inviting the fraud which we think 
 would be practiced if the unfinished skin was still allowed to come in at 10 per cent, 
 and the ditterence made was 15 to 25 per cent, between the finished and the unfin- 
 ished article. 
 
 J will now refer to other points in connection with other lines of importation, and 
 thru I will be glad to answer any <iuestious that may be put to me at any time. 
 
 Now in regard to the foreign calf-skins. Twenty-three years ago foreign calf-skins 
 were mostly imjiorted from France, and they Avere the standard, anil, as 1 have taken 
 the liberty of iiutting it here, they were a re|)roach to the American article of the 
 same nature. Theie were in the city of New York fifteen firms exclusively engaged 
 in importing sucli skins, while two brokers made a comfortable living by promoting 
 sales from the one to the other. There were also in the city of PlnUulolphia four 
 houses. Furthermore, consignments of foreign calf-skins W(-ie frei|uently made to 
 commission houses, and by them through the brokers were sold either to the im- 
 porters or to dealers in the largest cities of the East or West. At that time the duty 
 upon the finished calf-skin was ;!5 per cent. Now, what has become of all this at the 
 present time? There are at present in the city of New York but six houses engaged 
 in the importation of foreign calf-skins, and there is only one amongst them which 
 has not also identified itselt with the producti(m of American leather. The brokers 
 have disappeared, and in Philadeliihia. there is just one firm left which now imports 
 c:ill'-skins. What has tended to I. ring about such a change? It is the progress of 
 American manufacture, which was possible notwithstanding the reduction of 15 per 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 677 
 
 cent, in the duty; for we pay at present, and liavo paid since 1883, but 20 per cent. 
 It is not to be denied that the Europeans have the advantage of cheaper hibor. On 
 the other hand, we have the advantage of cheaper bark and greater inventiveness iu 
 labor-saving machinery. 
 
 The American producers of calf-skins are utterly unaffected by foreign competition. 
 Their skins are to-day the standard. They can go to I'aris, as some of them have 
 done, exhibit their productions, Obtain a gold medal, and make sales to European 
 shoe manufacturers, as they have done. 
 
 The CHAiRJtAN. Would you need any duty at all as a matter of protection on calf- 
 skins and what you are now describing ? Why could it not go on the free list on your 
 statement that you are not at any disadvantage from the foreign competition ? 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. I am speaking now in reference to the present rate of duty. 
 
 The Chairman. You have said that while they have the advantage of cheaper 
 labor you have the advantage of bark and the advantage of machinery, and all tlio 
 inventive genius on this side. Now, that being the case, why not put calf-skins on 
 the free list ? 
 
 Mr. Kbtchu.m. There is some difference. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the difference ? Why do you need the 20 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Ketchu?ii. I am not certain whether we do or not; but still I am advocating 
 the retention of the present rate of duty. Lines of trade have been established and 
 conditions of business are fixed in relation to this present duty. 
 
 Mr. BlNGER. We are importers and producers of American-made finished calf-skin, 
 and I would answer that question in this way: We would cot be affected nor harmed, 
 and neither would our competitors, some of whom are very much larger, if we were 
 to put finished leather on the free list. The progress has been such in the last fif- 
 teen years that the American manufacturer has nothing to fear from Europe. 
 
 The Chairman. There are some importers of calf-skins. 
 
 Mr. BlNGBR. Yes, sir. I am one of them, and these importations are getting smaller 
 and smaller ; but there is a prejudice in favor of some European skins. Shoemakers 
 that have known them, or people who wear high-priced shoes and pay |C to $12 
 for a pair of shoes, are the people who ask for French calf-skins. In many instances 
 it is German calf-skins and not the French calf-skins. 
 
 The ChairMjVN. So it is your opinion you do not need a duty upon calf-skins, and* 
 that they could be i^ut upon the free list ? 
 
 Mr. BiNGBR. Yes, you can put it on th(^ free list. 
 
 The Chairman. And it would not disturb the industry, nor affect the wages of 
 labor f 
 
 Mr. BiNGBR. Not at all. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I understand you to say our calf-skins have nothing to fear from the 
 French because they go to France. 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. That is a fact, and I did not give my whole reason at all. Now, I 
 happen to know those circumstances. A number of years ago there was a re-ap- 
 praisement of imported calf-skins. I happen to know it because I was the general 
 appraiser at the port of New York .at that time, and a number of domestic manufact- 
 urers appeared before me and the merchant appraiser in connection with an impor- 
 tation. I had satisfied myself that the French had some secret in respect to the 
 manufacture of such goods which the Americans did not have, and I frankly told my 
 American friends so. I said that we could not prodace such articles as this at all. 
 I was perfectly innocent of any intention at that time to excite the inventive genius 
 of anybody; but the result of that appraisement was that two or three domestic 
 mannfactnrers went to France and made a study of that subject, and the result of it 
 was that they came back here and produced an article equal to the French article, 
 and they have produced such an article here ever since : and that is one of the reasons 
 why the American production in this regard finds a market in France as well as a 
 market in the United States. 
 
 Men's shoes are made of two parts, the vamp part and the top part. The vamp 
 part is usually calf-skin. I say here that not 2^ per cent, of the better grades of shoes 
 made in the United States are made out of foreign calf-skins, and more than 97i per 
 cent, are made out of American calf-skins. Then, as far as the top part is concerned, 
 the part that contains the buttons and lacings and elastic, that is completely and 
 altogether of American manufacture. I stated that not one in ten thousand is being 
 imported where this imported leather is used for the top of shoes. If you wipe off the 
 entire duty on that leather used for the top of shoos, we would not get 1 cent more 
 or 1 cent less in consequence, and in fact our workmen would not be afl'ected. 
 
 The Chairman. Would it affect the price to the consumer ? 
 
 Mr. KiTCHUM. Not at all. In fact it has become a very insignificant thing, and 
 all we come here for is to say "leave the matter as it stands." American manufact- 
 urers do not need the protection. They do not come to you here in a body of repre- 
 sentative men and say " we can not exist; we must have higher duties." They do 
 not want it and they do not need it. I have here in my hand a speech made by Gen- 
 
678 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 era! Parke Postlee, president of the Morocco Mamifacturers' Association, at the semi- 
 annual meeting at the Hotel Brunswick, held January 18, 1889. I will only read you 
 snch sentences as I have selected, because I do not want to detain you. He speaks 
 in reference to the American growth, and the decreased importation, and he says 
 here : 
 
 " This certainly should be all the encouragement needed to stimulate us in going on 
 improving our product until we have entirely conquered this market for American 
 manufacturers." 
 
 That is in reference to lighc leathers for men's shoes, and the production of it. 
 
 "This wo can only do with the excellence of our production, and not by attempt- 
 ing to build a wall by legislation to keep competing manufacturers out." 
 
 This shows that all we have to do is to improve their quality, and then we will con- 
 quer the American njarket for American manufactures. 
 
 Mr. Brecklxridge. You are speaking particularly of moroccos in the speech you 
 quote from. 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The only reason I asked the question in regai-d to calf-skin is that we 
 have evidence here showing that the farmer is getting poorer and poorer every year 
 in this country, and the land is going down in the State of New York and in Pennsyl- 
 vania, and the only thing the farmers can clear is a four-rail fence when the sheriif 
 is after them in the fall. They can not make anything on the calf-skins or on any- 
 thing else. 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. I have some other extracts from the same address. Another article 
 is being used in the manufacture of men's tino shoes, upon which the present rate of 
 duty is 20 per cent. That is patent calf-skiiis. They are made by a few large firms 
 in Germany. The point is there is no domestic production in respect to that article 
 and it would hardly come in as a competitor. Tlie leather used for the tops of shoes 
 and much of the leather spoken of hero is leather for what is called vamps. The 
 leather used for the tops of shoes is entirely of American manufacture, and if I were 
 put upon my oath I would say from belief as well as knowledge that not one dozen of 
 such leather is being imported against ten thousand dozen being made in theUnited 
 , States. One firm represented here to-day produces approximately a hundred dozen 
 per day of such leather, and there are iiiueli larger concerns producing larger quanti- 
 ties. So utterly independent is the American producer of this leather of any foreign 
 competition that if you take oif the entire duty we would not make one dozen less, nor 
 wotild we have to sell for one cent below our present prices. 
 
 Mr. Breckinrihoe. Is that the leather that goes over the toe end of the shoe ? 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. No, sir ; it goes over the upper, where the laces and buttons go on. 
 
 Now, the matter of under-valnation. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 I want to say for a large house here represented, which has imported vast quantities 
 of leather, and which has been connected with the importation of leather for the last 
 eighteen years, that never, during this long time, has a single invoice of that house 
 been questioned by the custom-house. Now, in relation to under-valuation in regard 
 to skivers. There are two ways of buying skivers. You may buy a separate article 
 or you may buy them " in the run," as it is called. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinridge. Explain just what skivers are. 
 
 Mr. Ketchdm. Skivers are made of cut skins, and it is the leather out of which hat 
 sweats are made and cut leathers. We call them hat sweats. Dunlap and other 
 manufacturers use them constantly. Tlie skiver is the skin out of which that cut 
 leather is made. This is the dressed or finished skill. Now, some gentlemen from 
 New York appeared here and took the ground that it was irregular and fraudulent 
 to import these .skins in the run and pay only the average price. The average price 
 is well fixed in Europe, and the statute of the United States was resorted to, which 
 says, that where the average price is' taken on an invoice the price must be put at 
 the value of the article which pays the highest rate of duty ; but that statute clearly 
 refers to articles which are subject to dilfercnt rates, according to the dividing line 
 of value. Years ago, a Secretary of the Treasury — I think it was Mr. Sherman — de- 
 cided that that provision related only to gooils where there was a difl'erent rate of 
 duty according to a dividing line of value. The Treasury, however, took a different 
 ground from that formerly taken, and advanced all these skivers to the highest value 
 of the best skiver in the lot. There was no i|uestion that the skivers were fully paid 
 for on the average price, and, unless the Department has reversed the ruling again, 
 the matter is adjusted. That is all the under-valuation wehave heard of for a great 
 many years, and that really was no under-valuation. 
 
 Now, as to tke skivers. There has not been but 4;v;0,000 paid into the Treasury of 
 the United States per annum on account of importations of skivers. This is the 
 finished skin which pays 20 per cent. duty. The cut lealliers, as manufactures of 
 leather, would pay .30 per cent. We have no controversy in respect to the rate of 
 duty, although under the trimmings clause of the present taiiff there is some doubt 
 about it. These cut leathers paid only 20 per cent, as trimmings of hats. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 679 
 
 Mr. BuECKiNRiDGB. What per cent, are the imported skivers of the consumption 
 of the country ? 
 
 Mr. Kktchdm. It is very small indeed. There is one thing to be stated about the 
 skiver which is very important, and that is that the American manufacturer has 
 never yet discovered how to make a finished skiver that will be used by Dunlap 
 or such men that will give satisfaction. If they bring the untinisbed skin into 
 this country and finish it, then they can produce skins that will be used for ordi- 
 nary purposes, but no such leather as that will be used by men like Dunlap in flrst- 
 class work. So the only importations of finished skivers are for the purpose of sup- 
 plying that special demand of these first-class hat nianufaetuvers. That importation 
 does not interfere at all with the domestic manufacturers, and, as I say, it only pro- 
 duces $20,000 per annum of duty. 
 
 I may say this, gentlemen, that the domestic manufacturers of hats are as deeply 
 interested as we are in the retention of the duty of 20 per cent, on the finished skiver, 
 rather than the advancing of that duty to any higher rate. I would state to tlie 
 committee that we would be glad to put in concise form and in the shape of writing 
 a printed statement of points that we have only been able to hint at here to-day. 
 We will present that document very shortly, if it is agreeable to the committee to re- 
 ceive it. 
 
 I would like, just in conclusion, to show you, in a moment, a table of income from 
 the finished goods and the unfinished goods, for it is an object lesson of very great 
 value. 
 
 The Chairmau. Is your statement reduced to writing . 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. This is only a memorandum I have. 
 
 The Chairman. If you desire it, you can leave that table with the reporter, and 
 it will be printed. 
 
 Mr. Ketchum. Yes, sir ; I will do that. 
 
 The following will show the decrease of the imports of shoe leather since the present 
 reduced tariff of 20 per cent, is in existence. For the years ending June 'M, these 
 imports amounted to — 
 
 1887 $4, 284, 416 
 
 1MH8 .•^, a7!>, 1,51 
 
 1889 2,575,775 
 
 1883 $8,235,053 
 
 1884 5,192,089 
 
 1885 J... 5,064,584 
 
 18de 5 244,870 
 
 Showing a constant and steady decrease. 
 
 On the other hand, the importation of skins tanned, but not finished, paying 10 per 
 cent, duty, has steadily increased, showing a growing liome industry, as all these, 
 skins have to be dressed and finished in order to make them suitable fur shoe and 
 other purposes. 
 
 Of these skins the importation amounted in the year ending June 30, 1886, to 
 11,952,416; 1887, to $2, 401,530 ; 1888, to $3,450, 571 ; 1889, to $3,460,935. Summing up: 
 A steady decrease in the importation of shoe leather and increase in the injportation 
 of undresssed skins, going into the hands of our home mauuiactniers to be turned 
 into leather, dressed and finished. 
 
 This shows you the domestic industry in this country has prospered under the rates 
 of duty as they now exist, and we simply ask of this committee that you will have the 
 kindness to leave the duty in its present condition. I state this in rlieintiu'cst of the 
 domestic manufacturers just as much as in the interest of the importers, who bring in 
 now simply those articles that are specially demanded here for special purposes. 
 
 The gentleman who are with me from New York may possibly make suggestions or 
 recommendations, or answer any question you may wish to ask. 
 
 STATEMENT OF W. T. 'WAKEMAN. 
 
 Mr. W. T. Wakeman, of Kansas City, Mo., next addressed the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear here by re(]nest of the 
 
 chairman of the Cattle Growers' Association of Texas. 1 trust my statement will be 
 
 as brief as it is important. By the act of 1872 the tariflf on hides, wliich was then 10 
 
 per cent, ad valorem, was abolished. The suggestion I desire to make has bearing 
 
 section 2503 of the Senate bill, paragraph 577, which reads as follows: 
 
 "Hides raw or uncured, whether dried, salted or pickled, and skins of all kinds, 
 raw or dried, salted or pickled, but unmanufactured, except sheep-skins with dutiable 
 wool on." 
 
 That is included in the free list by the act which I referred to. At the time hides 
 were placed upon the free list there was an average value of from 1 1 J to 12J cents, and 
 the Importations under that tariff were approximately $10, 000, 000. 
 
 The Chairman. You say the tariff was taken oft' in 1872f 
 
 Mr. Wakeman. Yes, sir. The imports under tlie tariff in 1860 were $10, COO, 000, 
 while under the tariff in 1870 it had growji to about $14,000,000. By the census of 
 
680 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 1880, under the free clanse, the importation increased to something over $30,000,000, 
 but at that time the value of hides had decreased not very largely from the original 
 price, as we consumed more than we produced at that time. From 1881 to 18(-9 
 inclusive the importations have averaged |25,000,000 to |26, 000,000 — last year sonje- 
 thing over $25,000,000. The prices of hides — the standard basis of value is the green 
 salted hide. They have steadily and uniformly increased from 1872 until to-day. 
 
 They have increased from 4 j to 5 cents, as quoted by yesterday's papers in the 
 market. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Four cents a pound? 
 
 Mr. Wakeman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Was not the high price in 1872 somewhat incident on the premium of 
 gold? 
 
 Mr. Wakeman. Yes, sir; somewhat, certainly. The point I make upon this is this : 
 I have heard with great interest the hearings upon wool and the great clip of this 
 country, which was assumed to be about 250,000,000 pounds last year. The first value, 
 of that wool would be at a fair estimate $50,000,000. Of course the wool tariff is not 
 a revenue tariif but a protective tariif, but it is a great deal of importance to this 
 question, for I wish to say that the consumption of raw hides of tliis country amounts 
 to very nearly $100,000,000 a year in value, and that at the present prices ; and of 
 that great amount we produced about 75 per cent.; all the balance came in from 
 foreign countries. This is not a question that affects the ranchmen more importantly 
 than it affects the farmers. For instance, yesterday I dropped down to the market 
 to ascertain the facts right here. I found there dairy farmers, as around other centers 
 arotmd New York, sold all their pelts, except, perhaps the heifers, calves, and the 
 average pelt has decreased from 11.20 to 40 and 50 cents, the price of yesterday. Now 
 it does seem proper, gentlemen, that this question, which affects every single farmer 
 in the United States who has a cow, should have your earnest consideration. This is 
 only one of the points I wish to simply suggest for your experts in this committee to 
 consider, which embraces all the by-products of live stock. Now, to illustrate the 
 importance of that, in New York City to-day there is something over 460,000 (tried 
 hides, nearly all imported, for which there is scarcely a bid. At the same time in Bos- 
 ton there are well on to 370,000 for which there is no bid. 
 
 Mr. Gear. They are mostly hides that have been brought in dried? 
 
 Mr. Wake.man. Yes, sir. Up to this year on the Short Line of Oregon, and Union 
 Pacific Railway and other great lines, it had been the habit of having the cattle 
 killed for the hide only and shipped to the market, but prices liave gone to such a low 
 figure that they have ordered the discontinuance of the killing of cattle, and there 
 are many sections througliout the West where the hides are actually burned for fuel, 
 on account of the fact that there is no value in their shipment. 
 
 I think that covers the main points, unless questions may be asked me. I simply 
 want to point out how it affects every farmer in the uation. Now, by the suggestion 
 of the Cattle Growers' Association, 1 suggest this section be made to read as follows: 
 
 "Hides, raw or uncured, whether dry, salted, or pickled, and skins of all kinds, 
 raw or dried, salted or pickled, but unmanufactured, shall pay a duty of 1 J cents per 
 pound." 
 
 Whether the committee shall take up the other by-products of live stock, such as 
 hair, which is used yery largely in many particulars (the blood and hair), I leave th.at 
 to their own judgment. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Will that increase the price of the hide? 
 
 Mr. Wakkman. It might have a very small effect, but I doubt it. The point is 
 simply to have reciprocity for our home product in our homes. I have a personal 
 acquaintance with one of the largest hide-de.ilers in the country. He is not jiarticu- 
 larly in favor of this proposition. He told me that he had to buy what he considered 
 to be under the foreign market in order to protect himself. He does a business of 
 perhaps |ji, 600,000 a year. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. If it does not increase the price of the hide what a'dvantage is that 
 to the domestic producer? 
 
 Mr Wakeman. The point is we have no sale for our hides now. The point is to 
 give a stability to the market. It will unquestionably increase the price somewhat. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. By increasing the price of hides, would not that iuorease the price . 
 of shoes ? 
 
 Mr. Wakeman. I can only reply to that by saying that the price of leather has not 
 increased to any extent with the tariff. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is the weight of an average hide, beef-hide ? 
 
 Mr. Wakeman. It would weigh from 40 to 65 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. This duty of 1^ cents a pound would be about 75 cents ? 
 
 Mr. Wakeman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. There is no duty on that now ? 
 
 Mr. Wake.^ian. No, sir; it is absolutely free. 
 
 Mr. I'YdWEii. I thiuk the evidence here is that we h.ave to bring in hides to make 
 Bole-leather ; that we do not have proper hidi-.s to make soh^-leather ? 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 681 
 
 Mr. Wakkman. That is, to a limited extent. 
 
 Mr. Flowbu. And t.liat tlieso hides imported did not come in competition with our 
 hides. That was the evidence before this committee, I think ? 
 
 Mr. Wakeman. We produce about three-fourths of the entire consumption. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. In regard to the weight of hides you spoke of, beef-hide, 
 weighing- 4U and 05 pounds, do you mean in the green state ? 
 
 Mr. Wakeman. Yes, sir ; that is the basis of all the values in our market. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is not that under weight ? 
 
 Mr. Wakeman. Yes, sir ; but I would rather be on the safe side of it. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What would a dry hide weigh 'I • 
 
 Mr. Wakkman. The average of dry hide, Ishould say, lies between 40and.50pounda, 
 but you know there is a very great variety. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I know there is a great variety, but what would the average be ? 
 
 Mr. Wakkman. I should say from 40 to 50 pounds dried. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Then, of course, it would weigh for the wet hide more than 80 pounds? 
 It is certainly fiir more than that. 
 
 Mr. Wakeman. I should think so, but I would prefer to be on the safe side. 
 
 SKIVERS AND CUT lEATHER. 
 
 To the Wayf! and Means Committee of the Souse of Representatives: 
 
 Gentlemen : The undersigned manufacturers in the United States of men's hats and 
 caps have learned that an attempt is being made to secure an increase of tariff rates. 
 on what are known as imported" skivers" and " cut leathers," the former being the 
 dressed or finished skins from which the latter are cut. We earnestly protest as home 
 manufacturers of an article made in part, and iu one of its most important parts, from 
 the imported articles referred to, against any increase of the present rates alluded to, 
 and in the interest of our manufactories and the large number of our employees de- 
 pandent upon them most urgently petition that you will allow the present tariff rates 
 on said articles to remain undisturbed. 
 January 10, IHiiO. 
 [Here follow numerous signatures."" 
 
 MOROCCO AND KID. 
 
 Argument in heliaJf of the morocco and Icid mannfacturing inferesis nf America in relation 
 to a revision of duties upon sheep and (joat alcins, ineliidimj lamb and. Lid skins, drtssed 
 and finished, and also sheep and (joat shins, including lamh and kid skins, tanned and un- 
 finished. ' 
 
 It would appear that the committee presenting the case of the morocco and kid in- 
 dustry at the hearing before the Ways and Means Committee were controlled by the 
 importers who bring in the East India "tanned but unfinished"' sheep, goat, lamb, 
 and kid skins, and which they claim as the raw material of their customers ; and we 
 are inlormed the threat was used that uulessthe morocco and kid manufacturers would 
 either lower the duty upon these East India " tanned but unfinished" skins or allow 
 , it to remain at 10 per cent, they would use their influence to lower the duties upon 
 the dressed and finished skins, and the result was a compromise by which the duty 
 was projiosed to be increased upon the dressed and finished (these importers having 
 no interest whatever in the dressed and finished skins) and the duties upon "tanned 
 but unfinished" skins, the product of the cheap East India labor, retained at 10 per 
 cent. 
 
 Nothing menaces the morocco and kid industry of America so much as the introduc- 
 tion of these " tanned but unfinished " sheep, goat, lamb, and kid skins, as their in- 
 troduction in this state enables those who merely finish these skins to produce mo- 
 rocco and kid at a price our manufacturers can not meet. 
 
 A "finisher" of these "tanned but unfinished" skins requires no skilled labor 
 and but a small and inexpensive plant and with but little or no ground-room, to 
 make an article of morocco or kid ; and in three or four days after receipt ho can 
 produce a finished article from his so-called raw material, whereas our morocco 
 manufacturers, in order to carry the process of maniifacturing from our raw material 
 (raw skins) to the "tanned but unfinished" state are compelled to maintain 
 skilled labor and expensive establishments of well constructed buildings, covering a 
 large area of ground-room for our necessary vats and tanning tubs, which can be 
 placed only in or upon the ground. And furthermore, the time necessary to forward 
 our raw material (raw skins) to the " tanned but unfinished" state is from eight to 
 teu weeks. 
 
682 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Such position of affairs gives the " finisher " of these East India " tanned but nn- 
 firiished" sliins the power of turning his capital many times over during the same 
 space of time that tlie morocco manufacturer can turn his capital but once ; and 
 while the morocco manufacturer must maintain expensive establishments, the " fin- 
 isher" of these East India "tanned but unfinished" skins can utilize a small and 
 inexpensive plant and by these means they are enabled to produce a finished article 
 of morocco or kid at a less cost than the manufacturers of America can produce a fin- 
 ished article of morocco and kid from their raw skins. 
 
 We would state that with a duty of but 30 to 60 cents per dozen skins on these East 
 India "tanned but unfinished" skins, and the "finisher's" charge (which is con- 
 tracted for as low as 75 cents per dozen skins) to complete them into a finished arti- 
 cle of morocco or kid, it allows the production of a finished article of morocco or kid 
 out of these " taijned but unfinished" skins at a relative cost of about$1.25 per dozen 
 skins from the condition of raw skins. 
 
 10 per cent, duty on "tanned hut unfinished" skins costing, duty unpaid, §5 
 
 per dozen skins |0. 50 
 
 Finisher's charge to make finished morocco or kid, per dozen .75 
 
 Making cost per dozen from condi tion of raw skins 1. 25 
 
 It would cost the American mai\ufactnrer, who produces his morocco and kid from 
 the raw skins, double that sum. 
 
 We would respectfully protest against the principle of admitting an article in a 
 p.artly finished state at any less rate of duty than on the article in a finished state; 
 and we claim that the duty upon these " tanned but unfinished " sheep, goat, lamb, 
 and Ivid skins should be charged the same raUi of duty as is exacted upon the dressed 
 and finished sheep, goat, lamb, and kid skins. 
 
 We would add tliat this principle is recognized in relation to calf-skins under the 
 present law, and the duties upon "tanned" and tanned and dressed calf-skins are 
 eijual. 
 
 The morocco and kid industry under the present tariff is among the least protected 
 of all the industries, as it has an average duty of but 15 per cent., and we would 
 respectfully request that the duty be placed upon sheep, goat, lamb, and kid skins, 
 
 " tanned but unfinished," or tanned, dressed, and finished, at per cent, ad 
 
 valorem. Also, all manufactures and articles of leather not enumerated, to be at 
 
 per cent, ad valorem (50 jjer cent, higher than is enumerated for the sheep and goat 
 skins, lamb and kill skins, dressed and finished.) Calf-skins, also tanned or tanned 
 and dressed, and dressed upper-leather of all kinds, and skins dressed and finished of 
 all kinds, to be placed at the same rate of duty as is placed upon sheep and goat 
 skins, lamb and kid skins, dressed and finished. 
 
 [Argument presented by Robert K. McNeely as the representative of the Associa- 
 tion of Morocco Manufacturers of Philadelphia, and also the morocco and kid section 
 of the Manufacturers' Club, of Philadelphia. ] 
 
 VIEWS OP OEORGE L. ROSE. 
 
 New York, January 15, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : In the presentation of onr case before your honorable body we stated 
 that a committee of importers, who claim to be manufacturers by having job-work 
 done, would come before you to represent their case. I see by the papers what they 
 have to say. Their interest is diametrically opposed to ours, and they would like 
 absolute free trade, even though it ruined our entire industry. Our committee did 
 not touch on waxed calf for shoe uppers, as it was not In our province, bnt we did 
 trejiresent all the fancy leather industries outside of that. Fancy colored calf for 
 book-bindings, pocket-books, boxes, and all fancy work, skivers and sheep-skins, 
 dressed and finished morocco and imitation morocco dressed and finished for all pur- 
 poses, should pay a duty or 35 per cent, to enable us to compete with the leather 
 from England, France, and Germany. The following reasons will bear us out: Our 
 factories are obliged to be located in the large cities all over the country, there being 
 several hundred firms, each of whom have to have a large and expensive plant, many 
 of them covering acres of ground costing $500,000 each, fully double what they would 
 cost abroad, with a rate of interest to the business man of 6 per cent, or more, whereiis 
 in Europe they pay only 2 or 3 per cent. Although we have free skins, yet our ma- 
 terials used in manufacturing are much lower there, say on twenty-five or thirty dif- 
 ferent articles, but the greatest difference is in the cost of labor, which, with their 
 acknowledged skill, handed down to them from past ages, is more than we can stand 
 up against without ample protection. 
 
 The morocco interest is one of the largest in the country, but we find it impossible 
 to compete with the moiocco brought in by the importers, represented by Mr. Ketch- 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 683 
 
 am and Mr. Binger, from Germany. These skins are tanneil in India by worlcmcn at 
 7^ to 10 cents per day, compared with our worlsmeu at from |1.50 to |4 per d:iy ; also 
 with low cost for materials. From there they are shipped to Germany in the tanned 
 state and refinished by labor not over one-third the cost of ours, also low cost of ma- 
 terials ; besides all this, their raw skins cost them less. When ready they are shipped 
 by the manufacturer to his ajjent here, uudervalued to such an extent that they es- 
 cape paying a large proportion of the duties. These factories are located in the small 
 towns of Europe, and as their employes can not jjo from place to place, as in our coun- 
 try, they have cheap, steady help, which must necessarily be more skilled than here 
 for the reason that our help is continually floafing from one place to another, and in 
 consequence is not reliable. I'aucy colored calf leather is a light weight, being 
 tanned in sumac, aad only weigh, finished, from 3 to 7 pounds per dozen, whereas 
 waxed calf of the same sized skin would weigh :50 to 7b pounds per dozen, and, as pro- 
 posed by the Senate bill, to paj' 25 cents per pound specific duty, therefore, one must 
 not be confounded witli the other; and again, all description of skins tanned and 
 finished in alum, which is also a very light tannage, should pay 3.5 per cent duty. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 George L. Rose, 
 Of Committee on Fancy Leather and Morocco. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlet, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 METHODS IN ENGLISH FACTORIES. 
 
 New York, January 13, 1890. 
 
 I, Edward Settle, being the senior member of the firm of Settle Bros. & Co., 
 manufactnrers of hatters' leathers, make tlie following statement with regard to the 
 workings and discipline maintained in the Englisli leather factories: 
 
 I was born in Leeds, Yorkshire, England. From tUe ago of nine years I have al- 
 ways been employed in a leather factory. A worlcman engaged in a leather factory 
 in England is obliged to be at work at 6 o'clock in the morning. He work's until 8 
 o'clock when he is allowed half an hour for breakfast. This breakfast consists of 
 coffee and bread, the bread mostly without butter. He then works until midday, 
 having one hour for dinner, then until 6 o'clock. This man is required to produce 
 work perfect in every particular, an examiner always being on hand to detect any 
 imperfection. Discovering such imperfection the work has to be done over again. 
 This man gets for his work, about or less than one-half paid for the same work in 
 this country, and then much better performed. 
 
 The discipline in an English factory requires that all work turned out by its em- 
 ployes be rigidly examined by experts, the result being that while their product costs 
 less than half what it does here the result is a product worth doiible. Some years 
 since I came to this country with my family, and after a time succeeded in starting 
 in business for myself, the result being that under the protecti ve laws of this country 
 I have been enabled to establish a large leather business here. Within two years under- 
 valuation at this port has attained such proportions as to tlire.aten the destruction of 
 all leather interests. During the past summer I passed four mouths in England, and 
 went through all the leather factories of any consequence there, and I found the same 
 conditions prevailing there now that are described above only that the discipline pre- 
 vailing has become more rigid. 
 
 Last year Mr. J. J. Flitch, of Leeds, England, the proprietor of an exceedingly large 
 leather factory there, in going through my factory and being informed by me that 
 for certain work I paid |12 per week, exclaimed, " Why what you are paying $12 for 
 I am paying 1(5 shillings," (which is |4 of our money). 
 
 The above is not in my writing l:)ut is written at my dictation, and being thereafter 
 read by me, I pionoouce the whole to be literally true. 
 
 Edw^ard Settle. 
 
 CHAMOIS SKINS. 
 
 Philadelphia, January 20, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen: We beg to enter protest against auy red'.;cti:;n of the r.ate of duty on 
 cliamois skins and to contradict statement of Mr. llose, of New York, to your com- 
 mittee that chamois skins are not manufactured in this country. 
 
 We have been manufacturing these goods successfully for more than two years, and 
 it is our opinion that this industry could be speedily developed in this country if the 
 <lnty thereon could be raised to, say, 2.5 per cent, ad valorem instead of 20 per cent., as 
 at present. 
 
 It is our opinion that these goods have not Lieeu successfully manufactured here 
 
684 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 heretofore on account of the high price for lahor in this country. The labor on these 
 Soods represents fully 50 per cent, of their total value. 
 
 If the duty on these goods should be reduced to 10 per cent, ad valorem, we fear 
 that this industry which is now fairly started would succumb, for thereasoM that the 
 goods could not then be produced sufficiently cheap to compete with foreign goods 
 where labor is about 40 per cent, cheaper than here. 
 
 Besides our firm there are several other firms that have lately embarked in this 
 business. Mr. A. Kiefer and Henry Speiser, of this city, and F. W. Kraft, of Bronx- 
 ville, N. Y., that we know of. 
 
 Trusting that you will give this matter your careful consideration, w^e are. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 Drubbing Bros. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 LETTER FROM P. BLUMENTHAL & CO. 
 
 New York, January 15, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: In addition to onr previous sta,tement3 why the duty on dressed goat 
 and kid skins should not be raised, and in fact reduced, we beg to inclose a state- 
 ment just issued by William Friel, the recognized statistician for goat and kid skins. 
 You will see by this circular that not less than '25,000,000 goat skins in the raw state 
 have been received within one year at New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. If you 
 add also such other ports as Chicago, Wilmington, San Francisco, Baltimore, etc., 
 this number will certainly be swelled to 30,000,000. The total quantity of flnished 
 goat and kid skins coming from Europe is certainly nnder 1,000,000 skins. As you 
 will thus see, the proportion of imported dressed goat and kid skins to dressed goat 
 and kid skins made in this country is not more than 2 or 3 per cent. It seems, there- 
 fore, preposterous that the domestic manufacturers should want any additional pro- 
 tection. They have now a market for 30,000,000, against less than 1,000,000 imported, 
 while formerly immense quantities were imported from Europe. The small quantity 
 of stock yet imported is used more out of old habit or a littledifi'erent way of manu- 
 facture, but not on account of the Europeans being better situated tban the Ameri- 
 can manufacturers. We really do thmk that even with a lower duty on finished 
 leather the importations would not increase materially ; in rtny event it seems certain 
 that the domestic manufacturers do not need an increase. We can speak on tbis 
 point with Impartiality because we have a factory ourselves in Wilmington, Del., 
 where we are turning out dressed goat and kid skins at a very much larger rate than 
 we import. We are employing 400 to 500 workmen in Wilmington manufacturing 
 dressed goat and kid skins to the value of about |1, 000,000 yearly. 
 
 We would not consider an increase in tlie rate of duty on the foreign article of any 
 advantage to us in our domestic factories, nor would it enable us to pay higher wages 
 to our workmen. There is, therefore, not for anybody the least advantage in disturb- 
 ing the present-duty, but if any change is made it should be made in the direction of 
 a lower rate. 
 
 We would yet add that the cost of manufacturing dressed goat and kid skins in this 
 country is not higher per dozen than in France or England ; in fact, we are quite safe 
 in saying that it costs less. While we pay better wages, this is ott'set by more intelli- 
 gent work, better machinery and other conditions, so that the actual cost per dozen 
 in this country, compared with the cost per dozen in Europe, is decidedly in favor of 
 this country. Of late American dressed goat and kid skins begin to be exported to 
 London ami France, which isanother proof of the article needing no further protec- 
 tion and a reduction being more in order so as to enable shoe manufacturers to pro- 
 duce cheaper boots and shoes. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 F. Blumenthal & Co. 
 
 Hon. AsHBEX, p. Fitch, 
 
 Washington, D. O, 
 
 STATISTICS OF MOROCCO. 
 
 New York, January 1, 1890. 
 To Ilt.fi Morocco Manufacfiirers' National Association : 
 
 Genti^emkn : Last yi'ar, fienoral J. Parke Postles, responding to a toast at yonr 
 annual meeting, made the statement that the morocco iu<lnstry consnmes 30,000,000 
 goat skins in a year. This, at the time, caused quite a discussion, many thinking 
 this was in excess of the actual figures. 
 
KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 685 
 
 It has been my ambition since then to get, as near us possible, the actual receipts 
 at the port of New York and elsewhere, in order to prove the truth of this statement. 
 You will find herewith particulars showing the quantities received from ditferent 
 countries, making a total of 18,569,551 skins, at the port of New York ; adding what 
 arrived at Boston and Philadelphia, will bring the total receipts to at least 25,000,000 
 skins Now, the stock is no greater than it was a year ago, consequently the con- 
 sumption nearly equals the amount stated by your president. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 Wm. Friel. 
 
 Bales. 
 
 Mexican - 
 
 Cara9oa - - 
 
 Brazil 
 
 Euenoa Ayres 
 
 Payta 
 
 Frontier 
 
 Oajaca 
 
 Bo;;ota 
 
 "West Indies 
 
 Maracaibo, Eio Hacha, Puerto Cabello, and Laguayra, 
 Angostura, etc - 
 
 European, Asiatic, and African 
 
 Calcutta s 
 
 Arabia 
 
 Total 
 
 12,136 
 
 1, 213, 542 
 
 8,038 
 
 803, 800 
 
 8,144 
 
 3, 443, 200 
 
 1,128 
 
 676, 800 
 
 2,371 
 
 2S4, 620 
 
 4,701 
 
 470, 100 
 
 1,200 
 
 130, 639 
 
 470 
 
 72, 600 
 
 1,444 
 
 184, 750 
 
 1,549 
 
 154, 900 
 
 670 
 
 20, 100 
 
 41, 867 
 
 6, 454, 751 
 
 36, 149 
 
 7, 'Jl^g, 800 
 
 5, 700 
 
 2, 883, 000 
 
 8,008 
 
 2, 002, 000 
 
 91, 780 
 
 18, 569, 551 
 
 Selection of Mexican goat skins, 1889, tcith a comparative statement for six years. 
 
 
 Bales. 
 
 Skins. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 
 4,191 
 2,723 
 1,124 
 3,901 
 158 
 36 
 
 419, 362 
 
 272, 232 
 
 112, 415 
 
 390, 108 
 
 15, 815 
 
 3,010 
 
 .323 
 
 
 .241 
 
 Blacks 
 
 094 
 
 CulU 
 
 325 
 
 
 013 
 
 
 .004 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 12, 136 
 
 1, 213, 543 
 
 1 000 
 
 
 
 Per 
 cent. 
 
 1888, 12,114 bales, 1,211,304 goat-skins : 
 
 First selection 62 
 
 Blacks .. .. 09 
 
 1887, 7,890 bales, 788,'984 goat-skins : 
 
 Fiyst selection 44 
 
 Blacks 2(1 
 
 Culls 28 
 
 Frontier 02 
 
 1836, 8,372 bales, 837,159 goat-skins : 
 
 First selection 52 
 
 Blacks 22 
 
 Calls 24 
 
 Frontier 02 
 
 Per 
 cent. 
 
 1886, etc. — Continued. 
 
 Culls 27 
 
 Frontier 02 
 
 1885, 7,863 bales, 786,288 goat-skins : 
 
 First selection .50 
 
 Blacks 23 
 
 Cu)ls 22 
 
 Frontier 50 
 
 1884, 5,014 bales, 501,353 goat-skius : 
 
 First selection .56 
 
 Blacks 15 
 
 Culls - 26 
 
 Frontier 03 
 
 Selection of Curagoa goat-skins, 1889, ailh a comparative statement for past six years. 
 
 
 Bales. 
 
 Skins. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 
 966 
 
 690 
 
 3,168 
 
 190 
 
 96, 6C4 
 
 68, 968 
 
 316,728 
 
 18, 965 
 
 .192 
 .138 
 .631 
 .039 
 
 
 Culls 
 
 Dulls 
 
 
 Total 
 
 6,004 
 
 500, 265 
 
 1.000 
 
 
686 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Per 
 cent. 
 
 1888, 4,356 bales, 435,607 skins : 
 
 First selection 23 
 
 Second selection 14 
 
 Culls t 59 
 
 Bulls 04 
 
 1887, 3,194 bales, 319,310 skins: 
 
 First selection 93 
 
 Second selection 16 
 
 Culls 57 
 
 Bulls 04 
 
 1886, 3,674 bales, 367,353 skins: 
 
 First selection 31 
 
 Second selection 19 
 
 Culls 47 
 
 Per 
 cent. 
 
 1886, etc. — Continued. 
 
 Bulls ■ 03 
 
 1885, 5,794 bales, 579,337 skins : 
 
 First selection 35 
 
 Second selection i!l 
 
 Culls 42 
 
 Bulla 02 
 
 1884, 4,354 bales, 435,309 skins: 
 
 First selection 36 
 
 Second selection -. 21 
 
 Culls 41 
 
 Bulls 01 
 
 Kids 01 
 
 Selection of Oajaca goat-sMns, 1889. 
 
 
 Bales. 
 
 Skins. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 
 959 
 
 321 
 
 26 
 
 1,206 
 
 95, 882 
 32, 043 
 2,614 
 
 .714 
 
 
 .268 
 
 Kids 
 
 .018 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 130, 539 
 
 1. 000 
 
 
 
 Seleetion of Bogota goat-sJcins, 1889. 
 
 1 
 
 Bales. 
 
 Skins. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 G-ood 
 
 233 
 93 
 31 
 44 
 
 • 23,277 
 9,296 
 3,029 
 4,371 
 
 584 
 
 
 
 Bnlls 
 
 
 Kids 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 401 
 
 39, 973 
 
 1 000 
 
 
 
 HIDES IN TEXAS. 
 
 Belton, Tex., January 18, 1890. 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means CommHtee : 
 
 Dear Sir: We beg to call the attention of yonr committee to tlie hide interest of 
 the State of Texas, as well as the whole United States, and a respectable duty on the 
 imported bides would increase the value of every cow in the United States $3 per 
 head ; all classes and conditions would be equally benefited by such a duty. We are 
 informed that foreign hides are shipped into the' United States in such large quanti- 
 ties that nearly all the American tanneries are employed in the interest of same, to 
 the exelu.sion of our hides. We also are iuformed that they laud said hides here after 
 the 1st day of January of each year and raise and ship them out before the last day 
 of December of the same year, hence escape the payment of taxes to our Government. 
 We are informed that these foreign shippers pay American tanneries more to handle 
 their hides than the American tanneries can make by buying American hides on their 
 own account. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, through our United States Senator, Hon. Richard Coke, 
 and our Representative, Hon. R. Q. Mills. 
 
 [Here follow numerous signatures.] 
 
KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 687 
 
 IVORY AND MANTJFACTTJRES. 
 
 STATEMENT OP OTTO GERDAU. 
 
 Mr. Otto Gbrdau, of New York, appeared before the comiuittee, and said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I desire to call the attention of the committee to 
 three different articles, the first being ivory for piano and organ keys. In 1872 I was 
 sent by a Hamburg firm to New York with a stock of ivory. I found the market 
 controlled by three Connecticut firms, in combination with an importer from New 
 York, of the raw ivory. The piano-forte manufacturers were of course glad at my 
 advent, which they regarded as a relief from severe oppression by this combination. 
 The combination made a charge against me of undervaluation, and for a time threw 
 me virtually out of the market, hut after a while, when I proved that the allegations 
 were untrue, their next movement was to have the duty on ivory increased so as to 
 make the competition by importation impossible. There are only three manufacturero 
 of ivory for piano and organ keys in this country ; and if I, as the only importer, were 
 driven out, the piano-forte and organ manufacturers would be again at the mercy of 
 this combination. I have, however, held on to the trade in the hope that there would 
 finally be a reduction in duty. At the present rate of 30 per cent., however, fair com- 
 petition in the business is really impossible. I will mention as a proof that there 
 is not another manufacturer in the world who exports a pound of this piano ivory to 
 America. I ask, in order that the whole of the piano-forte and organ key trade be not 
 put again at the mercy of a combination of three, and that there may be a fair com- 
 petition, the reduction of duty to 10 per cent. 
 
 Another article on which I desire to speak is raw ivory, and I wish to draw the 
 attention of the committee to a clause put in the last Senate bill by a friend of the 
 combination. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you say that there is a combination in regard to these ivory 
 keys? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Flower. And this combination controls all the ivory key business in this 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. Yes. I am the only importer of them, but at the present rate of duty 
 I am only able to import very little for such piano manufacturers as are willing to 
 pay an extra price, because they always want to use the German ivory keys. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the present rate of duty on ivory keys? 
 
 Mr. Gerdad. Thirty per cent. There is very little work upon it. It is cut with a 
 saw. The set costs $8, and the entire labor upoii it is only 50 cents. Here is a very 
 sharp measure in the Senate bill in the matter of raw ivory. The tarilf always has 
 been "ivory, and vegetable ivory unmanufactured, free." But a friend of this com- 
 bination got the phrase changed in the Senate bill free list so that it now reads, 
 "ivory, not sawed, cut, or manufactured." This phrase looks very innocent, but if 
 the committee will look into it it will be seen that under it all importation of ivory 
 in blocks for piano and organ keys is impossible. For instance, I import only these 
 small blocks of ivory [exhibiting them]. The solid parts are used for billiard balls. 
 The small ivory turners are not able to use the entire tusk. Now, if the comliination 
 succeeds in having this clause go through, as it is in the Senate bill, a pound of ivory 
 simply sawed across (an operation which does not take one second) will have to pay 
 duty; and of course you know that all the small ivory turners would be- forever sub- 
 ject to this combination, because it would be impossible to import ivory in'this shape 
 and to pay such a duty upon it. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do we produce any ivory in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Gbrdau. No; it all comes from Asia and Africa. 
 
 Mr. Flower. And this combination will be able to keep the price of ivory up on 
 account of the duty ? 
 
 Mr. Gbrdau. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Why is not this on the free list ? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. This unmanufactured ivory has been always on the free list, but, as 
 I have just stated, the combination has got into the Senate bill the clause about ivory 
 not sawed. Now, of course if a duty is to be put on this ivory sawed across (an oper- 
 ation which as I say does not take one second) this raw ivory can not be imported. 
 The Chairman. Where is this combination that you speak of? 
 Mr. Gebdau. In Connecticut. 
 
688 EEVISION OV THE TAKIFF. 
 
 The Chaieman. Who are the parties to it ? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. Comstock, Cheney & Co., Pratt, Eeed & Co., and George Ropes. 
 ' The Chairman. What is this combination for ? 
 
 Mr. (;erdau. Of course it is to mal^e money. 
 
 The Chairman. What do these firms do ? 
 
 Mr. Gerdad. They cut piano lieys. This comliination in Connecticut is controlled 
 by a N<;w York importer of raw ivory who has shari's in two of the concerns. If I 
 am driven out, a combination of the three firms will surely be formed. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you mean to say ihat this raw material is consigned to , an 
 agent here ? 
 
 Mr. Gbrdau. No; it is imported by a Now York importer. 
 
 The Chairman. And he will have to pay the same duty as you upon the ivory? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. No; he will pay no duty upon it because he imports the whole tusk. 
 These tusks are cut up into blocks of tliis kind [exhibiting] in England. 
 
 The Chairman. And you want to import them cutf 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. I always have done so. I do not know of any single instance where 
 it was ever tried to get a duty on raw material simply because it was cut against the 
 grain once. It has been always free, but under this ])hrase in the Senate bill, "ivory 
 not sawn," it will be impossible to import this ivory for the suuill ivory turners. That 
 tusk [indicating] I can import, but the moment it is cut by a saw it is dutiable at the 
 rate of 30 jier cent. 
 
 The Chairman. Can not anybody else go into the business the same as these Con- 
 necticut firms ? 
 
 Mi. Gerdau. It takes a good deal of money to go into the business, and also many 
 years' experience. In the Hamburg house which I represent, the business has gone 
 on from father to son. 
 
 The Chairman. Still, anybody in this country can engage in the same business as 
 these Connecticut gentlemen? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. Yes; if they have money enough. 
 
 The C'HAIKMAJ^. And the same rates of duty will he assessable upon them and the 
 same raw material accessible to them ? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. Yes. 
 
 The Chairmak. You are the only importer, I understand, of those small blocks of 
 ivory? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. Yes. That refers to ivory for piano keys. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Under the present law, what would be the tariif on ivory sawed up 
 for yiiano keys? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. If it was sawed up into sizes for keys, the duty would be 30 per cent. 
 I advocate a reduction of the duty on piano keys to ten ])er cent., but I particularly 
 advocate the rejection of this phraee in the senate bill "ivory not cut or sawed." It 
 would put a duty of .$1.40 on a pound of ivory costing 14. 
 
 The Chairman. The provision you complain of is in the Senate bill? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. And the language of it is "ivory and vegetable ivory not sawed, 
 cut, or otherwise manufactured" (free). 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. Yes. 
 
 The CHAiiaiAN. Now, if it is sawed, it is not on the free list? 
 
 Mr. Gerd.\u. No ; not according to this clause. 
 
 The Chairman. What duty would it paj if sawed in tho.se blocks ? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. Thirty per cent. It is free now, if unmanufactured, but if there bea 
 cut in it across tlie grain, the duty will be :!0 percent. 
 
 Mr. Ei.ower. What kind of provisicm do you want for this ivory cut and sawed ? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. It has been always held that ivory ciit acro.ss the graia is still the raw 
 material, bul that when it is cut in slabs, it is manufactured ivory ; and on that there 
 is a duty of ISO per cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What advantage is to you to import it cut in this style ? Why iiol. im- 
 poit it in tusks like this [indicating] ? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. That tusk which I have shown you is a very small one, but some tusks 
 weigh as much as l.'<0 pounds. The ]iart of Ihe ivory which ynu have in your hand 
 is used l-iy turners for billiard balls; tliey can not use the entire tu.sk. Each trade 
 in the ivory turning business uses various parts of the tusk — one using the hollow 
 part and one the solid part. Ivory sawed in this way has been always consideredraw 
 material, but if this innocent looking phrase goes into the tariff law it will be impos- 
 sible for us to import this ivory any more as raw material. If we import it in the 
 tusk like that [indicating] it is iiee, but if a saw be run across the tusk then the 
 ivory will have to pay 30 per cent. duty. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Why not have it cut here ? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. l!ee:iu.se onr factory happens to be on the other side. 
 
 Tlie Chairma.v. Then it is really a question between the tactories here and the fac- 
 tories tliore ? 
 
EEVISION OF THE TAKIFF. 689 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. That is all. 
 
 The Chairman. I see in the Senate bill that sawed ivory is not spoken of at all as 
 liable to fluty. 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. The Senate bill says " ivory not sawed." 
 
 The Chairman. I see in the dutiable list that manufactures of ivory, vegetable 
 ivory, motber-of-pearl, etc., not specially enumerated, are fixed at 30 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. Yes ; that clause makes no provision for raw ivory. The question is, 
 wliat is raw ivory ? Now, if that phrase in the free list were to prevail, I could not 
 claim tliat this ivory is raw ivory, for it is certainly sawed once. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You want the privilege of bringing in half a tusk instead of a whole 
 tusk ? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. Yea, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. But if a tusk is sawed right in two, it will have to pay duty as manu- 
 factured ivory ? 
 
 Mr. Gkrdau. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Have you stated what you wish in respect of raw ivory? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. I desire that the phrase shall read as in the existing tarifl' bill, 
 "ivory and vegetable ivory manufactured free." 
 
 Mr. Flower. You want the right to import it free in blocks of different sizes? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. Yes, iu blocks, but not free if it is cut lengthwise; only free when 
 it is cut simply across the graiu. 
 
 Mr. Gear. So that you can sell it to the local trade here directly? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. Yes. I .sell some thirty thousand of these blocks a year to be turned 
 into billiard balls. This piece of ivory [indicating] weighs about three-quarters of 
 a pound, aud the duty on it wuuld be about 00 cents. 
 
 The Chairman. That has been sawed more than once. 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. Only on both euds. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Yon say you are an importer, and that there is another importer in 
 this country who imports ivory as you do. Now, why is uot the proposed clause as 
 fair to you as to him ? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. Because that importer imports the elephants' tusks to his own fac- 
 tory — to this combination in Couneoticut. I import ivory only for the small trade. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. Does he not sell to the small trade? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. No; he cuts up the large tusks himself. He does not sell to the 
 small trade. Now, if this measure were to prevail of course all the small ivory 
 turners would have to go to him for their ivory. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. He is not an importer in the sense that you are. He is a manu- 
 facturer of ivory. 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. No ; he is an importer. My house is the only one that has over tried 
 since 1872 to import a pound of manirfactured ivory into this country. 
 
 Mr. Flower. To whom do you sell ? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. To the piano-forte and organ manufacturers. We sell the ivory for 
 their keys. That is, mmufactured ivory, and we always have imported it as manu- 
 factured ivory, but this [indicatiug one of the ivory blocksl is uot manufactured 
 ivory, being simply cut across. The substance of what I have stated to the committee 
 I have put in writing, and will leave with the stenographer. 
 
 Mr. Gerdau handed to the stenographer the following paper : 
 
 In 1872 the very old-established Hamburg ivory firm, Hoinr. Ad. Meyer sent your 
 petitioner to America with a stock of piano aud organ ivory. On my arrival I found 
 the trade to be a strict monopoly of .some Connecticut firms, controlled by one firm of 
 raw ivory importers of New York. The piano and organ manufacturers of this coun- 
 try were very glad at my advent as a relief from a severe oppression, but the Con- 
 necticut manufacturers rcscuteil my intrusion by making false statements against 
 me in the custom-house of undervaluation. The stoppage of my importations vir- 
 tually threw me out of the market again for quite awhile, but when these allega- 
 tions were proven false and ujy ivory was delivered lue the combination, as the next 
 move, reduced the prices fully thirty per cent., and kept them just low enough to 
 make any competition of consequence by importation impossible. 
 
 The number of manufacturers of this kind of ivory in the whole of this country is 
 three, and if they succeed in driving me out a combination will certainly bo reformed, 
 aud the manufacturers of pianos and organs will have to pay again the former out- 
 rageous profits. 
 
 Ivory just now happens to be scarce, and, as a fitting time, recently one of the Con- 
 necticut manufacturers again tried to worry me through the custom-house, but, bar- 
 ring the usual delay in such cases, without success and as I fear no investigation 
 coneerning the proper valuation, I have held on ever since in the hope of a reduction 
 of duty. However my sales remain very small, and at 30 per cent., as at present a 
 fair competition is impossible. As a proof of this I need bui mention that, as far 'as 
 I know, not one other piano a,Dd organ ivory manufacturer of the whole ^orld e^-^ 
 ports 1 pound to America, 
 
 485—44,. 
 
690 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 In order tliat all the American consumers are not aeain at tbe mercy of a combi- 
 nation of three and to allow a fair competition, I petition that the duty on ivory for 
 piano and organ keys be reduced to 10 per cent. 
 
 I particularly wish to draw your attention to a rather sharp measure which a friend 
 of the Connecticut combination succeeded to get embodied iu the last Senate bill. 
 In the existing tarifl' unmanufactured ivor.y is quoted : 
 
 " Ivory and vegetable ivory unmanufactured, free;" but owing to his efforts the 
 wording for it in ttie Senate bill free-list is changed to "ivory and vegetable ivory, 
 not sawed, cut, or otherwise manufactured." 
 
 That seems a very innocent phrase, but if yon look at it closely you will perceive 
 that under it any kind of ivory simply sawn in two could not be imported free, as has 
 always been the case. For instance, I import and sell to the ivory-turners of America 
 parts of tusks, such as either the hollow end, the solid end, or blocks for turning into 
 billiard-balls, etc. This simple cut of the steam-saw can certainly not be dearer in 
 America than in Europe ; still, if such a phrase as '' not sawed or cut" were to pre- 
 vail, such raw ivory would even have to pay a duty, which — as a pound of ball ivory 
 costs about $4 — would be at the rate of 30 per cent. (|1.20), just for a saw out, taking 
 about a second of time, and of course under those conditions, even, all the small ivory- 
 bnruers would be at the mercy of the one large importer of elephant tusks. I do not 
 believe that it was ever before attempted to make a raw article dutiable simply be- 
 cause it was cut across the grain, and this example, I trust, will illustrate to yon the 
 total prohibitory tendency of the ivory combination. I therefore earnestly petition 
 that the clause for unmanufactured ivory should read as heretofore : " ivory and veg- 
 etable ivory unmanufactured, free." 
 
 STATEMENT OF GEORGE L. CHENEY. 
 
 Mr. Geokoe L. Cheney, of New York, said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have been called here unexpectedly, on hearing 
 that a representative of a Hamburg house was to appear before the committee, and 
 I have not been able to make the preparation and to procure the statistics I should 
 have desired. 
 
 In the lirst place, I deny most emphatically the statement that there is a combina- 
 tion between tbe American importer of ivory and the American manufacturers of 
 ivory. On the contrary, there is the very stitfest competition between the manufact- 
 urer.s. The importing firm controls only one of the manufacturing firms, and does 
 not sell to the concerns mentioned only, but sells to whoever will buy. 
 
 The Chairman. And there is competition among these firms? 
 
 Mr. Cheney. There is a very stiff competition. 
 
 The Chairman. But Mr. 6erd.T,u says there is a combination. 
 
 Mr. Cheney. There is no combination, and I have come before you to correct the 
 misstatements which this German manufacturer has made. The reason why Mr. 
 Kaldenberg, a manufacturer of ivory, appeared before the Senate committee last year 
 and made the argument which resulted in having the change made in the free-list 
 clause, was that Mr. Gerdau was importing manufactured ivory as unmanufactured. 
 He gradually increased the amount of sawing that was done ; and be finally got a 
 decision on the a2d of October, 1887, from the Treasury Department (decision 8492) 
 which let in ivory knife handles free as unmanufactured. That was the reason why 
 we wanted the clause in tbe free list so amended that there should be no manufact- 
 tured ivory brought in. Under this gradual extension of the circle, it was dilficult 
 to know what was manufactured and what was unmanufactured ivory. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. The ivory knife-handle appears to be a very extreme case. 
 
 Mr. Cheney. They began in a small way with pearl knife-handles ^nd then went 
 on to ivory knife-handles. The reduction of the duty to 10 per cent isked for by 
 this Hamburg manufacturer would shut up every one of our factories and drive 
 Americans out of tbe business. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you mean to say that they got in knife-handles free under this 
 clause f 
 
 Mr. Cheney. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. And it was for the purpose of preventing such things that the 
 change was made in the free list of the Senate bill ? 
 
 Mr. Cheney. Exactly. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. But you have gone too far in the other direction. Is it fair to have 
 the same rate of duty on these ivory blocks as on manufactures of ivory ? 
 
 Mr. Cheney. We will submit very cheerfully to any change of duty that this com- 
 mittee will think right. The duty on ivory cut across might be fixed at 15 per cent. 
 That was the suggestion made 1o the Senate committee. There is no particular ob- 
 jection to the admission free of ivory cut into these blocks, except that they send over 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIEF. G91 
 
 the poor part of tlie tusks aud keep the good iiai'ts iu Eiigltuid. Wo want to get the 
 jrood parts of the ivory here. 
 
 The percentage of labor cost on a set of piano-forte aud organ keys is very much 
 hirger than has been stated ; and we find that at the present duty of oO per cent, 
 with the undervaluations which (as the couimittee has been iuforniedl are so preva- 
 lent in the custom-hons-es — particularly in the case of Geruian agents aud German 
 uuinufacturing concerns — we can just keeji our beads above water, competition is so 
 close. The present rate of duty, '.iO per cent., is not enough (with the undervalua- 
 tions) to compensate us for the dift'erence in the cust of labor. We pay our men on 
 the average $2 per day, while in Hamburg, they do not get more than one-fourth of 
 the wages. We ask leave to submit some statistics. 
 
 The Chairman. You may furnish them to the stenographer. 
 
 Mr. Gekdau. I believe that Mr. Cheney can not deny that when I came over here 
 there was a strong couibination existing among the ivory firms by which the piano 
 aud organ manufacturers had to pay tlieui a profit of i")!! per cent. I was the means 
 of breaking that up. I brought a stock that was calculated to last for a year, and it 
 was all bought up in six weeks. 
 
 Mr. Cheney. Yes ; I do deuy that there ever was a combination. We were never 
 able to get U]> any combination here. 
 
 Mr. Gekdau. This was seventeen years ago, and perhaps yon were not in the ivory 
 business at that time. Raw ivory has increased in price all the time; but to-day 
 piano-forte and organ mauufactnrers are getting their keys cheaper. 
 
 T'he Chairman. There is no combination now? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. There is no combination now, because I am an importer of these 
 keys. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. And there has not been a combination for seventeen years. 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. There was a combination when I came to this country. Then these 
 three concerns in Connecticut kept the prices of piano-forte aud orgau keys just so 
 that importation of them was unprofitable. This gentlem;in (Mr. Cheney) projioses 
 that the duty on these blocks of ivory (sawed across the graiu) shall be 15 per ceut. ; 
 but I will make it apparent to yon tliat a duty of 15 per cent, (or in fact, of 1 per 
 cent.) would shut out these pieces of ivory. 
 
 The Chairman. Seventeen years ago this ivory was on the free list' 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. It always has been on the free list, and is now ; but they are trying, 
 by the phrase " not sawed," to shut it out as raw ivory. There is one other point to 
 which I wish to call attention — as to knife-handles. I believe in protection, but not 
 in total prohibition. I think that Mr. Kaldenberg made his move even before the 
 Secretary of the Treasury decided as to the knife-handles. 
 
 Mr. Cheney. No ; Mr. Kaldenberg appeared before the Senate committee on the 
 19th of July, 1888, aud tlie decision of the Treasury Department on your appeal of the 
 9th of November, 18811, was given on October 2, 1887. 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. These Ivuife handles were imported in mother-of-pearl, free of duty, 
 and I joined Mr. Kaldenberg in the endeavor to .sliow to the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury that the decision was wrong. I joined him in making an import.ation of ivory 
 knife- handles. The Secretary then decided that, as the mother-of-pearl knife-han- 
 dles were admitted fieo of duty, these should also be admitted free of duty. Aud it 
 was due to my endeavor that that decisiou was reconsidered, and that the Secretary 
 of the Treasury decided that knife-handles were not free of duty. My object in the 
 importation of knife-handles was to show that the Secretary of the Treasury had 
 made a mistake. He decided that the mother-of-pearl knifc-handles were on the free 
 list, because mother-of-pearl carije from shells, and it could not be got without cut- 
 ting into the shells. But it is not necessary to cut into the shells. If the back of 
 the shell is ground out you have the mother-of-pearl. I wrote to the Secretary of 
 the Treasury long ago, and also within the last fortnight, that, in my opinion, tliere 
 ought to be a duty on ivory knife-handles. I never claimed that they should be 
 free of duty. 
 
 STATEMENTS OF IMPORTERS AND MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 The following statements were subseixuently received aud ordered to be priuted in 
 the record: 
 
 New York, January 22, 1890. 
 
 Sir: I beg to haniTyou herewith a statement on behalf of American importers of 
 raw ivory, signed by Arnold, Cheney & Co., and Ropes, Emmerton & Co., and a 
 statement on behalf of American manufacturers of ivory goods, signed by Comstock, 
 Cheney & Co., and Pratt, Read &, Co. 
 
 Both statements relate to the tariff, and should be printed in the report of the hear- 
 ings before your committee at the same place with the report of the statements as to 
 
692 KEVISION Oi' THE TAKIFE. 
 
 ivory made by Mr. Otto Gerdau aud myself before you on January 10, 1890. These 
 are the written statements which I received at that time permission to submit, and 
 are signed l>y the business houses for whom I then spolie. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 Geo. L. Cheney, 
 Counsellor at Law, 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 'VIE'WS OF ARNOLD, CHENEY & CO. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Sepresenfatires : 
 
 We, Arnold Cheney & Co., of New York City, and Kojies, Emmerton & Co., of Sa- 
 lem, Mass., l)ofch importers of ivory unmanufactured, respectfully ask this committee 
 to amend thu free-list provision of' the present tariff act touching ivory by changing 
 the descriptiim "ivory unmanufactured" to "ivory not sawed, cut, or otherwise 
 manufactured," aa proposed by the Senate tariff bill of the Fiftietli Congress. 
 
 We ask this because the German manufacturers, notably Ileiu. Ad. Myer, of Ham- 
 burg, through his agent in New York, Mr. Otto Gerdau, import under the present 
 law ivory free which is partially manufactured, and are advancing the degree of luan- 
 nfacture'in the ivory so imported. We refer especially to the Treasury decision of 
 October 2-2, lHb7 (Synopsis S492), admitting free of duty, on the appeal of Otto Ger- 
 dau, ivory cut into jiieces for making knife liandles aud direotiug a refund to him, 
 and to the decision of October 10, 1888 (Synopsis 90.5a), showing the attempt of the 
 same foreign manufacturer to extend the free listto piano keys ; and we are informed 
 that these attempts are still being made, and that the Government is threatened with 
 a series of appeals and suits unless piano keys be admitted free. These extensiousof 
 the free list cripjde the American manufacturers of ivory aud seriously narrow the 
 home market for the raw material. 
 
 We also ask that tlie duty levied upon all manufactures of ivory, including ivory 
 cut for piano and organ keys, be raised to 40 jier cent, ad valorem as proposed in the 
 Senate tariff' bill ; or that the duty upon manufactures of ivury not otherwise spe- 
 cially enumerated be raised to 40 per cent, ad valorem and i hat a special and specific 
 duty of S2..50 a pou' d be fixed for all ivory in any way sawed, cut, or manufactured 
 for piano or organ keys. 
 
 We ask for this increase of duty because the difference between the cost of manu- 
 facture in Germany and in this country is so great, the rate of wages alone being iu 
 the ivory factories of tliis country four times as high as in those of Germany, and the 
 undervaluations and evasions of the German manufacturer are so constant, that the 
 present rate of duty (30 per cent.) has proved practically too low to make the cost of 
 putting the German product into our market equal to the cent of 'putting there the 
 domestic product, and the American industry is being pressed down by German com- 
 jietition aud put in danger of extinction. Your petitioners are importing for the 
 American manufacturers about $500,000 worth of ivory iu the tusk each year, chiefly 
 from Africa, and have invested in this importing business cajiital largely in excess of 
 that amount. Others are engaged in the same business with large capital invested. 
 As American merchants we appeal to this conmuttee lor such legislation as may pre- 
 vent the absorption by Germany of such import trade, and the loss of the capital 
 which your petitioners and other American merchants have invested in it. 
 
 We ask for the express naming of ivory cut or sa\A ed for piano or organ keys iu the 
 tariff', because, under the present wording of the statute, the Ciermau manufacturer 
 through his agent, Mr, Gerdau, who appeare<l before you, is claiming either thatsuch 
 i^'ory is free as unmanufactured^ or else that it is subject to the lower r.ate fixed for 
 musical instruments, (Trea,snry Decisions of 1877, Synopsis :50(i4 ; of 1884, Synopsis 
 6'395; of 188-', Synopsis 9053. See also Decisions of 18-7, Synojisis 8492, :is to ivory 
 cut into pieces for knife hamJles ; of 1888, Synopsis 8797, as to billiard balls; and of 
 1889, Synopsis 9295, as to ivory rulers. Also Kobert.son v. Gerdau, Supreiue Court, 
 De(M luber 13, 18-9.) 'f lie Government should be relieved fr(jm these repeated attacks, 
 ,ind the Anieriean importers and manufacturers should be protected from the embar- 
 ra.ssment and doubt which this uncertainty in the law occasions in their business. 
 
 It was statiil to your committee by the gentleman from Hamburg, Mr. Otto Gerdan, 
 that a combination exi.sted between the Connecticut manufacturers, to which cue of 
 your petitioners was a parly. The gentleman is in error. From our jiosition in the 
 trade we are able to say positively that there is no combination lietween the Ameri- 
 can manufacturers of ivory, in Connecticut or elsewhere, and no possibility of any. 
 There is constantly a sharp ^indofteu bitt<'r competition l)etwe(Mi these manufacturers. 
 Your petitioners have a piirtial interest in one of the'se manufactories, but have no 
 interest whatever iu any of the others. There are other importers of ivory tusks, 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 693 
 
 from whom these manufacturers get their raw material Ijesides your petitioners, and 
 tusks are also seut lierfe by Indian merchants at Zanzibar, in competition with your 
 petitioners. Your petitioners are selling tusks to some of the Connecticut manu- 
 facturers, but not to all, and are also selling to manufacturers not in Connecticut. 
 In a word, the domestic ivory market is in a state of free and active competition. 
 
 It will, therefore, be seen that Mr. Gerdau's statements to your committee were 
 entirely unfounded. 
 
 In conclusion, therefore, yonr petitioners respectfully ask this committee, in behalf 
 of the American importers of ivory in the tusli, for the changes in the tariif herein- 
 before set forth. 
 
 , Arnold, Ciikney & Co. 
 EoPES, Emmkrton & Co 
 
 VIEWS OF a. A. CHENEY AND OTHERS. 
 
 T)ie Committee on Ways and Means of tlie United States House of Bepresentatives : 
 
 The Comstdck, Cheney & Co., and Pratt, Eead & Co., corporations, organized under 
 the laws of the State of Connecticut, and engaged in the manufacture of ivory goods, 
 chiefly piano keys in that State, the former in the town of Essex and the latter in the 
 town of Sayljrook, respectfully petition this committee to tix the rate of duty to be 
 levied upon imported manufactures of ivory, especially including ivory sawed for piano 
 or organ keys at 40 per cent, ad valorem, and to place upon the free list only such ivory 
 as has not been sawed, cut, or otherwise manufactureil; in accordance with the pro- 
 visions of the tariif act prepared by the United States Senate of the Fiftieth Congress. 
 If this committee shall prefer to aitopt specific duties, where possible, in order to 
 lessen the evils of undervaluation, your petitioners ask that a specific duty of ;|i2.50 a 
 pound be fixed for all ivory cut or sawed for piano or organ keys. 
 
 Among many other good and valid reasons for these requests, which will present 
 themselves to the comnfittee, these petitioners submit especially the following: 
 
 (1) Since the raw material, the tusks of the elephant can not be i)roduced in this 
 country, it should be admitted free, to encourage domestic manufacture for the home 
 market. 
 
 (2) Since the manufactured article maybe the subject of domestic industry, its 
 production in this country should be further encouraged, by protection against 
 foreign competition, in order to secure diversity of euijiloyment for out home labor 
 and capital, utilization at home of the domestic resources of water-power, fuel, etc., 
 and the increase of the home markets for the j)roducts of our farms. 
 
 Ivory, being strictly a luxury, is, if manufactured in any degree, a peculiarly lit 
 subject for taxation on importation ; aud manufacturers of ivory have accordingly 
 long been subject to a tariff duty. Th^rate was reduced by the act of liif'^ froiii ;J5 
 per cent, to 30 per cent., aud was left at 30 per cent, by the proposed " Mills bill." 
 
 (3) Since the supply of the raw material is absolutely aud finally limited, the pcd- 
 icy of the Government should rather tend to prolong the supply than to hast(!n its 
 exhaustioQ liy a temporary lowering of its price to the consumer. If the tariif were 
 reduced, and the foreign manufacturers of ivory, with their cheaper product of pauper 
 labor, were thus enabled to flood our market, the increased demand wouldinevitably, 
 since the supply of raw material can only be diminished, raise the price soon to 
 greater and greater heights; and the American consumer, after a short season of 
 lower prices and a transfer of the manufacturing industry from the United States to 
 Germany, would find himself paying more than ever for his ivory, and brought closer 
 to the final end of his supply. 
 
 (4) The new market for American products in Germany which might bo opened by 
 a transfer of. the ivory factories from this country to that would be ott'set by the lo.'-s 
 of the present eastern market which that transfer would entail. For if our factories 
 be closed, the importation of raw ivory is stopiied. The goods which would then be 
 sent to Germany for manufacture would have to fill a gup left by those which are 
 now sent to Africa for tusks. There would be a shifting of American commerce, but 
 not an addition ; and there would be the loss incident to a change. 
 
 (5) A reduction in the present tariff rate on manufactured ivory would destroy the 
 industry carried on by each of your petitioners and by other ivory manufacturers. 
 because the difference in the rate of wages which the American workmen reijuire 
 and the rate of wages for which workmen are employed in Europe, and the differ- 
 ence in the other elements of cost of ina,nufacture between this country and Europe 
 are so great, that the amo^int of duty collected, even at the ]iie3i'nt rate, is scarcely 
 sufficient to make the cost of manufactured ivory landed herefrom Germany with 
 the duty paid equal to the cost of the same article produced by us. 
 
 The only ivory manufacturing establishment of much coiisecpience in Europe is that 
 of Hein. Ad. Meyer, at Hamburg, whose agent in tliis country, Mr. Otto Gerdaii, haa 
 
694 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 been before your committee and aeked that the duty on mannfactured ivory be re- 
 duced to lU pur cent. This German manufacturer is importing and selling ivory 
 piano-keys in active competition with your petitioners and other American manu- 
 facturers, and is in some cases selling the imported article at a price lower than the 
 cost of production in this country. The 30 per cent, ad valorem duty adopted by the 
 act of IH^'3 has pioved in practice too low to favor the growth of the home industry, 
 and should therefore be raised, or should be changed, on piano and organ keys, to a 
 specific duty. 
 
 Your petitioners have ^750,000 invested in the manufacture of ivory goods, and buy 
 over $400,UOO worth of raw ivory each year. Their factories support directly about 
 two thousand people, and provide life and activity to two flourishing villages and 
 the adjacent farms. To reduce the duty on manufactured ivory would destroy this 
 capital, throw hundreds of men out of employment, and bring destitution upon these 
 happy communities, not to mention the ruin it would bring upon others engaged in 
 the same business. 
 
 (6) No demand for any reduction in the rate of duty upon manufactured ivory has 
 been made by any consumer, or even by any American. A foreign agent of a foreign 
 manufacture njakes the sole application to your committee. You are asked not to 
 promote the welfare of the American people, but to enable a factory in Germany to 
 shut the doors of factories in Connecticut. This extraordinary proposition was some- 
 what cloaked under a false pretense that a combination of domestic manufacturers 
 existed which oijpressed the American piano and organ makers ; but none of the 
 " oppressed " have applied for the relief which the Hajuburg manufacturer proposes, 
 with your assistance and our destruction, to aftbrd them. 
 
 Neither of your petitioners is in any combination with any manufacturer of or 
 dealer in ivory goods. They compete constantly, freely, and sharply with each other 
 and with other manufacturers of and dealers in ivory piano-keys and other ivory 
 goods. Thei'e is no combination between the domestic manufacturers and no pros- 
 pect of any. The domestic competitioii has long been very sharji, and has resulted 
 in a great reduction in thecostof manufacture and in the price charged to piano- 
 makers. While the price of ivory in the tusk has about doubled in the last twenty- 
 six years, the piano-makers are now buying their ivory keys lower than tweuty-six 
 years ago. Their whole keys, wood and iv(jry, they buy from us 50 per cent, lower 
 than at that time. This remarkable reduction proves the vigilance of the domestic 
 manufacturers in improving their methods of production, and demonstrates that the 
 piano-maker may wisely be left to secure his supply of keys at home. 
 
 (7) The duty on manufactures of iv<uy under the existing law (30 per cent.') so 
 nearly equalizes their cost here and in Germany that it constantly leads to underval- 
 uations, which, though large enough to make the imported ivory cheaper than ours, 
 are yet small enonglt to make detection very diflicult. A duty of 40 per cent, would 
 protect the home industry substantially and would make undervaluations so flagrant, 
 in order to undersell this market, that they could be detected. 
 
 If this committee should deem a speciiic fTuty on ivory sawed for piano or organ 
 keys preferable to an ad valorem duty, a specitic duty of |2.,50 a jjound on such ivory 
 would be about equivalent to an ad valoreui duty of 30 to 3.5 per cent. Ivory in the 
 tusk costs from |3..'jIj to $4 a pound ; and 2 pounds of tusk, costing from |7 to |H, will 
 yield but 1 pound of piano or organ keys. JVIr. Gerdau stated to your committee that 
 a " set " of ivory keys — that is, enough for one i)iano, and weighing less than three- 
 fourths of a jionnd — costs about .^S when manufactured, and that the entire labor on 
 it is only !50 cents. 
 
 In sui)portof what is said .above as to undervaluations, and in reply to Mr. Gerdau's 
 statement to your connnittee that false charges have been miide against him in the 
 custom-house, this estimate of his as to the cost of a set of ivory piano-keys may be 
 compared with the valuation at which he imported such keys ; for example, by the 
 steam-ship Rkwiia, Marcli 20, 1888. He tells you that the cost of ivory piano-keys is 
 $8 a set, of which .50 cents stands for 'abor. He importe<l them and paid duty on 
 them, at a valuation of $.'j.33 a pound, or $3.78 a set, which would be, according to 
 his statement before you, half the cost of the material. If that is not undervalu- 
 ation, your petitioners misunderstand the term. 
 
 A reason for specially naming in a new act ivory sawed or cut for piano or organ 
 keys li(is in tlie fact that a claim is steadily pressed by the Hamburg manufacturer 
 that such ivory is dutiable, if at all, at a lower rate than other mauufactures of ivory, 
 on the ground that it is a part of a musical instrument. This contention has already 
 been the ground of at least three aj>pcals to the Secretiiry of the Treasury (synopses 
 3004, 6300 and 00.53), and onci suit (Robertson v. Gerdau, Supreme Court, December 
 13, 1880); and we are informed that Mr. (b-rdfiu will continue to raise the point. 
 Both the Government and the American maimfacturer should h.ave relief from such 
 a situation. 
 
 (8) The free-list description in the existing law of the ivory which shall be ad- 
 mitted free of duty — " ivory nnmauulactured" — leads also to trouble. The German 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIPI*. 695 
 
 Boamifactnrer claims with varying snecess that ivory billiard-halls, knife-handles, 
 rulei-8, piano-keys, etc., are each and all " nnmauufactnred," and therefore dutyfree; 
 iindtiJe Government is subjected to snits by him on such claims. Tlicre have been 
 two Treasury decisions as to ivory knife-liandles which show the unsatisfactory con- 
 dition of the law. 
 
 By the first (synopsis 8492, October22, 1887), Mr. Gordan succeeded inhis claim that 
 ivory cut into pieces for making knife-handles was entitled to free entry, andsecureda 
 i-efundof the 30 per cent, duty which had been exacted. By the second (synopsis 9713, 
 November 18, 1889), this decision was modi lied (at whose recxuest does not appear) so as 
 to make partially tinished knife-handles, "articles which have in fact undergone 
 cutting, shaping, smoothing, polishing, etc., so as to become manufacturers of ivory," 
 dutiable at 30 per cent. The first decision is thus left in force as to " ivory cut into 
 pieces for making kuife-haudles," such as the samples in that instance, but modified 
 as to knife-handles which have been advanced considerably farther in manufacture, 
 such as the samples in the latter instance. This well illustrates the elasticity and 
 uncertainty of the description of -goods as unmanufactured; and as the Sux)reme 
 Court said in May, 1887, in deciding that shells which had been cleaned, ground, and 
 etched, were free, as not manufactured, " if the case was one of doubt, the doubt 
 would be resolved in favor of the importer, as duties are never imposed upon the cit- 
 zen upon vague or doubtful interpretations." (Hartranfti\ Wiegraann, 121 U. S. 609.) 
 These uncertainties are an intolerable burden to the American manufacturer, and an 
 embarrassment to the Government. 
 
 Your petitioners submit that these United States shall secure to themselves the 
 benefit of manufacturing this luxury in all its stages, and shall raise a revenue from 
 its importation in any stage of manufacture ; and that, by adopting the free-list pro- 
 vision proposed by the Senate — " ivory not sawed, cut, or otherwise manufactured" 
 the door be closed against the foreign attempts to enlarge the scope of the free list 
 through a series of Treasury appeals and customs suits. 
 
 Your petitioners therefore have asked that the present tariff act be amended as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 (1) The duty on manufactures of ivory not specially enumerated or provided for 
 shall be raised from 30 to 40 per cent. 
 
 (2) Ivory cut for piano or organ keys shall he specially and by name included in 
 that provision, or else shall be specially enumerated and made subject to a si^ecirtc 
 dnty of at least $2.50 a pound. > 
 
 (3) The description of ivory in the free list shall he changed from " ivory unmanu- 
 factured" to " ivory not sawed, cut, or otherwise manufactured." 
 
 The CoMSTocK, Cheney & Co., 
 Geo. a. Cheney, President. 
 Pratt, Read & Co., 
 By John G. Edmonds, Treasurer. 
 
696 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 FTJU HATS. 
 
 STATEMENT OP JAMES L. CARR. 
 
 Mr. James L. Cakr, of Orange, N. j., appeared before the committee and said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman aud gentlemen, I am one of a committee appointed at a meeting at 
 which were present, or were represented, the entire fnr-liat iiiauufacturing industry 
 of the United States. I have with me Mr. Taylor of New York, and Mr. HoUey of 
 Connecticut, also a committee from the Journeymen Hat-Maliers' Union, Mr. Foley 
 and Mr. Pbilli)is. 
 
 We would lilie to aslc a change in the tariff on our goods. I would like to show 
 you what these goods are. We malce a soft fcir hat like this [exhibiting specimen] ; 
 and I also' desire to show the material out of wl]ich tbese goods are made. Tliese 
 [presenting specimens to the committee] are batters' furs, prepared for hatter's use. 
 This [indicating] is garenne, or French rabbit fur; and tbis [exhibiting anotlier 
 specimen] is the fur of a .Scotch rabljit. The first treatment in order to get <inr fur is 
 to take the hair from it. Tbis [exhibiting specimen] is a sample of fur after the 
 hair has been removed. The next jirocess is to cut it into this shape [exhibiting 
 specimen]. This is done largely by machinery. Tbis would make a hat like this 
 [exhibiting specimen]. The next process is to shrink it into an article like this 
 [exhibiting]. The next condition is to get it colored aud blocked, and then have it 
 finished and trimmed. 
 
 We would respectfully ask from your committee that the tariff in relation to these 
 goods be changed. Here [presenting specimen] arc satin bat trimmings. There is 
 a clause in the present tariff bill which allows batters' materials to be imported at a ' 
 duty of 20 per cent., but by a ruling of the Treasury iJcjiartment that duty was in- 
 creased to .50 per cent. The duty on sweat leathers was also increased. Goods coming 
 into this country are made iu Belgium and England. Tliey range in price from |9 to 
 $30 a dozen. The duty on the hat costing if!* a dozen is about 64 per cent, ad valorem 
 and the duty on hots costing |30 a dozen about 47 per cent, ad valorem. There will 
 always be more or less of these English goods imported, because we have a class of 
 people iu this country who seem to prefer the Engli.sh bat to any other bat they can 
 get. 
 
 The Chairman. Under this schedule the higher the grade of goods the lower the 
 percentage of duty. 
 
 Mr. Carr. Yes ; but as I say, few goods come in of the |0 a dozen class ; and on 
 that class the duty would be about 64 per cent. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. How much would that increase the cost of the cheaper class of 
 goods to the consumer ? 
 
 Mr. Carr. Not a cent. We know that they make hats iu Belgium as cheap as from 
 $4 to $5 a dozen; but those hats never have lieen brought here, at least we have never 
 seen them, and we have investigated the matter pretty thoroughly. The importation 
 of foreign made hats has increased very largely within a veryfotx' years. On looking 
 over our importation statistics you will not find that there has been an increase of 
 fur hats, because the olassiflcation is so arranged that it can not be discovered; but 
 we, as bat manufacturers (as nnr journeymen can tell yon), know that the importa- 
 tion of hilts is increasing viry largely. The foreign manufacturers are sending their 
 salesmen he) e and are having their goods .sold here. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How many men are employed iu the bat industry in this country ? 
 
 Mr. C'akh. I should say '2r>,000, Outside of New York, New Jersey, and Connecti- 
 cut there are few hats inanutaelured. The manufacture is largely confined to those 
 States and largely to the cities of New York and Brooklyn. 
 
 Now, as to the rates of wages hen' and abroad, I would like to submit to the com- 
 mittee the pay-roll of a foreign factory — I do not mean the copy but the actual pay- 
 roll. This is the pay-roll of a Belgian firm, tin? firm of Vimerct Ills. It is a pay-roll 
 which I received from their factory, not, of course, to lie used for this purpose but 
 for another matter. I would like to quote some of the figures in comparison with the 
 prices we pay. The figures I will quote are for work on machines which are used 
 very largely in this country, but have not been used in Belgium iiutil within a few 
 years past. These machines are made to goat a cert.ain rate of speed. Theyproduce 
 the best work at a slow ral(!, but if the speed is increased the work is not so good. 
 Here [presenting a paper] is a pay-roll for every day of the week in this factory of 
 Vimeret fils. 
 
nKVISlON OF THE TARIFF. 697 
 
 Mr. BaYne. Give the number of hours. 
 
 Mr. Carr. The first man on the pay-roll, and who is, with one exception, the high- 
 est paid man on the roll, is credited for sixty and one-half hours for the week, at 45 
 centimes per hour. There are 100 centimes to a franc and 20 centimes would he equal 
 to five of our cents, so that this mau would receive 9 cents an hour. The next man 
 on the list receive 40 centimes an hour, or 8 cents ; the next42i centimes, or 8J ccnis ; 
 the next 45 centimes, or 9 cents; the next 40 centimes, or 8 cents: the next 20 cent- 
 imes (ho is evidently a boy), or 4 cents. Now, for identically the same work on the 
 same machines in our factory, we pay 20 and 25 cents an hour. The average in Bel- 
 gium is 8 and 9 cents an hour. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. That would be about 96 cents a day. 
 
 Mr. Carr. Y(w. These men work sixty and one-half hours a week. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How many hours do your men work ? 
 
 Mr. Carr. Ten hours a day in this branch of the business. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Then your meu average about .Iti.SO a day? 
 
 Mr. Carr. Yes; I am speaking simply of this department, the fur formers. We 
 pay our men 20 i rnts an hour orfrom $2 to $2.50 a day. Now here is the pay-roll of 
 the girls in this Belgiau factory : 20 centimes, or 4 cents an hour; 17| centimes or 3^ 
 cents an hour. There are ten of them at 3| cents an hour. Now, for identically the 
 same work, we pay our girls 10 cents an hour. It is not a magnificent pay but the 
 duties are simply machine feeding, and it does not require any skill at all. %l]en 
 here is the pay-roll of the boys. They run 17^ centimes, 15 centimes, 12|- centimes 
 and 20 centimes an hour or from r!| to 4 cents. Our boys receive 10 cents an hour. 
 . We have some boys around the factories, small boys, simply running errands, whom 
 we pay bj'" the week, §■1.50 a week ; so that the average of 10 cents an hour is a very 
 fair average. I think from these figures that the statement which I have made th.at 
 we jiay two and a half times as much for our labor as the foreign manufacturer pays 
 is shown to be correct. 
 
 I would like to show the committee what theresnit of the duty asked for would be, 
 based upon a hat costing in this country .^15 a dozen. lu other words, I will show 
 what a hat that costs us llo can be produced for in Belgium or England. 
 
 Of course we have not figured anything for the cost of bringing the hat from the 
 other side; but I can gi%'e you the figures of the gentlemen who import these goods. 
 The percentage of cost is about 3 per cent., incUuling consul tees, cases, boxing, etc. 
 
 I would like to say in regard to this industry that there are other industries de- 
 pending upon it. Not only does the .Senate bill give the fur manufacturers of 
 hatters' fur a duty of 20 per cent., but the Mills bill also put it at 20 per cent. I 
 woeld like to read to the committee a communication from a committee of fur-hat 
 ujanufacturers and from a committee of the Hatters' Labor Union. 
 
 Mr. Carr read the following communication : 
 
 To tJie Ways and Means Committee of the Souse of Eepresentatires : , 
 
 Tbe undersigned, representing the entire fur hat manufacturing industry of the 
 United States, and being a committee appointed for the purpose of presenting the 
 interests of that industry to your committee, would respectfully submit that they 
 de.sire, in addition to the present ad valorem duty of '.iO per cent., a specific duty, .so 
 that the clause will read as follows: 
 
 " Hats, for men's, women's, and children's wear, composed of the fur of the rabbit, 
 heaver, or other animals, or of which such fur is the chief component of value, wholly 
 or partially manufactured, valued at not exceeding .$5 per dozen, .11.50 per dozen ; 
 valued at more than $5, and not exceeding $U) yer dozen, .t;;! per dozen ; valued at 
 more than $;10 per dozen, .155 per dozen ; and in addition thereto, upon all the above 
 named articles, 30 per cent, ad valorem." 
 
 In support of the proposed duty we would urge : 
 
 First. That practically all of the material used in the manufacture of fur hats is 
 subject to duty, furs prepared for hatters' use being .subiect to 20 per cent, ad ^a- 
 lorem, and the duty on other materials ranging upwards to ab<ive (iO per cent, on satin 
 trimmings, which is the highest. Since the preparation of the Senate taritl' hill a 
 ruling in the Treasury Department has increased the duty on all silk and satin trim- 
 mings from 20 to 50 per cent, under the present law. The dnty im sweat leathers, 
 which we have heretofore paid, has also been increased under the present law 10 per 
 cent, by ruling of the Treasury Department. 
 
 Second. 'That the duty of 30 ]ier cent, ad valorem on fur hats, etc., has never been 
 in any sense protective, the business having been retained in this country becau.se 
 American manufacturers have set the styles, and because foreign manufacturers have 
 not heretofore adopted the improved methods used in American manufactures. But 
 recent developments show that the foreign manulaeturers have adopted substantially 
 all the improvements of AnuTican manufacturers, and, with the increased laeilities 
 of cbmniunication, fast steamers, low freight, and the aid of American jobl]<',rs, are 
 putting hats upon the market of the same styles as American manufacturers, so that 
 
698 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 the American fur-hat manufacturers must hereafter compete with the foreign manu- 
 facturera in Euglaud and Uelgium upon even terms, so far as style and method of 
 manufacture are concerned, and must have, therefore, a duty which shall equalize 
 the difference in cost of production, or the industry must be destroyed. 
 
 Third. Careful investigation satisiies us that an ad valorem duty or 50 per cent., 
 which was proposed in the Senate tarilf bill, will not be sufficient to enable the 
 American manufacturer to compete on equal terms with the foreign manufacturer. 
 Even if no undervaluation were probable, it would be insufficient. So tar as silk or 
 satin trimmings enter into the value of the hat, it would be less than the duty onsucb 
 trimmings. It is believed that the speciiic duty proposed, combined with tbe ad 
 valorem duty, while it'wonld on some grades of hats be high, would on the average 
 aiford just about a fair protection to the hat industry of the United States. 
 
 Fourth. We wish to impress on this committee, as earnestly as it is possible for us 
 to do so, the fact that the time has come in the history of this business when it must 
 have adequate protection or be destroyed. 
 
 By way of illustration, we submit for the consideration of the committee the fol- 
 lowing facts and figures. There is 50 per cent, duty on all the silk or satin linings, 
 bands, and bindings we use in trimming hats, while the hats of foreign manufacture 
 come in with the same trimmings on at 30 per cent. duty. 
 
 Forty-five and a half per cent, of the entire cost of fur hats made in an American 
 factory represents the excess an American manufacturer is obliged to pay for labor, 
 duties ou material, etc., above the foreign manufacturer; therefore, in order to make 
 the foreign-made fur hats cost as much as the American-made fur hats a duty of 83^ 
 per cent, ad valorem would be required. 
 
 Labor in this country is 50 to CO per cent, of the entire cost of a hat. Fur Is about 
 20 per cent, of tbe entire cost ; trimmings about 20 per cent, of the entire cost, and 
 boxes and incidentals— largely labor — are about 5 per cent, of the entire cost, say — 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Labor -. 55 
 
 Fur 20 
 
 Trimmings 20 
 
 Boxes and incidentals „ 5 
 
 Total 100 
 
 We pay two and one-half times as much for our labor as the foreign manufacturer ; 
 so 60 per cent, on.the cost of American labor represents the labor disadvantage of 
 the American manufacturer. We pay 20 per cent, duty on fur, which represeuts lOf 
 per cent, disadvantage in the cost of that article; and we pay 50 per cent, duty ou 
 trimmings, which is equal to 33J per cent, disadvantage on cost of trimmings. For 
 example: 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 60 per cent, on 55 per cent, labor equals (on the whole) 33 
 
 16f per cent, on 20 per cent, fur equals (on the whole) 3i 
 
 33 per cent, on 20 per cent, trimmings equals (on tbe whole) Cj 
 
 50 per cent on 5 per cent, boxes, etc., equals (on the whole) 2^ 
 
 Total 45i 
 
 The following is an illustration of what the result of the duty asked for would be, 
 based ou a hat costing in this country $15 per dozen : 
 
 55 per cent, of $15 equals $8.25 ; 60 per cent, of $8.24 equals !|4.9.5-i, labor disadvan- 
 tage. 20 per cent of $15 equals $3 ; Kif per cent, of $3 equals .50 cents, fur disadvan- 
 tage. 20 per cent, of $15 equals $3; 33^ per cent, of $3 equalsfl, trimming disadvan- 
 tage. 5 per cent, of $15 equals 75 cepts ; .50 iier cent, of 75 cents equals 37-J cents, 
 boxes, etc., disadvantage. Total, $6.83, which is 4.5| per cent, of $15. 
 
 From $15, which is the entire American cost per dozen, deduct $6.83, the entire 
 
 American disadvantage, and we get, as the cost abroad per dozen $8.17 
 
 The specific duty which we suggest is 3. 00 
 
 The ad valorem duty is equivalent to 2. 45 
 
 Total co.st of foreign h.at entering here 13. 62 
 
 which when deducted from $15 leaves the American manufacturers at a disadvantage 
 of $l..i6 per dozen hats, costing in this country $15 per dozen. 
 
 •Jerome Taylor, 
 James L. Carr, 
 Samdbl C. Holley, 
 Committee of Fur Hat Manufacturers. 
 John Phillips. 
 W. H. Foley, 
 Cotnmiltcf of Hatters' Labor Union. 
 .January 0, 18!(0. 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 699 
 
 Mr. Carr (continuing). I also speak in the interest of the manufacturers of liat- 
 ters' leathers. That industry is depeadeut upon us because, if the hat manufacturing 
 industry is killed, the interest of the hatters' leather indu.stry goes with it. This in- 
 dustry is not in a few large manufactories. A man can start into the manufacturing 
 of hats and make a success of it with $1,000 capital. Without exception, the men 
 who are engaged in it to-day are men who were journeymen at the bench and who 
 have worked their way up to become manufacturers. There are about two hundred 
 manufactories in the country, employing an average of from one huudred to one hun- 
 dred and iifty men. 
 
 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM FOLEY. 
 
 Mr. William Foley, of Danbury, Conn., addressed the committee on the same sub- 
 ject. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent the Hat Makers' Association. That asso- 
 ciation has got control of the hat fur until the time it is sized. As Mr. Carr has eu- 
 deavored to show you, the duty should be increased on hatters' fur, aud I shall show 
 ■you, in the interest of the Hat Makers' Association, why we ask you to iuciease tlio 
 duty on manufactured hats. About four years ago the manufacturers and journey- 
 men came to an understanding in regard to the settlement of difflculties and the 
 making of prices, and to regulate the prices that should be paid in the hattiug iu- 
 dustry. Their object in coming together was in order to avoid dissensions and strikes. 
 That settlement has been a good thing both for the journeymen and the manufact- 
 urers. By this system the journeymen have got a good deal of information as to the 
 inside workings of the hat industry which we would not have got h.ad it not been for 
 that system. We have found, in conference with manufacturers in the settling of 
 our difficulties, that in the times when they had occasion to reduce our wages the 
 cause was competition. 
 
 The argument presented by the manufacturers (and they would show evidence to 
 prove it) when they did ask for a reduction in the price of labor, would be tliat the 
 competition was of such a nature that they were forced to reduce wages in order to 
 meet it. Now, we find a sharp competition among the manufacturers iu our own 
 country, and we feel to-day (holding the social position that we do) that we can not 
 work for any less wa,ges than we now receive. We see that for the last two or three 
 years, especially for the last six months, foreign hats are being largely iiuijorted into 
 the United States of the class which reaches the masses ; that is, the cheap class of 
 hats. Atone time the principal importation of hats into this country consisted of 
 the better class of hats. That we did not mind so much. But of late they have been 
 iutroducing hats which reached the lower classes, and sell at an average of from $12 
 to $15 a dozen. So that we have got to meet a competition from abroad stronger than, 
 any we have got to meet at home. Mr. Carr has shown that the hat which costs $15 
 a dozen in this country can be produced in England for $ci.:?7, and in Belgium for a 
 still less price. By the use of improved machinery the foreign-hat manufacturers 
 produce a hat equal to ours in style. We have got to meet that competition, and we 
 know that we must necessarily come down in our wages. Now, you know that in a 
 country like ours we want more wages than people who live in other countries, and 
 that we can not come down to their level. The only remedy that we saw was 
 » through Congress. If the existing duty is not suHicieut to protect our industry, we 
 thought "we would ask Congress to irujiose a higher duty, such a duty as would be a 
 protection to us. We think that what we ask is in no way unreasonable, from the 
 fact that the higher rate of duty only puts their goods on a level with the cost of 
 ours, and we do not think that that is au unreasonable request. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You are a laboring man ? 
 
 Mr. FOLBY. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You come here as a laboring man 1 
 
 Mr. Foley. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You come in the interest of your own wages ? 
 
 Mr. Foley. Yes. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JOHN PHILLIPS, OF BROOKLYN. 
 
 Mr. John Phillips, of Brooklyn, addressed the committee in the same interest. 
 He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I wish to state that last evening at 8 o'clock I re- 
 ceived a telegram requesting me to be here this morning at 10.30. Consequently, my 
 crude and disjointed remarks must be excused. I have been brought up to hard 
 work all my life and can not possibly be a good speaker. I came here (fortunately 
 for my case and for you) without documents. I do not propose to bore you with doc- 
 uments. I wish to say a word or two on the subject of labor agitators. I am not 
 
700 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 a labor agitator in the professional sense of the term. I am an ofScer of the Hat Fin- 
 ishers' National Associatiou, having been its secretary for the last ten or twelve years. 
 I have worlied at this business since 1852, since I was fourteen or fifteen years old. I 
 am at present about fifty-two years old. In ashort time my interest in the trade will 
 end, of course, in the natural course of events ; but people are growing up around me, 
 relatives of mine, wlio follow^ my trade; and, in their interest as well as the interest 
 of my fellow journeymen, I speak. 
 
 In 1.S76 our trade was attacked by competition from convict labor. There were 
 700 or 800 convicts employed in the hatting business in the" State prisons of New 
 York. We went to Albany and tried for five years to get relieved of that load. Four 
 successive legislatures and governors refused to give us any relief; but in the tiftli 
 legislature we \Yer(.' snccessfnl, and at the end of five years we felt contented. We 
 bad spent a good deal of money in sending committees to Albany, and this money 
 was contriliuted by journeymen out of their weekly wages. We thought then that 
 we were relieved of all our loads and burdens; but now comes this competition iu 
 the hat business from aliroad, and within the last two or three years we see our 
 business gradually slipping away from us. I venture to state that iu the city of 
 Brooklyn, where I come from, the men engaged in my business do not have employ- 
 ment for more than half the year. Tliey have about six nionths steady employment — 
 about three months iu the spring and three mouths in the fall. There are two 
 seasons when we have plenty of work, but the rest of the time 'we are only partly 
 employed and part of the time we arc entirely unemployed, so that the money that 
 is saved in the busy time is all spent in the idle time. In Connecticut and the rural 
 districts, where house rents are not so heavy, hatters can save money. I have re- 
 sided in Brooklyn since l^TJ^, and in that time 1 could count on the fingers of one 
 hand all the hatters of my aciiuaintance who own their homes or ever expect to. I 
 am not an employer of labor, never employed any one, and I ho|ie I never shall ; but 
 I appear hmr to ask you for relief from this terrible competition with the foreign 
 hatters of Belgium and England. 
 
 The CuAiKMAN. Do you know the price of labor in your business in the competing 
 countries 'I 
 
 Mr. Phillips. Not personally. I went to the superintendent of one of the largest 
 factories iu tiie United States the other day — a factory in Brooklyn — and I receive<l 
 from him a series of figures without any precoucerted action, and which figures Mr. 
 CaiT did. not see until this morning ; and those figures prove to be aliuost identical 
 with those presented by Mr. Carr. They show every branch of the business. They 
 take the bat body — the material of w hicli it is composed — and they show the advan- 
 tages whicli the English mauufacturerhas in every branch of the business over the 
 American manufacturer, The English manufacturer has the advantage over the 
 American maunfacturer of 40 ].'er cent, plus American machinery. 
 
 I have no objection to people wearing English hats ; audlsay that they always will 
 ■wear English hats regardless of prices. The English hats have not got half the re- 
 spectability or the tasteful appearance of the American hats; but people "will wear 
 them simply because they ace English hats, and I am perfectly satisfied that they 
 should have them ; but I think they should l)e made to pay heavily for them. So 
 long as they want to spend their money for them they should be allowed to do it ; but 
 we who have not seven mouths steady work iu the year should not be embarassed 
 by the importation of these hats. The people iu my branch of the business do not 
 average $12 a week the year round. The great curse of our trade is that it has a dull 
 and a busy season. 
 
 In the busy season a man must work like a machine, and what little money he 
 makes goes in the dull season for the support of his family. That is the way the ma- 
 jority of our people live, and we ask you to give us some relief, to put a stop to this 
 wholesale impoitatiou of IbrcigQ hats. We can not export a.uy hats on account of 
 the high duty on raw materials. In my early days we used to send American hats by 
 the hundred thousand to Mexico, Central America, and South America. Now we 
 hardly send a hat there. Their hats all go to them from England because the En- 
 glish manufacturer has all his jnaterials free and his lalior cheap. Nobodj' will be in- 
 jured by putting an ad valorem rate and a si)ecific rate of duty on hats, nobody but 
 the Anglo-maniac. No wcirkingULauin this country would be injured. I do not stand 
 here to advocate anything that wouldsetdown any workingman any lower than ho 
 is to-day. I could not do it consistently, because I am a workingman myself; nor 
 would I put any man out ni work, and that is why I would not advocate the impor- 
 tation of raw material free. I would not advocate the admission of hatter's fur free 
 of duty, because that would put two or thri;e hundred men out of work in a fur-hat- 
 ting factory near wlieie I reside. No one lan show me how an increase of duty can 
 injure anyliody but the people on the other side. Let them keep their cheap labor to 
 themselves and hi tlieuj keep their clicap hats to themselves. 
 
 Mr. Elowtcts. Will they do that ? Will not the cheap labor come over here 1 
 
 Mr. Phillips, We are willing to submit to that. We are willing to throw the doors 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 701 
 
 open to them. There is not a week in the year that hatters do not come to me from 
 all parts of the world to enter our associatiou— Hungarians and Bohemians and all 
 sorts of people — some of the lowest and most disreputable working people. (I say it 
 wishout any disrespect to them. It is the way that they were born and brought up.) 
 They come here and work very cheap when they get an opportunity to work ; they 
 work for almost nothing ; but we do not bar them but of our association. We take 
 then) in and it does not cost them a cent. They bring a document stating that they 
 are hatters and we give them a certiiicate of association without charging them a 
 cent. We are willin^to take them all in and to make good men and good citizens 
 out of them. 
 
 Now, I do not waut to indulge in any politics in this business, but I wish to say to 
 you that a good many of our people last fall complained to me about the pay en- 
 velop that the.v used to get with beautiful mottoes on it, asking them whether they 
 were willing to work for the pauper wages of Europe, and so on. Some of them com- 
 l)lained. The rank and file of the people do not give the matter sufficient study, and 
 tliey do not see why it is that the importation of hats is increasing day by day. A 
 gentleman met me yesterday, aud we fell into conversation about the business, andhe 
 told me that a million of hats were ordered recently from a factory in Belgium where 
 wonien do most of the work that is done by men iu this country'and for starvation 
 wages — the lowest wages, I suppose, that is consistent with existence. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Even lower than the convict wages iu this country ? 
 
 Mr. Thillips. Yes, sir; we are relieved from convict labor. We generally fight 
 for our bread aud butter ; we are not politicians. Although I was at Albany for three 
 years myself trying to get relief, I may say that I do not know anything about the 
 politics of the legislature or of the governor that gave us relief. Last year there was 
 an eflort made to put convicts at work again, but it was squelched by the author- 
 ities; but we are in danger every day of some other person starting in about this 
 convict labor, and the trouble is that the contract is always made before we know it. 
 There is no publicity given to it. The thing is done quietly, and we are in danger of 
 it every day, and have to be on the alert, because we know not the day or the hour 
 when somebody will start in the convict-labor business again, employing convicts for 
 30 or 40 cents a day in making hats. I was asked by a committee at Albany iu what 
 way convict labor injured us. Of course I am not a political economist, but I simply 
 loolced at the matter in this light: that if so many hundreds of dozens of hats are 
 manufactured in Daunemora prison aud Clinton prison, there will be just so many the 
 less hats for us to make. So also witli imported hats. It is a fact that the manu- 
 facture of fur hats can not be successfully carried on outside of a radius of a hun- 
 dred miles fromNew York. We represent the fur-hat industry. There are others who 
 represent the wool-hat industry, others the silk-hat industry, and others the straw- 
 hat industry; but none of those hats are imi^orted to any extent compared with the 
 fur hat. These are coming in at an increased ratio, and we ask yon lor jirotection 
 against the foreign importation. We want 30 p 'r cent, ad valorem aud a spcci fie rate 
 of duty according to the value of the hat. If you will give that to us you will injure 
 nobody but the people on the other side and the Anglo-maniac ; that is all. 
 
 RESOLUTION OP MANUFACTURERS OP HATTERS' FURS, 
 
 The following paper was received aud ordered to be priuted iu the record : 
 
 At a meeting of the manufacturers of hatters' furs, held this day at the office of 
 Messrs. Hitchcock, Dermody &■ Co., No. 109 Green street, New York, the following 
 preamble and resolution were unanimously adopted : 
 
 Whereas the market of the American manufacturer of hatters' furs is entirely dc- 
 peudent upou the American hat manufacturers for the consumption of their product, 
 and inasmuch as the importation of foreign-made hats not only iuterferes with the 
 American hat manufacturer, but as well with our industry, and as the importation 
 of English and Belgiiin ma.de hats has rapidly increased duriug the past two years, 
 and we believe it will increase uinch more rapidly in the future, which will not only 
 result in the destruction of the trade of manufacturing hats in this country, but also 
 iu the destruction of our industry of manufacturing li.itters' furs: 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of three from this trade be appointed hy ns to co-oper- 
 ate with the committee of har manufacturers iu their endeavor to obtain from the 
 Congress of the United States an increase of the duty on fur hats. 
 
 In pursuance of above resolution the following committee were appointed : 
 
 Jesse A. Tilge, of Messrs. Henry Tilge & Co., J. A. Dermody, of Messrs. Hitchcock, 
 Dermody &, Co., and Joseph J. Asch. 
 
 A. B. Darby, 
 
 Seorvlary, 
 
702 ■ REVISION OF THE TAKIFF. 
 
 VIE"WS OP R. DUNLAP & CO. 
 
 New York, January 10, 1890. 
 The Ways and Means Committee of the Rouse of Uepresentatives : . 
 
 The iiuilersigncil, mpro.senting tlie entire far-hiit mauufacturinf; industry of the 
 Uniteil .St.itcs, anil licini; a coiiitnitti;o appointed for the purpose of presenting the 
 interests of that industry to your committee, wonM respectfully submit that they de- 
 sire, iu addition to the present ad valorem duty of 'M per cent., a specific duty so that 
 the clause will read as follows: 
 
 " Hat.s for men's, women's, .lud children's wear, composed of the fur of the rabbit, 
 beaver, or other animals, or of which such for is the chief component of value, wholly 
 or partially manufactured, valued at not exceeding 1-5 per dozen, .fl.50 per dozen; 
 valued at more than firi and not exceeding ^10 per ilozen, $3 per dozen ; valued at more 
 than $10 per dozen, i^'> per dozru ; and, in addition thereto, upon all the above-named 
 articles, 30 per cent, ad valorem.'' 
 
 Iu support of the proposed duty wo would urge : 
 
 First. That pr.ictically all of the material used in the manufacture of fur hats is 
 subject to duty, furs prepared for hatters' use being subject to 20 per cent, ad valorem, 
 and the duty on other materials ranging upwards to above 60 per cent, on satin 
 trimmings, which is the highest. Since the preparation of the Senate tariif bill, a 
 ruling in the Treasury Department baa increased the duty on all silk and satin trim- 
 mings from 20 to 50 per cent, under the present law. The duty on sweat leathers, 
 which we have heretofore paid, has also been increased under the present law 10 per 
 cent, by ruling of the Treasury Department. 
 
 Second. That the duty of 30 per cent, ad v.alorem on fur hats, etc., has never been 
 in any sense protective, the business having been retained in this conntry because 
 American manufacturers have set the styles, and because foreign nuinufacturers have 
 not heretofore adopted the improved methods used in American manufactures. But 
 rerent developments show that the foreign manufacturershave adopted substantially 
 all the improvements of American manufacturers, and, with the increased facilities 
 of conimnnication, fast steamers, low freight, and the aid of American jobbers, are 
 pntting hats upon the markets of the same styles as American manufacturers, so that 
 the American fur-hat manufacturers must hereafter compete with foreign manufact- 
 urers in England and Belgium njion even terms, so far as style and method of 
 manufacture are euncerned, ami mu^t have, therefore, a duty which shall equalize 
 the ditl'ereuce in cost of production, or the industry must be destroyed. 
 
 Third. Careful investigation satislies ns that an ail valorem duty of ijO per cent., 
 which was proposed in the Senate t,arift- bill, will not be sufficient to enable the 
 American manufacturer to compete on equal terms with the foreign manufacturer. 
 Even if no nndervalnation were proljable, it would be insufficient. So far as silk or 
 satin trimmings enler into the value of the hat, it would be less than the duty on 
 such trimmings. It is believed that the specific duty proposed, combined with the 
 ad valorem duty, while it would on some gnides of hats be high, would on the aver- 
 age afford just about a fair protection to the hat industry of the United States. 
 
 Fourth. Wo wish to ijupress on this comndttee, as earnestly as it is possible for us 
 to do ,so, the fact that the times has come in the history of this business when it must 
 have adequate protection or be destroyed. 
 
 By way of illustration we submit for the consideration of the committee the fol- 
 lowing facts and figuris: There is 50 percent, duty on all the silk or satin linings, 
 bands, and bindings we use in trimming hats, while the hats of foreign manufacture 
 come in with the sami; trimmings on at 30 per cent. duty. 
 
 Forty-five and a Imlf per cent, of the entire cost of fur hats made in an American 
 factory rejiresents the I'Xee.ss .an American m.annfacturer is obliged to pay for labor, 
 duties or material, etc., above the foreign manufacturer ; therefore, in order to make 
 the foreign-made fur hats cost as ranch as the American-made fur hats, a duty of 8'3i 
 Jier cent, ad valorem would be i-equireil. 
 
 Labor in this country is 50 to 60 per cent, of the entire cost of a bat. Fur is about 
 20 per cent, of the entire cost, trimmings about 20 per cent, of the entire cost, and 
 boxes and iucideutals — largely labor — are about 5 per cent, of the entire cost, say — 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Labor 55 
 
 Fur 20 
 
 Trimmings --- .. 20 
 
 •Boxes and incidentals 5 
 
 Total 100 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 703 
 
 We pay two and one-half times as mucli for our labor as the foreign manufacturer ; 
 so 60 per cent, on the cost of American labor represents the labor ilisadvautage of the 
 American manufacturer. We pay 20 per cent, duty on fur, which represents l(i<i per 
 cent, disadvantage in the cose of that article ; and wo ])ay 50 per cent, duty on trim- 
 mings, which is equal to '33J per cent, disadvantage on cost of trimmings. 
 
 For example : 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 60 per cent, on 55 per cent, labor equals on the whole 33 
 
 16f per cent, on 20 per cent, fur equals on the whole SJ 
 
 33 per cent, on 20 per cent, trimmings equals on the whole 6f 
 
 50 per cent, on 5 per cent, boxes, etc., equals on the whole 2^ 
 
 . Total 45J 
 
 The following is an illustration of what the result of the duty asked for would be, 
 based on a hat costing in this country $15 per dozen : 
 55 per cent, of $15 equals .$8.25 ; 60 per cent of |8.25 equals 14.955 
 
 Labor disadvantage. 
 20 per cent, of |15 equals $3; 16J per cent, of |3 equals 50 
 
 Fur disadvantage. 
 20 per cent, of $15 equals $3 ; 33i per cent, of |3 equals 1. 00 
 
 Trimming disadvantage. 
 5 per cent, of $15 equals 75 cents; 50 per cent of 75 cents equals 375 
 
 Boxes, etc., disadvantage. 
 
 Total ' 6.83 
 
 which is 4.5-J per cent, of $15. 
 
 From $15, which is the entire American cost per dozen, deduct $6.83, the entire 
 American disadvantage, and we get — 
 
 As the cost abroad per dozen. $8.17 
 
 The specific duty which we suggest is 3.00 
 
 The ad valorem duty is equivalent to 2.45 
 
 Total cost of foreign hat entering here 13.62 
 
 which, when deducted from $15, leaves the Americao manufacturers at a disadvantage 
 of |1.36 per dozen hats, costing in this country $15 per dozen. 
 
 R. DUNLAP & Co. 
 
704 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 BUTTOJ^^S. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HORATIO G. KNIGHT. 
 
 Mr. Horatio G. Knight, of East Hampton, Mass., addressed the committee. He 
 said : 
 
 Mr. Cbairman abd gentlemen, I appear before you with Mr. Newell, of Springfield, 
 Mass., who Las a place of business in New York, and with Mr. Liebmann of New 
 York, to represent tlie button manufacturers of the United States. The industry is 
 not a large one. It is comparatively insiguiticaut ; but it is of very great importance 
 to those who are engaged in it and who are dependent upon it for a living. There la 
 not ( onnected with this industry any combination or syndicate or trust, but there is 
 among the manufacturers a free conipetition. According to the census of 1880 there 
 were l24 establishments in this cciuntry engaged in the nuxnufacture of buttons, with 
 a capital of a little over $2,000,0UU, and emjiloying 6,825 persons, on whom a much 
 larger number were either wholly or partially dependent for support. 
 
 In the years following the census year there was a considerable increase in the in- 
 dustry, so that in 1^'84 it was estimated that there was a capital of $2,500,000 invested 
 in it, and that there, were about one hundred and fifty establishments engaged in it, 
 employing about eight or nine thousand persons. These factories are situated in 
 Vernifait, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Mary- 
 land, Ohio, and Illinois. As I said, in the few years subsequent to 1880 (when we 
 had the reliable statistics which I have quoted), there was a considerable increase in 
 the business and the industry was fairly prosperous — the increase being perhaps 40 or 
 50 per cent, in the unnjber of persons employed and in the value of the products. 
 For the last three or four years, certain branches of the industry have been on the de- 
 cline. I should Say, however, that the industry is divided into three distinct classes. 
 One class of buttons is what is generally known by the commercial designation of 
 covered buttons — buttons covered with some textile fabric (silk, wool, worsted or 
 cotton). The next class is known as hard buttons, and comes under the comruercial 
 designation oi; vegetable ivory. These are composed of vegetable ivory, horn, and 
 composition. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is this button [indicating] made from ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. That button is made from vegetable ivory. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you niake a button out of congealed blood ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. Suclii Imttous are made. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Are they not made to a large extent in Chicago? 
 
 Mr. Knight. Yes ; I saw a sample of buttons made from that material, and I was 
 told that there was a very large (tuautity of them made. They come under the head 
 of hard buttons. 
 
 The present duty on vegetatjle-ivory buttons and on various other buttons known 
 as hard liuttons is only 25 per cent. Then there is a third class of buttons composed of 
 gla,ss and metal combined, or wholly of metal — metal of various sorts. These varie- 
 ties of Ijutton (to say nothing of the pearl-button industry), are made in avast variety 
 of sizes, shapes, colors, and qualities, running into many thousands. 
 
 I have spoken of the recenl decline in some branches of this industry, especially in 
 hard buttons, and in a certain class of metal and glass buttons. This decline is the 
 result of foreign comjietition, largely. Wo have to comijete with cheap labor, and in 
 some cases with the convict labor of Europe. We have also to contend with under- 
 valuations, and with great abuses which come up under the present law, and which 
 allowed the importer to deduct from his invoice price the cost of cards, boxes, and 
 packages. That opens the door to a great deal of fraud. The result is that in the 
 last four ortive years (probably within fouryears) at least twenty-five or thirty of the 
 concerns that were engaged in this industry have been obliged to abandon it ; and 
 those who continue in the manufacture of vegetable-ivory buttons and of the various 
 composition buttons only continue business in the hope of better times; but at the 
 present time the business is nnreniunerative. 
 
 We are not here to ask for anything but reasonable protection for this industry. 
 In any fif those classes of goods labor constitutes a large percentage of their cost. 
 Therefore it is that this cheap foreign labor, to say nothing of convict labor, is very 
 inbirious to onr industry. 1 may mention .also the Canadian duty on these goods. 
 Canada was the only country to which, up to within the last) few years, we have 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 705" 
 
 been able to export buttons. Notv we are shut out from that country because the 
 Canadian Government has imposed a specilio duty on buttons in addition to an ad 
 valorem duty ; and we are not able to sell our goods there at all. That market is en- 
 tirely closed to us. It was, for certain classes of buttons that we manufacture, a 
 very good market ; and now we are entirely shut out from it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does not that duty injposed by the Canadian Government ap- 
 ply to your foreign competitors as well as to yourselves? 
 
 Mr. Knight. I suppose it does. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How comes it then that that market is closed to your goods? 
 
 Mr. Knight. Because they are making them iu Canada now. Four or five button 
 manufacturers have started up in Canada within the last two or three years. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. When they put on a duty on the foreign article establishments sprung 
 up there ? 
 
 Mr. lijN'iGHT. Yes. The Canadian government imposes a specific duty of 10 cents 
 per grosa^ and an ad valorem duty of )io per cent. ; and that shuts us out. 
 
 The association which we represent, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, has instructed 
 us to ask for a small specific and a email ad valo: em duty on this class of goods — upon 
 hard buttons, composition buttons of various sorts, and on metal buttous. There 
 are other classes of buttons manufactured here iu co'Kiderable quantities, where the 
 rates of duty fixed in the Senate bill and iu the Mills bill (so-called) are, on the 
 whole, satisfactory to us although not all we desire. We are able to live under 
 those rates. We are instructed to ask that there be imposed upon ivory, horn, and 
 composition buttons, a duty of 1 cent a line, and- 25 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much would a duty of 1 cent a line be on a gross of 
 buttons ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. On an 18-line button it would be 18 cents a gross and on a 12-line but- 
 ton 12 cents a gross. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What do you mean by a line? 
 
 Mr. Knight. The line is one-fortieth of an inch. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Would it not be better to say so much per gross? 
 
 Jir. Knight. The objection to that would be that those buttons differ so much in 
 value. They are worth from 20 cents a gross up to $5 a gross, so that a duty based 
 upon a line size would seem to be morejnst. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Then a button an inch across is a 40-liue button ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. Yes ; we are suggesting a duty of 1 cent a liae on buttons. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you mean a duty of 40 cents on each button ? 
 
 Mr.. Knight. No ; per gross of one hundred and forty-four buttons, 40 cents per line 
 per gross. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The line applies to the size of the button ? 
 
 Mr. Knight. Yes; the line ajiplies to the diameter of the button; and this rate of 
 duty which we now ask for would increase the duty on the lower grades and would 
 diminish it on the higher grades ; for the prices of these buttons vary from 20 cents a 
 gross to $5 or $lj. On the higher grades there would be considerable reduction. 
 
 Mr. Flowsr. V/hat is the lowest line button? 
 
 Mr. Knight. Ton or twelve lines. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Wheu you say it would be an iucrease of duty on the lower grades 
 and a reduction on the higher grades, you mean as to cost? 
 
 Mr. Knight. Yes. 
 
 Mr. MciliLLiN. Then the more valuable buttons would be diminished in duty and 
 the cheaper buttous increased? 
 
 Mr. Knight. That is true. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Have you made out a table of how these projiosed duties would apply 
 to the different sized buttons as compared with the duties under existing law? 
 
 Mr. Knight. We have not, but we will do so, and with the leave of the committee 
 add a paper setting forth the facts which I have stated and additional facts which 
 may occur to us. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Be sure and show the effect of these proposed duties as com- 
 pared with the duties under existing law, and carry it out in each class of button. 
 
 Mr. Knight subsequently handed in the following paper: 
 
 The Commitlee on Waija and Means of the Fifty-first Congress : 
 
 Gentlemen: The undersigned, a committee of the " United States Button Manu- 
 facturers' Association," b g leave t» communicate to you, in writing, the facts and 
 suggestions presented at a rei ent hearing you kindly granted <hem. 
 
 According to the census of 1880 there were 131 establishments engaged in the manu- 
 facture of buttons, with a Ga)iital of $2,01o,:!.'0, employing (i,8'jr> p-rsous, upon whom 
 a much larger adtiilional number wi-ro wholly oi-chiolly (le))endeut forsupporl. The 
 amount paid annually in wages was ifl,645,l;!0 ; Ihe value of materials (to Ihem raw 
 material) was 11,702,891 ; the value of products was |4, 449, 542. In the few follow- 
 Jrg years there was a considerable increase of this industry, and manufactories were 
 
 485-^ 15 
 
706 EEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 established in — at least — ten of the United States. In 1884 it was estimated that 
 12,100,000 was paid ia wages, the valae of materials used $2,300,000, and the value 
 of produotsfl 5,600,000. During the last few years some branches of this business 
 have been greatly depressed, are still languishing, and are apparently dying out. 
 
 About tweuty-five concerns engaged in the manufacture of vegetable ivory and 
 other " hard buttons," so-called, have discontinued the business, in some cases with 
 great loss, while it is uuremunerative to those that continue in it. The same is true 
 in respect to some classes of metal buttons. At the same time importations of these 
 goods have ncreased, and now exceed domestic production both in quantity and 
 value. 
 
 The button industry may be divided into three classes, each being indicated by the 
 material chieiiy used therein, viz : 
 
 First : Manufactures that come under the commercial or technical designation of 
 covered buttons, in which a great variety of textile fabrics are used. 
 
 Second: Metal buttons, in which many kinds of metal are used in connection with 
 glass or otherwise. 
 
 Third : Hard buttons, made of vegetable ivory. India-rubber, horn, bone, ivory, 
 glass, and various compositions. 
 
 To these classes may be added pearl buttons, an important industry, which has 
 some peculiar features. 
 
 Each class of buttons is made in a great variety of sizes, shapes, patterns, colors, 
 and qualities, varying in size from one-eighth of an inch (five lines) to 1| inches (60 
 lines) in diameter, and varying in cost from a few cents to several dollars per single 
 gross of one hundred and forty-four buttons. So great is the variety of materials, and 
 the cost thereof, used in the manufacture of these goods, tha' it is impossible for any 
 appraiser or merchant who is not an accomplished expert in such matters to judge 
 correctly of their cost or value ; and this we assign as a valid reason why the duty 
 imposed upon buttons imported should be at least partly specific instead of wholly 
 ad valorem. 
 
 In this connection it should also be stated that in most kinds of buttons labor con- 
 stitutes a large part, and in some kinds by far the largest part, of the cost of manufact- 
 ure. The cheapness of labor in Europe is an element of great disadvantage to 
 American manufacturers of buttons, and we are credibly inforined that convict labor 
 is to some extent employed in this industry, the products of which labor are forced 
 upon our markets. 
 
 There is abundant evidence of undervaluation of imported buttons and overesti- 
 mate of the cost of coverings, charges, etc., excluded from consideration in the assess- 
 ment of dutiable values, which without changing nominal rates has had the eifect 
 to reduce the amount of duties collected. There have also been changes of custom- 
 house classification adverse to American manufacturers. 
 
 For the protection of the "covered button" industry we accept as satisfactory the 
 provisions of Senate bill, Calendar No. 240.5, as we understand the same. 
 
 For the relief and protection of the second and third classes of buttons herein re- 
 ferred to, namely, " metal buttons" and " hard buttons," we ask that in a revision of 
 the tariff a small specific duty and in addition thereto a small ad valorem duty may 
 be prescribed by a section properly formulated and incorporated in the bill now under 
 cousideration. 
 
 Reasonable protection, which in this case means, first and chiefiy, protection to 
 labor, will restore this depressed industry to a healthy condition, and give employ- 
 ment and support to many thousand persons; and home competition will insure low 
 prices to purchasers and consumers of our products. 
 
 In accordance with your suggestion and our promise, we will herewith submit 
 tables showing the wages paid in this industry at home and abroad; also copy of a 
 section or paragraph, which if its form is deemed proper, we pray you to incorporate 
 in the bill. 
 
 Thanking your honorable committee for their patient hearing, and holding our- 
 selves ready to answer any questions that may arise relating to this comparatively 
 small, but to us and those whom we represent a very important industry. 
 Wo are, very respectfully, your obedient servants 
 
 Horatio G. ICnight. 
 Nelson C. Newell. 
 Eudollph Liebmakn. 
 January, 1890. 
 
 " Buttons composed of brass, copper, nickel, zinc, tin, pewter, liead, iron, steel, gold, 
 silver, or any other metal, and of which one or more of such mietals shall constitute 
 a component part of chief value ; buttons composed of vegetabJ;6 iyoi-y, horn, bone, 
 glass. India-rubber, or various compositions, having the coiSimercial (jesiguatiou of 
 hard buttons, and of which one or more of such materials sh'jjil constit^^l|,8 a compo- 
 nent part of chief value, 1 cent per line, button measure of cioe-fovtietl^i f^{ onsiinch^ 
 per gross and in addition tUerfto 25 per centum ad valorem."' ■ ■ > ' " 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 707 
 
 STATEMENT OF NELSON C. NE"WELL. 
 
 Mr. Nelson C. Newell, of Springfield, Mass., addressed the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, Mr. Knight has stated our case very fully, and I 
 have really little to say. We would not be here unless our business was in a deplora- 
 ble condition, as the button business of the country to-day is. We are refusing 
 orders all the time because we are not able to compete with the foreign producers. I 
 was offered an order a short time ago for 50,000 gross of buttons and had to refuse it. 
 I had another order for 40,000 gross, which I also had to refuse. I am speaking now 
 of vegetable ivory buttons. We manufacture a small quantity of pearl buttons, but 
 we have only got a few men at that branch of the business. It is largely hand worls. 
 No machinery can be applied to do the cutting. Eaob button is turned by the eye, 
 and the cost of that labor is so high to us that we are not able to compete with the 
 foreigner. It is so on vegetable ivory buttons. I have a package of buttons here 
 whioiti I now show to the committee so that the committee may understand what I 
 have to say about cards and boxes and packing-cases. On the imported buttons the 
 cost of the packages is now deducted in the computation of duties. I do not think 
 that that was ever intended by the law, because it includes the bos all carded, the 
 cards and the cost of carding. 
 
 These buttons [indicating] are vegetable ivory button made from the ivory nut 
 which we get from South America. Buttons like this are not merchantable unless 
 they are all put up in this shape. They are sorted and shaded according to colors, 
 and sewed into cards and put into a handsome box. Tbe importers are allowed 8 
 cents a gross for this packing, when it only costs them about 3 cents on the other side; 
 so that we have that diiference of 5 cents a gross to contend against. We think that 
 that error should certainly be righted. So far as the duty on buttons is concerned, we 
 all agree of course on the rates proposed ; that is, Mr. Knight, Mr. Liebmann and my- 
 self, as well as the association that Mr. Liebmann represents. As Mr. Kuight has 
 told yon, the industry has gone down very much. Outof thirty or thirty-fivediflerent 
 concerns of vegetable ivory button manufactures there are only about five left now, 
 and they are struggling along. There should be teu thousand bauds making ivory 
 buttons in this country, but there are not five hundred now. So also with pearl but- 
 tons. We might as well have fifty thousand people employed in buttons. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Where do the pearl buttons that are imported into this country come 
 from? 
 
 Mr. Newell. From Austria, largely. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the existing rate of duty upon them ? 
 
 Mr. Newell. Twenty-five per cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is a button line? 
 
 Mr. Newell. Here is a line guage [exhibiting one]. This coat button [indicat- 
 ing] is a 30-line button. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Then on these buttons, according to the rate of duty proposed by 
 Mr. Knight (a cent a line per gross), there would bo 30 cents specitic duty per gross 
 and the ad valorem duty which you propose ? 
 
 Mr. Newell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How much is that button worth in the market to-day by the gross? 
 
 Mr. Newell. That button is worth about 60 cents in the market. It is worth more, 
 but we can not get any more for it. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you get that price at the factory ? 
 
 Mr. Newell. That is the factory price. In Austria, the man who works on these 
 buttons gets 60 cents a day and the woman gets 20 cents a day ; whereas our women 
 and girls average about a dollar a day and are not willing to work for less. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What part of the work do the women and girls perform. 
 
 Mr. Newell. All the finishing of the buttons— the polishing and the drilling. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is not this button cut by machinery? 
 
 Mr. Newell. Yes. Men do that work mostly. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How much do the men get per day ? 
 
 Mr. Newell. Two dollars a day ; and the men in Austria who are doing the same 
 work get 60 cents a, day. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do they cut the buttons there with the same kind of machine that 
 you use here ? 
 
 Mr. Newell. They have a machine very much like ours, but we think our machine 
 very much superior to theirs. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Does not your machinery carry the button to a greater state of per- 
 fection and leave less work to be done by hand ? 
 
 Mr. Newell. I do not think it does to-day. Workmen come over here from Europe 
 and our workmen go over there. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What can our workmen gain by going over there? 
 
 Mr. Newell. They do not go over there to work. I moan that our people go over 
 
708 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 tliere and go through their worts and get information, and their people do the same 
 here. We have workmen who camefrom there who do the coloring and special work. 
 
 Mr. Caklislk. How is that coloring done, by a brush or by a solution f 
 
 Mr. Nbwbll. It is done by spattering. 
 
 Mr. Beeckinridgb. Are your men paid by the day or by the gross ? 
 
 Mr. Newbll. Mostly by the gross. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are they paid the same way in Europe ? 
 
 Mr. Newell. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What proportion of the cost of buttons is in labor? 
 
 Mr. Newell. The labor upon that button [indicating! is about half the cost. We 
 get about 60 cents a gross for that button . 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you pay 20 cents a gross for the labor on it ! 
 
 Mr. Newell. Yes, I should say the labor on that button costs fully 20 cents or per- 
 haps 25 cents. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do they pay the workmen by the piece in Europe as well as in 
 this country ? ■• , 
 
 Mr. Newell. They do mostly. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you know how much the labor on a gross of buttons like 
 that costs in Austria ? 
 
 Mr. Newell. I do not know exactly ; the women are allowed to earn about 20 
 cents a clay, and the men about GO ceuts a day, and we generally base our calcula- 
 tions on wbat they can earn per day. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are yop able to give us any information as to what they produce 
 for this 20 cents and 60 cents a day ? If tlaey are paid by the task, that should be a 
 m,itter very easy to determine. 1 do not see why you should make a statement of 
 the day wages paid there when the workmen are not paid "by the day but are paid by 
 the piece. 
 
 Mr. Newell. Our work is all estimated by what the men and women can earn by 
 the day, although we pay them by the piece. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You say tliat in Europe this work is paid by the piece? 
 
 Mr. Newell. I think tbat Mr. Liebmann can give you certain information about 
 that better than I can. They work longer hours there than they do here and very 
 likely produce more. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do they make any buttons in Austria by convict labor ? 
 
 Mr. Newbll. So we are informed. We understand that pearl buttons are made 
 there in large quantities by convict labor and are exported. 
 
 STATEMENT OF R. LIEBMANN. 
 
 Mr. E. Liebmann, of New York, said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I come here more particularly to speak about the 
 relations of button manufacture on the other side, especially in Bohemia and Austria, 
 as 1 have gone through difierent factories there and know the wages paid in making 
 buttons. Our interests have been taken care of in the tariff fairly well heretofore. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What interests are you speaking of? 
 
 Mr. Liebmann. Covered buttons and metal buttons "particularly. The duty has 
 actually not been collected for various reasons. The principal value of a button is in 
 labor; the material in all classes of buttons is very little. So that it is almost im- 
 possible for an expert, even for a manufacturerhimself, to find out the value of a but- ' 
 ton. It certainly is impossible for the custom-house appraisers to do so. If, therefore 
 (as Mr. Knight has said), an ad valorem rate is imposed (no matter how low) and a 
 specific line rate, then we will know that something is collected at the custom-house. 
 As it is now, I do not think that 5 per cent, of a duty of 40 per cent, is collected on 
 account of undervaluations, and on account of the appraisers not understanding the 
 matter. There is another point, the deduction of boxes and packing, which has 
 almost ruined our business. To-day they import buttons from Bohemia, costing 
 there 12 cents a gross, and from that 12 cents a gross 8 cents is deducted at the cus- 
 tom-house for cards and boxes and packing. That is to say, they allow for the card 
 which the buttons are put on, the labor in putting them on, and the box itself. 
 Without the cards and boxes, the button is absolutely worthless; but still this 8 cents 
 being deducted from the 12 ceuts, the duty that is collected on what is left does not 
 aniouut to anything. If we got a duty of 25 per cent, ad valorem and of 1 centaliue 
 on glass buttons and horn buttons and metal buttons, we would bo satisfied, because 
 we would know tbat something was collected, but we do not know that anything is 
 collected now. 
 
 I returned this fall from a trip to Europe where I made it my particular busines to 
 go through Bohemia. Bohemia is the curse of this country so far as manufacturing 
 is coiicoiiii'd Tlie people there only hii-U' live, Tboy are cattle, Thoy work for 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF.' 709: 
 
 almost nothing. The little girls come to the factories at ten- years old or nine years 
 or seven years. Do you suppose tliat our women and men can compete against sucli 
 labor ? And these very same people who worlc there for almost nothing come over to 
 this country and want |2 a day and are labor agitators. 
 Mr. Batnb. How much do they pay in Bohemia ? 
 
 Mr. LlEBMANN. Thpy pay for a man about 50 or 60 cents a day. That is good wages. 
 They pay girls from 10 cents to 20 cents a day. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are the men worth that much ? 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. Yes ; they are good skilled workmen. They are the best work- 
 men I know, anywhere. 
 Mr. Flower. Why do they not all come here ? 
 
 Mr. LiBBMANN. A good many of them do come here. They can not make a decent 
 living there and are treated like dogs. Bat here they are our masters, our agitators. 
 ■Mr. Breckinridge. If they are so idle, as you say, I judge that their work isn't 
 worth 50 cents a day. "What mischief do they cause you ? 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. They are not idle there.' They are idle here. They give most of 
 their time to politics. 
 Mr. Gear. And vote the Democratic ticket, too ? 
 Mr. LiBBMANN. Almost all of them. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Are there any of them in New York who do not vote the Democratic 
 ticket? 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. Very few; but in my factory every one of them voted the Repub- 
 lican ticket last fall. 
 Mr. Bayne. How had they voted before ? . , 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. They voted with the Democrats because they did not understand 
 the question. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Does the fact that these Bohemaius voted the Republican ticket in 
 New York last fall account for Mr. Cleveland's gain of 18,000 in New York City? 
 
 Mr. LiBBMANN. 1 do not know. I am a very poor statistician. I only know that 
 any workman who is acquainted with the way that things are done on the other side 
 knows that these Bohemaius that come here are treated here like gentlemen and are 
 (so to say) our masters. We are only their subordinates. For the last few years, on 
 account of the undervaluation in buttons, our workmen have actually made mpro 
 money than we have made. We in our concern are pushers. We have a rejmtatiou 
 in this country of making best the fancy styles. We are doing very well and compare 
 favorably with European manufacturers so far as our buttons are con .erued. Up to 
 two years ago we wanted to make a fair line of goods, as every manufacturer does ; 
 and we stuck to it until we found that unless we made the same sort of goods as they 
 make in Bohemia, we would have to shut up shop. Therefore, I went to Europe this 
 spring in order to find out how things were done there and I found that in the parts 
 of Europe where buttons are made, the button industry was not very busy except in 
 Bohemia. In Bohemia they were very busy working day and night; and I thought 
 it was very funny how that was. I found that the importers in this country had 
 given very large orders in Bohemia for cheap goods, and that the prices there were 
 ftom 100 to 300 percent, less than anywhere else in the world. I found that the peo- 
 ple in Barman, in Germany, could no more compete with Bohemia than we could. 
 Against Bohemia there is absolutely no possibility of our working. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You said that the prices in Bohemia were from 100 to 200 per cent, less 
 than elsewhere. You mean, of course, 50 to 75 per cent, less ? One hundred per cent. 
 less would wipe out the whole business. 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. Well, it does wipe out the whole business. When you begin to 
 calculate against Bohemia, you do not know where you stand. The prices there are re- 
 markable. While I am a good protectionist naturally, I do not really like to shutout 
 competition from the other side entirely, because it gives us an animus in trade ; but 
 I do want to see our interests kept up, and the capital that is invested in them em- 
 ployed ; and yon can not do that unless you give us protection. We can not have fair 
 protection in the button business unless we have a specific duty of so much a line, 
 and unless the duty is restored on cards and boxes. 
 Mr. Baynb. How would half a cent a line do yon? 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. We would rather have a cent a line. Half a cent a line is not suf- 
 ficient protection, because the ad valorem duty is not collected at all. 
 Mr. Gear. Would it help you if the duty were restored on cards and boxes ? 
 Mr. 'LiEBMANN. It would be a big gain. 
 Mr. Gear. Would it be equal to half a cent a line ? 
 Mr. LiBBMANN. Not entirely, but it would help us considerably. 
 Mr. Gear. Would a duty of a half a cent a line and the restoration of a duty on 
 cards and boxes, combined, be nearly equal to 1 cent a line ? 
 
 Mr. LiBBMANN. Perhaps it would be equal to three-quarters of a cent a line, but it 
 would not be equal to 1 cent a line. But that matter we leave to you. We need . 
 protectioa, but it is immaterial to us in what way you give it. 
 
710 EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Is the button industry growing in this country ? _ 
 
 Mr. LiBBMANif. It was growing until those Bohemian buttons came in. Now it is 
 declining. 
 
 Mr. Brbckinkidge. Are you able to state how much is paid in Bohemia by the 
 gross for these different classes of buttons t 
 
 Mr. LiKBMAJfN. This button, for instance [indicating], is an ivory button, about 
 which I know very little ; but I can tell yon about my own line of buttons, metal or 
 brass. Where we, for putting together the different parts of this button, pay say 3 
 cents a gross, they pay on the other side for that same work 1 cent a gross, and in 
 some places less than that, because they employ their girls by the day and they pay 
 them almost nothing. 
 
 Mr. Breckinkidgb. Do they put theirs together by machines ? 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. Yes ; just the same as we do. 
 
 Mr, BRECKmRiDGE. How many gross of these buttons can one of your operators 
 put together in a day ? 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. Perhaps from 20 to 25 gross. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And the workmen in Bohemia put together the same amount ? 
 
 Mr. LiEBMAJfN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Brkckikridgb. Then where you pay CO cents for labor, they pay 20 cents ? 
 
 Mr. LiBBMANN. Yes ; we figure on a fair operative. Some operatives can make 
 $1.25, when others can only make 65 cents; but very few of our operatives are 
 making less than |1 a day. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And in order to make $1 a day in putting together the differ- 
 ent pieces of this button an operator would have to put up 33 J gross a day. 
 
 Mr. LiBBMANN. Yes; but that is only one operation. For instance, where we pay 
 
 2 cents or 2| cents a gross for carding they pay (in the same proportion) but half a 
 cent or three-quarters of a cent. Exactly the same proportions go right straight 
 through. 
 
 Mr. Breckintiidge. Where is your manufactory situated ? 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. In New York, on Canal and Center streets. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Can you prepare a full table of the rates of wages paid iu the 
 factories you visited in Europe and the rates paid here, and send it to the committee 
 (describing the classes of work) ? 
 
 Mr. LlEB.MANN. I will do so. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. You have said that in your opinion not more than 5 per cent, of 
 duty is collected on these goods ? 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. That is my firm opinion. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. On what importation or invoice do you base that opinion ? What 
 instance do you know of custom-house officials admitting these goods for only 5 per 
 cent, duty, and when was it^nd where was it ? 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. I do not care to speak about that. I have acquaintance with 
 manufacturers on the other side, and I would not like to betray their confidence. I 
 have imported these goods myself, and have seen how the thing was done. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Did you only pay 5 per cent, duty on what you imported ? 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. No, sir ; I did not. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. The custom-hoxise of&cials with whom you came in contact required 
 you to pay the full rate of 5 per cent.? 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. Yes, because I was honest. In Europe this summer I made it my 
 business to find out the actual cost of putting up these goods. I gathered it from 
 different manufacturers of buttons, and from card manufacturers, and from the girls 
 who sew the buttons on the cards ; and I found that the exact cost of this work was 
 
 3 cents a gross in Germany and about 2 cents a gross in Bohemia. The same thing 
 costs us here from 5 to 7 cents. I made these inquiries for the purpose of finding out 
 how the custom-house treats such matters. At one of the factories in Europe I gave 
 an order for about a thousand gross. This factory sends a great many of these goods 
 to America. The invoice came over with the price of the buttons on it and a deduc- 
 tion of 40 pfennings (about 10 cents) for cards and packages. Well, I being an hon- 
 est man, and knowing that these packages only cost 12 pfennings, went to the cus- 
 tom-house and told the appraiser that the packages had only cost 8 or 10 pfennings, 
 and I SP id, " What do you want me to do? " He said, " Give me your statement." 
 
 Mr. Gear. Who was this appraiser? 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. This was Mr. Cooper. 
 
 Mr. Gear. When was he appointed ? 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. He was certainly appointed by Mr. Harrison or else he could not 
 be a good man. He investigated the matter; and although I illustrated to him that 
 the cards and packing only cost 12 pfennings a gross, he could not, as the matter was 
 fixed at present, allow only 13 pfennings, but he allowed 30 pfennings. That is the 
 rule in the custom-house. Therefore you see how it works now. On a gross of but- 
 tons that costs 13 cents the appraiser deducts 8 or 9 cents for cards and boxes. And 
 now your question (Mr. McMillin's) is answered why only 5 per cent, is collected. 
 
REVISION OP TttB TAftlft'. 711 
 
 Mr. SnteCKlNRlDGB, And what is the real cost of the cards and boxes T 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. About 3 cents. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And you were credited with 8 cents for the cards and boxes? 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. Nine and a half cents was deducted. The next invoice of buttons 
 that I had I did as the others did. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And on your next invoice you paid the custom-house less than you 
 knew that the law required to be paid ? 
 
 Mr. LlEBMANJf. I went to the custom-house and paid what was required. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You went with your first invoice and made the custom-house officer 
 change the invoice because you Isnew that it was wrong ? 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. Exactly. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And your next invoice you did not have changed because you say 
 that other importers got this allowance ? 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. Excuse me ; I went to the custom-house a second time and inquired 
 whether this ruling had been changed yet ; whether they had looked into the matter 
 or only allowing a certain sum of cards and boxes Instead of allowing an extravagant 
 price. I was sent to the man who had that matter in charge and he told me that I 
 had a perfect right to deduct 8 cents a gross, as that was the ruling of the Department 
 and that it would be foolish on my part not to have this deducted. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And so you deducted 8 cents a gross the last time and only 3 cents 
 a gross the first time, and the reason why you did not deduct 8 cents the first time 
 was because you knew it was a dishonest act, and while you acted honestly in the 
 first instance, you performed a dishonest act in the second instance. 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. I did not do a dishonest act. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. How was it that such a change came over the spirit of your dream 
 of honesty f 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. It did not come over me. I do not believe that a man is dishonest 
 who does what he is told by the authorities that he has a perfect right to do. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But the same authorities had told you so in the first instance and 
 when yon went the second time you knew that the rate at which you paid the firsc 
 time was correct ? 
 
 Mr. LiKBMANN. I know it was correct. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But yet the first time you settled on a different basis T 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. But I asked first. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And after accusing other people of dishonesty, you settled at the 
 custom-house on what you knew to be a dishonest basis t 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. I have not accused other people of being dishonest. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Yon said something about no Democrat being honest. 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. Oh, no ; I did not say that. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. What was your statement? 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. A gentleman asked me whether Mr. Cooper was appointed under 
 the present administration and I said yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I asked you when he was appointed. 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. And I said that he was appointed by Mr. Harrison. Then a gentle- 
 man said that he must be an honest man, and I said he could not be otherwise. Ex- 
 cuse me (to Mr. McMillin ) . I have a partner who is a good Democrat and he Is a very 
 honest man. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. Having misunderstood your criticism, I merely wanted to see 
 what kind of an importer you were. You had an invoice changed one time because 
 you were too honest, and the second time, although you knew that the allowance 
 was wrong, you did not demand the change. Have you made a contribution to the 
 .conscience fund? 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. Excuse me. You do not understand me, or you do not wish to 
 vinderstand me. I will tell you exactly what I did. I went to work and I made 
 isuch deductions the first time as I considered right and honest, and I gave the 
 appraiser notice that such was the proper way of doing It. After a while 1 went 
 down to the custom-house to find out whether I was right, and the appraiser's assist- 
 ant told me "you have a perfect right to deduct 8 cents, and you act honestly in 
 doing 80." 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. And the second time you settled on the basis of an 8 cent deduc- 
 tion, although from your experience abroad you knew that was dishonest. 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. But when this man told you — this honest official — that it was 
 honest to deduct more than the real cost of the packing and covering, you changed 
 your notions and settled on the basis of 8 cents a gross t 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. I did not change my notions, but I accepted the instructions. My 
 notions to-day are the same. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. And yet you did not pay on the same basis as before, although 
 you were convinced that your first action was right? 
 
 Mr. LiEBMANN. Exactly. 
 
712 
 
 REVISION 01^ 'THE 'rARlFP. 
 
 Mr. Gear, la it aot tlie universal rale ill the appraiser's department to deduct the 
 cost, of these packages in every case? 
 
 Mr. LlEBMAJJN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Therefore you acted in accordance with the established rale of the Gov- 
 ernment 1 
 
 Mr. LuKBMAJSN. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is there not another way besides that in which the payment of duty 
 is evaded t Suppose you had found some good fancy-button manufacturer in Bohe- 
 mia who wanted a partner, and suppose you put $1,000 in the business with him, 
 and suppose he shipped his goods to you at New York at the exact cost of produc- 
 tion ; is not that done to a great extent ? 
 
 Mr. LrEBMANN. There is no doubt of it. 
 
 STATE'MENT op LEOPOLD MORITZ. 
 
 Mr. Leopold Moritz, of Philadelphia, said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am a bone button manufacturer, and we have got 
 pretty nearly the same trouble in that business as you have heard here from the otiier 
 button manufacturers. We manufacture collar buttons in bone as well as in ivory, 
 and I remember the time when I paid 50 cents a gross for the turning of these collar 
 buttons. Finally the price came down and down, until I sold them at 40 cents a gross. 
 But the next thing I heard was that they were importing them at 35 cents a gross ; 
 and the next thing I heard was that they were importing them at 30 cents a gross. I 
 heard to-day that a man sold some in New York for 30 cents a gross. Of course we 
 are entirely knocked out of that business. These buttons are all imported from Aus- 
 tria or from England. The New York people toid me that they paid 25 per cent, duty 
 on them, and if they are allowed so much for cards and boxes as you have just been 
 told, the duty paid on them would not be more than 5 cents a great gross. Bone 
 buttons are sold by the great groes. The button trade is generally a very bad trade. 
 It does not take much capital, and nearly anyone can start in it if he understands the 
 business. That is the reason why bone-button makers never get rich. 
 
 In the fall of 1888 I sold a good bone button at about $1.27 a gross ; but finally I 
 could not sell any more. I did not know what was the matter and I went to New 
 York to see about it. I offered buttons even for less, but could not sell them. Fi- 
 nally I wrote a letter to one of my best customers in New York saying that I wanted 
 to sell him some goods and that I was willing to sell them below cost. He wrote to 
 me in reply that if I had made him the offer some time before he would have ac- 
 cepted it, and could have sold from 2,000 to 3,000 gross of my goods, but that now 
 there was a new enemy in the field and that imported goods were being sold to the 
 trade in New York at |l the.great gross, and that if I could make him a price so that 
 he could compete with those imported goods, he was willing to place an order. The 
 goods were to cost about 85 cents landed in New York. That was the reply. Of 
 course I was astonished, as the buttons cost us about !jfl.25 a gross, and at least 92 
 cents of tuat is in labor. I should like to bring in a shin-bone to show how the but- 
 tons are made. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Bring in the shin-bone. 
 
 Mr. Moritz. Very well. Here [exhibiting] is a flat shin-bone. It is about the 
 lowest price of bone. We can not bTiy any other bone and can hardly pay for this. 
 That bone costs us in Philadelphia on the cars .$28 a ton, and out of that ton weight, 
 about 20 great gross of buttons is made. I mean by a great gross 12 small gross of 
 buttons. We pay for hauling the bone from the car to our place 75 cents. Then 
 we pay for carrying it in 25 cents. Divide that by 20 gross, and it makes 5 cents a 
 gross. Then both ends of the bone have to be sawed off [.showing specimens]. Here 
 is the same kind of bone only that the ends are sawed off. That costs 6 cents the 
 great gross. The next work is to saw them up in slabs like this [indicating]. That 
 costs us 19 cents. Now add 11 to 19 and it makes 30 cents. The next work is to put 
 the eyes in the button. We pay a young man for that 6 cents a thousand. It takes 
 2,000 to a great gross. That would be 12 cents. Add 12 to 30 and yon have 42 cents. 
 
 Then the buttons have to be cut out as you see here [indicating]. That costs again 
 12 cents for 2,000. That would make how much ? 
 
 Mr. Batne (in the chair). That would make 54 cents. 
 
 Mr. Moritz. I hope the chairman will count it up forme as I am afraid to make a 
 mistake myseli. That makes 54 cents. Then the button goes into a drilling machine. 
 It requires four holes. For that you have to pay 3 cents a thousand. Take J,000 
 again for a great gross, and that would be how much ? 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Sixty cents. 
 
 Mr. Moritz. Well, sixty cents. Then it goes into a scouring vat, where the work 
 costs 1 cent. That is 61 cents. Then the next thing is to Ij^ave them brought up 
 stairs and sorted. The broken ones ajid the buttons that are no good have to be 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 713 
 
 sorted out.' We pay 3 cents a .great p;i'oss for that. Tbat makes 64 cents. Tbo uext 
 tiling is to have them dried, and bleach(-)d, aud polished. I {generally do that myself, 
 and I do not know what to charge for it, so I will drop tbat item. Tbe nest "work 
 is to haTo it weighed. That costs a cent a great gross. Tbat is how much ? 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Sixty-fiTe cents. 
 
 Mr. MouiTZ. Then we need twelve of these boxes [indicating] and an outside box 
 that holds the twelve. That costs at least 6 cents. That would be ? 
 
 Mr. Batne. Seventy -one cents. 
 
 Mr. MoRiTZ. Then, in order to make these buttons, I have to employ an engineer 
 and pay him about $12 a week. The coal costs $10. Then I need a man to shlirpon 
 the lathes and fix the machinery and make the blocks, and I pay him $Vi. I can 
 only make about one hundred and sixty gross a week ; and that 'would make this 
 expense 20 cents more. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Tbat makes 91 cents. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Then you have to calculate your rent. 
 
 Mr. MORITZ. I do not want to count the renc. Now, I have paid out 91 or 92 cents 
 for nothing but labor, and 1 have yet the packing to do. I have to put them in cases 
 and send tbem to New York. 'J hen we have to pay for the bono. Now, gentlemen, 
 I told you that I paid ?i-iS a ton for the bone. Hero'is a written agreement which will 
 show you bow much I got for my waste. I got $22 a ton, but I have to deliver the 
 waste at the chemical works, which costs mejil a ton. Take $22 from $28 and I 
 would have to pay |0 for the bone; and adding |!l a ton for freight, would make it 
 $7. If I divide that by twenty gross, it would be 35 cents a gross, which will make the 
 buttons cost me $1.25 a gross. Now, I have not couuted the shop rent, interest, fire- 
 insnrance, etc. ; and yet tbey want us to sell for 85 cents the buttons that cost us 
 $1.25, as they say that they can import them below that. Here is the letter as to 
 shin-bones : 
 
 Delaware Eivbr Chemical Works, 
 
 Philadelphia, April 13, 1880. 
 Dear Sir : Agreeably to your letter of the 12th instant, we have booked your order 
 for our production of cut flat shin-bones until December 31, l-<^9, say about 2 to 2J 
 tons a month, at $30 per ton of 2,000 pounds, delivered to your teams at our works ; 
 and take from you clean dry button-bone scrap at $22 per ton of 2,000 pounds, de- 
 livered to our works as heretofore. Accidents to our work excepted. 
 You may send for a load any time. 
 
 Thanking you for the order, we remain, J'ours, truly, 
 
 Baugh & Sons Co. 
 
 Mr. Leopold Moritz, 1321 North Fifth street, Philadelphia. 
 
 Of course 1 needn't tell you that I felt very weak. I have made a living in this 
 business twenty years and I would not know to-morrow what to do if I gave up the 
 business. I know other people who are in the business longer than I am ; and if 
 they left it to-morrow they would have nothing to do. We are only working half- 
 time now ; and I tell you that 1 can not stand it much longer unless Congress does 
 something for us. I'am nothing but a workingman, and I like to staj' at homo ami 
 work. It gave me a good deal of trouble to come hero to-day, but I thought I would 
 do it as it is the last hope we have left. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is the duty on bone buttons now, and what duty do you want ? 
 
 Mr. Moritz. There is a duty of 25 per cent, ou buttons now, but I believe (as has 
 been shown to the committee) that that duty is evaded. I do not know what the 
 duty ought to be. I do not claim to understand the tariff business. I do not under- 
 stand it at all. All that I know is from New York importers. I think wo would be 
 sa.tisfied if we came in under the rubric of vegetable ivory buttons. That is my 
 opinion. 
 
 The following letters were subsequently received from Mr. Moritz : 
 
 Philadelphia, January 11, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: When I was before your committee, January 9, I told you all about 
 the manufacture of bone buttons. You told a party who was there before mo that 
 the committee would like to know what a man can earn in Germany . I was twenty- 
 one years old when I left there and the highest I received was less than 27 cents lor 
 twelve hours work per day ; bricklayers, twelve hours work, 40 to 45 cents, Ameri- 
 can money. I know that for sure. 
 
 Further, I wish you would be so kind as to say a good word for us poor button- 
 makers when a new bill is made. I saw in the newspapers that I said before your 
 committee that 25 per cent, duty would do on buttons. Either you or the newspapers 
 made a mistake. I said that we should be under the heading of mother-of-pearl and 
 ivory buttons, either 2 cents per line or 1 cent per line and 25 per cent, ad valorem, 
 nothing off for boxes and cartage. We have 25 percent, duty at present and we can 
 
1U 
 
 EEViSt61J OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 do nothiag. 1 would not trouble you, but the member from our disttict, Hon. Samuel 
 J. Randall, is sick. I hope you will do me that favor and I will be very much obliged. 
 Yours, most respectfully, 
 
 Leopold Moritz. 
 Hon. John H. Gear. 
 
 Philadelphia, January 12, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : I was before your committee January 9 and told you all about the man- 
 ufacture of bone buttons. When I came back to Philadelphia I saw in the newspa- 
 pers that I said before your committee that I would like to have a duty of 25 percent, 
 on bone buttons. I think it is a mistake, either by me or the newspapers. I think 
 I said that we should be under the heading of mother-of-pearl and ivory buttons — 
 either 2 cents per line or 1 cent per line, and 25 per cent, ad valorem, nothing off for 
 boxes and cartage. I know we have 25 per cent, duty at present, and we can do 
 nothing. 1 thought when I was before your committee that you were very kind to 
 me. I think jou will so kind as to correct that, and say a word for our good when a 
 new bill is made up. I would not trouble you, but the Representative from our dis- 
 trict, Hon. Samuel J. Randall, is sick, and I hope you, Hon. Rosweil P. Flower, as a 
 man, will not stand back, if you see something is right, and do a good thing for so 
 many poor button-makers, and I will be very much obliged. 
 Yours, most respectfully, 
 
 Leopold Moritz. 
 
 Hon. EoswELL P. Flower. 
 
 Vmvrs OP JACOB HOFFMAN & SON. 
 
 The following letter was received and ordered to be printed in the record : 
 
 Philadelphia, January 2, 1890. 
 
 Sir : In answer to your favor of yesterday will say, pearl buttons are sold by En- 
 glish measure, so called ; line gauge, 40 lines to an inch. At present these goods are 
 only protected with 25 per cent, ad valorem. Last year the manufacturers appeared 
 before the Committee on Finance of the Senate and urged for 4 cents per line; that 
 is, a 20-line button would be subject to 80 cents a gross, but only was allowed 2 cents 
 and 25 per cent, ad valorem duty. As we said in ours of 31st ultimo, nothing less 
 than 4 cents will ever bring .ibont a satisfactory result. 
 
 They are overflooding the American market with this inferior goods, sold as low as 
 6 cents a gross with present duty paid on it. We are obliged to pay alone 4J to 5 
 cents a gross simply to have them sewed up on cards and put in boxes, there is no 
 cost for material, even if we were to get the material for nothing and work our hands 
 to the lowest rate of wages, from, say, $4 to |7 a week. It would cost use very cent of 
 25 cents a gross without material, expenses of wear and tear. Five thousand people 
 could find employment here if only one-half of the buttons imported were made here. 
 The reason is they can place them on this market at such rates is the poor class of 
 people, not in Vienna, but in the villages and by the mountains where the poorest 
 class live, they work in the dwellings, and what kind of one! Here the whole family 
 down to the small children work and all earn a few kreutzers. Now, (iO krentzersis 
 about 40 cents Americau money. That is, the whole family together earns these few 
 kreutzers. Then again they are hired by contract as low, if we are not misinformed, 
 as low as 4J cents a man per day. We pay 5 cents to a boy that learns just for one 
 hour. 
 
 Thanking you for your prompt attention and be glad to give you any particulars, 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Geo. Hoffman, 
 Secretary of Pearl Button Manufacturer). 
 
 Hon. John H. Gear, 
 
 Hfiuae of Representatives. 
 
REVISION OP THE ■ TARIFF. 715 
 
 VrEWS OF IMPORTERS. 
 
 New York, January 29, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen: On account of misiuformatioQ as to the time of the hearing to be 
 given by you to the button manufacturers on the question of the import duties on 
 buttons, we were not present at the time when thoy expressed their views on the 
 subject, as was our purpose. But yonr chairman gave us permission to present in 
 writing our views on the subject, which we do as follows : 
 
 We are decidedly of the opinion that the import duties on buttons should not be 
 increased, and certainly not in the way proposed by the manufacturers who appeared 
 before you, and for the following reasons, to wit: 
 
 (1) The assessment of duties on buttons both by lines aud ad valorem would be 
 difficult; not uniform — bearing exceedingly heavy upon cheap buttons and very 
 lightly upon valuable buttons, and, therefore, misleading and unfair, making two 
 methods of assessing duty on one article, aud, therefore, cumbersome and useless; 
 open to errors of great magnitude and making fraud more possible and profitable, and, 
 therefore, tempting. 
 
 (2) The present rates of duty are sufficiently large to protect the domestic manu- 
 facturers, and any increase in the rates would only be to increase the proiits of the 
 maaufacturers of such buttons as can be manufactured advantageously in this coun- 
 try. It is known that one of the domestic manufacturers of metal buttous, who ap- 
 peared before you asking for increased rates of duty, made in profits in one season 
 over $50,000 on one style of metal buttons. And it is a well-known faetthat all man- 
 ufacturers of buttons in this country, who are engaged in the manufacture of such 
 buttons as can in any event be made profitably here, especially of metal and ivory 
 buttons, are making money largely every year. (The decrease in the value of im- 
 ports, alluded to further on, has a bearing upon this point.) 
 
 (3) Increased rates of duty would not bring increased rates of wages to the work- 
 ing-men, for the domestic manufacturer easily gets the present laborers and can easily 
 get all the laborers he may desire at the wages now paid, and manufacturers, even 
 in this protected country, do not pay higher wages to the working-man than they are 
 obliged to pay. 
 
 (4) Any increase of duty as proposed on metal, ivory, agate, and other cheap but- 
 tons would fall almost entirely upon such buttons as are used by the poorest and the 
 laboring classes of our citizens. 
 
 (5) The great majority of the buttons imported for use by the laboring classes, with 
 the exception of metal and ivory buttons, can not in any event be manufactured in 
 this country, and the increased duty on these buttons as asked for by the domestic 
 manufacturers, would result in an ad valorem duty of 400 to 900 per cent. For in- 
 stance, so-called agate buttons, which are used by our poorer citizens, by all our labor- 
 ing classes, men, women, and children, in every part of our country to secure their 
 shirts and all other necessary garments, would pay a duty of 900 per cent, ad valo- 
 rem, and they can not be manufactured in this country. Again, the cheaper qual- 
 ities of pearl buttons would pay a duty of 400 per cent., whilethe metal buttons used 
 80 very largely by poor people for their better class and heavier garments would pay 
 duty of from 150 to 200 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 These metal buttons are also considered by the poorer classes as adorning and 
 beautifying their poor and cheap garments as well as necessary for use, aud we cer- 
 tainly fail to see from any point of view why our poor, hard-laboring citizens should 
 be made to pay duties ranging from 150 to 900 per cent, on iheir necessary and or- 
 namental buttons, while our well-to-do, rich, aud non-producing citizens pay only 
 duties of from 25 to 35 per cent, on their buttons, ornaments and jewelry of silver 
 and gold, and of only 50 per cent, on their buttons and ornaments of silk, and so 
 high is the duty on buttons and ornaments of silk that the domestic manufacturer 
 has almost a monopolv in them ; only $55,583 worth of these were imported in 1886, 
 and the imports had fallen to |41,591 in 1889. 
 
 The value of the imports of all other buttons, not including brass and gilt buttons, 
 of which very few are imported, was, in 1886, $3,364,338.78, aud this had fallen in 
 1889 to $2,728,356. 15, showing a decline of nearly 20 per cent, in three years, notwith- 
 standing permanent rates of duty and increased population. 
 
 The fashions as to many kinds of buttons, leaving out those which are used by our 
 poorer people, and which are known as " staple goods," such as pearl, ivory, agate, 
 and metal buttons, change from time to time ; that is, buttons of certain materials 
 go out of use, and the domestic manufacturer must have his " ups and downs " as 
 well as all other manufacturers in the world, but this has nothing to do with rates of 
 duty, and has only to do with fashions, supply and demand, and business capacity; 
 and one chief trouble with the domestic manufacturer who have not continued 
 business was that they began business with insufficient capital. 
 
 As to the imputation of the domestic manufacturers that imported buttons are 
 
716 REVISION OP THE TAEIER 
 
 manufactured al)road "by convict laljor we positively assert and can conclusively 
 prove that such imputation is absolutely without foundation in fact. No buttons of 
 any kind are manufactured abroad by convict labor. And we do not believe that 
 there has been any undervaluation or fraud in the importation of buttons. "When 
 we consider that the present annual production of buttons in this country f;;reatly 
 exceeds in value Ihe annual importations, it certainly does not appear as if additional 
 protection were necessary, especially so when we know that the great majority of 
 im))orted buttons can not, under any circumstances, be profitably produced in this 
 country. The number of persons employed in jiroducing buttons in this country does 
 not reach seven thousand, and at the utmost not over ten thousand could bo employed 
 in this industry, and for this small number of persons employed iho domestic manu- 
 facturers ask that fifty millions of our citizens should be taxed from 150 to 900 per 
 cent., and this increase of tax would go to swell the profits of these manufacturers. 
 
 It is a matter of fact well known in this community, that the domestic manufact- 
 urers of metal buttons have been very successful in their legitimate business in the 
 last ten years, and that they are now making large profits. In fact, they are at this 
 time and have been for a considerable period supplying us with metal buttons at 
 cheaper rates than they can be imported for, and they are very active and earnest in 
 soliciting orders for the same. We therefore as earnestly protest against any increase 
 of duty on these buttons. 
 Eespectfully, yours, 
 
 B. Blumenthal & Co., Nexo York. 
 
 Rothschild Bros. & Co., New Fork. 
 
 S. HiKSCH & Co., New York. 
 
 DiECKHRHOFF, Eafflobr & Cc, New Yorh. 
 
 Geo. Borgfbldt & Co., Neio York. 
 
 A. Stei>tiart & Bed., New York. 
 
 Levi Bros., New York. 
 
 Ostheimer Bros., FhUadelphia. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 House of Representatives. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 717 
 
 PTJLP, PAPER, AND BOOKS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF EDWARD C. ROGERS. 
 
 Mr. Edward C. Eogers, of Springfield, Mass., president of the American Paper 
 Manufacturers' Association, addressed tlie committee on the subject of the duty on 
 paper. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I will occupy hut very little of your time. I couio 
 here as the representative of the paper manufacturers' association of the United 
 States, as I am president of that association. There are now three classifications of 
 paper — one 15 per cent, (unsized paper for newspapers), one 20 per cent., and one 20 
 per cent. This classification of 25 per cent, (the highest of all) was only a few 
 years ago 35 per cent., and it has been reduced down to 25 per ci^iit. 
 
 I do not know that we want to asls for anything special to-day. We think that 
 these duties are too low. If we were to suggest anything, it would be, perhaps, that 
 the second classification of 20 per cent, should be struck out, leaving only two clas- 
 sifications, one at 15 per cent, and one at 25 per cent. We would suggest this for the 
 reason that we think the second classification is liable to abuse from the fact that a 
 great many papers may be brought in that ought to pay the 25 per cent, rate, but 
 that come in possibly under the second classification of 2l» per cent. The amount of 
 paper that is commg in under that 20 per cent, classification is increasing quite 
 largely; and that leads tis to believe that much paper that ought to come in under 
 the 25 per cent, classification is coming in under the 20 per cent. 
 
 The Chairman. What did the Senate bill do in regard to that matter? 
 
 Mr. Rogers. The Senate bill, I think, left the 25 per cent, classification as it is 
 and left each of the others the same. 
 
 The Chairman. Then the Senate bill leaves the duties on jiaper as they are under 
 the existing law ? 
 
 Mr. Rogers. Yes; and our only suggestion would be, pprhaps, that the second 
 classification might be struck out if the committee thought it best ; but that we shall 
 leave to the committee. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What class of literature is printed on the 20 per cent, paper ? 
 
 Mr. Rogers. That is what we do not know. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. School-books and things of that kind? 
 
 Mr. Rogers. It is barely possible that some of it is used for that purpose ; but we 
 suppose that most of the gooils that come in under the 15 per cent, classification are 
 nsed for newspapers and cheap books ; anil our idea was that most of the goods that 
 come in under the 20 per cent, classification should come in under the 25 per cent, 
 classification. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is your reason for thinking that r 
 
 Mr. Rogers. Our reason for thinking that is that the amount coming in under the 
 20 per cent, classification in 18H8 was nearly double as much as in 1887, and that the 
 amount in 1889 was nearly treble of what it was in 1888. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You are now speaking of imports? 
 
 Mr. Rogers. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. If I understand you correctly, there are three classes of paper im- 
 ported; the lowest, the 15 per cent., being the ordinary newspaper, and the highest, 
 the 25 per cent, class, being the highest grade of paper, glazed and finished? 
 
 Mr. Rogers. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And the intermediate class is the class on which ordinary school- 
 books are printed, not so good as the glazed and not so inferior as the newspaper ? 
 
 Mr. Rogers. That should be true. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Your argument is that the increase of imports justifies an in- 
 crease of duties ? 
 
 Mr. Rogers. I did not ask for an increase of duties. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are you not asking an increase of duty when you are asking 
 for a change in the classification ? 
 
 Mr. Rogers. No, sir. I simply suggest that the second classification of 20 per cent. 
 should be struck out, as we are under the impression that the goods that come in 
 under that classifloatiou should properly come in under the S5 per cent, classiflcatiou. 
 
718 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Breckinkidgb. That would be an increase of duty. 
 
 Mr. RoGEES. Yes; but my idea was that this was an abuse. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinridge. You are viewing it from the stand-point of custom-house regu- 
 lations ? 
 
 Mr. Roger-s. That is all. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Why not have the law framed, so as to make it unquestion- 
 ably right to import them at 20 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Rogers. If all the goods that come in now under the 20 per cent, classification 
 are correctly entered, we have nothing to gay ; but, if those goods that come in un- 
 der the 20 per cent, clause, should come in under the 25 per cent, clause, there is an 
 abnse there which ought to be corrected. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then you wonld make no objection to the law being so worded 
 as to make it unquestionably correct to import at 20 per cent, those goods that now 
 come in at 20 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Rogers. No, sir. I have just stated that our impression was that many of the 
 goods that come in at 20 per cent, ought to come in at 25 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But that contention can be removed by making the matter so 
 plain that nobody will raise a question about it. 
 
 Mr. Rogers. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I understand you to say that you would not be opposed to 
 making beyond question the right to import these goods at 20 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Rogers. I would not be if they come in under the proper classiiicatiou. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Granting that the law should be construed to tax at 25 per 
 cent, these goods that you say come in at 20 per cent., the question would still re- 
 main, might they not be properly taxed at only 20 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Rogers. No, sir; we should not agree to that at all. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Just why ? On that point you have made no argument. 
 
 Mr. Rogers. If they ought to come in under the 25 per cent, classification that is 
 all that we ask. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But why ought we to put them under the 25 per cent, classifi- 
 cation ? 
 
 Mr. Rogers. Simply because it is so specified in the law. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But why ought it to be so specified ? 
 
 Mr. Rogers. I am not a Congressman. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But you are a manufacturer, and you came hereto advise Con- 
 gressmen. 
 
 Mr. Rogers. I simply say that if the goods that come in under the 20 per cent, 
 classification are of the same character or nature as the goods that come in under the 
 25 per cent, classification, they ought to come in under the 25 per cent, classification 
 while the law stands as it does. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I have asked you two or three times a question which is a step 
 slightly in advance of that — as to whether the law should not be made so as unques- 
 tionably to permit the importation of these goods at the 20 per cent. rate. 
 
 Mr. Rogers. The law, as it stands 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am talking of the law, as it ought to stand, leaving you to 
 substantiate the " ought." 
 
 Mr. Rogers. The goods manufactured in this country are to-day from 40 to 60 per 
 cent, lower than they were in 1860 (before the war). Competition has done this; 
 and the mills of the country (about one thousand or one thousand one hundred in 
 number) are capable of supplying all the wants of this country, and of manufactur- 
 ing enough more for a large exportation in addition to that. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are they able to export paper I 
 
 Mr. Rogers. Yes ; somewhat. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If they are able to export paper what do they want to protect 
 the home market for 1 
 
 Mr. Rogers. The exports are small. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It does not depend so much upon the volume as upon the fact 
 of your being able to export. 
 
 Mr. Rogers. The exports are small. There are certain things which we exported, 
 but the great bulk of the manufactured paper we can not export. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do these come in under the 20 per cent, classification t 
 
 Mr. Rogers. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is chat the only argument you have to mak« on the snbjeet of 
 the line of my question t 
 
 Mr. Rogers. Yes. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 719 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. JOHN L. McCABE. 
 
 Mr. John L. McCabe, treasurer of the Norwegian Wood Pulp Company of New- 
 York, addressed the committee. He said : ' 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, as the name and title of our company would indi- 
 cate a foreign corporation, I desire to state that it is not a foreign corporation. We 
 are all citizens of the United States and are engaged in the importation of foreign 
 wood pulps used in the manufacture of paper in this country. J appear before yon 
 to-day in opposition to the Senate bill of last year, changing the duties on all kinds of 
 wood pulp from an ad valorem to a specific rate , and also to ask that the duty on all 
 kind of wood pulp be removed. The clause in the Senate bill reads : " Mechanically 
 ground wood pulp $3.50 per ton, dry weight." The present duty is 10 per cent, ad 
 valorem, equal to about $1.25 per ton, dry weight. So that the Senate bill increases 
 the duty 100 per cent. 
 
 The present duty of 10 per cent, is prohibitory, as we can not import pulp from the 
 Scandinavian countries or any other part of Europe for less than 90 cents per 100 
 pounds, delivered on the dock at New York. Mechanically ground wood pulp is 
 worth to-day at the pulp-mills, scattered all over the United States, 75 cents per 100 
 pounds; so that domestic wood pulp is sold at the mills for $15 a ton, while foreign 
 pulp costs $18 a ton on the dock at New York. The two positions are relatively the 
 same. By the pulp-mills I mean the place of production. They have to deliver the 
 pulp to the place of consumption, the paper-mills. The price in New York is of 
 course at the landing point, and from there it has to be delivered, of course, at the 
 paper-mills. The cost of removal is not taken into consideration at all, as the one 
 about offsets the other. 
 
 The other articles mentioned in the Senate bill are: "Chemical wood-pulp, un- 
 bleached, $6 per ton, dry weight; bleached, |7 per ton." It increases the duty ou 
 these articles 25 per cent. The fact is that there is not enough pulp of these qualities 
 made in this country to supply the demand. It is necessary to bring the foreign pulp 
 here to keep the paper-mills working. The quality of that produced in this country 
 is not equal to the quality of the foreign pulp, consequently the paper-maker in this 
 country pays more for the foreign pulp than he does for the domestic pulp. 
 
 Mr. Flower. But the pulp produced in this country is made cheaper than the for- 
 eign pulp. 
 
 Mr. McCabe. It 1= sold cheaper, but the quality is not so good. 
 
 Mr. Flowbk. Is it not made out of the same material ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. It is made out of the same quality of wood. An effort has been made 
 to discover why it is not so good. The formula for making it is the same ; the ma- 
 chinery is the same ; the workmen are the same (having come here from Europe to 
 establish the factories) ; the patents under which it is made are the same ; and there 
 can be no reason given for the inferiority of the American pulp, except it be the 
 quality of the American fiber. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What kind of wood do they have here generally, and what kind 
 do they use abroad ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. Abroad they use the spruce, which belongs to the fir-tree family. It 
 is known there as the Norway pine, and in this country. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And we use the spruce here? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. Yes, for this kind of palp ; but there is another pulp made here called 
 the bleached soda pulp. It is made out of the poplar wood. That does not come into 
 competition with the foreign pulp. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is that a paper-maker's pulp f 
 
 Mr. McCabe. Yes, it is used in connection with rags. Foreign sulphite pulps and 
 soda pulps are used independently of rags. They take the place of rags. Rags are 
 free of duty, and, therefore, pulp should be free of duty. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. This particular pulp ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. All kinds of pulp. There are in this couutry about one hundred and 
 eighty mills at which ground wood-pulp is made. That is the article which is pro- 
 hibited importation under the existing duty of 10 per cent., and, in the face of that, 
 the Senate bill increased the duty 100 per cent., which is plainly an absurdity. The 
 poplar fiber which is used in counection with rags and with which the foreign pulp 
 does not come in competition, is sold at the mills at 3J cents per pound, while the 
 foreign soda pulp and sulphite pulp sell from 3.90 to 4.25 cents per pound. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Duty paid f 
 
 Mr. McCabe. Yes, duty paid. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What does the American pulp sell for T 
 
 Mr. McCabe. Three and three-fourths cents per pound delivered, 
 
 Mr. Flower. In what market ? 
 
720 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. McCabe. New York City. It is made at the pulp miUa that are scattered all 
 over the country. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Where are they ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. They range from Maine to California. Here is a list of wood-pulp 
 mills in the United States : 
 
 AHeghaoy Pulp and Paper Co., Big Inland, Va. 
 
 Allen &. Sherman, Plattsburch, N. Y. 
 
 Androscoggin Pulp Co., Portland, Me. 
 
 Augusta Pulp Co., Augusta, Mo. 
 
 Au Sable Pulp Co., Au Sable Chasm, K. Y. 
 
 Atlas Paper Co., Appleton, Wis. 
 
 Badger Paper Co., Kaukauna, AVis. 
 
 Budger Paper Co., Quinnease Falls, "Wis. 
 
 Battenkill Paper Co., Mi<ldle Falls, N.Y. 
 
 Bayless Paper Co., Bingliamton, N. Y. 
 
 Beaver Falls Pulp Works, Bbaver Falls, !N". Y. 
 
 Belden's Falls Pulp Co., Middlebnrv. Vt. 
 
 Bennington Falls Pulp Co., Middle Falls, N, Y. 
 
 BenningTOB Valley Pulp Co.. No. Bennington, Vt. 
 
 Berlin Mills Co., Portland, Me. 
 
 Birkett Bios., Pecoskey, jSlicli. 
 
 Birkett Maniitacturiug Co., Birkett, Mich. 
 
 BiuuJDgcr & Otis, Dexter, K. Y. 
 
 BlackniorePulp and Paper Co., Watervliet, Mich. 
 
 Black Kiver Paper Co. , Brownville, N. Y. 
 
 Brokaw Pulp Co., Kaukauna, Wis. 
 
 Brownville Box and Paper Co., Brownville, X. Y. 
 
 CaiTabassett Paper Co., Skowhegan, jiile. 
 
 Cascafie Pulp Co., Barnet, Vt. 
 
 Cascade Wood Pulp Co., Lockport, IST. Y. 
 
 Cataract ManQlaoturingCo., jS'iagara Falls, N. Y. 
 
 Catawissa Fiber Co., Cacawissa, Pa. 
 
 Centralia Pulp and Water Power Co., Centralia, 
 AVis. 
 
 Central Paper and Fiber Co., Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 P. C. Cheney Co., Manchester, N. H. 
 
 J. S. Clapp. Snow Falls, Me. 
 
 Clarion J'ulp and Paper Co.. Johnsouburg, Pa. 
 
 Cliff Paper Mills, Niagara Falls, N. Y. 
 
 Clemitt & Sadler, Greeu Forest, Va. 
 
 Cleveland Paper Co., Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 Columbia Kiver Paper Co., Portland, Oregon. 
 
 Conant & Co., Bath, N. H. 
 
 Cornwall Manulacturing Co.. Sun Harbor, Mich. 
 
 Cornwell & Co., Ypsilante, Mich. 
 
 Ctiahnoc Fiber Co , Augusti, Me. 
 
 I)eerfio]d River Co., Beadsborough, Vt. 
 
 Dexter Mecbaincal Pulp Co., Dexter, N. Y. 
 
 Diefendorf, M, E., Carthag.\ N. Y. 
 
 Duumore Pulp Co., Salisbury, Yt. 
 
 Dupont fcfe Co., Louisville, Ky. 
 
 Eagle Paper Co., Fiauklin, N. Y. 
 
 Ea^tc-rn Manulacturing Co., Bangor, Me. 
 
 Eau Claire Pulp and Paper Co., Eau Clare, Wis. 
 
 Empire Wood Palp Co., Black Eiver, N. Y. 
 
 Fall Mountain Paper Co., Bellows Falls, Vt. 
 
 Falls Manufacturing Co., Occmto Falls, Wis. 
 
 Farley Paper Co., Wendell Depot, Mass. 
 
 J''ibevit(i iianufacturing Co., Skowhegan, Me. 
 
 EoridaLake PulpandPaper Co., Watertown, N,Y. 
 
 Fuwier &. Co., Brainard, N. Y. 
 
 Fox Kiver Paper and Pulp Co., Kaukauna, Wis. 
 
 Fulton PaperCo., Fulton, N. Y. 
 
 Fuuke, F., Evansville, Ind. 
 
 A. Gavlor Pulp Co., Mishawaka, Ind. 
 
 ( ; ilbert & Boll, Cohoes, >J. Y. 
 
 (iillnjore, Leonard &. Co., Dexter, N. H, 
 
 Glen Manufacturing Co., Berlin Falls, N. H. 
 
 Glen Paper and Pulp Co., Hoosao Tunnel, Mass, 
 
 Glens Falls Paper Mills Co., Glens Falls, N. Y. 
 
 Glens Falls Pulp Co., Ticonderoga, N. Y. 
 
 Goddard Wood Paper Co., Wendell Depot, Mass. 
 
 Godfrey & Clark, Pittsburgh, Pa. 
 
 G. H. P. Gould. Lyons Falls, N. Y. 
 
 S. H. Gray Manufacturing Co., Newlierne, N. C. 
 
 Great Bend Paper Co., Gmat Bend, N. Y. 
 
 Green Mountain Pulp Co., Middlebury, Vt. 
 
 Hafllry PulpCo.,Hadley, N.Y. 
 
 ILiriling Paper Co., Kranklin, Ohio. 
 
 ]l;uper'H Ferry Paper Co., Harper's Ferry, W. V:i. 
 
 Hartford Pulp Co.; Hartford City, Ind. 
 
 Htrkimcr Paper Co., Lyons Falls, X. Y. 
 
 Jludflon Biver Manufacturing Co., Meant Pleas- 
 ant, N. Y. 
 
 nudsoD River Pulp and Paper Co., Tribune 
 BuaUmii,N,Y, 
 
 Jackson Lumber Co., Lockport, N. Y. 
 Jetferson Paper Co., Black iciver, N. Y. 
 Eaukauua Paper Co., Kaukauna. Wis. 
 Xennebic Fiber Co., Waterville.Me. 
 King.sley Bros., Salisbury. Vt. 
 Kokomo Wood Pulp tJo.. Xokouio, Ind. 
 Lake Sunupce Wood Pulp Co., Sunapee, N. H. 
 Lamoille V;tlley PuId Co,, Morrisville, Vt. 
 Thomas Lane, Valley FaUs, N. Y. 
 Lewis & Slocum, Be'avrr Fall.^ N. Y. 
 Lockport Pulp Co., LoGkp(jrt, N. Y. 
 Lvou-sdaln Pulp C(»., Lyousdale, N. Y. 
 Philip ilcGuire, Forest Port, N. Y. 
 Manufacturers' Paper Co., Luzerne, N. Y. 
 Marietta Paper Manufacturinii- Co.. Marietta, 6a. 
 Marinette and Menominee Paper Co., Marinette, 
 
 Wis. 
 Marion Pulp Co., Marion, Ind. 
 Martin, 0. E., Norwood. N. Y. 
 Mason-Perkins Co., Bri.slol, N. H. 
 Michigan Wood Pulp Co., Niles,Miob. 
 Mishawaka Pulp Co., Mishawaka, Ind. 
 Montague Paper Co., Turner's Falls, Mass 
 O. D. Moore, Lisbon, N, H. 
 Moore, Bro^Ti & Co., Concord, N, H. 
 Mooaehead I'ulp and Paper Co., Carratunk Falls, 
 
 Me. 
 Moo.se River Pulp and Paper Mills, Lyons Falls, 
 
 N.Y. 
 Muncie Pulp Co., Muncie, lud. 
 N'iagara Wood Paper Co., Niagara Falls, K.Y. 
 Norway Pulp Co., Monticello, Ind. 
 Ohio Paper Co., Miamisburgh, Ohio. 
 Ohio Paper Co., Niles, Mich. 
 Ohio Pulp Co.. Grand Rapids, Ohio. 
 Olcott Falls Co., Olcott, Vt. 
 Ontario PaperCo., Watertown, N. Y. 
 Orono Papei- and Pulp Co., Baniior, Me. 
 0.swegatcbie Pulp Co., Fiillerville, N. Y. 
 Oswego Indurated Fiber Co., Oswego, N. Y. 
 Oswego River Palp Co., Fulton, N. Y. 
 Otis FaBs Polp Co., Otis Falls. Me. 
 Outagamie Paper Co., Kaukauna, Wis. 
 Outterson Paper Manufacturing Co.,^Vatertown, 
 
 N.Y. 
 Passunipsic Pulp Co., Passumpsic, Vt. 
 Patten Paper Co., Appleton, Wis. 
 Penna Pulp and Paper Co., Lock Haven, Pa. 
 Piedmont Pulp and Paper Co., Piedinout, W. Va. 
 PiuniM^r Paper Manufacturing Co., Athens, Ga. 
 Pioneer Pulp Co., Alta, Cal. 
 Pioneer Wood Pulp Co., Gand Rapids, Mich. 
 Piscataquis B^aUs Pulp and Paper Co., Enlield 
 
 Me. 
 Potomac Pulp Co., Conowingo, Md. 
 James Raniage Paper Co., Monroe Bridge, Mass 
 Alvin Recoul, Livi rraore'Falls, Mo. 
 Reese Pulp Co., Kaukauna, Wi^*. 
 lieiningtoii, H. & Son, Black Kiver, N. Y. 
 C. R. F;eniington Sz Sons, Waterfown, N, Y. 
 Remington Paper Co.. Waterrown, N. Y. 
 E. S. Reynolds, SoulhBend, Ind. 
 Richards Paper Co.. Skowhegan, Me. 
 Rochester Paper Co., Rochester, N. Y. 
 Russell, Wiliard &: Co,, EeBows Falls, Vt. 
 Salmon River Paper Co., Malone, N. Y. 
 Saranac River Pulp and Paper Co., CadyvUle 
 
 N. Y. 
 Sebago Wood Board Co., South Windham, Me. 
 Shawmut Fiber Co., Somerset Mills, Me. 
 Shenandoah Pnlp Co., Harper's Ferry, W. Va. 
 South Bend Pulp Co., South Bend, Ind. 
 Sourh Edwards Pulp Co., South Edwards, N. Y 
 Spiuilding &. Shipley, Newport, A^t. 
 Spicer', Henry &. Sujis, Carthage, N. Y. 
 Spravue^-. IC'ellar, FuUerville, N. Y. 
 Stewart Bi-ort,, Ohiopyle, Ohio. 
 Stewart, J. M.. Hadley, N. V. 
 St. Lawrence Pulp Co., Gouverneur, N. T. 
 Sto<ldard PaperCo., Versailles, Cona. 
 M. W. Htokce, MiaUawaka, lud. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 721 
 
 Sugar Eiver Pulp Co., Newport, N. n. 
 Susquehanna Water Power and Paper Co., Con- 
 
 owinffo, Md. 
 Taggart Broa., Watertowp, N. Y. 
 Telula Paper Co., Appleton, "Wis. 
 Thilmany Pulp and 'Paper Co., Kanltaiina, Wis. 
 Thomson Pulp and Paper Co., Thomsouville, 
 
 N. T. 
 Ticonderoga Pulp and Paper Co., Ticondexoira, 
 
 N. T. 
 W. & R. Tiddy, Charlotte, N. C. 
 Tippecanoe Paper Co., Monticello, Ind. 
 Tomahawk Pulp Mill, Tomahawk, Wis. 
 Train, Smith & Co., Bristol, N. H. 
 Twigg Maoutacturin^ Co., Augusta, Ga. 
 TJmhagog Pulp Co., Livermore Falls, M.e. 
 
 Union Palp Co., Carthage, N. Y. 
 
 Ujiiled Indurated Fiber Co., North Gorhara, Me. 
 
 Tlnaed Idurated Fiber Co., Portland' Me. 
 
 XrtJca Pulp Mill, Utica, Mich. 
 
 W.J.Valentine, Warrenaburgh, N. Y. 
 
 Victoria Paper Mills Co., Fultou, N. Y. 
 
 "We.stern Indurated Fiber Co., Winona, Minn. 
 
 Westmoreland Paper Co., West Newton, Pa. 
 
 Wilder &. Co., Boston, Mass. 
 
 Wilkinson, Mell R., Banning, Ga. 
 
 Williamette Pulp and Paper Co., Oregon City, 
 
 Oregon. 
 C. H. WiUis, Stockbridge, Mass. 
 Winnipiaeogi-e Paper Co , Franklin. N. H. 
 Wisconsin Wood Pulp Co.. Ceni.ralia, WiS. 
 York Haven Paper Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How many sulphite mills are there in the United States? 
 
 Mr. McCabb. Accordino; to the latest list about twelve, at which, according to the 
 latest dates, about 87 tons per day are produced. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Where are those mills ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. They are in New York, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michisfan, Connecticut, 
 Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. Here is a list of them : 
 
 Alpena Sulphite Co., Alpena, Mich. 
 Alpha Fiber Co., West Carrolton, Ohio. 
 Barclay Fiber Co.. Saugerties, N. T. 
 Detroit Sulphite Fiber Co., Detroit, Mich. 
 Dexter Sulphite Pulp and Paper Co., Dexter, 
 
 N. Y. 
 Excelsior Paper Stock Co., Gaffstown Center, 
 
 N. Y. 
 
 Robert Fultou, Weymouth, N. H. 
 
 Miclu<;an Sulphite Fiber Co., Port Htu'on, Mich. 
 
 Mount Tom Sulphite Pulp Co., Northampton, 
 
 Mass. 
 New England Fiber Co., Turner's Falls, Mass. 
 Richmond Paper Co., Providence, R. I. 
 Wilkinson Bros. &. Co., Bjrmmcham, Conn. 
 Wisconsin Sulphite Filter Co., Monico, Wis. 
 
 There was consumed last year In the United States over 60,000 tons of chemical 
 pulps, of which 32,000 tons were imported and the rest were made here. There was 
 not enough made here to supply the demand. About 60 per cent, of all the chemical 
 pulp made and imported was consumed in making the paper on which the newspa- 
 pers are printed. That paper is made, in a great measure, out of wood pulp and the 
 better the sulphite fiber is the cheaper the paper is made. 
 
 Mr. .Flower. Have you any figures to show how many pulp-mills have gone into 
 operation in this country in the last six months ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. I have a list of sulphite mills, some of tbem not yet in operation. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I see in this list four mills in Watertown, N. Y., and I know that there 
 are twenty-three mills there. 
 
 Mr. McCabb. There are about 700 tons of news paper made here daily. About 290 
 tons are marde in New York State and the balance in other States. The producing 
 capacity of "news" mills is about 900 tons a day. There are about one hundred and 
 eighty of these mills scattered over the United States. There are altogether about 
 eleven hundred paper mills in this country, and all of them use more or less of this 
 sulphite fiber; but the greatest part of the fiber is used by the news-paper mills. Con- 
 sequently, if the duty is increased in the slightest degree on this sulphite pulp the 
 price of the paper for the daily newspapers is increased and the price of the daily 
 newspapers will go up. 
 
 There is another point to which I wish to call the attention of the committee. 
 Spruce wood is getting scarce all over the United States and also in Europe, and its 
 price is advancing. The rapid destruction of the forests in this country is not de- 
 sirable. A specific duty is not equitable because the grades of pulp are so various in 
 qualities and prices. A specific duty would operate against lower prices. If we 
 could go to Europe and buy at a lower price we can not get any a(lv.iutage fiom that 
 lower price when the duty is specific — so much a ton ; but an ad valoiem duty would 
 permit us to reduce the cost in proportiou as we buy at lower prices. I believe that 
 the only reason why a specific duty is advocated is on the ground of undervaluation. 
 
 We have been first in the business of the importation of wood pulp, and we nat- 
 urally should be the watch dogs for the Treasury in that regard and should watch 
 every importation and find out precisely how our competitors can undersell ivs. We 
 have been undersold continually, and we have lo.)ked into the matter and have failed 
 to find out or to have any one point out to us a single case of undervaluation in the 
 port of New York. Our competitors were able to buy lower than we did, and W9 
 had to come down also in our prices. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. What competitors are you speaking about? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. Other importers. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Do you have any market here ? 
 
 Mr, McCabe. A very large market; 32,000 tons were inijiortedlasti Tear. 
 
 Mr. BuEBOws. Are you a manufaclurej' of pulp yourseltf 
 
 Mr, McCabb. No, sir ; an im|iof tei?, 
 
 486 i6 
 
722 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. EuREOWS. Do you import anytliing but chemical pulp? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. Nothing. 
 
 Mr. BuKEOWS. How much does that cost you here delivered ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. The unbleached sulphite pulp is selling in New York at about $3.30 
 per 100 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Do you also deal in the ground pulp that is madein this country ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. Yes, sir, we deal in that also. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. It never was so low as it is now, was it? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. Never. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is the duty prohibitory ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. It is now. It costs 90 cents per 100 pounds to bring it here without 
 duty. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. It is the cheapness of the home product which excludes the impor- 
 taliou ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. Yes ; and it was brought about by the immense production of pulp 
 in this country. 
 
 Mr. Bukkows. You say that there is a scarcity of timber from which to make 
 pulp ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. There is a growing scarcity of timber all over the sections where it 
 was cut. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Was spruce timber, ever so cheap in the market as it is to-day ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. I do not know the prices of timber, at all. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Have you anv objection to tell us what this imported pulp costs 
 you 1 
 
 Mr. McCabe. We are not producers. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. But you are buyers of it abroad. You are importers. Of course, if 
 yon have any objection to state it you need not do so. 
 
 Mr. McCabe. I must decline to answer the question. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You are not asking any favor from Congress, I believe ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then you are not called upon to betray your trade secrets. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Any man who appears here to make his statement to the committee 
 should give us all the information he possesses. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You said that the increase of the duty on pulp would raise the price of 
 paper ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. Yes, if the duty is advanced. 
 
 Mr. Gear. About how much per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. Just as much more as the paper-maker would have to pay for the 
 pulp? 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much would that be! 
 
 Mr. McCabe. I can not tell. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You know what newspaper is worth to-day f 
 
 Mr. McCabe. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much would the increased duty on pulp advance the price of that 
 paper, per ream ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. The present price of newspaper is about 3 cents a jjound; I believe 
 the price would be advanced from 5 to 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much would that advance the cost of a daily paper ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. I do not know. They might make it an excuse for advancing the 
 price. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You made the statement that it would advance the price of daily uews- 
 papers. 
 
 Mr. McCabe. If they had to pay more for the paper they used they would, no 
 doubt, advance the price. ■ 
 
 The Chairman. If the duty were taken off pulp, would that lower the price of 
 the daily papers? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. We could import pulp cheaper and we could sell it cheaper. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. How much cheaper would you sell it ? 
 
 Mr. ftfcCABE. Just as much as tlie duty amounts to. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you think that the paper would be reduced in price ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. The price of pulp would be reduced. We have been reducing it 
 right along, and there is no reason why we should not continue to reduce it, if we 
 buy our stock cheaper. 
 
 The Chairman. Who would get the benefit of the reduction if we took the duty 
 off pulp ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. The paper-makers of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If they sold the paper correspondingly cheaper, who would get 
 thebeiieht ultimately? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. The people who bought the daily papers. 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 723 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinkidge. If there was competition among the paper-makers of the 
 United States the final beneficiary of the reduction would be the consumer of paper ? 
 
 Mr. McCabb. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much is a ream of newspaper worth? 
 
 Mr. McCabb. I can not tell you. 
 
 Mr. Lansing (a Representative from the State of New York), with the permission 
 of the chairman, said: 
 
 In regard to sulphite and chemical pulps made in this country they are not in need 
 of protection, as I have evidence (of course, of a private nature) that the sulphite 
 and chemical pulp manufacturers claim that they are making about 70 per cent, per 
 year profit ou their investment. 
 
 Mr. McKjenna (to Mr. McCabe). You do not believe that ? 
 
 Mr. McCabb. I should say not. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. If that were true, you would qnit importing right away and go into 
 paper-making ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. I would. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Why not go in it ? 
 
 Mr. McCabe. I will just tell you what we intend to do when the chemical pulp in- 
 dustry of this country is able to produce enough pulp and of a quality satisfactory to 
 the paper-mills. We will withdraw from the business of importing and go into part- 
 nership with them, or establish manufactories ourselves. 
 
 STATEMENT OP E. L. EMBREE. 
 
 Mr. E. L. Embree addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent the pulp-makers of this country; I rep- 
 resent an industry that employs a capital of about $20,000,000. We have in the 
 neighborhood of one hundred and eighty mills that are located in twenty-four difi^er- 
 ent States. We make an annual product of |12,250,000 in value. Ten millions is 
 paid annually to the men who are employed in the industry. Eighty per cent, of the 
 cost of American pulp goes to American labor, and 20 per cent, to the cost of wood. 
 Eegarding the statement just made that the American pulps are not of the quality of 
 the foreign pulps, and not suflScient to meet the demands of the American paper- 
 maker, I must deny it. Our mills are running to-day on half-time because we can 
 not find an output for oor goods on account of the large importation of foreign fiber. 
 The gentleman who last spoke (Mr. McCabe) made a statement that the duties have 
 been justly paid, and that there have been no undervaluations. 
 
 I have here a tabulation of the New York imports for the fiscal year ending June 
 30, 1889, showing that there were 34,000 tons imported at an average price of 1.56 
 cent per pound. I have here statistics showing that 99 per cent, of the last year's im- 
 portation was of the higher priced fiber — what we call chemical fiber. On account 
 of the low price of the American ground wood-pulps there have been few wood-pulps 
 imported for the last six months ; and the importation of the higher priced chemical 
 •fiber has been large. I make the statement that 99 per cent, of the pulps imported 
 was sold at .33 cents per pound, so that it is evident that there must have been gross 
 undervaluations somewhere. I have also here the imports from the various coun- 
 tries for 1889. It would be well for me to state here that the existing tariff law has 
 only one classification; and all kinds of chemical, andof ground wood-pulps, have to 
 come under this classification. What we call mechanically-ground wood-pulp is sim- 
 ply wood-pulp ground down, or rasped off, which is the lowest grade of wood-pulp 
 and which will sell in the neighborhood of 1 cent a pound. 
 
 Then there is a largely advanced quality of fiber called chemical fiber. For that, 
 of course, large and expensive plants have to be erected. The process is difficult and 
 intricate, and we have to use skilled labor and very expensive machinery. There are 
 two processes of making chemical fiber, one the so-called sulphite process, and the 
 other the soda process. The gentleman (Mr. McCabe) says he can not make sulphite 
 fiber here to compete with the foreign-made sulphite fiber. One of our mills has 
 made the finest sulphite fiber that was ever seen, and which brought a price 1 cent 
 per pound higher than any foreign pulp brought into this market. Regarding the 
 soda pulp, it goes into a class of packing and wrapping papers ; and under this pro- 
 tective tariff the prices of paper have declined to the lowest point ever known in the 
 history of the trade. 
 
 Before the war news paper sold at from 8 to 9 cents a pound ; during the war it 
 went up to 26 cents a pound, and to-day it has fallen to 3 and 3-J- cents, under the 
 operation of the competition from home manufacture. News paper was never known 
 to be as low as at present. 
 
 Mr. Breckineidgb. Has the price gone down abroad also? 
 
 Mr. Embrbe. Yes; but not to the extent that it has gone down in this country. 
 
724 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it lower here than there ? 
 
 Mr. Embreb. No, sir ; the prices are about equivalent in both countries. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If the price abroad is about the same as the price here it has 
 gone down about the same. 
 
 Mr. Embree. Their prices were not so high a few years ago as ours, and so there 
 has not been the same decline there as here. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is that true as to paper generally ? 
 
 Mr. Embree. No; I am talking of newspaper. 
 
 Mr. Flower. In fixing the duty you take the ground wood-pulp at 90 cents the 
 100 pounds and the chemical pulp at |2.70, and you average it all at |2f 
 
 Mr. Embree. No ; I have not made any statement of what we would like. I made 
 a statement that 99 per cent, of the imports was of this high grade of stock, and 
 yet the average price was only 1^ cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. McCabe (the last witness). The gentleman (Mr. Embree) evidently takes the 
 average foreign cost as the import value of the goods. Thirty-four thousand tons 
 were landed in the port of New York last year. These 34,000 tons consisted of every 
 grade of pulp brought iu here, from ground wood-pulp up to the highest priced 
 bleached sulphite pulp, costing on the dock, with duty, 4^ cents, and the ground 
 wood-pulp costs about nine-tenths of a cent. Now, when you try to take an average 
 you are mixing water and oil. The two things do not mix at all. In order to get at 
 the proper invoice value you have to get each particular kind of pulp by itself, the 
 bleached sulphite, costing so much, the unbleached sulphite, costing so much, and the 
 ground wood-pulp, costing so much. 
 
 The Chairman (to Mr. McCabe). Is that a question, or is it in the nature of a 
 statement f 
 
 Mr. McCabe. I ask Mr. Embree whether he is taking the average price in this 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. Embree. I have taken the average price on which duty is paid — the foreign 
 price— and that average was only 1.56 cent per pound. 
 
 Mr. McCabe. Was not that average brought down by taking in the cost of ground 
 wood-pulp ? 
 
 Mr. Embree. It is extremely difficult to tell the extent of ground wood-pulp as 
 compared to chemical fiber, and this substantiates the demand that there should be 
 more than one classification. The Paper Trade Journal — a representative journal 
 published iu New York — states, in reviewing the paper industry of last year that, 
 out of the 34,000 tons of imported pulp (which includes all classes) .S2,000 tons were of 
 the higher, or chemical pulp, and only 1,900 tons of the mechanical or ground wood- 
 pnlp. The gentleman (Mr. McCabe) says that these chemical pulps are of a higher 
 class ; ranging up, and yet the average price on which duty was paid on that im- 
 portation was only 1^ cents a pound. I have a statement of the imports here. 
 
 The Chairman. Hand them to the reporter. 
 
 Mr. Embree. I will refer again to the Paper Trade Journal, of January 4, in its re- 
 view of the chemical pulp market. It quotes the selling prices at the beginning of 
 the year, and at the close the prices ranged from $3.30 per one hundred pounds for un- 
 bleached soda pulp to |4. 25 and $5.12^ for bleached sulphite pulp. You can readily 
 see that the average of all the pulps would be an undervaluation. I would say in 
 reference to the reclassification in the Senate bill, that at the time it was proposed 
 Mr. Allison was very particular that the duty should not be increased, and we were 
 very careful to take 10 per cent, on the foreign prices then ruling in the port of Hull 
 England, and the prices were figured at 10 per cent, on the ad valorem basis — thus 
 practically, not changing the data, only making it specific, instead of ad valorem. 
 
 There being but one classification under existing tariff, viz, " wood-pulp dried for 
 paper-maker's use " — and two grades of vastly different value and quality are imported 
 under this one head — it is somewhat diflicult to arrive at respective quantity of each 
 grade, but the Paper Trade Journal, published at New York City, and a representa- 
 tive authority for the paper industry, has tabulated each importation, giving place 
 of shipment and quality of same for year ending December 31, 1889. I also append 
 this statement in detail, showing that during 1889 there were imported 32,088 tons 
 of chemical wood-pulp, and 1,911 tons of ground or mechanical wood-pulp, making a 
 total of 13,999 tons. 
 
 The same journal, under date January 4, 1890, in reviewing the chemical wood- 
 pulp market for imported pulps for 1889, quotes the selling prices at the beginning 
 of the year, and those ruling at the close ; these I also append. 
 
 You can readily see that the average valuation per pound is only slightly in excess 
 of 1^ per cent., or PO per ton of 2,000 pounds, as per record of custom-house to July 
 1, 1889, and by reference to table of imports, that over 99 per cent, of the total im- 
 portation wag of the higher and most costly grade, viz, chemical wood-pulp selling 
 at port of New York as per Paper Trade Journal's quotation at prices ranging from 
 f 68 to $85.12 per ton of 2,000 pounds. 
 
 We are not asking unreasonable protection, in reqneeting that the duty be changed 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 725 
 
 from an ad valorem lO-per-oent. basis to a specific basis under the following classi- 
 fications, as follows : 
 
 Mechanical ground wood-pulp, |2.50 per ton, dry weight. Chemical wood-pulp, 
 unbleached, $6 per ton, dry weight, bleached, |7 per ton, dry weight 
 
 The following are the statements of imports, average prices, etc., referred to by 
 Mr. Embree. 
 
 Import), January 1 to December 31, 1889. 
 
 
 Chemical 
 wood-palp 
 
 Ground 
 wood-pulp. 
 
 
 Chemical 
 wood-pulp. 
 
 Ground 
 wood-pulp. 
 
 
 Tons. 
 
 167 
 
 1,210 
 
 6 
 
 3,769 
 
 1,700 
 
 40 
 
 120 
 
 360 
 
 5,119 
 
 1,676 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Hull 
 
 tons. 
 
 4,346 
 
 41 
 
 610 
 
 364 
 
 830 
 
 400 
 
 1,165 
 
 10, 168 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Antwerp 
 
 
 
 
 Bristol 
 
 
 
 
 Christiana 
 
 530 
 360 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I)andee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Glasgow 
 
 
 Stettin 
 
 
 
 1,000 
 
 
 
 
 32, Oijg 
 
 1 911 
 
 
 
 
 Average prices for the year 1889. 
 
 Opening 
 
 year. 
 
 Cloae of 
 year. 
 
 Unbleached: 
 
 Per ton of 2,240 pounds 
 Per ton of 2,000 pounds 
 
 Bleached; 
 
 Per ton of 2,240 pounds 
 Per ton of.2,000 pounds 
 
 $73. 98 
 65.88 
 
 96.04 
 85.12 
 
 $70. 66 
 63.00 
 
 91.64 
 
 [I^om the Paper Trade Journal, published in New York City, under date January 4, 1890. 1 
 1889 — Opening prices for the following grades of chemical tcood-pulps. 
 
 Unbleached soda.—'i to 3.30 cents per pound, or $67.20 to $73.02 per ton of 2,240 
 pounds ; $H0 to $66 per ton of 2,000 pounds. 
 
 Bleached soda.—'i^ to 4.15 cents or $81.20 to $92.96 per ton of 2,240 pounds ; $72.50 
 to $83 per ton of 2,000. 
 
 Closing prices for the same grades and qualities. 
 
 Unbleached soda.— 2.85 to 3.30 cents per pound or $63.84 to $73.92 per ton of 2,240 
 pounds ; $.57 to $66 per ton of 2,000 pounds. 
 
 Bleached soda.—ii to 4.15 cents per pound, or $78.40 to $92.96 per ton of 2,240 
 pounds ; $70 to $83 per ton of 2,000 pounds. 
 
 1889 — Opening prices for the following grades of chemical wood-pulps. 
 
 Unbleached sulphite.— 'i^ to 3f cents per pound, or $70 to |84 per ton of 2,240 pounds ; 
 $62.50 to $75 per ton of 2,000 pounds. 
 
 Bleached 8«i^W(e.—4i to 5J cents per pouad, or $95.20 to $114.80 per ton of 2,240 
 pounds; $82.50 to $102.50 per ton of 2,000 pounds. 
 
 Closing "prices for the same grades and qualities. 
 
 Unbleached sulphite.— 2.85 to 3.60 cents per pound, or $63.84 to $80.84 per ton of 
 2,240 pounds; $57 to $72 per ton of 2,000 pounds. 
 
726 
 
 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Bleached swlphite. — 4J to 5 cents per pound, or ! 
 
 182.50 to ,$100 per ton of 2,000 pounds. 
 
 95.20 to piSperton of 2,240 pounds ; 
 
 Origin. 
 
 Anstria and 
 Hnngary. 
 
 Germany. 
 
 England. 
 
 Sweden and 
 Norway. 
 
 Nova Scotia, etc. 
 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 1888. 
 Jnly 
 
 90, 167 
 244,739 
 402, 873 
 345, 839 
 377, 605 
 
 46, 033 
 
 269, 311 
 153, 366 
 647, 641 
 
 271, 811 
 66, 145 
 
 272, 277 
 
 $2, 199 
 6,746 
 9,435 
 8,294 
 8, 527 
 1,116 
 
 6,141 
 4,296 
 12, 914 
 6, 984 
 1,467 
 6,220 
 
 2, 048, 234 
 
 896, 031 
 
 1, 228, 658 
 
 1, 038, 623 
 
 1, 546, 192 
 1,388,238 
 
 2, 880, 843 
 2,111,169 
 1, 114, 457 
 2, 065, 252 
 1, 679, 205 
 1, 856, 452 
 
 $42, 527 
 20, 098 
 30, 198 
 20, 764 
 38, 529 
 25, 345 
 
 59, 074 
 51, 636 
 22, 434 
 42, 571 
 33, 938 
 36. 209 
 
 336, 500 
 285, 846 
 240, 800 
 309, 482 
 248, 070 
 711, 536 
 
 437, 636 
 620, 072 
 302, 774 
 411,095 
 313, 915 
 173, 600 
 
 $7, 761 
 6,209 
 5, 615 
 8,842 
 6,118 
 
 16, 467 
 
 10, 299 
 14,386 
 6,741 
 9,211 
 6,982 
 3,948 
 
 6, 166, 793 
 1, 897, 364 
 
 1, 439, 649 
 2, 706, 103 
 
 2, 717, 610 
 4, 697, 106 
 
 3,157,003 
 3, 096, 389 
 7, 238, 460 
 3,919,000 
 2, 014, 283 
 2, 875, 781 
 
 $45, 305 
 22, 864 
 14, 272 
 37, 849 
 30, 740 
 53, 939 
 
 32, 910 
 48, 343 
 74, 883 
 61, 063 
 
 33, 6.57 
 41, 481 
 
 
 
 ^ng 
 
 Sept 
 
 43, 200 
 
 $540 
 
 Oct 
 
 Not 
 
 
 
 
 
 Deo 
 
 
 
 1889. 
 Jan 
 
 
 
 Feb 
 
 
 
 March' . , . 
 
 
 
 April 
 
 
 
 May 
 
 Jnne 
 
 5,000 
 
 41 
 
 
 
 
 Total.. 
 
 3,085,607 
 
 72, 338 
 
 19, 853, 364 
 
 423, 243 
 
 4, 391, 176 
 
 102, 668 
 
 41, 825, 640 
 
 487, 206 
 
 48, 200 
 
 581 
 
 EECAPITTJLATION. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Austria and Hungary 
 
 Germany 
 
 England 
 
 Sweden and Norway.. 
 Nova Scotia, etc 
 
 Total 
 
 3, 085, 607 
 19,8.53,354 
 
 4, 391, 176 
 41, 825, 540 
 
 48, 200 
 
 $72, 338 
 423, 243 
 102, 668 
 487, 206 
 581 
 
 69, 203, 877 
 
 1, 086, 036 
 
 Or 34,609 tons, at an average of .0156 cent per pound. 
 
 STATEMENT OP E. F. BBRMINGHAM. 
 
 Mr. E. F. Bermingham, of Dexter, N. Y. said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I appear before yon on behalf of the Dexter Sulphite 
 Pulp and Paper Company of Dexter, Jefferson County, New York State. I would 
 respectfully request that in the formulation of your new tariff law you give bi-sul- 
 phite fiber a proper classification, "which it has never had. It is now being imported 
 under the classification of "Wood-pulp," which is the cheapest fiber manufactured, 
 no chemicals whatever or much labor being required in its preparation. Bi-sulphite 
 fiber is the most expensive fiber to manufacture of the chemical fibers. The construc- 
 tion of any plant for its manufacture requires a large investment of money, and 
 owing to the nature of the process its maintenance is always expensive. 
 
 We give employment to two hundred and fifty men. 
 
 I would further respectfully request that a specific duty be imposed of |110 per ton 
 (of 2,000 pounds) on the unbleached bi-sulphlte and $15 per ton on the bleached bi-sul- 
 phite. 
 
 We do not want an ad valorem duty, which only furnishes opportunities for evad- 
 ing the collection of the proper duty. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 727 
 
 STATEMENT OP COL. GEORGE W, THOMPSON. 
 
 Col. Geokgb W. Thompson next addressed the committee. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is there any difference between the prices of white and colored 
 papers? 
 
 Colonel Thompson. There is a great difference. There is not a large quantity of 
 colored paper imported. Prices are very high ; at least 50 to 7.5 cents per pound. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The reason I ask the question is that yon propo.se the same rate of 
 duty upon all per pound, so that it would be very high upon the lower and very low 
 upon the higher classes. 
 
 Colouel Thompson. These higher goods we do not care so much about. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The duty is now 25 per cent., while paper is worth 16 cents per . 
 pound. 
 
 Colonel Thompson. Sixteen to 18 cents per pound for lower grades. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. So that a specific duty of 8 cents would be nearly 50 per cent. 
 
 Colonel Thompson. Yes, sir ; the old duty was 35 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Why not make it 15 per cent more ad valorem ? 
 Colonel Thompson. It would not be sufficient or satisfactory. We want to manu- 
 facture the paper here. We have put in m,achinery costing $10,000, and as soon as we 
 commenced to make the goods the prices of the imported article dropped so low that 
 we could not compete, and we have been obliged to suspend its manufacture. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is this used as wrapping-p.aper by silversmiths and druggists ? 
 
 Colonel Thompson. Not much by druggists. It is used as wrapping-paper by sil- 
 versmiths. Tissue-papers require more labor than ordinary papers. The labor on 
 ordinary papers would be 50 per cent, less than the cost to manufacture tissue-papers. 
 It is on account of this cost of labor that we can not manufacture them here. The 
 difference in labor on this class of goods between this country and Europe is more 
 than 100 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you use substantially the same machinery? 
 
 Colonel Thompson. Their machinery is a little different in construction from that 
 we have here. It is substantially the same. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is it equal to ours ? 
 
 Colonel Thompson. It is. There is only one machine at present in this country 
 calculated to make this paper. Others can be changed in probably three or four 
 months so as to m,ake tissue goods. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. Is that used for copying-books ? 
 
 Colonel Thompson. Yes, sir; some of it is imported now already made up into 
 copying-books, and the covers are made and sent here separately, and the books com- 
 pleted after they reach here. 
 
 Mr. MoMlLLlN. For what purpose is it used by druggists? 
 
 Colonel Thompson. Druggists do not use it much. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is this paper not used by druggists for filtering? 
 
 Colonel Thompson. There is not a large consumption of it for that purpose. 
 
 The Chairman. What effect would the increase of duty have upon the price? 
 
 Colonel Thompson. It would increase the price temporarily, but not very much. 
 Mills here would commence to make it, and as soon as they found there was money 
 in it other mills would change their machinery, and the price would soon find its 
 level. They would have to make an agreement among themselves that the price 
 should not be reduced so low that we could not manufacture it at a profit. It would 
 soon be down to nearly as low a price as it now is. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. State the different values of these papers. What is the lowest 
 value ? 
 
 Colonel Thompson. From 80 cents to |1 per ream for copying-paper. Of the col- 
 ored papers some are |5, |6, and |7 a ream. One color is .$15 a ream. 
 
 Mr. Breckinhidge. Can you not state the prices in pounds ? 
 
 Colonel Thompson. Yes, sir ; the lowest price is about 16 cents per pound for the 
 goods we wish to make. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I want you to confine your statement to expression in pounds. 
 Leave out the element of reams. Can you not state it as well in pounds ; is it not 
 taxed on a pound basis ? 
 
 Colonel Thompson. A 6 cents pound paper is 90 cents a ream, or 16 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Leave out the expression "ream." I ask yon to put the cal- 
 culation in pounds. 
 
 Colonel Thompson. Yes, sir. The present prices of imported tissues .are from 16 
 cents up to 50 cents per pound. The tax is about 4 to 5 cents per pound, according 
 to the weight of the paper. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is the cheapest paper per pouhd under this classification? 
 
 Colonel Thompson. About 16 cents. 
 
728 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I thought you said 7 cents a pound was the price of some 
 paper ? 
 
 Colonel Thompson. I said $6 to $7 a ream, or from 16 to 50 cents a pound for 20 to 
 30. There is no paper as low as 6 or 7 cents per pound. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Sixteen and 17 cents is the lowest price by the pound of these 
 papers ? 
 
 Colonel Thompson. Yes, sir. 
 
 COPYING PAPERS, CIGARETTE PAPERS, Etc. 
 
 Brooklyn, N. Y., December 17, 1889. 
 
 Dear Sir: I am instructed by the American manufacturers of thin papers, for 
 whom the gentlemen whose names are signed at the foot of this communication have 
 been appointed a committee to bring tlie condition of their industry to the attention 
 of your committee. I attach hereto sample sheets of the paper in qiiesiion, which is 
 used chiefly in the manufacture of letter-copying books. It is also consumed in large 
 quantities by manufacturers of silver- ware, jewelry, and other articles, and for great 
 var.ety of other purposes. You will probably be astonished to hear that for a long 
 period it has been found impossible to manufacture it in the United States and sell it 
 in competition with the imported merchandise. At the present time all the machin- 
 ery used in its manufacture is lying idle. The Ivanhoe Mill at Paterson, N. .7., which 
 was built and splendidly equipped at great cost for the express purpose of manufact- 
 uring such papers, has not been running at all for several years, with the exception 
 of the short period stated below. A capitalist of this city, some months ago, pur- 
 chased it under the impression that as all other mills had ceased its manufacture and 
 the price of foreign papers had, as usual, when the domestic manufacturer is driven 
 out of the market, increased considerably in price, he would be successful, but he 
 found himself in the same position as the other manufacturers, ind the mill is once 
 more closed. Consequently every consumer of the article is now dependent on the 
 foreigners for his supply. 
 
 It is unnecessary in this communication to enter into the qu^'stion as to the differ- 
 ence in the rate of wages between the European countries aD*t the United States. 
 There is, however, one fact well worth calling your attention to. An elaborate ar- 
 ticle on the subject, published in the Paper Trade Journal recently, gave statistics 
 showing that in a certain mill in Europe, manufacturing tl/\s particular kind of 
 paper, the average rate of wages paid is a little in excess of IP cents per day. 
 
 The question whether these papers shall be manufactured in the United States or 
 not is entirely one for your committee and Congress. Under the present tariff act 
 such papers are classified for duty under 3926 at 25 per cent, ad valorem. Underval- 
 uation is practiced to a certain extent by a few importers iu whose hands the trade 
 now is. Investigations now going on, by the order of the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 proves this beyond doubt. ITherefore the amount of duty collected is small, and 
 for all protective purposes the article might as well be placed on fthe free list as be 
 subject to a duty of 25 cent, ad valorem. The most thorough and careful investi- 
 gations, extending over the past ten months, have been made into the real needs of 
 the manufacturers to enable them to successfully compete with the foreigners. 
 Careful consideration has been given to the cost of every article entering into its 
 production, and precise calculations show that with the duty placed at 8 cents per 
 pound and 15 per cent, ad valorem it can be manufactured at a fair profit in 
 American mills and sold at a less price to the consumer than when the market is en- 
 tirely under the control of the importing merchant. 
 
 Col. George W. Thompson, the head of the Diamond Mills Paper Company, who 
 own two mills in New Jersey and one in New York, has been a practical paper manu- 
 facturer for over forty years. He instructs me to say that with tlie above rate of 
 duty the pay-roll on such papers manufactured in his own and other mills with which 
 he is acquainted would amount to at least $1,000,000 per annum. Further, about 90 
 per cent, of the materials used in the manufacture are of domestic production. This 
 statement proves the importance of the industry. 
 
 I am therefore instructed to ask that in the tariff bill now being prepared by your 
 committee the following special clause relating to the papers under consideration be 
 included therein : 
 
 " Papers known commercially as copying papers, cigarette paper, filtering paper,, 
 silver paper, and all tissue paper, white or colored, weighing on a basis of 20 by 30, 
 480 sheets, 12 pounds and under, whether made up in copying books, reams, or in 
 any other form, 8 cents per pound, and in addition'thereto 15 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 It is believed that no ad valorum rate however high would be satisfactory. All 
 materials used in the manufacture of the paper are bought and sold by weight. The 
 
REVISION OP THE TAEIFF. 729 
 
 paper itself when sold in quantities is also sold by weight. Therefore the natural 
 and proper tariff should be a specific one. 
 
 The gentlemen named are prepared to appear before you on any date you may no- 
 tify either Colonel Thompson or myself to answer any questions your committee may 
 desire to put. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 W. H. OSBOEN, 
 
 Attorney and counsel. 
 G. M. Thompson, Diamond Mills Paper Company. 
 Ja8. Tompkins, Jersey City Paper Company. 
 Fbank H. Whittlesey, Windsor Locks Mills. 
 A. F. Hand, Peekskill Mills. 
 Committee acting on iehalf of American manufacturers of thin paper. 
 Hon. William McKinlby, Jr. 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 STATEMENT OF "WILLIAM H. OSBORNE. 
 
 Mr. William H. Osborne, of Brooklyn, N. Y., next addressed the committee. He 
 said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear as counsel for all the 
 manufacturers of thin papers in the United States. The papers in question, a sample 
 of which is attached to my brief, are copying papers, tissue papers, cigarette papers, 
 aud all papers of that character. A committee of gentlemen interested in the sub- 
 ject was appointed to come here, but, unfortunately, all have been taken sick, with 
 the exception of Colonel Thompson, who has been engaged iu the manufacture of 
 paper over forty years, and whom, when you examine him, will cover the practical 
 portion of the subject much better than I can. Therefore I propose to address you 
 very shortly, explanatory of my brief, which I will band in to the stenographer at the 
 conclusion of my remarks. 
 
 There is not at the present time one pound of these papers manufactured in the 
 United States. Formerly, certain firms, some specially established, manufactured 
 aU that was required here. But in the face of the importations, chiefly from Ger- 
 many and France, and now also from Russia, they found it impossible to manufacture 
 at a profit, and all the machinery is lying idle. It is well known that when domestic 
 manufacturers attempt to produce goods which are made largely abroad, importers 
 instantly reduce the price to a point which drives them out of the market, then in- 
 crease prices far above the actual value, thereby re-imbursing themselves for the losses 
 sustained in obtaining the market. That is the case with the merchandise I am dis- 
 cussing. Illustrative of this phase of the case, I refer to the Ivanhoe Mill, of Pater- 
 son, N. J., which was magnificently equipped for the manufacture of this class of 
 paper only. The persons who built it were ruined by the competition of the import- 
 ers. The mills lay idle for a long time, when a capitalist of Brooklyn, I believe a 
 Mr. Whitman by name, finding the price of imported papers advanced probably 100 
 per centum over that prevailing at the period the Ivanhoe Mill failed, purchased the 
 same, investing some |20,000 or $30,000, under the impression that it would pay him 
 a fair profit upon his outlay. No sooner was this known, than down went the price 
 of foreign papers, rendering it impossible for them to be manufactured at Paterson, 
 and the mill is once more closed, the proprietor losing a large sum of money. 
 
 The diflference in the rate of wage in Europe and this country has been so often dis- 
 cussed, and is so well understood, that I refrain from going into that question. But I 
 desire to call the attention of thecommittee to a statement published in the well-known 
 Paper Trade Journal, giving full statistics of the rate of wages paid iu the mills in 
 Europe, where in one factory in northern Europe the average wages paid was about 
 16 cents per day. For some years after 1883 several importers entered these papers 
 at the custom-house for dutiable purposes as printing papers, and a large quantity 
 was thus passed. Acting under instructions, I called the attention of the iSepartment 
 to the subject, which resulted in its being taken to the Supreme Court, where the de- 
 cision was that it was properly dutiable at 25 per centum instead of 15 per centum. 
 It is proper to say that only one or two firms were engaged in such importations. We 
 have obtained samples from Germany and France, and on precise calculations find 
 that, even with full duties paid on actual values abroad, it is utterly impossible to 
 produce it in this country in competition with the foreign article. There is no ques- 
 tion that undervaluation is practiced to a great extent. Colonel Thompson recently 
 Instructed me to take the case to the Treasury Department, and an investigation is 
 now going on which it is believed will show gross frauds at the hands of several im- 
 porting merchants. The assessed duty of 25 per centum is, by the means referred to, 
 reduced to a mere nothing. 
 
730 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Thompson, of the Diamond Mills Paper Company, is, as I have already said, a 
 practical paper-mater of over forty years' standing, engaged in it day by day and 
 week by week for that period (excepting the interregnum of the war), and will an- 
 swer any questions relating thereto you may desire to put to him. I will not take up 
 more of your time further than to say that the clause I am about to suggest is a con- 
 cise one. We want a correct classification. We believe an ad valorem duty, however 
 high, would not be satisfactory. We think a specific rate can be made that will be. 
 All the materials used in the manufacture of paper are purchased by weight. When 
 the product is sold (except when it is tlisposedof in small quantities) it is by weight, 
 and the proper way to assess a duty on paper is nndoubtedly by the same system. 
 We wish it given a classification by itself, and such a one regarding which there 
 can be no question as to what is intended thereby. It would have to be a separate 
 clause, and that I know is objectionable; but in a matt(;r of this importance when, 
 positively, to-day there is machinery ready, or can be ready within niuety days after 
 the passage of the bill, by which there will be at least f 1,000,000 paid out fcr labor 
 alone by Colonel Thompson and other mill owners with whom he is acquainted, in 
 my judgment such objection falls to the ground, and the extension of the act by 
 three or four lines should not he taken into consideration. Colonel Thompson will 
 guaranty that inside of one or two years, if he be protected so that he can find a 
 market, he will manufacture all the thin papers that are consumed and at a price 
 which will be less than they are to-day. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is the clause that you suggest ? 
 
 Mr. OsBORN. " Papers, known commercially as copying papers, cigarette papers, 
 filtering paper, silver paper and tissue paper, white or colored, weighing on a basis 
 of 20 to 30, 480 sheets or less, whether made up as copying books, reams, or in any 
 other form, 8 cents per pound, and in addition thereto 15 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 PHOTOGRAPHIC ALBUMEWIZED PAPER. 
 
 New York, January 9, 1890. 
 
 Deak Sir: We regret very much that it is impossible for us to appear before your 
 committee to-morrow, January 10, and express our views as to the duty to be fixed 
 in the forthcoming tariff bill on ijhotographic albumenized paper, and take the lib- 
 erty of addressing these lines to you in order that you may be fully acquainted with 
 the condition of affairs in the albumen paper market, and thus be better able to judge 
 as to what rate of duty should be fixed upon this article. 
 
 The plain photographic paper is manufactured almost exoluslvely by the firm of 
 Blanchet fr^res & Kleber, at Eives, Isfere, France, whoso factory there is situated at 
 the foot of the Western Alps, and is supplied with water of extraordinary purity 
 from the snow-clad mountains near by. This contributes very largely to the success 
 achieved by them in the manufacture by them of the most pure and perfect photo- 
 graphic paper that is made in the world. Another element of success with them is 
 the fact that they are descendants of a family who have owned that same factory for 
 more than one hundred years, and from the first, long before photographic paper was 
 required, their aim has been to produce paper of the iinest quality, which experience, 
 of course, was most valuable to them when the demand arose for photographic i)aper, 
 which, as you are aware, requires the most absolute purity. For the jiast twenty or 
 thirty years, therefore, they have maintained an almost absolute monopoly of the 
 plain photographic paper, and the name " Eives," by which their paper is known in 
 the trade, has come to be such a symbol of purity that few photographers will buy 
 any albumenized paper that is not albumenized on Rives plain paper. 
 
 The albumenizing of photographic paper is carried on chiefly in Dresden, Germany, 
 where two factories albumemze together about 40,000 out of about .50,000 reams of 
 paper, which latter figure represents aiiproximately the total product of albumen 
 paper throughout the world. These two factories are bound by contract to Messrs. 
 Blaucbet frferes & Kleber, to give their paper preference in all cases, so that only a 
 very few hundred reams of other plain paper is albumenized by them. In return for 
 this Messrs. Blanchet frferes & Kleber sell their plain paper to the albumenizers in 
 Dresden at a much lower price than they will sell it to any albumenizers in America. 
 This fact makes it practically impossible for any one in America to albumenize Rives 
 paper, and, since few photographers will have any other paper than that albumenized 
 on Eives plain paper, the Dresden manufacturers thus maintain a very large and almost 
 absolute control of the American market. Our house is the representative of one of 
 the Dresden factories, and the Scovill & Adams Company, 423 Broome street, New 
 York, and Mr. G. Gennert, of No. 52 East Tenth street. New York, are the agents of 
 the other factory in Dresden, so that our three houses imported last year, as nearly 
 as we can compute, more than 80 per cent, of all the albumen paper used in the 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 731 
 
 United States. The fluty on albumen paper nnder the tariff of 1883 was at first 
 assessed at 25 per cent, until suits brought by the three importers above mentioned 
 resulted in a verdict that the rate should be 15 per cent., and we then immediately 
 reduced the price of albumen paper in this country. Should you see fit to remove 
 the duty altogether we will of course reduce the price again ; but if it be fixed at 25 
 per cent., as was contemplated last year both by the Mills' bill and by the Republican 
 tariff bill, we .should be compelled to increase the price, and the consumer would be 
 the only one affected by a change lil the tariff, as you will readily see by considering 
 the conditions above referred to. 
 
 An increase in the rate of dnty could not result in fostering the manufacture of 
 albumen paper in this country for the following reasons : First, because of the higher 
 price which Messrs. Blauohet frfcres & Kleber charge for their paper to Ameri- 
 can albumenizers ; second, because the three importing houses would not care to 
 handle the American paper, for fear of a rupture of their relations with the Dresden 
 all>umenizers ; and, thirl, because the small dealers throughout the country, whom we 
 supply with our respective brands of paper, which have been so long and favorably 
 known to the trade, would not care to undertake to introduee among their constitu- 
 ents new brands of paper in competition with those that sell readily and are consid- 
 ered as staple articles. Especially in view of the fact thatthere are several different 
 colors of each different brand of paper sold by the three importing houses above men- 
 tioned, and when dealers are stocked up with the quantity of paper necessary to sup- 
 ply the demand, they would not care to invest money in any outside brand as the, 
 paper is very expensive, the present wholesale price being |32 per ream, and the 
 carrying in stock of a full supply of all colors of all our brands locks up a great deal 
 of money. 
 
 In view of the above facts, we respectfully urge your consideration of the question 
 whether albumen paper may not be one of the articles placed on the free list in order 
 to reduce the surplus in the United States Treasury. 
 We beg to remain, dear sir, very respectfully, 
 
 E. & H. T. Anthony & Co. 
 
 Hon. Wm. McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 VIEWS OF SANDER & NEULANDT. 
 
 Gentlemen: We submit to you for inspection samples of plain sized photo"Taphio 
 paper, which is used for making the albumen paper, and on which we have to pay an 
 import duty of 25 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 We also submit to you samples of albumenized paper on which there is only a duty 
 of 15 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Ten years ago, when the duty was 35 percent, ad valorem, there were albumenized 
 in thi.s country 6,000 reams of paper and imported about 4,000 reams; since then the 
 German manufacturers have, by means of cheaper production and by the reduction 
 of the tariff to 25 per cent, and later on to 15 per cent, ad valorem, succeeded in 
 destroying this industry entirely ; they have driven out of business one albumenizer 
 after the other, until they have reduced the home production to 1,000 reams a year, 
 whereas the amount of imported albumen paper has increased now to 20,000 reams per 
 year. 
 
 These 20,000 reams are nearly all manufactured by two Dresden stock companies, 
 which turn out of their works 40,000 reams a year, with a net profit of 800,000 marks 
 annually ; half of their paper is therefore exported and used in the United States. 
 
 They get their plaiu photo paper from the Papeterie de Bites (paper mills of Rives), 
 near Lyons, France, and in consideration of their taking 20,000 reams each they get it 
 at 60 francs a ream ; we have to pay 75 francs for the same goods, as we are unable 
 to use 20,000 reams at the present condition of the market. 
 
 The cost of manufacturing is, therefore, as follows: 
 
 In the United States : 
 
 One ream of plain paper, 75 francs |14. 40 
 
 Duty, 25 per cent 3.60 
 
 Eggs, labor, etc 11.00 
 
 Total 29.00 
 
732 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 In Germany: Marks. 
 
 One ream of plain paper, 60 francs .- 48 
 
 Duty in Germany .- 1 
 
 Eggs, labor, etc 21 
 
 Total 70 
 
 Eqnivalent in United States money to $17.00 
 
 Profit they make no w on their export goods, 30 per cent 5. 00 
 
 Total 22.00 
 
 Duty as proposed by the last Congress, 35 per cent - 7. 70 
 
 Laid down in New York 29.70 
 
 Now, with a duty of 35 per cent, ad valorem, as proposed in the last Senate tariff 
 bill, the cost of one ream of paper to the importer is |29.70. The cost to manufacture 
 the same kind of albumen paper in this country is $29.00. 
 
 The Dresden albuuienizers make on their paper a profit of 30 per cent. Now, if 
 they reduce their profits to 16 per cent, and less, they are still able to sell their albu- 
 men paper, laid down in New York at $25.50 ; therefore they can undersell us still to 
 the amount of $3.50 to $5 even if we work with nearly no profit. 
 
 This is what they have done six and eight years ago. When the duty was 35 
 per cent, ad valorem their goods were sold in this market at 73, 75, and 77 marks from 
 Dresden; as soon, however, as the duty was lowered the price of the albumenized 
 article was raised to 80 and 85 marks and lately to 90 and 95 marks. They have reg- 
 ulated their prices according to the duty that has been placed upon the goods by the 
 United States Government. 
 
 Their agents in this country have used every possible means to destroy the home 
 industry ; they have even gone so far as to make agreements with the three hundred 
 dealers in photographic materials, pledging them to keep no other paper in stock than 
 the imported brands. The following is an extract of said agreement: 
 
 "December 19, 1889. — The parties hereto agree that after they have disposed of the 
 present stock which they may have of outside brands of albumen paper they will 
 lieep in stock, during continuance of this agreement, only such brands of albumen 
 paper as may be sold to them by the Scovill & Adams Company, G. Gennert, or E. 
 & H. T. Anthony." 
 
 Therefore the increase of the. duty on albumenized paper from 15 per cent, to 35 
 percent, ad valorem is not sufficient to protect the American albumenizer, because 
 the German albumenizers will, as soon as the tariff takes elfect, reduce their present 
 price of 95 to 75 marks, and will sell just as many goods as before the change. 
 
 In order to enable the United States manufacturer to compete, a duty of 50 per cent, 
 ad valorem on albumenized and sensitized paper should at least be charged, or the 25 
 per cent, duty which the American albumenizer has to pay on the plain photographic 
 paper which he must import, as same can not be manufactured here, should be taken 
 off and plain photographic paper for albumenizing purposes should be entered on 
 the free list. 
 
 We favor the latter proposition, as the duty of 25 per cent, benefits nobody other 
 than the United States Treasury, it being entirely out of question that the article can 
 be made in this country. The reasons for this assertion are as follows : 
 
 The composition, bleaching, and sizing of the paper are secrets. No chemicals 
 must be employed which have a reaction upon nitrate of silver, chloride of gold, or 
 such chemicals as are used by photographers in their formulas. The paper must re- 
 sist the action of water for at least twenty hours. 
 
 Ouly machinery made of bronze and which costs many thousands of dollars can he 
 used, as the paper must be entirely free from iron and spots of any kind. 
 
 The calendering or rolling of the paper is done different than in the manufacture 
 of writing papers. 
 
 The whole process is so difBcult that only two manufacturers of many who have 
 tried are in a position to furnish a salable article, and they have commenced when 
 photography was in its infancy yet and they only succeeded by being the first ones 
 to make it and by gradually improving the quality of their goods. 
 
 These two factories are Papeterie de Rives, near Lyons, France, and Steinbach & 
 Co., Malmedy, Germany. 
 
 The plain paper, made by the French mills, is a far superior article ; it is there- 
 fore used by all the albumenizers in Dresden while the paper of the German mills is 
 only used for inferior grades of goods. 
 
 The output of the French mill amounts to about 45,000 reams and of the German 
 mill to about 3,000 reams. In the United States some feeble attempts have been 
 made but without any success, and to-day no mill will even attempt the manufacture. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 733 
 
 The albumonizers of Germany have been successful in convincing' the German Gov- 
 ernment that they must have the French plain paper ; therefore the French plain paper 
 enters Germany nearly duty free, the tax being only 25 cents per ream, whereas we 
 have to pay $3.60 per ream. 
 
 Furthermore, if the duty is taken oft' the plain paper we shall also be able to sell 
 to Canada and Central and South America, which markets are controlled by the New 
 Tork agents of the Dresden factories. 
 
 As this country uses 20,000 reams of paper annually it would require 12,000,000 of 
 eggs to albumenize them here. 
 
 We can only repeat that it is only fair towards the American photographer and al- 
 humenizer to place plain, sized photographic paper, used for albumenizing purposes, 
 on the free list and charge a duty of 35 per cent, ad valorem on the albumen paper, or 
 if, for some reason or other, this can not be done, raise the duty on albumen paper 50 
 per cent, ad valorem, otherwise we shall be compelled to give up the manufacture in 
 this country. 
 
 We also inclose two letters, one from Messrs. Steinbach & Co., Malmedy, Germany, 
 and one from Messrs. Blanchet frferes & Kleber, proprietors of the Papeterie de Rives, 
 which will show you that our suggestions regarding the difficulties in the manu- 
 facture are true. 
 
 As our Mr. H. Sander has been technical manager in one of the largest stock com- 
 panies at Dresden, and as our E. H. Neulandt has been confidential clerk for one of 
 the agents of the Dresden factories at New York, we are thoroughly posted in all mat- 
 ters concerning the manufacture and sale of albumen paper both in Germany and in 
 the United States. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 Sajjder & Neulandt, 
 Altumenizers and Sensitizers of Photographic Fa])ers. 
 
 VIEWS OF R. ABEL. 
 
 New York, January 17, 1890. 
 Hon. Wm. McKlNlEY, 
 
 Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means : 
 
 The undersigned, manufacturer of albumen paper, herewith respectfully calls your 
 attention to the present tarift' on albumen paper and on plain photographic paper, 
 used for albumenizing. 
 
 Albumen paper is an article used by photographers ; it is prepared by giving a 
 certain kind of plain white paper, which is specially made for the purpose by a French 
 factory, one or two coatings of eggs' white and chemicals. 
 
 It is a well-known fact that albumen paper can be made much cheaper in Germany 
 than in the United States, as eggs and labor are considerably cheaper there than here; 
 furthermore, the present tariff on plain paper is 25 per cent, ad valorem and on albu- 
 men paper only 15 per cent, ad valorem. How can we exist under such circumstances? 
 
 I have lost money every year, and have only kept my works going in the hope that 
 Congress may rectify the above wrong and put the albumen paper maker of this 
 country in a position to compete with the importers who have grown rich and monop- 
 olize the market. 
 
 If the protective tariff shall be a protection to us I advocate a duty of 75 per cent. 
 ad valorem on albumen paper and ready sensitized paper; or, better yet, a duty of 50 
 percent, ad valorem on albumen paper, and the x^lacing on the free list of plaiu, 
 photographic paper used in the albumen paper manufacture. 
 
 If none of the above propositions can be accepted albumen paper may just as well 
 be placed on the free list, as the remaining alliumenizers will be forced to close up 
 their works. 
 
 Twenty years ago aU the albumen paper used In this country was made here and 
 none was imported, but the domestic manufacturer has lost ground every yiar, and 
 to-day there are made here only from 1,000 to 2,000 reams. If this industry had been 
 properly protected we could have supplied the whole American market, which uses 
 about 25,000 reams a year. 
 
 Fifteen million of fresh eggs would bo necessary to make the above number of 
 reams, a circumstance which would be of great benefit to the farmers. 
 
 Formerly the duty was 35 per centum ad valorem on albumen paper, yet the im- 
 
 Eortation of this article was not only possible but the imported article was sold 
 ere at $28 per ream, whereas its cost of making it here is $30 per ream ; the above 
 duty was therefore not sufficient to give us the necessary protection, 
 
 As our paper-mills can not make the plain paper I see no reason why we shall pay 
 26 per eentf duty on it ; if tius duty were taken ot£ and the duty on albumen paper 
 
734 EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 ■were increased to 50 per centum ad valorem, you would preserve this industry to 
 this country; if not, all other makers, as well as myself, shall be compelled to 
 abandon the manufacture. 
 I hope you will kindly give the above lines your consideration, and I am, 
 if our obedient servant, 
 
 E. Abel, 
 89 Second Avenue, Netv York, 
 
 SUKFACE-COATED PAPER. 
 
 Springfield, Mass., January 14, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: There is a valuable manufacturing interest in this Congressional dis- 
 trict liable to be affected by tariff legislation during the present session of Congress. 
 There are also two or three factories in your district making the same goods. 
 
 I refer to what is known commereially as " surface-coated paper." These goods at 
 present, when imported, pay a duty of 25 per centum ad valorem under that clause 
 of " Schedule M," act of 188.3, which says: "All other paper not specially enumer- 
 ated or provided for in this act, 25 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 The Senate tariff bill, passed by the Senate in 1888, fixed the duty on "surface- 
 coated paper" at 35 per centum ad valorem — an improvement on the present situa- 
 tion, as it would place our goods by a designated name on the list of dutiable articles, 
 and also increase the present collected duty 10 per centum. 
 
 While this is an improvement, it is hardly sufficient to enable the American manu- 
 facturer to meet the increasing aggressiveness of the Belgian and German makers of 
 these goods, whose agents are constantly canvassing this country offering lower prices 
 than the home manufacturers can meet. 
 
 The same class of labor for which we pay %\ and $2 a day is readily procured in 
 Belgium at 10 and 30 cents a day ;. in Germany wages are a little higher. The cheap 
 labor of these two countries is wonderfully effective and well trained, following the. 
 same routine of work almost from the cradle to the grave. " Surface-coated paper" 
 can not be classed as "necessaries," but comes under the head of " ornamental," and 
 in this way only as useful ; it is used to cover the outside and sometimes the inside 
 of boxes, making them more pleasing and beautiful to the eye, also for labels on 
 patent medicines and a great variety of fancy articles, in no way necessary to their 
 intrinsic value, but simply adding to their attractiveness. 
 
 The machinery of the foreign manufacturers is of the most improved kind, and 
 they are constantly adding to its effectiveness by originating impiovements, and also 
 by copying the improved machinery of this country. 
 
 In view of all these facts, taking into consideration that no man is compelled by 
 his necessities to use in any way "surface-coated paper," it would seem to require 
 no lengthy argument to convince our friends in Congress of the expediency of placing 
 a duty on these goods sufficient to enable the American manufacturer to control the 
 American or home market and continue to pay American prices for labor. 
 
 The duty should be not lejis than 50 per centum ad valorem. The capital invested 
 in the manufacture of "surface- coated paper" in this country is not far from 
 $3,000,000, employing about two thousand persons, mostly men. 
 
 Will you kindly cull the attention of the Committee of Ways and Means to this 
 matter? From your long and close business relations with the manufacturers of 
 "surface- coated paper," I think you can explain to the committee any doubtful point 
 better than almost iiny other person. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 John F. Marsh, 
 Treasurer Spriwjfield Glazed Faper Conqiany, 
 
 lion. Rodney Wallace, M. C. 
 
 CARD BOARDS. 
 
 Philadelphia, January 9,1890. 
 The Committee of Ways and Means of the Fifty-first Congress : 
 
 As manufacturers of paper card-boards we beg leave to call attention to a manifest 
 error in Schedule M, act of 1883, in classification of our manufactures. The paragraph 
 to which we here refer stands as follows ; 
 
 "Paijer, manufactures of, or of which paper is a component material, not specially 
 enumerated or provided for in this act, 15 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 Paper, the raw material used in the manufacture of card-boai'ds, not being classified 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 735 
 
 in the act of 1883, is subject to a duty of 25 per centum ad valorem, as " all other 
 papers not specially enumerated or provided for," thus making a discrimination of 
 10 per centum against our industry— an unjust discrimination which could not have 
 been intended by the framers of the act of 1883. 
 
 The Senate perceived and legislated to correct this error, but failed. We now 
 respectfully solicit your favorable consideration of Schedule M of what is known as 
 the Senate bill, paragraph No. 382, which is as follows: 
 
 "Papers known commercially as surface-coated papers, and manufactures thereof, 
 card-boards, albumenized and sensitized papers, lithographic prints from either stone 
 or zinc, bound or unbound (except illustrations in printed books), and all articles pro- 
 duced either in whole or in part by lithographic process, and photograph, autograph, 
 and scrap albums wholly or partially manufactured, 35 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 Eespectfully submitted. 
 
 A. M. Collins Manufacturing Company, 
 Edward Capo, 
 
 Vice-Fresident. 
 
 ENVELOPES. 
 
 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ERWIN MARTIN, OF NEW^ YORK CITY. 
 
 Permit us to call your attention to the tariff on envelopes, and to ask the retention 
 of the present rates, or 25 per cent., for the following reasons: 
 
 (1) The duty on envelopes was at onetime 45 percent., then reduced to 35 per 
 cent., and now in Mills bill made 20 per cent. These reductions have all tended to 
 increase the importation of envelopes, and at 20 or 25 per cent, duty the Belgium, 
 Scotch, and English envelope manufacturers could swamp the markets of the United 
 States and drive out of business the American manufacturers. 
 
 The class of labor employed in the United States is largely female ; say 85 per cent. 
 of all now employed in the manufacture of envelopes are girls and women. The very 
 low rates of wages paid this class of help in Scotland, which is about one-quarter the 
 sum here. There girls on machines' used in making envelopes receive from 2s. (id., or 
 say 62 cents, to 3s. &d., or 87 cents, per week. In Belgium, France, and Italy it is 
 much less. A few of the more skilled average 5s., or |1.25 per week, while the cor- 
 responding wages for similar work in the United States averages from $5 to |9 per 
 week. 
 
 Then, again, the cost of paper made into envelopes used iu Scotland and Belgiam 
 costs much less than in the United States. 
 
 The boxes, gum, and various articles used iu manufacture of envelopes all cost on 
 an average 40 to 50 per cent, less there than here. 
 
 (2) The prices of envelopes in the United States, owing to protection in the past, 
 the improvements of the machinery to manufacture, and competition in trade, are now 
 sold at about 50 per cent, of what they were sold in 1861, while all the expenses for 
 wages and labor and sundries have increased nearly 100 per cent. 
 
 Lines of goods sold in 1860 and 1861 at $2.25 per thousand we now sell a better- 
 made article at .$1.10 to $1.25 per thousand. This has been helped largely by the re- 
 duction in prices of papers used in the manufacture of envelopes of from 16 cents per 
 pound to 9 cents, and the improvement in the manufacture by machinery of self-gum- 
 ming and folding styles only makes above possible. 
 
 This, or any, reduction in duty on envelopes is not needed or called for, as the 
 citizens of the United States now buy a better and finer line of envelopes for less 
 money than any other people in the world. And the destruction of the envelope 
 manufacture would be a great blow and be of great injury to the paper-makers' in- 
 terest of the United States, who employ a large amount of machinery, large plants, a 
 large amount of capital, and a lar^e number of hands in the manufacture of envelope 
 paper: 60 to 100 tons of paper daify are now used in envelope-making. 
 
 (3) The envelope manufacturers of the United States now have a very strong and 
 unjust competition in the United States Government, first through the Post-Office 
 Department, who make and sell and carry through the mails to the prist-offices of 
 the United States free many thousands of tons of envelopes yearly, and they are sold 
 by the postmasters to the people at cost to the United States of manufacture, and 
 at lower prices than the retail dealers can afford to sell at and pay store-rent, ex- 
 penses, freights, etc., and make a fair profit. 
 
 The prices for stamped envelopes have been reduced from year to year, and that 
 has forced the envelope manufacturers down and down in prices to try and compete 
 with the Government. 
 
 The increase in consumption of. stamped envelopes has been very great, over 52,- 
 POO.OOOlast year, or over 1,000,000 per week for past year; and this unjust competi- 
 
73G REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 tion goes on, fostered and protected by the Post-OfBoe Department and large appro- 
 priations from the United States Treasury. So with this great competition of and by 
 the United States Government the manufacturers should not have another and worse 
 one thrown on them by reduction of the duty. 
 (4) This industry has grown and increased with the demand for goods and protec- 
 tion in the past, and is now seeking, and with fair success, an export market in 
 Mexico, West Indies, and South America, and various other parts of the world. 
 
 This effort should be aided and encouraged by the United States Government, and 
 not discouraged by lowering duties and destroying the manufacturers. 
 
 (5) This industry now employs directly and indirectly from 5,000 to 7,000 employes, 
 besides large numbers employed on building machinery used in making envelopes, 
 making paper boxes, and various branches of trade connected with the manufacture 
 of envelopes, and a large percentage of this number are females, who needlall the pro- 
 tection in way of fair wages that it is possible to give, and not have their wages re- 
 duced by competition of poorly-paid and poorly-fed pauper labor of Belgium and 
 Scotland, England, France, and Italy. 
 
 (6) The Mills bill places envelopes at 20 per cent, and the paper they are made 
 from at 25 per cent. 
 
 Why is this ? Should not a manufacturer be protected as much on his manufact- 
 ured goods as on a so-called "raw material" of paper? 
 
 (7) We have only named a few of the facts why this duty should not be reduced, 
 and why this important industry should be still protected and fostered by a fair duty 
 of 35 per cent. 
 
 The reasons for this are as stated above : 
 
 (1) Labor costs on paper-making (our raw material) in Europe are one-half to one- 
 quarter of amount for making same grades paid in the United States. 
 
 (2) Labor employed in manufacture of envelopes in Europe is only paid one-third 
 to one-fifth of amount paid in United States for same work. 
 
 (3) The Canadian duty is now on envelopes 35 per cent., and why should not United 
 States manufacturers have same protection ? 
 
 The Scotch, English, and Canadian manufacturers are now coming into the United 
 States, underselling the American manufacturers at 25 per cent, duty, thus robbing 
 American laborers in paper-mills and envelope factories of their labor. 
 
 LITHOGRAPHS. 
 STATEMENT OP LOUIS ETTLINGER. 
 
 Mr. Louis Ettlinger, lithographer, of New York, next addressed the committee. 
 He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we appear as a committee from the Lithographers' 
 National Association to ask your honorable committee to change the tarifl' schedule 
 on books, papers, etc., as follows: Lithographic and photolithographic prints, from 
 either stone, zinc, glass, or gelatine, and all articles produced either in whole or in 
 part by lithographic or photolithographic process, wholly or partly manufactured, 
 62^ cents per pound. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the existing rate of duty ? 
 
 Mr. Ettlinger. It is now 25 per cent, ad valorem. It is impossible to arrive at the 
 actual value of lithographic work without being perfectly familiar with the circum- 
 stances under which the work has been produced. The circumstances are as follows: 
 In the first place, if it is original it is a high class of work, and if it is copied from 
 something in existence it does not cost anything to copy. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Have you a statement of the efiect of this change in the law — 
 what its effect would be upon rates ? 
 
 Mr. Ettlinger. The eifect would be to make the cost equal to the selling price on 
 the other side. 
 
 Mr, Breckinridge. Have you any table so as to show how it would compare with 
 the present rate ? 
 
 Mr. Ettlinger. I have it right here. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What would be the efffectupon such work as that [indicating] f 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. These sheets are now imported. The sheets areaSJi by 32^ and there 
 are thirty-two single pictures on a sheet. These shi ets cost 22^ cents on the other 
 side. If you take as a basis 5,000 sheets as an edition, the co8(j ij^gulfj be $1^1^ Uj 
 purope, and at present the duty would be nearly |300. 
 
 Mr. Bbkckinridgb. At your proposed duty, what wo\ild i\ be? 
 
 Mr, Etungbe. At our rate of duty it would be |550. 
 
 Mr, BftBOKiNRiDBB. TW» i« very fine work, U it aot t 
 
EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 737 
 
 Mr. Etlingek. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinridge. What would be the effect upon more ordmary work T 
 
 Mr. Etlingkb. Here is some work [indicating] where the cost wonld be greater. 
 That depends, also, to a considerable extent, where the goods are manufactured. 
 Labor in some countries is cheaper than in others. These sheets are invoiced at 5 
 cents apiece. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. This work [indicating] is not so line as the first you showed. 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. This is not so fine as the other. This is good work. The invoice 
 of 5,000 sheets of this picture would be $i50 at the present rate, and the cost of pro- 
 ducing 5,000 sheets of this in this country would be $790. The point is that these 
 sheets were not imported in 5,000 lots. They came in in 100 and in 500 lots. 
 
 Mr. BEECKiNiiiDGE. What would be the amount of taxation on 5,000 lot sheets, and 
 what would it be on your proposed taxation on 5,000 lot sheets of this kind of work f 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. As I understand this law, drawings and designs should be included 
 in the importation because it is part of the cost to bring the article to a marketable 
 condition. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The law does not enumerate any of these details ? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. The invoices are not based on the cost of the goods. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Tell me what would be the tax on the quality which you speak 
 of— I take yo r figures — of a 5,000 lot, and what would be the taxation named in your 
 proposed rate. 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. It would be $62.50 on 5,000 sheets. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Under the present law ? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And how much under your proposed rate t 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. It would be $400. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinridgb. How much will this kind of work weigh to the thousand 
 sheets. 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. Eight hundred pounds to 5,000 sheets. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. This is specimen 1, I believe? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. That is No. 2. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What do you call this first specimen f 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. No. 4. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Have you any further specimens that you have rates on f 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. I have some others. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If you will figure up the rates and file samples with the ste- 
 nographer giving the tax on them at present and the tax under your proposed law 
 that would be satisfactory. How long has this business been conducted in this coun- 
 try? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. We have been in the business since 1868. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What per cent, of the consumption of this kind of goods is 
 manufactured in this country? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. I can not tell ; we have no way to find that out. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are they extensive ? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. They are extensive, but the trade is growing all the time. 
 
 The Chairman. You say their production is increasing? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. Constantly. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You mean the whole trade is increasing ? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you mean the trade is increasing in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. Not in our branch of the business. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How long has this business been followed in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. I suppose about forty years. But I want to caH your attention to 
 the fact that before 1869 this work had all been done on hand-presses and since 1869 
 it has been done on steam-presses, which cheapens the work considerably. The first 
 presses were European presses, and all the improvements that have been made in that 
 regard in machinery have been done in Europe, and it has been followed up in Europe, 
 and being enabled to do that work so much cheaper it has gone to them. It is mostly 
 used for advertising purposes and never goes into what the poor ma,n would want. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How many establishments for doing this kind of work exist 
 in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. About two hundred and fifty. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is this a large establishment ? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. It is one of the largest. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What would be the volume of your sales in a year f 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. It would be about $450,000. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How many establishments in the country approximate yours 
 in size ? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. About a dozen. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How many of those were in this country in 1880 ? 
 
 485 47 
 
738 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Etlingbr. A few lesa than there are to-day. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. When was your concern established ? 
 
 Mr. Etlingbr. In 1868. 
 
 Mr. Breokinridge. What was the character of its growth and development f 
 
 Mr. Etlingee. Wo have certainly been growing, and some fast machinery has been 
 pat in. Originally this business was all hand work. We are putting in machinery 
 now. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Yon say your present sales are about $450,000 annually. 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What were your sales,- say, in 1880? 
 
 Mr. Eti.inger. I do not think it'was less than $350,000. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What were they, say, in 1875 ? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. In 1875 they must have been .$250,000 or $300,000, 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is competition pretty sharp in this line of business ? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. It is. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. About how much would this proposed tax be on this $4.50,000 
 worth of goods? 
 
 Mr. Etlingbr. That is a difiicult question to answer. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Can you compute it ? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. No, sir. We would have to figure up all the work, what the paper 
 was, and all that. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it difficult of computation? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. It is. 
 
 The Chairman. Where does your competition from the other side come from ? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. It has grown in the last few years. They were formerly all job- 
 bers in this country. These foreign manufacturers now only send goods to their own 
 houses. 
 
 The Chairman. They consign them to parties here ? 
 
 Mr. Etlingbr. Yes, sir. In this way competition has grown very much. 
 
 The Chairman. Is production cheaper on the other side than on this side ? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. Labor is only one-third or one-fourth what it is here. 
 
 The Chair.man. How much of yonr production is labor ? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. About 85 per cent. 
 
 The Chairman. Y'ou have computed that this labor is paid two-thirds or three- 
 fourths less than yours ? 
 
 Mr. Etlingbr. Yes, sir. We have a printed statement here on that question. 
 
 The Chairman. Give it to the stenographer. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Have you a statement of the amount of your pay-rolls for 
 1889? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. I have not that with me. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I would be glad if you would give it to the stenographer, with 
 a statement of your sales tor two or three years past, together with the pay-roll for 
 the same period, and state what you include in that pay-roll ; whether you include 
 the expenses of management or simply what is known as your manual labor. State 
 whether or not you include salesmen. 
 
 The Chairman. You say your production is about $450,000 a year ? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the total production of this country, if you happen to 
 know? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. The total production, I should think, would be $20,000,000 to 
 $25,000,000. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you know how much labor is employed in the trade ? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. I think altogether there are 25,000 to 30,000 men employed in all 
 the houses in this country, and the capital is $25,000,000. 
 
 The Chairman. Uuder the present rate of duty you are not able to compete with 
 your foreign competitor ? 
 
 Mr. Etlingbr. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Because of the difl'erence in labor in competing countries ? 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. There is another thing which makes it impossible for ustocompete. 
 Here is a design of pictures [indicating] used for cigar labels. To make this origi- 
 nally on paper would cost not less than $20. The drawing on stone of this picture 
 would cost notle.ss than $125. The embossing plate would cost not less than $45. This 
 is an expense of $190 cost to us. On the other side the manufacturer makes this design 
 for a ci^ar manufacturer over there, and having the design already on stone and paid 
 for, will sell it here, leaving out the entire cost of the drawing, saying they have 
 already been paid for it and will simply sell the surplus stock. Against such goods 
 we are unable to compete. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Will you mark these samples by number and name so that we 
 can identify them ? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 739 
 
 Mr. Etlinger. Yes, sir. If we print one edition of 10,000 copies of this [indicat- 
 ing] the making of the drawing on stone and printing would cost ns |469.20. They 
 are sold in this market for $225 The invoice price can not be more than flSO. There 
 is 25 per cent, duty on it. They leave the drawings out on half of them. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. DONALDSON. 
 
 Mr. EOBKKT Donaldson next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: I have here a statement of the average rates of 
 wages paid in the various countries of Europe. I do not think it is necessary to take 
 up your time in calling atteutiou to the itemized amounts, but I will simply make a 
 recapitulation. We find the cost in Gieat Britain on 1,000 impressions is $1.18. In 
 southern Germany and Switzerland, 80 cents; in Berlin, fl.18 ; in Paris, |1.42. The 
 cost for like labor in the United States is $2.09, making an increased cost in the 
 TJnited States of 79 per cent, over the cost in Great Britain, Itil per cent, over the 
 cost in Germany and Switzerland, 93 per cent, over the cost in Berlin, and 47 per 
 cent, over the cost in Paris. This is simply the cost of the printing. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridgb. You mean the manual labor of printing 1,000 copies ? 
 
 Mr. Donaldson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Kegardless of the size of the edition f 
 
 Mr. Donaldson. Yes, sir. This is the average in those countries. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How comes it that some of those countries in which wages 
 are much cheaper than in England are not breaking up this industry in England? 
 
 Mr. Donaldson. I am not prepared to answer that question. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. There are other elements besides the cheapness of labor, I 
 suppose f 
 
 Mr. Donaldson. There are no other elements as compared with this country. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Why is that not true of England? 
 
 Mr. Donaldson. That I am not prepared to state. The diiference in the cost of 
 labor between the United States and Great Britain on 1,000 copies would be 77 cents. 
 The diiference between labor in Switzerland and Southern Germany would be greater. 
 
 Mr. BreckinridgJc" Yet, although some countries have cheaper labor than Eng- 
 land, they do not break up the industry in England ? 
 
 Mr. Donaldson. As a matter of fact most every English publisher has his work 
 printed in Germany. Fine lithographic books are printed for England at Nuremburg 
 in large quantities, so that all fine lithographic work is really going from England 
 to Germany and Saxony. It is breaking up this finer quality of work in England. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are these figures based upon actual transactions in England ? 
 
 Mr. Donaldson. Unquestionably ; it is the rate of wages. 
 
 The Chairman. It is the actual rate of wages paid? 
 
 Mr. Donaldson, It is the actual wages paid for the printing. 
 
 The Chairman. How much of that work is done in England f 
 
 Mr. Donaldson. There is a considerable industry there. 
 
 STATEMENT OF BD"WrARD HATCH. 
 
 Mr. Edward Hatch, attorney, of New York, next addressed the committee. He 
 said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I would explain that we applied 
 to the Fiftieth Congress for an increase in the ad valorem duty on lithographs. 
 Lithographs are not specified in the paper schedule. They are only included there 
 by virtue of a decision of the Treasury Department. I presented the matter in the 
 Fiftieth Congress before the Committee on Ways and Means and before the Finance 
 Committee of the Senate. The bill of the Finance Committee increased the ad 
 valorem rate to 35 per cent. 
 
 The national association that I have the honor to represent, which comprises the 
 lithographers of the whole country, have no dissensions of any character, and at a reg- 
 ular meeting concluded that it was not practicable to have a reappraisement in litho- 
 graphic vrork because of the difficulty in obtaining a merchant appraiser. It was 
 stated that one of these pictures, the printing on it, we would say, cost $100, whereas 
 with the design and plates it will cost, we will say, $200. There is an importation 
 of these prints and the importer swears that it cost, say, |100. That is satisfying his 
 conscience, for the other $100 is going to be charged in some other edition that is 
 going to be sent to another country, or liable to be sent to another country ; but 
 whether that edition is ever issued in which the cost of the design is to be included, 
 is something nobody can answer. We conferred with the Treasury Department and 
 
740 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 we favor a change of the duty from an ad valorem to a specific duty, for if a proper 
 specific duty is arrived at whatever is a fair average the Treasury Department will 
 ascertain, and there is no chance of undervaluation. 
 
 Under an ad valorem duty the Treasury Department will inform this committee 
 that it is practically impossible to appraise lithographic prints — more so than any- 
 thing that comes into this country. In the first place, nobody can tell what the 
 design costs. There is no way to ascertain whether the edition is ever issued. If the 
 first edition is the only one issued the expense should be included. If there is going 
 to be an edition of 20,000 then the cost would depreciate in proportion to the value of 
 the invoice. We will say an importer assumes he is going to issue 20,000 in one 
 edition, but if he does not the American manufacturer is not protected against this 
 portion of the work, namely, these plates. On the other hand if the importer is only 
 going to import 100 or 500 or 1,000, under the plan suggested, the importer is going 
 to make money under this specific duty, for you give him credit with issuing 5,000 
 copies of everything, whereas the importation may not exceed 2,500 copies. We 
 give them credit for issuing 5,000 and that fixes the ad valorem duty, whereas if they 
 only issue an edition of 2,500 they make 50 per cent, on the duty. It is because of 
 this impossibility to get a reappraisement that we want a specific duty. 
 
 There is another reason. It is almost impossible to obtain a merchant appraiser to 
 pass on imported lithographic work. The manufacturers abroad send, we will say, 
 only to five houses, and all with an undervaluation, and no other importer conld be 
 called as a merchant appraiser. The merchandise is shipped from the manufacturer 
 in Germany to his agent in New York. It makes no difference what it is invoiced to 
 the agent in New York at. He sells it to former importers. That makes it impossible 
 for any lithographer to obtain a reappraisement on lithographic work. There are in- 
 stances here that we have had where it is absolutely impossible to obtain a reap- 
 praisement. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. These frauds in invoicing that you speak of are perpetrated 
 by shipments to agents ? 
 
 Mr. Hatch. Largely so. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. They avoid the statement of the market price? 
 
 Mr. Hatch. No, sir ; I do not accuse them of that. I think they satisfy their own 
 consciences by leaving out this item of the plates and designs. They set to work 
 and charge on the other side the whole expense of these plates in the prices they fix 
 to their customers. They can charge the full value of the plates. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. They have to reimburse themselves for their expense incurred 
 as a matter of course, or they would make no profit. Now they do not sell to buyers 
 upon equal terms, do they? 
 
 Mr. Hatch. Where they actually sell they do not discriminate against the Ameri- 
 can importer. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is not another man's money just as good as ours? 
 
 Mr. Hatch. They do not want to deprive themselves of the benefits of the Ameri- 
 can market. There are manufacturers in Germany that include to their customers 
 the value of their plates. They havestruck off an entire edition. They have already 
 got the price of those plates out of the German customers. Then he sends his next 
 edition to America and says: " My plates are paid for and consequently I will not 
 charge for them in my invoice to the American market." 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The American actually purchases when he buys for import 
 more cheaply than the foreigner ? 
 
 Mr. Hatch. They are consigned practically to agents here. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If the prices, whether consigned or purchased, were to he act- 
 ually based upon the market prices in the country where sold then these frauds could 
 not be perpetrated. 
 
 Mr. Hatch. It could In this way : The work costs so much on the first 5,000 sheets. 
 If any portion of that 5,000 shall be sent to America that would be figured at the cost 
 in Germany. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If sent to America how ? 
 
 Mr. Hatch. Either sold or on consignment. I do not complain of that. But what 
 we do complain about is that this 5,000 does not, as a matter of fact, come to America, 
 and so, consequently, the market price of 5,000 does not interest us. If that 5,000 is 
 included when they figure the cost for the first edition they issue the next edition, 
 aud that comes to America, so that they sell, one of these designs we have here for 
 instance, for $225. They imported at $180. We can not produce it here for |500. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it customary where one edition is issued to include all the 
 costs of issuing the edition in the selling price of that first edition f 
 
 Mr. Hatch. Not necessarily. I have known of an importer — in JEact he is here in 
 this room to give actual instances — in which he purchased from the other side some 
 lithographic work for which he paid $220. It was sent to him. Then hewentacross 
 last snmmer, and he went to the manufacturer and found that the manufactarer had 
 made some more from the same plates where the cost had been charged in the edition 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 741 
 
 that he ordered first. This geutleman bought tlie next edition for $15, although he 
 had paid $200 for the first one. 
 
 Mr. Brbckinridgk. Thi; expense of the first edition was not charged in the selling 
 price of the next edition ? 
 
 Mr. Hatch, yes, sir ; they will figure the cost on the edition of 20,000, and if they 
 only send 1,000 to America, America would only pay oue-twentieth of the cost. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it not true that a very large edition of anything can be sold 
 more cheaply than a smaller edition ? 
 
 Mr. Hatch. Well, that depends entirely upon the way yon figure it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Suppose, in issuing 10,000 of theseplates as against an edition, 
 s.ay, of 2,500, could not they sell the 10,000 for less money per thousand than the 2,.500 f 
 
 Mr. Hatch. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is there any kind of this work of which that is true ? 
 
 Mr. Hatch. The second and third thousand would cost exactly the same. It would 
 cost just as much for paper and iuk and labor after the first edition, and that Is what 
 we complain about. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That is not answering my question, and in the second place 
 it is not a statement in connection with my inquiry. My question was simply this : 
 Can not they sell an edition of work of any of these kinds at less per thousand wl)ere 
 tbey have an edition of 10,000 than they conld if they issued an edition of only 2,000 ? 
 
 Mr. Hatch. I answered that " yes." 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. My second question is — or rather it would be in the line of 
 your reply — if, after issuing an edition of 10,000 of these kinds of work, they issued 
 another 10,000, can they not sell that second edition of 10,000 at less than the first 
 edition of 10,000? 
 
 Mr. Hatch. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And they sell to buyers without favoritism the product of 
 each edition ? 
 
 Mr. Hatch. It depends upon 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If, for instance, you were in Germany and you were buying 
 these goods by the thousand of the first edition, and I go and buy a thousand of the 
 first edition ; which one is going to get them the cheaper ? 
 
 Mr. Hatch. Where we pay money I suppose we would both get them for the same. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Suppose we buy a thousand each of the second edition ; we 
 would have to pay the same amount of money, I suppose. 
 
 Mr. Hatch. Yes, sir. My idea is that they have to issue the first edition, and they 
 may take an order for a time customer and issue an edition of 1,000, and they charge 
 the full expense of the plates against that 1,000. Then they turn around and send the 
 next 5,000 here and do not include the plates. In November last, the Treasury De- 
 partment attempted to correct that by decision No. 9727, in which it decided that the 
 importer has no right to do that ; that ho must include the cost of the plates. That 
 decision is very nice for the American manufacturer, but there is no way of carrying 
 it into effect. We have no way to prove whether there is 1,000 or 10,000, or whattbe 
 edition is. It is impossible to carry this decision into effect. We apply to this com- 
 mittee and the Treasury Department, and ask you and the Department to adopt some 
 pla.n of taxation, whatever it may be, so that we will not have to trust wholly to the 
 heart of the importer. 
 
 Take four or live more cases and figure what the goods here would cost the Ameri- 
 can manufacturer for the actual worn. Take the prices at which those goods came 
 into this country and are sold by the foreign importer. We deduct the selling prices 
 from what it actually costs us aud then, taking the number of pounds to the lot, fig- 
 uring on a 5,000 edition, and it makes a duty of 62^ cents — equal to what it costs us 
 to produce the goods in this coimtry. 
 
 Mr. Carli.sle. You propose a specific duty ? 
 
 Mr. Hatch. Yes, sir. We ask for a specific duty. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MAURICE KAUFMAN. 
 
 Mr. Maurice Kaufman, of New York, next addressed the committer. He said : 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we come here as dealers and im- 
 porters of printed matter, chiefly lithographic work, to ask for a reduction of duty 
 on these articles. I must confess I was taken by surprise at the statements made by 
 onr friends who have just addressed you. I look upon myself very much like the 
 poor little lamb who difended the wolf. Twenty years ago we began to import these 
 goods ; the manufacture of them in this country was very little and it is now in its 
 infancy. The total importation of chromes, pictures, engravings, etchings, printed 
 matter, etc., except books, at the port of New York amounted in 1887 to $549,888; in 
 1889, up to December 20, it amounted to |603,099; while thetotaliniportationsduring 
 
742 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 1879, including all printed maiter and books, were $1,348,844. From this it will be 
 seen tbat the importation of printed matter has not increased. Besides the great 
 percentage to steel engravings, etchings, pictures, cards, chromos, and educational 
 work, the duty if raised these goods can not be imported, and at the same time can 
 not be made here for lack of demand ; aud it would crush out the few. importers. The 
 most of this class of goods prior to 1883 was 35 per cent. It was then reduced to 25 
 percent. Let us consider how this affects the home production. The total amount 
 of business in lithographic printing was in 1880, $6,912,338. It had 167 presses em- 
 ployed, and an invested capital of $4,501,825. These figures are from the Census 
 Bureau. In 1889 there was invested capital of $32,500,000, with 563 presses at work. 
 The business in the city of New York alone has increased about twelve times. Some 
 of the houses, such as that of Knabe & Co., are doing a business of over $600,000 per 
 annum. Tbat company had in 1880 seven presses, employed and have over three hun- 
 dred in 1889. At the present time eighteen iirms are-engaged in this press business. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Did Knabe & Co. make this kind of goods ? 
 
 Mr. Kaufman. There is only one lirm in this country that can make goods similar 
 to the imported goods. There are eighteen firms engaged in selling lithographic 
 presses. Large quantities of presses are imported. The tariff on all printed matter, 
 excepting books, should be reduced to at least 15 per cent, ad valorem. With your 
 kind permission I will prepare a tabulated statement of these facts as presented to 
 you and will hand them to the clerk of your committee as a part of my remarks, 
 especially as certain remarks have been made which by actual undoubted figures I 
 can controvert ; and I think I should be given a chance to do so. I want to be fair 
 and square to everybody. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Could a specific duty bo put on these goods with anything like fair- 
 ness? 
 
 Mr. Kaufman. There would be no justice whatever in it, Mr. Charles Kaufman 
 is prepared to prove to you in the fullest manner by exhibits, as well as calculations. 
 
 STATEMENT OF CHARLES KAUFMAN. 
 
 Mr. Charles Kaufman, of New York, next, addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I desire to show you some speci- 
 mens of printed matter, from which you will see that it is impossible to put a specific 
 duty on this class of goods. They can not be scaled as iron or as paintings. Printed 
 matter is made in three, four, five, six, twelve, twenty-five, and almost as high as 
 t hirty colors, according to the quality. It is almost like thought — it can not be scaled. 
 They cost 170 marks per thousand sheets. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. They weigh how much? 
 
 Mr. Charles Kaufman. One hundred and eighty pounds. It would make about 
 264 per cent. The goods cost 40. They would cost $111 with the duty at 62 cents a 
 pound. That will illustrate about what these gentlemen want. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What do these goods sell for in New York ? 
 
 Mr. Charles Kaufman. Seven cents a sheet. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are they sold by the pound ? 
 
 Mr. Charles Kaufman. They are never sold by the pound. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Can you not calculate it as we are trying to trace out this 
 theory of taxation. 
 
 Mr. Charles Kaufman (after figuring). It is about ISj cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What tax are they asking? 
 
 Mr. Charles Kaufman. Sixty-two and one-half per cent. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That would be five times the amount they are now getting. 
 
 Mr. Charles Kaufman. Yes, sir. If you take $40 as the cost of these goods the 
 duty would be $111 on the better class of goods No. 2. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Give the prices of these per pound. 
 
 Mr. Charles Kaufman. They cost 900 marks a thousand, or in American money 
 $216. The duty is $54 at present. They weigh 425 pounds to tho thousand sheets, 
 which would make the duty $255. Everybody cannot purchase these in the market 
 at the prices I have named. We buy 5,000 and sometimes 10,000 sheets. We may 
 purchase them cheaper than others because we are dealers. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Anybody could buy them in the same quantities. 
 
 Mr. Charles Kaufman. Certainly. This is the established market price. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. These sheets are all the same size, are they? 
 
 Mr. Charles Kaufman. Almost the same size. There is No. 4 [indicating], 
 which cost 100 marks a thousand, or $24. The duty is |6. They weigh 103 pounds to 
 the thousand, and the tariff at G2| per cent, specific duty would make about $62 per 
 thousand, or 253 per cent. 
 
 There is another line of goods, No. 5 [indicating] ; they cost 16 marks a thousand, 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 743 
 
 or $3.84. The duty is 96 cents, and they weigh 12J jiounds. At 62|- cents specific 
 duty it would amount to $7.50, instead of 96 cents, the present rate. This No. 
 7 [indicating] is :ui oleograph. That costs 250 marks a thousand, or $60, making the 
 duty of $15 per thousand. They weigh 135 pounds, and at 62^ cents specific duty it 
 would amount to $81, instead of $15, as at present. This is No. U [indicating]. It is an 
 imitation engraving or lithographic printed matter. That costs 49 marks a thousand, 
 or $11.76. Theduty is $2.94. They would weigh 125 pounds, and the duty at 62i 
 cents would be $75, instead of $11.96. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much does it cost in this country to make this article. 
 No. 9 per thousand? 
 
 Mr. Charles Kaufman. As to this particular class of goods I do not know. I 
 could not answer that question on that class of goods. 1 am not so well posted on 
 goods made in this country as on imported goods. 
 
 Mr. Flower. This seems to be a very great advance. Is it the intention in asking 
 a specific duty to hide the percentage f 
 
 Mr. Charles Kaufman. Yes, sir ; it would wipe us out entiirely. This state- 
 ment shows you the importation of printed matter in the port of New York. The 
 total does not amount to more than $600,000, except on books. It has not increased. 
 The domestic manufacture of these goods has increased immensely. Their book bus- 
 iness is .$30,000,000 to $40,000,000. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The point is, do they come at all into competition with do- 
 mestic production in this country of this article No. 9 ? 
 
 Mr. Kaufman. Very little. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. They sell this at what price per thousand ? 
 
 Mr. Kaufman. This is sold, I think, at $9 per thousand. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You compete with those at $9 a thousand now in America, do 
 you? 
 
 Mr. Kaupmann. Yes, sir ; but we sell very few of them. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The proposed duty on this would be how much ? 
 
 Mr. Kaufman. Seventy-five dollars. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The whole cost is less than $9, and yon compete and sell for 
 $9 on the market ? 
 
 Mr. Kaupmann. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The specific duty is really to bide the percentage? 
 
 Mr. Kaufman. It does so entirely. These gentlemen have referred to the design 
 expense. I do not know whether you gentlemen are to deal with that. It is a de- 
 cision of the Department which was made two years ago. That decision added to the 
 duty on expense of making the original plates which remained iu Europe on certain 
 goods. I think this has created unpleasant feeling, and I think it is entirely unjust, 
 and I complained very bitterly against it. We have done a great deal of importing 
 business and never have had any trouble, and do not expect to have. As to what 
 they say about merchant appraisers, I can say I have often been appointed a mer- 
 chant appraiser. I was appointed yesterday. I have always served, but I could not 
 appear yesterday because 1 was here. There is at present in the custom-house an 
 unpleasant feeling created by some of these gentlemen which puts the importer in an 
 unpleasant light. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do they frequently have merchant appraisers on these gooods ? 
 
 Mr. Kaufman. Very little. There is only one importer who has ever under- 
 valued. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. There is little complaint then. 
 
 Mr. Kaufman. Very little. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. When there has been has there been any trouble in getting a 
 merchant appraiser ? 
 
 Mr. Kaufman. Not at all. This whole trouble has been created by those cigar 
 labels. I do not think the importation of cigar labels amounted to more than $40,000 
 or $50,000. This bas caused all the trouble. This matter is to a great extent educa- 
 tional and for mercantile uses. They could never make these goods here, because 
 it would not pay them. The importations prove that. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Under this classification those goods are not made here 1 
 
 Mr. Kaufman. Not at all; they can not make them here. 
 
 Mr. Breckinrldgb. The reason is the demand is too small ? 
 
 Mr. Kaufman. Yes, sir; and at the same time these goods have a market price 
 in Europe at which we and everybody else cm purchase them. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And the only commercial goods, or goods designed for ordinary 
 commercial purposes, such as trade labels, that you know of are these few cigar 
 labels ? 
 
 Mr. Kaufman. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The present tariff is prohibitory on all these classes ? 
 
 Mr. Kaufman. The importations of them show it. By the statements shown they 
 are quoted at 900 marks. I quote the same price as you have there. 
 
744 EE VISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 Mr. Breckinkidgb. Our manufaeturers are selling these goods to-day as cheaply 
 as you can get the same thing in Europe. 
 
 Mr. Kaufman. I would not say generally. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinridge. Your quotation is the price in Germany with duty and trans- 
 portation added ? 
 
 Mr. Kaufman. Yes, sir ; 900 marks per thousand free on board. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That applies to specimen No. 4 ? 
 
 Mr. Kaufman. Yes, sir; that corresponds with my No. 4. That does not come in 
 competition with the American market, and as we have helped to develop this in 
 this country, we desire to have a reduction on the present rate of 25 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Maurice Kaufman. A remark was made by one gentleman about advertising 
 goods. He has imported largely for educational purposes. They are goods produced 
 from twelve colors ; they are for advertising purposes and foreigners can not compete 
 with them. There is a lithographer in this very room to whom I gave an order for 
 over $3,000 for 100,000 advertising cards. I could not help myself. I was barred out 
 as by a Chinese wall, and we do not compete with those advertising goods. I deny 
 his assertion. 
 
 STATEMENT OF RALPH TROUTMAN. 
 
 Mr. Ralph Troutman, of New York, next addressed the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I only want to make a few remarks 
 about specific duties, without going into any details whatever. But while the two 
 gentlemen whohave just spoken mentioned the adverti.sing part of the competition I 
 do not see any specimens here which pertain to it, which is the leading feature of our 
 claim. We can not compete with that advertising matter. This is a fact and the 
 importers must know it. The very fact stated by Mr. Kauffman — that these goods were 
 imported and can noi. be made here — goes to show that we can not compete with 
 them. These goods sell as advertising goods. While Mr. Kauffman in one breath 
 stated that he imported five or ten thousand, he afterwards stated in the same breath 
 that he imported two or three hundred lots. That does not jibe together. It must 
 be either one or the other. Why do we desire a specific duty 'I We ask for a specific 
 duty as it is the only just and equitable protection in our line of business. The edi- 
 tions of each order are different, and it is impossible for a man in England, Germany, 
 France, Italy, or Spain, to be positive as to the correctness of any prices of any in- 
 voices unless he was thoroughly conversant with all the details of the lithograpio 
 business in the respective countries. The same can be said of the appraisers in our 
 various ports of entry. While you gentlemen are undoubtedly conversant with all 
 other dutiable merchandise 1 am free to say that you can not determine the value of 
 the lithographers' goods, or the correctness of any ad valorem duty thereon, while 
 with a reasonable specific duty all parties would have clear sailing. The importa- 
 tions have increased to such an extent that wo respectfully ask for it, as it is the 
 only reliable protection to the $30,000,000 capital and 30,000 people employed by 
 American lithographers. It is said that this rate of duty will amount to bO or 70 in- 
 stead of 7 or 8. That is no criterion for the cases under debate. Those goods are 
 pasted and they couldjustas well be imported audjiasted here, which wouldgive more 
 work for ns to do. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What difference would it make ? 
 
 Mr. Troutman. The differouoe in weight. 
 
 The Chairman. Would they not be weighed when pasted ? 
 
 Mr. Troutman. They would not, under the law. 
 
 Mr. Charles Kauffman. I made a statement that we imported these in five 
 and ten thousand lot sheets, and if the gentleman understood me to say we imported 
 them in lots of two or three hundred, he is wrong. Vfe import them in certain quanti- 
 ties, generally in 5,000 sheets, and sometimes iu 1,000 or 2,000. 
 
 Mr. Troutman. This is the reason we want the specific duty, so they can not be 
 imported that way. 
 
 Mr. Charles Kauffman. We have imported some in four or five thousand lots. 
 It makes no difference to the gentleman, but it makes a great deal of difference to us. 
 
 STATEMENT OF CASPAR FECHTELER. 
 
 Mr. Caspar Fechteler, of New York, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we represent a certain line of litho- 
 graph ic work, which is known as transfer ornament or decaloomania. These goods 
 are used to a great extent by American manufacturers for trade-marks, letters, and 
 general decorative purposes. For instance, a number of sewing-machine manufact- 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 745 
 
 urers and manufacturers of safes, scales, agricultural implements, wagon-buildors, 
 carriage-builders, manufacturers of toys, pianos, and a good many others. 1 believe 
 thatabout85percent. of the whole amount is imported ;tbe remainder are usedfor deco- 
 rating such things as lamp-shades. Under the present tariff our goods are classified as 
 printed and pay 25 per cent, ad valorem, and if tbe manufacturers should succeed in 
 raising the duties to 62^ per oeut. specific, that would be a raise of 23, 30, 50, 60, 70, 
 and 8U per cent., according to the kind of goods. We claim the rate on these goods 
 ought not to be raised. Tbey ought to go on the free list for the reason that they do 
 not come into competition with anything that is manufactured here. Of the amount 
 used perhaps 75 per cent, are made in Muhlenburg. Germany. They have developed 
 it and have brought it to the present state of perfection. Our firm may justly claim 
 the merit of introducing these goods for the purpose of manufacture. Other manu- 
 facturers in Germany have tried to make goods similar to ours and have failed. It 
 has been tried by several houses in New York, Philadelphia, Eoehester, Chicago, and 
 some other places, but they have all failed. 
 
 As I said before, this is a specialty and the manufacturer needs a certain class of 
 trained workmen. The lithographer and printers who prepare this paper can not be 
 taken from another establishment. They have to be trained to this work. Besides 
 there is a special reason why the goods can not be made in this country. Our orna- 
 ments are printed on plain paper, while the others are printed on glued paper. Ours 
 are printed on paper that must absorb the water and let it through. If you print on 
 dry paper one color, next day the moisture of the atmosphere may rise 90 degrees, 
 the paper will stretch and get larger with the amount of 8 inches, and the conse- 
 quence will be that you can not have a good register and consequently not a good 
 picture. There is a manufacturer in the city of New York who makes this work:, but 
 he does it in a smaller way. He does not come in competition with others. I am 
 sorry the gentlemen who were here this morning have left. I am very sure they 
 would agree with me. We ask the committee to put transfer ornaments on the free 
 list. Perhaps you gentlemen do not know anything about it. I am sure you have 
 seen it. 
 
 ( Witness here exhi bited specimens of his work used by the Singer Sewing Machine 
 Company, ornaments used by manufacturers of pianos and organs and by wagon 
 builders.) 
 
 VIEVrS OP THE NATIONAL LITHOGRAPHERS' ASSOCIATION. 
 
 "Lithographic and photo-lithographic prints from either stone, zinc, glass, or gela- 
 tine, bound or unbound (except illustrations in printed books), and all articles pro- 
 duced either in whole or in part by lithographic or photo-lithographic process, 
 wholly or partially manufactured, 62^ cents per pound." 
 
 We respectfully refer the Committee on Ways and Means of the Fifty-first Con- 
 gress of tbe United States of America to the testimony taken before your committee 
 on the 10th day of January, 1890, and we submit in connection and in addition to 
 that testimony the following facts, which we are prepared to prove if any of them are 
 disputed, and we also submit at the end of this brief certain tables referred to di- 
 rectly or indirectly at the time of the hearing. 
 
 Lithographs and photo-lithographs are not mentioned in the tarift' bill of 1884 or 
 any amendment thereof. 
 
 By virtue of a Treasury Department decision, affirmed by the Supreme Court of the 
 United States, lithographs were classified in Schedule M under section 384, as it was 
 in section 2'JO of the same schedule in the prior tariff bill of 1883, and is only subjected 
 to the same duty as blank paper and ordinary printed matter. 
 
 Fine lithographs represent in value about 85 per cent, of labor and about 15, or not 
 to exceed 20, per cent, of material, whereas paper boxes (in the same schedule), for 
 instance, represent about 150 per cent, of labor as against 50 per cent, of material, and 
 are subjected to a duty of 35 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Lithographs are luxuries and are in no sense necessities, and the lithographic man- 
 ufacture in the United States is for the benefit of sjme thirty thousand workmen as 
 against the alleged injury to less than twenty importers, who are in fact only agents 
 of foreign manufacturers. This is leaving out of the question altogether tbe two 
 hundred and eighty-four manufacturing lithographers that were practically repre- 
 sented before your'comraittee and who have invested, for the welfare of this country, 
 over $30,000,000 in the business. 
 
 There can be no question about the fact of competition in the trade of lithographers 
 in the United States, and there has never been any attempt to regulate prices iu the 
 trade. 
 
 The question was asked at the hearing afforded tons as to whether there bad been 
 any increase in the number of lithographers doing business in the United States, and 
 
746 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 upon investigation wo &m\ that tbere have been practically no large houses estab- 
 lished in the last live years and but very few small ones, and there have been large 
 oues that went out of the business. 
 
 At this point also attention would be called to the fact that the class of work im- 
 ported into this country, and the class of work that we are desirous to be protected 
 against, is not the ordinary, every-day, cheap lithograph that is seen on news-stands 
 and bill-boards, etc., for as to that work no question is raised ; it is so cheap that there 
 is no attempt to import ; but when we come to the fine lithographic work, done usually 
 on fine paper and done in from twelve to twenty-five colois and in gold, it requires 
 good artists to make the drawings and the plates and requires skillfal mechanics to 
 execute the work and fine material to be applied on the paper, and the orders as a 
 rule are executed for one particular customer. 
 
 American lithographers require more proportionate space and more proportionate 
 valuable property to enable them to conduct business than perhaps any other class 
 of manufacture. 
 
 Inquiry will prove that no man can go into the lithographic business in America 
 with any reasonable chance of success without having at his command a very large 
 amount of capital. As an example it is estimated that lithographers only turn their 
 capital once and a half in a year at the utmost as against manufacturers in other 
 business turning it from three to ten times a year. 
 
 Even this statement is made less favorable than it might be to the American lithog- 
 rapher, as |700,000 is invested by Schumacher & Ettlinger in their business, and 
 they only do an annual amount business of less than one-half of that amount. 
 
 The Associated Lithographers of the United States, which association was swal- 
 lowed up in thoNational Association of Lithographers, appeared before the Committee 
 on Ways and Means at the Fiftieth Congress, and also before the Finance Committee 
 of the Senate of that Congress, and asked for an increase, at that time, in the ad va- 
 lorem duty imposed on lithographs; and, in the bill submitted by the Finance Com- 
 mittee of the Senate of theUnitedStates,lithographicworkwa8 separately mentioned 
 and the duty increased from 25 to 35 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 The effort of the Associated Lithographers to obtain protection resulted in a fur- 
 ther examination into the subjectof imports, and itwasascertained that the importers 
 were not paying duty on the cost of the merchandise at the place it was manufact- 
 ured or exported by omitting from the cost the value of the designs and drawings on 
 stone. 
 
 In the designing and drawing on stone it is difficult for the American lithographer 
 to compote against his foreign competitor, as will more particularly and clearly ap- 
 pear by reference to the wage schedule annexed to this brief, showing the comparison 
 between the small wages ijaid abroad and the large wages paid for the same class of 
 work in America. 
 
 We then applied to the Secretary of the Treasury for relief against this manner of 
 entering foreign invoices, of lithographic work, and obtained from the Assistant 
 Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Tichenor, a decision of the Department, dated Novem- 
 ber 21, 1889 (No. 9727), addressed to the collector of customs, New York, by which 
 decision the Department held that — 
 
 "No duty can be assessed upon engraved plates which do not arrive. The market 
 value of lithographic work should not be reduced in consequence of the fact that such 
 plates are itemized on the invoice, but if it is found that sheet music or other litho- 
 graphic work is invoiced and entered at a value below its cost, or the price actually 
 paid therefor in its finished condition in the foreign market or below its actual value 
 in such market, proper additions to the entry value should be made by the appraiser." 
 
 When we applied to the appraiser and to the collector of the port of New York 
 for the benefit of this decision we were met with the statement that it was prac- 
 tically impossible to prove whether an invoice of lithographic work cost the price at 
 which it was invoiced or not, in that the importer would claim that by an edition he 
 had issued, for example of 20,000 sheets, the cost of the designs and engraving had 
 been proportionately spread over the whole edition, and that as this importation, for 
 instance, was only 1,000 sheets, he should only be charged one-twentieth of the cost, 
 which statement taken by itself was reasonable and fair. 
 
 But the fact was, or usually is, that the other or larger proportion of this edition is 
 not imported to this country, and is sold abroad ; consequently the edition imported 
 into this country only pays one-twentieth of the principal expense in producing it. 
 
 If the importer states in reply to this argument that it would be equally unfair to 
 charge him with the whole cost of the plates on an edition imported into this conn- 
 try and charge him with the whole cost of the plates in the edition which he sells in 
 his own country, we answer that the way to avoid the injustice to him and the in- 
 justice to us is by specific duty, leaving it to this committee to determine what is 
 proper and right between the American lithographer and the foreign importer, as and 
 for a specific duty. Or, as was suggested in the course of our investigations and in- 
 quiries as to what would meet the approval from the Treasury Department, perhaps 
 
KEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 747 
 
 it would be more fair, equitable, and just to lay a specific duty of 50 cents and an ad 
 valorem duty of, say, 15 per cent. 
 
 The figures 62| cents per pound were arrived at by taking a number of invoices 
 and figuring what the whole cost of the work would be in America on an edition of 
 5,000 sheets and on paper of 80 pounds to the ream ; then deducting from that cost 
 the price at which this particular article was invoiced by the foreign manufacturer 
 to his agent here. Divide the remainder by the number of pounds to the edition 
 (approximately 800) and taking the average, it figures 62f cents per pound of spe- 
 cific duty necessary to be imposed on the invoice price of the foreign importation to 
 protect the American lithographer. 
 
 We do not mean to state that we believe that the merchandise invoiced cost as little 
 as it was entered in the custom-house at, but we state the figures of the importer as 
 he has sworn to them, and we presume he must stand by his own figures, only we 
 would not attempt to deceive this committee into a statement that the merchandise 
 cost proportionately so little. 
 
 Referring to Mr. Breckinridge'squestion to Mr. Ettlinger, and Mr. Ettlinger's reply, 
 which was taken up by the ijublic press, it was evidently misunderstood by some of 
 the members of your committee as to one particular lithographic card, where it was 
 stated by Mr. Ettlinger the present duty was |62.50, and the specific duty on that par- 
 ticular card would be |400, the matter was not completed either by the inquiry or by 
 the answer. 
 
 The reason that only $62.50 is the present duty on that particular card is because 
 the whole cost of the card was not included in the invoice, and that is the very thing 
 the American lithographers complain about. 
 
 On the other hand, the specific duty on that card would not be the specific duty on 
 a similar card if a specific duty is imposed on lithographic work, for the reason that 
 as soon as the foreign lithographer ascertains that fine lithographic work is to pay 
 more duty than common paper, he will print his lithographic work, on thinner paper, 
 which he can do more cheaply and as nicely, and whenever it is necessary to have it 
 on heavier paper that can be done in this country by our card-board manufacturers 
 at a very trifling expense, and in most instances only makes the difference between 
 doing it abroad and doing it in this country. An extreme illustration, as we concede 
 ourselves, but as a fair example of the imposition on this committee by the gentle- 
 man speaking for the foreign importers, a card was produced with a lithographic 
 picture upon it, and it was stated to your committee what the duty on that card 
 would be if imported with a specific duty, whereas Mr. Trautman with his finger 
 removed the lithographic print and showed how lightly it was mounted, on what 
 light paper it was lithographed, aud on what heavy paper it was mounted. 
 
 We will submit, attached to this brief, a picture with the weight as it is im- 
 ported and the weight that it is necessary to import, as an illustration of this point. 
 
 The American lithographers call your attention to a point that they do not put for- 
 ward as any material argument in favor of their claim, but ouly as a fact, and inci- 
 dent forming a part thereof, namely, that the duties that they have to pay on what 
 they import to use in the production of their work, is larger than the protection they 
 now obtain, as, for instance they pay 20 cents specific and 30 cents ad valorem on 
 felts. They pay 30 per cent, on rubber blanketing, 45 per cent, on the machinery 
 thev import, and 40 per cent, on varnishes. 
 
 As an example as to what the American lithographers do import, Mr. Ettlinger 
 states that of the twenty-three presses used in the establishment of Schumacher & 
 Ettlinger, only eight are of American manufacture. We would also state at this 
 point that American machinery costs us more than double what the same machinery 
 costs the German lithographer. 
 
 Referring to Mr. Breckinridge's question to Mr. Ettlinger of the corporation of 
 Schumacher & Ettlinger, as to the amount of his sales for the year 1889, he stated 
 them to be aboat |450,000. On referring to the books of the company he is prepared 
 to prove that the sales were |382,000 only for the year 1889 ; for the year 1884 they 
 were $344,329; for the year 1885 they were $322,443; for the year 1886 they were 
 $333,218 ; for the year 1887 they were |.il0,724 ; for the year 1888 they were $298,908. 
 showing by the above that the sales were decreasing each year. 
 
 The reason that the sales for 1889 are so largely increased, and the reason that the 
 sales of Knapp & Co. were so large for 1889, was because of the unusual and re- 
 markable amount of advertising done by the cigarette manufacturers in the United 
 States ; Schumacher & l::ttlinger receiving $109,000 of work from these cigarette man- 
 nfacturers alone, and Knapp & Co. something like $300,000 or more. But since the 
 formation of the combination known as the Cigarette Trust, the lithographers have 
 lost the benefits of this increased advertising. 
 
 Mr. Ettlinger further looked up on the books of the company facts in relation to the 
 amount of capital which they had invested in their business alone, which amounts 
 in round figures to $700,000, and the lithographers draw attention to the comparison 
 between the amounts of money invested by them in a business for the benefit of the 
 
748 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 citizens of the United States as against practically nothing that the importers have 
 invested in our country, and also show that it was stated to your honorable commit- 
 tee by the importers that the importation is only 2 per cent, of the business done in 
 the United States, and is conducted by only seven or eight importers, and similar 
 statements, while on the other hand, it is true what the National Lithographers' As- 
 sociation state, viz, that these seven or eight importers, carrying on only this small 
 business, are nevertheless able to materially interfere with the conduct of the 98 per 
 cent, of business done in the United States by its own citizens, and your honorable 
 committee can do no great damage if you protect 284 American manufacturers and 
 30,000 workmen against the alleged frauds conducted by this handful of importers 
 through the customs of the United States. 
 
 The foreign importer does not give the American public the benefit of the present 
 low duty on lithographic importations, but merely makes his price a small percentage 
 beneath the price that the American manufacturer can produce the same card for. 
 
 As an illustration of this point, we call attention to the cigarette label or card 
 stamjjed with Kinney Brothers name upon it in one of the schedules {Ettlinger) an- 
 nexed to this brief. 
 
 Referring to the testimony of Charles Kauffraan, one of the importers who asked 
 your committee to reduce the tariff on lithographs to 15 per cent., and taking np his 
 first illustration of a lithograph that he produced, which he stated weighed 180 pounds 
 to the thousand, and which he said cost 170 marks, or, as he stated it, $40, that if 62} 
 cents specific duty was charged, the cost, he states, would be $111, and he then com- 
 pletes his statement that the goods are selling in New York for 7 cents a sheet. 
 
 All we have to say about this particular lithograph is, that the gentleman's esti- 
 mate of its cost is not true, and that he admitted ignorance in relation to the editions 
 issued, and what was included in the estimate cost of this particular edition, thereby 
 demonstrating that he does not know what the edition cost, as undoubtedly it was 
 invoiced from his principal in Germany to himself in America at 170 marks. But it 
 is just that injustice and manner of doing business that we are asking protection 
 against. 
 
 We are informed, in fact know, that there is a firm of Kauffman & Co. in Berlin, 
 and we are informed and believe that this particular invoice was an exportation by 
 Kauffman & Co. of Berlin to Kauffman & Co. of New York. 
 
 Furthermore, and without going into detail, we think the gentleman was wrong in 
 his estimate as to the weight of the paper. 
 
 Referring to the illustration of Mr. Kaufl'man as to some lithograph only costing 
 $010 and weighing 425 pounds, that particular one is covered by the testimony of 
 Mr. Troutmanu, and i-i also referred to before in this brief. It was a very light photo- 
 lithograph, with only one color, that was imported, on a heavy card-board back, and 
 which, of course, was not a fair illustration to present to your committee. 
 
 Taking the strongest illustration against what the National Association ask, that 
 can be or was introduced before your committee, is, according to our recollection, Mr. 
 Kauffmau's illustration of a picture that he numbered 9, which was an imitation en- 
 graving or photolithographic print in only one color, of something that little is im- 
 ported into this country and is cheap work that nobody cares much about, but which 
 we have taken into consideration in fixing the amount of specific duty we should ask 
 for, and which is the extreme opposite illustration to where, as Mr. Kauffman states, 
 lithographic work of thirty colors is imported into this country, in which instance 
 the same argument would be equally strong against him. 
 
 As we stated, in that instance this cheap print, it will be found, only weighs, so 
 far as the print is concerned, about 10 pounds ; that the other 115 pounds is for the 
 card-board on which it is only struck on ; this print, weighing 10 pounds, would pay 
 a duty of $6.25, or equal to 50 xier cent, ad valorem duty. 
 
 It can not bo disputed that the proportion of this cheap stuff imported into this 
 country is only about 5 per cent, of the total amount of lithographic work imported. 
 
 So far as Mr. Kauffmau's statistics are concerned all we can state is, that at the 
 Fiftieth Congress the Democratic majority of the Committee on Ways and Means 
 made inquiry, as we are informed and believe, of the Treasury Department for these 
 statistics, as also did the Republican majority in the Senate on the Finance Com- 
 mittee, and it was then stated, as we understood, that no reliable figures could be 
 ascertained of the importation of lithographs because of the fact that they were in- 
 cluded in the printed paper schedule ; it might be imported in the form of either 
 books, or albums, or cards, or sheets, or anything else. 
 
 And to show the mistake that the learned gentleman speaking on behalf of the 
 importers made, we would refer to the consular report No. 91, ot March, 1888, page 
 581, where it appears that the exportations from Berlin alone in the year ending Sep- 
 tember 30, 1887, amounted to $1,116,500.55, which is in excees of what Mr. Kauffman 
 states the whole importations in America amounted to ($566,612.55), and this is only 
 one city that wn quote from. 
 
 Referring to Mr. Kauffman's criticism on the Treasury decision, we would call at- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 749 
 
 tention that he is referring to some decisiou rendered two years ago ; we are referring 
 to one rendered in November, 1889, to show that he is mistaken in his premises. 
 
 Mr. Hatch, in his statement about merchant appraisers, did not mean to state that 
 there was not physical power to appoint a merchant appraiser or to go through the 
 form of a re-appraisement, but to actually accomplish a re-appraisement is what we 
 assert the Treasury Department can not obtain, for the reason that we can not ob- 
 tain, without going to very unusual and great expense, any accurate figures as to 
 the editions issued of the particular importation, consequently we can not tell what 
 the cost of any one edition is or might be. 
 
 This last statement explains somewhat Mr. Kauffman's remark that only one im- 
 porter has ever undervalued his goods ; and all we would do is call attention to any 
 other line of business and the report made to the Senate of the United States of the 
 Forty -ninth Congress, second session. No. 990, to show the amount of undervalua- 
 tions in other goods imported and the houses that were hauled up for undervalua- 
 tion without any reasonable likelihood of intentional undervaluation, as an illustra- 
 tion that it is no more probable that those worthy importing lithographers do not 
 make mistakes in their invoices the same as other importers ; but the domestic man- 
 ufacturers are wholly unable to tell not only whether there has been fraud com- 
 mitted, but whether there have been mistakes made, as it becomes, as we have 
 stated, practically impossible to prove anything with an ad valorem duty. 
 
 The domestic manufacturers are prepared to contradict Mr. Kauffman's statement 
 that only about $40,000 or $50,000 of cigar labels are imported, by proof to this com- 
 mittee, jf it is material, that probably $200,000 are imported annually of cigar labels 
 alone. 
 
 The lithographic importations affected by this change in the tarifi' will not affect 
 at all educational importations ; that argument is only made for the purpose of affect- 
 ing outside interests ; the amount of educational lithographic matter imported is so 
 infinitesimal that it is absurd to refer to it; lithographs are used almost wholly, of 
 the character that are affected by this change in the tariff, for advertising purposes, 
 together possibly with Christmas and Easter cards. 
 
 Attention is called to the fact that this proposed change does not affect engravings 
 or etchings. 
 
 So far as Mr. Kauffman's statement in answer to Mr. Breckinridge's questions that 
 the only commercial goods, or goods designed for ordinary commercial purposes, such 
 as trade labels, that he knew of, are these few cigar labels, the falsity of the state- 
 ment is so patent and so clear to any person who knows anything at all in relation to 
 lithographs or importations, that it is almost unnecessary even to call attention to its 
 falsity. 
 
 There are thousands of what are called panel cards that are imported ; calendars, 
 in which there is a large business being done at this time ; show cards, small adver- 
 tising cards, spool-cotton advertisements and advertisements of that character, cig- 
 arettes and tobacco advertisements, pictures used for embellishing fancy boxes, also 
 Christmas cards. New Year's cards, Easter cards, menus, to say nothing of particu- 
 lar trades like trunk manufacturers, where their pictures on- the covers are all im- 
 ported. 
 
 Where Mr. Maurice Kauffman supplements his brother's statement with the fact 
 that he individually could not compete with certain American advertising cards, the 
 lithographers would merely have it noted that although Mr. Kauffman may have re- 
 fused some order in relation to a certain particular advertisement, that some of his 
 competing importers have undertaken the job. 
 
 Kauffman & Co. confine their business, as we are informed, to what is called stock 
 work, and of course there is less competition there than in any other of the imported 
 work ; but the other importers, it will be noticed, did not appear before the Com- 
 mittee on Ways and Means, although we are informed they were in the city of Wash- 
 ington the day before the hearing, and, we are further informed, were advised to re- 
 turn to New York City, because their statements would not be of assistance to Mr. 
 Kauffman's interests or argument. And it is further to be noted that Mr. Kauffman 
 did not state that he represented anybody or any class of persons except his own par- 
 ticular firm. And in opposition to that situation of affairs we would state that at 
 the Fiftieth Congress we presented a petition on this subject signed by thousands of 
 workmen that was too bulky to handle, and another petition signed by manufactur- 
 ing lithographers in almost every State in the Union, demonstrating how united the 
 manufacturers are in favor of protection. 
 
 Edw. S. Hatch, 
 Counsel for the National Lithographers' Association of the United States. 
 
 January 25, 1890. 
 
750 
 
 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OP CHARLES KAXTPMANN. 
 
 New York, February 1, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen : "We respectfully refer the Coramittee on Ways and Means of the Fifty- 
 first Congress of the United States of America to the testimony taken before your 
 couMnittee on the 10th day of January, 1890, and we submit in connection and in 
 addition to that testimony the following facts ; and we also submit certain tables 
 referred to directly or indirectly at the time of the hearing. 
 
 To prove the utter impossibility of establishing any equitable specific duty, we have 
 prepared the following table, showing the difference between the present rate of duty, 
 which is 25 per cent, ad valorem on printed matter, and a specitio duty of 62J cents 
 per pound, as proposed by the National Lithographers' Association. 
 
 No. 1, 1,000 slieet83how pictures . 
 No. 2, 1,000 flheeta show pictures 
 
 No. 4, 1,000 panels 
 
 No. 5, 1,000 cards 
 
 No. 7, 1.000 oleographs 
 
 No. 9, 1,000 imitation engravings. 
 
 Price 
 
 Amoant 
 
 
 
 per 1,000 
 
 in 
 
 Duty. 
 
 Weight. 
 
 marks. 
 
 dollars. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 170 
 
 $40. 80 
 
 $10. 20 
 
 180 
 
 900 
 
 216. 00 
 
 64.00 
 
 425 
 
 100 
 
 32.00 
 
 8.00 
 
 103 
 
 16 
 
 3.84 
 
 .98 
 
 12J 
 
 250 
 
 60.00 
 
 15.00 
 
 135 
 
 49 
 
 11.76 
 
 2.94 
 
 125 
 
 Proposed 
 
 specific 
 
 dntyof62iS 
 
 cents per 
 
 pound. 
 
 $112. 50 
 265. 63 
 64 38 
 7.81 
 84 37 
 78.00 
 
 Per cent, 
 of duty. 
 
 275 
 123 
 268 
 204 
 140 
 661 
 
 In the columns, " Proposed specific duty of 62^ cents per pound " and " Percentage 
 of duty " the amounts are higher than as given by Mr. Charles Kaufmann before the 
 honorable Committee on Ways and Means, as at that time he figured them while 
 speaking to the committee. 
 
 This statement has been prepared by expert testimony, who have spared no trouble 
 iu making it correct in every particular, which can be proved by samples and stock 
 which we will furnish to the committee. Samples of the above exhibits are now in 
 possession of the committee. 
 
 The importations of printed matter do not alone consist of show cards, advertising 
 cards, etc., as our opponents endeavor to show, but in most cases they are artistic 
 Christmas and Easter cards, pictures for framing, art studies for painting, colored 
 plate illustrations for books, artistic notions, and relief pictures which are not made 
 by any firms in the United States. All in all, these, do not greatly exceed in value 
 the sum of ,1600,000 per annum, as previously stated, and as proven by the annexed 
 table, which is a statement of the importation of all printed matter into the port of 
 New York, except books : 
 
 1887. 
 
 1889. 
 
 January — 
 February .. 
 
 March 
 
 April 
 
 May 
 
 Jaue 
 
 July 
 
 August — 
 September 
 
 October 
 
 !J?ovember. 
 December . . 
 
 Total 
 
 $35, 794 
 52, 547 
 31, 908 
 43, 951 
 29, 477 
 41, 345 
 41, 857 
 36, 959 
 
 57, 262 
 
 58, 111 
 58, 063 
 62, 614 
 
 549, 883 
 
 $43, 156 
 42, 879 
 58, 205 
 34, 554 
 36, 428 
 60, 775 
 45, 250 
 57, 351 
 50, 757 
 49, 298 
 60, 122 
 47, 248 
 
 674, 023 
 
 $38, 893 
 46, 336 
 
 63, 087 
 43, 319 
 
 64, 693 
 34. 170 
 46, 205 
 46, 661 
 50, 26« 
 46, 225 
 68, 134 
 
 *65, 116 
 
 603, 099 
 
 * Up to December 20, 1889. 
 
 The importation of books amounted to $1,781,106 in 1887; |1,932,721 iu 1888; and 
 .$1,846,164 in 1889 (up to December 20). In 1879 the amount was |1,345,824. In 1879 
 all printed matter was included under " books," and therefore can not be separated. 
 
 The above statement has been prepared with great care from the records of the 
 custom-house, and is absolutely correct. It can be verified by official records. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 751 
 
 It is possible that the exportations of printed matter from any one particular for- 
 eign port may have exceeded this sum, in which case they included books, German 
 literature, etc. 
 
 PEOGEBSS OP LITHOGRAPHIC BUSINESS DUBING THE TEAES 1880-1889. 
 
 The following table gives the number of employes, the capital invested, and the 
 annual product of the live hundred and sixty-three lithographic establishments at 
 present existing in the United States : 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Number of 
 establish- 
 ments. 
 
 Number 
 of em- 
 ployes. 
 
 Capital in- 
 vested. 
 
 Annual 
 product. 
 
 Basineas in the TTuited States : 
 
 1880 
 
 167 
 563 
 
 48 
 179 
 
 3,641 
 18,000 
 
 988 
 6,500 
 
 $4, 501, 825 
 *32, 500, 000 
 
 1, 227, 550 
 *13, 200, 000 
 
 $6, 912, 338 
 ■*40, 000, 000 
 
 1,738,452 
 •18,000,000 
 
 1889 
 
 Business in the city of New York: . 
 
 1880 
 
 1889 
 
 
 • Abont. 
 
 The increase of production per annum for the year 1889 could not be ascertained 
 accurately, but is calculated iu the proportion of the production to the amount of 
 capital invested, which prevailed iu 1880. 
 
 The business of Knapp & Co., of New York, in 1880 was seven presses and seventy- 
 five employes against, in 1889, thirty presses and two hundred and fifly employes, and 
 an annual product of over $750,000. 
 
 This table has been secured from one of the editorial staff of the American Litho- 
 grapher, a paper published in the interests of the lithographers of America, who of 
 course were not aware of the use we designed it for. 
 
 This will furnish ample proof that enormous sums of money are being earned 
 annually in this branch, and that the business is continually increasing. We know 
 for a fact that several houses in New York are now behind in deliveries by millions 
 of cards, being unable to cope with the amount of business given them. Of course 
 it is possible that among the many hundred houses there are one or two firms who 
 are not continuinff to treble their profits as iu the past ; this can easily be accounted 
 for by old fogyism, as in every other line of business. 
 
 The American lithographers have taken great pains to charge the importers with 
 fraud, and have cast other dishonorable insinuations upon their character as mer- 
 chants. They have further subjected the importers to untold annoyances, insisting 
 upon examining invoices and samples, delaying the merchandise at the appraiser's 
 stores, and all for the purpose of discovering some clue to substantiate their insults. 
 We are happy to say that up to the present time this has been without result. 
 
 It is clear to our mind that the entire movement for a specific duty on the part of 
 the American lithographers gives proof that it is the result of jealousy on the part of 
 American houses who thus seek to chastise the entire importation trade for the faults 
 of one house which has recently trespassed upon their ground by importing a few 
 cigar labels. It is most unjust that the entire importation of artistic lithography, 
 embracing its manifold works of art, should be made to suffer on account of the in- 
 significant importation of cigar labels. 
 
 The importers are not agents, as the lithographers endeavor to show, but are citi- 
 zens of the United States, and like themselves, entitled to the protection of the 
 Ameri can Congress. We believe it is immaterial whether our interests be represented 
 by five or five hundred citizens ; our claims are just, and are therefore entitled to 
 your honorable consideration. 
 
 A very important point not heretofore laid before your body is that the European 
 lithographer is unlike in every respect to the American manufacturer. Abroad the 
 lithographer combines with his business that of publisher, jobber^ and dealer ; all 
 goods purchased from him have a fixed market value, which we m America must 
 pay; and the same prices are charged to all dealers in England, France, and else- 
 where. It can not be supposed that these manufacturers and dealers would sell their 
 goods without maliing proper charge for the plates and drawings, which the Ameri- 
 can lithographers have endeavored to show is invariably omitted. 
 
 To further prove the untruth of their statement we have but to re-examine invoices 
 of three and four years ago, when we find goods imported at that time re-imported 
 now, and at precisely the same figures. Can any lithographer deny that goods for 
 which plates had been prepared" four years ago can not now be reproduced at a much 
 less figure t 
 
752 REVISION OF THE TAKIFF. 
 
 Only one house in all of the United States combines the business of manufacturer 
 and publisher, that being L. Prang, & Co., of Boston ; and we are proud to say that 
 this firm's wisdom advocates heart and soul the reduction of the tariff. 
 
 We repeat that on all goods brought to this country by the importers the proper 
 proportion is added to the cost, covering designs and drawings. It can not of course 
 be expected that the entire cost of expensive plates should be added to the percent- 
 age imported ; as, for instance, the cost of a valuable painting and the plates can not 
 be added to tlie price of a single engraving ; nor, as for example, the cost of expen- 
 sive patterns and looms for a single roll of carpet, or for dress patterns, wall paper, 
 etc. But we must emphatically deny the unjust charges of the lithographers that the 
 cost of plates is not justly added to our invoices. 
 
 To further prove the inconsistency of the lithographers, who so strongly urge upon 
 your body a specific duty, irrespective of the quality of work, we have but to call 
 your attention to the fact that an excellent piece of work of twenty-five or thirty 
 colors would pay the identical duty with that of the most cheap work of but three or 
 four printings. The duty in this case on the finer grade of goods would be less than 
 now, under the yS per cent, ad valorem system. 
 
 This would sim])ly securo protection for cheap work, which the lithographers have 
 stated they do not want, and would destroy all possibility of competing tor the higher 
 class of more artistic work. 
 
 In other words, the sheet alone upon which the work is done is to pay a specific 
 duty, and no consideration is to be paid to the work thereon, whether that be 5 or 
 5,000 per cent, of the cost of the entirety. 
 
 In the above tables we have shown you that under the present rate of duty, 25 per 
 cent, ad valorem, the American manufacturers have progressed inside of ten years in 
 annual products from |7, 000,000 to $40,000,000, while the importation at no time has 
 been above $600,000 in this class of goods. 
 
 They have endeavored, by statements which are not correct, to mislead you, and their 
 only object is to drive out of business the importers; all in revenge for the importa- 
 tion of some few cigar labels. 
 
 Now more than ever, having been brought face to face with the facts enumerated 
 above, are we convinced that an advance of duties would be an injustice to our line 
 of goods — goods which have done much to elevate the taste for fine art in our country, 
 and promote the appreciation of the beautiful. Furthermore, it would«be an injus- 
 tice, nay, outrage, upon ns your citizens, who for years have followed the honest 
 pursuit of importers of art goods, and who, to satisfy the avarice of corporations or 
 rich firms, are thus to be deprived of our business and livelihood. Or, perhaps, we 
 are to be made martyrs for the so-called " transgression" of one importer who dared 
 to bring cigar labels into the United States. Is this in harmony with what we have 
 a right to expect from the hands of our honorable Congress ? 
 
 We have proven that the American industry of lithography, under the present 
 system of protection, has flourished and prospered beyond a peradventure, while we 
 importers have suffered a period of market retrogression. 
 
 It is onr honest belief, therefore, that instead of an advance of duty, we should 
 rather have a diminntion of tax, and be allowed to pursue our trade in peace. 
 Respectfully submitted by, 
 
 Charles Kaufmann. 
 
 Maukick Kaufmann, and others. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
REVISION OF. THE TAEIFF. 
 
 753 
 
 STATISTICS OF IMPORTATIONS. 
 
 A tabulated statement of the importation of all printed matter, such as cliromo 
 cards, scrap pictures, and various lithographic articles, etc., into the port of New 
 York is as follows : 
 
 .January... 
 Pebniary. . 
 
 March 
 
 April 
 
 May 
 
 June 
 
 July 
 
 August — 
 September. 
 October . . . 
 November . 
 December . 
 
 Total 
 
 $35,794 
 52, 547 
 31, 808 
 43, 951 
 29, 477 
 41, 345 
 41, 867 
 36, 959 
 57, 263 
 58,111 
 68, 063 
 62, 614 
 
 649, 888 
 
 1888. 
 
 $42, 156 
 42,879 
 68, 205 
 
 34, 664 
 
 35, 428 
 50, 775 
 45, 260 
 57, 351 
 50, 757 
 49, 298 
 60, 122 
 47, 248 
 
 674, 023 
 
 1889. 
 
 46, 336 
 
 63, 087 
 43, 319 
 
 64, 693 
 34, 170 
 46, 205 
 46, 661 
 60, 260 
 46, 225 
 68, 134 
 
 *66, 116 
 
 603, 099 
 
 *1Jp to December 20. 
 
 1,932,721 ; in 1889, $1,846,164 up to December 20. 
 
 ^1,34.'5,824. In that year all priuted matter was in- 
 cluded under " books" and therefore can not be separated. The above report is firom 
 the statistical bureau of the custom-house of New York. 
 
 In 1887, $1,781,106; in 1888, 
 In 1879 the importation was 
 
 Table showing the difference hehoeeii the present rale of duty on printed matter, which is 
 25 per cent, ad valorem, with a specific duty of 62 J cents per pound, as proposed by the 
 National Lithographers' Association. 
 
 No. 1, 1, 000 sheets, show pictures 
 No. 2, 1,000 sheets, show pictures. 
 
 No 4, 1,000 panels 
 
 No.5, 1,000 cards 
 
 No. 7, 1, 000 oleographs 
 
 No. 9, 1, 000 imitation engraviDgs. 
 
 Price 
 
 per 
 
 1,000 
 
 marks. 
 
 170 
 900 
 100 
 16 
 250 
 
 dollars. 
 
 216. 00 
 32.00 
 3.84 
 60.00 
 11.70 
 
 Duty. 
 
 $10. 20 
 54.00 
 8.00 
 .96 
 15.00 
 2.94 
 
 Weight. 
 
 Pounds. 
 180 
 425 
 103 
 
 12i 
 135 
 125 
 
 Proposed 
 specific 
 duty of 
 
 62^ cents 
 per pound. 
 
 $112. 50 
 265. 63 
 64.38 
 7.81 
 84.37 
 78.00 
 
 Per 
 cent. 
 
 of 
 duty. 
 
 275 
 123 
 268 
 204 
 140 
 661 
 
 The samples enumerated and described as above are in the possession of the hon- 
 orable Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 In the columns " Proposed specific duty of 62^ cents per pound " and "Per cent, of 
 duty" the amounts are higher than as given by Mr. Charles Kaufmann before the 
 Committee on Ways and Means, as at that time he figured them while speaking to 
 the Committee. 
 
 485- 
 
 ^8 
 
754 EEVISION OF THE TAKIFF. 
 
 Progress of litliographic luainess during the years 1880 amd 1889. 
 
 Year. 
 
 No. of 
 
 establish- 
 ments. 
 
 No. of 
 employee. 
 
 Capital in- 
 vested. 
 
 Annnal prod- 
 uct. 
 
 Business in the TTnited States : 
 
 1880 
 
 167 
 503 
 
 48 
 179 
 
 3,641 
 18, 000 
 
 998 
 5,500 
 
 $4,501,82.1 
 *32, 500, 000 
 
 1, 227, BoO 
 *13, 200, 000 
 
 $6, 912, 338 
 '46, 000, 000 
 
 1, 738, 452 
 *18, 000, 000 
 
 1889 
 
 Easiness in the city of New York : 
 
 1880 
 
 1889 
 
 
 *Abont. 
 
 The increase of prodnction per annum for tlie year 18o9 could not be ascertained 
 accurately, but is calculated iu the proportion of the production to the amount of 
 capital invested which prevailed in 1880. 
 
 The business of Knapp & Co., of New York, in 1880 was seven presses and seventy- 
 five employes against, in 1889, thirty presses, two hundred and fifty employes and 
 an annual product of over $750,000. 
 
 Jiespectfully submitted. 
 
 Chas. Katjfmann. 
 
 ALBUMS AND SCRAP-BOOKS. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. GEORGE BLISS. 
 
 Mr. George Bliss, counsellor at law, of New York, appeared before the committee. 
 He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent some of the manufacturers and import-- 
 ers of autograph and photograph albums, and scrap-books, particularly in New York. 
 They were to have been here by committee themselves ; but the grip, I suppose, has 
 interfered to prevent them. I say that I represent some of the manufacturers, and 
 yet I think that all of the manufacturers but a single one has been driven out of the 
 business. They want to have put into your bill the same clause that is iu the Senate 
 bill in the paper schedule, which reads, "photograph, autograph, and scrap albums, 
 wholly or partially manufactured, 35 per cent ad valorem." Tiiey ask that on two 
 grounds — on the ground of convenience and certainty, and on the ground of protec- 
 tion. I have appeared for those gentlemen in a variety of contests about it in 
 connection with the Treasury Department and under Treasury regulations, and the 
 existing tariff has finally simmered down to this. At one time in New York the importer 
 paid 45 per cent, on his importation of albums, and at the same time the importer 
 in Boston paid only 18 per cent., the ruling of the Treasury Department being that as 
 these albums had some metal about them, they carried the same rate of duty as the 
 metal. That, however, was abandoned after a time, and now it is ruled that they 
 shall pay duty according to the materia] of chief value, and as a general thing the re- 
 sult is that albums covered with plush must pay 50 per cent, because the plush in 
 them is the material of chief value. Then comes the question of those albums where 
 metal is the material of chief value, and they pay 45 per cent.; where cotton is the ma- 
 terial of chief value, the albums pay 35 percent.; and where paper is the material of 
 chief value, the albums pay 15 per cent. And then, again, by an anomaly, if the album 
 is covered with leather, it pays 30 per cent, entirely without reference to the ques- 
 tion of material of chief value. 
 
 The result, therefore, is that if an American manufacturer wants to make albums 
 here, he must pay 50 per cent, on the plush which he puts on the outside of his 
 albums; and he must pay 25 percent, upon his paper; and the consequence is that 
 the manufacture of albums has almost entirely ceased iu this country, although these 
 gentlemen have large plants and were at one time largely engaged in the business. 
 That has not been the result of any change in the law, but has been the result of a 
 change in the construction of the tariff, so that probably 95 per cent, of all the 
 albums imported are imported at 15 per cent, duty, on the ground that paper is the 
 material of chief value in them. Now, the desire of the importers >is that you shall 
 impose a uniform rate of 35 per cent, ad valorem on albums, photograph, autograph, 
 and scrap-books — 35 per cent. Without reference to whether the material of chief 
 value is plush, metal, leather, leatherette, or anything of the kind. That will be (I 
 say frankly) a larger rate of duty than has been obtained for many years under thp 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 755 
 
 construction of the tariff act. But, at the present time, 95 per cent of the albums 
 imported pay only 15 per cent., on the ground that paper is the material of chief 
 value in them. I am informed that at a recent meeting of appraisers in New York 
 this matter Was under discussion, and that they came to the conclusion that it was 
 desirable to have a uniform rate of duty on albums, and that the rate of 35 per cent, ad 
 valorem was a fair one. I do not need to say anything more than to add that the 
 argument is to be found substantially in the Testimony taken by the subcommittee 
 of the Senate in 1888, and found at page 861. It is all substantially there and I do not 
 need to take up any more of your time on this subject. Let me say, however, that 
 in the Mills bill of last year there was put in a clause (I do not know whether it is 
 in the Senate bill) that surface paper, pitted paper, must pay 25 per cent. If that 
 were so, it should remain so, and if there be no specific duty on albums, still further 
 confusion would come into it because ordinary paper albums pay 15 percent., and 
 surface quoted 25 per cent. That is all that I have to say on that subject. 
 
 Mr. George Bliss, having addressed the committee as above, on the subject of the 
 duty on albums, said : 
 
 May I say another word on a subject which has occurred to me here? I say 
 it only on the ground that I have had an experience of four years as district 
 attorney for the southern district of New York in endeavoring to enforce the customs 
 laws. One of the gentlemen who has appeared before this commitee raised a 
 question as to the administrative features of the bill, and I want to make a sugges- 
 tion as to what (when I was in the public service) seemed to me ought, in fairness, to 
 be in the law. You are seeking by your administrative bill to remedy an.evil which 
 is rather against the merchant and in favor of the Government. The merchant 
 has no chance, practically, to contest the valuation of his goods. He can contest the 
 rate of duty, but when the appraiser and the merchant apjiraiser settle the valua- 
 tion, there is an end of it. That not infrequently works great hardship in this way — 
 I will state an actual instance. An enterprising merchant in New York succeeded 
 in procuring goods manufactured in such a way that he could prove the actual value 
 of the goods at a certain price, which brought them under the rate of, say, 35 per 
 cent, ad valorem and 5 cents per square yard. His competitors in the business could 
 not get their goods manufactured abroad and introduced here at less than 8 cents 
 per square yard and 40 per cent, ad valorem. They went on for a good while trying 
 to find out how he accomplished it. All kinds of investigations were set on foot, and 
 the result was that the valuation under which his goods were admitted was found to be 
 entirely correct. Finally, it occurred to one of the importers to get himself appointed 
 a merchant appraiser and to have himself assigned to a re-appraisement of this gentle- 
 man's goods. He thus obtained information of the whole process, and the result was 
 that the process was thrown open to the world. 
 
 Itiseems desirable that there should be a system introduced, the same as that which 
 they had to some extent in England before the English practically abolished their 
 tariff, and that is to allow the merchant whose valuation of goods is put up at the 
 custom-house (as he thinks unfairly) to elect to have a seizure ; that is, to allow hiin 
 to elect that the collector shall seize his goods, and then let him bond his goods and 
 let the case go as a seizure case (with all the advantages of presumption in favor of 
 the Government) to a court and jury to have that question settled. It seems to me 
 that that would save a great deal of trouble. In thd first place, it would not leave 
 the whole question of valuation open, but would force a final settlement; and, on 
 the other hnnd, the merchant would not be confined to the decision of a Government 
 officer, but would have a right to go to a jury. But if nierchauts have to bond their 
 goods ' they will not do it except in cases where they believe they are suffering great 
 hardship. And so I believe the Government should allow them to have a chance of 
 contesting the matter in the courts. , . , x-, ■ 
 
 Mr. Flower. Was there not another course in England under which the importer 
 by paying 10 per cent, on the valuation could take his goods I 
 
 Mr Bliss. There was a clause of that kind, but my experience as a Government 
 officer is not such that I think I should advise its introduction. 
 
 VIEWS OP A. J. HOLMAN & CO. 
 
 Philadelphia, January 9, 1890. 
 
 Deae Sik : I had expected to be in Washington to-morrow, but owing to sickness I 
 am unable to go. I will state our case in as short a way as possible. 
 
 Albums have not been classified heretofore, being admitted subject to the various 
 decisions of the Department. , , , ,^ -, x x- or ^ i i 
 
 In the Senate bill, pages 165, 166, schedule M, a duty of 35 per cent, ad valorem is 
 proposed The duty should be 40 or 45 per cent., in order to give a fair protection. 
 
 '4:he importation ofalbums amounts to about 11,000,000 annually, imported almoat 
 
756 KEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 exclusively from Berlin and Germany. These people live and manufacture so 
 cheaply that they have a monopoly of this trade for the whole world. 
 
 I visited Berlin last year and also a few years previous, and spent a month in the 
 city visiting many of their album manufactories ; consequently I am fully posted. 
 
 Twenty-tive years ago there were some iifteen or twenty manufactories in this 
 country engaged in making these goods. 
 
 Owing to the low rate of duty there are only six or eight firms engaged in the busi- 
 ness at the present time ; they are located in New York and Philadelphia. 
 
 The cost of making the usual size quarto album here is about $1.15 each. From 
 actual observation and knowledge the cost to make the same or similar album in 
 Berlin is 75 to 77 cents. At a duty of 40 per cent, these goods could he imported 
 from 5 to 10 per cent, less than they can be manufactured here. 
 
 The reasons for the German goods being made so much cheaper in Berlin than in 
 this country are as follows: 
 
 First. Labor in Germany costs only oue-half what it does here. 
 
 Second. Labor being so cheap, materials of all kinds can be had at greatly reduced 
 prices ; coneequently these goods can he made so low in price that they can not be 
 made in this country without protection. 
 
 I think, in view of the above statement, the duty shoald be at least 45 per cent. 
 
 Trusting that this will meet with your approval and assistance, 
 I remain yours, truly, 
 
 A. J. HOLMAN. 
 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Waijs and Means, 
 
 LOWER DUTIES ON BOOKS. 
 
 New York, January 'i'i, 1890. 
 Dear Sir: I beg to call the attention of your committee to the duty on printed 
 books, and to ask if it is not practicable to make some more liberal provision on this 
 subject in the bill now under consideration. 
 
 It is our boa.st that education is the corner stone of our political system. It is with 
 a view to educate the people that we carry free or at an insufiicient charge newspapers 
 through our mails. 
 
 I find by the Report of the Commissioner of Education that in the year ending 1887 
 the amount expended fur common schools in the United States was ^1115, 10.1,886. The 
 cost of private schools, seminaries, colleges, etc., added to this would probably. carry 
 the total beyond $150,000,000. This sum is expended, not merely to teach our people 
 to read and cipher, for these are small things. The object is to diffuse knowledge, 
 and to this end books are indispensable. There is no branch of study that can be 
 thoroughly pursued in the books of one nation aloue. Unless we choose to be super- 
 flcal, prejudiced, and narrow-minded, if we would keep abreast of the world, or at 
 least not fall behind, we must have what other people are doing and thinking. And 
 yet how can we do this if our access is hindered to the best books of the age. 
 
 Our i^resent tariff admits free books over twenty years old, which is as much as to 
 say that we are content to be twenty years behind the rest of the world in knowledge. 
 But twenty years now is as much as a century was to our fathers. So active is 
 thought at the present day, so rapid the ^vork of cheoiists, physicians, engineers, ma- 
 chinists, etc., that in science five years is a generation. 
 
 The United States tariff on books is liy far the highest in the known world. All 
 the nations of Europe, even Russia, admit foreign books free, except Spain, which 
 imposes a duty of eight-tenths of a cent per pound, and Italy, which admits them free 
 unbound, but charges about the same rate as Spain when bound. Books are free in 
 Peru, Houduras, Venezuela (unbound), and Colombia. In Mexico, Guatemala, and 
 the Argentine Republic a small duty is charged of from 5 per cent, ad valorem to one- 
 half a cent per pound. In our enlightened Republic we impose a duty of 25 per cent. 
 In the Mills bill, emanating from the Democratic House, and in the bill of the Republi- 
 can Senate last year, books in fortjjign languages were free. The Mills bill also made 
 free books printed by foreign governments or societies for gratuitous distribution. 
 The Senate rejected this last clause, the reason for which it is difficult to understand. 
 It would seem as if when a foreign scientific society prints scientific matter and offers 
 to assist in our education by giving it to us for nothing we ought to be grateful. 
 Such books are never repriutfd, and no home industry can be affected by tlieir im- 
 portation. But our law-makers here evidently thought it would be better for our 
 scientists to wait twenty years before learning what other scientists were doing. 
 
 Foreigners reproach the Americans with being so much absorbed in money-getting, 
 BO much given to the worship of the almighty dollar, that we are beliiud the rest of 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 757 
 
 mankind in literature, scienee, and art ; that we alono of all the nations on earth levy 
 exorbitant, unexampled, and needless duties on books and works ol art is a partial 
 justification of this censure. 
 
 Books by mail should be made free. I was once impelled by a vexatious experience 
 to investigate this subject. I found that in 1884 there arrived from abroad 60,225 
 packages, estimated by the customs officials to contain two books each. The total 
 amount of duties collected was 1110,479.15, being an average of 8^ cents per volume. 
 There were very few large or valuable works, by far the larger proportion consisting 
 of books on which the duties were only 5 cents per volume. To do this work a bureau 
 was maintained, several hundred thousand letters written and received, and an elabo- 
 rate system of printing and accounting kept up. The cost was greater than the amou nt 
 received, and 60,000 persons were subjected to incouvenience and annoyance in order 
 that a beggarly sum averaging only 17 cents each, might he turned into an overflow- 
 ing treasury. Surely this was and is red tape run mad. No other government would 
 think it wise to harass so many citizens to secure so insignificant a result. 
 
 All printed books should in my opinion he admitted free. At least books in other 
 languages than English, publications of foreign governments and societies, and books 
 not reprinted in the United States might be made free. Also books imported for use 
 and not for sale. 
 
 I would call attention to the fact that the tariff commission appointed by Presi- 
 dent Arthur, in 1882, recommended as follows: 
 
 Books, periodicals, pamphlets bound or unbound, and all printed matter not sepa- 
 rately enumerated or provided for, engravings bound or unbound, etchings, illus- 
 trated books, maps and charts, 15 per cent. 
 
 Books which shall have been printed and manufactured more than ten years .at the 
 date of importation, and books by foreign authors not published in the United States 
 in single copies for use and not for sale, free. 
 
 Following that precedent I would recommend the following: Provided all books 
 can not be placed on the free list. This would do away witli the annoyance I have 
 alluded to above attending the procuring of foreign books by mail. 
 
 "Books by foreign anthors, notjiublished in the United States, in single copies for 
 use .and not for sale, free." 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 Chakles B. Cdktis. 
 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 ACTION OF MINNESOTA EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Waseca, Minn., Januaru'iO, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: Atthe last meeting of the Minnesota Educational Association, held at 
 St. Paul, January 1, 2, and 3, the following resolation was unauiraonsly adopted, and 
 I was asked to transmit a copy of the same to you : 
 
 Where.a3 the cause of education and the spread of general intelligence is hindered 
 by the high price of books, and other printed matter, published in foreign countries ; 
 and ' 
 
 Whereas the high price of such books and printed matter is to a great extent caused 
 by the duty upon them ; and . , • , , 
 
 Whereas many scientific and philosophical subjects .are more ably treated in books 
 published in foreign countries than in those published in the United States : There- 
 
 Besolved, That we desire that all books, periodicals, maps, charts, and otlier printed 
 matter imported by and consigned directly to any college, university, high-school, or 
 any other educational institution, or to any professional teacher, shall be admitted to 
 the United States, in any quantity, free of duty. ,, . „ 
 
 Resolved, That we ask our Senators and Representatives m Congress to use their ef- 
 forts to secure the desired change in the revenue laws. 
 
 Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to each benator anil Repre- 
 sentative from Minnesota now in Congress. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 •' ^ F. V. Hubbard, 
 
 Secretary Minnesota Educational Association. 
 Hon, John Lustd, Washington, D. C. 
 
758 REVISION OP THE TARIFF, 
 
 TECHNICAL BOOKS. 
 
 Dear Sir : ^cocordiag to a, statement in the newspapers your committee will re- 
 ceive, up to a certain date, any matter in writing bearing upon the revision of the 
 tariff. If so, permit me — a wood-carver by trade — to express my views upon this 
 question, particularly in reference to the schedule under the liead of art works. 
 
 "Art works," such as are necessaryforeducatioualpurposes inthe variousbranehes 
 of industrial art, should, instead of bearing a duty of 30 per cent, ad valorem, be ad- 
 mitted duty free. It ought to be apparent to every one that this change should be 
 made when it is known that the prices of this class of books range from $6.50 to $175, 
 and there is nothing below |40 that workmen are content with, but must take the in- 
 ferior article for want of the means to purchase the more desirable and higher-priced 
 books. 
 
 There are to my knowledge but two firms in this country that publish cheap indus- 
 trial art works. They are, generally, of a low grade of workmanship. A'nateurs 
 patronize this class of goods, while for the want of means to buy a better class of im- 
 ported works the professioual must be content with them also. Having no compe- 
 tition these few firms are not influenced to put good works upon the market Avhen 
 they can make you take au inferior article. 
 
 What is gained by the duty on art works ? It will hardly be disputed that the 
 fine arts and industrial art are enobling in their nature and purposes. If so, what 
 is the damage done to art in general by reason of the tariff? Can the extent of in- 
 jury be computed in dollars and cents? To what degree has the tarifl^ retarded the 
 advancement of art? 
 
 It is true we have made some advancement in the standard, but would not even 
 savages do the same with the help of time and in sjjite of obstacles? For this rea- 
 son we should not deceive ourselves by thinking that it was the tariff that raised the 
 standard, but that it was raised in spite of it, in harmony with the pulse of other 
 industries. As art enters so largely into our industries, would it not be wise to make 
 art works free of duty and thus hasten the education of both the public and the ar- 
 tisan? Our artisans would become originators while they now are largely imita- 
 tors, and the progress of the fine arts would keep pace with the mechanic arts. 
 
 The edncation of the tastes of 60,OOQ,000 people has been retarded for the benefit 
 of a few factories that cau not possibly employ more than five thousand persons. A 
 nation that will make such sacrifices for the chosen few must surely be paternal in 
 their sight. 
 
 But in the end, if persisted in, this method of paternity would reduce the standard 
 of public taste to such au extent that there would be no demand for even their books. 
 
 Evidence of the degraded condition of the public taste is seen in the practice that 
 our merchants have of bringing home from Europe foreign artists and samples of art, 
 reproducing them in cheaper form. If the public taste was better cultivated there 
 would be a demand for a better article ; consequently a higher tone would prevail in 
 art matters in general. This would be a benelit to manufacturers, as the better the 
 class of goods the higher the margin of profit. We are still dependent upon Europe 
 for our instruction in art matters, for it required centuries to acquire wjiat we think 
 we should get through on our hot-house principle in a few years; but no Italian sun 
 shines here, and we must propagate art by engrafting the old upon the new. 
 
 As proof that those who need these foreign works can not afford to buy them, it 
 may be mentioned that the carvers' unions have all made provisions for a library of 
 this class of books because of their expen.sivene8s and the inability of so many to buy 
 them ; in fact, those that do buy them are the exception. This is clear evidence that 
 the taritt' injures this branch of industry, and yet those employed in manufactur- 
 ing art works may be unaware of it and attribute it to some other cause. Other 
 evidence of the evil effects of the tariff on the public taste may be seen in the craze 
 for trade and art schools, a fact which clearly points to past neglect, and that the 
 tariff has struck its blight to the root of all industrial art. 
 
 The traveling propensities of our wealthy people are now the only means available 
 for the cultivation of the public taste with the accumulation of the art of ages. What 
 we have has come slowly and is of only partial benefit. Take off the tariff and let the 
 whole people get the benefit. This may be said of many other articles. There may be 
 a little sympathy for those employed in the industries aft'ected, but they will suffer 
 only temporarily, if at all, and in that event only because of having enjoyed the pa- 
 ternalism of the Government so long. They would be in the condition of the pauper 
 who has been accepting charity and lost his self-reliance ; bat time will change this, 
 and every one will have the manly courage to " hoe his own row." 
 
 There is no justice in a tariff imposed for the purpose of securing to less than half a 
 dozen firms the trade of the " home market," or, to put it another way, to enable 
 them to prey upon the people within the boundaries of the United States, and then 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF, 759 
 
 take from ttese plundered people a bounty to enable tbera to sell their surplus to for- 
 eigners at a loss. Thus we find our people in the act of assisting the plunderer to 
 plunder them in the home market by keeping up prices, at the same time assisting 
 the foreigner to cheaper prices on articles that should have remained to regulate the 
 price at home. 
 
 As the witnesses who have been before you have siiggested various methods and 
 rates of duty necessary to the advancement of their particular interests, I would also 
 like to suggest a method that would be more likely to give the workingman the Ijen- 
 eflt of protection, if such a thing is possible at all. After more than twenty-five 
 years of experience upon a protective basis we have discovered that protection does 
 not work practically. The hearing of the complaints of witnesses in reference to the 
 unequal share of benefits they are reoeivingand consequent clashing of interests; the 
 frequent and constant revision of the tariff without these hearings; the' clamor of the 
 workingman for his share of the benefits of the tariff, all suggest that it does not 
 work practically. Indeed, it seems to be more like a lottery, where each one pays 
 his share but very few draw the prizes. 
 
 To take the lottery character from protection the following is suggested as a morr 
 business-like method to insure the proper distributio;! of the benefits to those foe 
 whom they were intended. Place an income tax upon the output of all industries 
 sufficient to cover thedillerence between the price of goods with and without a tariff, 
 or the difference between the price of labor hero and in Europe, and distribute the 
 same among the people of the country in proportion to their wages or salaries. 
 
 Our already established pension system maybe used as a means of distribution. 
 This may appear like state socialism, but does not protection lead in that direction ? 
 
 Absolute protectionists should go even farther as necessary to carry out the inten- 
 tion of " protection for protection's sake" as is demanded in the Eepublican platform, 
 ■which should mean equal protection; that is, close all opportunity to revise the 
 tariff, assome of our Stateshave provided in reference to revisingtheir constitutions. 
 
 This would prevent favoritism by Congress to certain individuals, wliich generally 
 nullifies the advantages of a previous general revi.sion, creates discouteut and another 
 demand for a general revision, and so on ad infinUiim. 
 
 If it were necessary to find the wishes of all, a special census might betaken. Does 
 not this agree with the importance of the subject ? 
 
 If accuracy is desired this is the only way it can be done. 
 Yours, respectfully, . 
 
 H. C. WiEDENMANN, 
 
 1327 Clarion street, Philadelphia, Pa, 
 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
760 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 KEEDS AND BATTAN. 
 
 STATEMENT OF 'WILLIAM J. COLGAN. 
 
 Mr. Wli.r.iAM J. CoLGAN", of New York, made a statement on the subject of the 
 duty on reeds and chair-cane. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen : I desire respectfully to oppose the effort to have 
 reeds and chair-cane assessed as dutiable for the following reasous: 
 
 Those goods grow exclusively in East India and are imported to this country for 
 the use of chair, carriage, whip, broom, basket, harness, hat. demijohn, furniture, 
 and various other manufactures, reeds and chair-cane being wholly used in quite 
 a number of those industries in which millions of capital are invested, giving em- 
 ployment to innumerable people. For about the past ten years the industry of split- 
 ting rattan into what is known as reeds and chair-cane has been controlled by vir- 
 tually one firm — a combination of several — which has been enabled by good fortune, 
 superinduced by a high tariff, to uphold their standing by buying up all available 
 competition and controlling those goods, and even discriminating between manu- 
 facturers that might offer them competition in the goods they manufacture as to 
 whether they will supply them at all or not, and exacting such prices as they may 
 feel inclined to demand, irrespective of the cost of the goods. 
 
 I do not exaggerate in stating that over 90 per cent, of the manufacturers I men- 
 tion are heartily in favor of abolishing the tariff on these goods, being, as they are, 
 their raw material, and I would very respectfully urge your honorable committee in 
 your wisdom to place them on the free list, aa by assessing duty on them you protect 
 a monopoly at the expense of the numerous other manufacturers, and I believe this 
 is not the intention or spirit of your committee in revising the tariff. 
 
 Mr. Colgan added that he bad with him copies of letters from prominent manufact- 
 urers in the United States urging the same views. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I have here a letter from a rattan and chair company in Toledo, which 
 I desire to file. 
 
 The letter was read as foHows : 
 
 Gendron Iron Wheel Company, 
 
 Toledo, Ohio, January 6, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: We beg to call your, attention to the import duty on reeds and chair- 
 cane. The present duty is 10 per cent, ad valorem. We learn that the Wakefield 
 Rattan Company, Wakefield, Mass., is trying to have the rate of duty on these arti- 
 cles advanced with the Senate tariff' bill now in preparation. 
 
 Reeds are skinned rattans. Chair-cane is the skin or outside part of rattan. Both 
 reeds and chair-cano are crude material imported to be manufactured into articles 
 here. Although reeds and chair-cane when imported are partly manufactured rattan, 
 nevertheless they are crude material, not having been made into manufactured ar- 
 ticles. 
 
 Reeds are used in the manufacture of reed chairs, children's carriages, whips, 
 brooms, walking canes, and many other minor articles. Chair-cane is used in the 
 manufacture of chair-seats. All these industries are separate and are carried on ex- 
 tensively in nearly every State of the Union. They give employment to a very large 
 number of laborers. Our business is principally manufacturing chSldren's carriages. 
 We employ four hundred people the year round. There are also large manufacturers 
 of children's carriages in Cincinnati, Springfield and Columbus, our State. 
 
 It has been a hardship with the industries above named to pay the present rate of 
 duty of 10 per cent, ad valorem, and it will be certain ruin if the duty is advanced 
 more. This would place these industries at the mercy of the Wakefield Rattan 
 Company and a few others combined with them. Nothing would be more proper 
 than that the present duty of 10 per cent, be wiped out, and that both reeds and chair- 
 cane be placed on the free list. 
 
 Our industry (children's carriages) has been carried to greater perfection in the 
 United States than any other part of the world. The margin of profit, however, in 
 our home market, is cnt very close, and manufacturers are looking for a market 
 abroad. We are growing a trade in Soutji America, and especially so in Australia. 
 Our trade in the latter country was threatened by an attempt in the Victoria parlia- 
 ment at Melbourne to impose a duty of 25 per cent, on children's carriages. This, 
 
EEVISIONOF THE TARIFF. 761 
 
 liowever, failed to pass. Now, should our own GoTernment advance the import duty 
 to 35 per cent, on reeds it would he shutting us out of a foreign marliet and placing 
 us at the mercy of a strong combination. 
 We beg of you that you give this matter your earnest attention. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 Gbndeon Iron Wheel Compant. 
 
 Hon. EoswELL P. Flowek, 
 
 House of Bepresentatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. I have received a telegram which I desire to file. 
 The telegram is as follows : 
 
 Fort Atkinson, Wis., January 8, 1890. 
 To Hon. R. M. La Follette, 
 
 House of Mepresentatives, Washington, D. C: 
 The factories in the West are unanimously opposed to raising the duty on manu- 
 factured cane for chair seating. Have written. 
 
 L. B. Caswell. 
 
 Mr. Gear (to the witness). Is this cane business controlled by a trust? 
 Mr. CoLGAN. Yes, for the last few years. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Has it not within the last ninety days increased prices 30 per cent.? 
 Mr. Colgan. Yes, since the first of January. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I have a letter here from one of my constituents, which I want to have 
 printed. 
 The letter is as follows : 
 
 Fort Madison, Iowa, 
 
 January 5, 18L)0, 
 Dear Sir : We understand that the chair-cane combination are going to appear 
 again on the 9th instant to press their claims for an advance in the tarifl'. They Ixave 
 recently out their prices down about one-third, as shown by inclosed circular, their 
 previous price being |63 per bale (100,000 feet) tor the No. 1 grade, and $48 per 100,000 
 feet for No. 2 grade, subject to the same cash discounts as they now offer. The re- 
 duction of these prices by the pool may be to prevent opposition from chair man- 
 ufacturers over the country while they are before Congress asking an advance in 
 duty. They have grown rich by monopolizing the cane business and their rapacity 
 knows no bounds, and as soon as they get matters in their own hands by an advance 
 in the tariff they will, no doubt, squeeze the dear public again. 
 
 W. E. Harrison, 
 Fort Madison, Iowa. 
 Hon. Jno. H. Gear, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 [Circular inclosed.] 
 
 December 27, 1889. 
 
 M : 
 
 We are pleased to inform you that from and after this date, and until further notice, 
 our prices and terms for chair-oain are as follows : 
 
 AU Long Selected, per bale of 100,000 feet |45.00 
 
 Extra, No. 1, per bale of 100,000 feet 40.00 
 
 No. 1, per bale of 100,000 feet 35.00 
 
 No. 2, per bale of 100,000 feet 30.00 
 
 No. 3, per bale of 100,000 feet 2.5.00 
 
 Binding, per bale of 50,000 feet ■. 22.00 
 
 No2,Binding, per bale of 50,000 feet -"- 18.00 
 
 Terms: Four months, approved credit. Five per cent, discount for cash in thirty 
 days. Six per cent, discount for cash in ten days. 
 Yours truly, 
 
 Wakefield Rattan Company, Boston. 
 Heywood Bros. & Co., Gardner. 
 
 Union Rattan Manufacturing Company, New" York. 
 • E. Newton's Sons, New York. 
 
 Mr. Gear (to the witness). Are not these people protected by patents? 
 
 Mr. Colgan. No ; the patents expired years ago. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The rattan is a na*"ural growth ? 
 
 Mr. Colgan. Yes. 
 
762 REVISION OF TEtE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. La FOLLETTE. Tlien tliere is but one manufactory out of tlie trust; the others 
 have consolidated ? 
 
 Mr. COLGAN. Yes. There were four firms before the lat of January. They have 
 removed all their machinery to Wakefield, Mass., and are manufacturiug there all the ' 
 cane that is used. 
 
 Mr. GE.iR. This rattan is not a product of lahor, but is a natural growth ? 
 
 Mr. COLGAN. Yes ; it is grown in Borneo and India, I thiuk. 
 
 Mr. Geak. And it is simply shipped to this country? 
 
 Mr. CoLGAN. Yes. This reed [exhibiting] is the rattan with the enamel taken off. 
 It is the article which, we claim, ought to come in free. I have got a short petition 
 here from the .Sanford Whip Company, of Westtield, Mass. 
 
 Mr. Colgan read the petition as follows : 
 
 Westfield, Mass., January 6, 1890. 
 The Committee on the Revision of Tariff: 
 
 Gentlemen : We understand that an effort is being made by the Central Rattan 
 Company of Wakefield, Mass., — a combination of the four firms recently consol- 
 dated — to have a tariff placed upon whip reeds in the proposed tariff bill. 
 
 We, as whip manufacturers, wish to strenuously oppose this effort, being almost 
 entirely dependent on these goods — which are our raw material — for the production 
 of our manufactures, and we urgently solicit your committee that yon recognize the 
 equity of ourdemand, and place them on the free list, where they rightfully belong. 
 Such a tariff as proposed would place us entirely at the mercy of a monopoly. 
 Very respectfully submitted. 
 
 Sanford Whip Company, Massasoit Whip Company,-Lay Whip Company, 
 Bay State Whip Company, Frank Grant, treasurer ; A. C. Barnes & Co., 
 .Searle Whip Company, Cocik & Parker, Steimer & Moore Manufacturing Com- 
 pany, L. H. Beals and Sons, Peck &, Whipple Company, Pomeroy & Van 
 Densen, E. Cooper, S. Ensign, Standard Whip Company. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is this Central Rattan Company of Wakefield, Mass., the combi- 
 nation that is wanting to have the duty raised? 
 
 Mr. Colgan. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McMlllin. And the Senate did raise it ? 
 
 Mr. Colgan. The Senate raised the duty 5 jier cent, on this cane, but allowed the 
 duty on reeds to stand as before. 
 
 The following letters were presented and ordered to be printed in the record : 
 
 Rattan and Cane Company, 
 
 20 Vesey Street, New Torlc: 
 Your favor of the 3d received. We are in favor of a protection tariff on articles 
 that can be grown to advantage on Ameiican territory. Cane and rattan can not 
 therefore we are in favor of such a tariff. 
 
 Only a few firms are interested in manufacturing cane and rattan in the United 
 States, and we do not think it would be a good thing for the people of the United 
 States to give the few protection at the expense of the many. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 Wilkinson & Eastwood, 
 
 Binghamton, N. Y. 
 
 Gentlemen: Yours of the 2d received. Wo want to enter our protest against 
 any advance in the duty on chair-cane. 
 
 The cane combination have reduced their prices, December 17, about one-third. 
 This shows what extortion they were practicing before, and it is done, doubtless, to 
 disarm opposition to their scheme of having the tariff on chair-cane advanced. After 
 the tariff' is advanced the trust will doubtless put up their prices on cane again, and, 
 as there can then be no foreign cane imported to check them, they will put prices where 
 they please. There, are four firms in the combination asking the advance, and they 
 do not employ 100 men each in making cane, while if the tariff is .advanced it will 
 affect the raw material of the thousands of chair-makers all over the country. 
 
 I am a good, stiff Republican and never voted any other ticket, but will say*that 
 ■we have a bigger surprise in store here in the West for the next general election if 
 these tariff questions are neglected than we had last fall at our State election, when 
 we had a Democratic governor put over us. 
 
 The Western people are getting very tired of the manipulation of our tariff laws 
 wholly in the interests of the rings, trusts, .and combinations, which are daily ap- 
 pearing before our Congressional committees asking still farther protection. 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 763 
 
 These rings are very active in appearing in their own behalf now, hut the general 
 pnblic is watching the matter and will he very apt to voice its opinion at the polls. 
 It is about the only chance they have, 
 yours, respectfully, 
 
 Fort Madison Chair Company, 
 By W. E. H., Superintendent. 
 Rattan and Cane Company, 20 Vesey street, New Yorlc. 
 
 P. S.— Some of the cane combination try to mate out that we employ few free 
 hands. We employ over one hundred of them. 
 
 Kebne, Cheshire County, N. H., January 6, 1890. 
 Gentlemen: I learn the "new rattan combination" are doing everything in their 
 power to increase the tariff on reeds and chair-cane imported into this country, and 
 have had a special day set apart for a hearing before the Tariff Committee in Wash- 
 ington. I trust you will also appear at the same time before that committee and pro- 
 test against, and do everything possible to prevent, such a thing being done, as it is 
 like all these monopolies to help make the rich richer and the poor poorer. 
 
 At the last session of Congress I wrote Hon. H. W. Blair, one of the Senators from 
 this State, asking him to use his influence in protecting the manufacturers of New 
 Hampshire that will be injured by such an increase of tariff, instead of combinations 
 outside of this State whose .sole purpose is to xirevent competition and thereby enrich 
 themselves at the expense of the people and established home industries. I hope you 
 will see the other members of Congress from this State and, if possible, get them to 
 unite with Mr. Blair to do what they can to forever put an end to such combinations. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 L. J. Colony, 
 Manvfaeturer of Heed Chairs. 
 Rattan and Cane Company, 20 Vesexj street, New York. 
 
 Leominster, Mass., January 4, 1890. 
 Gentlemen : Being a large consumer of reeds and winding cane, we hereby pro- 
 test a"^ainst the proposed advance in the duty on this stock. 
 
 Such an advance would prove very detrimental to our business for the benefit of 
 a monopoly and we trust you will use your influence to prevent any such advance in 
 the duty being made. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 F. A. Whitney Carriage Company, 
 W. C. Burdett, Sicreiary. 
 Rattan Cane Company. 
 
 Leominster, Mass., January 4, 1890. 
 Gentlemen: We hope you may succeed in preventing the increase of duty on 
 reeds and chair-cane. We'must have no duty on these, as they are about wholly all 
 we use in our factory. We would like to live as well as Wakefield or Haywood and 
 we mean to. We shall write our Congressman regarding the matter. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 ■^ A. A. TISDALE & Co. 
 
 Rattan Cane Company. 
 
 Beaver Mills, Keene, N. H., January 4, 1890. 
 Gentlemen : In answer to yours of the 3d, say we are very much opposed to any 
 tariff on material where it will help to continue in the hands of any party the ex- 
 clusive control of any commodity, and we know of no article that would be so com- 
 pletely put into the hands of a few persons by a tariii as cane and rattan used in the 
 manufacturing of chairs and some few other articles. 
 
 Yours, etc., i 
 
 Cheshire Chair Company. 
 
 Rattan Cane Company. 
 
764 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Wakefieli), Mass., January 3, 1890. 
 Gentlemen : In reply to your inquiry we would state that we are heartily in favor 
 of reeds and chair-cane coming in free of duty. Tariif on these goods is certainly an 
 imposition. As we are depending on a supply of those goods entirely to enable us to 
 continue in business, we do not propose to depend on a trust for our supplies. 
 
 New England Rattan Company. 
 
 Rattan and Cane Company, New Torlc 
 
 W. E. Ryan. 
 
 Rochester, N. Y., January 3, 1890. 
 Gentlemen: We desire to enter onr most earnest protest against the scheme of 
 the Central Rattan Company, proposing a high tariff on reeds. Every last cent 
 added to the cost of this material would come out of the pockets of the producers of 
 whips, as reeds are practically raw material in the manufacture of these goods. 
 Trusting that some move will be made which will nip this scheme in the bud, 
 We are, yours truly, 
 
 Woodbury & Company, 
 
 Whip Manufacturers. 
 Rattan Cane Company. 
 
 Chicago, January 6, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen : Tour letter informing us that a new rattan combination is attempt- 
 ing to induce the tariff committee to place a higher tariff on imported reed, received. 
 It is evident that their object in this is to compel us and all other manufacturers in 
 our line to buy reed of them, and if their efforts are successful in placing this- pro- 
 hibitory tariff' on imported reed, we shall be compelled to buy of them and pay what- 
 ever price they might see fit to charge us. It would also be optional with them 
 whether or not they would sell us at all. 
 
 This, as you well know, would tend to a monopoly more harmful to the welfare of 
 the working classes of our country than that of the notorious Standard Oil Company, 
 and we think you need have no fear that so intelligent body of men as our tariif 
 committee is will ever be induced to sanction such a scheme. You may rest assured 
 they have studied the results of monopolies on all kinds of business, and we do 
 not think a few interested people belonging to this combination can ever find words 
 to induce such a committee to do injustice to the business of our people in order to 
 favor a few selfish ones. 
 
 We do not think it necessary to take any action in this matter, as we feel confident 
 this committee will be influenced by justice and permit the tariff on this reed to re- 
 main as it is. If, however, at a later day you should consider our assistance neces- 
 sary in this matter, we shall be pleased to do all we can to defeat such an injustice. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 A. Featherstone. 
 
 Rattan and Cane Company, 
 
 20 Vesey street, New YorJe City. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. How does this Wakefield Rattan Company control the market ? 
 
 Mr. COLGAN. They bought up all competition. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Could they not do that without or with a tariff? 
 
 Mr. CoLGAN. I presume that the foreign cane coming into the market would pre- 
 vent them exacting high prices. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Would not the conditions be the same to you now as then, so far 
 as competition is concerned? 
 
 Mr. COLGAN. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You can buy cane abroad? 
 
 Mr. CoLGAN. There is a tariff on cane ; but they split the cane here and make the 
 chair-cane out of it. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. How many men does this combination employ? 
 
 Mr. COLGAN. They employ a very large number of men in manufacturing chairs ; 
 but the splitting of cane is all done automatically. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. They import the raw material and split the cane by machinery? 
 
 Mr. CoLGAN. Yes ; they split it with their machinery. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. And thereby control the market t 
 
 Mr. CoLGAN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. They utUize the pith as well as the cuticle t 
 
 Mr. Colo AN. Yes. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 765 
 
 Mr. Flower. And the higher the rate of duty the greater their profits ? 
 
 Mr. CoLGAN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The pith of the cane is but a small part of the profit connected with the 
 cane? 
 
 Mr. COLGAN. A very small one. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Are there any cane factories abroad ? 
 
 Mr. COLGAN. There are a great many. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Where? 
 
 Mr. COLGAN. Principally in Germany. There are some in Hamburg, Bremen, 
 Brussels, and some small ones in. England. The principal factories abroad are in 
 Germany. I understand that this rattan comes in large quantities from the East 
 Indies to Holland. I think that the Holland Government has some controlling inter- 
 ests in the islands that the rattan comes from. It is shipped to Holland and is sold 
 by the Government at auction. That is the reason why so much of it comes here from 
 that country. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Would not some of the reduction of the duty do you instead of its 
 total abolition 1 
 
 Mr. CoLGAN. No, sir ; we could not stand a duty of even 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. If cane and rattan were put on the free list would not the industry 
 be transferred to Holland ? 
 
 Mr. CoLGAN. No, sir. The duty on split cane does not protect anybody except the 
 trust. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You do not wish to destroy that industry if it is properly carried on. 
 
 Mr. CoLGAN. That industry has been carried on here for a hundred years. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What industry do you mean ? 
 
 Mr. COLGAN. Splitting the rattan; it was formerly done by knife. I understand 
 that even yet there are some few chair-makers in this country who make their own 
 chair-cane in that way — splitting it with a jack-knife. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Have not these people combined at all times when anybody else started 
 this industry ? Have they not combined to reduce the price of rattan ? 
 
 Mr. CoLGAN. They have combined to increase the price._ 
 
 Mr. Gear. Tbey have combined to put down the price first, so as to reduce compe- 
 tition ; and then they have combined to put up the price ? 
 
 Mr. COLGAN. Yes ; that is their object now. We have had very hard fights during 
 the last eight or ten years, but we have held our own. 
 
 Mr. La Foli-ette. What percentage of the cane used in this country does this 
 Wakefield Rattan Company manufacture, and what percentage is imported ? 
 
 Mr. CoLGAN. I was before the Senate Finance Committee last summer, and I heard 
 a gentleman say there that only about $100,000 worth was imported the previous 
 jekr, and I think that this combination does a business of not less than $1,000,000 a 
 year! I have one other letter which I would like to read to the committee. 
 
 The letter is as follows : 
 
 Wakefield Eeed Chair Company, 
 
 Wakefield, Mass., January 6, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : I indorse most emphatically your efforts in preventing the advance in 
 the tariff which the rattan combination is endeavoring to have put on reed winding, 
 reeds, and chair-cane. 
 
 It is but another eifort of this powerful trust or combination, which they them- 
 selves style as the Central Rattan Company, to grasp into their control the market 
 for these goods and then ruin the large number of smaller manufacturers who are 
 competing against them. 
 
 At present prices everybody is getting a fair show and are apparently satisfied, 
 with the one exception of this aforesaid monopoly. 
 
 Hon. George F. Hoar has my letter of some time since protesting against this ad- 
 vance and explaining the true situation. 
 
 Again, I wish to say that [ protest, and shall in the future protest, so far as I can, 
 against this barefaced attempt of the combination to shut out and ruin competitors 
 or manufacturers by putting up the duty so high that we can not get our supply. 
 I am, very respectfully, _ ^ ^ 
 
 W. C. Jordan. 
 
 Mr. W. J. CoLGAN. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You say that the whole work of splitting this rattan and peel- 
 ing it is done now in one factory at Wakefield, Mass.? 
 
 Mr. CoLGAN. Yes. , , , , - ,, . .. , , . 
 
 ■ Mr. Breckinridge. How many hands do they employ in that particular business? 
 
 Mr.' COLGAN. I venture the opinion that tbey do not employ fifty hands. 
 
 Mr! Breckinridge. I have seen it stated in a newspaper that they did not employ 
 exceeding fifty hands. 
 
766 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 Mr. CoLGAN. I think they do not— not so many as that, I think. Here is another 
 letter from the same concern, the Wakefield Eeed Chair Company. 
 The letter is as follows : 
 
 Wakefield Ebbd Chair Company, 
 
 Wakefield, Mass., January 7, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : I intended to say in my letter of yesterday that one of the new rules of 
 this new combination is, that they will sell no reeds or reed winding, so you see that 
 as far as reeds and reed winding is concerned, their only idea is to keep all other 
 manufacturers from getting any. It is not that they wish to supply the country at 
 fair prices. 
 
 I do not understand, or rather do not know, just the terms of that agreement or 
 rule, but I ^lo know that the effect of it is that nobody gets, or will get, any reeds or 
 winding. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 W. C. Jordan. 
 
 Mr. W. J. COLGAN. 
 
 The following letters were also presented and ordered to be printed in the record 
 
 Richmond Chair Company, 
 
 Richmond, Ind., January 6, 1890. 
 Gentlemen : Any increase of tariif on imported cane would simply be ruinous to 
 our line of business, as the prices on our goods are such that it would take but an- 
 other feather to break the camel's back. We are all Republicans here, but we are 
 opposed to building up the few and wrecking the many. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 Richmond Chair Company. 
 
 Rattan and Cane Company. 
 
 Detroit House of Correction, 
 
 Detroit, January 6, 1890. 
 Gentlemen : It was quite evident when the Union Rattan Company moved 
 their cutters to Wakefield, some hellish scheme was being hatched. The efforts 
 of that cane combine to control the trade is the most arrogant of any overheard of. I 
 have written ourmember of Congress, J. Logan Chipman, to see to it. I can not be- 
 lieve that Congress will ever raise the duty on cane. But I know that unscrupulous 
 efforts will be made, so you must fight to a finish. Call on Mr. Chipman and post 
 him. I have written many others, so there will soon be a hornet's nest opened up. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 Jos. Nicholson, 
 
 Su]^erintendent. 
 
 Rattan and Cane Company, 20 Vesey street. New York. 
 
 Michigan City Reed Chair Company, 
 Michigan City, Ind., January, 6, 1889. 
 Gentlemen: Yours of the 3d instant to hand. We are with you in this matter 
 and trust that committee at Washington will report in favor of removing the duty 
 on reed and rattan. "We feel that if the duty is advanced it will wipe the small 
 manufacturers out of business and enrich the large. We are fully aware that this 
 combination is doing all in their power to drive the small manufacturers out of 
 business and have taken this step to fully accomplish it. 
 Respectfally yours, 
 
 Michigan City Reed Chair Company, 
 
 G. S. Van Deusen, 
 Se<?retary. 
 
 Rattan and Cane Company, New York, 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 767 
 
 STATEMENT OP OTTO GERDAU. 
 
 Mr. Otto Gerdau, of New York, having addreaaed tho committee on the auliject 
 of ivory and piano keys, said : 
 
 Another article to which I deaire to call the attentioa of the committee is the arti- 
 cle of rattan and reeds. Under the present tariff rattan and reeda unmanufactured 
 are free, and on rattan and reeds partially manufactured there is a duty of 10 per 
 cent. There is a very strong combination in that business, and I have been told that 
 that combination will make an effort to kill all competition by trying to get the rates 
 of duty increased. 
 
 Mr. FLOvraK. That combination, I suppose, is the Wakefield Kattan Company, of 
 Boston ? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. Yes. I need only present to the committee this circular of the com- 
 bination : 
 
 December 27, 1889. 
 M : 
 
 We are pleased to inform you that from and after this date, and until further no- 
 tice, our prices and terms for chair cane are as follows: 
 
 All long selected, per bale of 100,000 feet |45.00 
 
 Extra, No. 1, per bale of 100,000 feet ' 40.00 
 
 No. 1, per bale of 100,000 feet 35.00 
 
 No. 2, per bale of 100,000 feet 30.00 
 
 No. 3, per bale of 100,000 feet 25.00 
 
 Binding, per bale of 50,000 feet 22.00 
 
 No. 2, binding, per bale of 50,000 feet 17.00 
 
 Terms: Four months, approved credit; 5 per cent, discount for cash in thirty days; 
 6 per cent, discount for cash in ten days. 
 Youra truly, 
 
 Wakefield Eattan Company, Boston. 
 
 Hbtwood Bros. & Company, Gardner. 
 
 Union Rattan Manufacturing Company, New York. 
 
 E. Newton's Sons, New York. 
 
 These four companies have formed a combination with $1,000,000 capital, and the 
 idea is to crowd out all competition. 
 
 STATEMENT OP CHARLES H. LANG, JR. 
 
 Mr. Charles H. Lang, Jr., treasurer of the Wakefield Eattan Company, addressed 
 the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, as I understand you have under 
 consideration the Senate tariff bill. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Lang. The reason why I alluded to that was because I appeared before the 
 Senate committee about a year ago, I think it was. Now, the first matter 1 want to 
 speak about is rattan, the raw material from which chair-cane is manufactured, and 
 reeds. I want to explain that from the middle of this rattan this raw material is 
 taken as a reed or pith, and the strands are taken from the outside. Now, prior to 
 1883 this reed and these strands paid an ad valorem duty of 25 \)er cent. In 1883 it 
 was reduced to 10 per cent. Prior to that tiihe we had not much difficulty from for- 
 eign competition. I appeared before the Senate committee, and in their bill they 
 put chair-cane; this article of reeds or pith had 10 per cent, tor the reeds and 15 per 
 cent, for the chair-cane. Now, the competition to which we are subjected, and which 
 is getting to be a serious matter, comes from Germany and China. The Chinese use 
 large quantities of this outside of the rattan, using cheap grades of the rattan, and 
 that outside, which they take off by hand into strands, is used in bailing nearly every 
 article of merchandise leaving China, such as chests of tea, packages of silk, pack- 
 ages of fire-crackers, etc. The result is that this pith or reed, which we have devel- 
 oped into a large industry, thoy have no use for there, and it is sent here by them in 
 large quantities to bring whatever it will. That deprives us of an important part of 
 our business. In the manufacture of this chair-cane and reeds we obtain a large 
 quantity of waste material, which previous to a few years ago had never been util- 
 ized. We have developed the industry for that, and manufacture it into mats of 
 that character [exhibiting same], which are used largely for public buildings and a 
 large number of purposes of that kind. We manufacture it into matting of that 
 description [exhibiting same], and make it from a half jard up to a yard and a half 
 An width, of a great many difl'ejent styles. 
 
768 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. And liow long? 
 
 Mr. Lang. In 50-yard rolls. Now, this is entirely a new indnstry in this country. 
 It is an industry in which, perhaps, |100,000 has been spent experimenting, not less than 
 that, in order to produce the materials. I would like to havey ou look at these and the 
 materials from which we manufacture these mats and matting. Of course we have 
 to manufacture the chair-cane and reed, and cousequently in order to he ijrotectediu 
 that manufacture a duty should be imposed upon reeds and chair-canes, as the Senate 
 hill proposed, say 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Borrows. What is the duty now ? 
 
 Mr. LaisG. It is 10 per cent, botli for chair-canes and reeds ; but there is an ambigu- 
 ity in reference to that iu the tariff bill of 1883. The tariff bill of 1883 reads, "rattans 
 and reeds unmanufactured" — that 'S not it exactly; I would like to refer to that be- 
 cause it is important — "rattans and reeds unmanufactured, free. Eattans and reeds 
 manufactured and not made up into completed articles, 10 per cent, ad valorem." 
 
 Now, there is no such a thing as an unmanufactured reed. The reed has to be manu- 
 factured from the rattans. Duties have been paid iu some cases on reeds imported 
 from China and Germany in the last few years, and in some cases they have not been 
 paid. Certain parties have paid under protest and their eases are now in court, and 
 the court iuNew York decided last week, or the week before, that the square reed 
 was manufactured and that the round reed was unmauufactured, which is absolutely 
 incomprehensible to anybody in the business that I have ever talked with. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. The reed itself is a pith. 
 
 Mr. Lang. Yes, sir. Now, that reed has got to go through a process ; it has to have 
 the materials taken from the outside, and if one is a manufactured article, the other 
 certainly is. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Is that a reed [referring to sample] ? 
 
 Mr. Lakg. Yes, sir; that is a reed and here is the rattan. Now, we pass this rattan 
 through a machine. This has been partially through so that I can exhibit it here 
 and show how it is done. Now, here is the reed taken from the center. Now, we 
 want a duty put on that as the Senate hill provides. The Senate bill calls for a duty 
 of 10 per cent, on the reed, and that is not a proper method of levying the duty. It 
 should be specific and not ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You mean it is a different composition from the other. 
 
 Mr. Lang. It has hot this hard, enameled surface which the outside of the rattan 
 has. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. After the enamel is taken off this is all reed ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Yes, sir. We only take otf what we are obliged to take off to get this 
 material. These several strands have to go through an other process. I brought along 
 one that I might show you. We take off from the outside what you might call 
 shavings, and that leaves the finished article for splitting the reed for chairs, like 
 the chair you are now sitting on. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. It has been asserted here by gentlemen who have appeared before 
 us advocating the putting of these things on the free list or to reduce the duty, that 
 your company, in combination with a New York importing house, have put up the 
 price and will not sell to anybody at all. 
 
 Mr. Lang. That is eutirely incorrect. If any man had gone to our store. No. 8 
 Park Place, we would have quoted jjrices of all sizes of those reeds; and if he had 
 chosen to stand on the sidewalk he could have seen people having goods shipped 
 from our store every day in the year. There is no truth in that assertion whatever. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Has any combination existed between you and a New Y'ork import- 
 ing house? 
 
 Mr. Lang. On this kind of chair cane we have an arrangement with three of our 
 competitors, who manufactured an article equally as good as ours, to charge a uni- 
 form price on that cane. That was at one time $B0, and we have reduced the price 
 on that cane 113^ per cent. 
 
 Mr. McKe.^na. Does that make it as it was before you agreed to fix the price, or is 
 that 33-!i- per cent, more than it has been ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. That ishigherthan it has beenat some time along iu 1880, when Ithink 
 it was lower than at the present prices, but the raw material could be had at that 
 time at half the figures it can be had for to-day. Our raw material all comes from 
 Singapore, and the price there is 100 per cent, higher than it was ten years ago. 
 
 Mr. Geak. Does this cane grow wild in Singapore and around there"? It is not cul- 
 tivated ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. It is not. Our rattans come from the islands of Java, Sumatra, and 
 Borneo. They are gathered by the natives in the interior and brought to the coast in 
 their crude vessels to Singapore, where it goes into the hands of the Chinese, and it 
 is assorted and graded by the Chinese there through agents. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Does ili grow in this country ? 
 
 Mr. I^ANG. Not at all. We are seeking to find another market, and are thinking 
 now of sendiug to where Stanley says there are rattans to be had ; but until we get 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 768 
 
 facilities for transporticg it from the interior we can do nothing. Now I am here, I 
 want to exhaust this subject if jou will give me a, patient hearing, so that yon may 
 fully understand the business, and see that we are warranted in asking that a duty 
 be levied on this article. There is no question you can ask which I do not think I 
 can answer to your satisfaction. This party wbo appeared before you, W. J. Colg- 
 man, represented a commission bouse in New York, who in turn reprpsent a German 
 manufacturiug concern located iu Hamburg. Tbey manufacture these chair canes 
 and reeds there and send them here, and are paying a very much less duty in my 
 opinion than they ougbt to under the ad valorem system. 
 
 Mr. McKens^a. You say he is connected with an importing house ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. He represents a reed and cane company in New York, who represent a 
 manufacturing concern located in Hamburg, Germany. Their goods are sent to them 
 for sale on commission by this Hamburg factory. He'is not conuected in any shape or 
 manner with the manufacturing industry of this country. 
 
 Mr. McKexna. I was going to say I tliiuk there was a letter produced here from 
 the State of Iowa protesting against these rattans. Am I right. Governor Gear ? 
 
 Mr. Gear. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKkxna. We only bring this matter before you so as to have yourstatement 
 in regard to it, as it is not a matter of controversy. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are you engaged in the manufacture of this cane? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Yes, sir; I intended to bring a bunch of that article. These strands 
 there show it half through the process of manufacturing. There are four shavings 
 which come from that before it is a complete article. It only passes through the 
 machine, which removes these four shavings by one operation. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Y'ou import this in the crude state ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. We import it as a rattan. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Y'ou utilize the pith of the rattan for making chairs ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. We do that, sir, and we sell it for that purpose. 
 
 Mr. Gear. These are used for chair bottoms? 
 
 Mr. Lang. I'es, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. There is no duty on the crude article ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. No, sir. Nothing of the kind is grown on the continent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Of course not. Is not your firm engaged iu the manufacture of that 
 article? 
 
 Mr. Lang. We are. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How many members compose that firm ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. There are four different iirms, and I would like to explain right here 
 that there are fifteen outside of our arrangement. The reason why we are connected 
 with three other concerns is that the firms we associate with, in common with our- 
 selves, manufacturing the best article of that kind, combined together to get a fair 
 price for the article without coming in contact with these other people ; without 
 making it necessary for us to make a lower price in order to sell goods. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Why coiild you not get a fair price without a combination? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Now, I will answer this by saying that if we had not this arrangement 
 with these other concerns we could go out and make prices, and they would follow 
 us and make still lower prices, and the first thing we would know we would be sell- 
 ing our goods for less than cost, as we have in the past under precisely those circum- 
 stances, and have to make it up on something else or be out of money at the end of 
 the year. I want to elaborate that a little. Men would say, "Why would you sell ? 
 Why would the other concerns sell goods for less than cost ?" Because there is not 
 oneof the twenty-five different concerns that will sit down and figure the cost on cane 
 at the same price, and I will teh you why that is. Take ourselves, for instance. We 
 are bringing and landing on the wharves at Boston twenty-five grades of rattans. 
 These rattans run from one-eighteenth of an inch in diameter up to nearly an inch, 
 co.sting twenty-five different prices, and every one of those different diameters of the 
 rattans being a diiferent yield for cane. Now, we have got to cut those rattans into 
 sixer eight diiferent widths of cane, and it is not possible for any concern to figure 
 the cost on cane under those circumstances. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. The only reason you combined to make the prices is what you 
 state ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. The only reason we combined was to make our prices agree with three 
 other concerns, and to sell our goods at a uniform price, iu order to make a reason- 
 able, profit. That is all we ask for. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What was the price before you combined ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. The lowest price I recollect averaged about lS32. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What was the average price before you combined T 
 
 Mr. Lang. Perhaps $:i8 to $40. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What was it after you combined f 
 
 Mr. Lang. |53. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What is it now t 
 
 485 49 
 
770 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Lang. At tliat time we made virtually but one grade ; now we make five, and 
 I should say it will average $41). 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You aggregate all the grades ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Now we sell grades from $25 a bale, whereas our lowest price at that 
 time you speak of was $38 to |40. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. How far back? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Nine years ; in 1831 was the time when we first did anything of the 
 kind. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. When you first combined ; and you have been in combination ever 
 since and raised the price to $52. How long did it prevail at $52 ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. It has been as high as $60 in that time. 
 
 Mr. McKexna. But it did not fall below $53 ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Ye.s, sir; at one time it was $48. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Why didyou reduce the price ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Because rattans were costing less. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Was it not from competition outside ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. No, sir ; a competition would necessitate more reduction than that. I 
 think there was no competition at that time ; but I am not sure about it. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. How long did it prevail at a jirice of from $53 to $60 with that ex- 
 ception 1 
 
 Mr. Lang. Four or five years. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. When did you reduce it 33 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. On the Ist day of January. 
 
 Mr. McIvENNA. Last? 
 
 Mr. Lang. This very month. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Why did you reduce it? 
 
 Mr. Lang. On account of certain improvements in our ability to manufacture, 
 which enables us to reduce it. Another reason why we have been- able to reduce it 
 was the economy in manufacturing from the fact that we have concentrated the 
 manufacture of these four establishments into one at Wakefield. The Wakefield 
 IJattan Company made a contract with the other three to manufacture their canefct 
 them. We had all the facilities to manufacture the cane used in the market, because 
 we had done it in the past when we had the business ourselves. The result of that 
 was an economy which enabled us to do so. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. It has taken you a long time to discover that economic manage- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Lang. That is true. People are growing all the time. It would not have 
 been possible even for us to suggest such a thing to our competitors at one time until 
 they were better acquainted with us and believed in our integrity, and that it was 
 safe to intrust to us the manufacture of their goods in that wa.y. 
 
 Mr. Gear. When you say January you mean this month ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. This very month, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. How many men are employed in this manufacture? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Do you mean by our I'siablishmeut? 
 
 Mr. McKenna. By the combination; how many by this combination? 
 
 Mr. Lang. In making chair-cane? 
 
 Mr. McKenna. In making rattan cane? 
 
 Mr. Lang. There may be employed one hundred. These other three have gone 
 out and we are now doing this business for them, as I have explained. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Have they stopped business? 
 
 Mr. Lang. They have stopped the manufacture of that article. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. How do you divide with them? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Those four concerns take a certain amount of the product and dispose 
 of it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. There is now one concern manufacturing this rattan? 
 
 Mr. Lang. There is one concern manufacturing for these four concerns that I have 
 been talking about, but I want you to distinctly understand that there are half a 
 dozen concerns outside of this arrangement. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How many are there in your combination? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Four. 
 
 Mr. Gbar. You manufacture for these other concerns and they take a certain per- 
 centage of the manufacture, which they manufacture into chairs and other things? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That combination went into effect when ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Eighteen hundred and eighty-one. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The price of chair cane then'was $35 and |38? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Thirty-five dollars. 
 
 Mr. Gear. When did you put it up to |60 ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. I think it was some time about a year ago this month, if I am not mis- 
 . taken. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 771 
 
 Mr. Gear. Why did you have to put it up to that price t 
 
 Mr. Lang. Ou account of an advance in the material. 
 
 Mr. Gbar. Why have you reduced it this year ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. I have jnst explained that we did so for one reason because of economy 
 in manufacture, which we managed to bring about by this concentration. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Wlien you put up the price, did you increase the price of the labor en- 
 gaged in making it? 
 
 Mr. Lang. I would not want to say that we did at that time, but we did afterwards. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. I think 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. In other words you put the price of rattan up 80 per cent, and increased 
 the price of labor 10 per cent ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Because the material was higher and we would not sell for less than 
 cost when we started. 
 
 Mr. Gear. These machines were covered by patents? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Yes sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And those patents have expired. 
 
 Mr. Lang. In 1877, I think. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And you control them all in your business ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. There have been patents on some parts of those machines secured since, 
 but they are not at all vital. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You have contracts to control the accruing patents that may be gotten 
 out in the future on those machines which you use 1 
 
 Mr. Lang. We have not. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You have had them up to a certain date ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. We had with some men when we were employing them as an experi- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr Gear. Do you agree to pay them for these patents ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. I do not know that I quite understand the question. 
 
 Mr. Gear. If one of your employes patented one of these rattan-splitting machines, 
 did you pay him for that patent ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. To be sure, or we would not have gotten it. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. You say three iirms have gone out of business, and now one firm 
 does all that business for them ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. What has become of the labor employed by those three firms T 
 
 Mr. Lang. Perhaps I can tell you that Heywood Brothers & Company 
 
 Mr. Burrows. I did not ask that. 
 
 Mr. Lang. One of those concerns, Heywood Brothers & Co., manufactures 
 those chair canes, was located at Gardner, which was a bad point at which to manu- 
 facture chair caue. They perhaps employed fifty men in that business, machinists 
 and others. When they turned that business over to us at Wakefield, where it is less 
 expensive, they changed the buildings which they used for chair cane purposes into 
 a manufacturing establishment of different grades of chairs from what they had 
 been heretofore manufacturing, and I do not think there was a man employed in this 
 business who could not have remained in their employ if he wanted to. If there is 
 one we will take him. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Do you mean to say that no men have been turned off from any one 
 of these three establishments by reason of their combination? 
 
 Mr. Lang. There is one small one in New York, and it might possibly be possible 
 that half a dozen or a dozen men were turned oS. There have been some girls, and 
 those very girls we were anxious to get at Wakefield in our business, as they under- 
 stood the thing, but they have gone into other employment, into factories, and 
 no one has been done out of a job through this if they had wanted it. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Have they been out since 1881? 
 
 Mr. Lang. They have been out only since late last year. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You agreed among yourselves not to manufacture more than so 
 much ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. We manufacture all we can sell. No, we did not agree to anything of 
 the kind. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You were manufacturing all the capacity of your manufactories 
 right straight along? 
 ■ Mr. Lang. Yes sir; and we are increasing all the buildings to-day. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. I mean before you made this arrangement, before these people 
 went out. In 1881 you made this combination. How long did you manufacture in- 
 dependeutlv of each other ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Until last November. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Up to last November, was any agreement made among yonrselvea 
 as to how much cane you should turn out f 
 
 Mr. Lang. Not at all. 
 
772 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Each turned out the capacity of the factory f 
 
 Mr. Lang. Yes sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. That was before the combination f 
 
 Mr. Lang. Each turned out what he could seU, and we sold it for a uniform price 
 
 without cutting each others' throats. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Did you divide profits? 
 
 Mr. LAftG. No sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It was just an agreement as to price t 
 
 Mr. Lang. That is all. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What kind of reed comos in conflict with you t Where are the impor- 
 tations from that come in conflict with you ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Eattans are free. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I mean chair cane ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. It comes from Germany principally, but there has been some brought 
 over from China. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do they make as good rattans in Germany as you make ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. I do not think their cane is quite as well cut as ours is. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Have you not exported to Germany yourselves and come in competition 
 with them? 
 
 Mr. Lang. "We did for a year or two, but found that we were losing money faster 
 than we could make it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. But you did it to export it? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Yes, sir ; but it was only an experiment. 
 
 Mr. McKenxa. Without the 10 per cent, duty could you not compete in this coun- 
 try with the Germans ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Possibly. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. I mean with the usual profit on business capital required here. 
 
 Mr. Lang. Without the 10 per cent. I am free to say they would send a very large 
 quantity of cane here. 
 
 Mr. McKenxa. But you could compete with them and make a fair profit. 
 
 Mr. Lang. I would like to make this point clear. The manufacture of what chair- 
 cane is used in this country has made Wakefield, Mass., 10 miles from Boston and 
 built by the rattan industry, a place of 7,000 inhabitants, giving employment to 500 
 people outside of those manufacturing chairs and reed. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. I mean taking the whole business together. Of course you do not 
 mean to say the purpose of the factory is to employ these people. That is only inci- 
 dental to the other. 
 
 Mr. Lang. It is to-day ; it was not originally. Now, we are in competition to-day 
 with a class of goods which is made by 1,500 convicts at Brussels, Belgium, who are 
 obtaining this waste material from this factory at Hamburg, and it is sent over 
 here. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Then the duty you spoke of is not for this main business ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. I say if we can control the manufacture of this chair-cane, or a large 
 part of it, we would get sufficient material for this other product. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. This is only a process to get at the other. 
 
 Mr. Lang. I have said • 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You have said that the principal object of your business was the 
 making of this stuff and converting it into these mats. I do not know whether you 
 meant, to say that or not. 
 
 Mr. Lang. I did not mean to say that. If I did, I want to correct that. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. I want you to explain this about it. Do not understand me entering 
 into any controversy whatever. 
 
 Mr. Lang. I aiu quite anxious to explain it. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You said you could not compete in this market with the Germans 
 on this cane, and in connection with that you said that you could not compete with 
 them on this stuff made from the cane, and that was your object. Now, I say would 
 not the duty on that be all the duty you desire ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. There is none of it imported. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Then how are you hurt ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. What I was trying to explain was that our competitors in Hamburg, if 
 they have the cane in this country to produce, will manufacture that material. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. What do you call that ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Shavings. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is not that the refuse that accrues from the strippings ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That costs yon nothing ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. It does not, except the labor of 400 or 500 people combined to do this 
 especial thing. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That is not a answer that is germane at all. 
 
 Mr. Lang. What I eay is that if this cane is manufactured in Germany and sent 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 773 
 
 here we will be deprived of the ability to manufacture it, and we shall not have that 
 material to employ 500 people in the construction of this class of goods. 
 
 Mr. McKknna. That is clear enough ; but I will ask my question again. Can you 
 compete with Germany in the manufacture of chair-oane and reeds if yon do not have 
 a duty ? 
 
 Mr. LanGt. I think not; how much I should not want to say ; their labor is very 
 much cheaper than ours here. We gain to some extent in freight, but goods as com- 
 pact as chair-cane take very little space. 
 
 Mr. MoKbnna. You must expect to take the chances as in any business, 
 
 Mr. Lang I say we could not compete with them if they should undertake to sell 
 the goods at coat, because their cost is always lower than ours. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You could compete at the present prices t 
 
 Mr. Lang. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McliENNA. Passing beyond that, are any of those articles imported — what do 
 you call them ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. These are mats and mattings. These are made in continuous lengths 
 of 50 yards of various widths, from one-half a yard to IJ yards. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Are they now imported f 
 
 Mr. Lang. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What duty do you suggest on tliis t 
 
 Mr. Lang. We were satisfied with the recommendation in this bill. Just what it 
 was I have forgotten. Now these goods are imported not only in cocoa, but rattan 
 and cocoa bear a very close resemblance to the manufactured article. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Who are yonr chief competitors in the cocoa mats and rattan mats ! 
 
 Mr. Lang. Joseph Wykl & Co., Danaugh & Smaid, and one or two others. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You get that raw material incidentally. 
 
 Mr. Lang. It is incidental to the manufacture of these goods. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Then if you have a duty on these manufactured articles, that should 
 satisfy you, being on a par with the German manufacturers with the raw material. 
 The duty you think would be right on that t 
 
 Mr. Lang. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Will you tell me when that syndicate was formed — what month of 1880 ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. November, I think it was. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Who composed that syndicate? 
 
 Mr. Lang. The Wakefield Rattan Company, the Haywood Company, E. Newton & 
 Sons, and the Union Rattan Manufacturing Company. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Now, you have said rattan was worth $35 to $38 prior to that combina- 
 tion? 
 
 Mr. Lang. That was the price at which we were selling. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I have a bill here from the Wakefield Rattan Company which I wish to 
 put in evidence. It gives the cost in August, 1888, at |35. That is No. 1, fine, me- 
 dium fine, etc., cane. 
 
 [Cane bought just before the combination or trust went into effect from a member 
 of the present trust. ] 
 
 " Boston, Augmt 2, 1880. 
 
 Fort Madison Chair Company, Fort Madison, Iowa, hought of Wakefield Rattan Company. 
 
 25,000 feet No. 1 medium cane, at $35 $875.00 
 
 2,000 feet No. 1 fine cane, at $35 700.00 
 
 5,000 feet No. 1 common cane, at $35 175.00 
 
 50 bales sacking, at 30 cents.. 15.00 
 
 Carting 2.50 
 
 1,767.50 
 Received August 16. 
 Freight, $43.09. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How soon after that was the combination effected T 
 
 Mr. Lang. I think it was that very August. 
 
 Mr. Gear. August, 1880 t 
 
 Mr. Lang. I think it was 1881. The price was put up in November, 1881, 1 think. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I think you are mistaken about that; but that is a matter of opinion. 
 
 Mr. Lang. I know I am correct. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Why was it necessary to put np the price of rattan right after that, and 
 how much was it put np to ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. It was put up from that price to $53, I think-. 
 
 Mr. Gear. No ; was it not from thirty to ninety days after that f I have a bill here 
 which I am going to put in as part of this evidence. 
 
774 REVISION OP THE TAEIPP. 
 
 [Cane bought from a member of tbe trust shortly after trust was formed.] 
 
 Qakdner, Mass., December 14, 1880. 
 
 Fort Madison Chair Company, Fort Madison, Iowa, bought of Haywood Brothers Sf Co. 
 
 10,000 feet common cane, at $53 $530 
 
 Matting • 3 
 
 533 
 
 Five per cent. 30 days. 
 
 Natl. Desp. via C. B. «& Q. E. R. 
 
 Received January 2. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. He stated that. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The price was $35, and ninety days after that the price was put up to 
 $53, was it not? 
 
 Mr. Lang. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That is a difference of $17, 51 per cent, and a fraction. What was the 
 necessity of tliat ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. The necessity of that was this ; that those four concerns at that time 
 were striviug each to see how large a proportion of the trade they could get, and the 
 result of that was that the prices were given out of all proportion to its cost. They 
 were selling the goods for less than cost at that time. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the present price t 
 
 Mr. Lang. It ranges from $25. 
 
 Mr. Gear. No. 1 cane sells for what t 
 
 Mr. Lang. $35 per bale. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How long has that price been established t 
 
 Mr. Lang. Since the 27th day of December last. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What was the price prior to that time t 
 
 Mr. Lang. It was $60. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You claim that American-made cane is superior to the German Y 
 
 Mr. IjANG. 1 think it is shaved a little better. It is cleaner. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Does it not bring a little more in the market ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. No, sir. Certain kinds 
 
 Mr. Gear. Does not your cane bring more than the German t 
 
 Mr. Lang. Yes, sir. I think ithasthepretereuce. 
 
 Mr. Gear. By its quality alone? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You stated that yon supplied the other three concerns engaged In the 
 manufacture of this kind of goods and baskets? 
 
 Mr. Lang. I stated that the Wakefield Rattan Company manufactured for these 
 other concerns under contract. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you charge the Wakefield Rattan Company the same as if I wanted 
 to buy 100 bales? 
 
 Mr. Lang. The Wakefield Company manufacture these themselves. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are you with this Wakefield Company ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you charge in your manufactory the same price to your manufac- 
 turing department — I think you keep these accounts separate. 
 
 Mr. Lang. We do not manufacture anything into which chair-cane goes. We do 
 not manufacture this kind of chairs; but I sec what you are after. You mean do we 
 charge Heywood Bros. & Co., who use this largely, at the market price with their 
 competitors in the chair business? I will state that we do doit, and I have talked 
 with them a great many times in regard to it- 
 Mr. McKenna. The propositi(m involved was this: Do you charge these firms, for 
 whom you say you are manufacturing, the same price that you charge an outsider? 
 
 Mr. Lang. They have it at cost after paying us a certain percentage for wear and 
 tear and incidental expenses. 
 
 Mr. Gear. They have the preference at 10 or 20 per cent, below what you sell at to 
 an outsider ? 
 
 Mr. Lang. They have the same right to have the goods at cost that the Wakefield 
 Company has. The Wakefield Company undertakes to manufacture that cane for 
 them, and it is allowed a certain percentage for incidental expeuses and wear and tear. 
 
 Mr. Gkar. If it costs $30 a bale to make, you charge them $30 a bale, and charge 
 the outside world at a certain profit. 
 
 Mr. Lang. Certainly. There is no disadvantage to the outside men in doing that 
 any more than if they manufactured their own cane at Gardner instead of at Wake- 
 field. 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 775 
 
 Mr.' Gear submitted the following bills : 
 
 New York, June 25, 1888. 
 Fort Madison Chair Company, Fort Madison, Iowa, bought of Rattan and Cane Compatiij. 
 
 300,000 feet narrow medium chair-cane, at $37 . $111.00 
 
 Sacliing " go 
 
 Total \U.90 
 
 [This is German cane, made in Germany and imported. This concern is, ot course, 
 not m the trust.] 
 
 New York, February 24, 1888. 
 
 Fort Madison Chair Company bought of Union Battan Manufacturing Company. 
 
 10 bales B wide binding, at $30 per 100,000 feet $150.00 
 
 5 bales No. 1 fine mdm. cane,* at |53 265.00 
 
 415.00 
 Less 6 per cent 24.90 
 
 390. 10 
 Sacking 4. 50 
 
 394. 60 
 
 [This bill shows cane bought in 1888 at the combination price, the item marked* 
 beiug the one controlled by the trust. The other item, wide binding, is a cheaper, 
 rough kind, used only in cheap chairs. And as German cane can be used for cheap, 
 rough work the combination have not advanced the price on that kind. But it 
 shows -what they can make cane for if they want to. Most of the cane sold is the 
 kind controlled by the trust.] 
 
 FROM THE "WINONA ■WILLO'W "WORKS. 
 
 Winona, Minn., January 31, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : Understanding that a combination of wealthy reed manufacturers, 
 headed by the Wakefield Rattan Company, are endeavoring to have the duty on reeds 
 and chair-cane advanced in the tariff' bill now in preparation, and believing that the 
 proposed advances if made the eetablisherl tariff' on the materials mentioned would 
 not only be detrimental but ruinous to the many factories throughout the country de- 
 pendent for their supply solely on imported reeds and chair-cane, we desire, as one 
 firm interested in the defeat of this proposition, to earnestly protest against any 
 action looking toward further advance of duties on the commodities above mentioned. 
 
 The motive for asking an advance can have been inspired only by greed and selfish- 
 ness, and we are very positive in our declaration that the combination seeking this 
 unjust legislation for their own personal ends can find no reasons plausible before 
 competent observers of the situation. 
 
 The primary object of tariff' legislation was understood to be for revenue. It has 
 been demonstrated that this can easily be supplied by duties on imported commod- 
 ities quite directly competitive with our native productions and manufactures. 
 The secondary object has been tlie protection of home industries. That the manu- 
 facturers of reeds and chair-cane in the United States have any just claim for protection 
 we deny; that the Wakefield Rattan Company and its allies are in position to com- 
 pete with the world in the primary cost of their rattan an investigation of their 
 ample facilities will readily confirm. Wo are informed that the ocean rates on reeds 
 and chair-cane are higher than that charged for the carrying of natural rattan, which 
 must, as a matter of coarse, result beneficially for our own manufacturers. We fail 
 to see the faintest glimmer of justice in the advance asked for. On the other hand the 
 conditions of affairs plead for a complete abolition of the existing tariff. A glauce at 
 the business which employs so many tluaisauds of reed-workers all over the United 
 States shows how directly the people are interested in this matter and how vitally 
 the result of your deliberation will affect those who have staked their fortunes iu 
 these various reed industries. From the buyer of the ornamental reed chairs and 
 other furniture to the purchaser of the commonest articles of furniture, from the 
 
776 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 butchers, the bakers, and the coal dealers to the washer- woman and her basket, every 
 line of trade, in fact every household finds some use for reed and chair-cane in one 
 shape or another. An advance either means that so much additional tax must be in- 
 directly levied on every consumer to make good this proposed exorbitant tariff, or 
 it means the annihilation of the numerousfactories throughout the country forced by 
 the existing reed monopolists of our country to import material in order to live. It 
 means the triumph of monopoly against weakness and the success of concentrated 
 capital over justice. 
 
 We most earnestly hope that the matter of duty on reeds and chair-cane may have 
 the closest investigation before any action is taken, and we beg to ask your aid in 
 defense of the weak against the strong. 
 We are, very respectfully, 
 
 Per. H. J. Call, 
 Winona Wiixovt Works. 
 Hon. EoswELL P. Flower, 
 
 House of Beyreaentativea, Washington, D. C. 
 
 VIEWS OF OTTO GERDAU. 
 
 Nbw York, January 27, 1890. 
 
 Sir : My attention has been called to a device of the rattan combination, com- 
 posed of the following firms : Wakefield Rattan Company, Boston; Heywood Bros. 
 & Co., Gardner; Union Rattan Manufacturing Company, New York ; and E. New- 
 ton's Sons, New York. 
 
 Kattan and reeds have in the different tariffs always been named together, but I 
 am told that in the last Senate bill the phraseology was changed upon the instigation 
 of the combination to "Bamboo and rattan unmanufactured, bamboo, reeds, and 
 sticks of jiartridge, etc., free," with the hidden object that they would then claim 
 that by reeds you did not mean rattan reeds at all. 
 
 I inclose two samples of reeds. The round one is that upon which all the chair, 
 baby carriage, whip manufacturers, etc., of the States are depending for their raw 
 material, and as it is the rattan with only the bark off and not manufactured at all, 
 it has always been admitted fiee of duty under the classification, "Rattan and reeds, 
 unmanufactured, free." 
 
 These reeds when split like the other sample have been imported at 10 per cent, as 
 rattau and reeds partially manufactured, and my petition is that the wording, "Rat- 
 tan and reeds unmanufactured, free, rattan and reeds manufactured but not made 
 up into completed articles, 10 per cent.," will be adhered to, so as to make the matter 
 clear and leave no room for such controversy as is intended by the combination, with 
 the object to make all manufacturers of chairs, baby carriages, and whips in the 
 States dependent upon their monopoly. 
 Yours, truly. 
 
 Otto Gbrdad. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlbt, Jr. 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 VIEWS or H. W^ITTE. 
 
 New York, January 4, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : 1 beg to call your attention to the import duty on reeds and chair 
 cane. The present duty is 10 per cent, ad valorem. I hear that a combination of 
 three or four concerns, of which the Wakefield Rattan Company, of Wakefield, Mass., 
 is the head, is trying hard to have the rate of duty on these articles advanced with 
 the tariff bill now in preparation. 
 
 Reeds are peeled or skinned rattans. 
 
 Chair-cane is the outside part or peeling or the skin of rattans. 
 
 Both reeds and chair-cane are crude materials imported to be manufactured into 
 articles hero in the country. 
 
 Though both reeds and chair-cane as imported are partly manufactured rattans, they 
 are nevertheless crude materials, not being made into manufactured articles. 
 
 Jiccds are used here in the manufactory of reed chairs, children's carriages, whips, 
 street and stable brooms, walking canes, umbrellas, saddles, carriages, harness, etc. 
 
 Chair-cane is used in the manufactory of chair-seats. 
 
 Tlie above-named industries are all separate ones, and are carried on extensively ia 
 every or almost every State of our Union, and in each State give employment to a 
 very large number of laborers day for day throughout the year. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIB^. 777 
 
 Now, wLile it is a hardship for the industries who usu in thoirmauufactn re reeds and 
 chair-cane to pay the so far levied duty of 10 per cent, ad valorem, It will be sure and 
 certain ruin to them if the duty should be advanced to more, which would place the 
 industries mentioned at the mercy of the Wakefield Rattan Company and a few other 
 establishments in union with the latter. 
 
 In fact there could be nothing more correct than to wipe out the present duty of 10 
 per cent., and to place both reeds and chair-cane ou the free list. 
 
 Begging you to give this matter your liberal and earnest attention, 
 I am yours, respectfully, 
 
 H. WiTTE. 
 
 Hon. RosWELL p. Flower, 
 
 Souse of Itepreaentativet, WasTiington, D. C. 
 
778 
 
 EEVISION OF THE TAEIPP. 
 
 liUMBEB. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. H. C. MoCORMICK. 
 
 Hon. H. C. McCORMiCK, a Representative from the Sixteenth Pennsylvania dis- 
 trict, addressed the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I will not detain you but a yery 
 few minutes in the remarks 1 wish to make upon the subject of a duty upon lumber. 
 1 am not advised by any member of the committee or by any action of the committee 
 that it is contemplated to reduce the tariff on lumber from that which now exists 
 under the law, but I desire to call the attention of the committee more particularly, 
 as embodying our views in the lumber country upon this subject, to the testimony 
 which was taken and the arguments which were bad bel'ore the Senate Fiuance Com- 
 mittee when the Mills bill was under consideration in the Senate. At that time the 
 lumber interests of Pennsylvania were invited to present their arguments in favor of 
 the retention of the duty, which -was done, and the testimony taken and the argu- 
 ments made before that committee were stenographically reported and appear in 
 part 2 of the report, on page 386. The report of that committee reduced the duty 
 upon pine lumber from $2 per thousand feet to ^1.50 per thousand feet, and left the 
 duty upon cheaper grades of lumber, such as hemlock, spruce, etc., as the law now 
 lixes it and as the law has fixed it since 1872, at $1 per thousand feet. The duty of 
 $1 per thousand feet upon spruce and hemlock lumber, when-reduced to an ad valorem 
 standard, amounts to 11.70 per cent, and the duty upon white pine lumber at $2 per 
 thousand feet, when reduced to an ad valorem standard, ia 16 and a fraction per cent. 
 
 The average fixed by the act of 1872 was about 8 per cent, lower than it ever was 
 since the act of 1842; so we have under the existing law to-day a lower duty upon 
 lumber by a very considerable per cent, than we have ever had since we first had a 
 tariif upon lumber at all. If the gentlemen of the comiliittee will refer to the testi- 
 mony of the president of the West Branch Lumbermen's Exchange, contained in this 
 report, a man who has been in the lumber business for over thirty years and is thor- 
 oughly familiar with it — and he has given his testimony in a most in telligent manner — 
 yon will find that it amounts to a demonstration of the fact that theditl'erence in the 
 price between the labor paid in the hemlock andpine woods in Pennsylvania and to 
 the laborers in like employment in Canada is greater than |1 per thousand feet. So 
 it would heem if there is to be any protection at all, if the protection principle is to 
 he applied to lumber at all, it should at least.remain where it is in the face of the in- 
 controvertible fact that the labor in the lumber region of Pennsylvania receives more 
 additional from the lumber manufacturers there over the Canadian lumbermen than 
 the tariff amounts to. I speak advisedly on this subject, not only from information 
 but from my own knowledge of that business. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Let me understand you. The price they receive from the manu- 
 facturer is greater than the foreign lumber plus the duty ? 
 
 Mr. McCoRMiCK. What I mean to say is this, and if this does not answer your in- 
 quiry I will be very glad to have you repeat it : The price of the labor that enters 
 into the lumber in Pennsylvania exceeds the price of the same labor in Canada by f 1 
 per thousand. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. You speak now of hemlock ? 
 
 Mr. MoCoRJiTCK. Yes sir ; i;nd what I say of the hemlock, so far as the labor is 
 concerniil, is efjnally true of the pine. 
 
 Mr. LaFollette. Having in mind the duty of $3 per thousand and the duty of 
 I1..50 per thousand? 
 
 Jlr. MeC'oHMiCK. Having in mind the duty of $2 per thousand. It has been demon- 
 strated by the testimony to which I have referred that the dift'crcnce is certainly $2 
 per tbonsand ; that is to say, the wages in the woods of the men who cut down the 
 trees and clit them into logs .and drift thenl through the streams to the booms where 
 thcv- are held for the purpose of manufacture is in many cases more than 50 per cent, 
 more, in Pennsylvania than it is in Canada. The man who receives $30 a month in 
 Pennsylvania would be willing to do the same thing in Canada at$20 to I'.Ti amonth. 
 All thcHc matters appear in the testimony to which 1 refer and which I would ask you 
 to examine. 
 
 My purpose in coming before you this morning is to say that if it should be the 
 opinion of this committee that this tarifi' schedule uiion lumber should be changed, 
 
tiEVlSlON OF THE tAEIPtil, lid 
 
 representing as I do the principal lumber district east of Michigan, I would like to 
 have the privilege of calling before you such experts in this business as will be able 
 to give you correct and reliable information upon the subject. All the profit to-day 
 which hemlock and spruce lumber in Pennsylvania yields is barely a living to the 
 manufacturer. One dollar per thousand feet net would be regarded as a fair profit to 
 the manufacturer. 
 
 _ Mr. Gear. Is not the great body of spruce and hemlock lumber of this country out- 
 side of the Eocky Mountains confined mostly to your State. 
 
 Mr. McCoRMiCK. Hemlock is confined mostly to my State and very largely to my 
 district. The southern portion of New York and these counties in Pennsylvania con- 
 stitute almost the entire hemlock region of the United States outside of the Rockies. 
 
 Mr. Gear. There is no lumber that can come in competition with you except Nova 
 Scotia and Newf mndland lumber? 
 
 _ Mr. McCoRMiCK. Yes, sir ; the cheaper grades of pine in Canada come in competi- 
 tion with hemlock in Pennsylvania because they are used for the same purpose. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Would it be a great inconvenience for you to furnish the testimony 
 before the bill is taken up ? I am not familiar with it and I want their testimony. 
 
 Mr. LaFollettb. Can you not prepare a statement incorporating a part of the tes- 
 timony which you refer to as giving information upon this subject, and furnish it to 
 the stenographer ? 
 
 Mr. McCoRMiCK. I will be glad to do that. 
 
 Mr. La Follbttb. It would be substantially the same testimony we would get if 
 we listened directly to those gentlemen ? 
 
 Mr. McCoRMiCK. I may say in answer to Mr. McKenna that it would be difficult 
 forme to add anything to the facts that were presented before the Senate committee. 
 
 The Chairman. If there is anything you desire to submit you may do so, and if in 
 any case we may desire to refer to that testimony we will be satisfied to refer to it 
 and consider it. 
 
 Mr. McCoRMiCK. I may say this, however, that this testimony was taken some two 
 years ago, and the conditions are constantly changing. And I may also say they 
 h^e not changed for the better in our section of the country aud the reasons given 
 by those geutlemen before the Senate committee are as applicable now as they were 
 then. Indeed I think they would apply with more force to-day to the lumber busi- 
 ness in our section than ever before. In that view, and in that view only, I desire 
 to call from the different parts of my district the men engaged in this business, who 
 might submit their views to you, if you should permit it. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You know the facts yourself? 
 
 Mr. McCoRMiCK. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. Would you incorporate such statements as you have yourself 
 and by reference to the testimony taken at that time, and submit those statements 
 to the stenographer? 
 
 Mr. MoCoRMiCK. Certainly; I will be very glad to do so. I will not detain the com- 
 mittee longer, and I would express my thanks to them for their courtesy. 
 
 In addition to the foregoing remarks Mr. McCormick said he could do no better 
 than refer to the testimony and memorials published in the proceedings had before 
 the Senate Finance Committee, referred to in his remarks above given, aud the at- 
 tention of the Ways and Means Committee is respectfully called thereto. 
 
 FOREIGN HAED-WOODS. 
 
 Mr. H. W. Combs, of New York, addressed the committee. He said : 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee : I appear here to-day to represent 
 the mill-owners of New York and, incidentally, of the country, in the manufacture 
 of sawed foreign hardwoods, such as mahogany, grenadillo, rose-wood, satin-wood, 
 etc. I do not wish to ask this committee in the preparation of its tariff act for an 
 increase of duty, inasmuch as we liave had the same rate of duty ever since, I believe, 
 the hard-woods have been on the tariff list, or uutil by a construction of the Treas- 
 ury Department in 1887, our protection was practically wiped out, and we were left 
 without even a resort to the courts. We want simply to ask a change in the phrase- 
 ology of the tariif act respecting the manufactures of niiihogauy and rcdar. 
 
 I might premise my remarks by saying that we wish to avoid complication. These 
 woods, or the products of these woods, have been protected, as wc bel ieve, up to 1887 ; 
 and under that protection our manufactures have grown up, not only in New York, 
 but in other portions of the country /is wellf and mahogany and cedar logs have 
 been imported in large quantities in the log, which has been free, aud has been 
 sawed in our mills in this country, giving employment to many thousands of men, 
 both skilled and unskilled. There has been invested in this business under this pro- 
 tection, I believe, some ten millions of capital in New York alone, but under the 
 
780 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Treasury decision in 1887, by the classification of sawed mahogany at |2 a thousand, 
 this industry has been very greatly crippled. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckineidge. The question you are talking about is mahogany in a sawed 
 state? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. Yes, sir ; we desire to ask this committee to make a provision cover- 
 ing ail sawed products of mahogany and cedar wood, grauadilla, and other hard cab- 
 inet woods. 
 , Mr. Bbeceisridge. You are not going beyond the fact of their simply being sawed? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. Perfected manufactures of woods are provided for elsewhere? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are they sufliciently provided for? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. I am not convinced as to that. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You are speaking of there being $10,000,000 employed in this 
 business in this country? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you mean to say there is $10,000,000 of capital employed in 
 sawing. mahogany and other hard woods? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. Yes, sir; in the mills, in the sawing of mahogany and other hard 
 woods. 
 
 Mr. Brecklneidgb. You are not speaking of the working up of mahogany and 
 rosewood into its finished product; but simply of the sawing? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. Simply for the purpose of sawing the logs into diiferent dimensions. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It takes a capital of $10,000,000 to supply the cabinet-makers 
 with dimension material in this country, does it? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Do you mean in New York ? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. 1 mean in the industry. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What do we understand by the " industry" ? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. The importation of logs, and the sawing of them. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Does tliat cover transportation to the mills ? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. We desire it to. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How do ships bring those in ? " 
 
 Mr. Coombs. All logs tliat have been imported have been brought on American 
 sailing vessels, while the sawed product is broinght upon foreign steamships. Those 
 vessels are, as I understand it, principally engaged in the importation of hard woods. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do I understand you to say that under a fair estimate the capital em- 
 ployed in sawing the logs into dimension timber would amannt to $10,000,000? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. Tlie amount invested in this industry is about .|;1 0,000, 000. 
 
 Mr. Bi:kckinridgb. Does it include any thingelse? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. I mean the bulk of the investment is in the mills fine machinery, 
 and skilled labor for the production of this product. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What do you mean by investment in labor? I want to know 
 where that $10,000,000 reposes. 
 
 Mr. Coombs. The principal portion of it is in the mills, the establishments for the 
 sawing of tiie logs. 
 
 The Chairman. It is invested in mills in the United States, in machinery, and 
 capital used, in the plant and the capital required for the purpose of importing? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How much duty do you want on it? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. We want the same duty which was collected prior to 1887. I desire 
 to call your attention to the tariff act of 1883. In that act mahogany and cedar wood 
 and tlie products of such as we are now seeking to have protected, nnmanufactured 
 wood was free, and manufactured was 3.5 per cent, ad valorem. This has been the 
 provision, I think, through different tariff acts for a period of years prior to 1883; 
 and the Department has always collected 35 per cent, upon manufactured miihogany; 
 and it made the log free. In 1887 the then Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Fairchild, 
 on the application of importers, decided that sawed mahogany came within the pro- 
 visions of paragraph 219, of the act of March 3, 188.J, which provides : " That all lum- 
 ber shall be $1 per thousand; and all other articles of sawed lumber, .$2 per thousand." 
 
 The Secretary of the Treasury decided that they came within that provision of the 
 law — " all other articles of sawed lumber" — at $2 per thousand feet. Two dollars 
 per thousand is the rate now on these foreign, sawed hard woods. Two dollars per 
 thousand on boards, planks, etc., of hemlock, etc., is the equivalent of 20 to 25 per 
 cent, ad valorem, on hard woods about 'Si per cent. We have contended that ma- 
 hogany, not being a necessary of life, ought not to be at a less rate of duty than the 
 actual necessities of bouse builders. We ask this committee to repeal paragraph 232 
 of the act of March 3, 1883, which provides for manufacturers of mahogany, etc., 
 wood, etc., at 35, and enact in lien thereof such a paragraph as this : 
 
 "Sawed boards, planks, and other forms of sawed mahogany, cedar, rosewood, and 
 Batin wood, and all other foreign cabinet woods, 35 per ceut. ad valorem." 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF 781 
 
 That would avoid misconstruction upon the part of the administrative officers of 
 the Government. 
 
 The Chairman. Did the decision increase the duty on any other Isiuds of sawed 
 wood? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. No, sir. That only provides for a department classification at the 
 rate at which we have always had these goods. 
 
 Mr. Cakltsle. What would it do with the manufactures of these goods? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. They are provided for in another section. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You propose to repeal paragraph 232 ? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. But you will find that prior to that provision the manufactures of 
 wood had 35 per cent. Perfected manufactures of these hard woods are not imported, 
 as the statistics of the Treasury and the Census will show. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you propose now to make sawed mahogany pay the same duty 
 as the wood eutering into other kinds of furniture ? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. We pro|i06e to ask this coiiiiuittee to give us 35 per cent, ad valorem 
 on sawed mahogany. VVhether this is sufficient for other manufactures of sawed Imu- 
 ber, we can not say. 
 
 The Chairman. Unless this is changed, the result would he to establish them upon 
 the same rate of duty ? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. Yes, sir; I do not think that would militate against or have any ef- 
 fect upon the importation of wood, orthe revenues, for the reason that perfectci man- 
 ufactures of these hard woods are not imported. That is very easily asceitainedfrom 
 statistics. 
 
 Then I would suggest that paragraph 818 of the free list be amended by striking 
 out the word " unmanufactured," and inserting in lieu thereof "in the log, rough or 
 hewn;" so that there may be no misconstruction or rai.scoijc-f i)tion of its meaning. 
 Underthe protection which was given prior to 1887 there had grown up uu importa- 
 tion of logs of foreign hard woods to the extent of 50,000,000 feet per annum, all of 
 which was sawed upon the mills of this country. It would be well to state to the 
 committee that in the sawing of mahogany in the country from whence it comes the 
 labor is performed by peons at 18 to 50 cents per day. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How do they saw it ? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. They have erected mills since this decision of Mr. Fairchild. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is it American capital ? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. I think Mr. I. T. Williams has some investment there. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The principal work is done by hand, is it not 1 
 
 Mr. Coombs. No ; formerly it might have been. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How long have they been doing mill work there? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. (To Mr. Constantine.) Can you state ? 
 
 Mr. Constantine. About lour years. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do they export Largely to this country ? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. They have, since 188". 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Are the imports principally mahogany ? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. Principally mahogany and cedar. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you buy these furniture woods by the linear foot or by the 
 cubic foot? 
 
 Mr. Constantine. By the foot. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What do you have to pay per foot for mahogany ? 
 
 Mr. Constantine. About $60 a ton, board measure. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Mr. Constantine, I thought you bought by the cubic foot? 
 
 Mr. Constantine. We buy by the superficial foot. 
 
 Mr. Brkckinridge. Do you make any allowance for sawdust? 
 
 Mr. Constantine. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is a fair price in foreign countries for rosewood? 
 
 Mr. Coombs. It is sold by the ton. It is about $50 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. About how many tons do you bring in? 
 
 Mr. Constantine. I could not say. 
 
 Mr. Coombs. I want to file a statement on this subject. 
 
 The Chairman. We will grant you the opportunity. 
 
 Mr. Flow^er. The manufacturers have been calling for "more, more." Mr. Moore 
 
 The Chairman. The only reason that we have not called Mr. Moore is that I 
 thought we ought to have a full committee. In the afternoon we will hear Mr. ' 
 Moore. 
 
782 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 VIEWS OP A. B. W^ILLIAMS. 
 
 TONAWANDA, N. Y., January 31, 1890. 
 
 Sir: There are at Tonawanda, Buifalo, Lockport, and Rochester a number of mills 
 entirely dependent for their supply of piue upon rafts towed down the lakes from 
 Michigan and Ontario. It is becoming difficult to obtain an adequate supply from 
 Michigan, and we must depend largely upon the Canadian pineries. 
 
 The design of the Canadian export duty is to prevent the export of logs to Ameri- 
 can mills.. The measure is conceived and carried out in a spirit of hostility to the 
 American saw-mill interest on the northern frontier. Besides the points I have men- 
 tioned above, Canadian logs are wanted for saw-mills at Erie, Cleveland, Toledo, 
 Detroit, Port Huron, Bay City, Saginaw, Alpena, and Sheboygan. 
 
 The export of logs from the United States to Canada, especially to New Brunswick, 
 is very large and is not interfered with by an export duty, and, under the circum- 
 stances, the Canadian export duty is uot only an unfriendly act, but also an imper- 
 tinence. It was imposed in 1866, being then |l ; iu 1886 was increased to $2; in No- 
 vember, 1888, it was increased to |;5, and in July, 1889, put back to $"2. The duty has 
 been imposed at tht) instigation of the Canadian saw-mill interest, and will be re- 
 moved when that interest desires it. Congress can secure its immediate repeal by 
 making sawn lumber the hostage and imposing an extra duty on it equal to the 
 Canadian duty on logs, to becolle^'ted as long as the export duty on logs is continued. 
 
 This will leave the Canadian government to elect wbether the export duty on sawn 
 lumber shall be collected or not, and they will elect not to pay it and repeal the ex- 
 port duty. The export of sawn lumber from Canada to the United States last year 
 was seven times greater than the entire log export from Canada to the United States 
 from 1867 to 1889, and the interest of the larger trade will not be allowed to suf- 
 fer for the sake of preventing us from getting Canada logs. 
 
 Do not retaliate by putting a duty on logs. That would simply play into Canadian 
 hands by making importation of Canadian logs impossible. Put a duty on sawn 
 lumlier as a punishment for the export duty on logs, and to be collected while the 
 export duty is continued, and then let the Canadian pay the extra duty or not, as 
 his government may elect. 
 
 A clause or resolution, in substance as follows, will effectually remedy the exaction 
 we complain of: 
 
 "In case any foreign country shall impose an export duty on logs designed for 
 American mills, there shall be imposed upon the sawn lumber imported into the United 
 States from such country an additional duty equal to the amount of such export 
 duty." 
 
 If the duty on sawn lumber is reduced, do not allow the reduction to apply to any 
 country imposing an export duty on logs. 
 
 I beg most respectfully to urge these views upon your .attention. They will be in- 
 dorsed by every saw-mill owner, I think, on the northern frontier. We are now at the 
 mercy of the Canadian government. It can make the export duty so high as to be 
 an absolute prohibition, and will only be deterred by fear of consequences from 
 doing it. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 A. B. Williams. 
 
 5on. William McKinlet, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Meant. 
 
 EXPORT DUTY ON CANADIAN TIMBER AND LOGS. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means of the Souse of Representatives : 
 
 This statement is submitted specially in behalf of the manufacturers of lumber in 
 northern Michigan who have memorialized the committee; but the same facts apply, 
 in a greater or less degree, to all States bordering upon the Canadian provinces and 
 which draw from thence for supply of logs or timber. 
 
 Sawn hiviber. — The tariff upon sawn pine lumber, imposed by the United States 
 under the present schedule, is |2 per thousand feet. 
 
 The import duty levied by the Dominion Government on the same class of lumber 
 is 20 per cent, ad valorem, so that the two governments now stand upon an equality 
 so far as relates to the duty on sawn lumber. 
 
 Logs and timber. — But when logs and unmanufactured timber are reached, the 
 legislation is all confined to Canada, and, while her interests arc zealously guarded, 
 no provision looking toward a like protection of American interests has been adopted. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 783 
 
 For a great number of years persons and corporations looateil at Quebec, Montreal, 
 Toronto, and other points in Canada, have boon engaged in cutting and removing, in 
 the log, large quantities of oak, cedar, pine, spruce, walnut, and other valuable tim- 
 ber from Michigan and all the other border States, without cliarge or restriction. 
 
 The value of the raw material thus removed, from 1880 to 1890, aggregated, by 
 their own admissions, upwards of !|12,000,000, and the limit of loss to our resources 
 has not been reached. 
 
 Upon these logs and timber no export ever has been or can be lawfully levied. 
 
 Dominion legislation. — The Domiuion Government, however, with a view to coufiue 
 the manufacture of lumber within its own borders, passed at an early date a statute 
 authorizing the levy of a duty on all logs exported fi'om Canada, and which, in its 
 present form, delegates to the privy council the power to fix and regulate tlie amount 
 of the duty at will; and this power has been heretofore exercised iu the most arbi- 
 trary and irregular fa.shion aud to the purposed injury or destruction of large inter- 
 ests held by citizens of the United States. 
 
 From 1881 to 18-'u the export duty remained fixed at ijll per 1,000 feet and nothing 
 to iudicat" a purpose on the part of the Governnjent to change the same. 
 
 American piircliases. — As the supplies of timber available for manufacture at Sag- 
 inaw, Alpena, Cheboygan, and other points iu Michigan decreased, the Michigan 
 lumbermen naturally commenced to purchase Canadian timber, which could be made 
 tributary to tbeir present milling districts; aud from 2,000,000,000 to 3,000,000,000 
 feet of standing timber, situated on the streams flowing into Genrgian Bay, have 
 been acquired and are now held for mannfieture at Saginaw, I'awas, Aliiena, CLe- 
 boygan, and other Michigan cities, and large quantities have already been safely 
 and successfnlly towed across Lake Huron in booms at small exiionse, and manu- 
 factured at the points named more cheaply than could be done by investing the cap- 
 ital required to erect new plants in Canada. 
 
 No sooner were these purchases made and logs conmienced to be exported in con- 
 siderable quantities by the American owners than the Dominion Government raised 
 the export duty to $2, and subsequently, without any hearing of the parties to be 
 affected, raised the duty to $3, and then reduced it to $2, where it now remains and 
 will until the privy council shall, by another star-chamber edict, raise the same to 
 some different amount. 
 
 The result of this arbitrary action is, that no man can with safety lumber his tim- 
 ber or rely upon that source of supply to stock a Michigan mill. And while the S3 
 per thousand levied may not absolutely prohibit the exportation of the logs, if it re- 
 mained settled, the certainty that the privy council may without warning raise that 
 duty to $3 or $4 or $5 per thousand at any time is calculated to work a complete 
 prohibition against the manufacture of the same in Michigan. 
 
 A perfectly apparent result of the policy is that the Michigan manufacturer, un- 
 able to bring the logs to him, must withdraw his capital from the district where it is 
 now invested and establish his mills, planing mills, aud other factories in Canada 
 where the log is to be got. But this is not all. In dealing with the question it must 
 be borne in view that the supply of logs for the existing mills in Michigan is rapidly 
 diminishing, and unless new producing tributary territory is apened up, the immeuse 
 capital now invested in both lumber and salt plants in Michigan is threatened with 
 great loss. 
 
 Saginaw Valley. — Briefly stated, thera are in the Saginaw Valley alone, approxi- 
 mately, one hundred milling establishments, having anannnal c.ipacity of 800,000,000 
 to 900,000,000 feet. 
 
 There are connected with the mill.s, and absolutely dependent upon them for fuel 
 supply, salt manufactories having an annual output of over 2,000,000 barrels, 
 and sorting yards, planing mills, aud other wood-working factories, representing 
 $20,000,000 in capital, and employing 10,000 to 15,000 operatives, all dependent in 
 the last resort for their operation and continuance upon the supply of logs for the 
 mills. 
 
 The most careful estimates of the total quantity of Michigan logs which can reach 
 these mills by river or rail will not furnish a supply this year of more than two- 
 thirds the cutting capacity, the next year not over one-hulf, and subsequently a sup- 
 ply constantly diminishing, both in quantity and quality, until the end is rapidly 
 reached, meaning great loss in values, production, and workmen. The fresh supply 
 from Canadian sources, if it can be obtaineil, is am])le in connection with the re- 
 sources still remaining in Michigan to continue theses great manufactories without 
 serious impairment until other industries shall take their place. 
 
 Belief asked. — We insist, under these facts, that this Goviu-nment, in the interest of 
 Michigan and of the people at large, has a plain duty to iierform ; that some appro- 
 priate legislation should be adopted to compel the IJominidn Governiueut to recede 
 from its present unjust and arbitrary export duty on logs and place the two countries 
 and their citizens upon an exact equality, so far as the exportation of logs aiul un- 
 manufactured timber is concerned, This can not be wholly equalized, because it ia 
 
784 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 conceded that Canada has always heretofore received vastly more timher from the 
 United States than has ever been or is likely to be brought from the Dominion to the 
 States; but the citizens of each who deal in the same class of products can be put on 
 an equal footing. These memorialists submit as the true and effectual measure of 
 relief thit in any revision made of the tariff it be provided in substance that to the 
 amount of the duty imposed by this Government upon sawn or manufactured lumber, 
 imported iuto the States from Canada, there be added the full amount of the export 
 duty which the Duiuinion Government may lay upon logs exported from Canada for 
 manufacture at American mills. This is a proper retaliation against the system of 
 arbitrary exaction which the Dominion of Canada has set up to the destruction of 
 the property of our citizens. It will not have the effect to increase the tariff upon 
 imported lumber. It will have the immediate effect, on the contrary, to compel the 
 Dominion Government to recede from its hostile legislation respecting logs and to be 
 content with meeting the United States on the duties on manufactured lumber alone. 
 
 We say this because the interest of the entire lumber producers of Canada will then 
 be on the side of the United States. And the same industries at whose demand this 
 hostile legislation of the Dominion originated will clamor for and compel its immedi- 
 ate repeal. 
 
 Speaking in round numbers, less than one-half of the Canada lumber product is 
 required for home consumption, and more than one-half is marketed in the United 
 States, the value of such lumber so imported into the'States in 1889 aggregating over 
 $6,000,000. 
 
 The addition to tbe existing duty on this imported lumber of the amounts charged 
 by the Domi uion Government on the exported logs would cost the producer of Canada 
 lumber upwards of $1,000,000 the first year, while the retention by their own Gov- 
 ernment of the export duty on logs would be of no possible advantage to them, nor 
 any source of revenue to the Dominion. The lumbermen of Canada, indeed, have 
 foreseen the disasters to their own industries which must certainly ensixe from pro- 
 voking retaliatory legislation on our part, and with a view to anticipate and avoid 
 the same the Queljec Board of Trade, Toronto Board of Trade, and Lumbermen's 
 Association of Ontario, and othtr bodies representing the entire luml)er interest, peti- 
 tioni'd Government a year since for a complete repeal of the export duty. 
 
 And the privy council has by act of parliament been authorized, in case of the 
 adoption of such retaliatory measures by this Government, to abrogate the duty alto- 
 gether immediately on tbe passage of any such measure. 
 
 Hon. John Charlton, M. P., addressed the Dominion Parliament in behalf of the 
 Canadian lumbermen on this very ques ion, April "23, 1889, in a speech a copy of 
 which is now filed with this committee, and he makes very emphatic and conclusive 
 argument as to the necessary action of the Dominion Government. 
 
 " Mr. Charlton. It is only a year ago that tbe minister of finance asked for power 
 to abrogate the duty by order in council, the reason given being that the Mills bill, 
 which had then been introduced in Congress and was likely to become a law, might 
 affect a country which had an export duty and bad not the power of removing the 
 duty, and he asked for power to remove the duty if it was found to be necessary. 
 It is owing to that requj'st made by Sir Charles Tiipper that the Government may, if 
 they choose, abolish this duty to-day. If the threat of a duty of $2 a thousand 
 would lead the Government to ask for th.at power, would not a duty of $3 a thousand 
 on lumber have tbe same effect upon the Government? Certainly it would. It is 
 absurd to iuiagine that if the Americans enact in their next tariff bill that they will 
 retaliate by imi)osing a duty on lumber from Canada equal to the export duty which 
 we place on logs this Government would be so blind as to subject the country to such 
 inconveniences and such loss rather than abrogate the export duty on logs. Congress 
 lias clearly shown what its action would be. The Mills bill would have made it to 
 our advantage to alirogate tbe duty to the extent of $2 a thousand feet on all the 
 lumber we exported to the United States. The Senate bill would have made it to 
 our advantage to the extent of 50 cents a thousand feet. The universal prayer of 
 the lumber trade to tbe Gnvernment in view of the fact that the import of logs from 
 the United States to Canada is four times greater than the export of logs from Can- 
 ada to the United States is that the duty should be repealed, as the result otherwise 
 will be to imperii our interests in this matter." 
 
 We confidently suljmit therefore that this legislation proposed by us is eminently 
 prudent and safe as well as just. 
 
 It is demonstrnble that it will not in any degree increase the existing lumber 
 tariff, but will afl'ord .speedy and complete relief to our citizens by compelling the 
 abrogation of this arbitrary and hostile export duty. • 
 
 We do not consider the repeal or reduction of the existing tariff on imports of sawn 
 lumber a proper remedy. That tariff', if continued in force, will make it possible to 
 cut the log, tow to Michigan, and there manufacture the lumber and place it upon 
 the American market and realize more for the manufactured products than could be 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 785 
 
 realized by manufacturing in Canada and then buying the right of way into the 
 same martet by yiayment of the import duty. 
 
 Now, repeal or unreasonably reduce this import duty on sawn lumber and the imme- 
 diate effect would be to carry the manufacture of the lumber itself over to Canada, 
 where the log or raw material was to be got, thereby avoiding the risk and expense 
 of towing and securing the lower wages of Canadian workmen for productiou. 
 
 Such a course of legislation, instead of furnishing a supply to the Michigan mills, 
 might effectually cut off all relief. 
 
 Finally, therefore, we say, for the reasons stated, we favor the maintenance of the 
 import duty on sawn lumber, but if the Congress shall in the proposed revision of 
 the tariff make any changes in the lumber schedule looking toward its reduction, we 
 submit that auy reduction made therein should be coupled with the express proviso 
 that it should not apply to any country which continued to impose an export duty 
 on logs and timber in the rough. 
 
 Washington, D. C, February 19, 1890. 
 
 VIBVTS OF MANTJPACTURBRS OF MAHOGANY. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 10, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen : In the formation of a new tariff bill, the undersigned, representing 
 the manufacturers of mahogany in this couutry, would respectfully show that, in our 
 judgmeut, the phraseology of the tariff bill reported should be such as to prevent 
 misconstruction and afford a stable and reliable rate which will protect this great 
 industry from competition with the cheap labor of Cuba and Mexico. 
 
 Mahogany has been imported into this couutry for more than fifty years as raw 
 material, free of duty, when brought in the shane of logs. The logs are, by expensive 
 machinery and by skillful labor, reduced to a different form by a process of manu- 
 facture, which at the present time employs several thousand skilled laborers and a 
 capital invested in plants to the extent of many millions of dollars. The amount of 
 wages paia to skilled mechanics in this particular line of industry averages from 
 $2.50 to |5 per day. The machinery necessary for the manufacture of this peculiar 
 wood is of a very expensive character. 
 
 Until recently this industry has been protected by the rate of 35" per cent, ad valo- 
 rem, which was assessed upon all forms of mahogany other than the logs, the same 
 being rated under paragraph 232, Tariff Index, New. Recently, by a decision of 
 Secretary Fairohild, rendered in January, 1887, the products of mahogany have been 
 classed under paragraph 219, Tariff Index, New, as lumber, and assessed at a duty of 
 $2 per thousand feet, board measure, which amounts to a tax of less than 3 per cent. 
 ad v:ilorem, while the $2 per thousand feet, board measure, on common lumber, yields 
 a protective rate of over 25 per cent.; thus no protection is afforded to the labor em- 
 ployed in manufacturing the same in this country. This brings into disastrous and 
 fatal competition with the labor of this country the cheap and peon labor of Cuba 
 and Mexico, which averages from 18 to 50 cents a day, and will result in the absolute 
 extinction of the manufacture of mahogany in the United States. Mahogany and 
 other woods referred to are practically imported in but two forms: first, logs, free ; 
 second, sawed into variousforras, 35 per cent, ad valorem. There has been, in fact, but 
 liti le or no perfected manufacture of these woods imported for many years. 
 
 Our suggestion is, therefore, to repeal paragraph 232, act of March 3, 1883, and 
 enact in lieu thereof as follows : 
 
 "Sawed boards, planks, deals, and other forms of sawed mahogany, cedar, rose- 
 wood, satin-wood, and all other foreign cabinet woods, 35 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 Amend paragraph 818 of the free list of act of March 3, 1883, as follows, viz : Strike 
 out "unmanufactured "and insert "in the log, rough or hewn," so that it will read : 
 
 " Woods, namely, cedar, lignum- vitffl, lance- wood, ebony, box, grenadillo, mahog- 
 any, rose-wood, satin-wood, and all foreign cabinet woods in the log, rough or hewn, 
 free." 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 Thos. S. Constantlnb, 
 H. Wheeler Combs, 
 Wm. W. Dunbes, 
 0/ Counsel for Manufacturers of Mahogany. 
 
 The Committee on Wats and Mkans. 
 
 485 50 
 
786 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 WOEK BOXES AND WRITING-DESKS. 
 
 VIEWS OF H. C. ■WHITE. 
 
 North Bennington, Vt., January 11, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen : I wish you would look into the duty on writing-desks and work-boxes 
 imported into this country. My business was nearly paralyzed last year by cheajj 
 goods imported from Germany. My sales fell oft' over one-half, and one manufacturer 
 failed and gave up making them. I formerly had a good trade in them, but the im- 
 porters flooded this country last year. 
 
 Prior to the year 1888 I did a large and prosperous business manufacturing these 
 goods. My trade e stended all over the United States. Last year imported desks 
 were sold my customers so much below my prices that my trade was about ruined. 
 I carried over a large stock of unsold desks, and was obliged to stop manufacturing 
 them entirely aud have not made any this year. German desks are imported into 
 this country at a cost of §6 per dozen, on which there is a duty of 35 per cent., which 
 makes the net cost $8.10. 1 can't make a desk like it for less than |10 per dozen. 
 
 The cost of labor to me to make these goods is from $9 to |;12 per week. The Ger- 
 mans I am told work for %'i to JpS per weelr. The duties should be increased to 6.5 per 
 cent, to enable American manufacturers to compete with the Germans. Everything 
 1 use in the niauufac:ture of desks is made in this country. The increased cost of the 
 American desk is in the extra cost of labor, and labor is the principal cost of manu- 
 facture. My machinery and tools for the manufacture of desks is now idle, and 
 can't be started up with the duties as they are. The desk trade opens in May. j 
 hope something can be done to enable us to recover our lost trade and start our 
 machinery again and give steady employment to American workmen. 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 H. C. White. 
 
 LUMBER FROM CANADA. 
 
 Dear Sir : Doubtless you are perfectly conversant with the following facts, to 
 which we beg to call your attention : 
 
 The Canadian Gbvernuient imiioses an export duty on logs. Upon pine it is $2 per 
 thousand, and may at any time be raised by order in council to ^3 per thousand. 
 
 The movement of logs from the United .States to Canada — something over one-halt 
 the amount being from Maine to New Brunswick — has, in the last ten years, been over 
 four times as great as the export of logs during the same period from Canada to the 
 United States. 
 
 The United States imposes no export duty and the Constitution forbids it. 
 
 The Canadian Goverument imposes a duty of 20 per cent, upon lumber, which is a 
 higher rate than the Amei ican duty on lumber. 
 
 Ability to secure a supply of logs from the forests of Canada would be a great boou 
 to saw-mill owners on the northern jiortion of the United States, and every year the 
 importance of having access to this source of supply is becoming greater. 
 
 All of us urge upon you the iujportauce of securing a free and abundant supply of 
 logs for American mills. 
 
 The remedy for the export duty imposition is in the hands of Congress. The im- 
 position of the export duty is an unfriendly act, and nothing in the conduct of tbe 
 United .States towards Canada furnislies a par,allfil case. We ask that it be treated 
 as an unfrieudly act. A prompt and effectual remedy can be applied. Let the tariff 
 provide that in case any foreign country imposes an export duty r.pon logs exported 
 to the United States the lumber of like kind (not logs) when imported from such 
 country into the United States shall pay an additional duty equivalent to such ex- 
 port duty. 
 
 Or in case the lumber duties are to be reduced, provide that no part or item of the 
 reductions upon the wood list shall apply in the case of any country imposing an ex- 
 port duty on logs, bolts, or wood of any kind. 
 
 In view of such a contingency as the latter, the governor in council of Canada ob- 
 tained power to repeal the export duty without consulting Parliament, when the 
 Mills bill was introduced. 
 
 Hoping that with your many duties you will find time to give this matter your at- 
 tention and consideration, 
 
 We remain, yours respectfully, 
 
 The Mitchell and Rowland Lumber Compant, 
 Kelsey & Freeman. 
 Barbour & Starr. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlet, 
 
 Chairman CommUtee Ways and Means. 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 787 
 
 TONA-WANDA, N. T., January 9, 1889. 
 
 Sir : We are interested in the importation of logs from Canada for the use of American 
 saw-mills. We find the Canadian export duty on logs a serious tax, and we believe 
 it to be an indefensible one. If we wish to export lumber to Canada we are met by a 
 duty of 20 per cent., or in the case of planed lumber, sash, doors, blinds, trim, etc., by a 
 duty of 35 per cent. While importation of logs into Canada from the United States 
 is said to be much greater than the export of logs from Canada to the United States, 
 no American export duty interferes with Canadian mills procuring logs from the 
 United States. 
 
 We believe that a simple and obviously just provision in our tariff would secure 
 the speedy repeal of the log export duty by the Canadian Government. 
 
 We therefore pray that your honorable committee will include in the revised tariff 
 bill a clause providing that in case any country imposes an export duty on logs, 
 sawn lumber from the same kind of logs (pine or spruce, as the case may be), when 
 imported from such country into the United States, shall pay in excess to the regular 
 duty a sum equal to the amount of such export duty. Or if the duty on lumber is 
 reduced, we pray that no reduction on the wood list shall apply in the case of any 
 country imposing an export duty on logs designed for export to the United States; 
 and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. 
 
 [Here follow numerous signatures.] 
 
 Hon. William McKinlbt, 
 
 Chairman Committee Ways and Means. 
 
 Sir: We, your memorialists, lumbermen of East Tanas, Tanas City, Au Sable, and 
 Oscoda, in tho State of Michigan, beg to call the attention of your honorable com- 
 mittee to the fact that the Canadian export duty on logs is prejudicial to the interests 
 of saw-mill owners at Cheboygan, Alpena, Bay City, Saginaw, Port Huron, Toledo, 
 Cleveland, and many other points on the northern frontier of the United States. 
 
 Many American lumbermen have acquired timber limits in Canada for the purpose 
 of supplying American saw-mills, and the advance in the rate of export duty in IttdG, 
 together with the nneertain character of the policy of the Canadian Government on 
 the question, and its unmistakable hostility to American interests in Canadian timber, 
 has rendered such investments nearly valueless for the purposes intended. The United 
 States imposes no export duty, though the export of logs to Canada largely exceeds 
 the importation of logs from that country, and no good reason exists for the imposi- 
 tion of such a duty by the Canadian Government. It is well understood that any re- 
 taliation upon the saw-mill interest of Canada, to be continued while the export duty 
 continues, will secure its immediate repeal. We therefore pray that your honorable 
 committee will insert a clause in the tarifl providing that if any country imposes an 
 export duty on pine and spruce logs exported to the United States that the pine or 
 spruce lumber imported into the United States from such country shall pay an addi- 
 tional duty equal to the amount of such export duty. Or in case the duty upon pine 
 and spruce lumber is reduced, we pray that such reduction shall not apply to any 
 lumber imported from a country imposing au export duty so long as such duty is con- 
 tinued. 
 
 And your memorialists will ever pray. 
 
 [Here follow nuifierous signatures.] 
 
 Hon. William McKinley, 
 
 Chairman Committee Ways and Means, 
 
 Bay City, January 27, 1890. 
 
 Sir : We, your memorialists, lumbermen of Bay City, in the State of Michigan, beg 
 to call the attention of your honorable committee to the fact that the Canadian ex- 
 port duty on logs is prejudicial to the interests of saw-mill owners at Cheboygan, 
 Alpena, Bay City, Saginaw, Port Huron, Toledo, Cleveland, and many other points 
 on the northern frontier of the United States. 
 
 Many American lumbermen have acquired timber limits in Canada for the purpose 
 of supplying American saw-mills, and the advance in the rate of export duty in 1883, 
 together with the uncertain character of the policy of the Canadian Government on 
 the question, and its unmistakable hostility to American interests in Canadian timber, 
 has rendered such investments nearly valueless for the purposes intended. Tho 
 United States imposes no export duty, though the export of logs to Canada largely 
 exceeds the importation of logs from that country, and no good reason exists for tho 
 imposition of such a duty by the Canadian Government. 
 
788 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 It is well understood that any retaliation upon the saw-mill interest of Canada, to 
 be continued while the export duty continues, will secure its immediate repeal. 
 
 We therefore pray that your honorable committee will insert a clause in the tariif 
 providing that if any country impose an export duty on pine and sprnce logs exported 
 to the United States, that the pine or spruce sawn lumber imported into the United 
 States from such country shall pay an additional duty equal to the amount of such 
 export duty. Or in case the duty upon pine and spruce lumber is reduced, we pray 
 that such reduction shall not apply to any lumber imported from a country imposing 
 an export duty on logs so long as such duty is continued. 
 
 And your memorialists will ever pray. 
 
 [Here follow memorialists' signatures.] 
 
 Hon. William McKinlet, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 MEMORIAL OP MICHIGAN LUMBERMEN. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlet, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 Sir : We, your memorialists, lumbermen of Cheboygan, in the State of Michigan, 
 beg to call the attention of your honorable committee to the fact that the Canadian 
 export duty on logs is prejudicial to the interests of saw-mill owners at Cheboygan, 
 Alpena, Bay City, Saginaw, Port Huron, Toledo, Cleveland, and many other points 
 on the northern frontier of the United States. 
 
 Many American lumbermen have acquired timber limits iu Canada for the purpose 
 of supplying American saw-mills, and the advance in the rate of export duty in 188B, 
 together with the uncertain character of the policy of the Canadian Government on 
 the question, and its unmistakable hostility to American interests in Canadian tim- 
 ber, has rendered such investments nearly valueless for the purposes intended. 
 
 The United States imposes no export duty, though the export of logs to Canada 
 largely exceeds the importation of logs from that country, and no good reason exists 
 for the imposition of such a duty by the Canadian Government. 
 
 It is well understood that any retaliation upon the saw-mill interests of Canada, 
 to be continued while the export duty continues, will secure its immediate repeal. 
 We, therefore, pray that your honorable committee will insert a clause in the tariff, 
 providing that if any country imposes an export duty on pine and spruce logs ex- 
 ported to the United States, that the pine or spruce sawn lumber imported into the 
 United States from such country, shall pay an additional duty equal to the amount of 
 such export duty. 
 
 Or in case the duty upon pine and spruce lumber is reduced, we pray that such re- 
 duction shall not apply to any lumber imported from a country imposing an export 
 duty on logs, so long as such duty is continued. 
 
 And your memorialists will ever pray — 
 
 [Here follow numerous signatures.] 
 
 The following is a copy of a letter addressed to Hon. George F. Hoar and signed by 
 numerous lumbermen of Bay City, Mich. : 
 
 Bay City, Mich., January 27, 1890. 
 Hon. George F. Hoar, 
 
 Senate Chamber, Washington, D. C. : 
 
 Dear Sir. We notice the report of your resolution introduced into the Senate re- 
 gardiug export duty. Our interests as saw-mill owners in the Saginaw Valley lead 
 us to venture most respectfully to make some statements and suggestions. 
 
 The design of the Canadian export duty ou logs is to prevent their export to Ameri- 
 can mills and to compel their conversion into lumber in Canada. Our interests as 
 saw-mill owners is to secure Canadian logs for our mills. 
 
 To impose an American duty on Canadian logs would second the effort of the Cana- 
 dian Government to prevent American mills getting them. 
 
 The Canadian Government imjioses no export duty except upon logs. The effect 
 of your motion as it is reported would bo to impose an additional duty only upon 
 logs and prevent their importation into the United States, while sawn lumber, hav- 
 ing no export duty imposed upon it in Canada, would come in as before. 
 
 The American saw-mill interest does not care how much the duty is increased upon 
 sawn lumber, but does not desire to aid the Canadian policy of preventing the impor- 
 tation of logs for American mills. 
 
 What we pray for is to add the amount of the Canada export duty to the American 
 duty on sawn lumber, leaving logs on the free list. This would retaliate upon the 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 789 
 
 Canadian saw-mill interest, at whose suggestion the export duty was imposed, and 
 would secure its speedy repeal by the Canadian Government. 
 
 We beg most respectfully to suggest the form of a resolution or clause which will 
 meet the case justly and protect our interests. 
 
 "In case any foreign country shall impose an export duty on pine, spruce, or hem- 
 lock saw-logs, when exported to the United States, then the pine, spruce, or hemlock 
 sawn lumber imported from such country into the United States shall pay an addi- 
 tional duty equal to the amount of such export duty." 
 
 This provision would force the repeal of the log-export duty without delay. 
 
 If lumber duties are reduced, which we hope will not be the case, it should be pro- 
 vided that the reduction shall not apply in the case of any country imposing an ex- 
 port duty on logs. 
 
 Our interests in this matter are identical, we believe, with those of the entire saw- 
 mill interest of the northern portion of the United States. 
 
 With great respect we submit our views and beg to subscribe ourselves, 
 Your obedient servants. 
 
t^t 
 
 790 REVisioi^ oe the tariff. 
 
 WINES AISl^D LIQUORS. 
 
 STATEMENT OP GEORGE T. STAGG. 
 
 Mr. GrEORGK T. Stagg, of Louisville, Ky., representing the Kentucky distillers, 
 addressed tbe committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Ways and Means Committee, I appear before 
 you as one of a committee representing Kentucky distillers. There are in Kentucky 
 about three hundred and lifty registered distilleries. Two hundred and ninety-seveu 
 were operated last year, making spirits from grain, of which number one hundred 
 and forty-five produced legs than 3U gallons each per day. Nearly all of these distil- 
 leries are now being operated, consuming daily about 40,000 bushels of grain and 
 producing about 160,000 gallons of whisky, the market value of which, I estimate, 
 is $64,000. 
 
 I estimate the value of the distillery plants, their trade-marks, and good-will 
 to be at least $20,000,000. The product during tbe fiscal year ending June 30, 1889, 
 was in round numbers 25,000,000 gallons, worth at themarketpriceabout $10,000,000, 
 using 4,460,166 bushels of corn, brought from Kansas, Nobrasiiia, and Iowa; 933,528 
 bushels of rye, from Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin; 651,580 bushels of barley-malt, 
 from Minnesota and Wisconsin, besides wheat, etc., between 8,000 and 9,000 bushels. 
 Total, 6,053,661 bushels of grain, a very small jjroportion of which was grown in Ken- 
 tucky ; .555,000 barrels contain the product. To make tbe barrels, 11,100,000 staves, 
 the product of Kentucky, Indiana, Missouri and West Virginia forests, were used; 
 bound by 8,880,000 pounds of hoop-iron, the product of Ohio and Pennsylvania roll- 
 ing mills, and about 9,000,000 rivets, also the product of Pennsylvania iron mills, were 
 used ; about 5,000,000 bushels ofcoal from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky 
 mines furnishes power. The number of animals fed from the slops were as follows, 
 viz: Cattle, 20,394 head, increased weight, 4,339,890 pounds; hogs, 15,237 head, in- 
 creased weight 648,363 pounds. 
 
 The amouut of wages paid I can not state with any degree of certainty, but will 
 say they are quite liberal, ranging from SI to $1.25 per day for common laborers, to 
 flO for skilled labor, the latter and in some cases even higher wages being paid for dis- 
 tillers, or as they are sometimes termed, yeast-makers. In some instances as much as 
 $5,000 per annum is paid. Good engineers get from .^1,000 to $1,200 per annum and 
 millers and beer runners from $2.50 to $3 per day. Mash hands and laborers from $1 
 to $1.50 per day according to their intelligence and experience. Coopers make from 
 $2 to $3.50 per day, being paid by piece-work. 
 
 These figures show that we pay as liberal wages as any industry requiring the same 
 class of labor. We paid during the last fiscal year the sum of $16,000,000 into the 
 Treasury of the United States on spirits withdrawn from our bonded warehouses. 
 
 We are not dissatisfied and will not complain with the rate of taxation, 90 cents per 
 proof gallon, but would gladly see it reduced to 50 cents, and believe it ought to be 
 reduced, not repealed, as we regard that spirits manufa&tured in this country are used 
 principally as a beverage, and being so used may be regaided as a luxury which should 
 bear a fair share of the burdens of taxation. 
 
 We believe that a repeal of the internal revenue laws would very largely increase 
 our business and would for a time increase our profits, but in tbe end would result in 
 overproduction and possibly disaster. We do not therefore ask for a repeal and are 
 not clamoring for a reduction, but would welcome it. What we do ask for is intelli- 
 gent, enlightened legislation, such as a free people should have the right to expect 
 from intelligent, well-informed, and unbiased legislators. 
 
 Special taxes, we think, might be repealed. The amount collected is not large, 
 and IS not necessary, and we can see no good purpose to be subserved by continuing 
 them. 
 
 If they are not repealed, we suggest an amendment, to prevent a dealer from being 
 taxed for sending a package C. O. D. at the point of delivery. 
 
 Under the ruling now iu force, I, being a distiller or a wholesale dealer in Ken- 
 tucky, am liable for a special tax of $100 if I draw a draft on a party iu Chicago, 
 with a bill of lading or the warehouse receipts for whiskey attached to the draft, or 
 if I send a box or barrel by express to collect before delivery of goods. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Suppose a dealer iu Chicago writes or telegraphs you to send him 
 so much whisky by freight or express and you send it in obedience to that order, do 
 the internal-revenue authorities hold that you must pay the taxes in Chicago f 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 791 
 
 Mr. Stagg. Yes, if I ship it to my own order and attach Ijill of lading to the draft 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Take the case I put. What I am trying to get at is, do they hold 
 the common carrior as your agent or as the agent of the purchasers. 
 
 Mr. Stagg. They hold he is my agent. I may not know the party at all. He may 
 be an entire stranger to me and I may not know he is responsible, but if I, to pro- 
 tect myself, put in the bill of lading to my own order, I am assessed there as a whole- 
 sale liquor dealer with 50 per cent, penalty, and if it is not paid I am indicted and 
 brought there for trial. 
 
 In Jaouary, 1889, the collector of the first district of Missouri assessed my company 
 for special taxes, amounting, with the penalties, to about f400, for shipping to a firm 
 in St. Louis four lots of 5 barrels each of whisky, on which the taxes had been paid 
 at request of the owners, the whisky having been shipped to order and the bill of 
 lading attached to the draft. In this case I appealed to the Commissioner for abate- 
 ment, and the amount was remitted as an erroneous assessment, hnt had the drafts 
 been made for purchase money I would have had to pay the amount. 
 
 Great hardship might result in a case of this kiud, as had I not received the notice 
 from the collector of the first Missouri district, I would have been indicted for sell- 
 ing without having paid the special tax, and would have been hauled to St. Louis 
 by some deputy United States marshal to answer the indictment, when I had violated 
 no law. But the bills of lading had been laid before the collector and he presumed 
 the drafts drawn and attached were for the purchase-money. 
 
 We are required to give bonds annually May 1, in amounts ranging from $1,000 
 to $100,000 according to the capacity of the distillery — this is called a distiller's 
 bond — with good and sufficient sureties, qualifying on a form in which they describe 
 their property ; no distillery property or bonded whisky on which the Government 
 has a lien will be accepted ; all must be free and unencumbered. This we do not 
 complain of, but iu addition to this we have by the 6th day of each month to give a 
 bond with two sureties satisfactory to the collector for the amount of the tax on the 
 spirits produced during the preceding month; which spirits have been placed in a 
 warehouse, approved by the Government, usually a first-class brick or stone house 
 with metal roof and iron doors and shutters, and usually barred windows, the key 
 to which is carried by an officer appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury and 
 u,nder bond to the United States for the faithful performance of his duties, which are 
 to safely hold and keep the contents of the warehouse in his possession, admitting 
 the distiller or his employes only in his presence and allowing nothing to be re- 
 moved except on the order of the collector of the district in which he is located. 
 
 This has been the law since July 20, 1868, over twenty-one years, and during that 
 time we have only occasionally been oppressed by it, and then only temporarily. 
 Hence we have not come to you before this time in regard to this matter. There has 
 not been a single cent lost to the Government in the State of Kentucky, as far as I 
 have been able to find out on a warehousing bond. We have been giving what we 
 deemed good security, certainly such as was satisfactory to our collectors, and 
 when the tax was due and demanded we paid it and all the bonds that have ma- 
 tured have been satisfied. , 
 
 Now we are informed that Commissioner Mason has instructed our collectors that 
 he thinks the law requires them to exact bonds from us in which we furuish sureties 
 qualifying to a sufficient amount of property to cover the amount of all the tax on all 
 the spirits contained in our warehouses, and informing them that the Goverument 
 will hold them and their bondsmen pecuniarily liable for all loss that may arise from 
 any deviation from his interpretation of the law. 
 
 This requirement is being enforced in some of our districts and may be in all. If 
 so it will shut up a large number of prominent distilleries, the largest ones first, as 
 the bonds are more difficult to give for the large amounts. 
 
 A distillery mashing 1,000 bushels per day would produce, say, 117,000 gallons per 
 month, requiring a bond of $10.d,;W0, and |842,400 during a season of eight mouths. 
 Distillers and whisky dealers who know from experience that the liability or danger 
 of loss by reason of signing these bonds amounts to nothing, and who would willingly 
 sign for each other, are largely prevented by reason of their means being invested iu 
 distillery property and bonded whisky. 
 
 It is very difficult to get any one not interested in the business to sign distillers' or 
 warehousing bonds. 
 
 The result of the enforcement of the Commissioner's views will be to close eventu- 
 ally every distillery of any importance and reputation in Kentucky, for the reason 
 that sufficient bondsmen can not be obtained. 
 
 Look at it. The product of Kentucky distilleries last year was, say, 25,000,000 
 gallons. The tax amounted to $22,.'S00,000— for three year-i would be $67,500,000, and 
 in addition to this the distillers' annual bonds would iu three years amount to |6,.500,- 
 000 ; so in round figures we would have to furuish $74, 000,000 property qualification. 
 We can't do it, and should not be asked to do it. For this tax the Government 
 holds our distillery property of every kind, worth |20,000,000. It holds the whisky, 
 
792 
 
 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 the annual product being, say, $10,000,000, which for three years with the increase in 
 value of the goods would amount to over $40,000,000, making a security of $60,000,000, 
 on which the Government holds a first lien which can not be alienated or removed 
 except by payment of the tax, besides holding actual possession of the |40,000,000 
 value. 
 
 I have in the above calculation given the market value as whisky, some of which is 
 25 to 35 cen ts new, and 40 to 50 cents at three years old : others 60 cents new, and as much 
 as $1.25 per gallon original gauge before they are three years old. I hold in one of 
 my warehouses now 1,000 barrels of whisky made in April and May, la87. The tax 
 on a regauge will amount to about $;!8 per barrel— $38,000; the whisky will sell for 
 $60 per barrel, or $60,000 in bond. This 1,000 barrels is held absolutely by the United 
 States. I can't see it without the consent and presence of the United States store- 
 keeper, appointed by Secretary Windom; but in addition to the Whisky, the United 
 States has a lien upon the plant, valued at about $1,000,000, and has my bonds with 
 good sureties for at least $43,000, being 90 cents on the original gauge. 
 
 The alcoholic vahie of the whisky, leaving out the fact that it is made in Ken- 
 tucky, and that it bears the brands and trade-marks of famous distillers, is at least 
 12 cents per gallon, or $3,000,000 for one year's production, and the cooperage will 
 add another million to this, making it $4,000,000 in excess of the tax. So without 
 bonds the Government could not lose a cent. 
 
 The banks in Kentucky are not managed by novices. The Farmers' Bank and 
 Bank of Kentucky are old-time banks, which, owing to conservative management, 
 have passed through panics without lowering their banners. Would they, knowing 
 that the United States has a first lien of $40 on each barrel of whisky, make loans, 
 on none less than $8 and on some $10, $12, and even $15, per barrel, without other se- 
 curity, if they thought the United States in danger of losing the tax ? They do make 
 these loans, and experience teaches theui they are safe ones. 
 
 There is no possible way for a distiller to avoid paying the tax on the product of 
 his distillery. He might, with the knowledge of the storekeeper, steal small quan- 
 tities from ]iackages, but when he came to remove the packages he would have the 
 tax t() pay even though they were entirely empty. 
 
 Whole packages cannot be safely taken from warehouses without being stamped. 
 The wagon or vehicle conveying it is liable to forfeiture, the driver and all partici- 
 pating to fine and imprisonment, and the whisky to seizure and forfeiture; also the 
 distillery is liable and all the whisky on the premises. No sane man would attempt 
 such a thing. 
 
 Brewers are required to give a bond of $50,000, 1 think, for the largest plants. These 
 have been annual. I am not quite sure but Congress has passedanactrelievingthem 
 from the annoyance and trouble of giving such onerous bonds by making them per- 
 petual. That is, they file one bond and run under that until the collector thinks they 
 might reasonably be asked to give a new one. Some breweries pay $1,000,000 or over 
 taxes a year, and possibly carry in their cellars beer on which the tax would amount to 
 $2.50,000 to $400,000 without having a Government officer in charge or it being locked 
 up. On the contrary, he and his employes have constant access to it, and are by law 
 allowed t6 drink as much as they wish on the premises untaxed. The tobacco manu- 
 facturer gives a bond of $20,000, I believe, and carries any amount of unstamped to- 
 bacco he pleases, and as long as he pleases, without let or hindrance from the Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 We claim that the distiller is as honest as the brewer and the tobacco manufactur- 
 ers, and come now to you for relief. We want to be relieved from giving so much 
 bond and so many bonds, and suggest that one annual bond could be made to answer 
 every purpose, and more than safely secure the United States in the collection of the 
 taxes due on the whisky manufactured by us. This bond should be graded accord- 
 ing to the capacity of the distillery, limiting the amount to, say, $200,000, or any rea- 
 sonable amount. We believe weare entitled to this, and that we have uncomplain- 
 ingly stood the oppression of the most severe and arbitnary revenue law enforced by 
 any government on earth. 
 
 The brewer, tobacco manufacturer, and distiller are citizens of the same Govern- 
 meut. E(|ual under the Constitution, they ought to be equal under the law. 
 
 The United States is the only government collecting a tax on distilled spirits ; that 
 enforces the payment before the goods are wanted for consumption, and in an amount 
 above that withdrawn for consumption, except in cases where the evidence of fraud 
 exists. 
 
 A majority of Kentucky distillers are in favor of and earnestly ask for an extension 
 of the bonded period, and believe that justice and right demand that it be indefinite, 
 and the tax collected only on withdrawal and on the amounts withdrawn, and that 
 the tax be collected on the proof gallon alone, and not as now on the wine gallon 
 when below jiroof, limiting the entry into loud to 90 or 100 percent, proof spirits. 
 
 Proof sometimes decreases from dampness, and the distiller should not be made to 
 pay a penalty for something he could not guard against. We think the unlimited 
 
EEVISIOK OF THE TARIFF. 793 
 
 bonded period should be applied to customs as well as iuternal revenue bonded ware- 
 houses. 
 
 I have said no other country limits the bonded period. I believe this is true; but 
 our neighbor the Dominion of Canada does not allow spirits withdrawn from her 
 distillery warehouses before they are one year old, and after July 1, 1890, none can 
 be withdrawn until two years old. This is done to prevent the use of unmatured 
 goods, and we believe is sound legislation as applied to spirits for consumption as a 
 beverage. 
 
 The Ways and Means Committee of the Forty-seventh Congress, first session, 
 unanimously reported a bill indefinitely extending the bonded period and providing 
 for annual instead of monthly bonds, limiting the amount, I believe, to $200,000. 
 This bill passed the House under suspension of the rules, ou Monday, April 3, iyS'<!, 
 by a vote of 123 to 29. The Senate adopted a substitute which failed to pass the 
 House and the measure failed to become a law. 
 
 The bill I reter to was prepared in the Internal-Revenue Office, and was indorsed 
 and recommended by the Commissioner, General Ranm : 
 
 Since tliat time there has only been an occasional request made for soaie limited 
 extension of the bonded period, and may be one bill was reported for an iudetiuite 
 extension without any result. There are even some distillers who say they do not 
 want anything done so far as taxes are coucenied ; others again want a reduction, 
 and some do not want an exten.sion of tbe bonded period. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Have you a copy of the order issued by the Commissioner of Rev- 
 enue? 
 
 Mr. Stagg. I have not ; but I have seen it. It is to the effect that he interprets 
 the law to mean that no bondsman should be accepted for an amount beyond his 
 qualification on Form 336, in which he describes his personal and real property, and 
 states their values and any liens that may exist thereon. No distillery property nor 
 bonded whisky can be embraced in the schedule, because the Government baa a lien 
 on both to their full value. When the tax on the whisky deposited in tbe ware- 
 house amounts to as much as the sureties have qualified for, they can be accepted no 
 longer, and new bondsmen must be obtained. It will require, as I say here, about 
 $75,000,000, in addition to the value of the spirits which the Government holds now as 
 a first lien, of which the Government has absolute possession. Not only that, but 
 they have a first lien on all the other property, which amounts to |20,000,000. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How long has this same law which he thus interprets been iu force ? 
 
 Mr. Stagg. Since July 20, 186"' — twenty-one and one-half years. 
 
 Mr Carlisle. Had such requirement been made by any previous Commissioner f 
 If so, what was the result ? 
 
 Mr. Stagg. Yes, twice before ; once while Judge Folger was Secretary of the 
 Treasury, and once under Mr. Manning's administration, but the orders were with- 
 drawn in each case after the matter was canvassed and the Secretaries fully in- 
 formed of the situation. These are the only two occasions in which I think this 
 interpretation of the law has been given. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It was the order of the Secretary of the Treasury in both cases? 
 
 Mr. Stagg. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Has this matter been called to the attention of Secretary Windom ? 
 
 Mr. Stagg. I do not know. I have not been there. We were to be heard yester- 
 day, but we have been in attendance upon the committee. We want to wait upon 
 the Commissioner and the Secretary and see if we can not get this matter withdrawn, 
 but at the same time we thought it was well to appear before yon, as you are getting 
 up an administrative bill, and it is a very good item to get in that bill. We ought 
 to be relieved from giving this enormous bond. Men who are not connected with 
 the distilling and wholesale liquor business know very little about the business. 
 They know the Government has liens upon all the property, and not knowing the 
 extent and character of the liability, will rot, without other consideration, incur 
 the obligation ; consequently, it is very difflcult to get any one not engaged iu the 
 business as distiller or dealer, to go on distillers' and warehousing bonds, as the Gov- 
 ernment has a first lien on all of the distilleries and the whisky in the bor.ded ware- 
 houses. You can readily see that a large portion of our property is not available for 
 purposes of suretyship. We are not afraid to go on each others' bond — I do not 
 care to what extent, as far as I can go — because I know there is no danger. We have 
 given millions and millions of dollars of bonds, and there has never been a forfeiture 
 of one bond, nor one single foreclosure by the Government ; not one. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is there any trust in that business iu Kentucky ? 
 
 Mr. Stagg. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is there any whisky trust now at all ? 
 
 Mr. Stagg. I have no personal knowledge of any. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Has there been any kind of a trust at any time f 
 
 Mr. Stagg. There has been none. 
 
 TheCHAiEMAN. Never f 
 
794 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Stagg. No, never. There was a combination anio-ng the JUtillcrB in ?,8yS r.ot 
 to ran, Tvliioli was done at the request of the wholesale trade of the United States, 
 in Older to '^ive them a chance to be relieved of an excess of i)rodnction. With the 
 large amount they were carrying they wanted a market at a better price. The price 
 was very )o w ; in fact less than cost. Most of us joined in that combination, and we 
 did not run in 1S88. But the market has been restored to its usual position, and they 
 all make money by it, and nobody suffers. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there anything further? 
 
 Mr. Stagg. I have nothing further. 
 
 VIEWS OF THE "WINE AND SPIRIT TRADERS. 
 
 Office of the Wine and Spiuit Traders' Society, 
 
 New York, January 21, 1890. 
 Hon. "William MoKinley, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means CommiUee, House of Eepreseniatires : 
 Sir : We, the undersigned members of the Wine and Spirit Traders' Society, have 
 the honor to recoumiend tlje following rates of duty for the consideration of your 
 committee: 
 
 1. Still Wines— In bulk, 40 cents per gallon. In glass, |il.60 per dozen of so-called 
 f|uart bottles. Sparkling wines — 16 per dozen so-called quart bottles ; and in the same 
 proportion for bottles of diiferent sizes. 
 
 The present duty is 50 cents per gallon in bulk and $1.60 per dozen of so-called 
 quarts, and for sparkling wines |7 per dozen of so-called quarts. The rates we recom- 
 mend were adopted at our suggestion in the act of February 8, 1875, having been 
 agreed upon by importers and domestic producers. These rates continued in force 
 until 188:!, when they were changed in the Senate at the suggestion of Mr. Brown, of 
 Georgia, who increas(-'il them 25 per cent., on the ground that as luxuries they should 
 Tjay the highest rate Congiess could be induced to impose. This, however, was done 
 entirely on his own motion, and without any suggestion from the domestic producers, 
 who were perfectly eatistied with the rate of -lO cents and $1.60 and |6, as agreed 
 upon between them and the importers of foreign wines. This action was taken at 
 the cud of the session, during a period of great confusion, and was, we consider, an 
 in advertence on the part of the Senate, as a reference to the record of that date will, 
 we think, sufficiently show. The average duty on still wines before the tariif of 1875 
 was 33 cents per gallon, and we see no reason why it should be fixed at any higher 
 rate now than that agreed upon at that time between the domestic and importing 
 interests. 
 
 2. Allowance for leakage while in bond. — We recommend that the same allow- 
 ance be granted to foreign wines and spirits as is granted to domestic spirits in bond 
 under the provisions of the present law, viz : For a cask of 40 gallons capacity, not 
 to exceed 1 proof gallon for two months or part thereof; not to exceed l| gallons for 
 more than two months and not more than four months ; not to exceed 2 gallons for 
 more than four months and not more than six months; not to exceed 2i gallons for 
 more than six months and not more than eight months; not to exceed 3 gallons for 
 more than eight months and not more thau ten months; not to exceed 3| gallons for 
 more than ten months and not more than twelve months ; not to exceed 4 gallons for 
 more than twelve months and not more than fifteen months; not to exceed 4^ gallons 
 for more than fifteen months and not more than eighteen months : not to exceed 5 
 gallons for more thau eighteen months and not more thau twenty-one months; not 
 to exceed 5^ gallons for more than twenty-one months and not more thau twenty -four 
 mouths ; not to exceed 6 gallons for more than twenty-four mouths and not more than 
 twenty-seven months ; not to exceed 6J gallons for more than twenty-seven months 
 and not more than thirty months ; not to exceed 7 gallons for more than thirty 
 months and not more than thirty-three months ; not to exceed 7| gallons for more 
 than thirty-three months and not more than thirty-six months; and for larger and 
 smaller casks in propoition. There is no objection to this on the part of domestic 
 producers. 
 
 3. Stamps. — We recommend the abolition of the stamps now affixed to foreign 
 wines nn the ground that they are of no utility and are an aid to fraud. These stamps 
 weri' originally intended for spirits only, and wines and malt liquors were included 
 in the act, much to the detriment of these interests. 
 
 4. Malt liquors. — The act of February 8, 1875, imposed a duty of 20 cents per 
 gallon in bulk and 35 cents per gallon in glass. The latter rate it is claimed by us 
 was in lieu of any extra duty on the bottles or packages. By a ruling of the Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury the duty of :!0 per cent ad valorem was assessed upon the value 
 of the Ijottles, and this is now colh^cled. We ask to be relieved from this, as we 
 consider it oppressive and unjust, and unnecessary for the protection of American 
 glass manufacturers. 
 
REVISION ON THE TAElPF. 795 
 
 ti, Gus'GKR ALB. — We recommend that the duty on ginger ale be made specific and 
 fixed at 10 cents per dozen of so-called pints, and that no additional duty be levied 
 on the bottks. This is an increase on the present duty of about 45 per cent. 
 
 6. Spirits. — We recommend that the duty on foreign spirits he fixed at $1.50 per 
 proof gallon, in bulk, and at a proportional rate for spirits in glass or in jugs. In 
 consultation with domestic distillers they have expressed their willingness to have 
 this reduction made, on the ground that it will do no harm to their business. 
 
 7. Samples. — We recommend a provision permitting the importation free of duty 
 of samples of wines, spirits, ginger ale, and beer, providing that such samples do 
 not exceed in quantity eleven quart bottles and provided that the collector of the 
 port of entry shall be satisfied that f hey are bona fide samples. 
 
 The object of this recommendation is not to avoid payment of duty on such sam- 
 ples, as that is of no moment, but to avoid the delay necessary in making the entries, 
 etc., for such payment. It is often of the utmost importance to have such samjiles 
 delivered at the earliest possible moment affer landing. 
 
 8. Allowance for breakage. — We recommend that an allowance of 5 per cent, 
 for breakage be granted on all foreign wines, spirits, beer, and ginger ale imported 
 in bottles and jugs. There is always more or less breakage in case goods, and this 
 has to be borne by the importer without any compensation. 
 
 9. S.4XES OF WINES, ETC., FOR USE AT SEA. — The shipping act of June IC), 1884, pro- 
 vided that merchandise in bond could be sold to American vessels trading with 
 foreign ports, for use at sea, without the payment of duty. We ask to have tiiis 
 privilege extended to foreign vessels, as it will enable us to compete for an important 
 trade which at present is controlled by foreign ports. 
 
 10. Ten per cent, penalty. — We recommend the abolition of the penalty now 
 imposed on all merchandise that does not pay duty at the expiration of one year from 
 the date of importation. 
 
 11. Specific duties.— We earnestly recommeud that specific rates of duty be im- 
 posed in all cases on all merchandise covered by Schedule H of the present tariff. In 
 those cases in which such rates were adopted at the suggestion of this society in J 875, 
 the system has worked to the perfect satisfaction of the Government, the trade, and 
 the consumer. There has been a manifest and mai'ked improvement in the average 
 quality and purity of the wiues and spirits imported. There has been no necessity 
 for bringing suits for under-valuation and none have been brought, and the cost 
 of collection has been much reduced. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 EbNADLD & NiEDERSTADT. E. & J. BURKE. 
 
 Gourd & Tournade. G. S. Nicholas. 
 
 John Osborn, Son & Co. Petek McQuade. 
 
 Chas. Graef & Co. A. D.Shaw & Co. 
 
 Du Vivier &, Co. Nicholas Rath & Co. 
 
 E. LaMontagnb & Sons. H. A. Batjek & Co. 
 
 G. Amisinck & Co. Galwey & Feldmann. 
 
 Edw. Blackburn & Co. Charles McK. Leoser. 
 
 VIE'WS OP WHOLESALE DEALERS' ASSOCIATION. 
 
 New York, Fehruanj 5, 1890. 
 TUfe CommUtee on Ways and Means of the House of Bepresentaiives : 
 
 The Wholesale Liquor Dealers' Association has the honor to submit to your honor- 
 able committee the following points bearing on certain features of the proposed 
 change in our revenue laws which is contemplated by your committee, praying that 
 due consideration be given to the facts as presented here : 
 
 tax on whisky. 
 
 Under the present law the tax of 90 cents per proof gallon represents a tax of from 
 200 to ?00 per cent, of the actual cost of the goods on all fine grades of bourbons and 
 and ryes. On spirits and what is termed "continuous distillation spirit goods" this 
 tax of 90 cents amounts to 750 per cent, of the actual value of the articles so taxed. 
 Fine bourbons are at present contracted for to be made at the distillery warehouse 
 at an average price of 30 cents per gallon and fine ryes at an average price of 4.'> 
 cents per gallon. Spirit goods are at present sold at 12 cents per proof gallon, includ- 
 ing barrels and all fixed charges paid. Even at so low a price these latter goods yield 
 a small percentage of profit to the distiller. 
 
796 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 As a practical illustration of the ratio of tax to the cost of spirits, we api)oud a 
 copy of an invoice of high proof spirits. 
 
 Pboria, III., January 31, 1890. 
 
 Sixty-five barrels No. 1 spirits, .5,647.75 proof gallons, at 13i cents $702. 45 
 
 Tax on 5,647.75 proof gallons at 90 cents 5, 082.97 
 
 5,845 42 
 
 Or, cost of goods, including barrels, profit to distiller, etc 762. 45 
 
 Tax exacted by the Government, or about 700 per cent 5,082.97 
 
 It will be seen that — the tax being the largest factor in the production of spirits 
 aiid whisky — the government becomes virtually a special partner, without risk, of 
 the distiller, in the production of these goods. The arguu)ent that the high tax on 
 liquors is a powerful agent in the cause of temperance is fallacious. People addicted 
 to the intemperate use of liquor will gratify their appetites at any price, and the high 
 tax offers a strong temptation to unscrupulous dealers to substitute drugs and other 
 noxious chemicals for pure fine grades of whiskies, to imitate the genuine article. 
 The reduction of the tax would beoefit rather than redound to the injury of the 
 families of the unfortunate victims of an intemperate use of liquor. A man addicted 
 to over-indulgence in liquor will buy the intoxicating fluid at any price. Under the 
 present tax he may have to spend $2 to gratify his appetite, while if the tax were 
 reduced he could do so for 50 cents and leave $1.50 for his family to buy bread with. 
 
 Tbe history of our country shows that the internal-revenue tax is an emergency 
 tax imposed for the purpose of raising sufficient revenues for the maintenance of the 
 Government to meet unusual demands which were made upon it by reason of our late 
 civil war. It is now twenty-five years since that war was closed, and yet the tax 
 still remains and is exacted, as if the conditions to which it owed its origin still ex- 
 isted. 
 
 The internal-revenue tax is a tax levied entirely on American citizens. The bur- 
 dens which it imposes are borne wholly by our own people, which, other things be- 
 ing equal, should be considered a powerful argument in favor of its modification. 
 
 If the tax on distilled spirits were entirely taken off, there can be no doubt that 
 the use of alcohol would be enhanced probably twenty-fold in the arts, sciences, and 
 manufactures, which increased demand would surely stimulate the production of the 
 material which is principally used in the manufacture of whisky, viz, corn. The 
 farmers would derive an immediate benefit from the abolition of the tax by a more 
 extensive home market for the products of their farms. 
 
 The proposition to have the tax taken off from spirits used in the arts and sciences 
 and from fruit brandies is not considered favorably by the trade. A change of our 
 laws to that effect would simply open the door to innumerable frauds. It would be 
 much better to abolish the tax entirely than to have the experience of the years 1865, 
 1866, 1867, and 1868 renewed, when the Government was cheated on every side, and 
 nearly every revenue officer was a blackmailer. We predict that if the tax be taken 
 off fruit brandies, ears of com will be grown, so to speak, on every grapevine in 
 this country and the establishmentof special warehouses will only call into existence 
 a fresh brood of official parasites and blackmailers. Statistics show that under the 
 50-cent tax the largest amount of revenue was collected by the Government from dis- 
 tilled spirits. 
 
 THE ADMINISTRATION OP THE INTERNAL EEVKNUE LAW. 
 
 Under the provisions of the internal revenue laws, as at present in force, spirits are 
 bonded for three years. At the expiration of that period the goods are forced out of 
 the Government bonded warehouses. The tax has then to be paid or the goods are 
 confiscated by the Government. Merchants are compelled to then pay to the Govern- 
 ment 200 to 300 per cent, of the actual first cost of the goods they deal in, even if the 
 market is glutted with these goods and there is no immediate demand for them. This 
 is unlike the practice as in force in other enlightened civilized countries where taxes 
 are never levied on goods Until they go into actual consumption. Yet here is an in- 
 dustry which contributes more toward the support of the Government than any other 
 industry of the country, compelled to pay to the Government two or three times the 
 actual value of the goods and to overload the market with them at a time when they 
 are not yet quite fit to be consumed, and when there may be no demand for them at 
 all. We think that considerations of justice and equity demand that the payment of 
 the tax should be exacted only at the time when the goods go into actual consump- 
 tion, under a proper allowance by the Government for the loss by evaporation on a 
 graduated scale for, say, to the limit of ten years, by which time the goods will have 
 become very valuable and be eagerly sought by the rectifiers and compounders. We 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 797 
 
 admit that the change in the law here proposed may in the beginning stimulate over- 
 production, but this feature of our industry will soon cure itself and disappear of its 
 own accord. 
 
 A radical change in the mode of collecting the tax on spirits is, in our view, im- 
 peratively demanded in the interest of a pure and honest administration of our Gov- 
 ernment. The tax should be collected of the distiller when the goods contracted for 
 go out ol bond. It is at that point where all the safeguards under which this tax is 
 collected should be concentrated. After they have passed out of the bonded ware- 
 house by payment of the tax, spirits should be allowed to go free and be dealt with 
 as any other merchandise, as then all liens which the Government may hold upon it 
 would have been discharged. We think that a reduction of the tax to 25 cents per 
 gallon would still represent a very large ad valorem tax on the actual value of the 
 article produced. A reduction of the tax to 25 cents would remove one of the strongest 
 incentives to fraud and dishonesty by illicit distillation which now exist. It would 
 abolish the occupation of the moonshiner and illicit distiller and save the lives of a 
 number of revenue officials which are now annually sacrificed in the efforts to root 
 out this evil. 
 
 We especially recommend the advisability of collecting the tax from the distiller 
 and making that a finality as likely to work a decided administrative reform. Under 
 the present system of the internal revenue administration, American citizens who 
 deal in spirits are at every stage of their business subjected to a most odious system 
 of espionage. The goods, from the time they leave the warehouse of the distillers 
 until they pass into the mouth of the consumer, are under constant surveillance, 
 which is in marked contrast to the treatment that foreign goods receive. As soon as 
 foreign spirits leave the custom-house they become comparatively free aud are not 
 subjected to the same odious watch and inspection by the internal revenue oflicials 
 as that with which the traffic in domestic goods is surrounded, yet the Government 
 has an interest of $2 per proof gallon in imported spirit goods, while the present in- 
 ternal-revenue tax on domestic goods is less than half that amount. In spite of this 
 disparity in the pecuniary interest of the Government, the official surveillance is con- 
 centrated on the domestic 90-cent article, while the foreign $2 article is left compara- 
 tively unguarded. 
 
 SPECIAL TAXES. 
 
 We also ask respectfully the abolition of the so-called special taxes, under which 
 a dealer in wine and spirits is placed at a very unfair disadvantage as compared with 
 other trades. Uuder these special taxes, which are levied under the name of license 
 fees, wholesale liquor dealers and rectiiiers are compelled to pay a premium for the 
 privilege of risking their capital and devoting their time and energy in the pursuit 
 of an industry which gives employment to thousands of our fellow-citizens aud con- 
 tributes not a little to the wealth of the country. If the tax has been imposed solely 
 for the purpose of keeping the wholesale liquor dealers and rectifiers under the watch- 
 ful care of the collector of internal revenue, we hold that a simple registration fee 
 of a nominal amount would accomplish the same purpose. 
 
 Under the present system rectifiers and wholesale liquor dealers are compelled to 
 keep a Government book (Form No. 52), giving in detail the number of packages re- 
 ceived every day, from whom received, the name and collection district, where orig- 
 inally made, the serial number of each package, and the net contents of each pack- 
 age. On the delivery side of the book full details of the party to whom the goods 
 have been delivered have to be given, together with the address of the latter, if 
 in a city, and also a repetition of the statements already entered in the book on 
 the receipt page. The dealer must also state, in case the goods sold should be of 
 his own rectitication, the number of packages used in compounding or rectifying, 
 and the balance must be carried forward to the next day, which involves a mass of 
 details often calling for the employment of an additional clerk, all of which does not 
 yield a cent of profit either to the Government or to the wholesale liquor dealer. 
 
 Under the intricate system of stamping packages and resultant book-keeping, it is 
 made impossible for the rectifier to receive anything but tax-paid goods, as he would 
 have no means of disposing of goods unstamped. A copy of the book here referred 
 to, and known as Form No. 52, has to be made out in triplicate with all these details 
 and forwarded to the collector of the district on or before the 10th of the succeeding 
 month. The unlawful use to which these transcripts may be put is illustrated by a 
 case which has recently come under our observation, in which it was alleged that a 
 copy of the transcript, giving the full addresses of the customers of a rectifier, was 
 furnished by one of the Government oflicials for a money consideration to one of the 
 competitors of the rectifier to the great injury of the business of the latter. 
 
 In addition to all this red tape, special gangers are assigned to the place of business 
 of the rectifier, whose duty it is to supervise the emptying of the packages and the 
 stamping out of the result of the rectification of the packages emptied. In bousea 
 
798 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 whicli do a large business sometimes as many as four of these gangers are stationed, 
 at an expense to the Government of |5 per day for each ganger, making an average 
 expense to the Government of $1,500 per annum for each ganger, -while the rectifier 
 and wholesale liquor dealer's license fee is $325 per year. It will be seen that in such 
 cases the Government is a loser to the amount of the difference between the figures 
 given. 
 
 We respectfully call the attention of your honorable committee to the fact that 
 this whole matter might be very much simplified by intrusting the wholesale dealer 
 and rectifier, who as stated before can only deal with tax-paid goods, with the neces- 
 sary revenue stamps for the purpose of stamping his own goods, the Government 
 reserving to itself merely the right of supervision of the emptying of the packages 
 and thereby securing that no other but tax-paid goods can be used. The rectifier 
 should receive credit only for the number of proof gallons tlius emptied under Gov- 
 ernment supervision, and permitted to stamp out against such credit. 
 
 Special Deputy Brooks, a man who has been in the internal-revenue service for the 
 last twenty-five years, has already recommended to the Department the method of 
 supervision as here described. We fully concur in that recommeudation as eatirly 
 meeting the case. Under the change proposed the rectifier would have to make the 
 return to the collector, which is now required to be made by the ganger. The change 
 here proposed would enable the Government to dispense with the service of a number 
 of gangers who under the present system have an easy opportunity to administer 
 their offlcesfor revenue to themselves only, by playing theroleof obstructionists when 
 the rectifier fails to make terms on a cash basis with them. That this statement por- 
 trays the situation correctly is evidenced by the testimony brought out at the trial of 
 gangers no w in progress in this city. The state of affairs liere described was first pub- 
 licly disclosed some months ago in theUnited States criminal courts of Cincinnati, Ohio. 
 
 The system of espionage to which the wholesale liquor dealer and rectifier is ex- 
 posed at every stage of his business is most onerous. Under the present system the 
 gangers and "specials" can at any time it may suit their sovereign pleasure walk into 
 the place of business of the rectifier, order all operaljions suspended, and call off all 
 employes for the purpose of taking stock or sux>ervising the work of the local gangers. 
 
 The distiller who produces the goods is exempt from the payment of these special 
 taxes. He pays no license fee for the privilege of selling the goods of his own pro- 
 duction; why should the wholesale dealer and rectifier be compelled to do so? It can 
 surely not be the policy of the Government to treat the distillers as a preferred class 
 in this resjiect. 
 
 The distiller, in addition to being not subjected to a special tax or license fee, also 
 receives the benefit of what is termed the fractional gallon. By paying strict atten- 
 tion to the selection of packages and by properlj' regulating the proot of the liquor 
 he can save about 44 cents on eae-h package, which is equal to nearly 1 cent per gallon. 
 The dealer or rectifier, however, does not get the benefit of the fractional gallon. It 
 would seem to be but a demand of plain justice that the Government should tax im- 
 partially the entire product, the fractional gallon included. 
 
 The abuse of authority which is rendered possible and frequently exercised for un- 
 lawful purposes by the Government officials under cover of the internal revenue laws 
 is at times unbearable. A man's property in the branch of trade in which the whole- 
 sale liquor dealers and rectifiers are engaged is at no timeun<ler his own control, but 
 is at all times subject to the whims and good will of a lot of oiHcials who but too fre- 
 quently use the power thus conferred upon them for selfish purposes. It is useless 
 to expect relief by an appeal to higher authority. Complaint will only draw upon 
 the unlucky victim the wrath of the whole force of leeches. After extorting fees for 
 a neglect of duties imposed upon them by law, the internal revenue oiiioials expect 
 the dealer whom they have thus victimized to go on the witness stand and swear to 
 a perversion of the truth in order to help them out of any difficulty into which they 
 may have fallen with the officers of the law department of the Government by reason 
 of the unlawful use of their authority. 
 
 Relief would be given to the trade by putting the rectifier under bond for a limited 
 time, say ten days' business, and retaining the system of Government supervision 
 only as far as the dumping of packages is concerned, as being the only part of a 
 wholesale liquor dealer's or rectifier's business in which the use of illicit goods is 
 possible, and therefore the only part of the whole transaction in which the interests 
 of the Government should of right be guarded. 
 
 We also beg to call your attention to the arbitrary rule which the Department has 
 made in regard to the ooUectiou of taxes on Iniuor according to its proof. Where 
 goods are found to be underproof, they are called proof by the Government and the 
 full tax is collected; but if they are overproof, the tax is collected to the uttermost 
 point possible. Yet in all cases the goods have been under Government keeping. 
 The treatment which distillers and merchants engaged in the other branches of our 
 trade receiv* at the hands of the Government is characterized everywhere by hoa- 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 799 
 
 tility to our business. We are treated as if we were only ticket-of-Ieave men, out on 
 good beliavior, and only subjects for oppressive taxation. We state a simple truth 
 by saying that at every turn in our business we are confronted by the tax gatherer. 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 The Wholesale Liquor Dealers' Association. 
 
 W. G. Ross, 
 
 President. 
 W. A. Tylbr, 
 
 Treasurer. 
 J. Baetler, 
 
 Secretary, 
 
 SACCHARINE BEVERAGES- 
 
 VIEWS OF "W. B. KELLER. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Ways and Means Committee, the following 
 propositions I submit to you and ask your consideration of them as herein stated, and 
 respectfully request that it be made a part of the printed record of the hearings before 
 the committee : 
 
 First : That all fancy or saccharine beverages, such as ginger-ale, ginger-beer, sar- 
 saparilla, lemon soda, soda-water, and all other carbonated (aerated) beverages, shall 
 be held dutiable at the following specific rates : 
 
 In bottles containing more than one-half pint, .50 cents per dozen ; in bottles con- 
 taining one-half pint or less, 25 cents per dozen. 
 
 Second : That beer known as " Weiss" beer, containing less than 2i per cent, alco- 
 holic strength, shall not be subject to any internal revenue tax or regulation. 
 
 The first proposition, I ask your indulgence to point ont a few facts concerning the 
 specific duty which we ask you to place on ginger-ale, ginger-beer, soda-water, etc., 
 and all carbonated (aerated) beverages, in addition to the glass bottles in which they 
 are imported. 
 
 There are in the United States close on to seven thousand bottling establishments, 
 which are mostly engaged in manufacturing and bottling such beverages. Many of 
 them are extensive, employ hundreds of men, and have a large capital invested. 
 They, too, sufifer from the unequal tariff on full and empty bottles, from which they 
 ask to be relieved. In fact, as the law now stands and has been interpreted by the 
 courts, ginger-ale bottles come in free of duty, the contents paying only 20 per cent. 
 ad valorem. A specific duty on all such beverages, in addition to the bottle, is the 
 desired remedy. 
 
 Another fact we desire to impress on the committee is, that in England the help 
 mostly employed for washing bottles, wiring, corking, handling, etc., is done by 
 young girls and women ; while in the United States you will travel the country and 
 not find a similar spectacle. The wages paid these girls are mere pittances, while 
 the men employed here receive substantial wages, earning sutficient to keep their 
 families without asking co-operation from the girls and women of the family. 
 
 Another matter worth considering is the interesting one that on the success of the 
 bottling establishment depends the success, to a great extent, of the green-bottle in- 
 dustry of the United States. The sugar consumed in the maunfactnre of these 
 saccharine beverages is not inconsiderable, and were all such beverages imported 
 instead of being made and bottled here, the returns from a number of industries 
 would show a decided falling off. For instance, the manufacture of corks, the man- 
 ufacture of soda-water machinery, the manufacture of green-glass bottles, the nianu- 
 facture of sugar, marble dust, and many minor industries, which receive support 
 and sustenance from the manufacture, bottling, and sale of American carbonated 
 drinks. 
 
 We respectfully ask your consideration for the imposition of speci6c duties on that 
 class of goods. 
 
 The second proposition is a self-evident one, and I will only liriefly refer to it. It 
 is that all revenue taxation and regulation on "Weiss" beer be stricken from the 
 statutes; that is, if it contains less alcoholic .strength than 2^ per cent. 
 
 This proposition was embodied in the Randall bill as reported to the last Congress, 
 and I think it a fair and honest one in every particular. 
 
 I respectfully request your earnest consideration of the above, as the representa- 
 tive of the bottling trade of every State and Territory in the Union, and as chair- 
 man of the special committee on tariff matters of the United States Bottlers' Protect- 
 iye Association. 
 
800 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 FRUIT JUICES. 
 
 New York, January 2, 1890. 
 Alex. D. Shaw, Esq., 
 
 Chairman Legislative Committee of the Wine and Spirit Traders' Society : 
 
 Dear Sir: We, the undersigned, importers of cherry and other fruit juices, hereby 
 recommend the adoption of a specific rate of duty on these articles, and would sug- 
 gest that it be fixed at 10 cents per gallon. 
 
 The present rate of duty on, for example, cherry juice, based upon the average 
 price during the past few years of, say, 40 marks per hectoliter, from which must be 
 deducted the value of casks, freight, and other charges, say 6 marks per hectoliter, 
 leaving a dutiable value of, say, 34 marks per hectoliter, is not over6J cents per gal- 
 lon ; but rather than it should be continued at the same ad valorem rate of 20 per 
 cent., as at present, we would propose to have it increased to 10 cents per gallon, as 
 the sentiment in favor of specific duties seems now generally to prevail, and in order 
 also to prevent possible undervaluations by unprincipled dealers. 
 
 Cherry juice and other fruit juices, like blackberry and huckleberry, not being 
 produced to any extent in this country, their importation can not be considered as 
 inimical to any domestic industry. These juices are generally employed in the manu- 
 facture of such cordials as blackberry brandy, cherry bounce, etc., wholesome bever- 
 ages for people suffering from disorders ot the stomach. 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 H. A. Batjer & Co. Hartman, Goldsmith & Co. 
 
 M. LlENAU & Co. Jos. WUNDERMILLBR & EOELKER. 
 
 Julius Wile, Brothers & Co. Brandt & Kienzler. 
 
 PATENT PRUNE WINE. 
 
 New York, February 8, 1890. 
 
 Sir: In behalf of my clients, Messrs. Wm. and P. Thompson, of Dublin and New 
 York, manufacturers and importers of "Thompson's Patent Prune Wine," I beg to 
 request that said article be enumerated in the tariff bill now before your committee 
 under the heading of "Prune Wine," and a specific duty fixed thereon. 
 
 Thompson's Patent Prune Wine has for upwards of twenty years been entered at 
 our ports as a non-ennumerated manufactured article, subject to a duty of 20 per 
 cent, ad valorem, which is equal to 35 cents per American gallon. This article 
 should not be classified as a wine, because it is never sold or used as a beverage, but 
 is intended and used solely for aging, fining, and mellowing liquors. 
 
 It is a product of fermented dried fruit, made under letters patent of Great Britain 
 and the United States, and the name " Prune Wine" is secured by trade mark. It 
 contains about 18 to 20 per cent, of absolute alcohol, added thereto to prevent fermen- 
 tation and for no other purpose, experience having shown that this quantity of alco- 
 hol is absolutely necessary for its proper preservation. 
 
 This request is intended to obviate in future the great annoyance which has arisen 
 during tlie past two years on account of uncertainty as to the proper classification of 
 said article, and to establish a specific duty on said article in accordance with that 
 which has prevailed for more than twenty years, to wit, 35 cents per gallon for prune 
 wine containing less than 24 per cent, of alcohol. 
 
 5 The market and invoice price of " Thompson's Patent Prune Wine" is8 shillings and 
 an pence, net, equivalent to |2.05, per imperial gallon (which is one-fifth more than 
 per American gallon) which, at 20 per cent, ad valorem, would amount to 35 cents 
 
 American gallon. 
 
 Eespectfully, yours, 
 
 Wm. J. Fanning. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlht, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Wayt and Meant. 
 
KEVISION OF THE TAKIl'T. 
 
 801 
 
 MINERAL WATERS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JAMES W. INCHES. 
 
 James W. Inches, vice-president of tlie American Natural Mineral Water Associa- 
 tion, next addressed tiie committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. CLiairman and geutlemen of the committee, I represent tlie American Natural 
 Miueral Water Association, and I have a paper here prepared which states in brief 
 what we wish. Mr. Jones will follow me, and will explain it and answer any ques- 
 tions you desire. 
 
 The American Natural Mineral Water Association is composed of the owners and 
 promoters of American mineral water springs, and they feel, in asking that an im- 
 port duty be placed on all foreign mineral waters, that tbey can present a statement 
 of facts showing that under the present tariff laws the American waters are dis- 
 criminated against to such an extent that it is impossible to place tliem upon the 
 market in competition with waters imported from Europe. 
 
 I respectfully ask on behalf of the association that all mineral waters, whether 
 natural, imitation thereof, or artificial, should be held dutiable at the following spe- 
 oiiio rates, viz : 
 
 "In bottles or jugs oontainingnot more than 1 quart, andmore than 1 pint, 50 cents 
 per dozen. In bottles or jugs containing each 1 pint or less, 25 cents per dozen. In 
 bottles or jugs containing more than 1 quart each, at the rate of 20 cents per gallon. 
 
 The above duty would not, as might he supposed, be a protection which would 
 prevent foreign waters from entering into competition with the American product at 
 equal prices, but would only offset the unjust discrimination which exists under tlio 
 present law in favor of foreign mineral waters. 
 
 In support of this statement we offer the following table, showing the difference in 
 the amount of duty paid under the present laws, on the three articles indispensaiilo 
 in bottling water for sale, viz: bottles, corks, and packing or straw mats by the 
 American who imports them, empty or separately, and by importers of foreign waters 
 who import them as a part of a package. 
 
 Duty paid on one gross. 
 
 Wh&a. imported 
 empty or sep- 
 arately. 
 
 "WTien imported 
 filled with for- 
 eign waters. 
 
 Duty 
 
 paid by 
 
 Ameriean 
 
 waters. 
 
 Duty 
 paid by 
 foveiffn 
 waters. 
 
 Total dif- 
 ference 
 per gross. 
 
 Bottles, 25 ounce, green or colored 
 
 glass. 
 Corks 
 
 Straw mats 
 
 Total ditference per gross . 
 
 Icentperpound- 
 
 25 per cent, ad 
 
 valorem. 
 30 per cent 
 
 30 per cent, ad 
 
 valorem. 
 Free 
 
 It2. 25 
 .23 
 .18 
 
 0.64 
 
 None . 
 None . 
 
 $1.61 
 .23 
 .18 
 
 ;. 02 
 
 The green or colored glass bottle is the only kind used for bottling water. 
 
 Corks aroused varying in price fromabout 74 cents to |1. 10 per gross. I have taken 
 92 cents as an average ; straw mats are based at |4 per 1,0U0. 
 
 By the above table it will be seen that under the present tariff laws a discrimina- 
 tion exists in favor of the foreign producer of $2.02 per gross on the three princi)ial 
 articles used in preparing the water for the market. But that amount is only on tlio 
 tlirco principal articles. In addition to this the American producer must u.so tinned 
 iron wire for fastening down corks, labels, lumber and nails, all of which cost moro 
 in the United States than in Europe on account of the import duties ujion them. 
 
 The cost of material alone, which must be nsed in preparing mineral waters for 
 sale in bottles, amounts to over iJO xjer cent, of the entire cost of the product whoa 
 
 485 51 
 
802 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 ready for th* market, and every item in this material is under a protective tariif. Is 
 it just, is it fair that an American citizen should bo compelled to pay a. duty on 90 
 per cent, of what he has for sale, and then not only deny him a protection from cheap 
 foreign competition, but actually allow foreigners to bring their goods into this 
 conniry without even paying the same duties that the American has paidt 
 
 All this material ie under a protective tariff. Now, we ask if it is fair and just to 
 compel American citizens to pay a duty of 90 per cent, on what he has to sell, and 
 then allow Europeans, who have a protection on cheap labor, to bring the same goods 
 into this country, without paying the same duty on the same material ? 
 
 Mr. Carlislb. Do you have to import bottles T 
 
 Mr. Inches. Some springs import and some use domestic bottles. The American 
 dealer of course takes advantage of that protection which is on bottles, and charges 
 a price which ii equal to the price we have to pay for imported bottles. You can im- 
 port to-day the green glass bottles known as the German bottle cheaper than you can 
 get them in this country freight and duty paid. 
 
 Mr. Carlislk. Do you import covers f 
 
 Mr. Inchbs. Yes, sir. The straw mats are not made here. There are no covers 
 such a« champagne covers made in this country. We have tried time and time again 
 to make them, but unsuccessfully. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Why is thatf 
 
 Mr. Inches. I understand the best explanation given is that the straw is allowed in 
 this country to ripen more than it is in Germany, and hence it is too brittle. You 
 take the American covering and the moment you use it it all goes to pieces, while 
 the German covers will last several times. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What is the duty on these straw mats f 
 
 Mr. Inches. Thirty per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Are any straw mats manufactured in this country at all ! 
 
 Mr. Inches. Time and time again there have been attempts to make them. Sev- 
 eral people have tried to make them, but they never amounted to anything. In the 
 first place we can not got the straw, and then again we can not compete in the price 
 of labor. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Where was that manufactured 1 
 
 Mr. Inches. I can not state, Mr. La Follette ; but I have seen the goods. The 
 straw is too brittle, and as soon as you bind them up and put them into a bundle they 
 fly to pieces ; they chip all off. Whether the reason is on account of climatic differ- 
 ences or not I do not know, but the straw here is more brittle than the German 
 straw. Now, in this country we make different kinds of packages for bottles — cor- 
 rugated paper and corrugated wood — but none of them are equal to the straw mats. 
 A few American springs use straw mats, yet they can not do so and compete. There 
 is no difference of opinion in regard to what is the prosier kind of packing. There is 
 only one packing and that is the straw mat. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I have seen this wooden article. 
 
 Mr. Inches. Americans are forced to use the wooden cover, as they can not buy 
 straw mats and compete in price. Nobody will venture the opinion that wood is 
 worth anything at all in comparison with straw mats. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What is the price of the paper covering as compared with the 
 straw mats f 
 
 Mr. Inches. I should say it averages three-fifths, but it is not to be compared at 
 all in quality. The paper cover is simply better than nothing; the straw cover- 
 ing is an entire protection against breakage. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. As I understand you, the wooden covering costs about three-fifths 
 as much as the straw covering with duty paid. 
 
 Mr. Inches. The wooden covering, I should say, was not more than half. The 
 paper covering costs about three-fifths. In that cover of wood there is no elasticity 
 to it whatever, and it is used because of the little corrugations in it, which are simply 
 better than nothing. 
 
 Everybody who knows anything about this business knows that nine-tenths of this 
 water is artificial. It is impossible to take water out of the earth at a high pressure 
 of 40 or 50 pounds to the square inch and put it in a bottle. It is a physical impos- 
 sibility, as it will break away in another direction. A large amount of our water ie 
 barreled because the American can not put his water into bottles on account of the 
 prices with which we have to eompete. Consequently wo send water all over the 
 country in barrels and it is put in bottles by irresponsible people all over the country. 
 Whereas if the duty were so we could buy the bottles and compete with the foreign 
 trade the water would be bottled where it comes out of the earth, and the Americana 
 would get the water pure. Mr. Jones can give you some results in regard to this. 
 
 Mr. LaFollbttb. If the same duty was on bottles coming here filled would not it 
 meet the objection ? 
 
 Mr. Inches. It would simply meet •ne point, and there are half a dozen other things. 
 There are the bottles, the corks, the straw coverings and case. As I say, it would 
 
KEVISION OF THE TAfilPP. 803 
 
 Bnrprise most people to know that when we pnt a case of water upon the market and 
 sell it, 90 per cent, of what we ask for it we have paid out for material — 90 per cent, 
 of the entire cost. 
 
 Mr. Gear. When these mineral waters are imported from foreign ports do you pay 
 for the water, or bottles separate, or is the price so much a dozen ? 
 
 Mr. Inches. It is so much a dozen on tlje whole thing. A case of water coming 
 into this country generally contains 50 quart hottles and you buy the case — the 
 whole concern. 
 Mr. Gear. There is no separate charge made t 
 Mr. Inches. Oh, no. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Where they import these cases is there any reduction made in the cus 
 tom-house for the value of the outside case t 
 Mr. Inches. I do not understand your question. 
 Mr. Gear. Waters come free now t 
 
 Mr. Inches. Oh, yes ; the waters come free, bnt there is a duty of 30 per cent, on 
 artiticial waters, but there is no such thing as artificial waters now ; they have dis- 
 appeared. 
 Mr. JoNiss. What has it dwindled down tot 
 
 Mr. Inches. To 17,000 gallons. It does not amount to anything, while we have 
 almost 2,000,000 gallons of mineral waters imported. 
 Mr. Bayne. What did the Senate bill do t 
 
 Mr. Inches. It put a duty on bottles ; but here we wish 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Have you suggested a formula there f 
 
 Mr. Inches. Yes, sir; I read it. I appeared before this committee two years ago, 
 before Mr. Breckinridge, when the Mills bill was being considered by this committee 
 in regard to putting a duty on bottles the same empty as filled. We are not asking, 
 like most industries to be protected enough to give us the market ; but all we want 
 is not to pay more than the Europeans do. 
 
 This artificial feature of the case is peculiarly unjust to the American producer and 
 allows the foreign water dealer to impose upon the American public. Under the pres- 
 ent tariii laws natural mineral waters are free of duty, but a duty of 30 per cent, 
 ad valorem is placed upon artificial waters. As before stated all who have given the 
 subject any attention know that nine-tenths of the waters imported as natural are 
 artificial in all that contributes to a product of that character. Importations of so- 
 called natural mineral waters are constantly increasing, and a glance at the statis- 
 tics will sho\T the enormous quantity imported as natural or duty free, while the 
 importation of artificial waters has almost entirely disappeared. 
 
 In 1888 there were imported into this country 1,792,699 gallons of so-called natural 
 water, while less than 1 per cent, of that amount, or only 17,903 gallons of artificial 
 water, were imported. 
 
 The question arises, how do we know that so much of the water imported is arti- 
 ficial? Not alone from a general knowledge of facts bearing on the trade, but from 
 personal investigations, from comparative analysis made by many of the most dis- 
 tinguished of American chemists, and even from official documents of the Koyal 
 Commission of Springs of Prussia. 
 
 It is a well known fact, hardly disputed in this day, that the most popular im- 
 ported water now sold in the United States is held by aU leading experts to be an 
 artlfi'ial product, and yet it comes into this country as natural water free of duty. 
 The American producers have repeatedly tried to have these goods properly classi- 
 fied, but so far have been unsuccessful. The question has been before the Treasury 
 Department for years, and decisions have been rendered both for and against the 
 American producer several times. 
 
 Difficult points have come up, different opinions by officials as to what constitutes 
 an artificial mineral water, and so on, until it has become almost impossible to decide 
 just where natural waters end and artificial waters begin. The question has become 
 a nuisance to the Dei)artment, and on Saturday, the 18th instant, the Hon. Mr. Tiche- 
 nor, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, assured us that the Department would bo 
 pleased to see all mineral waters placed under the same restrictious or duties, and 
 thus relieve the Department of the never ending trouble of deciding between the ar- 
 tificial praduct, and, as the Secretary stated, " the go-called natural waters imported." 
 In 1881, the question was thoroughly gone over in an appe.il by several American 
 ■water men to the Treasury Departuient, asking that a foreign water known as the 
 Apollinaris and others be made to pay duty ag artificial. After au exhaugtive re- 
 view of the case, Secretary Windom wrote to Attorney-General MaoVeagh, making 
 a statement of the case and says : 
 
 " I deem it important to settle some principle of law which may be appliable not 
 only to Apollinaris water, but to the various other waters imported • • » I have 
 the honor to ask your opinion upon the foregoing statement, whether the Apollinaris 
 water, imported in the condition above described, is a mineral or medicinal artificial 
 
804 KEVISION OP THE TAKIFF, 
 
 water, subject to duty, or whether it is a mineral water not artificial, and as such 
 entitled to free entry. " 
 
 A short time afterwards Attorney-General MacVeagh wrote Secretary Windom, and 
 stated that he had investigated the subject, that attorneys had appeared for both 
 sides, and he hail decided that the water in question was artificial, and says: "I 
 am of the opinion, that it ought to be so regarded and held to be liable to duty. " 
 
 The late Roscoe Conkling then appeared tor the foreign company and had the mat- 
 ter continued from time to time until there was an entire change in the administra- 
 tion, the matter finally coming before Secretary Folger, who decided the case against 
 the American water men, by rendering a decision that the different manipulations 
 which the water passed through did not necessarily make it artificial. He says: 
 "It is said there is salt added to it, the quantity added is not great, some is added" — 
 and still he held that it was not necessarily an artificial water. 
 
 I make this statement simply to show how impossible it is to determine just what 
 is natural and what is an artificial mineral water. 
 
 Here we have the Attorney-General of the United States deciding that certain 
 manipulations and additions do necessarily make a water artificial, and the Secretary 
 of the Treasury of the next administration holding that they do not. 
 
 To end this troublesome question, and to protect ns from this imposition, we ask 
 that an equal specific duty be placed npon all waters, natural or artificial. 
 
 The magnitude of the American mineral water industry is little known. In the 
 last report on mineral water, published by the United States Geological Survey, it is 
 shown that the consumption of natural mineral waters in the United States is over 
 10,000,000 gallons annually. In the report of the United States Geological Survey 
 for 18>i5 it is stated that there are in the United States 2,554 localities having mineral 
 springs, and that, the individual springs number over 8,000; of these 735 have been 
 carefully analyzed; 567 are used as places of resort; and of these the waters of over 
 200 are bottled and used commercially. In every State from Maine to California can 
 be found large resorts, hotels and watering pi aces, costing from $50,000 up to $1,000,000 
 and often more than that fiijnre, and which are entirely dependent for their existence 
 upon the sale and popularity of their waters, which are shipped to all parts of the 
 country. It is estimated that in the United States there is invested in mineral springs 
 and the properties which are dependent upon them, fully $30,000,000. 
 
 I say again, in every State from Maine to California large resorts can be found 
 costing from $50,000 to $1,000,000 each. Take the city of Saratoga, built on mineral 
 water ; take the city of Waukesha, Wis., founded on mineral waters; take the White 
 Sulphur Springs and such places. 
 
 Mr, Bayne. And the Bedford Spring, of Pennsylvania. 
 
 Mr. Inches. Yes ; in every State these resorts are to be foiind. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Have any of these natural waters imported into the country when 
 analyzed shown to be superior to our natural mineral waters? 
 
 Mr. Inches. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Are tbey shown to contain different ingredients? 
 
 Mr. Inches. There are no two waters alike; but there is no wiiter in any part of 
 Europe that has not got its counterpart and equal in this country. The springs in 
 this country have not been developed, have not been started, because this thing has 
 always been against us and we could not do it. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What waters in our country compare with the springs of Carlsbad? 
 
 Mr. Inches. We have the Hathomo waters of Saratoga, Geyser, and a great many 
 others. 
 
 Mr. Flower. But none as strong as that? 
 
 Mr. Inches. As far as strength is concerned, we have many stronger waters, we 
 have water at Mount Clenjents, Mich., which is stronger. Strength is not quality. 
 The water at Mount Clements is so strong you can not drink it until it is diluted. 
 We have waters at St. Clair, Mich., and we have various stronger waters all over the 
 country. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I did not know that there was anything like the Carlsbad water 
 here. 
 
 Mr. Inches. There is nothing exactly alike, for you know there are no two faces 
 in the world alike. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I believe there is no water tasting exactly like ApoUinaris. 
 
 Mr. Inches. I can give yon ten American waters to-day that you can not tell which 
 is which if you do not see the label. It is a well-known fact in this country that 
 when American citizens drink what is called ApoUinaris over the bar they spring 
 something that is made probably on the next Idock. Now, as an expert who has 
 been in the business for years, I think I can detect ApoUinaris. I know I can de- 
 tect our water from any in the world. 
 
 The Chairman. Are the remainder of your remarks in type-writer? I make this 
 suggestion because the stenographer has another cugagemcut this juorning with an- 
 other committee. 
 
fiEVISION OP THK TARIFF. 806 
 
 Mr. Inches. J[ have everything; but I desire to answer any questions tip com- 
 mittee may ask. I would like to show a table which will be quite interestiug. It is 
 a table showing the cost to Americans for material. 
 
 If the present tariff laws were continued, this enormous investment would be 
 virtually thrown away. It can be stated positively that there is not a well-known 
 spring in the United States, which is to-day making 1 per cent, on the amount of 
 money which has been invested to bring it up to its present standard or condition. 
 
 There is no class of waters known to exist that is not well represented in the Uuited 
 States. The number and variety of the springs of this country is greater than that of 
 any other, aud if they were protected to an extent that would allow of tlieir develop- 
 ment, foreign waters aud watering places would soou lose their reputation to the 
 superior resorts and waters of this country. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Are your waters the same as the European waters? 
 
 Mr. Inches. We have the same waters iu this country, but there are no two waters 
 exactly alike. We have waters in this country that equal any waters iu Europe. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. But are they the same 1 
 
 Mr. Inches. No ; there are no two waters, as there are no two faces, the same. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Can they compete if they are not identically the same t 
 
 Mr. Inches. Yes, sir. There is a list of probably fifty waters brought in from 
 Europe and used as table waters, aud they all compete. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. They are substantially the same ? 
 
 Mr. Inches. Yes, sir; Vaej answer the same purpose. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The point is this : Suppose you place the best of these waters upon 
 a footing of equality and you find you gain a very considerable advantage over the 
 European waters in the American market, is not the taste of the people such that 
 they would buy the foreign waters in preference to yours, because the people get 
 a taste for certain things as they do for certain brands of cigars, whiskies, and bran- 
 dies ? 
 
 Mr. Inches. I ■will explain. I have an argument in my paper here which ansvirers 
 that argument that may be brought against us. There is one water (Apollinaris) 
 which comes to the country and has an enormous consumption. You know people 
 get a taste and a habit for drinking a certain thing, and, going into a bar any- 
 where, they say : " Give me Apollinaris." That is one water. Yet, out of fifty 
 waters coming into this country as table waters, not one-hundredth part is drunk 
 under its name. If you ask for Apollinaris you are apt to get one of these fifty waters. 
 Probably not one out of fifty that is called Apollinaris is Apollinaris. I can get fifty 
 kinds of water in the United States which you can not tell the difl'erence between. I 
 can, as I say, because I am an expert and because I have been educated right in that, 
 and I know almost the composition of the water when I taste it; but time and time 
 again I have seen people drink mineral water radically different from the water they 
 ask for, so that taste does not hold in waters as in cigars, whiskies, etc. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Your statement makes us wonder who on this committee is an ex- 
 pert on water. 
 
 Mr. Inches. That is the reason legislators have never taken up this question. 
 rhey do not know anything about water. 
 
 That competition with the cheap waters of Euroije is impossible can easily be seen 
 by the following table showing the cost to the American of the material aloue which 
 must be used in bottling water. 
 
 Cost of material for one gross quart bottles of water. 
 
 Bottles, duty paid $5.25 
 
 Corks, duty paid 1. 15 
 
 Straw mats, duty paid 78 
 
 Cases 25 cents, each fifty bottles 7'2 
 
 Tinned wires 06 
 
 Labels 15 
 
 Total cost 8. 11 
 
 The cost of American bottles and of the European duty paid into this country is 
 about the same. 
 
 Almost all mineral water is sold in cases containing fifty bottles, and it will be seen 
 by the foregoing table that the material alone for a case of 50 quarts costs $2.81. 
 
 Add to this the cost of labor, carrying on a busiuests aud interest on investment, 
 and the American producer finds that he can not sell a case of 50 quarts, even in large 
 «|uantitie8, for less than $5.50, and even at that ficure must have a large business to 
 enable him to purchase his material in large quantities and at low prices. Again.st 
 these figures European waters are freely oil'Krud, in the. same quantities, saiiie bot- 
 tles, corks, mats, cases, aud identically the same in every item, for from $'.i to $4 on 
 thesaa-board, aud as low as $3..50 as far west as Chicago. Is competition with such fig- 
 
806 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 urea possible t They are lower than the firat cost of the same package when finished 
 and freighted to the cities by American springs and almost as low as the cost of 
 the r&w material used in their preparation. 
 
 It may be stated with truth that there is one European company which does not 
 nndersell the American product, but the fact that it holds its price up simply in- 
 creases its profits, to such an extent that it is enabled to spend many thousands of 
 dollars annually in advertising its goods, while the American producer, selling at 
 the same prices, can with difficulty keep from bankruptcy. 
 
 It may also be argued that no duties should be placed upon an article which is used 
 as a medicine or remedial agent, and in answer to this we would state that the day 
 is past when mineral waters are looked upon entirely as medicines, except in rare in- 
 stances. Fully 95 per cent, of all mineral waters consumed in this country are used 
 as a luxury and a beverage, and are sold by cafdfs, hotels, restaurants, liquor stores, 
 and groceries. Not 5 per cent, of the bottled water used passes through the hands 
 of druggists. 
 
 It is, therefore, plain that bottled waters mnst be classed as more of a luxury than 
 a medicine. Wines and liquors are used as medicines, but they are taxed as luxuries. 
 
 A protective tariff on waters will not raise their price to the consumer materially, 
 but will tend to increase the business of American springs. 
 
 A monopoly or trust in mineral waters is impossible. This is apparent when the 
 number of spriugs in this country is considered. A large number of competitors in 
 all classes ol^ waters, and the enormous room for further development, will always 
 have the eft'eot of making competition sharp and of keeping prices as low as sound 
 business will allow. 
 
 In conclusion, we would state that unless a protective tariif be placed on all waters 
 coming into this country the business of developing American springs will become 
 BO unprofitable that it will be practically abandoned. Many resorts will be com- 
 pelled to close their doors, and an industry so important to the health and welfare 
 of the nation will be entirely given over to foreigners. 
 
 To avoid this and to protect a business in which we have spent millions of dollars 
 and many years of unprofitable work, we again ask that a specific duty, as outlined 
 in our beginning, be placed on all foreign mineral waters. 
 
 STATEMENT OP A. M. JONES. 
 
 Mr. A. M. Jones, of Waukesha, Wis., president of the American Natural Mineral 
 Water Association, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I believe I have only one point 
 which I wish to make. As president of the association I should say that there are 
 from thirty-five to forty of the main springs of the country in this organization. We 
 want you gentlemen to look into this matter carefully, and if you can give us a duty 
 we want you to give us a specific duty. As you see by looking at the present duty it 
 is a mere cat's-paw. That is very plain, and you can have no doubt about that. The 
 spring which I represent, and which I have for four or five years, had a trade of from 
 4,000 to 5,000 barrels, and we found the dealers to whom we sold the water in barrels, 
 never got our, but they always fill with something. The result is that the only pro- 
 tection that the consumer can get is to buy water bottled at the spriugs, and we want 
 protection enough to allow us to bottle our waters there. I have been detained at 
 home by sickness for a few days, or we would have appeared before this committee 
 before. We now come before this committee asking that you make the duty specific. 
 
 Less than 1 per cent, of all the mineral water that comes into this country comes in 
 under any other head than natural mineral waters; and as it has been well stated 
 this morning, and as I would state to the committee again, it isimpossibleuulessyou 
 have the laws of nature suspended, to have any mineral water carbonated naturally. 
 You can not attach a pipe to a rock or to the ground, as it will force it out the other 
 way, and no mineral water can be carbonated naturally that has a pressure of 40 to 
 58 pounds to the square inch. I believe there is not a State represented on this com- 
 mittee or by a member of Congress that has not natural niiui-val waters. Take the 
 Apollinaris Company, which do not sell anywhere a car-load for less than $6 a case. 
 In this Treasury Department decision they swore that their bottles cost them $2.1C a 
 gross, and on that they were only paying fiO cents duty. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. What do you mean by carbonated water t 
 
 Mr. JONKS. Table water— that is effervescent. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What treatment is it subjected tot 
 
 Mr. Jones. Carbonic-acid gas is put in it. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Are any great mineral springs of this country which have a groat 
 deal of carbonic-acid gas, which gas is got i'roni retorts arid used artificially ? 
 
 Mr. J(jNEH. Possibly. I think they uinut use a hnoil. 
 
 Mr. Cakj.isi.ic. Do you niean to say that all the liotlleil mineral water is treated 
 artificially with gas before it is put on the table ? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 80t 
 
 Mr. Jones. I mean to say you can not bottle water at the spring without losing a 
 lot of gas in the bottling. You might get a little gas, but a great deal of it would be 
 lost. To bottle a highly effervescent water you must force into it more carbonic-acid 
 gas than it holds in its natural condition in the earth; but this gas may be obtained 
 from the water that flows to waste from the spring or it may be manufactured, but 
 in either case it must be forced into the bottled water in excess of its natural condition . 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Take the Blue Lick water of Kentucky. I presume that is a water 
 with which you are familiar. That is bottled now right at the spring. Do you think 
 it is treated artificially ? . 
 
 Mr. Jones. That is not an effervescent water. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is the Congress water of Saratoga bottled that ■frayT 
 
 Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of water all over 
 this country which can be bottled if you will put a specific duty on mineral waters, 
 whatever it may be in your judgment — 2 or 4 cents. If you give us protection let it 
 be specific, so that we will not be continually subjected to decisions of the Treasury 
 Department. 
 
 I thank yon, gentlemen, foryonr attention. 
 
308 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 COKKS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN ROBINSON. 
 
 Mr. John Robinson, of New York, addressed the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Cliairmau and gentlemen, I am here in the interest of the cork manufacturers 
 of the United States. We desire a change from an ad valorem to a specific duty. Wo 
 have hecn looking to get this change for the last six years, but unfortunately wo 
 have been unable to get it. The records of your committee will show that in li^8:! 
 the Committee on Ways and Means recommended to the House a speciiic duty of 25 
 cents a pound, but unfortunately that recommendation was not carried out. We now 
 request that the present ad valorem rate of duty on corks, 2.5 per cent., be changed 
 to the speciiic rate of 20 cents a pound. This proposed specific rate is, as nearly as 
 possible, the equivalent of the present ad valorem rate on the class of goods usually 
 imported into this country. We reqnestthat the present tariif be changed as follows : 
 Substitute for paragraph 422 of the act of March H, 1883, the following : " Cork and 
 cork-bark, manufactured, including cork squares, 20 cents per pound." Also to sub- 
 stitute for paragraph 083 of that act the following: "Cork-wood or cork-bark, un- 
 manufactured, free." Our reasons for advocating this change are the following: 
 
 (1) The impossibility of correctly appraising the true foreign value of manufact- 
 ured corks in almost any of the United States ports of entry has led to a gross and sys- 
 tematic undervaluation of these goods on the part of the foreign importing houses, 
 to the extent that, if continued, the American manufacturers and the honest import- 
 ing houses will be entirely unable to compete and will be driven out of the business 
 in respect to many kinds of these goods. 
 
 This st:i!ciiieiit will be fully confirmed by the report of the speci.il agent of the 
 Treasury Dc|iai tment at the jiort of New York, who has thoroughly investigated the 
 jnatter (luring the jiast year, and who, we are informed, has snbmitt^ed the results of 
 the invesrigjitioi lo the Treasury Department at Wa.shington. I understood that 
 that repoit of tlu' special agent would be handed to the committee. 
 
 The CuAiK.MAN. 1 have the report here, and it will be printed in connection with 
 your .stat:euu'Lit. 
 
 Mr. EoDiNSfix. W(! desire that cork squares, which have heretofore been admitted 
 free of duty as <:ork-wuod or cork-bark unmanufactured, be included with the mauu- 
 factured corks at 'M cents per pound, for the reason that these sipiares have already 
 been subjected to as ninth as two out of the three necessary operations required to 
 produce a finislied woik. The raw material, in its commercial state, is in slabs as it 
 comes from the tree and llattened out. The first operation is to cut it into lengths of 
 this style [exhibiting specinieus]. The second operation is to cut these lengths into 
 small squares like tliis [exhibiting], and tlie third and last operation is simply to 
 riinnd it like this [showing another specimen]. Cork squares, therefore, in the opin- 
 ion of all the manufacturers and of many of the importers, ought to be included in 
 the dutiable goods, because they have already undergone two-thirds of the operation 
 of manufacturing. Some of the Spanish houses are importing these squares jiartially 
 rounded and with the corners taken off. So you will see that two out of the three 
 operations aro already performed, and yet these goods come in now free of duty. 
 
 The undervaluations above referred to were first called to the attention of the 
 custom-house at New York, and there the matter was fully investigated by the special 
 agent. Such investigation demonstrated the fact that invoices were generally under- 
 valued from 20 to 50 per cent. 
 
 When the said importing houses became aware that their importations were being 
 scrutinized by the authorities at New York, they sought to evade detection by ship- 
 ping their goods through to interior ports, such as Chicago, Milwaukee, St.Louis, 
 Cincinnati, and New Orleans, where tlie risk of detection was less. These shipments, 
 followed up by the special ag."nt of the Treasury at New York, were found to be 
 undervalued to even a greater extent than at New York. 
 
 I dcsiri-, to state one other consideration, and that is that it is simply impossible iu 
 any ]iort outside of New York to get appraisers competent to judge of the foreign 
 value (if tliiHO goods. The special agent of the Treasury had sampk's brought from 
 N(^w Orleans 1" Now York to be appraised. The same could be said of Chicago, and 
 iu (lue iuHtauee of Ciueiuiiati. 'I'lie collectdis .-i.sked for appraisement liy men who 
 kmw iMithirig of the foreign viiliic o( e(uk,s, and tbe Cincinnati goods varic^d .50 jier 
 cent, lielow the acl uai value. 
 
Revision of the tariff. 809 
 
 We are fully convinced that the only protection against frand of this character i? 
 to be found in the adoi)tiou of a specilic rate uf duty, aud in this opiuiou we are sus- 
 tained by experts and by the report of the special agent of the Treasury at the port 
 of New York, to which we respectfully refer you. 
 
 A duty of 25 per cent, ad valoreui, or its equivalent of 20 cents per pound sjiecific, 
 we do not consider protective, and is certainly not prohibitive ; it admits of the im- 
 portation of many kinds of foreign cork in competition with domestic. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Where are those imported corks produced? 
 
 Mr. Robinson. They are produced priucipally in Portugal and Spain. 
 
 Mr. Flowku. Where are our corks made ? 
 
 Mr. Robinson. In New York, Brooklyn, Lancaster, and St. Louis. 
 
 Mr. Flowkr. Are we raising any cork in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Robinson. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I saw a good many cork trees in California when I was there last 
 year. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. Yes, but they have not come to production. They require .at least 
 twenty years to get thickness of bark. The bark has to grow eight or ten years be- 
 fore it is strippeil, and that first bark has no value for cork making. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What rate of dnty do you desire? 
 
 Mr. Robinson. We have asked a specific duty of 20 cents a pound, which is equiv- 
 alent to the present rate of 25 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Then you advocate a change from an ad valorem to a specific 
 rate ? 
 
 Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir. The American manufacturer formerly enjoyed some pro- 
 tection on account of the use of improved machinery for the cutting of certain 
 classes of corks, but of late American machinery has beeu introduced extensively 
 abroad, which, coupled with cheap European labor, makes foreign competition keener 
 than ever before. 
 
 It is evident that the proposed dnty would show an increase over the present duty 
 on corks of low grades, but we can safely state that not 3 per cent, of the total im- 
 portations are of this kind. For this reason the increase in duty on these corks, 
 should not be seriously considered as an objection to the adoption of a specific duty. 
 
 The following report from the Treasury Department was presented by the chair- 
 man and ordered to be printed in the record : 
 
 Treasury Department, 
 
 Office of the Secretary, 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 10, 1890. 
 Sir: I inclose herewith copy of a report dated the 7th instant, and of its inclos- 
 ures, from special agent, Ira Ayer, of this Department, in relation to the undervalu- 
 ation of corks, and suggesting the substitution of siiecific for the jiresent ad valorejii 
 rates thereon. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 Geo. E. Batchkm.er, 
 
 AcUny Svcretary, 
 Hon. William McKinley, .Tr., 
 
 Chairman Committtt on Hays and Means. 
 
 Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 
 
 402 Washington street, New York City, January 7, 1890. 
 
 Sir: In connection with my duties as agent in charge at this port, it became nec- 
 essary during the past year to look into the invoice value of corks imported at New 
 York, and at several of the interior ports umler immediate transpoi-tation bond, not- 
 ably at Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, and New Orleans. 
 
 Investigation shows that corks were being largely undervalued, particularly at this 
 port, and at Milwaukee, Chicago, and New Orleans, and a strong eifort was made to 
 secure .advances on these importations, with varied success. An importation at New 
 Orleans was advanced on information furnished by me, from 25 to nearly 100 per cent. 
 on some lines, and the advance was largely sustained on re-appraisement. 
 
 At this port it was generally understood that the practice existed on the part of 
 shippers of corks in the vicinity of Barcelona, Spain, of making i ut two sets of in- 
 voices, one for customs purposes, and one for the purchaser, the dift'erence in prices 
 being 25 percent, or thereabout. This was practically admitted by certain importers, 
 and frequent advances were made. 
 
 The difJBcnlty in securing correct values has grown out of the fact that there are 
 but few who are competent to pass upon these goods. At this port we were fortunate 
 in having some importers and manufacturers who were well posted, and who rendered 
 
810 EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 valuable assistance to the Government in this direction. In view of the difBcnltiei 
 mentioDed, it became apparent that some mode of collecting duties on corks other 
 than that upon an ad valorem basis was desiraljle, and after much careful considera- 
 tion a schedule showing the comparative working of the present 25 per cent, ad va- 
 lorem duty and a proposed specific duty of 20 cents per pound was prepared (Ex- 
 hibit A, inclosed). By an inspection of tbis schedule it will be seen that the corks 
 which are principally imported have been divided into six classes, and that with the 
 exception of brewers' corks the duty of 20 cents per pound, as proposed, would be 
 practically the same as the present ad valorem rate on a just valuation of the goods. 
 
 On brewers' corks it is stated that an increased rate is necessary in order to protect 
 properly domestic manufactures. 
 
 From my experience here in the matter of under-valuiitions I fully concur in the 
 views held by these gentlemen as to the desirability of a specific rather than an ad 
 valorem rate of duty upon corks, and beg in closing to commend the subject to the 
 careful attention of the Department. 
 
 I am informed that parties interested have a hearing before the Committee of 
 Ways and Moaus of the House on Friday, the 10th instant, and the Department will 
 determine as to the propriety of furnishing the committee with a copy of this report. 
 
 I should add that cork squares or blocks are imported to some extent, and as they 
 are in great part manufactured they should, in my opinion, pay the same duty" as 
 corks. 
 
 In order that there may be no misapprehension as to the purport and intent of the 
 foregoing, I submit below substitutes for the present provisions of law pertaining to 
 cork importations, which it is believed will fairly meet the case: 
 
 " Corks, and cork bark, manufactured, including cork squares, 20 cents per pound.'- 
 
 Paragraph 683, act March 3, 1883, to remain as it now is, viz : 
 
 "Cork wood, or cork bark, unmanufactured, free." 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Ira Ater, Jr., 
 
 Special Agent. 
 Hon. William Windom, 
 
 Seoretary of the Treatury. 
 
 Colonel Ater, 
 
 Special Agent, V. S. Treasury, 2^eu] YorTc Custom-Woitse; 
 
 Dear Sir: We beg to call your attention to the attached tabulated statement 
 showing the comparative workings of the present 25 per cent, ad valorem duty, and 
 a proposed specific duty of 20 cents per pound ou importations of foreign corks. Our 
 principal reason in bringing this matter before you and asking for a change to a spe- 
 cific duty is to protect ourselves against the unscrupulous under-valuations existing 
 under the present tariff. Owing to this class of competition the business of cork- 
 making in this country has been rendered very unsatisiactory, and if no means are 
 devised to put a stop to it its very existence is threatened. The difficulty of finding 
 persons competent to appraise corks makes it a very easy matter for a dishonest im 
 porter to evade the present duty. 
 
 In class 1, the duty on superfine wine corks, calonlated on a basis of a specific duty 
 of 20 cents per pound, shows a slight decrease over the present duty of 25 cents ad 
 valorem. 
 
 In class 2 the duty on second quality wine corks or those corks, in general use for 
 bottling beer for export, giuger-ale, Bass-ale, aerated waters, and kindred uses, re- 
 mains practically the; sauir. We think we can safely state that 60 to 70 per cent, of 
 the impurtations of foreign ciuks come under this class. 
 
 Class 3. Whib; the proposed duty on th^s class shows some increase over the present 
 ad valorem duty, the difference does not warrant, in our opinion, the adoption of a 
 special rate of duty for this class. Such action would certainly give rise to indefina 
 ble trouble at the custom-house. 
 
 In class 4 the duty on brewers' forks shows a slight increase, which is absolutely 
 needed by the American maniifaclurers, as their liuhiness in this hranch has been 
 almost completely ruined during the past two years by importations of Spanish and 
 other foreign corks at prices far less than the ahsolute cost of production of the same 
 classes in Diis country. The importers of cork woiul, of whom there are several in 
 New York and Philadelphia, cau vouch for this statement, as their sales of thick 
 cork wood for the manufacture of brewers' corks has talleu oif almost entirely. 
 
 Class 5. Champagne corks are not manufaetur<'d to any extent in this country, anC 
 for this reason the large decrease in the existing duly does not naturally affect the 
 homo manufacturer. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 811 
 
 Class 6. The proposed diify does not change to any extent the present duty on this 
 class. 
 
 Sice*. 
 
 Cost of Spaoiah 
 corks in New York, 
 
 Length. 
 
 25 per 
 cent, ad 
 valorem. 
 
 20 cents 
 
 per 
 pound 
 epeciiic. 
 
 Coat of 
 manufac- 
 turing in 
 United 
 States. 
 
 Class 1. Superfine wine corks : 
 
 Pints 
 
 Quarts 
 
 Class 2. Second qnalit J wine corks: 
 
 Pints 
 
 Quarts 
 
 Pints 
 
 Quarts 
 
 Pints 
 
 Quarts 
 
 Claas 3. Soda-water corks : 
 
 Pints 
 
 Quarts 
 
 Pints 
 
 Quarts 
 
 Class 4. Brewers' corks: 
 
 16 
 
 18 
 
 18 
 
 20 
 
 Class 6. Druggists' corks, Bremes : 
 
 1 
 
 Class 6. Champagne corks :* 
 
 Best 
 
 Seconds 
 
 Tirage 
 
 9i-76 
 102-50 
 
 63-75 
 71-25 
 55-00 
 80-00 
 42-08 
 60-76 
 
 48-75 
 68-76 
 42-60 
 45-25 
 
 81-«7 
 
 67-02 
 82-50 
 82-50 
 
 11-36 
 13-50 
 15-87 
 19-26 
 25-71 
 81-69 
 88-76 
 61-76 
 
 725-00 
 
 428-00 
 239-00 
 
 93-28 
 101-38 
 
 69-00 
 77^0 
 69-31 
 65-45 
 47-16 
 65-10 
 
 57-68 
 67-90 
 60-30 
 54-40 
 
 82-50 
 92-02 
 109-00 
 110-09 
 
 10-60 
 13-28 
 16-40 
 19-30 
 25-83 
 81-60 
 89-00 
 61-48 
 
 627-00 
 389-40 
 238-20 
 
 96-75 
 106-00 
 
 72-00 
 77-50 
 56-38 
 83-75 
 43-75 
 51-60 
 
 50-00 
 58-00 
 4M)0 
 48-62 
 
 78-00 
 98-011 
 104-OC 
 107-0« 
 
 12-00 
 13-00 
 15-00 
 18-50 
 26-50 
 31-00 
 38-00 
 45-00 
 
 * Kot manniaotared la this c*untrj. 
 
 VIEWS OP CORK MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 Gentlemen : Thennd.erBigned are appointed a committee on behalf of all the cork 
 manufacturers of the United States, to appear before your committee and request 
 that the present ad valorem rate of duty on corks, namely, 25 per cent., be changed 
 to a specific rate of duty, namely, 20 cents per pound. 
 
 This proposed specific rate is, as nearly as possible, the equivalent of the4)resent 
 ad valorem rate of 25 per cent, on the class of goods usually imported into this 
 country. 
 
 We request that the present tariff be changed as follows: Substitute for paragraph 
 422, act of March 3, 1883, " Cork and cork bark, manufactured, including cork 
 squares, 20 cents per pound." Substitute for paragraph 683, act of March 3, 1883, 
 " Cork wood or cork bark, manufactured, free." 
 
 Our reasons for advocating this change are the following: 
 
 (1) The impossibility of correctly appraising the true foreign value of manafact- 
 ured corks in almost any of the United States ports of entry has led to a gross and 
 systematic undervaluation of these goods on the part of the foreign importing houses 
 to the extent that, if continued, the American manufacturers and the honest import- 
 ing houses will be entirely unable to compete and will be driven out of the business 
 in respect to many kinds of these goods. 
 
 This statement will be fully conlirmed by the report of the special agent of the 
 Treasury Department at the port of Now York, who has thoroughly investigated the 
 matter during the past year, and who, we are informed, has submitted the result of 
 such investigation to the Treasury Department at Washington. 
 
 (2) We desire that cork squares, which have heretofore been admitted free of duty, 
 as cork wood or cork bark, unmanufactured, bo included with the manufacturetl 
 cork at 20 cents per pound, for the reason th.at these squares have already been sub- 
 
81 2 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 jected to as much as two out of the three necessary operations required to produce a 
 finished cork. 
 
 The undervaluations above referred to were first called to the attention of the 
 custom house at New York, and there the matter was fully investigated by the special 
 agent. Such investigation demonstrated the fact that invoices were generally un- 
 dervalued from ?0 to 50 per cent. 
 
 When the said importing houses became aware that their importations were being 
 scrutinized by the authorities at New York they sought to evade detection by ship- 
 ping their goods through to interior ports, such as Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, 
 Cincinnati, and New Orleans, where the risk of detection was less. Those shipments, 
 followed up by the special agent of the Treasury at New York, were found to be un- 
 dervalued to even a greater extent than at New York. 
 
 We are fully convinced that the only protection against fraud of this character is to 
 be found inthe adoption ofaspecific rate of duty, and in this opinion we are sustained 
 by experts and by the report of the special agent of the Treasury at the port of New 
 York, to which we respectfully refer you. 
 
 A duty of 25 per cent, ad valorem, or its equivalent of 20 cents per pound specific, 
 we do not consider protective, and is certainly not prohibitive ; it admits of the im- 
 portation of many kinds of foreign corks in competition with domestic. 
 
 If your committee desire, we are prepared to furnish you with any further informa- 
 tion in regard to the subject of the petition. 
 Eespectfally, 
 
 John EoBiNsoisr, 
 45 Murray Street, New York, 
 Chairman of a committee representing the cork 
 
 manufacturers of the United States. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 VIEWS OF A. DAUSSA & CO. 
 
 New York, February, 1890. 
 Tlie Ways and Means Committee : 
 
 Tlie undersigned, American citizens and importers of hand-made corks, have seen 
 in the newspapers that Mr. John Robinson, representing the machine-made cork 
 manufacturers, has presented a petition to you, asking to increase the duty on im- 
 ported corks from '25 per cent, ad valorem to 20 cents per pound. 
 
 We do not know the arguments presented by Mr. John RoTiinson in support of his 
 claiiuM, but no matter what they are, allow us to say and to prove that it would be 
 tlie greatest injustice ever done on any kind of imported goods. 
 
 How could it possibly be just that inferior corks, worth only 25 or 40 cents per 
 gross, should pay the same duty, 20 cents per pound, as finer and superior corks, 
 which are worth here 70 cents, 90 cents, and $1 per gross f 
 
 The inferior corks, called Segundus and Terceras, weigh a great deal more than 
 fines and superfines, and therefore, paying according to weight, the result would be 
 that the most inferior class of goods would pay the highest duty. 
 
 At 25 per cent, ad valorem, a bale of 150 gross of corks costs from $8 to $12. At 
 20 cejjts per pound the same bale would cost from $25 to $35. It is to pay 200 per 
 cent, more, or three times as much, which is enormous. 
 
 It will drive out of business all the importers of corks of the city of New York, 
 Chicago, Boston, Milwaukee, San Francisco, and New Orleans; and it wiU close ma- 
 terially our market to all kinds of foreign corks, for the simple reason that the con- 
 sumers could not afford to pay the high price the increase of duty would give to them. 
 
 And without imported hand-made corks in the market, the bottlers would be forced 
 to use only machine-made corks, agaiust their w ill and interest, and compelled to 
 pay for them the price the monopolists will be pleased to impose upon them. 
 
 The corks being sold at higher rate will materially increase the price of bottled 
 beer. Then the European and Canadian breweries, that can aflwrd to sell cheaper 
 on account of lower wages or lower duty, will flood our market, as well as that of 
 South America, where we ship to a great amount, ^^th enormous quantities of for- 
 eign beer, causing the ruin of many of our prosperous breweries and bottlers that 
 could not compete with their prices. 
 
 Our country needs corks — plenty of corks — good and cheap, and it is a well-known 
 fact that all the leading breweries, mineral waters and wine dealers, give their pref- 
 erence to the imported hand-made corks, which, made by a different process and 
 being bettor selected, keep their goods in bnttex condition than niachino-mado corks, 
 not only for local use, but principally for shipping or export. 
 
 To closo our market to th(3 inipoifod haml-raade corks will not give .any pvoter- 
 tiiiii to our domoHtii- iridustricM, hut will siuiply jiut a groat monopoly into Uic. hands 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 813 
 
 of three or four big manufacturers, wbo do uot eDii)loy altogether more than eight or 
 ten hundred working people, mostly women and children, on a very HniaU salary, and 
 which, without any solid reason, will enjoy the exclusive privilege of making and 
 selling all corks consumed in the country, against the interest of the public treasury, 
 against the interest of the Importers, against the necessity of thousands and thou- 
 sands of bottlers, and against the will of the American people, who want to have iu 
 the market good goods, and as cheap as possible. This can not be obtained with- 
 out competition. 
 
 And what benefit do the people and the Government of the United States derive 
 from those few machine cork manufacturers who pretend to kill the importation of 
 hand-made corks? The American people nothing; the Government not one cent. 
 They import every year into this country cork wood to the value of about one million 
 of dollars or more, and the tariff gives them the privilege of entering their goods free 
 ol'duty. 
 
 ,Eveu the Governments of Spain and Portugal, notwithstanding the fact that corks 
 from those countries pay here 25 per cent, ad valorem, allow them to buy and export 
 the cork wood without paying any export duty. 
 
 We, the importers of different cities of the Union, bring into the country annually 
 hand-made corks to the value of about $400,000, of which 15100,000 go for duty into 
 the public treasury. 
 
 We give to the leading breweries, to the mineral water and wine dealers, the kind 
 of corks they want and need to protect their goods, and at the same time establish 
 an honest competition for the benefit of all. 
 
 Therefore, if any change should be made in the matter of duty on corks, it should 
 not be higher for the convenience of four or six individu.als, but rather lower for the 
 benefit of all the American people. 
 
 We hope, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, that you will take into 
 consideration our arguments herein presented to you against the increase of duty on 
 imported corks, and resiiectfully request that our petition be njado a part of the 
 printed record of the hearings before you. 
 
 A. Daussh & Co., 
 135 and 137 Maiden Lane. 
 
 VIEWS OF A. STEPLANI & CO. 
 
 New York, February 12, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen : As we understand that there is a proposed change in duties on corks, 
 before your honorable committee, we desire to submit a few words in explanation of 
 the true position of the cork business in the United States. Cork wood from which 
 corks are cut is imported free of duty, therefore the cork manufacturers here have 
 already the raw material free. 
 
 The present duty on corks is 25 per cent, ad valorem. The great objection to the 
 ad valorem system, that " unscrupulous parties bring goods into this country on 
 fraudulent invoices by undervaluation," is no more true of cork importing than of 
 any other importation of any article where ad valorem duties exist ; this is, has 
 been, and always will be the great objection to ad valorem duties. 
 
 The cork manufacturers in the United States have ample protection now. Their 
 present proposition to have 20 cents per pound duties on imported corks is almost 
 prohibitory on some grades and entirely prohibitory on others, and if passed would 
 give a monopoly to a few (say one or two large manufacturers), who would soon ab- 
 sorb the smaller manufacturers and then have an entire control. They already have 
 entire control of all corks used by druggists, which includes all vial corks, all pateut- 
 medicine corks, also on all taper corks, and the only corks imported are for wines, 
 beer, and soda water; therefore they control most all the business already, and if 
 their proposed tariff of 20 cents per pound is passed will control all. 
 
 Please notice the present duties and compare with their proposed new duty: 
 
 Ou corks for the better kinds of beer the present duties are from 12^ to 14 cents 
 per gross ; the new duty would be 18J to 19 cents per gross ; or the enormous advance 
 of about 40 per cent. 
 
 When you consider that each bale contains 150 gross it makes an increase of about 
 $8.50 on every bale. This Is simply prohibitory. 
 
 On the next lower grade, of which the consumption is enormous, the difference is as 
 follows : Present duty, 91 cents ; proposed new duty, 17^ cents, or almost 100 per cent. 
 
 On soda-water corks of one size now moat suooesafnlly competed with by the 
 American cork manufacturers who already supply almost three-fourths ot this kind 
 of corks, the present duty is 7 to 7^ cents per gross ; the luoposcduew duty, 18 cents 
 per gross, or over 150 per cent, advance. And so on through the entire list. 
 
 Surely your honorable committee will give consideration to the above and not pass 
 
814 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 a law wholly to benefit a few already wealthy laauufacturers, to the great detriment 
 of the entire and large beor brewing and bottling interests of this country. 
 
 By careful comparison with the present duties we submit to your honorable com- 
 mittee that 10 cents per pound would be the very highest tariff that corks can stand, 
 and even at this price the lower grades will have to bear from 50 to 75 per cent, 
 advance. 
 
 As representatives of the cork importers of this country, we respectfully ask a 
 hearing, and have submitted the actual true state of the cork importing business. 
 
 While a protective tariff is always desirable, a prohibitory tarift' is not, we believe, 
 what your honorable committee approve of, and certainly not if besides being most 
 detrimental to the interests of a most important industry of our own country, is cal- 
 culated to strike a blow at the industry of a friendly nation. 
 
 Trusting your honoroble committee will give this communication your earnest at- 
 tention, we are. 
 
 Most respectfully, yours, 
 
 A. Steplani & Co., 
 2fos. 136 and 138 Cedar Street, New York. 
 
 The COMMITTKB ON WAYS AND MEANS. 
 
 VIEW^S OF O. H. CROIVirVTXiLI.. 
 
 Hon. John Sanfokd, M. C. : 
 
 Having learned that the manufacturers of machine-cut corks are laboring to pro- 
 cure the passage of an act whereby the duty on imported corks is raised from 80 per 
 cent, ad valorem to '20 cents per pound, irrespective of quality, I offer the following 
 for yonr consideration : 
 
 (1) Corks made in this country are made, of necessity, of imported cork wood. 
 Duty on corks is, in a very limited sense, protection to American industry. 
 
 (2) The making of a cork requires some intelligence, to make the best cork out of 
 a given piece of wood. But the machine can exercise no intelligence, turning out 
 many times a poorer cork than an intelligent hand-cutter would have made out of the 
 same piece of wood. 
 
 (3) And most important. In order to cut corks with a machine, the cork wood 
 must be steamed or jiut info hot water. This has the same effect as steeping tea in 
 hot water. The strength is taken from it, and when used it has not enough life left 
 in it to keep it expanded, but it inevitably shrinks, in time, and allows the gases to 
 escape. 
 
 1 most respectfully enter protest against the change of tariff by adding to it. 
 By reason of the fact that foreign mineral waters are admitted duty free, the mineral- 
 water busioess has greatly suffered in the past. The change from 20 percent, ad va- 
 lorem to 20 cents per pound will add 100 per cent, to the price of all corks, a burden 
 that will fall heavily on the consumer of American mineral water, and must result in. 
 curtailing the amount used, as the price will put it in the reach of the few only, tft 
 the end that a few may be able to obtain a larger price for a poorer article of corks. 
 
 The writer has had an exi)eriouce of over forty years in the use of corks, usinghun- 
 dreds of gross of machine-cut corks, and knows what is here affirmed to be true. 
 
 Hoping yon will see the way clear to use your influence against any addition to 
 the duty, but to abolish it altogether, 
 I remain, very truly yours, 
 
 O. H. Cbomwkll, 
 Superintendent Empire Spring Company. 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 815 
 
 FRUITS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HENRY T. "WILLS. 
 
 Mr. Hen-«y T. Wills, of New York, representing the Foreign Fruit Exchange, next 
 addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have been sent here to represent 
 the Foreign Fruit Exchange of the City of New Yorls, and particularly of the Eastern 
 States of this country, to put before you what we claim are certain incongruities in 
 the present schedules of the tariif which we think are interfering, and very seriously, 
 with our business. We ask in many instances a reduction instead of an increase of 
 duties, and we ask in many instances a specific rate where ad valorem duties now 
 exist. We do a business in this country the volume of which I hardly think is gener- 
 ally known. The dutiable value of imports of foreign fruits into America is between 
 $15,000,000 and $16,000,000 per annum. We paid for the fiscal year ending June 20, 
 1888, about $4,500,000. 
 
 The Chairman. What Is the character of the fruit ? 
 
 Mr. Wills. Raisins, prunes, figs, dates, oranges, lemons, etc. 
 
 The Chairman. These are the chief ones t 
 
 Mr. Wills. These which are mentioned are the principal ones. The busiuess is 
 fraught with a great deal of risk, as necessarily the fruit is largely perishable. We 
 bring it into New York and very often the cargoes are 50, 60, and 70 per cent, dam- 
 aged. Under the present ruling in regard to damaging allowance, we can get 
 nothing from the United States Government as a return for the duties paid on worth- 
 less stuff. Under the present bill, which I believe you gentlemen propose to have go 
 before Congress this year, the duty is to be replaced on charges, which means in a 
 case of oranges the packing, the labor, and expense. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Let me ask you, do these oranges you import come in competition 
 with the Florida oranges at the same time of the year ? 
 
 Mr. Wills. We have prepared a statement in our memorial setting forth that they 
 do not come in competition with them at all. 
 
 Mr. Flower. They do not come in the same season ? 
 
 Mr. Wills. They come in entirely different months. The duty which we pay at 
 present we pay on the first cost of the fruit. The cost of oranges in Spain is abont 
 $1.20 per case, on which wo pay 20 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. How much on the case? 
 
 Mr. Wills. $1.20. The cost of packing the case and getting them to the shipping 
 port will be very close to 6 pesetas, so if we pay duty on charges we will have to pay 
 practically 40 per cent, duty on the original case of oranges. Then, too, we run the 
 risk of a total loss on the voyage of the importation, so that we can see very little 
 chance of getting anything back. 
 
 The Chaibman. How are they packed t 
 
 Mr. Wills. Iu papers ; that is, each orange is carefully removed from the trees with- 
 out being bruised and a sort of medicated paper is wrapped arouud it. It is done in 
 Spanish or Italian packing-houses by women. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the outside package? 
 
 Mr. Wills. A wooden crate. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How about lemons. Do foreign lemons come in competition with our 
 lemons t 
 
 Mr. Wills. Lemons are raised in this country to a very small extent, so small that 
 ■we really can not find any figures for them. There are no statistics which really 
 cover the production of lemons in this country. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How about almonds, Brazil nuts, and filberts t Are they raised in 
 this country f 
 
 Mr. Wills. Filberts are not raised in this country to any extent. Brazil nuts and 
 walnuts are to a small extent. The so-called English walnut is a misnomer. 
 Mr. Gear. They come from the Mediterranean. 
 
 Mr. Wills. There is a walnut raised in England which is simply a nut like a shell- 
 bark. This so-called English walnut comes from Naples and all along the shore of 
 the Mediterranean. 
 Mr. Flower. Do we raise figs f 
 Mr. Wills. Not of the same character. 
 
816 REVISION OF THE TARIFF 
 
 Mr. Flowkr. Dates t 
 
 Mr. Wills. Dates are not raised in this country. Prunes are raised in California.' 
 
 Mr. Flower. And also raisins. 
 
 Mr. Wills. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Raisins would come in competition with the crop raised in this coun- 
 try, would not they ? 
 
 Mr. Wills. If you gentlemen will allow me to read a part of the memorial, it cov- 
 ers all these points. 
 
 Tlie Chairman. I think that ought to be printed in the record. 
 
 Mr. Wills. Yes, sir. In the mean time if you wish to ask me any questions you can 
 do so. The importations of raisins from Spain are running up to 1,200,000 boxes per 
 annum. It is a character of raisin utterly unlike that of California, and it does not 
 come in competition in any way. It is a special raisin that goes into the consump- 
 tion of the masses — minors and people who can only afford a very cheap grade of 
 raisins. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Malagas come in ? 
 
 Mr. Wills. Yes, sir, but the Calif ornias have practically wiped them out. The pref- 
 erence of the people seems to be for the native article. 
 
 Mr. Flower. If the duty was entirely off of rasins it would not conflict with the 
 California grade? 
 
 Mr. Wills. We claim it would not conflict, yet we do not ask it. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The point I am making is we collect some !{l800,0OO or |1, 000,000 from 
 raisins ? 
 
 Mr. Wills. Just about. 
 
 'Ihe Chairman. You say this you import does not come in conflict with the domes- 
 tic article? 
 
 Mr. Wills. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. About prunes now, they are imported entirely from the Mediterranean? 
 
 Mr. Wills. They are imported from the interior of Hungary, Servia, and from the 
 Mediterranean. Currants are raised in Greece and are not raised in any other part 
 of the world. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the duty on prunes ? 
 
 Mr. Wills. One cent per pound. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How about bananas ? 
 
 Mr. Wills. These come from the West ludies. They are a tropical fruit. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do they come in free ? 
 
 Mr. Wills. I could not tell you that, as it is not in my business. 
 
 MEMORIAL OP NEW YORK EXCHANGE. 
 
 Sir : In his last message to Congress, his excellency the President of the United 
 States advocated a rednotion in the tariff in such directions as would result in reliev- 
 ing certain industries of an unnecessary burden of taxation, and bring the necessities 
 of life within the reach of all the consumers. It is understood that the sentiment of 
 your honorable body is also to this end, and that it is your desire to hear from the 
 various branches of trade in this country and to know what evils now exist, and in 
 what way these may be remedied so as to accomplish the double result of a reduction 
 of I ho surplus and the removal of unnecessary taxation which is now hampering 
 many branches of commerce. 
 
 Xu preseuting this memorial for your respectful consideration wo have sought to put 
 our interests concisely before you, to show you to what extent the foreign fruit trade 
 of this country is dependent on wise and judiciouslegislation to enable it to continue 
 to increase an already largo industry which gives einptoymeut to a great nnmber ol 
 individuals. 
 
 It is to the incongruities iu the tariff schedules, relating to the importation of 
 foreign fruits into this country, as well as the excessive rates charged, which we 
 particularly desire to call your attrution to. 
 
 Wo have deemed it wise to divide our remarks under two heads : 
 
 First, the importation of foreign green fruits and classification of duties thereon, 
 with suggestions of changes ; and. 
 
 Second, the importation of foreign dried fruits, nuts, etc., in like manner. 
 
 At the end of the fiscal year, Juno 30, 1887, we find that the value of foreign fruits 
 (dutiable) imported into the United States was 115,106,5.51.08; that tlie duty paid 
 during this period was |4,477,535.21 against 1880, |4,210,078.(il. These figpres show 
 an increase of duties collectodovorpreviousyear of $267,456.57, and a similar increase 
 may be expected this and succeeding years if the present schedule of rates romaius 
 the same, ]>rovided that the retention of present rates does not prostrate the industry — 
 ■which wo feel sure it wcjuld do. The enormous growth of our population is responsi- 
 , ble for the increase of the importation of imported fruits, aud where they once may 
 
REVISION OF THE TAlilFF. 817 
 
 liavoljpon a laxnry they have become nowaa abaoliite uocossity to all onr people and 
 larijely to the working classes and the masses. 
 
 We know, on hygienic principles, that the value of fruit is most important ; that it 
 is a natural medicine which must, of necessity, keep down our death rate, and has in 
 the past done so. 
 
 The classes of people coming to our shores are such as have boon accustomed to 
 thrive on fruit, if they have heeu unable to prouurp other necessaries of life, because 
 it has been put within their reach and has liccu allnwcd to entertheir countries with- 
 out the restriction of a duty, in many cases. Green fruit imported into Great Britain 
 and Austria is freeof duty ; the duty has bc-ni reduce; 1 in Germany recently. In this 
 country should not our 70,000,000 of people iiii ve the same privilege ? 
 
 In addition to these facts, the importers of foreign fruits run a great risk in their 
 importation, and may be called upon at any time to [lay duties on merchandise which 
 has lost its value on the voyage of impoi'tatiou, and if damage allowances are to lie 
 repealed and duties again put back on charges, wo might as well close our ollices, dis- 
 continue our steamers and stop ourimportations, which wilUheu have become fraught 
 -with such risks as to lead the boldest to discontinue. 
 
 This means the practical closing of our sea-ports in this industry .md the ultimate 
 throwing out of employment of fully 300,000 people. An increase of duty, which some 
 of our home industries favor, or a retention of present rates, means all of this and 
 means much more. 
 
 We know that it is your policy to protect the home industries, and yet we presume 
 the people of the country en masse are to have a first consideration. 
 
 Th^e State of Florida (one of the forty-two of the Unitcil States) produces a large 
 cjiiantity of oranges, and this production is rapidly increasing, but it must be under- 
 stood that the harvesting and shipping the bulk of these oranges takes place and is 
 finished in four months in the year — November, December, January, and February. 
 The distribution of foreign oranges does not begin to be of any importance until Feb- 
 ruary. Therefore the Florida producers have a clear market to place their fruit; 
 their realized value is for the fruit on its merit, and no duty on the foreign article 
 can increase or decrease the value of the home production. California, also, is rais- 
 ing oranges, which the population west of the Eocky Mountains isfortunate in ob- 
 taining at reasonable prices, but it is no protection to California to place a duty on 
 a foreign article which must cost too high when it reaches the western countries to 
 compete with the native fruit. Therefore we ask. Why is protection necessary ? On 
 the contrary, for four months you are protecting two States, while, during the re- 
 mainder of tire year and the spring aud summer months when fruit is so necessary, 
 and the greater part of the importation reaches this country, the people are burdened 
 with an unnecessary and useless tax on the foreign article. 
 
 The Florida crop of oranges is likely to become such an enormous one that it must 
 seek other outlets, and Great Britain being the larger distributing country in the 
 world, must take this ftuit. If we shut our doors to them with an arbitrary tax on 
 what they ship in eight mouths to us, how long will their gates remain open to us 
 when we wish to throw off our surplus production ? 
 
 Tbe honorable gentlemen will, therefore, see that in making oranges and lemons 
 free of entry into the United States, we ask only what is jnst, and right. If, how- 
 ever, it is not considered wise to repeal the duties altogether, we have prepared a, 
 schedule of specifio rates which will be fair and equitable to all. 
 
 One or two glaring incongruities still remain in the old schedule which wo pray 
 may be remedied. A case of Spanish oranges may be imported into New York and 
 pay a 20 per cent, ad valorem duty amounting to-day to 23 cents per case of 420 
 oranges, while the Sicily box, containing one-half the quantity of fruit, is obliged to 
 pay a specific duty of 25 cents per box, and the Jamaica oranges in barrels pay a duty 
 equal to 55 cents per barrel of about 300 oranges. The specific rates named in our 
 schedul* will remedy this error. 
 
 Foreign beans, onions, and potatoes are now paying a 10 per cent, ad valorem duty. 
 This is not in any sense a restrictive duty ; it may as well bo taken off altogether, for 
 it is only when our domestic crops are a failure that the foreign article comes in, aud 
 it appears to us a very fortunate thing that we can rely on a prevention of a famine 
 by this fact, or the possibilities of the manipulations of a short oiop by a few specu- 
 lators, who do the farmers no good aud the consumers an immeasurable amount of 
 harm. 
 
 An equally if not more important bone of contention is onr foreign dried-fruit 
 schedule of duties covering dried fruits and nuts. We are paying duties of hundreds 
 of thousands of dollars on fruits which are necessities, aud which are not, nor never 
 can be, raised in this country. We pay duties of 3 cents per pound on some nuts and 
 allow others to enter the country free, neither of which are produced in this 
 country. • 
 
 We allow certain nuts to como in in the shell at the same rato of duty as thogo 
 485 53 
 
818 EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 which are shelled abroad, and it takes 4 pounds of one to make 1 pound of the other, 
 and takes the labor of this single important industry away from thousands. 
 
 We have tried to regulate these incongruities also. Where we have asked for tlie 
 total repeal of the duties it is with the assurance that no protection is required. 
 
 In regard to the importation of raisins, the bulk of the raisins imported into this 
 country are from the Mediterranean, of a class not grown in this country, and which 
 interfere in no way with our home production. The raisin corresponding with that 
 produced in California is the Malaga raisin, and the importation of this latter has 
 become very limited, as the preference of the buyer seems to be for the native article. 
 
 The Valencia orDenia raisin and the Sultana or Smyrna raisin are the two grades 
 largely used here and are of a quality peculiar to the Mediterranean and unlike any 
 raised in California, and, even in spite of the increase of California raisin production, 
 are yearly more extended in their use. 
 
 The former enters largely into the homes of the poorer classes and in the mining 
 regions as a cheaper grade of fruit and more within their reach, and there seems no 
 sound reason Tihy they should pay a tax of 2 cents per pound, or nearly 50 per cent, 
 of the original value, when one-half the present duty, if it be proved that this fruit 
 is a luxury, would appear to be much more just, and certainly would be a sufficient 
 protection to the California producer, 3,000 miles away, who has a large territory 
 west of the Missouri Kiver to provide at a reasonable ligure. 
 
 A duty on raisins and prunes, the two species of dried fruits raised in California, 
 will protect a handful of growers in that State and prove a burden — a tax — on the 
 35,000,000 people living east of Cleveland who will be unfortunate to be taxed both 
 ways: (1) by a duty on these necessities imported from Europe, and (2) by the 
 payment of a high rate of freight from the Pacific slope, in addition to a higher price 
 for the California articles, based on the cost of the imported, with the duty added; 
 so that the handful is profiting while the masses are made to pay for it. 
 
 We give as an instance of this the ruling prices of California and French prunes 
 the past three months. In the Philadelphia, Boston, and New York markets the 
 California prunes were sold in large quantities and in many cases in preference to 
 the French at 7J to 7^ cents per pound, not in competition with the French, but eu- 
 tirely on their own merits and popularity. The French prune was imported, and 
 with the duty of 1 cent per pound added, sold in moderate quantities at &i to 6f 
 cents, or nearly 1 cent per pound less than the California fruit. If the French prune 
 had entered free of duty, we hardly think the California fruit would have sold much 
 lower, as it was not the price but the quality which regulated the demand. 
 
 Tlie crop, as harvested in California the past year, was about 23,000,000 pounds, 
 while the importation of foreign prunes during 1887-'S8 equals nearly 67,000,000 
 pounds. To check the importation of such a cheap and necessary article of food by 
 increasing a duty or by the retention of a duty, means that at least one-half of the 
 population of this country must i)ay higher prices than they are accustomed to, in 
 order to put a little more money into the pockets of the Californians. 
 
 We have touched on these questions as they are bound to be raised, and we desire 
 the attention of the honorable gentlemen to the exact facts in the case, and that in 
 our suggestions we are representing the voice of the inhabitants of the forty States as 
 against the two. 
 
 We wish to refer for a moment to the question of damage allowances, as bearing 
 on these matters. The importation of foreign fruit is fraught with much danger in 
 the shipping and carrying of same, and it often happens that the larger parts of car- 
 goes have oeen so heated on the voyage of importation that the loss occasioned 
 thereby has been of serious damage to the importer. We have usually been able to 
 recover from the Government a percentage of the duty commensurate with the dam- 
 age sustained, but this has always been a difScult matter to have properly adjusted 
 and has been open to so many abuses that, while we know it is a necessity for us 
 to recover what is rightly our due, yet we would prefer to see the system suspended, 
 provided that we can either get a repeal altogether, or else obtain such a reduction 
 of duties as would minimize our great risk in handling and importing these articles. 
 Thus would a vexed question be easily settled. 
 
 Referring to the articles which are not produced in this country and which we wish 
 to have placed on the free list : 
 
 Currants are produced in Greece and nowhere else ; we import vearly perhaps 100,000 
 barrels, in value about $1,000,000 ; duty estimated at $330,000. ' 
 
 Dates, the bulk of which come from Persia, pay now 1 cent per pound and are not 
 raised in this country. 
 
 Figs are praotically not raised here ; there are a few figs raised in California, but 
 pntirely unlike the Smyrna article, of which we import, and with great hazard, about 
 $750,000 in value, and pay duties of about $150,000. This article should be put on the 
 free list. 
 
 We have already referred to prunes, which we feel should be placed on the free list, 
 or, in any event, that the duty should bo no more than one-half cent per pound. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 819 
 
 The lower grades are those most imported, and one-half cent per pound would be 
 equal on preaent values to about 20 per cent, ad valorem, which seems an ample pro- 
 tection. 
 
 Citron, lemon, and orange peel now pay a duty of 30 per cent, ad valorem. None of 
 them are raised in this country. We ask that they, also, be placed on the free list. 
 
 We, therefore, as a final conclusion of our remarks, desire to place before you the 
 fact that we, the Foreign Fruit Exchange of the City of New York, and representing 
 tlie leading importers and dealers of the articles referred to, and after careful and 
 mature deliberation of the questions involved, consider that the sense of the organi- 
 zation, as a body, is to urge and pray that the honorable members of the Senate of the 
 United States and the honorable gentlemen composing the Fifty-iirst Congress will 
 see to it that our prayers are granted, as follows: 
 
 That oranges and lemons, and grapes, comprising green fruit, be placed on the free 
 list. 
 
 That citron, orange, and lemon peel (candied) be placedr-on the free list. 
 
 That currants, dates, figs, prunes, and plums be placed on the free list, and that 
 the duty on raisins be made 1 cent per pound. 
 
 If said request does not meet with your approval, then we beg that duty on green 
 and dried fruits may be made specific, and we ask your consideration of the following 
 schedule: 
 
 Green frait, oranges and lemons, in packages, not exceeding IJ cubic feet capacity, 
 8 cents; in packages, exceeding IJ cubic feet, but not 2^, 15 cents ; in packages, ex- 
 ceeding 2i cubic feet, but not 5, 30 cents ; in packages, exceeding 5 cubic feet capac- 
 ity, 6 cents for every additional cubic foot or fraction thereof, in bulk, $1.50 per 
 thousand. 
 
 Grapes in barrels or boxes of capacity not exceeding H cubic feet, 10 cents per 
 package ; exceeding 1^, but not 3 cubic feet, 20 cents per package ; in packages of 
 capacity exceeding 3 cubic feet, 5 cents for every additional cubic foot or fraction 
 thereof. 
 
 Candied or preserved citron, 2 cents per pound ; candied or preserved orange peel, 
 2 cents per pound ; candied or preserved lemon peel, 2 cents per pound. 
 
 Currants, dried Zante or otherwise, free ; dates, free ; figs, free ; raisins, 1 cent per 
 pound ; prunes and jjlums, one-half cent per pound; almonds ifl the shell, 2 cents per 
 pound ; almonds, shelled, 5 cents per pound; walnuts in the shell, 1 cent per pound; 
 walnuts, shelled, 4 cents per pound; filberts in the shell, 1 cent per pound; lilberts, 
 shelled, 4 cents per pound. 
 
 We further ask that the following articles, handled in connection with the fruit 
 trade, and imported by the leading fruit importers and grocers, be scheduled as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 Sardelles, in salt (under heading of fish), one-half cent per pound; hemp seed-free ; 
 rape seed, free; poppy seed, free; millet seed, free; lentils, free. 
 
 Chicory, which is imported and used as an admixture of cofl^ee, principally by 
 foreigners in this country, and now paying a duty of 2 cents per pound, we ask should 
 be placed, as is coffee, on the free list. Other articles not herein specified to remain 
 as already scheduled. 
 
 And, trusting to have your serious consideration of our petition, we have the honor 
 to renuiin. 
 
 Your most obedient servants, 
 
 DoMiNicus Wbgman, 
 
 Fresident. 
 Joseph L. Auguimbau, 
 John C. Giles, 
 Jul. W. Rosenstine, 
 Henky T. Wills, 
 
 Committtti OH Trade. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlet, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Meant. 
 
 Jai^Uaky 11, 1890. 
 
 VIBV7S OP GEORGE H. EVANS. 
 
 Springfield, Mass., January 24, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : I would respectfully call the attention of your honorable body to the 
 wisdom of further fostering and protecting the orange producing industry by im- 
 posing a duty of $1 per box on the imported fruit. 
 
 The present cost of transportation per box from Florida to Boston and New York 
 is about 57 cents, in car-load lots. The average yield of a full bearing grove ig i*bpnt 
 200 boxes per acre. 
 
820 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The transportation charge per box to New York or Boston from Italy is 25 cents 
 per box, with an import duty of 25 cents per box. This, as you see, aggregates a cost 
 of 7 cents per box, delivered at these points, less for the foreign products, or about 
 $14 ]ier acre. 
 
 Cuiiimon labor in P'lorida is $1 per day ; in Italy, 15 to 25 cents per day. Thus 100 
 acres in Florida cost in labor (striking an average of 20 cents per day) — 
 
 Ten men one year, three hundred days $3, 000 
 
 Ten men one year, three hundred days (Italy) - UOO 
 
 In favor of Italy 2,400 
 
 This makes a difference of $24 in favor of the Italy producers, and an aggregate dif- 
 ference of about |3S per acre, including the difference in transportation and labor 
 only. The difference in the cost of everything that enters into the needs of the Florida 
 producer in the development of his grove as well as the subsequent care of it would 
 considerably swell this total. The percent, of duty on citrus fruit to the average 
 market value is H to 10 per cent., that of other agricultual products 16 to 50 per cent. 
 Yours, respectinlly, 
 
 Geo. H. Evans. 
 The Chaikman Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 ORANGES IN FLORIDA. 
 
 , Pomona, Putnam County, Fla., January 1, 1890. 
 
 To the Orange growers of Florida : 
 
 As I write, on the first day of the year 1890, 10,000 orange-growers in this State 
 are holding their fruit upon the trees at imminent risk of its utter destruction by 
 frost. Why ? To keep up the market price for several cargoes of foreign oranges. 
 
 If tliere is a single grower who is in doubt as to the desirableness and importance of 
 better protection from foreign competition (which we question), what need have we 
 for further or more f*ciljle argument than this? 
 
 California, Louisiana, and Florida are now prepared to supply the entire present 
 demand of the country for oranges and to keep up with that demand as it expands 
 from year to year ; indeed, we are fortunate if we do not find it necessary to force the 
 demand to make markets for the rapidly increasing product of our groves. We are 
 confronted at the outstart with foreign competitors «'ho can lay down their product 
 in our markets for less money tlian we can. Our fruit is in the hands of thousands of 
 growers — American citizens. The foreign fruit is owned by a few alien capitalists 
 who control the market by money power and crowd us to the wall every time. Nat- 
 urally, brokers and dealers side with those who control, and Florida is allowed to 
 come in after the foreign fruit is well sold. 
 
 We do not ask consumers to pay more for their oranges, but do ask them to pay us, 
 not aliens and foreigners, the money they spend for this luxury. All will be quite 
 well satisfied'with the present prices that are now sent out of the country to enrich 
 foreign countries to the detriment and loss of our own fellow citizens. 
 
 Whatever may be our individual ideas upon theories of taxation, we are living 
 under a system of protection and are not getting our due jiroportion of the benefits 
 conferred. We are suftering serious loss by reason of this discrimination, and it is 
 high time we asserted our rights in the matter. 
 
 Let us strike at once. Strong petitions have gone up from other orange sections 
 of the country, and the Congressmen from California and Louisiana are maicing every 
 effort to accomplish the end sought. The probabilities are that an earnest and 
 united effort on the part of those whose interests are involved will succeed. 
 
 Let the people of Florida, and especially her orange-growers, indorse and emjjhasize 
 the unanimous expreHsion of her legislators by placing in the hands of their Repre- 
 sentatives at Washington, as a weapon to be used in their defense, a petition so 
 long and so weighty (in the character of its signers) that it will force the attention 
 of the law-making jjowers of the country to our necessity. 
 
 J. C. McKlBBIN, 
 Prttidtnt Florida Orange- Growers' Union. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 821 
 
 VIEWS OP r. S. GOODRICH. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 17, 1890. 
 Sib : I had desired to appear before your honorable committee to advocate an ad- 
 ilitional duty upon oranges and citrus fruits generally, but having been taken sud- 
 denly ill, I have been obliged to prepare, from what data I had at hand, the inclosed 
 statement, and I beg to urge upon your committee the great necessity for protection 
 to this particular industry of not only our State but that of Louisiana and Cali- 
 fornia. The people of Florida would be well satisfied with the features of the bill 
 that passed theSenate last year, except theamountof duties proposed. We of Florida 
 respectfully ask that, preserving those features, you recommend that the duty be $1 
 per box on standard boxes of 2 cubic feet and in that ijroportion for those shipped 
 in bulk or otherwise. I beg to call your particular attention to the inclosed state- 
 ment which I have caused to be prepared, not as full as it should be, but I trust suf- 
 ficiently so to lead you to give us the relief sought. 
 I have the honor to be, your obedient servant, 
 
 Fred S. Goodrich. 
 Hon. William McKinlky, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 NKCBSSITT FOR PROTECTION. 
 
 The recent discussion of the advisability of imposing a higher duty npon oriinges 
 has turned public attention to the magnitude of the industry of orange growing in 
 this country, and its importance to the welfare and development of our great sub- 
 tropical region which has made rapid strides during the last twenty years, and has a 
 bright future before it. 
 
 No authoritative statistics have been compiled showing the various phases of this 
 industry. A person not having previously canvassed the subject, but being familiar 
 with the business and its conditions, and having at hand such data as is accessible, 
 will, by a little figuring, arrive at conclusions that will astonish him by their 
 magnitude. 
 
 Take the State of Florida, for instance, by a comparison of the lists compiled by 
 transportation lines, marketing agencies,newspapers,and gazetteers we find that there 
 are as many as 20,000 persons owning orange groves, probably more than this. At a 
 sale (minimum) estimate these growers have plan ted 250,000 acresof grove, involving 
 an investment of something over $100,000,000, and giving employment and support 
 wholly or in part to some 1130,000 or more persons. 
 
 Last year, season of 1888-'89, the Florida crop aggregated within a few boxesof 
 2,000,000, representing a gross revenue of $4,000,000. The present crop promises to 
 reach 2,500,000 boxes; it is a short crop, a fair average crop being at least 4,000,000 
 boxes. 
 
 California sent to market last year 796,409 boxes, and promises to very considerably 
 exceed 1,000,000 boxes this season. Louisiana produces annually something less 
 than 200,000 barrels. 
 
 Hon. George E. Fairbanks, in comparing the valueof orange culture with the cult- 
 ure of other southern staples, says: 
 
 " Corn, cotton, sugar, rice, grazing, all require large areas. Orange growing is 
 the most compact and productive of all agricultural industries. One acre of land 
 devoted to the culture of cotton will produce perhaps .$50 worth of cotton, or $20 
 worth of wheat, corn, or other grain. A well-established, niatiire orange grovo cau 
 be relied upon to produce an orange crop of the value of $300 to the acre even at tUe 
 low price of |1 per box." 
 
 Speaking of the orange crop in its relation to the maintenance of railway lines he 
 says : 
 
 " One railway-car will carry the product of 25 acres of cotton, but can only carry 
 the product of a single acre of oranges. A grove whose product Is 10,000 boxes of 
 oranges will furnish freight for a train of thirty-three loaded cars. This illustrates 
 the commercial advantage of orange growing in building and sustaining railw.ays. 
 If we estimate the crop of Florida at present at 3,000,000 boxes it requires 10,000 car- 
 loads of 300 boxes to the car to move the crop, and calculating the average freight at 
 C6 cents per box, the crop pays the railways $2,000,000 for freight alone." 
 
 The other industries to which it incidentally contributes are numerous. On this 
 point Major Fairbanks says : 
 
 'Hie value of the box stuff used would be $390,000, the nails $30,000, the paper for 
 wraps $120, 000, labor iu gathering and packing, $600,000, thus making an output of 
 f 1,140,000 for simply preparing the fruit for market. If to this large suui wo add the 
 
822 
 
 Revision of tHE tariff. 
 
 cost of cult ivatiou, of fertilizers, of packinghouses, teams, tram-roads, and the tools and 
 implements of labor, we can begin torealize the commercial value of this industry even 
 at this incipient stage of growth. When we realize that not more than one-fiftieth of 
 the orange trees in Florida are hearing, we are amazed at the possible and probable 
 future development of this industry. " 
 
 The receipts of oranges in the whole United States from foreign countries for the 
 last three years has been : 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Boxes. 
 
 Cases. 
 
 1R87 . 
 
 1, 020, 000 
 1, loO.CUO 
 1, 100, 000 
 
 107,000 
 154, 000 
 
 1888 .. 
 
 1889 , . 
 
 180, 000 
 
 
 Cases contain 420 oranges and are about equal to 2 boxes each. 
 Imports entered for consumption. 
 [Prepared by Bareaa of Statistics.] 
 
 
 Rate of duty. 
 
 1888. 
 
 
 Quantities. 
 
 Values. 
 
 Duties. 
 
 JemOTis : 
 
 Whole boxes of capacity not exceeding 
 
 2* cabioffjet bos. . 
 
 Hair boxes, of capacity not exceeding 
 
 li cubic feet box.. 
 
 Packages, not elsewliere specified .ni . . 
 In balk do .. 
 
 30 cents por box .. 
 
 IC cents per box . . 
 20 per cent 
 
 2,137,910.00 
 1,721.00 
 
 $3, 364, 400. 00 
 
 1,495.00 
 
 28, 480. 05 
 
 3. 00 
 
 68, 859. 85 
 
 1,403,615.00 
 
 114,628.00 
 
 355, 377. 11 
 
 357,751.63 
 
 37, 977. CO 
 
 $041,373.00 
 
 275,36 
 5, 696. 01 
 
 $2 per thousand. -- 
 20 per cent 
 
 l.m 
 
 3.00 
 11,701.07 
 
 Oranges: 
 
 Whole boxes of capacity not exceeding 
 
 2i cubic feet box.. 
 
 Half boxes of capacity not exceeding 
 
 li cubic feet box . . 
 
 Barrels of capacity not exceeding that 
 
 of 196-pound flour-barrel bbls. . 
 
 Packages not elsewhere epecifled . - m . . 
 In bulk do.. 
 
 25 cents per box . . 
 13 cents per box .. 
 5.') centspor barrel. 
 
 1,107,700.00 
 153,257.00 
 164, 133. 50 
 
 276, 940. 00 
 
 19,923.41 
 
 90,273.43 
 71.650.33 
 
 $1.80per thousand. 
 
 16,370.28 
 
 16,592.41 
 
 
 
 
 475,279.69 
 
 Bate of dnty. 
 
 1889. 
 
 Quantities. Values. Duties, 
 
 Lemons : 
 
 Whole boxes of capacity not exceeding 
 
 2J cnbic feet box. 
 
 Half boxes of capacity not exceeding 
 
 li cubic feet .box. 
 
 Packages not elsewhere specified- .m. 
 
 Inbnlk do. 
 
 Liiues 
 
 Oranges: 
 
 Whole boxes of capacity not exceeding 
 
 2A cubic feet box. 
 
 Half boxes of capacity not exceeding 
 
 li cubic feet box. 
 
 Barrels of capacity not exceeding that 
 
 of IfiG-ponntt flour-barrel bbl.. 
 
 Piickages not elsewbore specified . .ni - 
 In balk do. 
 
 30 cents per box . 
 
 16 cents per box . 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 $2perthousand. . 
 20 per cent 
 
 2, 132, 764. 00 
 757. 00 
 
 $3, 201, 653. 00 
 
 635. 00 
 
 21,331.25 
 
 .75 
 
 68,446.97 
 
 $639, 826. 20 
 
 121.12 
 
 4, 206. 25 
 
 1.20 
 
 13, 089. 39 
 
 657, 904. 16 
 
 25 cents per box . . . 
 
 13 cents per box . . 
 
 55 cents per barrel. 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 $l.(IOpcrtbou9and- 
 
 1,026,241.00 
 19.5, 211. 50 
 113,927.00 
 
 8, 079. 90 
 
 1,171,546.00 
 
 162, 349. 00 
 
 251, 066. 51 
 
 314,019,89 
 
 28, 786. 61 
 
 256, 660, 25 
 
 25, 377. 58 
 
 62,659,85 
 62, 803, 93 
 12,927.89 
 
 420, 329. 47 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 823 
 
 MEMORIAL PROM GROWERS 
 
 fo the honorable Senate and Souse of Representatives : 
 
 Your memorialists, orange growers of the State of Florida, respectfully represent 
 that a very large number of the people of this State are engaged in raising oranges, 
 which has become one of the leading industries of Florida, employing thousands of 
 people. That the principal markets for our fruit are the large cities of the North, 
 where we come in direct competition with imported oranges. 
 
 Also, that this industry within the United States, now producing from 3,000,000 to 
 5,000,000 boxes of oranges annually, and promising yery large increase in the imme- 
 diate future, has been established and built up since the levying of the present duty, 
 which is not only disproportionately small as compared with other industries of like 
 importance, but is entirely inadequate. 
 
 We would further represent that owing to the cheap labor of the orange-growing 
 countries abroad, together with low rates of transportation of fruit therefrom, and 
 the low tariff as compared with the wages and freight required to be paid by us, 
 renders it a great hardship upon us and makes it almost impossible to successfully 
 compete with foreign fruit growers. 
 
 We therefore respectfully petition your honor.able bodies in order to protect an 
 extensive and valuable agricultural industry, and to protect the American laborer 
 from the cheap labor of Europe, that a duty be placed upon the importation of foreign 
 oranges at the rate of $1 per standard box of 2 cubic feet. 
 
 [Here follow numerous signatures.] 
 
 Jacksonville, Fla., February 17, 1890. 
 Dear Sir: In the memorial of the Florida Fruit Exchange and the Florida Orange 
 Growers' Union recently transmitted to you, the point is made that the foreign orange 
 crop is marketed in large quantity at a time when it interferes directly with the mar- 
 keting of our crop. 
 
 In further corroboration of this, and in rebuttal to the claim that the foreign crop 
 is marketed at a time when it does not interfere with the domestic crop, permit us to 
 call your attention to the enormous receipts of foreign oranges at our Atlantic ports 
 fertile last fortnight and the consequent ruinous fall in prices. Also note, according 
 to the estimate of the Foreign Fruit Exchange, who are now before you asking reduc- 
 tion in the duty on oranges, that there will arrive during the remainder of this month 
 over 200,000 boxes of Mediterranean fruit, coming in direct competition with us, as 
 we have at least 300,000 boxes left, which must be marketed within the next four 
 weeks. The fact is, this foreign fruit comes mainly in competition with us, and that 
 portion which does not interfere with us strikes Louisiana and California. 
 
 Messrs Sgobel &, Day, the New York agents of the Florida Fruit Exchange, write 
 under date of February 13: "The market here is in a deplorable condition, princi- 
 pally owing to the mass of Valencia fruit which has been throwu on it during the 
 past eight days." The same condition of things is reported from other eastern mar- 
 kets, and to some extent the West shares the depression. 
 We are, very truly, yours, 
 
 Geo. R. Fairbanks, 
 President Florida Fruit Exchange. 
 J. C. McKlBBlN, 
 
 President Florida Orange Growers' Union. 
 Hon. William McKinlet, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, House of Reprcsenialives, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 . VIEWS OF PAUL POHL, JR. 
 
 Philadelphia, January 28, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: Please excuse the liberty that I take in addressing you, and in as few 
 words as possible 1 will beg of you to use your influence to have foreign fruits como 
 in paying specific duty at the following rates: 
 
 Oranges and [or] lemons, boxes not exceeding IJ cubic feet, to pay 8 cents; oranges 
 and [or] lemons, boxes i>ot exceeding 2^ cubic leet, to pay IScents; oranges and [or] 
 lemons, boxes exceeding 2^ cubic feet but not exceeding 5 cubic feet, 30 cents; Al- 
 mena or Malaga grapes, in ordinary half-barrels or kegs, 10 cents ; Almeria or Malaga 
 grapes, in ordinary barrels or kegs, 20 cents. 
 
 All allowances or refunds of duty because of decay should be abolished. Let the 
 fruit come in at the above rates be they good, bad, or indiiferent. I would like to 
 impress you strongly with the fact that Mediterrano.an fruits do not conflict or inter- 
 fere with the fruits grown and produced in America. The American crop has beeu 
 
824 eeVision of the tariff. 
 
 marketed before our importations arrive, and our importations are over before tli6 
 new crop of American fruit is ready for the niarl;et. 
 
 Thanliinr; you in advance for anything that you may be able to do, I am, with 
 much respect, 
 
 Your most obedient servant, 
 
 Taul Pohl, Jr. 
 Hon. H. H. Bingham, 
 
 Wanhiiujton, D. G. 
 
 ADDITIONAL TARIFF ON PRUNES. 
 
 San Jose, Cal., Becemler 27, 188X 
 To the Committee on TVays and Means of the Bouse of Representatives : 
 
 At tlie request of a number of fruit-growers who are producers of prunes, and being 
 myself a producer thereof, I wish ou their behalf and on my own to lay before your 
 honorable committee, for its consideration, the following reasons wby the tariff on 
 that article should be fixed at 3 cents per pound : 
 
 When the rate of 1 cent per pound was fixed on prunes long years ago we raised 
 no prunes whatever, as we did not then raise or now raise any dates. In fact the 
 rate on both articles was fixed in one clause, as follows: 
 
 "Dates and prunes : 1 cent per pound." (Revised Statutes, page 478.) 
 
 No idea of protection was, or could have been, intended by the small rate then 
 fixed ; nor does that rate in fact protect us or foster the industry. 
 
 The freight on dried prunes from California to New York is 1.4 cents per pound. 
 The freight from Bordeaux or Trieste is from two-tenths to four-tenths of 1 cent 
 per pouud. The one has water and the other has land transportation. The foreign 
 importer can pay the present tariff of 1 cent out of the diflerence in freight alone, 
 .and then have the advantage over us of having not only an established and system- 
 atized industry, but immensely cheaper material and labor, very much of which 
 enters into and is required by this industry. 
 
 Now a few years ago, when we found we could raise prunes just as good as those 
 we were importing, we found the average importation w as about 60,000,000 pounds, 
 and that the prices then were more than double what they are now. Stimulated by 
 Ibis outlook, we planted very largely, and this year we sent out, from this depot 
 alone, nearly 16,000,000 pounds. But Ave were met with very strong and discourag- 
 ing t<iiupetition from Europe, the prices here being less than one-half what they 
 were when we embarked in the enterprise. 
 
 I do not say w u will be ejitirely crowded out, even if we do not receive additional pro- 
 iection from our Government; but I certainly believe that unless we do receive it, the 
 industry will be greatly weakened and will havebntasickly and possibly no existence. 
 
 If Europe does succeed in competing the industry out of existence, as she is evi- 
 dently trying to do, will not she again put up the prices to where they were before ? 
 If we crowd her out, our own competition among ourselves will keep prices from 
 ever going beyond one-half what they werewhen we were non-producers. 
 
 Tut on a tarift'of 3 cents per pound, instead of 1 cent, and the entire consumption of 
 this country in that article can be jiroduced by her own people, at not exceeding one- 
 half the price which will be charged by Europe if we give up the industry, besides 
 which all the money will be kept at home, employment will be given to a very great 
 number ot our laborers, and encouragement be given to the many citizens engaged 
 in that euteqirise. 
 
 It will be peculiarly beneficial to our people, for the industry is not carried ou by 
 large corporations, but by innumerable, and mostly small, orehardists or farmers, to 
 which fact the honorable Representative from this district will testify from his own 
 knowledge. 
 
 With a fair and reasonable protection wo would produce and sell at a very moder- 
 ate profit, and at one-half the price formerly charged us, any amount required for 
 consumption, even up into the hundreds of millions of pounds. 
 
 Every prune-producing country has a tariff on prunes. Even England has a tariff 
 on them almost double our own, although she does not produce a pound. 
 
 If any industry deserves to be fostered for the benefit of the producer, laborer, 
 material-man, and consumer alike, we believe this to be one. If the tariff laws are 
 to bo framed with a view to either a direct or to an incident.al protection of our in- 
 dustries, why does not this one fill all the requirements of either view? 
 
 While a 3-cent tariff' would not exclude the imported article altogether, it would 
 efJectuaHy prevent it from ever ci'owdiug us to the wall ; for that would just about 
 covi'r the diffennee in the <'osl of jiroduction and transiiortati(ui, and we would then 
 iiuter our own markc^t on an <'c|uality with the foreigner. With that we would be 
 coiili-nt; to tli;il wi' think we are entitled. 
 
 I.'rHprctfnlly subniiltrd, 
 
 S. F. Lkib. 
 
REVISION OP Tim TAfilPf. 825 
 
 OPTIOAIi GLASSES AND INSTRUMENTS. 
 
 STATEIVrENT OF GEORGE TW. WELLS. 
 
 Mr. George W. Wells, of Soatbl)ridge, Mass., treasurer of the American Opticui 
 Company, adclressed the committee on the subject of the duty on optical instruments. 
 He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we have several subjects to bring 
 before you in relation to spectacles and eyeglasses, and spectacle and eyeglass 
 lenses — goods that affect us all, as we all come to the use of them if we live long 
 enough, and some of us before we are very old. We wish to call your attention to 
 some matters which we as manufacturers are well satisfied with as they stand in the 
 bill of the Senate. But, that there may be no misunderstanding, we" wish to call 
 your attention to them to-day. I will first refer to glass. In the bill of the Fiftieth 
 Congress you will find on page 183, lines 2151 to 2153, the following: 
 
 " Glass plates or disks, rough-cut or uuwrought, for use in the manufacture of opti- 
 cal instruments, spectacles, and eyeglasses, and suitable only for such use." 
 
 This is the same as in the act of 1883, but is more in detail. The Department's de- 
 cision of November 18, 1889, was that this stock is free of duty. 
 
 This is optical stock and is not made in this country. We ask nothing on the free 
 list that is made in this country. We ask nothing for ourselves that we are not will- 
 ing to grant to others who can make it in tiiis country. It is utterly impossible for 
 us to get a pound of the stock that we use in the manufacturing of these lenses made 
 in this country. We have tried for years to do it. This matter is presented by the 
 American Optical Company, of which I am treasurer, and by the Bausch & Lamb 
 Optical Company. 
 
 The next subject that I wish to call attention to is that of red earth. We asked for 
 this before the Senate committee, but for some cause (I think for lack of time) it 
 was not granted. 
 
 We ask that " red earth or raddle used for polishing lenses" be put on the free 
 list, as we do not know of its being imported except for polishing lenses. We im- 
 port it from Eotherham, England ; H is dug and shoveled into casks, and reaches us 
 in its crude state, and is then ground and prepared for our use in polishing lenses. 
 
 The following is a copy of letter received from the party who furnishes us the ma- 
 terial : 
 
 " MiCKLEBRiNG, EoTHERHAM, Decemher 16, 1889. 
 "To the American Optical Company: 
 
 "In answer to yours respecting the raddle I sell, my customers are chiefly in Shef- 
 field and Birmingham, England. They are opticians, and I expect it is used for pol- 
 ishing purposes, and I send it to Messrs. Bausch & Lamb, Rochester, opticians. I 
 expect it is used for the same purpose ; and also the American Lens Manufacturing 
 Company. 
 
 "EiCHARD Spencer." 
 
 Wo can not procure the material in this country that will do the work, and as the 
 first cost is $55 per ton, with freight ))aid to New York, or with the duty paid over 
 |68 per ton, the high price prevents its being imported for other uses in competition 
 with any home products ; aud as we can not do without it, the tax we are paying (y.^ 
 per cent.) is not in the interest of protecting homo industries. 
 
 In 1884 we paid $1.50 per ton duty, but since thou have been assessed 25 per cent. 
 
 In a case before the United States court at Now York, in May, 1889, the court de- 
 'cided that this material should bo free. The papers are now in the hands of the 
 Treasury Department. . 
 
 We respectfully ask that this material bo so classified as to avoid misunderstanding 
 liereafter, and to save us the high duty wo have been compelled to pay in tlx! past. 
 
 This is asked by tho American Optical Company, of Sonthbridge, Mass., and by 
 the Bausch & Lamb Optical Companj', of Rochester, N. Y. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is this red earth ? 
 
 Mr. Wells. Red earth, orraddlo ; it is imiiortod uuder that name. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It is not used for any! bing else but the purpose you lu,ve niciilioned ? 
 
 Mr. Wells. No, sir. 
 
826 REVISION OF THE TAKIFI". 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is It so known in the market T 
 
 Mr. Wells. There are only two or three parties in the United States that import it, 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it prodnced at all in this country f 
 
 Mr. Wells. No, sir. I think it is classified as ocher earth. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it claimed that it comes in conflict with any earth that we produce 1 
 
 Mr. Wells. 1 do not know that it is. We can only find it in this one place in Eng- 
 land, and with this one man. As it does not conflict with any home industry we think 
 that it should he free, because the duty on it is just so much tax on this lens industry. 
 The foreign manufacturer of lenses in England or Germany can have his material 
 free, so that he has very much advantage over ns. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is this red earth abundant abroad ? 
 
 Mr. Wells. I do not think it is very abundant. If it was we would not have to 
 pay such an enormous price for it. We pay $55 a ton for it before the duties are jiaid. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. About how much of it would a polisher consume in a day's 
 work? 
 
 Mr. Wells. The quantity would be small. The diiference tons would be, perhaps, 
 a dollar a day in our business, aud probably the same to Mr. Bausch. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is your business extensive T 
 
 Mr. Wells. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What would be the saving to the lens industry of the whole 
 country if this red earth were on the free list J 
 
 Mr. Wells. At the present time I should say $2 a day, from $600 to f 1,000 a year. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. To the entire country t 
 
 Mr. Wells. Yes. There are only a few manufacturers of lenses in the country. It 
 is a new industry, almost entirely of the lost six years. Before that the lenses were 
 nearly all imported. Our factory is capable of an output of 2,000 or 2,500 pairs oi 
 lenses per month. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If you were running at your full capacity, what expenditure 
 would this tax amount to ? 
 
 Mr. Wells. I should say from |300 to $400 a year. We also wish to have the phrase 
 in regard to Brazilian pebbles unwrought changed, so as to read : 
 
 "Brazilian pebble, unwrought, or in slabs or disks." They are free now, under 
 the tariff law of 1883, and they are also on the free list in the now Senate bill, but we 
 want the wording changed so as to prevent any misunderstanding in the future in 
 regard to just what the article is. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are slabs and disks now free? 
 
 Mr. Wells. Yes ; here [exhibiting a specimen] is a pebble. It is not glass at all. 
 It is what a pebblelens is cut out of. This [exhibiting another specimen] is a pebble 
 slab cut off a i^iece like that. Here [exhibiting a third specimen] is another pebble 
 slab ; and this [a fourth] is a pebble disk. It has the corners knocked off, and has, 
 therefore, a different designation. It is a disk. We simply want the names so that 
 there will be no misunder-standing in the future. They are free to-day, but we find 
 a great misunderstandirg in regard to pebbles. Some say that it ought to be in- 
 cluded in a schedule of glass. That is not so; it is not glass at all. It is just as 
 nature made it. The trade name is " Brazilian pebbles," wherever they come from. 
 Here [exhibiting another specimen] is a disk of glass. 
 
 I next call the attention of the committee to lenses. In the House report, page 
 109, lines 323, 324, the clause is as we wish it to stand, viz: "And lenses of glass or 
 pebble, wholly or partly manufactured, 45 per cent, ad valorem," but with the 
 .addition of the following words. "On lenses costing $1.50 per gross pairs, or lees, 
 $1.50 per gross pairs." 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What change in the rate is that? 
 
 Mr. Wells. It is a large change in the rate of those low-priced glasses; but we 
 wish to have a specific rate entirely on these glasses. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What would be the ad valorem equivalent? 
 
 Mr. Wells. Really 100 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge, But you want it made specific? 
 
 Mr. Wells. Yes ; and leave the rest as it is. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Give the reasons. 
 
 Mr. Wells. It is an utter impossibility for us to manufacture these cheap lenses in 
 this country unless we have this protection; these are made from " culls" (pieces of. 
 broken glass) in Germany and other European countries. Ouo side of the '' culls" is 
 ground, and the other side is left just as blown in the cylinder. It is very detrimental 
 to sight, if used at all; yet it is brought into this country and sold as a good article, 
 and the public is imposed upon. If this duty be imposed on it, lenses will be used 
 that uro ground on r)oth sidrM but that cost a little more money. 
 
 Ml Breckinridge. Would it keep our people from injuring their sight ? 
 
 Mr. Wells. Wo do not think it would do that. 
 
 Mr. BuEOKiNRlDGE. It would bo no restraint but a inor.nl restraint? 
 
 Mr. Wells. I suppose not. 
 
EEVtSlON OP THE tARIFF. 82 1 
 
 Mr. 15RECKINRIDGE. If we were not better than the Germans we wonld practice the 
 same deception on the trade ? 
 
 Mr. Wells. The inference perhaps would he that that is possible, bnt this protec- 
 tion that we ask would allow these cheap lenses to b© made in this country ; other- 
 wise they cau not be. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. There is no guaranty, however, that they would not be made 
 in this country just as they are made in Germany ? 
 
 Mr. Wells. No, sir ; but the chances would be that the lenses would be made with 
 a double convex. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You want this additional duty as a protection for the eyesight of the 
 poor people ? 
 
 Mr. Wells. Yes ; our motives may be misconstrued, but we really believe that. In 
 counection with lenses, we would wish to add this clause which we propose to come 
 in with the clause as to spectacles : 
 
 " Spectacle and eyeglass lenses with their edges ground or beveled to fit frames, 
 $1.50 per gross pairs in addition to the regular respective duty of such lenses with 
 unground edges." 
 
 The reason we ask for this (and it is asked by the gentlemen representing the three 
 largest concerns in the country; is that the lenses manufactured in the old country 
 with which we have been trying to compete and do compete, and have to a reason- 
 able extent succeeded, have what may be called culls or lenses not for the size re- 
 quired, but for sizes larger than are required. It is a particular lens, but not fitted 
 to a spectacle. If that lens were clipped or the corners taken off, it would be in- 
 ferior. These lenses are taken in the old country and by very cheap labor are fitted 
 to a frame and shipped to this country at very low prices. That is a great detriment 
 to the business of this country, as it would cost us two or three times as much to do 
 the fitting .as it cost on the other side. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Here is a pair of spectacles [handing them to the witness] that were 
 ground for astigmatism in one eye. Why does it cost five times as much as an ordi- 
 nary pair f 
 Mr. Wells. That is done usually by the optician, and he has to do it by hand. 
 Mr. Flower. I can not see any difl'erence in it. • 
 
 Mr. Wklls. If you take it this way [indicating] you will find that there is an 
 angle which this grinding protects. 
 
 Now, in regard to spectacles and eyeglasses, we wish to have the clause read in 
 this way : " Spectacles and eyeglasses or spectacles and eyeglass-frames, 50 cents 
 per dozen and 35 per cent, ad valorem." Our reasons for asking this are many, and, 
 among others, the following: The specific duty in connection with ad valorem is to 
 protect the American manufacturers from undervaluation. Manufacturers in Europe 
 invoice their goods to their own houses in this country, and, as there are a very large 
 number of styles and qualities, costing from $6 to $100 per gross, it is very difficult to 
 prevent the low entries of this class of goods ; in fact, it is impossible to prevent this 
 trouble. Some of this class of goods are made by prison labor, and many by very 
 low-priced labor, costing not over one-fourth or one-fifth the price we pay. 
 
 In regard to this prison labor, I have it from the mouth of ao importer who is in- 
 terested in a factory on the other side. He took me into a store aud asked me what 
 I supposed the labor cost to manufacture those goods. Of course I could not tell, and, 
 he said, " That labor costs us 4 cents a day." I expressed some surprise, and he then 
 said it was prison labor. 
 
 American tools and machinery have been taken to Germany, where they pay one- 
 fifth our price for labor. They copy our styles and invoice their goods to their own 
 houses here, and are able to undersell us by from 20 to 50 per cent., as they can well 
 afford to do considering the price they pay for labor and the low price at which they 
 enter their goods. For instance, sample 1 [exhibiting sample] is our make of steel 
 spectacle-frame of medium quality, and sells for 99 cents per dozen, or 8J cents per 
 pair. 
 Mr. Flower. The same as this [showing a pair of spectacles] t 
 Mr. Wells. No. The frame with lenses in is worth |1.55 a dozen. Sample A [ex- 
 hibiting another sample] is of German-make, but made by American machinery 
 abroad, and is a copy of our sample which I have just shown. This they sold for 
 from 20 to 40 per cent, less than ours, or from 60 to 80 cents per dozen (5 to 6f cents 
 per pair) after paying 45 percent, duty on the alleged valuation. 
 Mr. Flower. What do the retail dealers get for those glasses f 
 Mr. Wells. The retail dealer gets all that he can. I would answer the question 
 definitely if I could, but I can not do it. Now, we find it impossible to compete in this 
 lineof goods with our high-priced labor. I wish to say right here that I have per- 
 sonal knowledge of what I say in regard to these German-made spectacles imitating 
 our American make. A party who started a German factory and fitted it up with 
 American tools came to me and tried to interest me to go in with him in the start- 
 ing of that factory near Frankfort, Germany, and he used arguments to prove that I 
 
828 REViwION OF THE TAEIFP. 
 
 could make a good deal more money there than I could by continuing my factory 
 in this country. He assured me that the labor there could be got for one-fifth of 
 what we were paying. 
 
 The strong competition in this country has brought the price of spectacles and eye- 
 ^l.aeses to a very low figure, so that the consumer is getting his goods at a very low 
 price. For instance, goods like sample 2 are sold by us all complete with the lenses 
 for $1.83 per dozen. Nine years ago goods nothing better than these brought |9 a 
 dozen to the jobbing trade. Then they were made of English steel and set with im- 
 ported lenses. To-day they are made of American steel and set with our own make 
 of lenses. 
 
 Mr. La. Fotj.kttb. Were there any lenses manufactured in this country at that 
 time! 
 
 Mr. Wells. Very few. I commenced business at that time, and I was paid $5.76 a 
 dozen for a grade of spectacles no better than this. But by the perfection of machin. 
 ery aud vastly by protection we have been able to accomplish what we see before us 
 
 Mr. Geajr. Does the foreign article decline less in price 1 
 
 Mr. Wells. That we will come to later on. This very large reduction in price has 
 been accomplished by perfection of machinery and by home competition fostered by 
 protection. There is perhaps no class of goods in general use of which so little is 
 known of its merits as spectacles and eyeglasses. For this reason goods of the worst 
 kind mounted, with lenses that are not iit for any eye to use, are brought into this 
 country and sold by unprincipled parties to the consumer for high prices as an im- 
 ported article, to the great detriment of thousands of innocent victims. 
 
 Now, in relation to the question asked, I would say that this industry In thi., 
 country is represented here by myself, Mr. Spencer, of New York, Mr. Lamb, of Eoch- 
 estiT, aud also by a gentleman from Pennsylvania, a large manufacturer, who wrote 
 to me this morning and who entirely coincides with our views. We have with ua 
 every manufacturer of eyeglasses in the country and also all of the eyeglass dealers 
 who are not importers. A very large percentage of the dealers in this country would 
 sanction and ask for what we are asking for to-day. We probably employ from 2,000 
 to 2,. ',00 hands in the industry in this country, and the product is about 1,2.')0 dozen a 
 day of spectacles and eyeglasses, or say about four and a half million pairs a year, 
 anil that quantity is very little if any more than half the quantity that is used in the 
 country. In other words, we import to-day nearly if not quite as many eyeglasses 
 as are made here. We ask this protection believing that nothing less or diilerent 
 would give us the privilege of making these goods in this country. There is no com- 
 bination that would keep up prices. T?he competition in this country is sharp, as you 
 will see by the prices I have quoted, and there is no danger of any advance in prices, 
 t Mr. Gear. Has there not been a factory of this kind established in Germany within 
 the last few years with American tools and machinery ? 
 
 Mr. Wells. I have .stated that fact — that American machinery and plant have been 
 taken to Germany. 
 Mr. Geak. Because they could get cheap labor there ? 
 
 Mr. Wklls. Yes; and with that reduced price of labor they can import their 
 goods here. We pay our men |3.50 a day, while they get theirs for $3.50 a week. 
 
 STATEMENT OP JOHN S. SPENCER. 
 
 Mr. ,TorrN S. Spbncbr, treasurer of the Spencer Optical Manufacturing Comp.any, 
 of Newark, N. J., next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairni.'m and gentlemen, Mr. AVells^has given you a very good idea of this 
 business. I represent the Spencer Optical Manufacturing Company, with salesroom 
 at 15 Maiden Lane, New York, and with factories at Newark, N. J. We are also im- 
 porters of thi'se goods, but my symp.ithies are with the Americiin production. We 
 started this business in 18ljl. The president of the company is a brother of mine. 
 At that tiuie I commenced to learn the trade. My brother had previously learned 
 bis trade. At that time there were no spectacles and eyeglasses made in this couu- 
 ti',y, with the exception of a few gold and silver eyeglas.se8 and spectacles. In order 
 to Hii:ible us to compete with the goods coming into the market, we were compelled 
 to di'vise and invc nt machinery, trying thus to cover the diiVcrcnce in the cost of 
 labor between this country and Europe. Wo sucreeded to a certain extent, for 
 .about that time the duty was increased. Tliere was ,a premium on gold also and 
 labor Lad not advanced. lu the space of a few years several other manufacturers 
 started also and then.^ was home cumpetition. Through this competilion the prices 
 of thi'se goods havi; been materially reduced. The former price of a fair quality of 
 sti'el spectacles w,as $0 a dozen, and that same c(ualil.y is now sold for $3 a, dozen, 
 'I'hat .$'.1 a. dozen docs not iiiclnib- tlie lliiest goods, but a lair ipiality of goo<ls, such as 
 ttie usually lelaileii for fiiim JL.SO to ^j.^ a, pair. A clieii.i) grade of rubber eyeglasses 
 
REVISION OF TUE TARIFF. 829 
 
 which formerly sold for $3 per dozen is now being sold for 50 cents per dozen, which 
 is equivalent to about 4 cents a pair, or one-sixth of their former cost. 
 
 I will say for the benefit of the committee that these goods to-day are better than 
 those which were sold formerly at $3 a dozen. Notwithstanding strong home compe- 
 tition we are confronted with a foreign article at a still less figure after paying the 
 present duty of 45 per cent, on the alleged valuation. For example, one of our com- 
 petitors (a person not naturalized), not being satisfied to manufacture spectacles and 
 eyeglasses on the European plan, has caused American machinery to be made of the 
 latest designs and patterns, surreptiously obtained, thereby securing a plant for about 
 one-fifth the cost to the original perfectors of this machinery in this country. What 
 I mean is this : You are undoubtedly aware that in getting up machinery suitable for 
 a new business there are a great many experiments to be carried on, many of them 
 fruitless, so that a plant to-day that may be only worth $100,000 may have x)robabIy 
 cost from $200,000 to $300,000 to perfect it. This German manufacturer took advan- 
 tage of that by getting these designs and making them the fiist time. This entire 
 machinery was moved to Germany, where he secures labor at one-fourth the price 
 that we have to pay for it in this country, and by taking the American patterns and 
 designs which have become popular here, and by manufacturing imitations of them 
 abroad, he is enabled to bring these goods into the United States and to dispose of them 
 at a less price than it is possible to produce them for here, with all the improved facil- 
 ities, experience, and the lowest price labor obtainable. They, being the only man- 
 ufacturers of this grade of spectacles and eyeglasses in Germany, and from the fact 
 of having none of this grade of goods with which to compare the cost of manufactur- 
 ing, are enabled to import them Into the United States at their own jjrice, and to in- 
 voice them at less than the cost of manufacture (they acting as agents for the sale of 
 their own goods). 
 
 They imitate our make, send them to the United States, and dispose of them at 
 prices less than we can produce them, with all the improved facilities that experience 
 has given them, and at the lowest prices of labor obtainable. There are also, as 
 Mr. Wells stated, other manufactures in Germany making a much inferior article to 
 the one just referred to, and I have been informed by the same gentleman to whoin 
 I referred before that he had his goods made in the prisons of Germany, and that it 
 was useless for Americans to attempt to compete with him. I have here a sample of 
 spectacle [presenting it] which I came directly in contact with in the New York cus- 
 tom-house. I was appointed a merchant appraiser— who takes testimony as regards 
 the value of goods. These spectacles were invoiced to come into the United States 
 at 22 marks per gross — figured at Jr.. 17 American money, or 3^ cents a pair. After 
 calling several importers, who were of course in sympathy with him, the rate which 
 we decided upon was 33 marks per gross, or an advance of 50 per cent. My opinion 
 is that these spectacles can not be made for the money. He was not satisfied with 
 that decision or adjustment, and demanded a delay to bring affidavits from Gerinayn. 
 
 We adjourned for a month, and at that time we had another hearing, when he said 
 that he had not any affldavit, but that he understood that the affidavit had been sent 
 to the Government. But Mr. Barr, appraiser in the department, said that none had 
 been received. The importer then stated that he wished to produce a witness to prove 
 the cost of the goods. The wituess proved to be a former American manufacturer. I 
 asked him how he proposed to show the cost of these goods by a former American 
 manufacturer. He said he proposed to show what they could be made for in this 
 country, and then draw the difference between the cost of labor in this country and 
 in Germany. He said that the labor that would cost between $4 and $5 in this coun- 
 try would cost him only a dollar. Consequently, if this manufacturer could jirove 
 (for example) that the goods would cost $10 here, it would follow that they could be 
 made in Germany for $2.50. Of course, no such testimony could be allowed; but, 
 nevertheless, we took a portion of it to see what the result would be. The case was 
 finally dismissed under the former adjustment, although I understand that the ap- 
 praiser afterwards (for some reason unknown to me) allowed the goods to come in at 
 28 marks. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That was about 4 cents a pair, was it nott 
 
 Mr. Spencer. Yes. We manufacture these spectacles, using Pittsburgh steel for 
 the frames, and we find that Pittsburgh steel is equal if not superior to the foreign 
 article. In fact, we would not go back to the foreign article at 10 per cent, advantage 
 in price. Heretofore we have paid 45 per cent, duty on spectacle frames and for the 
 lenses for the same. That protection is more than we care for for the higher grade 
 of goods. We have come to such a state of perfection that we are not afraid of the 
 foreign production, even at a quite considerable reduction of duties. For that reason 
 we ask yon to make this duty 35 percent, ad valorem in place of 45 per cent., but to 
 add a specific duty of 50 cents per dozen on all spectacles and eyeglasses or frames. 
 The question would come up at once, would not that increase the price of some ot 
 these goods? It would increase the price of the cheap infoiior grade, and it would 
 be a great benefit to the community if these goods never could come here. They a^e 
 
830 EEVISION OF THK TARIFF. 
 
 BO defective that they are very liable to produce injuries to the eyes of thoee whu 
 nse them— injuiies that are hard to remedy, and the public would be oetter without 
 Buch glasses. 
 
 American manufacturers of spectacles and eyeglasses were never able to manu- 
 facture this line of goods to any extent of cheap materials, such as rubber, steel, 
 etc., until the protective duty was made 45 per cent. As the premium on gold 
 advanced, joined with the increased duty, the manufacturers commenced to make 
 steel goods in this country. At that time they were selling at much higher prices 
 in Europe, which enabled the manufacturers here to get a foot hold. Through the 
 competition of American manufacturers and the reduction on goods made in Eu- 
 rope they have never been able to make a fair remuneration for the amount of labor 
 and expense they have been to. With the strictest attention to business and the 
 greatest economy practiced they have not been able, except in a very few instances, 
 to make over the legal rate of interest on the amount of capital invested. The prin- 
 cipal cost of spectacles and eyeglasses made from steel, rubber, and other common 
 materials, is the labor, which averages from 80 to 90 per cent, of the actual cost of 
 the finished article. 
 
 We think that, as to spectacle and eyeglass lenses, the American manufacturers 
 should have the protective duty of $1.50 per gross (in addition to the duty on the 
 lenses with rough edges) on all spectacle and eyeglass lenses with their edges ground 
 or beveled. It being a very ditiBcult thing for any one but a thorough expert to de- 
 cide the slight diifereuce which exists between the difl'ereut grades in this line of 
 goods, we ask this revision of the tariff in the interest of the consumer, the artisan, 
 and the mauufacturer; and ask your most favorable consideration of our request. 
 
 There have been five or six failures in the business, I think, in the past six years. 
 Those who are in the industry now are mostly men who have been educated in it 
 from boys, and who know every detail of it. It is utterly impossible for a man 
 without experience to make a success in the business now. The value of the steel 
 in a spectacle frame is very small, but the labor in putting it into shape and finishing 
 it is from 80 to 90 per cent, of its whole cost. The rate of duty which we ask would 
 reduce the duty on all grades above $5. 
 
 Mr. Flowek. You want the duty on the high-priced goods reduced from 45 per ceut. 
 to :')5 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Spbnckr. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Flower. As to the higher grades you think that nobody can beat yout 
 
 Mr. Spencer. No ; we have perfected everything and are abundantly able to take 
 care of ourselves at that rate of duty. 
 
 Mr Flower. But on a pair of spectacles that costs 4 cents, the duty would be about 
 huw much ? 
 
 Mr. Spencer. The duty would be 4 cents. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That would make the cost 8 cents t 
 
 Mr. Si'encer. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How much would it increase the cost to the purchaser t 
 
 Mr. Si'ENCBR. The retailing of spectacles is a little peculiar. An optician who sells 
 a good article, figures a little on the basis of an oculist, or a physician, and considers 
 hi time souiethiug. He charges something for his trouble besides the profit on his 
 goods, 
 
 STATEMENT BY J. W. RIGLANDER. 
 
 New York, January 20, 1890. 
 To the Committea on Ways and Meant: 
 
 From various articles in the daily papers of the 10th instaut, I observe that it has 
 been proposed to your committee by two manufacturers of spectacles and eyeglasses 
 (Mr. Wells of the American Optical Company, and Mr. Spencer of the Spencer Opti- 
 oal Company) to add to the ad valorem duty already levied on these goods a specific 
 duty of $6 per gross, and having the materials, such as lens, stock, and rough pebbles, 
 inijiorted free. 
 
 It has always been the object of Congress to endeavor to legislate for the benefit of 
 the masses and the working people, and not simply to add to the riches of rich 
 corporations, which have had protection for twenty-five years and have grown very 
 wealthy underit. 
 
 There need be no question at all in the matter of duties on gold spectacles be- 
 ing increased, while on all others they should be very much reduced, for it is the 
 working people only who wear the cheaper grades of spectacles and eyeglasses, as 
 their means will not permit the wearing of better ; if the duty were reduced the poor 
 people would be enabled to wear a bettor grade of spectacles than they now do, 
 which would be a source of protection to their eyes, while the poor grades whicJl 
 they are now compelled to innlce u.s(.^ of a.i'e certainly injarions. 
 
 Jt is verv evident that in the iuterest of our 6y,000,000 jioople legislation eUoulo 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 831 
 
 be passed for their benefit, and uot for the benefit of two manufacturers only. I 
 therefore think that where the dnty on steel spectacles and eyeglasses as well as on 
 lenses for same is now 45 per cent, it should be reduced to about 20 or VS per cent., 
 while the duty on pebbles for spectacles should not be 1^ ss llian .'JO per cent, instead 
 of beiug free, as the people wearing this grade cau well afford tc pay for same. Inde- 
 pendent of this, it would open an industry in this country, particularly in the State 
 of North Carolina, where pebble stock is found in great abundance. 
 
 Further, I beg to call your attention to the fact that, while conversing on this sub- 
 ject with one of the largest spectacle manufacturers in this country, Mr. T. A. Will- 
 son, of Reading, Pa., he informed me that he considers the rate of duty on spectacles 
 fnlly as high as it should be, and that it might even be lowered without detriment 
 to the American manufacturers. He states, furthermore, that he exports large quan- 
 tities of spectacles and eyeglasses of his make to Canada and England, as well as to 
 other parts of Europe. 
 
 In admitting free the various polishing materials, as desired by Mr. Wells and Mr. 
 SpenciT, it would be injurious to various manufacturers in this country. Therefore 
 it would hardly be fairto thebalanco of the community at large to admit these arti- 
 cles free, as requested by the above-mentioned gentlemen, and you can readily see 
 how selfish their motive is, as they simply desire to benefit themselves at the expense 
 of other manufacturers and the people in general. 
 
 I further beg to stale that under the high rate of tariff of 45 per cent, the Ameri- 
 can Opital Company has grown to be a very rich corporation ; consequently, if the 
 duty on spectacles, eyeglasses, and lenses were reduced to 20 or 25 per cent, there 
 cau be no question at all of the American manufacturers still being enabled to mau- 
 ufactute at a large profit. 
 
 In looking over the statements made by Mr. Wells and Mr. Spencer, I find that the 
 former gentleman claims to be able to furnish a medium quality spectacle to sell at 
 111.55 per dozen. I desire to call your attention to the fact that this is an entirely 
 diifercnt article to what Mr. Wells refers to as being imported and sold at 68 cents 
 per dozen; this latter article ia of a far inferior quality, the frame being made of 
 iron and the lenses being very poor. The American Optical Company, of which 
 Mr. Wells is secretary and treasurer, are making a medium quality spectacle which 
 they are selling for less than $1.55 per dozen, and what they claim to sell at this 
 price (11.55) is quite a fair article. There is also a misstatement here, for they charge 
 $l'<i.60 per gross for the frames alone, and $6.75 per gross for the lenses. From these 
 prices they allow a discount of 6 per cent, for cash, and to large consumers there is a 
 trade discount as well. Knowing the representations made to be wrong, it is lor 
 that reason I now call your attention to same. 
 
 The Willson Optical Company are manufacturing an article which is equal in qual- 
 ity and which sells better than the spectacle referred to by Mr. Wells (made by the 
 American Optical Company), and for which the Willson Optical Company charge 
 $13..50 per gross, less a discount of 10 per cent, for small quantities, and in large quan- 
 tities they are sold for less. The Willson Optical Company also make an article 
 which is sold by them at $V-i per gross, less 10 per cent. 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 J. W. RlGLANDEK. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlky, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Commiitee on Ways and Means. 
 
 Nevvt York, February 14, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen: Since my return from Washington, after having had the hearing 
 before your honorable body and presenting a brief, I have given the matter of a re- 
 dnction of duty on spectacles and eyeglasses considerable attention. In my brief I 
 advocated the reduction of duty on these articles to about 20 or 25 per cent., as this 
 would have a tendency of placing the poor people in a position to make use of better 
 grades of spectacles and eyeglasses in order to preserve their eye-sight, which is now 
 being ruined by the very cheap grades of French spectacles and eyeglasses that are 
 now imported into this country, and which are commonly known to the trade as Nos. 
 44, 45, and 46, also coquille spectacles and eyeglasses, as well as German silver plated 
 specs which are manufactured in Furth and Nurnberg, Germany. 
 
 If the duty on these goods (costing up to francs 17 for spectacles, and francs 20 for 
 the coquille spectacles and eyeglasses) were advanced to meet the views of the 
 American manufacturers who were before your committee, it would be advantageous 
 to all concerned, as it would keep out of this country these very poor qualities of 
 goods referred to, which naturally would increase the sales of the American manu- 
 facturers ; importers would also derive benefit therefrom, as they would be enableti 
 to dispose of better grades of goods, while the community at large would profit 
 thereby, in so far as preserving their eye-sight. Of course the duty on pebbles for 
 
832 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 spectacles should not bo less than 50 per cent., as this would opcji the iudustry iu 
 North CaroUua, as mentioned in my brief. 
 
 The reason the optical (or lens) stock is not made in this country is that there is 
 no duty on it; consequently the American glass manufacturers are unable to com- 
 pete with the German and French glass manufacturers. There is no reason iu the 
 world why this stock should not be made in this country, provided the manufact- 
 urers received proper protection, by having a proper rate of duty levied on the im- 
 ported article. 
 
 This lens stock is not at all unwrought material, in my opinion ; it is either a cyliu- 
 der glass or a plate-plass which passes through a process of manufacture, in the way 
 of cutting it into ovals, so as to make it appear as if it were an unwrought lens, while 
 it is nothing more or less than manufactured glass, and should pay the same rate of 
 duty as other articles of that class, being 45 per cent. You will therefore see that it 
 is not at all a question of protectiug home industry, but simply a question of self- 
 protection on the part of these American manufacturers who were before your com- 
 mittee, to the detriment of other manufacturers and producers iu this country who 
 supply such articles as might be used by these gentlemen in the process of their man- 
 ufacture. 
 
 Trusting you will pardon me for encroaching on your valuable time, I remain, 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 J. W. RlGLANDER. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 RATES OF DUTY RECOMMENDED. 
 
 The following recomnicndutionK are mudo by the American Optical Company, 
 Sonthbridge, Mass.: Bausch &, Loud) Ojitical Compauy, Rochester, N. Y. ; Speucer 
 Optical Maiiiilactnring Coinpany, New York City; Standard Ox)tical Company, 
 Geneva, N. Y. ; audT. A .Wilson, Reading, Pa. : 
 
 RED EARTH, OR REDDLE, USED FOR POLISHING LENSES. 
 
 AVe ask that the above be put on the free list, as we (.""o not know of its beiug im- 
 ])ortcd except for polishing Icjises. We import it from Rotherbam, England. It is 
 dug and shoveled into casks and reaches us in its crude state, and is then ground a.nd 
 pre]>ared for onr use in })o]ishing lenses. 
 
 The following is a copy of letter received from the jiarty who furuishes us the 
 material : 
 
 MiCKLEBKiNG, ROTHERIIAM, December IG, I88'J. 
 'I'lie American Oitical Company: 
 
 In answer to yours resi>ei'tiug the reddle I sell, my customers are chiefly in Shef- 
 lield and Birniingbani, England. They are opticians, and I expect it is used lor 
 Iiolishing purpowH ; and I send it to Messrs. Bausch ifc Lornb, Rochester, opticians 
 (I expect it is used for the same purposes), and also the American Lens Manufact- 
 uring Conjpauy. 
 
 Richard Spencer. 
 
 We can not procure the material in this country that will do the work, and as the 
 first cost is |55 per ton, with freight paid to New York, or, with the duty paid, over 
 108 per ton, the high price prevents its being imported for other uses iu competition 
 witii any home products; and as we can not do without it, the tax we are paying 
 (:J5 per cent.) is not in the interest of protectiug home industries. 
 
 In 1884 wo paid $1..50 per ton duty, but since then have been assessed 25 per cent. 
 
 In a case before the United States court at New York in May, 188!), the court 
 decided that this material should be free. 
 
 The papers are now in the hands of the Treasury Department. 
 
 We respectfully ask that this material bo so classified as to avoid niisunderstaudiug 
 hereafter, and to save us the high duty wo have been compelled to pay in the past. 
 
 LENSES. 
 
 Page 109, lines 323,324 to stand as they are, viz: 
 
 "And lenses of glass or pebbles, wholly or partly manufuctured, 45 per centum ad 
 valon^m," with the following addition : " On all lenses costing $1.50 per gross pairs, 
 
 Of less 11.130 per gross pairs." 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 83 
 
 o 
 
 PEBBLE STOCK. 
 
 Page 178, line No. 2035, lines to reacl : ''Brazilian pebble unwrought, or in slabs 
 or disks." (They are free now, but this reading will prevent misunderstanding. 
 This material is not found in this country. ) 
 
 GLASS. 
 
 Page 183, lines 2151-2153 to stand as they are, viz : " Glass plates or disks, rough- 
 cut or unwrought, for use in the manufacture of optical instruments, spectacles and 
 eyeglasses, and suitable only for such use." (Free.) (This is same as act of 1883, 
 but more in detail.) The Department's decision of Novemberiy, 1889, wa.s tliat this 
 stock is free of duty. (This is optical stock, and is not made 'in this country.) 
 
 SPECTACLES AND EYEGLASSES. 
 
 Spectacles and eyeglasses, or spectacles and eyeglass frames, 5!i cents per dozen, 
 and 35 per cent, ad valorem. Spectacles and eyeglass lenses, with their edges ground 
 or beveled to Ht frames, $1.50 per gross pairs, in addition to the regular respective 
 duty of such lenses with unground edges. 
 
 MAGIC LANTERNS. 
 
 VIEWS OF CHARLES KEANE. 
 
 Gentlemen: As your honorable body has now under consideration the tariff, I 
 beg leave to lay before you a few matters that I consider of such importance as to be 
 worthy of consideration at the hands of your honorable body, viz : At the present 
 time a"persou who desires to import a triple lantern and sncli views as he may re- 
 quire, whether plain or otherwise, is com|)ellert to pay a duty of 45 per cent, ad va- 
 lorem thereon. This is certainly unjust for many reasons, the first beiny: that as 
 there are no triple lanterns manufactured in the United States, no manufacturer is 
 injured by a person importing one for their own use, whether they use the same as 
 teacher or public lecturer. 
 
 As the law now stands, it would hardly justify a person to import a triple lantern 
 and such magnificent views, together with effects, as were a few years ago shown 
 upon the screen at the Polytechnic -Institute, London, for wbon we add the duty as 
 demanded by law the cost is enormous. If a person was to try aud have a triple 
 lantern made in this country, the manufacturer would first have to import a model, 
 as well all lens-tubes and objectives, together with the couibinatiou dissolving keys 
 and slide registers, none of the above parts being made in this country. Now as 
 for the various views of foreign places, as well the dissolving views with several 
 mechanical effects attached thereto, it is impossible to manufacture them as cheap or 
 as good in workmanship as those made in London, for the reason that many of these 
 firms have spent a life-time in perfecting this branch of business, and as a result 
 their work has gained them a world-wide reputation. 
 
 Let us take, for instance, as an example the j^rison of Bonuivard in the castle of 
 Chillon (as shown by one of England Bros, slides of London). Here we find a strange 
 and powerful effect. It is an effect of light which is admirably rendered and which 
 it would seem was impossible to jjroduce in photography, for the reason that the 
 darkest portions of the cells in said i)rison are as well detailed as in the half tints. 
 
 Then let us take the animated scenes on the lake of Geneva with its small craft, 
 amongst which the feluccas with their wide-stretching lateen sails are conspiouoas 
 and very picturesque. I might name a great many other places in foreign lands, as 
 well its statuary and public buildings that are famous either in history and tradition, 
 or as marvels of picturesque grandeur and beauty. When we copy photographic 
 , prints of the above places, etc., all the fine atmospheric effects are lost, as is shown 
 when they are looked at on the screen. The reason for tliis is that it is impossible to 
 produce a perfect slide from a photo print, and the great majority of slides manufact- 
 ured in this country are from said prints. The views of statuary, both plain and 
 those in the animated sets as manufactured by said firm of England Bros., have taken 
 the prize at all the various public exhibitions held throughout Europe where the 
 same have been placed on exhibition. 
 
 Your honorable body is certainly aware that luminous projections have for past 
 years been a convenient means of illustrating lectures. This system of teaching has 
 been brought to a high state of perfection. The truth is held " that what is seen ia 
 
 485 53 
 
834 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 mnch better known and lomembered than that which is only heard." Information 
 which can be imparted by the eye and ear at the same time, and conveyed to the 
 brain, will remain more firmly fixed than a mere statement of facts. 
 
 The value of a triple lantern is obvious when effects are used, and it is only by the 
 aid of a triple lantern can eifects be shown. Therefore, I would most respectfully 
 ask that yonr honorable body reduce thepresent tariff to about 5 per cent, ad valorem 
 on all of the aforementioned apparatus and slides, and by so doing you are injuring 
 none, but you aie placing at the hands of the student, teacher, and public lecturers 
 apparatus that is used for the education of the great masses of the people. Many of 
 the propositions now found upon the pages of the various works on physics can be 
 made plain to the student ; whereas by no other means can the same be demonstrated 
 80 that he will gain full knowledge thereof. 
 
 Hoping that your honorable body in behalf of education will carefully consider the 
 foregoing communication, and deal with it in such manner as your honorable body 
 deems best for the welfare of all concerned, and believing that your honorable body 
 will at all times be found ever ready and willing to aid all measures proposed for the 
 fnll distribution of knowledge among the great masses of the people of America, I am 
 Yours, most respectfully, 
 
 Charles Keanb, 
 
 San Josi, Cal. 
 
 The Committee on Wats and Means. 
 
 DENIAL FROM P. H. LOUD. 
 
 Augusta, Ga., January 10, 1890. 
 Dear Sir: I notice in the Congressional reports in to-day's paper before the Ways 
 and Means Committee there appeared a New England manufacturer of spectacles and 
 eyeglasses who wanted the duty taken off of red ocher, on the ground that it was not 
 produced in this country. 
 
 The gentleman is very mhch mistiken, as I can furnish him any amount he may 
 want, if it is a thousand tons, perfectly free from any grit. 
 
 I have it underlying a bed of yellow ocher, which underlies abed of very fine qual- 
 ity of kaoline, on a property 5 miles from this city, to which we are expecting a dummy 
 line will be built very soon. 
 
 Yours, yery respectfully, 
 
 P. H. Loud, 
 10 (Jumming street, Augusta, Ga, 
 Hon. EoswELL P. Flower, 
 
 Washington, D, C. 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 835 
 
 COTTOIS^ GOODS. 
 
 STATEMENT OP ALEXANDER E. KURSHEEDT. 
 
 Mr. Alexander E. Kursheedt said that he camo before the committee represent- 
 ing the manufacturers of curtains, embroideries, lace goods, etc. The number of in- 
 dustries connected with the subject were almost too numerous to mention. He did 
 not desire to make any argument to the committee, but simply to give information 
 on the subject. In what he had to say he would represent his own firm (the Kur- 
 sheedt Manufacturing Company), the Wilkes Barre Lace Manufacturing Company, 
 the Braid Manufacturers' Association, and the Ruffling Manufacturers' Association. 
 He proceeded as follows : 
 
 Ml'. Chairman and gentlemen, we appear before you on our own behalf and on 
 behalf of a large number of manufacturers of cotton goods in various parts of the 
 country, and respectfully ask your attention to certain inequalities in the present 
 and proposed tariff laws which we believe need revision. 
 
 Our manufactures comprise articles enumerated in sections 3".i2, 323, and 325 of 
 Schedule 1, and section 336 of Schedule J of the Senate bill. All of these are manu- 
 factured from cotton yarns, or cotton cloths, or yarns and cloths combined, which 
 are therefore our raw material.' Under the present tariff this material pays an av- 
 erage duty of 45 per cent. In the Senate bill the average is slightly raised. The do- 
 mestic spinner thus enjoys a just and adequate protection, which euabies him to over- 
 come European competition. But are we similarly protected? No. The majority 
 of our manufactures from these materials being assessed at only 40 per cent., an at- 
 tempt to employ American instead of European labor and machinery can result only 
 in loss. 
 
 It may be urged that the greater cheapness of American yarns should prevent this 
 from being a detriment. It would if the tariff placed compensatory ratings on the 
 manufactured ijroduct. But in their absence the injurious advantage of which the 
 European spinner has been deprived still euabies the European manufacturer to un- 
 dersell us in our own market with the finished article. The beneficial intent of the 
 high duty on yarns is therefore wholly frustrated. 
 
 A single illustration will suffice. A common grade of yarn used in the manufact- 
 ure of lace window-curtains, enumerated in section 336, is that known as 2-20. Its 
 price in the New York market is 19 cents a pound. The price in the Manchester 
 market is 16 cents, which, with the duty of 10 cents a pound imposed at our custom- 
 house, becomes 26 cents delivered in New York. The profitable importation of for- 
 eign yarns is therefore out of the question. But if the American manufacturer under- 
 takes to use the protected material in the production of unprotected window-cur- 
 tains, what is the result ? The bare addition of American labor increases the price 
 of the curtains to 38 cents, without profit. The application of the same labor in 
 England, on the contrary, would mean an addition of only 6 cents. So that even 
 after the proposed 50 per cent, duty has been paid, the curtains laid down in New 
 York at 38 cents still represent a profit to the European manufacturer of 5^ cents a 
 pound. Estimating our average imports at from 10,000,000 to 12,000,000 pairs a year, 
 the loss to our manufacturers is evident. 
 
 The manufacture of these curtains is unquestionably an infant industry. It was 
 begun as an experiment at Wilkes Barre, Pa., about five years ago, by an establish- 
 ment which is still alone in the business in this country. It employs three hundred 
 people, mostly women, at American wages. A large capital is invested. Heavy 
 sums have been expended in educating operators drawn from the roughest element 
 of the mining population. On the machines used, high duties and enormous freights 
 have been paid. But all this will count for naught if the Senate bill provisions are 
 ratified. Foreign manufacturers, alarmed at the excellence of the American prod- 
 uct, are already conspiring to crush the Wilkes Barre company. They are making 
 great sacrifices and selling their goods at cost, so as to hold their trade in this coun- 
 try. The factory at present derives its sole profit from the advantages of locality, 
 and if the tariff is again revised in the European interest, these efforts are only too 
 likely to prove successful. 
 
 With regard to laces, embroideries, and other articles enumerated in sections 322 
 and 336, your committee is reminded of the wide-spread benefits which the imposi- 
 
836 REVISION OP THE TAEIFF. 
 
 tiou of additional duties would confer. The Uuited States buy and importnioM 
 embroideries than any other two countries together. But their manufacture here is 
 restricted and made unprofitable in ways similar to those already described. The 
 domestic producer is placed at a hopeless disadvantage. The detriment to the work- 
 ing classes is a grave one. In New York and other large, cities, this industry already 
 furnishes home work to numbers of women who would otherwise remain idle. But 
 the restriction of the opportunity to a few is a national calamity. In France it fur- 
 nishes a permanent revenue in dull seasons to the whole rural population, and undnr 
 proper conditions it could be nia.de a source of steady profit to every farmer's daugh- 
 ter in America. A slight increase in the duties, it is calculated, would cause an in- 
 vestment of from $15,000,000 to $^0,000,000 in the embroidery and lace industries and 
 give occupation to at least 50,000 people. The increased demand for the finer cloth 
 which forms the basis of embroideries would stimulate the production of that article. 
 As to machinery, the latest and best inventions have had their origin in this country. 
 Designs are on file at the Patent Office and could be worked from if the business 
 warranted. So that, with proper encouragement, the ultimate result to the American 
 consumer would be wholly beneficial. 
 
 Particular revision is needed of the duty on goods commercially known as lace 
 tuokings, all-over tuckings, and tucked skirtings, and all classes of goods imported 
 in the piece or otherwise, made of cotton cloth, and stitched, embroidered, or other- 
 wise treated so as to render them uncountable and subject to an ad valorem duty of 
 ;55 per cent. The yarns from which the. cloth is made being subject to an average 
 duty of 50 per cent., it is impossible to import them and weave the cloth in this 
 country. The cloth pays not less thau 40 per cent., and on the lower grades as high 
 as GO per cent, yet on many grades of goods it is still cheaper to import the cloth 
 than to use an American fabric. To illustrate the unfairness of a duty of 35 per cent., 
 we submit a pattern of cloth marked A, which counts 92 by 100, and costs 3s. Hd. per 
 yard. This cloth is 45 inches wide. The duty therefore is 3| cents per yard, which 
 is equivalent to 52 per cent. This article when sold, as on exhibit marked B, is 
 entered at 35 per cent. duty. The thread used for sewing the same, if imported, pays 
 50 per cent. We claim that the article of tucking or any manufacture should pay at 
 least 25 per cent, more than the component materials. The lowest rate paid on these 
 materials, viz, cloth and sewing thread, is 40 per cent, on the cloth and 50 per cent. 
 on the thread. To bleach and finish these goods costs much more in this country thau 
 in Europe, owing largody to the high duty on the bleaching and finishing material. 
 
 A principal defect of the sections referred to, in our judgment, is their vague, arbi- 
 trary, and erroneous classification. What, for instance, can justify the separation of 
 laces, embroideries, etc., from similar cotton articles in Schedule I and their insertion, 
 under a higher rate, in Schedule J, which deals exclusively with flax, hemp, and jute? 
 And why should cotton cords, braids, and similar articles in section 325 of Schedule J 
 be separated from gimps, galloons, etc., and assessed differently, when in the wool and 
 silk schedules they are properly assembled in one comprehensive clause ? Why, also, 
 should "all manufactures of cotton, not specially enumerated or provided for," be 
 assessed at less than the highest rate when it is notorious that this law is constantly 
 strained to cover articles paying high rates but of doubtful classification ? The arbi- 
 trary enumeration of a few special articles in section 323, we respectfully submit, is 
 also unwarranted by any considerations of justice or expediency and would be highly 
 prejudicial to present and prospective enterprise. 
 
 The following suggested changes in Schedules I and J we believe will commend 
 themselves to youx honorable body as fair, simple, and comprehensive. 
 
 PKOPOSBD CHANGES IN SCHEDULE 1. 
 
 Strike out section 322 and substitute the following: "On laces, embroideries, trim- 
 mings, lace window-curtains, and other articles of lace, or tamboured, braided, or 
 embroidered articles, composed of cotton or other vegetable fiber, or articles composed 
 of cotton cloth, wholly or partly manufactured and hemmed or stitched with the 
 needle or otherwise, by hand or machinery, 75 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 Strike out section 323. 
 
 Strikeout section 325 and substitute the following : "Cotton cords, braids, boot, 
 shoe, and corset lacings, cotton gimps, galloons, webbing, goring, belting, binding, 
 suspenders, aud braces, any of the foregoing which are elastic or non-elastic, 35 cents 
 per pound." 
 
 Amend section 326 so as to read "56 per centum ad valorem," instead of "40 per 
 centum ad valorem." 
 
 PKOPOSBD CHANGES IN SCHEDULE J. 
 
 Strike out section 336. 
 
KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. * 837 
 
 SILK AND COTTON. 
 
 Pawtocket, E. I., January 6, 1890. 
 The JionoraUe Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 The Royal Weaving Company of this city respectfully represents, that it has re- 
 cently engaged in the manufacture of fine fabrics, composed of silk and cotton, of a 
 class not heretofore made in this country, and to which attention has not heretofore 
 been called in the adjustment of tarilf schedules. 
 
 Attention is requested to the following considerations : 
 
 An assumed fabric (hereby designated as Fabric A), to be in weight and texture 
 equal to sample hereto attached, made of .all cotton (no silk), would pay duty as fol- 
 lows, viz : By present law, 40 per cent, ad valorem ; by Mills bill, 40 per cent, ad 
 valorem ; by Senate bill, 45 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Goods like sample (silk included). Fabric B, is now subject to a duty of 35 per cent, 
 ad valorem under a Treasury ruling that they shall -be classed as " manufactures of 
 cotton not otherwise provided for." 
 
 According to both the Mills bill and the Senate bill the rate on Fabric No. 2 remains 
 unchanged, and there is no provision for reclassification. 
 
 Neither in existing law nor in either of the proposed bills referred to is there any 
 specific provision for cloths composed of silk and cotton, except as to those wherein 
 silk is component material of chief value. Furthermore, the duty on materials used 
 in Fabric A would be per yard, according to existing law, 4.95 cents, and according 
 to Senate bill 5.45 cents, while on materials in Fabric 15 the pr/isent duty is a.ns 
 cents, and would be according to Senate bill, S.85 cents. 
 
 We request and recommend that a provision in the law now under consideration 
 shall be as follows, viz : Add to p.aragraph corresponding to No. 319 Senate bill. 
 
 "Provided, further, That on cotton cloth bleached, dyed, colored, stained, painted or 
 printed, containing an admixture of silk, and not otherwise ijrovided for, there shall 
 be levied, collected, and paid a duty of 50 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 The Eoyal Weaving Company, 
 By D. G. LiTTLBFiELD, President. 
 
 THREAD. 
 
 HoLYOKE, Mass., January 21, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : I beg to call the attention of your committee to the Schedule I in the 
 Senate bill of January 26, 1889, first paragraph, lines 1260 to 1279, inclusive. The 
 paragraph as it stands is defective in two particulars : The first is that by a technical 
 construction of a paragraph you put doubled or grouped yarns, but not twisted, into 
 manufactures of cotton not specially enumerated or provided for, at a rate of duty 
 some 7 or 8 per cent, less than the bill prqvides for single yarn, notwithstanding the 
 cost of the process of doubling and twisting is almost entirely for labor. 
 
 Tlie second is that the same rate of duty is imposed upon yarns advanced beyond 
 the condition of single by doubling or doubling and twisting two or more yarns to- 
 gether, as is imposed upon single yarn. The operation of doubling and twisting,, es- 
 pecially if double twisted iuto six-cord for sewing-thread, is much more expensive 
 than the single process of spinning single yarns, as it requires expensive machinery 
 and a large amount of skilled labor to do the work in a perfect manner. An increase 
 of the rate of duty on these doubled and twisted threads or yarns commensurate 
 with the increased cost in labor of these threads when compared with single yams 
 will not, in my judgment, increase the revenue, but on the contrary, will tend to 
 diminisli it, as a very large portion of these doubled and twisted yarns are imported 
 in condition to be put upon spools for sewing-cotton, in direct competition with the 
 extensive manufacturers of spool thread, who take the lint cotton and carry it 
 through all the processes to the best six-cord sewing-thread. 
 
 The small increase of rate necessary to make the duty relatively equal to the rate 
 for single yarn would malie it more diiBcult for parties to import these threads and 
 compete with the thread made here from the raw cotton, and with wages to the worker 
 of nearly twice the amount paid to the workers who double and twist these threads 
 abroad. 
 
 To correct these defective features and to secure the fair rate of duty on grouped 
 or doubled yarn, or doubled and twisted thread, as compared with the rate on single 
 yarn, I present below the changes that I most respectfully ask to have substituted in 
 
838 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 the bill your committee have in preparation to report to the House in place of the 
 rates reported in the Senate hill ahove referred to. 
 Very respectfully yours, 
 
 Timothy Merrick, 
 Treasurer Merrick Thread, Company. 
 Hon. William McKinley, .Ir., 
 
 Cliairman Committee on Ifays and Means. 
 
 PROPOSED TEXT OF ALTERATIONS IN SENATE BILL JANUART 26, 1889. SCHEDULE 
 I, LINE 1260 TO 1279 INCLUSIVE. 
 
 * Section 313. Cotton yarn, Tvarp, or warp yarn, when not advanced heyond the 
 condition of single yarn, wliether on beams or in bundles, skeins, or cops, or in any 
 other form, valued at not exceeding 25 cents per pound, 10 cents per pound. Valued 
 at over 25 cents per pound and not exceeding 40 cents per pound, 18 cents per pound. 
 Valued at over 40 cents per pound and not exceeding 50 cents per pound, 23 cents per 
 pound. Valued at over 50 cents per pound and not exceeding 60 cents i^er pound, 28 
 cents per pound. Valued at over 60 cents per pound and not exceeding 70 cents per 
 pound, 33 cents per pound. Valued at over 70 cents per pound and not exceeding 80 
 cents per pound, 38 cents per pound. Valued at over 80 cents per pound and not 
 exceeding |1 per pound, 48 cents per pound. Valued at over |1 per pound, 50 per 
 cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Second : Cotton thread or yarn, when advanced beyond the condition of single by 
 grouping or grouping and twisting two or more single yarns together, whether on 
 beams or in bundles, skeins, or in co^), or on tubes or cones, or in any other form except 
 spool thread of cotton, as hereinafter provided for, valued at not exceeding 25 cents 
 per pound, 12 cents per pound. Valued at over 25 cents per pound and not exceed- 
 ing 40 cents per pound, 20 cents per pound. Valued at over 40 cents per pound and 
 not exceeding 50 cents per pound, 25 cents per pound. Valued at over .50 cents per 
 pound and not exceeding 60 cents per pound, 30 cents per pound. Valued at over 60 
 cents per pound and not exceeding 70 cents per pound, 35 cents per pound. Valued 
 at over 70 cents per pound and not exceeding 80 cents per pound, 40 cents per pound. 
 Valued at over 80 cents per pound and not exceeding |1 per pound, 50 cents per pound. 
 Valued at over $1 per pound, 50 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 CORSETS. 
 
 Ne-w Haven, Conn., February 4, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : The Corset Manufacturers' Association of the United States, which 
 comprises all the leading manufacturers, respectfully represent through their secre- 
 tary that the tariff on corsets under the existing law is inconsistent with the tarifE 
 on the materials composing the component parts of the corset. 
 
 The present duty on corsets is 35 per cent, ad valorem (see paragraph 324 B of the 
 present tariff laws, page 82), while the duty on the materials is as follows : 
 
 (1) Foreign jeans and coutilles, 40 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 (2) Steel used for the clasps, sides, and backs, 45 per cent, ad valorem, and one- 
 fourth cent per pouud additional for cold rolling ; equaling a duty of 55 per cent. 
 
 (3) Imported sateens, 40 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 (4) Laces for trimming corsets, 40 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 (5) Edgings, silk eml^roidered, .50 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 (6) Satins, 50 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 (7) Linen tapes, 35 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 (8) Sewing-threads, about 75 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 (9) Silk embroidered twists and floss, 50 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 (10) Worsted lastings and Italian cloths, from 60 to 75 per cent., according to 
 quality. 
 
 (11) Bindings, 35 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 (12) Eyelets, 45 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 You will please observe from the above enumeration thatthe tariff on the materials 
 composing the component parts of the corset, is largely in favor of the foreign manu- 
 facturer and importer, and decidedly against the interests of the American manu- 
 facturer. Taking into consideration the excessive duty on the materials over the 
 duty on the finished corsets, and connecting it with the cheap laborof Europe, makes 
 it aliLost injpossiblo for the American manufacturer to compete with the imported 
 article in the liner grades of corsets. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 839 
 
 The better class of trade in this country now demands corsets equal to the finer 
 p;rades of imported corsets, but as most of the materials entering into their manufact- 
 ure are not made in this country, it necessitates the importation of these materials 
 and trimmings by the American corset manufacturers, to enable them to produce cor- 
 sets equal to the imported in order to meet this demand. 
 
 The importation of the finer grades of corsets has increased annually, and unless 
 the American manufacturers receive adequate protection, at least on a parallel with 
 the imported materials, it will prevent them from producing corsets equal to the im- 
 ported in quality. 
 
 There are over fifty manufacturers of corsets in the United States, employing about 
 $8,000,000 capital and giving employment to about twelve thousand operators ; and 
 all we ask is that the dnty on imported corsets be placed on an equality with the im- 
 ported materials ; thereby giving the American manufacturer an opportunity to com- 
 pete with the finer grades of imported corsets. 
 
 Corsets made of black worsted goods are now largely imported, and, as above stated, 
 pay a duty of only 35 per cent., while the worsted goods in them, being the com- 
 ponent material of chief value, pay a duty of 60 to 75 per cent., according to quality. 
 The manufacturers of this country find it impossible to compete successfully with 
 this class of goods. These materials as well as the articles known as French and 
 English coutilles and the finer grades of jeans and sateens, are not made in this 
 country ; although many unsuccessful attempts have been made to do so. 
 
 Previous to the tariff bill of 1883 corsets valued at $6 and under per dozen paid 
 a specific duty of $2 per dozen; and those valued above $6 per dozen, a duty of 35 
 per cent, ad valorem. Thus showing that the present duty is lower than that pre- 
 vious to 1883; and for the proper protection of the industry we respectfully petition 
 your honorable committee to especially enumerate corsets at the following rates: 
 
 Corsets valued at |6 per dozen or less, 35 per cent, ad valorem ; and when valued 
 over $6 per dozen, 50 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Eespectfully submitted. 
 
 Max Adlkr, 
 Secretary Corset Manufacturers' Association of the United States. 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 USE OF HORN STRIPS. 
 
 New Haven, Conn., February 4, 1890. 
 
 Deak Sir: For many years "horn strips," used in the manufucture of corsets, 
 have been imported free of duty, as may be seen by referring to the tariff laws in 
 force previous to March, 1883 (page 43, paragraph 705 of the free list), which specially 
 enumerates horn strips ; and again by referring to the tariff law now in force (on page 
 101, paragraph 513 of the free list) which reads : 
 
 "Horns and parts of horns, unmanufactured, and horn strips and tips." 
 
 If the wording of the Senate bill is followed in the framing of a new bill, the 
 word "unmanufactured" would be affixed after the word tips, and would then 
 read "horns and parts of horns and horn strips and tips, unmanufactured;" and 
 as horn strips have undergone a partial process of manufacture they might be con- 
 strued to belong to the paragraph of manufactured horn at 35 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 If a duty of 35 per cent, should be imposed on horn strips it would add very materi- 
 ally to the cost of manufacturing corsets, without protecting any industry, as they 
 are not manufactured in the United States. 
 
 We would therefore petition your honorable committee to retain the paragraph as 
 in the free list of the present tariff law. 
 
 We respectfully request that you give our subject careful and due consideration. 
 
 Eespectfully submitted. 
 
 Max Adler, 
 Secretary American Corset Manufacturers' Association of the United States. 
 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee, 
 
840 EEVISION GF THE TARIFF. 
 
 NECKWEAR. 
 
 Mr. H. Lasch, of New York, made a statement before the committee on tlie sub- 
 ject of the duty on cotton neckwear. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I a,m a representative of the manufacturers of cot- 
 ton neckwear in this country. That manufacture gives employment to two thousand 
 five hundred or three tuonsand people, earning from |5 to $15 a, week. Up to two 
 years ago we used to sell all our goods in this marker.. At that time a tendency for 
 finer goods sprang up, and we had to import our raw material from France and Eng- 
 land, paying a duty of from 40 to 56 cents per square yard. Then the manufactured 
 goods came into this market, on which the duty was only 35 per cent., but the Senate 
 bill gave us an addition of 5 per cent., making the duty on imported goods 40 per 
 cent. Now the French manufacturer can land his goods here (at a profit of 20 per 
 cent.) at about .$14 x'er gross, while it costs us, paying the duty on the material 
 iwhich is also manufactured goods) |15.56 per gross, just merely to manufacture 
 them. I know that some of these foreign goods h.ive been im])orted at considerably 
 less by undervaluations. We have therefore been barred out for the last two years 
 in selling our goods of a better quality. We can only manufacture and sell cheap 
 goods, and therefore we ask au increase of duty. We ask that the rate be fixed at 
 jjl a dozen on all goods imported up to and under the price of $1 a dozen, and $2 a 
 dozen on goods above that price. 
 
 The Chairman. Does the Senate bill give you that provision ? 
 
 Mr. Lasch. It gives us 5 per cent, additional. 
 
 CARD CLOTHING. 
 
 Tkeasuby Department, Office of tiie Secretary, 
 
 Washington, D. C, February 20, 1890. 
 Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith, for your information, extract from a 
 report dated the 15th instant, of Special Agent Charles H. Litchniau, in relation to 
 the diflerence in the duty assessed on card clothing imported and on the materials 
 of which such clothing is made. 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 Geo. C. Tichenor, 
 
 Assistant Secretary. 
 (One inclosure.) 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 Office of Special Agent, Treasury Department, 
 
 Boston. Mass., February 15, 1890. 
 Sir : I have the honor to submit the following for the consideration of the Dei)art- 
 ment : 
 
 In the course of an investigation into the drawback to be allowed on materials im- 
 ported to be used in making card clothing and afterwards exported in the finished 
 product, I find that on the cloth there is paid '■'>') per cent, ad valorem and 35 cents 
 per pound per square yard, and on the tempered steel-wire 3 cents per pound. 
 * ■» jf -» # * ^* 
 
 I respectfully call the attention of the Department to what seems to me to be an 
 incongruity in charging such high duties on the materials of which card clothing is 
 composed, while at tlie same time on the manufactured article is assessed a duty far 
 smaller than on said materials. 
 
 If this difference is more app.arent tlian real, my lack of familiarity with such 
 matters must be my excuse for calling the attention of the Department thereto. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 Chas. H. Litchman, 
 
 Special Agent 
 
 Hon. William Windom, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. G. 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 841 
 
 BOUNTY ON EXPORTS OF TEXTILES FROM RUSSIA. 
 
 Tekasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 
 
 Washington, D. C, Fehruary 21, 1890. 
 Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith, for your iuformation, copy of a letter 
 dated the 15th instant, from the Secretary of State, and of its accompanying copy of 
 dispatch No. 129, dated the 23d ultimo, from the consul-Keneral at Berliu, in rela- 
 tion to the bounty wliich it is alleged the Russian Government proj)oses to pay on 
 exports of cotton textiles and fabrics shipped to the United States. 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 Geo. C. Tichenoe, 
 
 Assistant Secretary. 
 Hon. WiLiJAM McKlNLEY, .Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 No. 129.] United States Consulate-General, 
 
 Berlin, January 23, 1890. 
 Sir: Referring to your previous correspondence with regard the bounty on exports 
 granted by the Government of Germany, I now have the honor to inform you that it 
 is reported in well informed commercial and financial quarters in Berlin that the 
 Russian Government has concluded to concede a bounty on the exports of cotton 
 yarns and textile fabrics. 
 
 It is said that the rates of bounty named are calculated on the assumed amounts of 
 duty paid on the raw material. 
 
 It seems to be the policy of all protective tariff countries of Europe to grant similar 
 concessions. 
 
 This information is, it seems to me, of special importance to Congress in connection 
 with the revision of our tariff. 
 
 I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 W. H. Edwards, 
 
 Consul-General. 
 
 Hon. W. F. Wharton, 
 
 Assistant Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 
 
842 EEVISION-OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 FARM PKODUCTS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF S. C. BOWEN. 
 
 Mr. S. C. BowEN, of Medina, N. Y., addressed the committee on tlie subject of 
 duty on beans. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here with Mr. Smith. We 
 come from the bean section of New Yorli. I am a dealer in the article of beans and 
 Mr. Smith is a farmer and producer of beans. We are here to talk upon the bean 
 question, more especially on beans as an article of food, not forseed. I believe that 
 the question of beans for seed was presented yesterday. I do not know that the 
 question of beans for food has ever come up in this committee or in Congress before. 
 I am here in the interest of myself as a dealer, and especially at the solicitation of 
 my farmer friends. Mr. Smith is here by appointment of a very largo assemblage of 
 farmers held in the village of Albion last Saturday, who appointed him as their del- 
 egate, and who subsequently came to me to ask me to act in connection with him. 
 He will be able to answer questions in relation to beans better than I can. I am not 
 a farmer, but I have been in the bean business, and have grown up with it from the 
 first. We claim to be the pioneer country of the United States in bean-growing and 
 bean-selling. We have to say that the duty of 10 per centum ad valorem does not 
 keep out foreign beans at all. It is all the same as if beans were free. In my judg- 
 ment no more or no less beans would be imported if they were free. The existing 
 duty does not prevent free arrivals of foreign beans, to the injury of bean growing 
 in western New York; and I presume that what is true of our section is true of all 
 the bean-growing sections in the United States. 
 
 The duty on beans, .as proposed in the Senate bill of last year, will not cover or 
 reach the difflculties that now environ the business of bean producing and bean 
 traffic. We ask that a larger rate of duty be imposed on imported beans ; and that 
 rate I should say should be 50 cents per bushel. The rate of -25 cents per bushel will 
 not meet the emergency. It will only increase the revenue and will not prevent the 
 large imports which are now beginning to come into this country. 
 
 As I said, I am speaking about food-beans. We do not grow beans for seed. It is 
 difficult to grow together beans for food and beans for seed. These two businesses 
 are apart from each other. Yet the difficulties that environ the one environ the other 
 also. * I think that the gentleman who presented the question yesterday (Mr. Payne) 
 was a little too modest in the rate of duty asked for. The reasons for asking this 
 increase of duty I have committed to paper, as I can make them a little clearer in 
 that way than 1 can in an off-hand talk. 
 
 In the year 1836 a single pint of beans was brought into the town of Yates, Or- 
 leans county, N. Y. (my native town), from the eastern part of the State, by Stephen 
 Coe, who planted them. In 1839, his son, T. H. Coe, raised about '3'S bushels, sup- 
 posed to have been the first load of beans gi'own in western New York, and sold 
 them to H. V. Prentis, of Albion, N. Y., the only man in the county who could be in- 
 duced to buy so many. 
 
 Thus sprang this great industry in this country to an importance never before 
 reached in the world's hi.story. 
 
 For many years western New York was the producer and New England the con- 
 sumer, but to-day the palm belongs to neither, for the consumption is universal, and 
 the production of beans has extended to many other Northern States; also to Cali- 
 fornia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, and it is now working its way into new 
 sections of the West, until we have become a nation of bean-growers and bean-eaters. 
 In fact we are the only people with whom beans are popular as food, aud this has 
 stimulated the production of beans in France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy ,,and 
 other foreign lands, not for themselves nor for other nations about them, but with 
 special reference to trade in this country. 
 
 Previous to 1880 the United States census rej.orts coupled beans with peas, so that 
 accurate informatiou of the amount of beans produced is wanting, but accoi-ding to 
 the last census of 1880, Monroe, one of the eight counties referred to, now represented 
 in Congress by Hon. Charles IJakcr, of Rochester, N. Y., produced in 1879, 292,56S 
 bushels of beans, the largest amount of any of the eight counties, being about 10 per 
 cent, of the entire product of the United States, (jrloaus County, represented in 
 Congress by Hon. John G. Sawyer, of Albion, N. Y., produced 246,235 bushels, rela- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 843 
 
 tively the largest amount produced by any of them. The eight connties produced 
 1,051,316 bushels, or over one-third of the entire ijroduct of the United States, whioh 
 ■was 3,075,050 bushels. Of this New Yorls; State produced 1,303,444 bushels, or about 
 43 per cent, of the entire amount ; California 378,971, of which Sacramento County 
 produced 109,514, being the fifth county in amount raised in the Union ; Michigan, 
 176,658 ; Missouri, 90,723 ; Kentucky, 70,017, and seven other States over 50,000 each. 
 
 In the absence of later census statistics we may safely estimate the entire crop of 
 the United States in 1888 to have been 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 bushels. Of this prob- 
 ably 2,000,000 bushels were raised in New York, 500,000 bushels each in California 
 and Michigan, and the remainder in the "other States named and other States not then 
 developed. 
 
 The staple products consist mainly of Medium and Pea beans, and these are all sub- 
 stantially consumed here. Otber kinds are grown to a limited extent, but they 
 would not be affected by a tariff, except symiiathetically, as they are either not 
 grown abroad or are grown here for export. 
 
 The present duty of 10 per cent, ad valoreui does not keep out foreign beans, nor 
 does the provision of 25. cents per busliel in the Senate bill reach the difficulty. It 
 will only increase the revenue and not materially restrict, much less exclude imports. 
 
 The present cost of duty and freight from foreign ports to New York is about 25 to 
 27 cents per bushel. Under the Senate provision it would be 37 to40cenls per bushel. 
 Add the last sum to $1.10 or $1.20, probable prices at some time during the present 
 season in foreign ports, and you have the importer's cost of $1.50 to $1.60 per bushel 
 landed in New York. The present jobbing value of foreign beans in the same market 
 is $1.65 per bushel — the cost to the importer somewhat less. If you make the duty 
 50 cents per bushel, the importing cost would be $1.75 to $1.85, the present jobbing 
 price of domestic pea and medium beans and 10 to 15 cents more than the jirice of 
 foreign beans in the same market, showing that even the sum of 50 cents will not en- 
 tirely prevent imports, but under such a duty markets would settle to actual value 
 and steadiness prevail as in wheat and other markets. 
 
 Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we assign these and other reasons that we shall offer 
 why a specific duty of 50 cents per bushel should be placed on all importations of 
 beans for food, and, although not directly interested in them, to avoid confusion, 
 would advise including beans for seed. 
 
 Is this too much ? Let us see. In determining the right amount of duty to be 
 placed on beans It is proper to consider their intrinsic and commercial values. Meas- 
 ured by the former it is not too much, as will be seen by the following table : 
 
 
 Water. 
 
 Muscle. 
 
 Fat. 
 
 
 75.2 
 14.8 
 
 1.4 
 
 24.0 
 
 
 
 57.7 
 
 
 
 In comparison to the commercial value of potatoes and the duty of 15 cents per 
 bushel on them, it is not too much. Even the duty on potatoes does not prevent free 
 importations, as the receipts of foreign potatoes at New York in the last week of De- 
 cember were abont 48 per cent, of the total receipts from all sources. Farmers think, 
 and justly, that the duty on potatoes should be 25 cents instead of 15 ceilts. 
 
 Do we need foreign productions of beans? We answer, No. 
 
 First. There is no class benefited, except importers. Exclude them and \he mar- 
 kets will all be well supplied and with a better average quality of beans, for until 
 quite lately, when foreigners learned the quality and kind of beans wanted, the 
 principal importations were quite inferior to domestic beans, and the average quality 
 of all imports is still under the domestic production. Formerly, beans in foreign 
 lands had no commercial value and only a very limited home consumption, mainly 
 with the lower classes. They were grown on small plots of ground, that produced 
 from 1 to 5 bushels each. Farmers here plant from 5 to 50 acres each, and in some 
 cases more. Great care is used to select pure seed and also to substitute a new va- 
 riety for a degenerate one. It has not been so with foreign peasants, as their beans 
 have been more or less mixed and degenerate in quality. When exportations began 
 dealers went through the country on set days, buying in very small lots, and in some 
 cases the accumulation of years. 
 
 Second. We do not need them for lack of suitable soil and climate, for both are ad- 
 mirably adapted to bean growing here, and the area of such soil is extensive. The 
 consumption of beans in this country has doubled in the last ten years, yet New 
 York alone would, if permitted, produce a supply sufficient to meet the present de- 
 mands of the whole country. 
 
 Third. Consumers would not suffer by the exclusion of foreign beans, as a higher 
 tariff would largely stimulate productions and ordinarily low prices would prevail. 
 
844 
 
 REVISION OP THE TAEIFF. 
 
 Cue farmer said to me, " If the duty is raised to .50 cents, I will plant 30 acres with 
 beans this spring instead of 10." The production of beans in western New York 
 would double the coming season. 
 
 Even the crop of the season previous to this was ample for domestic use, there be- 
 ing but small iuinortations and these were mainly during the last quarter of the bean 
 season. If no higher prices would prevail, then do you ask, " What is the gain of a 
 higher tariff?" We answer, " Much." To illustrate : If ten idle men need and want 
 work at $1 per day it is better that all he employed than that only five are and five 
 remain idle. So, if a farmer wishes to raise 200 bushels of beans at $1.25 per bushel, 
 it is better that he be allowed to do so, than that he be confined to raise 100 bushels 
 at the same price, while the other 100 bushels are raised abroad. 
 
 lu other words, if this country consumes 6,000,000 bushels of beans in a year, is it 
 not better that all be grown here, rather than half, while we obtain the other half 
 through importers ? 
 
 The farmers' income constitutes only a part of the revenue derived from beans. 
 Country dealers build large warehouses, equivalent to factories, and equip them with 
 machinery for elevating and cleaning, and with conveniences for picking beans, so that 
 they are fitted for table use. Nearly all beans are hand picked, before .shipping, thus 
 giving employment to many hundred women and girls, especially during winter 
 months, when there is little or no work for men who labor out of doors. Thus farmers, 
 merchants, laboring classes, and all are benefited thereby. 
 
 In the year 18491 purchased 500 bushels of superior medium beans, at $1 per bushel. 
 From this time to the war prices ruled low, at times less than |1, as demands were 
 slow in developing. 
 
 The war created a large demand for army use and prices duriug this time averaged 
 higher, notwithstanding productions increased. There were no imports for the reason 
 that there were no beans in foreign markets. After the war prices Avere lower, and 
 in the spring of 1866 they were dull at ipl. From this time till 1870 the demand and 
 prices increased faster than the productions, and as near as I can learn, importations 
 then began for the first, but not in quantities sufficient to affect prices. A reaction 
 took place, and in 1876 prices declined to 00 cents, per bushel. The following season 
 another reaction caused an advance in prices which continued to increase until 1881, 
 when importations again began, and for three years continued freely until Septem- 
 ber 1, 1884. The three years following, until September 1, 1887, importations were 
 very light, but the domestic crop being large, prices were low at |1 to $1.25. 
 
 In the season of 1887, a severe drought cut off vegetation in many of the, Western 
 States, and created an unusual demand for beans. Prices advanced and were sus- 
 tained through the season, notwithstanding there were larger imports than ever, the 
 total amount being about 1,300,000 bushels, of which over 1,000,000 arrived at New 
 York alone. To obtain these the world was ransacked for its surplus of beans, and 
 when obtained they were shipped here and placed on the markets. Many thousand 
 bags yet remain, too poor to sell. 
 
 The following table shows the importations of beans at New York City for eight 
 years, from September 1, 1881, to September 1, 1889: 
 
 Yeax. 
 
 Bags (Si 
 bushels 
 each). 
 
 Bushels. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Bags (3J 
 bushels 
 each). 
 
 Bushels. 
 
 1882 
 
 230, 082 
 
 75, 613 
 
 140, CIO 
 
 7,193 
 
 805, 287 
 
 264 295 
 
 492, 136 
 
 25, 176 
 
 1886 
 
 3,674 
 
 13, 787 
 
 312,816 
 
 30, 838 
 
 12, 859 
 
 1883 
 
 1887 
 
 48,254 
 
 1,094,862 
 
 107, 933 
 
 1884 
 
 1888 
 
 1885 
 
 1889 
 
 
 
 The importations of 1888-'89, as given in the table, occurred mainly after June 1, 
 1889, from which time they have continued regularly and largely until now. 
 
 Thus it will be seen that the business of exporting beans from foreign countries to 
 the United St.ites for food, is quite modern and has been irregular and without seri- 
 ous injury to the industry here until the present season, duriug which the arrivals 
 have been free and steady and the token of future imports. 
 
 This constitutes a crisis that threatens destruction to bean growing here. There- 
 fore the indu.stry claims protection at this particular time, over any other in its history. 
 
 The extreme of high prices stimulated tlie production and importation of foreign 
 beans, so also did the production of beans here at low prices and under no imports 
 demonatr.'itc: tlic ])roducing capacity of this country. 
 
 Itccurriiig again to the current cro]is of Jbreign and domestic beans, please notice 
 that tlioy appcarod Kimultaneously in our markets in September last, the quality of 
 mostot'rhc lorcigu liciug now for the fir.st time nearly equal to the domestic, and 
 entered into a strife that lias continued without cessation until the present. ludi- 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 845 
 
 cations, however, point to foreign beans loading in the race, as about 73 per cent, of 
 the arrivals at New York City, 85 per cent, of those at Baltimore, and 37 per cent, of 
 those at Boston for domestic use were foreign beans, as shown by the following tables ; 
 
 lieceiots of beans at Neiv York, Baltimore, and Boston from September 1, 1889, to Januamt 
 
 1, 1890. 
 
 New York : 
 
 Domestic (for domestic use) bnsh,. 84,650 
 
 Foreign (agaihst 7, 600 in same time last year) do . . 240, 000 
 
 Total do... 3:i4,650 
 
 Baltimore : 
 
 Domestic bnsh.. 3, 500 
 
 Foreign - do. .. 21, 112 
 
 Total do... 24,612 
 
 Boston : 
 
 Domestic bush.. 125,909 
 
 Foreign do... 72,293 
 
 Total do... 198,202 
 
 Total domestic and foreign : 
 
 Domestic bush.. 214, 059 
 
 Foreign do... 333, 405 
 
 Total do... 547,464 
 
 Domestic per cent . . 40 
 
 Foreign do . . . 60 
 
 Total do... 100 
 
 Your special attention is invited to the prices that prevailed during this time in 
 the country. They began at !{il. 85 and declined, six weeks later, to .|;l.fiu, and slill 
 later to about $1.30, resting there at the present. The future of the si-ason, as 1o 
 quantity and prices, is as uncertain as at the beginning. 
 
 Importations caused the decline, and some will say that it inured to the benefit of 
 the consumer in this case; all true, relating to the decline, but untrue as to tbo 
 average of prices during the whole time. For, had there been no imports, and if, 
 instead, the domestic crop had been equal to the sum of the imports and present 
 crop, prices would have begun and contiuued to the present much neari^r their actual 
 value, and, as we think, midwaj between the extreme prices during tlie whole time. 
 
 You can estimate the world's crop of wheat, but you can 'not that of its vegetables. 
 
 Were all our beans raised here, a fair estimate of an impending crop could be made, 
 but with the world for the field it is an impossibility. 
 
 It is this uncertain feature of inability to estimate the amount of a foreign crop 
 that disturbs producers and dealers here. 
 
 The difficulty can be removed by imposing a duty of 50 cents per bushel on imports, 
 and when this is done, domestic productions of beans will adjust themselves in i|uan- 
 tities and values relatively to other farm products. 
 
 Mr. Payne spoke yesterday of the fact that country dealers in beans were in the 
 habit of buying foreign beans and mixing them with State beans and selling them as 
 State beans. Whatever may have been the tricks of the trade in the past that trick 
 need not be resorted to any longer, for this year the foreign bean is equal to ours. 
 They are not superior, but they are the same beans. The foreigners have obtained 
 our seed and now grow beans in the same manner as we do, and they put in the New 
 York and Boston markets substantially the same beans ; we can not tell the-differenoe 
 in the samples, so that that point is no longer absolutely true. There has been a 
 time when the foreign beans were so poor that they could not very well compete with 
 ours. But now they can, so far as quality is concerned. I am bound to state the 
 facts whether they are against me or not. 
 
 I am not hero to ask anything that is not fair, and to present one side merely, but 
 to state the facts as nearly as my observation as a dealer enables me to do so. 
 
 As to the consnmption of beans in this country, my statement that it has doubled 
 or quadrupled is made merely from my own observation and from what I can gather 
 outside. It is not based on the Government leports, because the imports of beans 
 and pease are classed under the one head ; and I know of no way of getting the exact 
 particulars in regard to it except by the commercial records. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, one word, if you please, on the question of the capacity, dis- 
 position, and probability of thiscountry producing all the beans needed forhomecon- 
 sumption at low prices, if foreign beans are wholly excluded. I want to say this from 
 
846 REVISION OP THE TAEIPF. 
 
 the staadpoint of a dealer's observation rather than from the standpoint of a farmer. 
 The farmer expects that the increase of duty is going to inure to his benefit by in- 
 creasing the price of beans. I have occasionally to difler with many of our farm- 
 ers in discussing that point. I say to them that vphat they want is the opportunity 
 of growing all the beans that this country can consume, and I tell them that, 
 having that privilege, they will grow all that can be consumed, but at low prices. 
 So, what we ask for the farmer is such a rate of duty on the importation of beans 
 that the farmer of this country can grow every bushel of beans consumed here— 
 that the man who now grows only 10 acres of beans can then grow 20 acres, prices 
 being the same. It is understood that beans can be grown at a low cost. Not as low- 
 as wheat, but, having the land, having the experience, linowing all about the busi- 
 ness, and the trade being worlied up and moving on to a large development, there 
 can not be any question about the capacity and willingness and disposition of the 
 farming community to produce all the beans that can be possibly used in this coun- 
 try, at low prices, if the foreign beans are excluded. 
 
 I have said this to farmers, and I say it now, that, so far as I am individually con- 
 cerned (if it were practicable), I would not object, but would advise that when 
 beans reached a certain point of cost at the place of exportation, they should be ad- 
 mitted free. For instance, if, at a certain point, they cost |2 a bushel, they should 
 be admitted free, and if they cost $1.75 a bushel, they should pay a duty of 2 cents a 
 bushel. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Have you stated the amount of imports of beans for the year 1888? 
 
 Mr. BOWEN. Yes ; I have given that. I stated that there were no imports this 
 year — I mean for the past fiscal year. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you grow peas to a large extent in your neighborhood ? 
 
 Mr. BoWBN. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are peas grown largely in this country ? 
 
 Mr. BowEN. I do not know. They are not grown in any part of our State. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You say that in the table of imports bean^ and peas are included under 
 the same head ? 
 
 Mr. BowEN. Yes ; so far as I have seen they are under the head of peas and beans. 
 
 Mr. Gear. There are nearly 2,000,000 bushels of all imported. 
 
 Mr. BowBN. In 1887 ? 
 
 Mr. Gear. In 1888. 
 
 Mr. BowEN. There were no imports until about the month of June. From that 
 time to the present there have been about 300,000 bushels imported, and from the 1st 
 of .September to the present 240,000 bushels as against 84,000 bushels of New York 
 beans for domestic use. I have been willing to present both sides of this question 
 fairly. During this same time, of the receipt of beans at Boston, about 40 or 50 per 
 cent, were foreign beans. Most of the imports went there. As to the other points 
 where beans are imported the foreign beans in the market were much less than the 
 domestic beans. If you take the condition of the bean business in New York State 
 It forms and settles the issues all through the country. It is not so much what has 
 been done in the way of importing foreign beans as what may be done, for, the fact 
 is, there have been but few foreign beans imported into this country. 
 
 STATEMENT OF S. W., SMITH. 
 
 Mr. S. W. Smith, of Albion, N. Y., addressed the committee on the same subject. 
 He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I belong to a class of men who are not accustomed 
 to public speaking, so that I think I will net weary you. I am glad of this oppor- 
 tunity of coming here. I represent a class of people in the North and in the West, 
 whose loyalty never has been questioned ; a class of people who, at the last Presi- 
 dential election, a little more than a year ago, voted largely in favor of a tariff for 
 protection, and we are willing to have the industriesof this country protected by the 
 tariff. For one, I am perfect^ly satisfied to protect the sugar and rice industries in 
 the southern part of the country, I am willing to protect any indi^stry in this 
 country, and if I represent an industry that needs protection, I ask you to listen to 
 its claims. , 
 
 I represent here to-day the farmers of westerji New York in the matter of the pro- 
 duction of beans. As Mr. Bowen has just told you, it is an industry which be- 
 longs largely to the locality where I live ; but it is not confined to-day to New York 
 State, although the census of 1880 shows that New York produced over 40 per cent, 
 of the total ii mount of beans produced in this country. But that would probably not 
 be the fact to-day. It is very difficult to get at figures in the matter. I hold in 
 my baud (taken from one of the books on your table yesterday) a table of the imports 
 of the whole country from 1871) up to 1880; but tlKse figures put beans and peas all 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 847 
 
 in one class, and I am free to say that we can not tell how much is beans and how 
 much is peas. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Give us the totals. 
 
 Mr. Smith. The total in 1879 was 369,000 bushels, at an average value of 82 cents a 
 bushel ; but this includes beans and peas. 
 
 The totals for the other years are as follows: 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Bushels. 
 
 Value per 
 bushel. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Bushels. 
 
 Value per 
 bushel. 
 
 1880 
 
 343, 000 
 
 365, 000 
 
 1, ]90,0u0 
 
 1, 000, 000 
 
 1, 160, 000 
 
 $0.86 
 
 .94 
 
 1.43 
 
 1.44 
 
 1.35 
 
 1885 
 
 284, 000 
 
 649, 000 
 
 648, 000 
 
 2, 000, 000 
 
 $0.89 
 .90 
 
 1881 
 
 1886 
 
 1882 - . ... 
 
 1887 
 
 93 
 
 1883 over 
 
 1888 almost 
 
 1.13 
 
 1884 
 
 
 
 
 
 I wish we were able to take apart these two items of beans and peas, but we can 
 not do it. A speciiic duty is one of the things we advocate, and if you will make the 
 duty specific you may iix the amount at whatever your judgment thinks best. 
 
 May I say to you (what you already know) that all over the North and West there 
 is a period of depression in agriculture. I heard questions put to gentlemen here 
 yesterday trying to bring out from them their opinion as to what has caused this de- 
 pression. Here is one thing that causes it. What is the tariff to-day on imported 
 wheat ? 
 
 Mr. Gbar. Twenty cents a bushel. 
 
 Mr. Smith. You have made a law that if any one imports wheat into this country, 
 the importer shall pay 20 cents a bushel. Very well. As farmers we get no benefit from 
 that, but we make no complaint whatever. We produce more than we consume. If, for 
 instance, 50,000,000 bushels of wheat are exported from this country in a year, that 
 .50,000,000 bushels makes the price of all the wheat that we consume in this country. 
 We cannot help it. There is no use in kicking against that fact. I think that I can 
 forecast the future enough to say that we produce to-day as much wheat as this 
 country ever will produce. I need not go into the reasons for it, but that is my judg- 
 ment and that is my hope. In the not distant future this nation will consume all 
 the wheat that it produces, and when that time comes that we begin to import 
 wheat, then the price of that cereal will advance ; whereas if we produce more wheat 
 than we can consume, we will have to sell it at a low price. 
 
 It is the same with the cattle industry in the far West. A gentleman was asked 
 here yesterday when he stated that cattle sold in Kansas at li cents a pound whether 
 that was not stock cattle. It is not, gentlemen. It is fat cattle. I know a neighbor 
 of mine who put into his barn fifty steers to feed that came from Kansas, and they 
 cost him $2.55 a hundred ; and these steers are fat to-day. 
 
 Mr. Gear. They came off the grass in Kansas I suppose ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. They were fed on grass during the summer and they are now fat. The 
 only profitable stock to fatten is stock that is fat already. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You seem to confuse the idea between fat cattle and stock cattle. In 
 the West stock cattle is such as is sold to the East. Fat cattle is such as is ready to 
 go to the butcher's shop. 
 
 Mr. Smith. Tile cattle that I speak of were sold in the Buffalo market for fat cat- 
 tle ; and this gentleman purchased them instead of buying stockers, because we con- 
 sider it more profitable to feed fat cattle than to feed stockers. Now I say that of 
 wheat, and of cattle, and of pork, we produce more than we consume, aud if we had 
 a tarifi' upon them we could not derive any help from it. 
 
 But the remark which I first started with was that as a people, the farmers of the 
 North and West are in favor of protection to home industries ; and we do not mean a 
 tariff for revenue either. We mean proteotiou, and we mean protection to every in- 
 dustry. And now all that I ask for here to-day is that you may consider an industry 
 which we have in our neighborhood, that is, the manufacture (I may call it so) of 
 beans. 
 
 We have soil all overthe North, from Maine to California, which is especially adapted 
 to the raising of beans, and we have got machinery for the purpose and we know 
 how to raise beans. Now, we do not want to compete with the cheaper labor of the 
 old countries in producing our product any more than a manufacturer does in pro- 
 ducing his. And I may say to you gentlemen that the farmer of the North has done 
 moro thinking in the last four months than he has done for years before. We have 
 abundant crops, but the only thing to-day which brings a high price with us is 
 money, and it takes a vast amount of produce to get much of that. 
 
 Now, whether legislation can help us or not is a question for you statesmen. We 
 are a loyal people. We believe in supporting the Government. We believe in sus- 
 
848 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 taiuing manafactures— not only in sustaining them, but in protecting them ; and -we 
 want to be protected ourselves if we have an industry that demands protection. I 
 see by the Senate bill that it proposes a specific tax on beans. That I think is right. 
 You see here by the figures I have given, if they are at all to be relied upon (and I ;im 
 not sure about that because the beans and peas come in together), that the prices are 
 below $1 a bushel in New York City, and that there has been only four years out of 
 the ten where the prices were above |1 a bushel. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The years when they were over |1 a bushel appear to Iiave been the 
 years of the greatest importation. 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes. That is why the importations came in. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. If the importations do not come in when the price is low by reason 
 of the duty that exists at present, bow will the iucrease of duty tend to raise the 
 prices when they are low ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I think that Ibat is a fair question and I will try and answer it. When- 
 ever the foreign beans come into this country in large amounts one year, we are afraid 
 of tbem for the next year, and do not produce so much. Now, we are already afraid 
 this year. I have not anything to conceal on this subject, for there is nothing to be 
 gained by misrepresentation or by withholding facts. The foreign beans have been 
 coming into this country since last June, and coming in largely. We have had all 
 through New York a peculiar fall and a jjeculiar winter. The beans grown with us 
 are white beans, and of course there is a certain amount of dirt in them. If these 
 beans are prepared in a damp winter, they can not be made white. The farmers have 
 been forced to Let the beans lie in the pods and to let the foreign beans come in and 
 supply the market because they can not get their own beans out. I think I can fore- 
 see that there are going to be higher prices for the imported beans, and when the 
 farmers of the North can get out their beans they will get low prices for tbem. Now, 
 if we could know that this industry is to be protected, we could raise all the beans 
 that this country can use. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. But take the case you have stated. Suppose the duty was 50 cents 
 a bushel ; still if your beans can not be got out to be put upon the market, would not 
 the foreign beans still come in to supply the demands of the market ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I guess you will all admit that we have had an exceptional fall in re- 
 gard to moisture. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You state that the years when the foreign beans come in most largely 
 are the years when you get the largest price for your beans? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Tliat is so, and it is because the foreigners do not send their beans here 
 v ry much when the prices are low. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That is the case always in regard to all products. 
 
 Mr. Smith. The dealers in Rochester and other localities, when the price of beans 
 advanced last spring, sent agents to Germany and kept them there a large part of the 
 summer contracting for beans, and those contracts are already being tilled and the 
 beans are arriving in the ports of this country. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What time of the year do you harvest the bean croji ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. In September. They must be harvested before the frost. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How do you gather the beans — entirely by hand ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. No, sir. There is what is called a hand-picked bean. I heard a gentle- 
 man lately make a statement on that point. He said there are some hand-picked 
 beans, and they have been picked from the vines by hand. That gentleman did not 
 know any better, and was of course not to blame. A band-picked bean is a bean that 
 is put upon a table similar to this, and women sit by the table and pick the beans, 
 taking ont all the dirt and the inferior beans. Ns, we harvest our beans with a bean 
 harvester. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What kind of an implement is your bean harvester ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. It is an implement that is drawn by two horses and that is managed by 
 one man. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It cuts the vine ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It operates as a mower? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, it operates similarly to a mower except, that the knives do not 
 work back and forth as the knives of a mower. The knives are in Ibis shape [indi- 
 catingT and are moved along so as to throw the two rows of bean stalks into one 
 row. The knives run under ground about an inch and force the vines out of the 
 ground into one row. Then a man passes along with a fork. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do the knives cut the roots of the vine? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do they use tliose machines abroad, so far as you know ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I do not know, i think the gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Bowen) 
 is right in saying lli.-it until within two years past and perhaps within one year, the 
 foreigners have takiMi to producing beans like our own. Formerly the foreign beans 
 tli:it came to this couutry were iiicked over and mixed with New York State beana 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 849 
 
 and were then sold as New York beans, but to-day the beans that come into New 
 York and Boston are evenly graded, which shows that they have got machines for 
 screening them similar to our own machines, and they are hand picked. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. And your beans are not hand picked? 
 
 Mr. Smith. We farmers do not hand pick thorn. The dealer works them over 
 afterwards. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How does the valne of the land on which beans are produced abroad 
 compare with the value of your land? 
 
 Mr. Smith. That I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is not the land abroad much higher in value? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I have no means of answering the question, and will not attempt to 
 do so. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you not think that you have an advantage in the comparative 
 cheapness of your land and in the fact that you use macltinery to so much greater 
 an extent than it is used abroad ? Do you not think that these two factors give you 
 an advantage over the foreign producer of beans ? 
 
 The Chairman. The same machinery is open to the foreigner, I suppose ? 
 
 Mr. Carlisle (to the witness). Do you not thiuk that these two factors give the 
 American farmer an advantage over the producer abroad ? Of course there is a dif- 
 ference iu the cost of labor; but I want to see whether that difference is not equal- 
 ized by those other advantages that you have. 
 
 Mr. Smith. So long as I know nothing of the price of their land, I can not answer 
 that question. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What do you consider a remunerative price for beans? 
 
 Mr. Smith. The farmers of my section (and I presume of other sections, but I speak 
 only of what I know) would be very glad to get $1.25 a bushel for their beans. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. During the years when the importation of beans has been very 
 large, have not your beans generally brought that price or more? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Always, when the imports were large. 
 
 Mr. Brbckinridgb. Then yoa have nothing to fear from those circumstances that 
 may cause large imports to this country? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Perhaps I have not made this thing plain, and I wish to do so if I have 
 not. This year foreign beans are coming in in large quantities, and the result of that 
 will be that the farmers will not dare to invest very much money in this industry 
 next year, knowing that it has been so time and again that, just after high prices, 
 there is a year of very low prices, because the foreiguers have got the field. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Have you knowledge of the fact that the importation of beans 
 is large now, or do you get it from the custom-house ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. We do not get it from the custom-house, hut we have it from men who 
 are watching the trade in beans. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And yet the official data that you have read to the committee 
 running through a number of years is just the reverse of what you have stated. Every 
 year that the imports were large the price of beans appears to have been considerably 
 over $1 a bushel. 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, and the price is over $1 to-day. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It may be. You do not mean to say that the farmers are dis- 
 couraged by high prices ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. No, it is the prices of 85 cents and 86 cents and 93 cents a bushel that 
 discourage them. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But the years of these low prices are the years of small im- 
 ports ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, and of no imports. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If in the years of no imports the prices are low, and if in the 
 years of large imports the prices are high, how can that produce a discouraging effect 
 upon the farmers ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. In 1879 the price of beans was 82 cents a bushel. The farmer did not 
 receive as much the next year, but in 1881, about the time that the old crop was 
 worked off, foreign beans began to come in. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you people who raise beans as a food crop raise also other 
 crops on the same farm ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, we go on a rotation of crops. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. About what percentage of the farm is given to the bean crop ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. If a farmer has 100 acres of land, he will probably raise from 10 to 20 
 acres of beans. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then from 10 to 20 per cent, of the farm, .according to circum- 
 stances, will be planted in beans ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does it take more labor to cultivate beans titan to cultivate 
 corn? 
 
 485 54 
 
850 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Smith. More tlian it does to cultivate corn in the Weet. In my own locality 
 \ee raise very little corn. 
 
 Mr. Brkckiniudge. Does it take muoh labor to cultivate corn in your own lo- 
 cality t 
 
 Mr. Smith. Corn in my locality is not much hoed by hand. Beans must be hoed. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would it take three times as much labor to cultivate an acre of bcaus 
 than an acre of corn ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I thin It there is more cultivation to the beans, so far as horses and men 
 are concerned; and there is more hand labor besides. 
 
 llr. Breckinridge. The consnmers of beans in this country are in a large measure 
 the working people, are they not ? 
 
 Mr Smith. It is estimated that 8,000,000 bushels of beans are grown in this coun- 
 try at present. I suppose it would not be far from correct to say that there are 
 16,000,000 of families in this country. That would make about half a bushel of beans 
 a year for each family. But of course you can not average it, because some families 
 do not use 4 quarts of beans in a year. Working people who eat largely of potatoes 
 are also large consumers of beans. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Your remedy, then, is one which involves an increase in the 
 present tax on the food of those classes of people of a little more than 350 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. It does, if we can not produce all the beans that this country wants; 
 and if we can, it will not increase the price of beans 1 cent a bushel. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But if you do not, and if food beans happen to be scarce and 
 a famine is threatened, then at that particular juncture the tax of this food of the 
 laboring classes increases the cost 350 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Smith. I admit that it would increase the cost 50 cents a bushel if all the beans 
 that are consumed here were produced in foreign countries and paid a tax of 50 cents 
 a bushel. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. At a time of scarcity and want it would be an increase (taking 
 present prices) of 350 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, but you might say the same in regard to wheat. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Of course, it would be the same in regard to wheat if there was 
 a deficit in the wheat crop. 
 
 Mr. Smith. What we wdnt is to have the duty on beans just as it is on wheat, so 
 that we can depend entirely upon ourselves. 
 
 MEMORIALS OF NEW YORK FARMERS. 
 
 The following memorial and letters were presented and ordered to be made part of 
 the record : 
 
 We, your memorialists, citizens of the United States, engaged iu farming and grow- 
 ing of vegetables in Suffolk County, N. Y., in view ol^ the probable readjustment of 
 the present tariff at the present session of Congress, do most earnestly and respect- 
 fully call your attention to the following facts and figures: 
 
 We farmers ask a duty of one-half cent per pound on potatoes and onions ; 15 cents 
 per bushel on turnips; one-half cent per pound on cabbage and sauerkraut; 5 cents 
 per pound on Brussels sprouts ; 5 cents per dozen on eggs; and 1 cent per pound on 
 cauliflower in salt or brine, including cask, salt, and brine. 
 
 This barrel of salted cauliflower represents from 11 to 16 barrels of cauliflower as 
 usually marketed iu this country, viz, 325 pounds of cauliflower meat and 125 pounds 
 of salt or brine. These goods are invoiced in Holland aud Germany and valued there 
 at about $3 or $4 per barrel. The duty paid in this country is 10 per cent., 30 or 40 
 cents, an iusignificant sura, and is not protection in any form ; the importer sells this 
 same cask to the jobber for .$10, and the picklcmanufacturer pays from $11 to $18for 
 it. I do not think it necessary to state the difference in wages in this country or 
 Germany, as it is an accepted fact wages are higher here. It is sufficient that large 
 quantities of this salted cauliflower come to this country, and that but a small pro- 
 portion of the crop raised iu this country is salted or prepared for pickles. If it can 
 not be sold fresh in the market or to the licensed venderwagons it has to bedumped 
 in the docks. Sixty cents per barrel has been the average price for what has been 
 sold, and the farmer pays out of this an average of 28 cents per barrel freight, 7 cents 
 cartage, 2 cents wh.<irfage, and 6 cents commission, leaving him 7 cents to 17 cents 
 to pay for the barrel he sent it in, and that usually costs 15 cents and the cover !■} 
 cents or 2 cents. 
 
 This year has been unusually hard on the farmers in this section, the November 
 frost destroying one-third the crop, and yet the shipments to New York alone from 
 Suffolk County have been over 2fiU,000 barrels, one commission firm receiving as high 
 as 1,200 barrels in one day. A duty of 1 cent per pound on the salted, partially pre- 
 pared product will allow a large part of this crop to be salted aud manufactured in 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 851 
 
 this country, as it was in 1883. The 1889 cauliflower crop was almost an entire fail- 
 ure. Manufacturers are buying cauliflower salted in Germany at from $12 to $14 
 per barrel In small lots. Those who contracted with importiug houses before the 
 crop matured in this country got. theirs at $6 and $9 per barrel. Under a 1-cent duty 
 the manufacturer would have prepared himself by salting the home-grown product 
 last year at a cost to him of $4.50 to $6 per barrel and the farmer benefited accord- 
 ingly- 
 
 Statistics do not show the amount of cauliflower in salt imported. It is classed as 
 other vegetables in their natural state or in brine. The value in 1888 of this class of 
 goods was $71.5,063 ; in 1889, $423,0d&; the diiference, or a large part of it, represents 
 cauliflower and cabbage (for sauerkraut) salted in this country in the fall of 1888. 
 An increased duty on picliles and sauces, of which there was $416,958 imported in 
 1888, would also help the farmer. 
 
 We ask that a duty of one-half cent per pound be placed on cabbage in its natural 
 state or in salt or brine. This rate would then cover sauerkraut, a form of salted 
 cabbage now on the free list. 
 
 This article, sanerkraut, can be made in this country, and was made previous to 
 1883, and the farmer received $5 to |8 per ton for his surplus stock of cabbage. The 
 imported article at the present time entirely controls the market price, and what lit- 
 tle is manufactured in this country has to be done cheaply, and this past year one 
 Long Island factory has salted a considerable quantity of cabbage, paying 90 cents 
 per 100 for cabbage weighing 8 pounds each, or |2.25 per ton. 
 
 Red cabbage is imported from Germany in considerable quantities and is mostly re- 
 ceived in New York City during February and March, at a time the farmers have but 
 small quantities to ship that they have wintered over in cellars built expressly for 
 the business, as the red cabbage will seldom keep covered up with earth as the ordi- 
 nary green cabbage will. Afair protective duty would be one-half cent per pound on 
 cabbage and sauerkraut or cabbage prepared, or in salt or brine, including weight of 
 barrel and brine. 
 
 We ask a duty of 5 cents per dozen on eggs. It is estimated that there are about 
 16,000,000 dozen imported annually — evidently a low estimate, as over 8,000,000 were 
 imported last year from Canada to New York City alone — but they do not come fresh, 
 but are kept in cold storage until fall and winter, and not only force prices down, 
 but hurt the reputation of all eggs. About 2,000,000 dozen were this past year re- 
 ceived from Germany, the freight being about three-fourths of a cent per dozen. The 
 freight from 90 miles on Long Island being 1 to 1^ cents per dozen. They come from 
 Germany in large quantities, when the wholesale price is 14 to 15 cents per dozen 
 here. The average price the American farmer has received this past year has been 
 about 12 cents per dozen. A few eggs are shipped from New York to the West In- 
 dies, but the Southern States are now making small shipments to New York market. 
 Large importations of eggs are also received at San Francisco from China, and are 
 mostly consumed west of the Rocky Mountains. 
 
 We would also call your attention to the importation of onions. They come from 
 Spain and Italy in large quantities, and are now selling at extremely low prices and 
 forcing price of home product below cost of production. Some grades of Spanish 
 onions have sold in New York market this past year as low as one-half cent per 
 pound. We would ask that a duty of one-half cent per pound be placed on them ; also 
 that a duty of 5 cents per pound be placed on Brussels sprouts. They are raised in 
 this country in quite large quantities and require a great deal ef labor, and for that 
 reason, with the cheap labor of Spain and Italy, if prompt action is not taken, the 
 farmers of this country will stop raisinf them, and the imported product supply the 
 market at an advanced price, as there will be no opposition. The average selling 
 price in New York City is about 7 cents per pound, and a duty of 5 cents per pound 
 will not be prohibitory and only a fair protection. 
 
 We petition for a duty of one-half cent per pound on potatoes. The amount im- 
 ported in 1888 was 8,259,538 bushels. This amount of potatoes will supply New 
 York City and Brooklyn three hundred and ninety days, considerably over a year, 
 the estimated consumption of the two cities being 7,000 barrels per day. New York 
 is our market and distributing point. 
 
 It is plain to the farmer or dealer that the imported article for a great part of the 
 year entirely controls the market. One steamer in March, 1888, brought 75,000 sacks 
 of 3 bushels each. The average price for the year has been under $2 per barrel, and 
 the price to the Long Island farmer has been less than 45 cents per bushel after pay- 
 ing freight, commission, etc. (freight 20 cents, cartage 7 cents, wharfage 2 cents, 
 commission 20 cents, barrel 15 cents — 64 cents in all). The imported potatoes sold 
 from |2 per barrel down to 75 cents, and at the last end they were a drag on the 
 market at any price. The bulk of the Long Island crop is marketed in September 
 and October, and the price for several years has been less than $1.50 per barrel in 
 New York, and this last year, 1888, has been as low as 75 cents per barrel. 
 
852 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Potatoes are not stored by the grocers and commission dealers as they were years 
 ago ; they can buy during the winter the imported potatoes out of the Nova Scotia 
 vessel or in bags that have been brought over by the steamers from Europe, in many 
 cases brought over instead of ballast and at freight rates reported at 60 to 90 cents 
 per ton. The duty of half cent per pound will not be prohibitory or raise the whole- 
 sale price on an average to over §2. 
 
 In the fall of 1888 and winter of 1889 there were only 883,380 bushels of potatoes im- 
 ported, mostly for transshipment to West India ports, the large crop in the United 
 States preventing imports for consumption. In November and December, 1889, there 
 were over 600,000 bushels imported, coming on a market already overloaded. The 
 following we quote from the Fruit Trade Journal : 
 
 "The receipts of potatoes from the West became so large last month (November) 
 that it resulted in a glut here and the market went very low. Of late, however, a 
 decided falling off in arrivals has been noticed which has given our market a chance 
 to recover. The yield here has beenunusually light, but a very full crop has been 
 grown throughout the West which has kept onr market so well supplied so far that 
 there has been no chance for foreign potatoes to find a profitable outlet. The ship- 
 pers abroad are making preparations to send liberal quantities here as soon as ad- 
 vices are all favorable. There will be much larger quantities consumed here this 
 season than last, although there is little chance that the imports will assume the 
 proportioua they did two years ago. In November 11,710 eacks were imported from 
 Great Britain, 8,220 from the Continent, at this port. In addition large quantities can 
 be drawn from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward's Island. The outlook is I'avorable 
 for a good healthy market, and although many Western shippers are somewhat dis- 
 couraged, there is every probability that if the quality of their stock is iine, and 
 they are fortunate enough to be favored with weather not severe enough to freeze it 
 while in transit, they will obtain a profitable margin on stock still in hand." 
 
 In November and December there has been about 600,000 bushels imported : New 
 York, 72,495 bushels ; Boston, 453,630 ; Providence, New London, and Philadelphia and . 
 Baltimore the balance. The Long Island farmers most earnestly ask a duty of at 
 least one-half cent per pound. 
 
 We petition for a duty of 15 cents per bushel on turnips. There were over 200,000 
 barrels imported from Canada this past year, the average selling price being from 
 65 to 75 cents per barrel at wholesale in the city of New York, and in some cases 
 have sold as low as 50 cents per barrel at the present time, January 1, 60 cents per 
 barrel. 
 
 The quantity shipped here from Canada is greater than the home product, there 
 having been less than 90,000 barrels of the home-grown product sold on account of 
 price, the imported article being offered in such quantity that in some cases within 
 the last thirty days Long Island turnips have sold as low as 47 cents per barrel, the 
 Canada turnips entirely controlling the market and setting the price. The usual 
 price in Canada is 10 cents per busliel, the freight to New York City 7 cents or less, 
 and is about the same as paid by a Long Island farmer to move them 70 to 90 miles 
 to New York market. These flguies are for 1888. This year, 1889, shows little dif- 
 ference in price, but the quantity received farlarger, commencing earlier, October 
 1, and reaching already 250,000 barrels ; sixty cars on track awaiting to be unloaded, 
 price 70 cents per barrel. 
 
 The entire importation in value of articles we have mentioned is less than $6,000,000 
 annually — so small a sum it may be overlooked, and yet the market in which the 
 Long Island and other farmers can sell $6,000,000 or even $3,000,000 worth of produce 
 will be a boon to them ; it means to them the difference between paying their debts 
 or being in debt. 
 
 The year 1889 has been a hard one to the Long Island farmer ; hay and grain dam- 
 aged, potatoes one-third crop, cauliflower crop a failure, cabbage no sale, turnips no 
 sale, and so on through the list, and yet the New York markets are full of foreign 
 produce. 
 
 Gentlemen, it is a small boon we ask. Grant it ; give us the same meedof protection 
 yon willingly grant the manufacturer — put agriculture on the same footing. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 J. Eugene Parker, 
 Shelter Island, Suffolk County, N. T. 
 
 RiVERHEAD, N. Y., January 8, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: In behalf of the farmers of Suffolk County, I desire moat earnestly to 
 indorse the appeal of Mr. J. Eugenes Parker in bi'half of an increased tariff on potatoes, 
 cabbage, cauliflowers, pickles, turnips, uud other vegetables. 
 
 The potato crop, probably the most important iu this locality, has this year been 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 853 
 
 a partial failure, -while those that were saved are now briDging but little more than 
 half the usual price, because large quantities of foreign growth fill the market. 
 
 Cauliflowers, also a large industry here (it is said that more are grown in this 
 county than in all the rest of the United States), are often unprofitable because of the 
 large importations from abroad. 
 These are but two instances; more can be given if required. 
 
 I believe Mr. Parker faithfully represents the farmers of the county, and I trust he 
 appeals not in vain. 
 
 I am, very truly, yours, 
 
 Nat. W. Foster, 
 President Suffolk Countij Agricultural Society. 
 
 Hon. William MoKinlbt, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 Gahbutt, N. T., January 11, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : I observe that an effort is being made by the farmers of western New 
 York to have a duty placed upon imported beans, barley, and potatoes. 
 
 This is a matter in which the farmers of Monroe County have an especial interest. 
 Six or seven counties in western New York constitute the chief bean-growing portion 
 of the country, and Monroe stands well in the lead among them. 
 
 As a farmer, and of course personally interested ; as one of a large class of citizens, 
 and as one of your constituents, I write to solicit your co-operation in that movement, 
 so far as it may lie in your power or accord with your judgment so to do; and I 
 trust you will pardon my intrusion if with my solicitation, I give some reasons why, 
 as farmers, we ask for protection. 
 
 (1) The agricultural population of our country comprises over 40 per cent, of the 
 whole ; while the points wherein we seek protection, or it is in the power of the Gov- 
 ernment to give it, are very few. We therefore submit that where such opportunity 
 does occur, supported by good reasons, it should receive serious and favorable con- 
 sideration. 
 
 (2) Our tariff system is organized chiefly to encourage and foster manufactures ; 
 while it is a notorious fact that many of those industries, through their trusts and 
 combines, have it in their power and actually do protect themselves from undue 
 competition by controlling production and manipulating prices. Farmers, however, 
 owing to their large numbers and unorganized condition, are entirely powerless for 
 self-protection, and are subject wholly to the law of supply and demand. 
 
 (3) The capital of the farmer being all in the land, can not be hid nor managed so 
 as to escape taxation. Hence, in common with all real estate, their capital is unde; 
 the grinding heel of the Government, and whether free from debt or heavily encum- 
 bered must .alike support the local and State government ; while it is safe to say tha : 
 not one dollar in a thousand of the millions engaged in other industries pays .iny tax. 
 Is it too much to ask that the capital thus burdened shall receive such aid as the Gov- 
 ernment can give to make it fairly remunerative ? 
 
 (4) As a political move on the part of those who believe in a protective tariff (of 
 whom I am one) it would be wise to accord some of its benefits directly to the large 
 class on whose votes they rely to perpetuate the system. Farmers have been told 
 that their advantage lay in building up large cities and manufacturiug communities 
 to consume their products — a true proposition and our best argument ; but when they 
 see these cities fed from the fields of Germany, Italy, Bermuda, and Canada, while the 
 last cent of profit the tariff gives to the manufacturers is squeezed from their cus- 
 tomers by means of trusts, it is going to tax the philosophy of protectionists to con- 
 vince farmers that the indirect benefits of a tariff are any help to them. 
 
 But I shall drop the general argument to cousider the specific case wherein we in 
 western New York are especially interested, the duty on beaus, and briefly state some 
 facts in relation to them. 
 
 (1) The culture of beans involves a large amount of manual labor, and is conse- 
 quently an expensive crop to raise, viz: The ground should be fitted like a garden. 
 On coming up the plants must be cultivated two, three, or four times ; weeds and 
 grass must be taken out, either with hoe or by hand; the harvesting is mostly 
 hand labor; the "curing" requires great care and much time either with good 
 weather in the fields or on "scaffolds" under cover. After thrashing they all have 
 to be hand-picked, causing, with other expenses, a margin of about 50 cents "per bushel 
 between the price at the sea-board and on the farm. 
 
 (2) The bean is the most sensitive of the food-producing plants; the slightest un- 
 timely frost in the spring or fall destroys it (as were hundreds of acres by tlie frost 
 of May 29, 1889), or violent storms injure it; so that at best its culture is a lottery 
 
854 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 (3) The yield is small— from 15 to 25 bushels per acre. The crop is very exhaust 
 iiio; to the soil and can not be safely repeated oftener than every third or fourth year. 
 These facts taken toijether make 'it obvious that the culture of beaus can not long 
 continue if the price fall lielow a "living profit." 
 
 (4) The demalid for beans is limited, and if foreigners are allowed freely to stock 
 our market the domestic crop must be abandoned. 
 
 (5) No injustice can come from insuring to home producers a fair price for their 
 crop even to a slight advance. Very few are used by any one family. It is safe to 
 say that few families use more beans than they do of colfee ; so that the addition of 
 one-half or 1 cent per pound up to 3 or 4 cents per pound would not be felt even by 
 the poorest consumer. 
 
 The demand for a higher duty on beans is local, but the farmers of New York can 
 very gracefully ask the people of the West'to assist them in obtaining it. We are taxed 
 to maintain a free water-way that brings their grain into direct competition with 
 our own. With their low-priced laud, their inexpensive modes of farming and their 
 cheap transportation they have robbed our wheat-tields of their proiits ; the cattle 
 from the plains have literally driven out our cattle-growing and beef-making indus- 
 try, while the great malt houses of our region are supplied with barley from Canada 
 and Wisconsin, against neither of which localities can we compete. Thus we have 
 been driven from one branch of our industry to another till of late years the culture 
 of beans has been our relief from utter collapse. But now we are threatened from 
 another quarter ; Germany and. Italy are flooding our market with beans, cheaply 
 brought in light-bound ships, and the domestic crop must be kept at home or sold at 
 a sacrifice. Against this ruinous foreign competition do you not think we may justly 
 ask for protection ? Fifty cents per bushel I believe is the amount of duty askedfor 
 which surely is not unreasonable. 
 
 It is no exagger.atiou to say that the farm landsof Monroe County have depreciated 
 20 per cent, in value in the last fifteen years, and should our now best sourceof reve- 
 nue be cut off, as threatened, the fall will be still greater and more rapid. 
 
 I regret that I am not able to give statistics as to acreage, product, value, con- 
 sumption, etc., of the bean product which might give a clear and correct view of the 
 subject, but which I trust others can supply. I have written to manifest my interest 
 in the matter, and if petitions would have any weight with the committee the farm- 
 ers and dealers would join in sending them. 
 
 Anything you may be able to do to accomplish the object sought will be appreciated 
 by a large number of your constituents. 
 
 I remain, very respectfully and sincerely, yours, 
 
 Philip Garbutt. 
 
 Hon. Chakles S. Baker. 
 
 STATEMENT OF VICTOR E. PIOLLET. 
 
 Mr. Victor E. Piollet, of Wysox, Bradford County, Pa., next addressed the com- 
 mittee 
 
 The Chairman. Will you state your occupation and name to this committee. 
 
 Mr. Piollet. I am a farmer and have been all my life. I began in 1833. My name 
 is Victor E. Piolet. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I wish to be courteous and inof- 
 fensive in everything I shall say to you. I am not accustomed to public speaking, and 
 BOM etimes I offend when I really do notdesireor intend to. I want to say to the com- 
 mittee, representing the majority of the representatives of the people of the United 
 States in this Congress, that the men engaged in the industry in which I am sup- 
 posed that we settled this que.stion of protection at the polls in 1888. We supposed 
 that we elected representatives here who would carry out the promises of the Chicago 
 convention. Distinctly before the people was the pronunciameuto of the two parties 
 — the convention of St. Louis, representing what was always termed the Democratic 
 party, and to which I had always belonged up to that time. There is no mistake, 
 gentlemen of the committee and gentlemen of Congress, as to the understanding of 
 the people upon this question. They supposed they had settled it, and they supposed 
 when this Congress met there would be no quibble, no such exhibition as has been 
 carried on in this committee-room since the meeting of Congress ; although I think 
 it is preferable to the star-chamber committee proceedings of the Fiftieth Congress. 
 
 I repeat. We supposed we had settled it at the polls. We supposed that wheu Con- 
 gress met they would promptly repeal the tobacco tax. We supposed they would re- 
 peal the tax on alcohol used in our manufactures. We supposed they would make 
 our artisans in this country who are using alcohol equal to the European artisans. 
 We snjiposiMl they would cure the outr.ageous drawback in favor of foreign labor. Wa 
 had confidence in this, and we are invited here, and now we are going to talk to you. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 855 
 
 I am here to say that the principal canse that has deteriorated the prices of agricolt- 
 nral lands, our farm lands, is the cheap labor products of the Old World, foisted upon 
 our markets. And I undertake to say that American farms can not compete in the 
 edible productions with the cheap labor of the foreign couctries. That is the princi- 
 pal cause of the destruction of our labor. Now, we want the duty ou all agricultural 
 products of every sort equal to the dift'eience iu the cost of labor in the two countries, 
 That is what the people want ; that is what the farmers want, and if this Congress 
 does not give it to us, we will have one here that will. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, yon remember that. We can do more the second time than we 
 icould the first. It is pretty hard for a fellow to break over in the beginning, but after 
 that he does not stay behind. I of course do not wish to discuss the question politi- 
 cally, or to make any remarks of that kind. I want to state precisely the sentiment 
 of our people. We want to exclude from this country products that compete with us 
 because they are produced by cheap labor in the Old World. We claim iu behalf of 
 agriculture the same right to be protected as the people engaged with capital and 
 labor in manufactures. We claim that, as farmers, as agriculturists, we are enti- 
 tled to it. 
 
 I want to say to you there would not be a manufacturing establishment of any 
 kind in this country to-day in existence and prosperous as they are, all of them, if it 
 was not for the protective duties which are assessed upon similar products, which 
 exclude the foreign products made by cheap labor Why, if that makes manufact- 
 urers prosperous, why would it not help agriculture? Now, the idea! You go through 
 our towns ; you pay your money and you select your edibles. You can get foreign 
 sour-kraut and domestic sour-kraut. How are the Germans enabled to bring sour- 
 kraut here t Because they have got the transportation from Germany for less than 
 you can carry it half way across one of our States It is the cheap labor and the 
 cheap transportation of foreign countries that is breaking up the agriculture of this 
 country by making it unremnuerative. I state emphatically, I state it after the ex- 
 perience of years in practical agriculture, and I want this Congress to do just what 
 they promised they would do, and if they do it right royally there will be an end of 
 free-trade blatherskites. 
 
 This thing was fully discussed preceding the last Presidential election iu our 
 Northern States, you know. We had discussions all over there. We had it by land 
 and by water. We understood when we voted what we were about. Now, I know 
 that 25,000 or 30,000 Democrats in the State of New York voted for General Harrison. 
 Yes, air. When I was up there I talked there, and whenever I hung out the shingle 
 there was no building big enough to contain the people. I tell you, at one meeting 
 one hundred and eight Democrats raised a liberty pole and telegraphed to General 
 Hairison that they were going to vote for him. That was in Steuben County, 
 N. Y. If it had not been for the Mills tariff bill handed out to the country that 
 places nearly all agricultural products free of duty on a par with European produc- 
 tions, there would have been a different result. It was David A. Wells's message, 
 issued by the President of the United States, that fixed the thing. 
 
 In his annual message President Harrison stands up to the Chicago platform. If 
 Congress will do as well as he has done we will be satisfied. Why should you not re- 
 strict by tariff duties, since that is the only way to meet this competition ? Why not 
 restrict the products of foreign labor from coming into our markets and driving us 
 out of them T Foreign people do uot pay anything towards the support of our Gov- 
 ernment; they are not interested in this Government. Our Government has for its 
 support and defense our own people. When it was in peril we kept foreign products 
 out. Along 5,000 miles sea-coast we kept them out, and would not allow them to 
 come in, and would not let our people in rebellion get anything from the other side, 
 and that did more to terminate the war than free trade. I tell you that the true pol- 
 icy of this country is to protect its own industries and to take care of itself. We can 
 produce nearly everything we want here, and we never can compete with the manu- 
 facturers or agricultural producers of Euiopean countries until labor is as cheap here 
 as there, and God grant it may never be. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you suggest an increase of duty on agricultural products f 
 
 Mr. PiOLLBT. Yes, sir, I do. You have got 10 cents on barley, and foreign countiiei 
 bronght 10,000,000 bushels of barley into this country. 
 
 The Chairman. What do you suggest as a duty ou barley f 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. I should say ^0 cents per bushel. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How much on malt ! 
 
 Mr. PlOLLET. That is a manufactured product. 
 
 Mr. Flowkk. That is manufactured in Canada. 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. I want this Congress to listen to the mannfacturers of this country, 
 even to the making of buttons, intefered with by foreign production made with 
 cheap labor. Make us equal. Assess a duty equal the dittereiice in cost of labor. I 
 am talking of agriculture. I am talking of the products of the soil, and I am in 
 
856 EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 earnest a^bout it because you all know that no country has ever survived the decay 
 of its agriculture. 
 
 Mr. Breckixridgb. Would you keep out all the imports? 
 
 Mr. PioLLBT. I would keep out by a high rate of duty all that interfere with us. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How would you raise a revenue if you cut off all duty f 
 
 Mr. PioLLET. There is no trouble about that, so long as you make a tariff; the Bnr< 
 plus products of foreign countries will come here and less of them will make more 
 revenue, and will not destroy onr manufactories. The internal-revenue law secures 
 half of the money which is paid in our national treasury. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That does not raise any revenue. 
 
 Mr. Piollet. I do not propose to do it to that extent. It is not possible. But, 
 sir, I will answer you this question. It is my observation that increasing of duty 
 sometimes increases revenue. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That of course is not an answer to my question. 
 
 Mr. Piollet. Why not ? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I asked how you would raise the revenue if ^ou prohibited 
 imports. 
 
 Mr. Piollet. I do not say that I am prohibiting imports, but I am going to equal- 
 ize them with the labor of this country. I wish to exclude the products brought 
 into this country as far as labor is colicerned. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You limit the rate at that point? 
 
 Mr. Piollet. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What agricultural products do you consider the farmers have 
 most interest in ? 
 
 Mr. -Piollet. Well, sir, the dairy products is one of the great products of this 
 country, mostly consumed at home. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are we not large exi^orters of dairy products, cheese, etc.? 
 
 Mr. Piollet. No ; we do not export much more honest dairy products than adul- 
 terated products.'- When our dairy people came to Congress and asked you to pre- 
 vent adulteration and to put a tax on adulterated butter of 10 cents, which would 
 prevent its manufacture, you gentlemen down South in Congress put a tax of 2 
 cents on it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That is another question. That is internal taxes, and we are 
 speaking now of the tariff. Are we not large exporters of dairy products ? 
 
 Mr. Piollet. No; but a small percentage of our butter is exported. The home 
 market is onr reliance, and but for adulterations would be largely increased. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How can the imports decrease if we are not importers ? 
 
 Mr. Pioli^t. You did not let me get through. I said the dairy was one of our 
 large industries. Our cattle and sheep industry comes next, and are among the most 
 important of onr farm products injured by the tariif laws. The duty on wool has 
 saved the extermination of our Sheep husbandry. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Now, oneiriomeufc, right there. Are we not large exporters of 
 beef? You are speaking of the cattle industry ; are we not large exporters of beef? 
 
 Mr. Piollet. Not large enough for foreign consumption. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are we imjiorters at all ? 
 
 Mr. Piollet. Oh, yes; you look there and see. Cattle, horses, sheep, and swine 
 are imported. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I think you must be a little mistaken. 
 
 Mr. Piollet. Do you think so ? You look and see. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. We are large exporters of beef. 
 
 Mr. Piollet. Not so very large, i will tell you what we do do. We protect for- 
 eign cattle-prodncers in our markets, and they sent l{;2;5,000,000 worth of hides here 
 without paying any duty last year. Free hides and skins are one of the most ruinous 
 things to the cattle industry that ever occurred. I want to say, while you have been 
 discussing this wool business, that I understood yesterday from a gentleman here that 
 the manufacturers and growers had come to an understanding about what would be 
 the duty that would be acceptable all around. But in the whole discussion here the 
 most important reason why the sheep industry should be protected has not been 
 touched. The meat product of our sheep husbandry has been a matter of great im- 
 portance to this country. The meat product of this country is not keepingpace with 
 the increase of our population, and when these men turn round and tell you we 
 do not increase the production of sheep because of the partial protection we have al- 
 ready, you must remember we are scUiug thousands of which no account is taken. 
 Now, in my county, which is the largest dairy county in Pennsylvania and not espe- 
 cially devoted to sheep, we sent 20,0(30 lambs to market last summer before there was 
 any wool on them at all or any statistical account of such. Millions of the annual 
 increase of our flocks are not enumerated. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. iJid they not sell for more than aged sheep of fleece would sell for ! 
 
 Mr. Piollet. No, sir; they did not bring the ijrico of yoar-old sheep. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. It is so in njy country. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 857 
 
 Mi Piollet. I do not know anything abont Tennessee ; I am talking about my 
 State in answer to tlie allegation that protection has not increased the number of our 
 sheep. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. They sell there for $2. 50 and $3 when sixty and ninety days old — 
 say ninety days. 
 
 Mr, Breckinridge. To give practical effect to your ideas about beef, we imported, 
 perhaps only in a few places on the border, about 24,000 pounds of beef. 
 
 Mr. Piollet. Cattle? We import and export. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am speaking of beef, not cattle. We exported 
 
 Mr. Piollet. What is the use of talking about that way? Cattle constitute beef 
 exports, do they not ? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I will not dispute with you about that. We exported nearly 
 50,000,000 pounds ; therefore we are large exporters of beef. Now, you are a practical 
 man ; will you tell us how any tariff law will benefit the beef production of the 
 farmer ? 
 
 Mr. Piollet. If you ask how to benefit the cattle husbandry, I will tell you. If 
 you put the duty on hides equal to the duty that is given the manufacturer of leather 
 you can protect the cattle-growers and beef exporters to the exteut of 30 per cent. 
 on 123,000,000 per annum. What is better to increase our manufactories and eat up 
 our beef? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That is as regards the hides? 
 
 Mr. Piollet. The skins of cattle constitute their value as much as their meat. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It is true that is what they are wrapped up in. 
 
 Mr. Piollet. I pity the intelligence of a man who talks on economic questions, and 
 who talks about "raw material." Cattle without hides I remember way back 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is not the hide a very large element of value in our cattle ? 
 
 Mr. Piollet. Certainly ; I will get at that. I remember way back a good many 
 years ago I was in the Senate chamber, and in the discussion of the tariff question 
 Senator Benton, of Missouri, said, " It is goat's wool, and the goat has not got any 
 wool." So this idea of raw material is a fallacy. There is no such thing. You can 
 not skin cattle alive and export them as beef. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Suppose in regard to beef nobody sold the raw material except 
 you 
 
 Mr. Piollet. I will speak of beef, but not Mr. Armour's embalmed beef; for it is 
 not exported to foreign countries, but forced on our city and country markets, and 
 ought to be excluded. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. We are speaking of the American people, and of transactions 
 at the ports. 
 
 Mr. Piollet. We do export a small percentage of our beef cattle and mutton sheep. 
 In a summary of the value of agricultural exports the value of cattle and sheep are 
 given. Under the head of animals you will find we .do import cattle, horses, sheep, 
 and swine. They are dutiable a specific duty, getting no more for a high-priced ani- 
 mal than a low-priced. This Congress ought to make an ad valorem duty on imports 
 of these animals. 
 
 We are benefited largely by the exportation of beef and mutton, which is chiefly 
 the surplus sent by our producers to the New York, Philadelphia, IBoston, and Bal- 
 timore weekly markets, and if not disposed of in this way would glut these markets 
 and destroy our home market. Our commodities of every edible character when in 
 excess of a daily or immediate demand are reduced in price in the great consuming 
 centers. In this way the farmers derived a jirofit by the exportation of beef. 
 
 Mr. Gear. If we export these cattle we bring back the hides free. 
 
 Mr. Piollet. Yes. (To Mr. Breckinridge. ) You do not find anything which con- 
 flicts with my statement. Imports of meats are taxed by tariff duty, and we derive 
 the indirect benefit I have mentioned by the export of our beef and other meat 
 products. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Will you take it and read it 1 
 
 Mr. Piollet. Do you find it? We import cattle, horses, sheep, and swine and 
 export them also. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I will let you read it. 
 
 Mr. Piollet. I can not here. I have got all at home and I will read it. The Mills 
 tariff bill is carefully preserved among farmers. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It says "beef" and is spelled as beef is always spelled. 
 
 Mr. Piollet. Now, gentlemen, I have stated this thing. We want duty on eggs. 
 We do not want |2,000,000 or $3,000,000 worth of eggs brought into this country tree 
 of duty by transportation that costs very little, much less than it does to any part of 
 our own country. We do not want bologna sausage brought here because they make 
 it out of horse meat. We do not want cabbage or onions brought here, and we want 
 a duty that will exclude them, and we believe that wherever Congress places a duty on 
 these products equal to the diftereuce in the cost of labor it will place them in our 
 markets at a cost equal to our productions. You cau get your duty, Mr. Breckin- 
 
858 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF, 
 
 ridge, in varions ways. You can get it on the luxuries used in this country. You 
 can get it by charging on the clothing purchased in foreign countries and worn by 
 men of wealth rather than on men who work by the day. There are hundreds o£ 
 ways of getting enough revenue without breaking down the agricultural industry 
 of this country. Admit the cheap labor products of foreign countries when paying 
 a duty equal to the coat of similar labor products at American rate of wages and 
 then we will be equal with them in our own market. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do 1 understand you to say that the value of all agricultural prod- 
 ucts are becoming more and more unremunerative ? 
 
 Mr. PiOLLBT. Yes, sir ; by the free admission of foreign products. 
 
 Mr. McMiLUN. And decreasing in value until it costs more and more, and is break- 
 ing up the business of the producer. Is it your observation ? Is It not true that the 
 land values are diminishing in your part of the country? 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. That is certainly the consequence. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. From your practical experience in the matter I wanted to see if it 
 was 80. It is so to a very large extent, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. Yes, sir; alarmingly so. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. That has beep going on now for how long ? 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. It has grown worse for some time ; year after year. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. A series of years? 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. Since foreign countries have usurped our markets. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Well, six or eight years f 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Could you give any estimate of what is the value of agricultural 
 lands now in your part of the country as compared with what it has been — say five 
 or six years ago — say in 1880; you may take that period. 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. I can not state by personal knowledge, as I never sold any land. 
 There is a depreciation of more than 50 per cent, all over the country outside of these 
 cities and manufacturing towns where land is very valuable for urban residences and 
 building purposes. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But taking the farming country there has been a diminution of 
 more than 50 per cent. 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. Yes, sir; theie is no sale for farm land. 
 
 Mr, Baynb. Have not farm lands throughout continental Europe diminished more 
 than 50 per cent. 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. I do not know a great deal about that country and I can not answer 
 that question, but I don't think they have so much as you state. 
 
 Mr. Bayne, Yes, they have. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How much have the railroad freights from the western shippiog 
 points to Pennsylvania decreased in the same time? 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. Not very largely; " what the products will bear." 
 
 Mr. Flower. What percentage ? How much — 50 or 100 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. You have asked me a question that will take some time to answer; 
 you know as well about it as I do ; less than either sum named by you. 
 
 Mr. Flowbk. You kuow that to be a fact ? 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. I know they have not been reduced 50 or 100 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Flowek. Has not the reduction made Iowa farm land on a level with yours — 
 made it equal ? 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. I tell you how I feel in regard to that, and I think our people do. 
 These free-trade men pump that at us all the time. We feel that it a man goes out 
 into that new country and if he makes something we are glad that he does. He 
 does not hurt us, and the money is kept in this country, and it increases the value of 
 the property of this country. But when you take our market from us and give it to 
 a foreigner we lose everything. Farm lands in Iowa have depreciated quite as much 
 as in the States of New York and Pennsylvania. Corn is only worth 15 cents per 
 bushel now in Iowa. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. This beef that you expect to benefit the farmer by imposition 
 of taxes 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. I did not say anything about imposing a tax on beef. I think that 
 a duty of 30 per centum, would, if imposed on hides, protect beef producers. 
 
 Mr. Breckinlidge. You said all farm products, and that is one of them. Our ex- 
 ports are nearly 200,000,000 pounds. I found the other was only salt beef. 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. Cattle and beef are synonymous terms. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. We exported beef on the hoof and slaughtered, 93,000,000 
 pounds. Will you please explain to this committee how the tariff is going to bene- 
 fit the farmer uponany of his great products such as you stated you wanted to be taxed 
 to benefit? These various products which we export, hogs, etc., which we export 
 enormously, and wheat and articles of that kind which are our great products, being 
 exporters and not importers, if you make the tariff a thousand per cent., how is that 
 going to help the farmer 1 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 859 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. It -will make a home market and it -will let iia eat our beef ourselves. 
 I stated formerly how meat exports benefited us. Exports of cattle and sheep re- 
 lieved our markets of a surplus that enhanced the home market price. 
 
 Mr. Brbckinridgk. A tax on these agricultural products will not do the farmers 
 any good. Do you want a bigh tariff on manufactures ? 
 
 Mr. PioLLET. I said if there is anything that wants protection it ought to have it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I thought you were speaking about tariff on farm productious. 
 
 Mr. PioLLET. I was, and on manufactures wherever compclitiou of foreign cheap 
 labor interfered with or threatened their prosperity. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Will you explain to the committee how the tariff on farm prod- 
 ucts is going to do the farmer any good in the staple products which we export 1 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. All of them we do not export. I told yon we had 10,000,000 bushels 
 of barley brought into this country last year. But for a duty of 20 cents per bushel 
 on wheat, all of Canada's wheat would come to our ports. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I will concede barley as one of the things imported into tha 
 country, but as to the beef and pork and wheat and dairy in-oducts, how about them ! 
 
 Mr. Pioii-ET. You know we import a large amount of eggs, don't you, and vegeta- 
 ble products that pay no duty ? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. We import a good many. 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. I would keep them out. I do not think our biddies ought to lay 
 against these pauper biddies of Europe, or our farmers made to compete with the 
 cheap labor products of foreign countries. 
 
 Mr. Flowbr. Has not the western farm laud increased in value while yours has 
 decreased ? 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. I think they have decreased as much or more than ours. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Then will not the low price of that production come in competition 
 ■with you ? 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. We are glad if they do, but they do not compete with us injuriously. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I want you to answer the question in all fairness. I think it is a fair 
 question. You say yon do not care for it, but it has cheapened your land and it 
 comes in direct competition with it. 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. We believe these industries of our locality are interfered with by 
 these foreign products. I mean all onr vegetable productions and not the products 
 of our Wcstei'u States. 
 
 Mr. FLOVk'ER. They came from abroad and to New York and to the sea-board cities 
 when there is a scarcity. They sent potatoes in 1881 as far west as Kansas City 
 from Europe, as there was a scarcity. You know as a fact that year there was 
 about SI, 300,000 duty and the average dutv is about $300,000. 
 
 Mr. PloLLKT. You can get a bushel of potatoes from England, Ireland, and Scot- 
 laud for 7 cents freight ; it costs us 14 cents a bushel. I am 250 miles from New York 
 and Philadelphia ; 1 am 80 miles from our mines. Now, it costs me to get a bushel 
 of potatoes to the Wyoming Valley coal-fields 8 cents. It costs 14 cents to get it to 
 New York ; yet men in Scotland can bring potatoes for 7 cents. We can not ask our 
 railroads to do that ; and the railroads can not compete with the ocean transporta- 
 tion. We can say this, we can take care of ourselves and let Europe dispose of her 
 surplus products as she pleases, and we can have a market for all our manufactures 
 of all kinds in this country and supply our people and enlarge onr market. There is 
 no use talking about it and scoffing at the idea of a home market. Every little vil- 
 lage and town where any manufacturing goes on is an advantage to the agriculture 
 surrounding it and is a market for them. Foreign countries are taking possession of 
 our markets and ruling us out of them. These cities, of course, are all against our 
 farmers. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Would you raise the price of potatoes 15 cents f 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. Yes, sir; the duty ought to be 25 cents per bushel, and a duty of 30 
 cents per bushel on onions. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much ? 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. If I had it to say I would make it honestly and fairly at 30 cents on 
 potatoes and same on onions. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You suggested a duty on eggs. What would be your idea of that duty t 
 How much a dozen ? I come from an egg country and would like to know 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. I would make it 5 cents; that gives you revenue. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That would give us $800,000. 
 
 Mr. PiOLLET. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, in conclusion I want 
 to say that I thank you very much for your courtesy and am sort-y to have detained 
 you so long, yet I have not said half of what 1 ought to have said. If these gentle- 
 men will give me their names and write me I will answer any questions. 1 wantj 
 bowever, to say to my old associates that free-trade willuever go down in this country, 
 
860 EE VISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 STATEMENT OP HON. P. LANSING. 
 
 Hon. F. Lansi>jG, a Representative from the State of New York, next addressed 
 the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here to apeak m continuation 
 of the remarks made by the venerable gentleman from Pennsylvania, who addressed 
 you in the line of agriculture generally; not to go over the whole ground of agricult- 
 ural productions, but only to speak on some questions connected with that industry. 
 
 I am here to speak simply of a few specialties and to impress npou this committee 
 that the economic or iinancial system that treats one branch of one industry differ- 
 ently from another can not be long self-sustaining. Now, I represent a district very 
 largelv an agricultural district, and I am myself personally an agriculturist. We 
 have in our part of the State— I represent the northern part of New York immedi- 
 ately upon the Canadian border — some specialties in agriculture which need protec- 
 tion, because the production of them needs the application of more labor than to 
 ordinary agricultural pursuits. Particularly I desire to call the attention of the com- 
 mittee to the fact that the raising of garden seeds is an agricultural pursuit that re- 
 quires a great deal more labor than almost any other branch of agricultural industry. 
 The ground has to be kept thoroughly clean, and the work can not possibly be done 
 by machinery and has all to be done by hand. In the county in which'I reside, and 
 the county in which I think Mr. Payne resides, there are a great many thousands of 
 bushels of peas and beans grown for seed-houses throughout the United States. Some 
 years ago the tariff' on peas and beans was 20 per cent. I do not now recollect the 
 year m which it was changed, but as the tariff law stands to-day the duty on peas 
 and beans, not for garden purposes, is 10 cents per bushel. Then the peas and beans 
 used for garden purposes are said to be protected to the extent of 20 per cent, ad va- 
 lorem. I believe it is 20 per cent, ad valorem. Now, we are very extensive producers 
 of these two crops, both peas and beans, grown for garden purposes, and I desire to 
 ask this committee, and I ask it through the resolutions of the meetings of farmers 
 in my district, to put the duties upon peas and beans raised for garden purposes at 40 
 cents per bushel. They sell now for somewhere about $1.2.5. 
 
 Our farmers have been in the habit of getting $1.75 to $2.25, hut the lands directly 
 opposite on the other side of the St. Lawrence River are as well adapted to the culture 
 of peas and beans as our soil. The consequence is that the seed men come across the 
 river and make contracts for raising these products, pay the duty upon them, and 
 they have reduced the price of tbe article within the last five years from $2.50 to 
 $1.25. I desire to ask that that change be made. 
 
 Mr. La. Follettb. How are they able to do that ? 
 
 Mr. Lansing. Simply by the cheaper labor on the other side. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. Can you state just what the difference in labor ist 
 
 Mr. Lansing. I could not give the definite figures. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. Can you give about what it is ? 
 
 Mr. Lansing. It is a very considerable amount, because the city in which I live is 
 right on the border of Canada and the Canadians come over for employment. Our 
 farm hands are Canadians. They come for employment to a great extent. The labor 
 is so mach cheaper that the farmers within 5 miles of the river can raise and do raise 
 these articles at least 50' per cent, cheaper than we can raise our productions and 
 make a living on it. The same thing obtains in the culture of the bean. The bean 
 culture requires the same amount of labor and the manipulation of the crop is very 
 much like that in growing tobacco. They have to be grown by hand, and machinery 
 can not be used. 
 
 Now, there is another thing I desire to call the attention of the committee to, and 
 that is the duty upon barley. The duty upon barley, as it now stands, is 10 cents 
 per bushel. I think we all know what barley is used for and used for exclusively. 
 It is the cereal, of all others, that can by every argument, financially and morally, he 
 taxed to the full extent of what the product will bear. Now, sir, the Canadians 
 have got the best barley-producing section on the American continent, and that sec- 
 tion is directly opposite to the district of my friend and myself, so we know all about 
 it. The district of Mr. Flower also goes there. The culture of barley has within the 
 last ton yearw been reduced by the competition of the Canadians greatly, so it has 
 decreased in value at least 50 per cent, and to merely nominal crops in consequence 
 of the abaudonineut, and the average in price has decreased within ten years about 
 forty per cent. I ask for a greater amount of protection upon that. 
 
 There is another thiiig I am instructed by my constituents to ask your protection 
 upon, and that is ujiou liiiy. We grow, in northern New York, a very large amount 
 of hay for tljc Miarl<c,t. Tlie duty U|ion hay is now |2 per ton, and the railroads will 
 make contracts witli Ciinaila on long hauls so the Canadian farmers can pay the $2 
 duty required mid liriiig it into tlie United States and deliver it in the city of Boston 
 and in yciur mailculs tliat cdiismiie nil tlie easleni product of hay for less money than 
 we can market it in tiio city of New York ourselves. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TAKIFF, 861 
 
 Mr. Gbak. Those are Canadian roads ? 
 
 Mr. Lansing. Yes, sir; they connect with the roads that rim through our northern 
 country along the St. Lawrence. 
 
 Mr. Flower. They are roads we can not reach by interstate commerce. 
 
 Mr. Lansing. I presume not. I understand the interstate-commerce laws do not 
 apply to them. They can go to the provinces of Ontario and buy the hay, pay the 
 duty and put that hay in New York, after paying the difteience in freight, after pay- 
 ing the difference in importation, and have a margin over the American farmer on 
 our side of the border. Now, of course, I understand how hard it is to adjust all the 
 equities in a tariff bill; yet it seems to me there will be an awakening on the subject 
 some day, and people will ask why you should give the manufacturing side an average 
 duty of 45 per cent., while you give the agriculturists an average duty of 15 per cent. 
 It must be protected, and to-day the farmer is the man who is clear behind and who 
 needs protection. There are some things connected with the industry which can 
 not be protected because we are entirely exporters of those things ; but so far as 
 this adjustment can be made, I think it behooves Congress and the party in power to 
 say there shall be some equalization and some equitable adjustment of the burdens 
 of taxation. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you suggest any rate on barley ? 
 
 Mr. Lansing. I should put a duty of 20 cents a bushel on barley. It is now 10 
 cents. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And on hay ? 
 
 Mr. Lansing. I shonld put a duty of |4. I do not think that is an unreasonable 
 tax under the circumstances, for hay is now worth in New York about $15 or $16 a 
 ton and you see an import duty of $4 a ton would be only a duty of about 30 per cent. 
 But there are many articles in this schedule which run to 45 and 50. I can never un- 
 derstand why a special industry among agriculturists that can be protected should 
 not have a full protection and to the same extent that the manufacturing industries 
 have. 
 
 Mr. Paynb. Speaking about beans, are you aware of the fact that beans in Ger- 
 many are assorted and sent to this country as beans produced in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Lansing. Certainly. Tbey import them also from Canada. They import them 
 as grain and they are sorted in the seed houses. They are used for garden seed and 
 pay one-half duty. 
 
 Mr. Payne. The same thing is done in reference to the beans as an article of food. 
 
 Mr. Lansing. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLUsr. Is it possible to protect wheat ? Bat I believe you stated that it 
 was not. 
 
 Mr. Lansing. You could hardly protect it because we are exporters. 
 
 Mr. MeMiLLiN. The same thing is true of corn ? 
 
 Mr. Lansing. I should say so. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. And pork? 
 
 Mr. Lansing. I should say so. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And beef? 
 
 Mr. Lan.sing. I should be afraid there is no protection for it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Nor for products of that kind ? 
 
 Mr. Lansing. I am willing to admit that. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is the cost of transportation from your region down to Now 
 York ; that is for marketing yonr hay product ? 
 
 Mr. Lansing. Four dollars and fifty cents a ton. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is it from Canada? 
 
 Mr. Lansing. They will bring hay on the long haul, by goingbeyond the line and 
 at various points, I am told, to the New York hay dealers. I hail a talk with a man 
 the other day and he said that they put the freight rates very low to the Canadians 
 on account of the amount of the hay they have there. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You do not know what the figures are ? 
 
 Mr. Lansing. I cound not give them exactly. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But it would have to be less than |i2.50 a ton before they could 
 undersell you ? 
 
 Mr. Lansing. Yes, sir ; it must be at least that or as much as that, 
 
 Mr. Flower. Are you acquainted with the Adams malt house and the Watertowr 
 malt house in yonr district ? 
 
 Mr. Lansing. I know both of them. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What are they filled with now ? 
 
 Mr. Lansing. I suppose they are filled with barley imported from Canada. What 
 the proportion is, I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I have received a letter on- this point, which I would like to file in 
 connection with this, from the Farmers' Alliance, stating that these malt houses 
 were filled with Canadian barley, and that barley in that district could not bo sold. 
 
 Mr. Lansing. I know the importations are made constantly. 
 
862 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 STATEMENT OP GERARD C. BRO"WN. 
 
 Mr. Gerard C. Brown, of York County, Pa., next addressed the committee. H» 
 said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear here to say a few words 
 as tothepresent condition of agriculture in Pennsylvania, one of the great agricultural 
 States. Agriculture is greater than any one of all her leadiug interests. It repre- 
 sents more capital, employs more labor, and yields a greater annual product than any 
 other. The census reports and those of the Agricultural Departments of the State and 
 Nation substantiate this, and it would not have been worth mentioning were it not 
 that the greatest activity of those representing and managing other interests have 
 are caused the agricultural to be somewhat overshadowed. 
 
 But its present state is very unsatisfactory. The farms ofPennsylvania have largely 
 depreciated in value in recent years, and this downward movement still continues. I 
 am safe in saying that no single staple crop is now produced at a profit. It is no wonder 
 then that the census of 1880 showed a loss of near $168,000,000 in the value of these 
 farms when it also indicated an annual loss of $54,000,000 in the value of the product 
 of those farms. What this depreciation may now amount to I can not inform you, 
 there is no available data. But we see its evidences on every hand. For a farm, 
 especially one of any size, it is difficult in many sections to find a purchaser. Land 
 so located that it has a speculative value for building purposes will sell for a good 
 round price, but this is not based on its productive capacity for farm purposes. This 
 depreciation amounts to as much as 50 per cent. ; certainly so in the case of the richest 
 and most productive farms in the best farming districts of the State. 
 
 I live in York County about equal distances from York and Columbia, say 7 miles 
 from either, 38 miles from Harrisburg, 50 from Baltimore, less than 100 from Phila- 
 delphia, somewhat further from New York or Washiugton, not far from the great 
 emporiums of the country, and surrounded by some of its great manufacturing cen- 
 ters ; a location which should afford good home markets if any can. 
 
 And yet our wheat has averaged below $1 per bushel for some years ; below cost of 
 production. It is now, I believe, 74 to 76 cents ; corn about 36 to 40 cents. 
 
 Fattening cattle, once a very profitable venture, has decliued wonderfully. It is 
 rare for feeders to get market price for corn fed to fatten stock. 
 
 Tobacco raising no longer pays, the risk and outlay of so expensive a crop being 
 considered. 
 
 Dairying, to which many turned for refuge, even when, as is the case in our neigh- 
 borhood, it is conducted under the best known system, with the moat approved 
 machinery and appliances, is not remunerative ; creamery stock is too often dead stock. 
 
 Our people are noted for their industry and perseverance ; they are good farmers ; 
 their skill in the management of their land is proverbial; they are wide awake and 
 prompt to adopt improved methods of agriculture, the best farm tools and machinery 
 available ; they are liberal users of artificial fertilizers. 
 
 I think York County ranks second among the counties of the country in the amount 
 of phosphates applied to the crops, about $500,000 worth a year. They have more 
 than doubled the annual production of their farms in quite recent years. They are 
 temperate and frugal, and as a rule had saved and accumulated considerable sums of 
 money in addition to their holdings ; that is in former years and before times had be- 
 come so hard. This has enabled many to tide over to the present time. These re- 
 marks apply to the farmers of all sections of the State, to a great degree. 
 
 The descendants ot the Germans, the Scotch, Irish, and Quakers illustrate to-day the 
 virtues of their ancestors who settled the valleys of Pennsylvania and made a great 
 and flourishing State out of the wilderness. With a good soil, an excellent climate, 
 and natural advantages second to none, they ought to command prosperity. 
 
 Yet, as a class, they are slipping backward ; are losing ground insti-ad of gaining. 
 The retrogression is more apparent in the older, more thickly settled, and wealthier 
 farming districts where is the greater percentage of loss. 
 
 There were more properties sold under the hammer in York County last year than 
 ever before. In Berks County more sheriff's sales of farms than in any three previ- 
 ous years. This was not on account of any failure of crops, which were about the 
 average. 
 
 Other property is not similarly affected. We find towns and villages as a rule still 
 growing ; in cities the growth is in some instances marvelous. 
 
 Country stores of ten or a dozen years ago have so flourished that now you see a 
 fine two or three story building in the place of the shabby little grocery. A prosperity 
 is indicated whioli does not characterize the farms in the neighborhood which repre- 
 sent a much larger investniout. It is only a question of time, however, when the im- 
 poveriwhed condition of the farmer will mact on other interests. 
 
 Nor docs the evident doteruiuatiou of the population to towns give us the needed 
 
REVISION OF- THE" TARIFF. 863 
 
 relief. The prices of onrjcereals continue to be made in Liverpool and Londoa ; their 
 
 value flnctnates from day to day per advices by the cable. 
 The highest prices paid for onr beeves, those of conrse are the choicest cattle, is for 
 
 exportation. As to poultry, or butter, or eggs, we ship them to ^Philadelphia, New 
 
 York, or Baltimore, because prices range higher than in our own local home markets. 
 
 For instance turkeys will bring 16 cents in New York, but only 10 in York, and yet in 
 
 New York they are sold in competition with those from all parts of the country, even 
 
 from the boundless West. 
 Creamery butter, no better can ho made, has not averaged over 20 cents for the 
 
 season ; in local markets it is often 15 or below. 
 The fact is prices are too low to yield a living profit, while taxes remain unreduced 
 
 and the expenses of living are disproportioned to the means of meoling them. 
 The protective system has not, at least in the case of those farmers located near 
 
 the great protected industries, resulted in the protection promised them, that of an 
 
 ample and sufficient home market. 
 Hence the loss of profit on their products followed by the loss of value of their 
 
 farms, which unless checked must result in tlie loss of the farms themselves. 
 Pennsylvania farmers are not alone "confronted with this condition." In New 
 
 England the "dry-rot" is still worse. Lacking some of the advantages which en- 
 abled us to still hold out they sooner went to the wall. 
 I quote from a recent report : " There are eight hundred and eighty-seven deserted 
 
 farms in New Hampshire with buildings on them in a fair state of repair, or that 
 
 might easily he made fit for occupancy. This information has been received in re- 
 ply to an official circular of the State commissioner of emigration making inquiry 
 of the selectmen of one hundred and sixty towns. These deserted farms are in easy 
 reach of the busy factories of New Eugland. They have a home market with its at- 
 tractions and are a sample of the way the home market euriehes the husbandman." 
 
 Further as to New Hampshire I cite another authority : " Perhaps no better an- 
 swer to the stock argument of the protectionists — that the farmer gains more from 
 the local market made by manufacturing villages and towns than he loses in the in- 
 creased cost of the goods he buys — can be found than a statement of the condition 
 of some of the towns near these manufacturing cities on the Merrimao River. The 
 Merrimao turns more spindles than any other river in the world. Within a few miles 
 of each other, around the great bend of the river from south to east, are the cities of 
 Nashua, LoweU, Lawrence, and Haverhill. In the farming towns of Windham, 
 Pelham, and Hudson, N. H., situated within the bend, and so within easy access of all 
 four of the above named cities, we ought to find prosi)erous ' protected ' farming. 
 
 " On one main road from Lowell to Windham, 1'2 miles, I count six deserted sets of 
 farm buildings, besides several which have already gone to ruin. Fields and past- 
 ures are growing up to wood ; houses in which, a generation ago, sturdy manhood 
 and womanhood flourished, are gone to utter ruin; in many school districts there 
 are not sufficient children to have a school. The whole appearance is one of poverty 
 and decay; to ride alopg our country roads is extremely depressing. In no part of 
 New England with which I am acquainted is the decay of the farming interests so 
 obvious and so complete as here by the manufacturing cities. Instead of the homo- 
 geneous population of thrifty, intelligent, self-respecting farmers and mechanics that 
 occupied this section fifty years ago, we now have, in our cities, a few fine streets of 
 residences for the capitalists and employers, and in our 'French Acre,' ' Irish Acre,' 
 corporation boarding and tenement houses, and in our country a desert — for it is al- 
 ready nearly that. 
 
 "Possibly this may be 'progress,' and a modern, improved kind of progress — one 
 that has not been brought about by rude, natural causes, but one that results from 
 the incomparable wisdom of our legislators, who are so kindly taxing us into wealth. 
 Our farming interests would have suffered enough from the inevitable competition 
 with more favored sections; but the ruin has been precipitated by the tremendous 
 burden of taxation that the farmer has borne. It is no small thing when a nation 
 renders impossible the existence of a class that has been the source of so much 
 energy, talent, and character as have the New England farmers." 
 
 While as to Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York we do not have a similar 
 official record, it will be noticed by the traveler that deserted farms are not unknown, 
 and it is a fact that hundreds of farms can be purchased in those States for less than 
 the cost of buildings, making the land practically free of cost to buyers. 
 
 In New Jersey, Judge Forsyter, of Pemberton, says : " The farmers are not prosper- 
 ous; although they are all depending on a home market they are all going behind- 
 hand." 
 
 Mr. Edmund Cook testified at a late meeting of the State board of agriculture: 
 "The farms of Burlington County if put on the market to-day would not bring the 
 cost of buildings and improvements, to say nothing of the laud." 
 
 In New York, State Assessor Wood says " that :n a few decades there will he few 
 or none but tenant farmers in this State." 
 
864 EE VISION OP THE TAlilFF. 
 
 In Illinois tho report of the Bureau of Labor Statiatios for 1B87 s^iow farm iudeTjtod ■ 
 ness — 
 
 1870 165,721,900 
 
 1880 103,525,237 
 
 1887 123,733,098 
 
 and states that " mortgage indelitedness of farmers for money "borrowed has increased 
 23 per cent, since 1880, more than twice tho increase of farm lands." From report of 
 same Bureau for the next year, 1888, I quote : 
 
 "This table shows that there are 8,082,794 acres of Illinois land under mortgage be- 
 sides the mortgages on 237,336 lots and on chattels. From statistics on the same page it 
 appears that there were filed in the single year 1887 a total of 125,923 new mortgages 
 for the immense sum of $117,152,857, covering 2,178,532 acres of laud and 65,066 lots, 
 as well as miscellaneous property or chattels to the value of $17,000,000. These fig- 
 ures of tlie new indebtedness for a single year are, it will be observed, more than one- 
 fourth of the total mortgage indebtedness of the State, as estimated in the table 
 quoted above. This fact shows that the estimated total is below the real amount, 
 yet even the low estimate is startling. 
 
 " The population of Illinois by the census of 1880 was 3,077,871. Say that is now 
 4,000,000, and divide that amount by five to arrive at the number of heads of families. 
 We have thus 800,000, which is close to tho real number, as the total Illinois vote of 
 1888 was 748,000. Averaging among these the total mortgage indebtedness, as estimated 
 by the State administration, it makes a debt of $520 for every head of family in the 
 State, while the new debt contracted in 1887 alone makes $146.25 for each head of 
 family. 
 
 " The condition of Kansas and other Western States is even worse." 
 
 Another report places indebtedness represented by western farm mortgages at 
 $3,422,000,000, or $200 per capita for about 17,000,000 population. From Kansas a 
 private letter from an old resident, who moved into the Neosho Valley from Penn- 
 sylvania in 1866, a good saccessful business man, says: 
 
 "Times are close, never so bad before. Though blessed with good crops, we can 
 not sell for half what they are worth. During all the years I have been here I never 
 knew things so low. Corn is 15 cents a bushel, oats 10 cents, wheat 55 cents, pota- 
 toes 22 cents, fat cows and heifers 11 cents on hoof, hay $2 a ton ; 50 bushels of corn 
 for a plain overcoat. To sell25 acres of corn, or 1,000 bushels, for $150, after hauling 
 it 10 miles, is a hard way to make money." 
 
 But why multiply the "cloud of witnesses." No one denies the unfortunate condi- 
 tion of our finances, and no one can claim that the vaunted home market has ma- 
 terialized. It is proper for this committee to consider the facts as they are about to 
 consider the revision of a system under which this unfortunate condition has arisen. 
 
 I do not come here with any panacea. I present admitted facts. They are stub- 
 born. Other great and important interests, which, however, their warmest devotees 
 will not vote as more important than agriculture, may claim that a protective tariff 
 has benefited them, it clearly has not us. They may assert it as necessary to their 
 existence, that, " it is the breath of life to their nostrils ", it does not seem to vitalize 
 agriculture. 
 
 If agriculture was as flourishing as manufactures ought to be with 47 per cent, 
 tariff, then doubtless they would be told that this was the cause of their prosperity. 
 How then can we resist tho inference that it is a factor of our depression. 
 
 Now we hear the cry that agriculture must have the same protection as manufact- 
 nres. Grant it — how can we get it through a tariff. 
 
 What will you favor with higher rates of duty? How can you thus help the 
 price of any of our great staples, w;hen we produce them largely in excess of our 
 needs and always have a surplus to sell abroad? 
 
 If we produce 450,000,000 bushels of wheat, can consume but 325,000,000, the re- 
 maining 125,000,000 must find another market or eventually rot here, and the price 
 wheat sella for in that market delimits the market price of the much larger portion 
 that we do use here. The present tariff of 20 cents a bushel does not affect the price, 
 and were it twice 20 cents, or were it $20, it still would not increase it oue cent a 
 bushel. This illustration holds for the great staple products of our farms. 
 
 As we can't help their producers by imposing a higher tariff, I do not see how we 
 can aid them by giving more protection to sundry minor crops, mere specialties, of 
 which tho major part can only be produced in certain localities or under peculiar 
 conditions. 
 
 To do any real good to agriculture we must do that which will benefit the great 
 maio]ity, and not the small minority. 
 
 As tho present tariff does not solve this problem, as its increase since 1861 has been 
 accompanied by a decline of agricultural prosperity, it seems also to look in that 
 direction for relief. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 865 
 
 We might try the other way out of the dilemma and see what would be the result 
 of reducing the tariff on those things which the farmer needs, hut does not produce. 
 
 Since you ask what is my remedy, I say, knock off the tariiif for surplus. Give us 
 a tariff which is not framed to pay a bounty to other interests at the expense of the 
 farmers who are the largest consumers and the heaviest tax-payers, which is limited 
 to the needs of an honest economical government, and which is levied as much as 
 possible on the luxuries, and as little as possible on the necessaries of life. 
 
 This is the kind of protection we need, and I think is about all the real protection 
 you- can give us. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What are lands worth in your country ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. There is a difference in the value of the land. 
 
 Mr. Gear. In the average farming lands what is it worth ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. About |50 ; in my neighborhood from $50 to $55. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much corn can you raise on a farm in your neighborhood T 
 
 Mr. Brown. Forty to 50 bushels to the acre. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you use fertilizers f 
 
 Mr. I5R0WN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What does it cost ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. We do not use artificial fertilizers on corn. We rather use them on 
 wheat. We use the barn-yard manure for tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What do you get for your corn ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. About 36 cents. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How many bushels of wheat do you make to an acre on a good crop ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Our average crop is better than the average crop of the statistics for 
 the State. That average is about 18 to 20 bushels to the acre. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You use fertilizers for that 1 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Where do you live ; in what county t 
 
 Mr. Brown. Seven miles from York, in York County. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you farm ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir; that is my business. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How many acres have you t 
 
 Mr. Brown. About 140. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What do you grow on your farm f 
 
 Mr. Brown. The principal cereal crops ; wheat, corn, tobacco, are my principal 
 crops. Besides that we raise hay to feed the stock, and I also carry on a dairy busi- 
 ness. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are you engaged in any other business f 
 
 Mr. Brown. No, sir ; I never have been. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do I understand you to say your lands have depreciated 50 per cent, f 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. When did you buy your property ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I came into posssssion of it in 1874. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Did yon buy it or how did you get it I 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir ; I bought it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much did you pay for it 1 
 
 Mr. Brown. The valuation of the farm was 
 
 Mr. Gear. What did you pay for it f 
 
 iMr. Brown. I could not answer that question precisely for this reason, that it was 
 in the nature of a trade by which I came into possession of it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What did you trade for it ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. For other property. I estimated the farm to stand at that time at a 
 cost of about $75 to the acre. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Where was the other property which you traded for this situated ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. It was a family matter among ourselves. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It was a family trade and settlement ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You inherited the property ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. In that way. It was a trade among ourselves. 
 
 Mr, Gear. What was the assessed valuation of that property t 
 
 Mr. Brown. The assessed valuation of that property in 1870 was about $20,000. 
 No, I am wrong. In 1865 that property changed ownership for $20,000, but at the 
 present time the property is assessed at $11,000. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What was it assessed at in 1865 ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I do not remember the assessed value in 1865, but it sold at that time 
 for $20,000. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What was its assessed value in 1874 1 
 
 Mr. Brown. About $15,000 or $20,000 ; just about the same. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And the assessment has been reduced ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 
 
 485 55 
 
866 EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Have your taxes been increased ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. No, not materially. I tliiuli they are about the same rate. 
 
 Mr. Gear. When you spealii of depreciation 
 
 Mr. Brown. We paid a school tax a few years ago on account of building pnr- 
 poses. 
 
 Mr. Gear. When you speak of depreciation, you take the value in your own 
 county in 18(35? 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gb;ar. You speak of the depreciation that has occurred since 1865 ? 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 
 Mr. Gear. When it was worth $20,000 ? 
 Mr. Brown. It sold for $20,000 in 1865. 
 Mr. Gear. What was the i)remium on. gold at that time? 
 Mr. Brown. Iu 1865 ? I believe about 180. 
 
 Mr. Gb\r. When you spe.ik of this selling in 1865 for $20,000, was it according to 
 gold vahie or greenback value ? 
 Mr. Brown. By the currency at that time 1 
 Mr. Gear. This depreciated paper was then in existence. 
 Mr. Brown. I can make this matter plain. 
 Mr. Gear. I am making this matter plain. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I wish to state that I will take the adjoining property, which will 
 illustrate what I wish to say more definitely, because it has been sold and my prop- 
 erty has not been sold. This property adjoining me has been sold lately. The ad- 
 joining property owners sold this land at |70 an acre iu 1845. The man who bought 
 it built houses, built a good fence, built a new building for storing tobacco, and 
 improved the land, so that he increased the production of the farm during that time, 
 and that farm was sold at piiblic auction seven years ago for $56 an acre. Now, 
 it had lieen assessed during a great portion of the time at $90 an acre, so it actually 
 sold at $40 an acre less than what the man had paid taxes on. 
 Mr. Gear. Does this farm produce in 1889 what it produced in 1865 ? 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. So it was no fault of the richness of the soil ; the soil was good ? 
 Mr. Brown. No, sir. I would say this, that the productiveness of our soil has in- 
 creased. York County, in that State, by the census of 1880, is the second county of 
 the United States in the amount of artificial fertilizers used. Kings County, New 
 York, and the adjoining couuty, was the highest. At any rate it stands high, for we 
 spent over ^5fl0,000 on fertilizers. 
 Mr. Gear. How do you come to know of the sale in 1845 ? 
 
 Mr. Browx. I have the testimony of my neighbor who has occupied it from that 
 time, Mr. John Kellar. 
 Mr. Gear. Is it mineral land or farm land ? 
 Mr. Brown. Farm land. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Had it any other value than for farm land t 
 Mr. Brown. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Was there any town near it? 
 Mr. Brown, York was the nearest town. 
 Mr. Gear. How far from it? 
 Mr. Brown. Seven miles. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Was it a public sale or private sale f 
 
 Mr. Brown. It was a public sale to the best and highest bidder. It changed hands 
 again about two years after that at about the same value. 
 Mr. Gear. About what value did you say ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. About |57 an acre; but there had been some additional buildings put 
 on it. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Let me ask you right there. You heard me ask Colonel Piolet how 
 much railroad freights had gone down since 1845? 
 Mr. Brown. From our place to the uiarket ? 
 Mr. Flower. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Prom our place very little. 
 Mr. Flower. Well, from the western market to York. 
 Mr. Brown. They have of course depreciated considerably. 
 Mr. Flower. A third ? 
 Mr. Brown. I should think so. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Then the de|ireciation would be, to take Governor Boies 
 
 Mr. Gear. 1 am not namcci Boies. I am not the governor of Iowa.. 
 Mr. Flower. You ought to be. Take Governor Gear's State of Iowa, with its low- 
 priced land, with its elegant soil :} or 4 feet deep with black muck— you produce 
 products .igaiust it and have this low rate of freight which has gone down to oue- 
 third of what it was in 1865. Can not you see why the farmers' productions do not 
 Jjay as much as they did in 1845 ? 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 867 
 
 Mr. Brown. I think it may be 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you not think it has ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Accoriling to the evidence, we find these people are suffering to a de- 
 gree 
 
 Mr. Flower. They are to-day; yes, sir. But have not their farms since 1865 gone 
 up to an e(nial level with yonrs in Pennsylvania? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Of course that is a long period. 
 
 Mr . Flower. Well, 1875, when they were §.'1 an acre in Iowa. 
 
 Mr.BROWN. I think 1 have got this in my statement here. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How mnch baa the population of York increased in the last twenty 
 years ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. The census of 1880 gave the population at 81,000. Wo have not had 
 a census since, but we know tho population has increased and is very considerably 
 over that now. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How about the city of York ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. The population according to the census of 1880 was 1,3,000, but by 
 the town enumeration made a year ago it disclosed a population considerably over 
 20,000. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How much was the census of 1870 ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. About eight thousand and some hundreds, I think. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How large is Columbia? 
 
 Mr. Brown. About 8,000 iu 1880, and I suppose it is about 12,000 or 1.3,000 now. 
 These towns have been prosjierous. I will say in this connection that, as far as my 
 observation has gone, I have found the town business has increased and is prosper- 
 ous. You will see the little dry-goods and grocery stores in agreat many places where 
 a few years ago were little bits of one-story houses, and which are now two stories ; 
 so it is evident the men are making money and living well. The man who had |3,.500 
 or $3,000 and kept in the business is now living in a manner that no farmer can afford 
 to live in. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. This is in the town ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Iu the towns and villages. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. You said your land is as productive now as it was in 1865 and 1875, 
 and that in the county of York you used a great deal of fertilizers. If your lands are 
 more productive per acre than they were ten or twenty years ago, why is it you can 
 not make as much money out of your farm now as you did ten or twenty years ago? 
 
 Mr. Brown. That is a problem we would like to solve. One reason is the lower 
 prices for everything which we produce. You take wheat. We find that some years 
 ago the average price was 80 cents, and now it is 74 and 76 cents at home. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The lower rates from Chicago bring that down. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What was gold worth in 1845 ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I can not tell you. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Was wheat less in 1845 ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. No, sir ; wheat has not been as low iu the market as the average for 
 the last five years. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Has. it never been lower ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I believe so. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I can tell you how much it was in 1845 in my country. It was 25 cents. 
 
 Mr. Brown. What is it now in Iowa ? 
 
 Mr. Gear. About 60. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You see now that the fact is that in 1845, when your land was sold for 
 $70 an acre, farm products were worth less than they are now, and in 1865, when you 
 put your farm at a very high valuation iu greenbacks, wheat and everything else 
 were at high prices because of the premium on gold. Now, when the premium was 
 large on gold, and when the productive industries of the country, and especially 
 that of farmers, were reduced to a minimuui by reason of the great warj did not these 
 lands bring almost any price you chose to ask ? . 
 
 Mr. Brown. No, sir, for the reason this fall has been continuous since 1880. The 
 fact of the business is these farm lands can hardly be sold in our neighborhood. If 
 a man has land near a village and he cuts it up into lots, he can get a fancy price for 
 them, but when a farmer attempts to sell land, it is a drug on the market. There 
 have been more farms sold by the sheriff m York County in the last year than in the 
 year previous, and the indications are that for this year there will be a great in- 
 crease. 
 
 Mr. BAyNB. What do you think of the infinence of the great agricultural lands iu 
 the Western States, in Dakota, Montana, and other Western States that have a large 
 amount of very rich land, which is easily worked, with a great depth of soil? Would 
 not that have an influence on your lands? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes; a large iniiuence, no doubt. And this question arises, what is the 
 condition of the farming industry there to-day ? 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. Have you anything showing it ? 
 
868 BE VISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiixiN. Proceed with your remarks. 
 
 Mr. Brown. It is simply a letter from a farmer of Kansas who loft Crawford County 
 twenty-five years ago. lie has bought a good farm, and he says in a letter recently 
 written that corn is bringing from 10 to 15 and 16 cents. He said he had 25 acres 
 which average 40 bushels of corn an acre. He has 10 miles to haul this corn, which 
 is worth $150 for this product of 25 acres of corn, which represents virtually the work 
 of a man and his time for a whole season. 
 
 Mr. Gbak. I beg your pardon ; 60 acres is a fair crop for one man's time. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Were you farming in 1860 J 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Blower. And yon wore tow breeches in 18601 
 
 Mr. Brown. No; wool. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Did you wear sheep's gray f 
 
 Mr. Brown. I wore as good cloth as now. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Where was it made t 
 
 Mr. Brown. Eight there. 
 
 Mr. Flower. On the loom, at home t 
 
 Mr. Brown. In the factory, and that factory is idle now. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Did yon have any looms around York County f 
 
 Mr. Brown. In 1860 1 
 
 Mr. Flower. Yes ; in your family f 
 
 Mr. Brown. A few old-fashioned people did. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I know it ; but I wanted to know whether it was different from what 
 it was in my State or not. In 1856 to 1860, in my State, the ladies of the family were 
 making tow breeches and gray cloth. I supposejnow they buy the clothing at the 
 stores instead of making it. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. And the ladies of the family are not doing anything in particular 
 nowT 
 
 Mr. Brown. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What do they do t 
 
 Mr. Brown. Take it in our part of the country, the people are all at work. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You do not have rag carpets on the floor like in 1860 ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir; we have them now. 
 
 Mr. Flower. In our State we have Brussels. 
 
 Mr. Brown. You are more fortunate. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Yon stated that in 1860 you wore as good clothes as now. 
 
 Mr. Brown. My clothes wore longer then than now. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Did you pay the same for them? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I do not think I did. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You stated that in 1874 in the trade which you counted as cash yon paid 
 $75 an acre for this land. 
 
 Mr. Brown. About that. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You computed the cash on the currency basis of that time. What were 
 bank-notes worth then 1 
 
 Mr. Brown. I can not remember just now, but think gold was 120. 
 
 Mr. Gear. No ; gold, I think, was 138 in 1874. That would make the cash value of 
 the lands in 1874, if gold was 138, which I think it was at that time, average $50 an 
 acre for that land. Now your land is worth what f 
 
 Mr. Brown. The trouble would be to get a purchaser. 
 
 Mr. Gbab. That is not the question. Answer my question. You stated it had gone 
 down 50 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir ; I stated it had gone down about 50 per cent. ; that is a gen- 
 eral estimate. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Then your lands declined about $12 an acre. 
 
 Mr. Brown. The general estimate. I have stated my own land has not been sold 
 and has not been put on the market, but that the land of my neighbor was sold at 
 what was about equivalent to that percentage. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I presume you have good butter in your country? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, we make the very best gilt-edge butter. We make butter which 
 Bells for 20 cents a pound on the market. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you think the prices of your products are enhanced by the towns and 
 manufactories around you ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. It does not look like it. We send butter to New York to sell it. We 
 do not get that at home. The butter sold in our neighborhood sold as low as 14 cents 
 this summer. It is the same thing with poultry. If this system was efficient in en- 
 abling us to have a home market right there at our doors, we would find it a most 
 profitable market for onr poultry right at home. 
 
 Mr. MoMxLLLN. How do you ship it ? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 869 
 
 Mr. Beowtt. On Monday I ship ray poultry. A short time since I shipped turkeys 
 and got 16 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. What do you get for chickens ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Eleven and one-half cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. That is a pretty good price. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir ; but right at the home market we have to sell at the same 
 time turkeys for 9 cents a pound and chickens for 7 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Caelislb. What does it cost in freight to New York ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. The freight and the commission charges go together. I can not 
 tell exactly, but it amounts in the neighborhood of 15 per cent. — from 10 to 15 
 per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. Turkeys sell in my country for 10 cents, and chickens for 6^ 
 cents. I simply state this to show you we have low prices as well as you. 
 
 Mr. Brown. We send our produce to New York City. It is then sold in compe- 
 tition with similar products of every State. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. They do not sell for as much at your place, less the freight 1 
 
 Mr. Brown. No, sir; not nearly as much. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. I do not wonder you ship to New York. 
 
 Mr. Brown. It is for the simple reason that we can not get as good prices at 
 home as we can get in New York City or Philadelphia. The best market is this 
 here in Washington. The only trouble about it is that it is too easily overstocked. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You say these farms which you describe as having gone down in 
 value are within a 100 miles of Philadelphia and Harrisburg. 
 
 Mr. Brown. It is within 38 miles of HaiTisburg. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And within 7 miles of York, and less than 100 miles of Baltimore, 
 but that this home market which you have been promised so long has not succeeded 
 in keeping up the price of land, nor the products grown on that land. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I have given the facts. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Then you are in favor of doing away with all these factories and let- 
 ting the operatives go to work on the farms t 
 
 Mr. Brown. We do not want that. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Why » 
 
 Mr. Brown. We do not consider that a reduction of the tariff, which is a reduction 
 of the surplus, would do away with these factories. 
 
 Mr. McRenna. You stated that these towns have all increased in population, and 
 notwithstanding that, your produce has declined in value. Then you must be in a 
 very helpless condition. What could help you ; because there is no market for you 
 except these people, and you say that the products of the farmers have gone down to 
 such a point that you can not afford to raise them. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You want protection against the low rates on the railroads ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. We have no objection to that. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLlN. Will you print these statistics T 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. What I wanted to say is this. We have had statements made 
 and it has been talked over for many years, and we can say we have not received a 
 sufficient market, which we expected. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What remedy would you suggest for this f 
 
 Mr. Brown. I would suggest this remedy at least : I would at least reduce the 
 amount of the indirect tax on those things, whatever they are, which we have to buy, 
 to an extent that would do away with the paying of a tariff to make a surplus. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you say you would take away the tax on sugar, which pays fifty odd 
 millions in direct taxes t 
 
 Mr. Brown. I do not know 
 
 Mr. Gear. The tax on sugar is fl.06 a year per head, and nine-tenths is a direct 
 tax, because we do not raise flugar in this country. You would be benefited $1.06 per 
 capita by free sugar. That would be a direct relief to you. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir ; we will acknowledge that ; but there is this about it : We 
 are aware that the tariff which is put upon sugar goes directly into the United States 
 Treasury. J would say this : On other things we need we are taxed at a rate equal 
 perhaps to the tariff rate we pay upon sugar, and of which only a portion goes into 
 the United States Treasury but which costs the people of the country on the whole of 
 that production at a corresponding ratio. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That is a political question. This is not a question dealing with these 
 facts. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I do not regard it as a political question. It is all an economic ques 
 tion we are discussing fairly. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What are these things T 
 
 Mr. Brown. Clothing, etc. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Yon have stated that clothing is cheaper than it was before. 
 
 Mr. Brown. No, sir ; I did not say so. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You stated that they last longer. 
 
870 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Brown. It is better clothing for the farmers. I spoke of the gi ade of clothing 
 farmers wore. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Yon are a pretty well dressed gentleman. 
 
 Mr. Brown That is all right, I know. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You look very iirosporous. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I do not know why a farmer has not a right to wear good clothes. 
 He is a citizen with equal rights of other citizens. Ho has a right to dress as well as 
 anybody. Now, there are geatlemen who come and say, " You farmers have musical 
 instruments in your houses, which you did not have before. You have buggies aud 
 carriages, when you used to go afoot." I want to know who has^ a better right to 
 have these than the farmer, who is the producer of all things used in this country. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Let me ask you your age ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I am forty-seven years old. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are you a married man ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You buy blankets ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gbak. "When did you go to housekeeping ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. About eighteen years ago. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you recollect what you paid per pair for 5-pound blankets— but 
 you are not familiar with the prices anterior to eighteen years ago. You paid the 
 premium on gold, and I wanted to know if you were old enough to go back to 1855 
 and 1860. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I remember my first experience in farming was in 1860, the year be- 
 fore the war. That was on my father's farm, which my brother runs now. It is a 
 better farm now than it was then. 
 
 Mr. Geaie. You want protection against the rich lands of the West, I am afraid. 
 
 Mr. Brown. This is the general experience of our farmers. My object in speaking 
 was simply to make a statement and show our actual condition. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Can you farm in your county in Pennsylvania where yon use $500,000 
 for fertilizers? 
 
 Mr. Brown. We are raising tobacco, which pays a revenue into the United States 
 of 1700,000 alone. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Can you raise wheat aud corn on land that has been used for fifty years 
 in competition with the great prairie lands of Illinois and Iowa? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I do not know why we can not. 
 
 Mr. Gear. They raise 60, 70, and 90 bushels without fertilizers. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I do not see it. If in the production of staples they have the natural 
 advantarre on one hand, we have the advantage of the nearness to the markets. 
 
 Mr. Gear. But you use fertilizers. 
 
 Mr. Brown. This is used on tobacco which is a special crop. It is our great money 
 crop. 
 
 STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN DYE. 
 
 Mr. Franklin Dye, of Trenton, N. J., nest addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, from what I have heard in refer- 
 ence to general agricnlture, I am remiuded of the minister who took as his text 
 " the world, the flesh and tire devil." He said he would not tarry long in the world, 
 he would pass on quickly to the flesh, and hasten on to the devil. It seems to me 
 that the general agricultural interests are going rapidly that way, from what 1 have 
 heard. I do not want to be trifling with this matter, because it is a serious one, and 
 we are here to ascertain if possible, whether there are any means ofrolief. Of course 
 I did not know my old friend, Mr. Piolett, would be here, or what these gentlemen 
 who have preceded me would have to say on this question. So I may go over some 
 of the statements they have made. But I will present more particularly the relations 
 between the protected manufacturing iuteresta aud the non-protected agricultural 
 interests as it works in my State. If you will pardon me, I will read this brief 
 paper. 
 
 I am willing to admit that a taritf is a selfish measure. Yet there are good reasons 
 for it. 
 
 First. Inequalities of cost of production. So long as my neighbor pays and pro- 
 vides for his men all the way through as well and as liberally as 1 do I am willing ho 
 should compete with me in the disposition of his goods in an open, unrestricted mar- 
 ket. But, if he produces his goods, agricultural or otherwise, by peasant labor or by 
 labor that is but poorly paid and otherwise cared for, while I, from the nature of my 
 surroundings, ))ay good wages, whereby my hands can carefor themselves as respect- 
 able citizens, on alevcl with thi'ir employiT, having an eciual right w ith me in the 
 control of our Government, in church, school, and social matters, then I want his 
 goods taxed to the amount of the difference in the cost of production. Aud this is but 
 
EKVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 871 
 
 at act of justice to our producing classes. HiRber authority than I am has sail], " If 
 any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he is worse thaa 
 an infidel." 
 
 Not only are the children of the early settlers of this country " of our own house," 
 but by our very benignant laws all naturalized citizens, come from whence they may. 
 So, then, our people are right, and their demands are just when they ask for such pro- 
 tection from foreign competition as will enable us to keep our working classes busy 
 at paying prices. In this country they are free citizens and not peasants, and should 
 not be paupers. They should be protected, therefore, as it seems to us, to the amount 
 of the difference in the cost of production between the peasaut and pauper labor of 
 other countries and the cost of the same articles as produced by the free and (as com- 
 pared with the classes named above) well-paid citizen of the United St^ites. While 
 this is a geuei-al principle, and to be equitable should have a wide application, the 
 facts are that for the last quarter of a century our manufacturing interests have 
 pressed to the front in this matter, and have received the attention of Congress, and 
 tariff legislation has been chiefly in their behalf. 
 
 It has been argued that to increase the number of operatives in manufacturing en- 
 terprises would necessarily enhance the price of farm products. Could our increase 
 of population for the period named have been confined to the latter class — or nearly 
 so — our farmers would now be prosperous and happy. But our enormous increase of 
 population by immigration has been largely agricultural, and, settling on the rich, 
 productive soils of the West, have increased our agricultural products to such an ex- 
 tent as to overbalance any advantages th.it might otherwise have come to our older 
 farming communities from the increase of consumers as resulting from protected man- 
 ufactories. 
 
 Now, if the farmer is compelled topurchase his manufactured goods chiefly or wholly 
 from protected manufactories of the United States — if he purchases the foreign arti- 
 cle he must pay the duty — then as an act of equal justice we claim that the manu- 
 facturer and his protected laborers shall purchase all their living supplies and raw 
 material that we do now, or may by suitable protection and encouragement produce 
 from us. ( 
 
 The sentiments of the farmers of the United States, as expressed last election, means 
 this or nothing. They feel that to protect the manufactured end of the product only 
 will not do. 
 
 The home market, which the farmer defends for other labor, he is compelled to con- 
 tend for at some points with such rivals as cooleys, convicts, peasants, and women, 
 field laborers. While we believe that a judicious schedule of tariff rates on foreign 
 farm produce, and suitable assistance given to develop the manufacture of needed 
 goods from raw material, now going to waste here (see Tribune extra No. 98, page 8) 
 for the want of it, will be for the benefit of the farmers of the whole country, it will 
 be of advantage to all classes. For it is certain that when farming as a business is 
 prosperous, all other business is benefited. 
 
 Speaking for my own State, we are of necessity giving increased attention to hay, 
 butter, market-garden, and poultry and egg products, and we are able to produce all 
 that is needed, and at a fair price, if we can have our market. But if the duty on 
 some of these products is so low — or free — that they can be brought to our shores in 
 almost unlimited quantities as ballast, even, there is no defense for us. As for eggs, 
 there is no good reason why we should import over 16,000,000 dozen eggs or more in 
 one year (1886). (See Burrough, page 11. For other veget.able imports see Bur- 
 rough (Dudly),same page.) 
 
 There were imported in 1887 from foreign countries the following: 
 
 Articles. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Duty. 
 
 
 $1, 9C0, 40S. 39 
 846, 600. 84 
 204, 961. 53 
 
 15, 088, 073. 82 
 
 1, 908, 845. 00 
 9, 971, 276. 00 
 
 2, 276, 20t. 47 
 
 
 Seeds - 
 
 $172,437.68 
 
 
 
 210 098 Hi. 
 
 Flax 
 
 154,508.63 
 
 1, 775, 831. 39 
 
 547 509 90 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 32, 250, 327. 07 
 
 2, 860, 386. 24 
 
 
 I think the year President Cle\-eland w;i8 elected I was in one of the pottery estab- 
 lishments in Trenton, and told the manufacturer that he was taking all our farm 
 hands from us. He said, "You must pay them the same wages." I said, "We can 
 not do it ; we pay all the wages we can afford to pay at the price of farm produo- 
 
872 REVISION OP THE TAEIFF. 
 
 tions." Then I said, " Yon are protected ; yon know jnst what yon are going to get, 
 what it costs to put the material in shape for market, and consequently yon know 
 what wages you can afford to pay." What labor is left around Trenton and other 
 nianufacturiiig centers now is largely a poor class of colored people, and now and 
 then Hungarians. For you know the great tide of travel has been westward. More- 
 over, to give continuous protection to manufacturing industries, whereby they have 
 been enabled to reap good-paying— and in many cases enormous— proiits, while not 
 equally protecting the farmer in his products, has resulted adversely to our farmers 
 in several particulars, as — 
 
 It has enabled the manufacturer to pay better prices for labor than the farmer is 
 able to do. This has drawn the most eflScient workmen from the farm to such an 
 extent tha,t we can not get help enough on our farms for the work we have to do, 
 and it has attracted our sons to mercantile or manufacturing pursuits, clerkships, 
 anywhere almost to escape the farm. It has decreased the price of farming lands in 
 our older States enormously. 
 
 It is robbing the farmer of every incentive to produce more than is needed for the 
 wants of his family by destroying his market. As resulting from this latter, mer- 
 chants, mechanics, and tradesmen will soon feel, even if they do not already, the 
 effects of the farmers' non-profitable business. The farmer is free in the use of his 
 surplus when he has one. Give him but a fair profit, some inducement to produce 
 more than enough for himself, and the lumber, hardware, dry goods, clothing, and 
 shoe dealers will soon have their share of it and country mechanics will soon have 
 abundance of work. 
 
 Another point in this connection is the farmers, as a class, are tax-payers ; whoever 
 else may, they do not shirk their tax. That they are paying more than their just 
 share is apparent. Farmers are also interest-payers, and it is in the interest of cap- 
 italists that this industry which under favorable conditions affords the safest security 
 Ije encouraged. 
 
 Again the advantages of a foreign market for onr breadstnffs is not of so much 
 advantage as might at first seem. 
 
 In 1883 we exported — 
 
 Of wheat $120,000,000 
 
 Of corn as, 700, 000 
 
 148, 700, 000 
 The cost of production of this was 60,400,000 
 
 So we might think there was a profit of 88, 300,000 
 
 But the facts are we exported in this wheat and corn 70,000 tons of nitrogen, 40,000 
 tons of phosphoric acid, and 21,000 tons of potash, worth, at market rates, $33,000,000. 
 Hence our real profit is only $55,300,000, and Europe was enriched from America in 
 1883 to the value of $33,000,000, and there was a corresponding decrease in the capital 
 stock of the West, and the West is showing and feeling this loss to her soils already. 
 
 Calculating from chemical analysis, the total product of corn, wheat, oats, rye, 
 and buckwheat sold from farms in Northern States in 1880 contained — Nitrogen, 
 $1,350,243; phosphoric acid, $307,365 ; potash, $166,829 ; a total of $1,825,000— nearly 
 $2,000,000 of fertilizing material, against $1,045,000 spent for fertilizers. A rational 
 agriculture gives the largest returns for the expense incurred, without decreasing 
 the capital stock in the soil. 
 
 No ; give us a good home market first of all. Build up onr manufacturing to this 
 end. We have no quarrel with them ; bnt give us our just share of protection, then 
 if we do not succeed we will be ready to try some other plan. The farmers from the 
 nature of their business are isolated, the one from the other. They can not bring 
 concerted action to bear in Congress (though they number nearly half the popula- 
 tion) as can onr organized manufacturers. There is all the more need, therefore, that 
 onr law-makers look well after their prosperity. We are an agricultural people. 
 Our safety as a nation lies in the perpetuity and prosperity of this class. Give us 
 SB] all farms, owned by those who till them, and we will continue to develop the no- 
 blest civil, moral, and educational institutions, and the best citizens to be found in 
 the world. 
 
 These are the sentiments, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, on this subject. I feel a 
 deep interest in it. I do not know what gentlemen before me have said, and I do not 
 think it is worth while to occupy your time any longer. We have jjrepared here an 
 idea of what we think would perhaps be a fair increase in the tariff rates. 
 
 The Chairman. Leave that also with the stenographer. 
 
 Mr. Dye. (Reading:) Representing the farmers of New Jersey in particular, and 
 those of other States in general, we hold, in the first place — 
 
 That foreign products, come from where they may, that come into competition with 
 us in our home market should be taxed to the amount of the difference in the cost of 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 873 
 
 production between the peasant, pauper, and otLer cheap labor oJ; other countiies 
 and the free, better-paid labor of this. 
 
 Second. That if the farmer, his family and employiSs must purchase their manu- 
 factured goods of protected American manufacturers—if we purchase the foreign we 
 must pay the duty — then as anact of equal justice to farmerswe claim that the man- 
 ufacturer and his protected employes shall purchase all their living supplies and raw 
 material that we do now, or may by suitable protection and encouragement produce, 
 from us. 
 
 Third. In particular we ask for an increase of duty on the following articles, viz : 
 Beans, peas, and other leguminous seeds should be raised from 10 per cent, to 25 per 
 cent. ; on split beans, from 20 per cent, to 25 per cent ; on hay, from |2 per ton to $4 
 per ton ; on pickles and sauces, from 35 per cent, to 40 per cent. ; potatoes, from 15 
 cents per bushel to 30 cents per bushel ; cabbage, the duty should be $1 per hundred 
 heads ; onions, 30 cents per bushel, and on all vegetables it should not be less than 
 30 per cent. ; butter and substitutes, from 4 to 6 cents per pound ; cheese, from 4 to 
 6 cents per pound ; eggs, the duty should be 6 cents per dozen. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Franklin Dyb, Secretary, 
 D. D. Denise, Treasurer, 
 New Jersey State Board of Agriculture. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Tou have had an extended observation in your State of the farm- 
 ing community of the State ? 
 
 Mr. Dye. Somewhat so, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you regard the farming industry there now as flourishing in its 
 present condition ? 
 
 Mr. Dtb. No, sir ; it is very much depressed. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The tendency is towards the reduction in the values of the prod- 
 ucts of the land, and necessarily resulting therefrom a depression of the value of 
 the land itself. 
 
 Mr. Dye. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMtllin. Could you give any estimate of what the average reduction has 
 been in the last eight years in purely farming lands f 
 
 Mr. Dye. I do not know that I can exactly. I might say this, which was twenty 
 years ago. I sold a farm in Middlesex county at $110 an acre ; prices were a little 
 enhanced then. 1 bought again near Trenton at $130. I would be glad to get $100 
 to-day for it ; and I could not get if put up at public sale perhaps over $80 for it ; $80 
 would be about the market. That at |130 was perhaps a fictitious value, so I will 
 put it at $120 ; and it has now been reduced to perhaps $90. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. A reduction of 25 per cent. T 
 
 Mr. Dye. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you think this is a pretty fair estimate of the reduction that 
 has occurred ? 
 
 Mr. Dye. I will state, in Herndon county, that a gentleman who makes it a busi- 
 ness told me that in 1887 he sold farms at $100 an acre, and in 1888 he sold the same 
 farms at $60 an acre, and what the result is to-day I do not know. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You have increased in population ? 
 
 Mr. Dye. Yes, sir. Of course we are not an agricultural State. I have stated in 
 that paper all our chief products. If anything can be done it will help us very 
 much. 
 
 STATEMENT OF BURNET LANDRETH. 
 
 Mr. Burnet Landrbth, of Philadelphia, nest addressed the committee, and said: 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here to speak of another 
 matter of agriculture. You have heard pleadings for an increase of duty upon to- 
 bacco, and rice, and wool, and sugar, and possibly a good many other things. I 
 desire to ask year attention for a few moments to the subject of seeds. You know 
 that a good system of agriculture could not be carried on without good seeds to com- 
 mence with. I am a seed-grower, and I come here to speak for seed-growers. A few 
 moments ago a gentleman representing one of the New York districts spoke in regard 
 to peas and beans. I was not aware he was going to say anything on that subject, 
 but I was very glad, however, to have heard him. I wish to speak not only concern- 
 ing peas and beans, but concerning small seeds. My firm has been in business one 
 hundred and ten years. We have been recognized as the largest seed producers in 
 the United States, but we can not continue unless we have some further relief in this 
 matter; nor can others who are pursuing the same business continue because of for- 
 eign competition ; not Canada alone, as the New York member speaks of, but France, 
 Germany, England, and Italy. Italy, with its very cheap labor, is becoming a very 
 
874 REVISION -OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 large eeed-prqdaciug district. I have seen people working there at 16 cents a day, 
 and working 'fourteen hours in a day, and they are raising everything. The duty 
 upon seeds at present is 20 per cent, upon a portion — they are divided into three 
 classes, a 20 per cent, class, a 10 per cent, class, and a class upon the free list. The 
 amount of imports of the first and second class amounts to about |250,00u a year. 
 The amount of seeds imported upon the free list amounts to about $2,000,000 a year, 
 and possibly the American production of seeds in general amounts to $10,000, OUO or 
 $12,000,000. ' Of course it is impossible to get exactly at the acreage devoted to seeds 
 in this country, but I assuiue it is about 75,000 acres annually, and this is land of 
 the "V'ery best quality. 
 
 You will find the seed-grower, whoever he may be, in New England or the Western 
 States, the most advanced farmer of his district. He sometimes cultivates tobacco 
 with seed growing, and sometimes he is a cattle-breeder, but wherever you find him 
 he is a leading man in his locality. He must bo so, for it is the highest kind of agri- 
 culture ; nothing approaches it. He must have technical knowledge ; he must have 
 fine instruments, good teams and good tools, and he must know his business. He 
 must study the vegetable business more than the ordinary grain farmer, who raises 
 hay, potatoes, and other products. Of course the ordinary farmer may bo an intelli- 
 gent man in many cases, but the seed-grower must always be an intelligent man, 
 otherwise he could not sell his seed, otherwise no seed merchant would buy from 
 him or trust him for a moment. Yet seed material is less protected than any other 
 American agriculture. For instance, a man who raises hay, the clieapest .'xud most 
 common thing a farmer produces, has from 25 to 30 per cent, protection upon his hay. 
 I believe that American labor should have further jirotection. All this growth of the 
 farmers should have further protection. When I say this I say it for this reason: In 
 the hay-producing region of the United States it is not worth more that $8 a ton; the 
 duty is |2 a ton. This is certainly one-fourth. Hay in Philadelphia and New York 
 will be |25 a ton. Take other articles, wheat, rye, oats, barley, and they average 
 from 25 to 35 per cent, protection, and yet the American grower of cabbage has only 
 20 per cent, protection, and turnip seed has not one cent. Why ? Because of a mis- 
 interpretation of the law ; because the fraraers of the present law omitted to name 
 turnip seed and it comes in free under the class of unenumerated seeds. My firm has 
 been raising 300 or 400 acres of turnip seed all my life, and we are gradually decreas- 
 ing our production, and this year it will be only 250 acres, and we will have to cease 
 growing these unless turnip seed is put upon the dutiable list. 
 
 I imagine there are about 2,000,000 pounds of turnip seed now uuder contract in 
 Germany and France to come over this next autumn. 'J'his is a new business, 
 new in the last five or six years. All of that seed was raised in America before 
 this new decision in res])eet to the duty. It was raised in Kentucky, New Jersey, 
 Pennsylv.aniu, Delaware, Maryland, Georgia, California, and in Michigan, and in a 
 great many other States, but the turnip-seed growerhas been wiped out of existence. 
 Take beet seed : my firm have been always large growers of beet seed and grew from 
 100 to 125 acres of seed. Now we can not raise them, except very little. Why t Be- 
 cause a very large portion of beet seed comes in free. Some framers of the provision 
 of the tariff undertook to stimulate, as they thought, the sugar-beet industry, and 
 they put the sugar-beet seed upon the free list. Sugar-beet seed can not be dis- 
 tinguished from any other kind of beet seed, and the result is it comes in as sugar- 
 beet, although a small portion is the sugar-beet. 
 
 The Chairman. What change would you suggest ? 
 
 Mr. Landketh. Forty per cent, on all seeds, that is, all small seeds. That is what 
 it was fifty years ago, except- on peas and beans, on which I would suggest a specific 
 duty. Th(> small seeds vary so in value that it is hard to fix a duty upon them, but on 
 the peas and beans it ought to be specific. For instance, thousands aud thousands 
 of bushels of seed of beans and peas h.ave been brought into the United States as 
 grocery peas under the 10 per cent, taritf when they should have paid the 20 per cent, 
 duty, which they would have had to pay for seed peas. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it 10 per cent, or 10 cents a bushel ? 
 
 Mr. Landketh. Ten per cent. So the difficulty has been to regulate the matter. 
 The Secretary of the Treasury gave his decision that the duty should be 10 per cent, 
 on all peas, although the law does not read that way. Of course there are some things 
 which may enter free without injury to us ; for instance, Dutch bulbs aud such things, 
 of which iierhaps there is $100,000 worth iinijorted annually. 
 
 Mr. McMiixiN. There are exports to the amount of $2,000,000. 
 
 Mr. Landretii. Yes, sir. There are also flower seeds which are of infinite produc- 
 tion. I h.'irdly expect we can do much toward protecting them. In producing small 
 sei^ds the labor is a very great i)ortiou of the cost, and the labor required has to ho 
 intelligent labor. The labor re(|uired to the acre is ten to twenty times as great as 
 compared with any other agricultur.'il system. I am perfectly safe in saying it re- 
 quires twenty times the labor to the acre of any other agricultural system, yet a 
 large proportion of the ijroduction comes in free, aud that which is dutiable has not 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 876 
 
 as much duty as potatoes or hay. Gentlemen, tliis is perfectly true, this matter of 
 peas and beans, which can be raised in New York, Miehiftan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, 
 or any of the New England States. We can raise these just as well as Canada, and 
 we should raise them. The Canadians have cheap laud, cheaper wages, cheaper 
 production, and they have lower aspirations. The Canadian farmer does not live as 
 an American farmer lives. He has old country ideas and old country ways, and the 
 American is a more progressive man, and he can't work for the same wages as the 
 Canadian. Hence the Canadian, by reason of his low wages and low land and by 
 reason of his cheap transportation facilities, can beat the American every time unless 
 the Americans are better protected than they are now. Of the 200,000 bushels of 
 garden peas raised annually and almost 200,000 bushels of garden beans, it is proba- 
 ble that almos one-third of these articles are raised in Canada. 
 
 Mr. Gear. They all come as commercial products ? 
 
 Mr. Landreth. They all come in under the 10 per cent, duty now. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Like those we use for commerce ? 
 
 Mr. IjAKDEETH. Yes ; the same as the grocers' peas and beans. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLiN. You say your firm has been in business one hundred and ten years f 
 
 Mr. Landreth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. During that time what portion of the time have you had a higher 
 rate of duty than now ? 
 
 Mr. Landreth. I can not remember further back than 1860. What duties there 
 were preceding that year I do not know. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. They were not above what they are now 1 
 
 Mr. Landreth. Yes, sir ; they were about 30 per cent., I think. Then the war c;iine 
 on and nearly all seeds were 40 per cent. Then they were reduced to 30 and from 
 that to 10 per cent. Then they were divided and a part was put at 10 per cent.; then 
 they were divided again and a part put on the free list. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. 1225,000 worth is imported under the dutiable class and $200,000 
 free, and the American product is $12,000,000, so it makes about 10 per cent, imported. 
 Is yours an incorporated company or simply a firm f 
 
 Mr. Landreth It is simply a firm. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What per cent, do you make under the existing tariff? 
 
 Mr. Landreth. We are about ready to go out of business. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What per cent, do you make, if you have no objection to telling us. 
 I do not like to make an inquiry which is improper, but as a legislator I think it is my 
 duty to get at all the facts bearing on the case that I can. 
 
 Mr. Landreth. We do not make 8 per cent, over our expenses. We carry on 
 farms in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Virginia. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. Do you make as much as 7 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Landreth. I can not answer that. About 7 or 8. The expenses are very 
 heavy. On our Pennsylvania farms we have spent $25,000 on fertilizers on 500 acres. 
 There is no farmer in the United States who spends a quarter as much on 500 acres. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you mean 7 per cent, net on the capital ? 
 
 Mr. Landreth. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. If you had this money invested at interest it would bring you in 7 
 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Landreth. A man who carries on his own business expects to make more than 
 if he put it in railroad bonds. 
 
 Mr. McKknna. That is what I was trying to get at. Do you mean the money in- 
 vested in your business if put out and you doing nothing would bring in 7 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Landreth. No, sir ; some people make 15 to 20 per cent, on their business. 
 You go into business to make that rather than put it in a corporation where the 
 cashier might run away. I want to call attention to the expenses of running a seed 
 farm. We spend $25,000 in wages on that 500 acre farm ; every Saturday night the 
 money is paid out. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. This is taken into account as one of the items of expense. 
 
 Mr. Landreth. Precisely ; and if we didn't do that we would noi carry on this 
 system. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Yon would not make even 7 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Landreth. No ; in response to the gentlemen who just said the imports were 
 16 per cent., I would state that the imports are annually growing. I know one firm 
 in Kentucky, which has been raising 23,000 bushels of turnip seed, and now they have 
 gone out of business. I know a dozen firms in Pennsylvania who have gone out of 
 business, and we are ready to go out in many cases because we can not compete with 
 this cheap seed. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you sell your seeds wholesale ? 
 
 Mr. Landreth. Yes, sir; all over the United States and all over the world, except 
 Europe. We sell none to Europe. When I say all over the world, I mean South 
 America, China, and Japan. 
 
 Mr. Flowbk. You export and compete with Germany and Italy t 
 
876 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 Mr. Landrbth. Yes, sir; but -we sell to those markets such articles as Germany, 
 Italy, France, and Spain can not produce, which are leading seeds in the American 
 trade, such as watermelons, cantaloups, and all those things which must necessarily 
 he American. 
 
 Mr. Flowbr. Tou want 40 cents a bushel for beans and peas for seed purposes. Of 
 course they will come in from Canada directly under that, but still the farmer sells 
 bis seed to a seed-raiser like you. He sells that to you at a certain price, which en- 
 ables you to purchase this and make a protiit on it, and when you go to pack that 
 seed and sell it to the merchant, the merchant, if he does a large seed business, will 
 make money? 
 
 Mr. Landrbth. Tes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. A little package of beans or peas costs 10 cents. Tou sell at a whole- 
 sale price, so that the man who buys those garden seeds is not affected mnch, whether 
 yon pay 30 cents on the seed or not. 
 
 Mr. Landreth. No, a pound of turnip seed will sow an acre, and it means nothing 
 to the consumer whether that turnip seed is protected 30 or 40 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I mean a package of peas where you get about twenty peas for 10 
 cents, the retail dealer makes a little something on them ? 
 
 Mr. Landrbth. I sell thousands of them in your district. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I know I never bought any garden seeds unless I thought they cost 
 about $300 a bushel. 
 
 Philadblphia, January 1, 1889. 
 
 Dear Sir : On behalf of every American garden-seed grower with whom we have 
 conversed since oar Mr. Burnet Landreth appeared before the Finance Committee of 
 the Senate on August 16, 1888, we ask that the tariif schedule upon garden seeds be 
 so framed in the Senate bill as to enumerate specifically all garden vegetable seeds 
 subject to duty. 
 
 Ajid just here we will define what we consider the distinction between garden and 
 agricultural seeds, Indian com excepted, which as a sugar or sweet corn is a garden 
 seed, while as non-saccharine it is a field seed. 
 
 Garden seeds are seeds of plants producing edible tissue without process of machine 
 manufacture. 
 
 Agricultural seeds are seeds of plants either not edible, as grass seeds, or such as 
 require manufacture, as wheat. 
 
 Turnip seed is a garden seed, and under a Treasury decision of two years ago has 
 free entry, not because the tariff schedule provides that turnip seed enter free, but 
 because of a misinterpretation of the law, by which it has had entry for the two 
 years past as a seed not a garden seed, under the " basket clause : " " All other seeds, 
 except medicinal seeds, not specially euuraerated or provided for, free." Under this 
 same interpretation cabbage seed might enter free. 
 
 Turnip seed, growing under the protection of 20 per cent, duty, amounted to (esti- 
 mated) 1,000,000 pounds annually ; under the above ruling of free entry the production 
 has fallen to less than one-half, and will entirely cease as an American farm indus- 
 try unless protection is given to the seed farmer. 
 
 The American contracts now standing for turnip growing in France, Germany, and 
 England for crop of 1889, it is estimated, amount to about 1,000,000 pounds. 
 
 This seed, placed upon the same schedule as cabbage, carrot, onion, parsnip, radish, 
 and other seeds, with which it should properly be classed, would again be grown 
 largely in the New England, Middle, Southern, Northwestern States, and California. 
 
 No oljjection can be raised by the ordinary farmer or consumer to the duty of 20 
 per cent, which the franiers of the present law intended to place upon turnip seed, 
 as but 1 pound of seed is required to sow an acre, and as the ordinary products of the 
 farmer are protected by a duty ranging from 20 to 40 per cent. 
 
 Imported turnip seed, costing 10 cents per ]iound, at a 20 percent, duty, would 
 simply be raised to 12 cents, an increase so small (2 cents per acre to the consumer) 
 as to be unworthy of consideration, while making all tlie difference between a profit 
 and a loss to the American grower. The one pound of turnip seed sown to the acre 
 by a farmer under a duty of 20 per cent, would simply be subject to 2 cents duty, 
 while if the same farmer put in an acre of imported wheat the duty would be 25 
 cents, or twelve times as much. This is protection to the grain farmer, but none to 
 the seed grower. 
 
 Under the present constrnction of the tariff, the official records of imports show an 
 entry of dutiable seeds to the value of $149,876, .and those of the free list to over 
 $1,000,000. The potato grower is protected by a specific duty equal to 33 per cent. 
 The grain farmer has 25 per cent, protection on wheat, 33 per cent, on oats, 25 per 
 cent, on com. The garden-seed grower who pursues agricultural work to a most in- 
 tense degree has only 20 per cent, on one-fifth part of the seed imported ; thus the 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 877 
 
 actual protection is but 5 per cent, on eeeda in general. Certainly the important In- 
 terest of seed growing should be fostered as much as potato culture. 
 
 As seed farmers and seed merchauts, and importers, we venture to suggest a schedule 
 which would simplify the present enumeration of seeds, a subject always with diffi- 
 culty understood by revenue officials. We suggest that auderthe one general heading, 
 " seeds," there be enumerated specifically every dutiable variety of garden vegetable 
 seed, and thus avoid any possibility of misconstruction. For example: 
 
 Seeds : Beet (sugar-beet excepted), broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, carrot, caul- 
 iflower, celery, coUards, cress, cucumber, egg-plant, endive, kale, kohl rabi, leek, let- 
 tuce, mangel-wurtzel, melon, mustard, onion, okra, parsley, parsnip, pepper, pump- 
 kin, radish, salsify, scorzonera, sea kale, sorrel, sage, squash, summer savory, sweet 
 marjoram, sweet basil, spinach, thyme, tomato, turnip. All the above being at 30 
 per cent. Beans, SJ5 cents per bushel of 60 pounds ; peas, 25 cents per bushel of 60 
 pounds ; flowers, free ; sugar-beet, free ; Dutch bulbs, free. 
 
 Very respectfully submitted. 
 
 D. Landketh & Sons. 
 
 Hon. WiLUAM B. Aluson, 
 
 United States Senate, Wathington, D. C. 
 
 STATEMENT OP J. H. BRIGHAM. 
 
 Mr. J. H. Brigham, of Ohio, addressed the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my first desire is to express my 
 thanks for the courtesy shown the organization which I represent for the special 
 hearing given to us. 
 
 The Chairman. Please state your organization. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. The organization is the National Grange, Patrons of Husbandry. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What is your connection with the grange ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I am master of that organization. At the last national grange at 
 San Francisco, a legislative committee was appointed, consisting of Dr. Trimble, sec- 
 retary, the Hon. Leonard Rhone, of Pennsylvania, and myself, and we were directed 
 to appear before committees of Congress and ask for such legislation as had been 
 asked for by our organization. I will say in regard to the organization that it is 
 national in its character. We have State organizations in nearly every State. The 
 membership embraces men of all political parties and religious beliefs, and of course 
 in presenting the views of that organization and in representing them, I would only 
 refer as their representative to those matters upon which they are substantially 
 agreed. Of course on the question of protection or free-trade, the difference is as rad- 
 ical as with men in other avocations, but they are substantially agreed that whatever 
 may be the policy adopted for other industries and interests of the country, the same 
 should apply to agriculture. That is, if the policy is to be protective, and the labor- 
 ers in the mines and in the factories and in other industries are to be protected, that 
 those who labor on the farm shall also receive protection. The opinion is quite gen- 
 eral among the farmers that heretofore they have not received the per cent, of pro- 
 tection accorded to the other interests, and I am here to- day to ask that in the revis- 
 ion of the tariif especial attention be given to the agricultural interests, and wherever 
 protection can be accorded to the agriculturists, that it ought to be given. 
 
 I notice in looking over the list of imports that there is a large amount of agricult- 
 ural products imported into this country which ought to be produced by our farmers, 
 and I am inclined to think they would be produced by our farmers it adequate pro- 
 tection was given ; and what we desire to do at this time is to ask for the farmers of 
 the United States that there be such a duty imposed as will protect our farmers in 
 their products and encourage them in producing these commodities that are natural 
 to the climate and soil of this country. I will call attention to a few items on which 
 we ask protection and submit in writing afterwards a list of those things we think 
 should be protected. 
 
 The Chairman. That permission will be granted. 
 
 Mr, Brigham. These notes that I have here are not very well prepared, hut we will 
 submit afterwards a complete statement. I find we imported in 1887, 10,336,875 hush- 
 els of barley. We have imported for the last two or three years somewhere about 
 that amount, about 10,000,000 bushels, and there is no reason in the world why the 
 farmers in the United States should not grow all the barley used in this country; and 
 certainly there can be no legitimate interest in the country that would be injured by 
 protection upon that article. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What rate do you suggest t 
 
 Mr. Brigham. High enough to protect it. 
 
 Mr. Payne. But how much? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Twenty-five cents a bushel. It was 15, and it was reduced in 1883 
 
878 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 to 10. If the farmers can produce this barley they need not produce so much wheat 
 and other grains, and probably they may receive a better price for their other grains 
 as well as for barley. Our English friends propose to buy all the breweries and make 
 our beer, and they will use this barley ; and I for one am inclined to make them pay 
 a fair price for that barley. We find that of barley malt 209,967 bushels were im- 
 ported in 1887, and about the same amount in 1888 and l^'89. The duty upon that is 
 20 cents per bushel. We would ask that that be increased to 30 or 35 cents. We ask 
 an increase upon beans per bushel. There are some sections of the country where 
 the land is not as fertile as in other sect,ions, and there tbey raise beans. 
 
 Mr. Payne, How much duty do you suggest on beans? 
 
 Mr. Brigiiam. About 50 cents a bushel. I do not suppose my suggestion will be 
 law, but I should think it should be .50 cents a bushel upon beans. I have conferred 
 with some farmers and that is their idea. Peas should have about 25 cents. I be- 
 lieve that is their idea. Of hops, 1,666,829 pounds were imported and the duty was 
 8 cents a pound. We think we ought to grow all the hops also that are used in this 
 country. We would ask about 12 cents a pound on hops. There was iiriported of hay 
 in 1887'j 78,722 tons, and about the same amount has been imported in other years. 
 The duty is $2 per ton. One of the items upon which the New England farmers make 
 a little profit, if on anything in farming, is hay. They suffer particularly from the 
 imports : that is, if there is any suffering about it ; and we ask a duty of $4 a ton upon 
 hay. Of potatoes there was 1,430,918 bushels imported in 1887. The amount of im- 
 ])ortation varies somewhat in different years. The duty on potatoes is 15 cents per 
 bushel. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. How much was imported in 1888 ? 
 
 Mr. BitlGllAM. I have not got it hers. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I have the figures and will give them. There was over 8,500,000 
 bushels imported in 1888, amounting to about $3,500,000 worth. 
 
 Mr. BiUGHAM. I have not the report of 1888; what we ask for is an increase of 
 duty upon potatoes to 25 cents. Hides are imported free, and if there is any agricult- 
 ural industry in this country that is depressed, and from which the farmers now de- 
 rive no profit it is in the raising of cattle. We find that there are about |24,000,000 
 to $25,000,000 worth of hides imported every year. 
 
 Mr. Geak. Are these mostly beef hides ? 
 
 Mr. Brigiiam. I think so ; the reports seem to indicate that. We ask that the men 
 who graze cattle and produce hides under existing circumstances be accorded some 
 proi:ection and we would ask for about 10 per cent., not an extravagant duty, but 10 
 per cent. We think that might prove to be some relief. I think our farmers would 
 be satisfied to try that. The importations are very large, and amount to more than 
 any other product, coasiderably more than the importation of wool. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Where do you get those figures ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. From the Bureau of Statistics. 
 
 Mr. Mills. The consular report^s are out for 1889, and they give all those thitigs. 
 
 Mr. BuiGHAM. The wool men have been very ably represented before you by those 
 who are better qualified to speak for that industry than I am ; but I will say that the 
 farmers generally, in our organization especially, would indorse, I think, what is asked 
 for by the wool-growers who have been before your committee. Of course I say this 
 with the understanding that we are asking for the same protection that is accorded 
 toothers. There are some of our farmers who do not believe at all in protection, 
 hut they are all agreed that if other interests are protected the wool-growers should 
 have adequate protection. Eggs are now free and we find a large amount imported. 
 We ask for a duty of 5 cents per dozen upon eggs. They enter into general use and 
 1 know some c(m8umers might object to that, but there are none hut what can pro- 
 duce them if they desire to do so. 
 
 Mr. LaFollette. That is true of woolen goods. They enter into general use. 
 
 Mr. BRiGiiAii. Yes, sir. Apples are now free, but I can not give the amount of 
 apples imported. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. Have yon the amount of eggs imported last year ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Eggs were imported in 1887 to the amount of 1,900,939 dozen, and 
 in 1888 2,312,478 dozen. We would ask a protection upon apples. Our fruit-growers 
 along the Atlantic coast are anxious to have some protection for frnits. Perhaps 20 to 
 25 cents a bushjel would be a fair protection upon apples. There are some other fruits 
 I have not specified, but which I will specify in the paper I will submit to you, and 
 state what we think ought; to be given. There are some fruiti-giowers along the 
 coast who thinlc there should be a duty upcm bananas for the reason that they think 
 the foreign takes the place of our fruits. 
 
 Mr. Gear. We do not grow bananas in this country at all. 
 
 Mr. BuicnAM We grow a few on the extreme coast. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Oh, yes; we giow bananas on the coast of Texas, Florida, and Lou- 
 isiana. 
 
 Mr. Briguam. We do not of course object to a duty if it is needed for the proteo- 
 
EEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 879 
 
 tion of the industry. We are willing they sbonld have protection, I think some pro- 
 tection npon flax and raw silk — I have not figures prepared — will he some advantai;o 
 to us. Upon live animals we have not a large importation. I have not the ligures ; 
 but I have seea from the reports that a very large number of animals are imported, 
 largely from Canada. 
 
 Mr. Fi,owBR. By the farmers themselves? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Some import them, hut not largely. They are imported more par- 
 ticularly for use in the cities. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Milch cows and work horses are imported hy the farmers in northern 
 New York. 
 
 Mr. Bkigham. They perhaps bring in some ; bat it is the general desire that those 
 who raise horses in this country should receive some protection. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You mean cattle imported for use, hut you do not include those im- 
 ported for breeding purjjoses. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. This thing has been perfectly plain. These claiming to be im- 
 ported for breeding purposes are not standard or registered animals, according to the 
 statistics. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. It would be no great hardship for us to ask a suitable duty upon 
 all animals, because wlren a man imports horses that cost from $1,500 to|2,000, he 
 would not consider it a great hardship to pay |20 duty. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. You pay such a duty on that horse as would be a protection 
 against an ordinary animal. 
 
 Mr. Bkigham. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The duty is now 20 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I think it is. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. This 20 per cent, does not prove to be any interruption to the 
 importation. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The importation of horses from France and England is a very large in- 
 dustry in my State. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. We are not asking that especially; but I say I do not think they 
 would object particularly ;o a specific duty. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. Do you not think that the law could be so framed as to evasions 
 by requiring that these imported animals for breeding purposes should be registered 
 animals and pedigreed animals ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I think so. Such animals as are registered as thoroughbred, so that 
 there should be no evasion of the law. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. Under the rules now they are compelled to admit anything that 
 can he used for breeding purposes, and in that way they bring in anything and every-, 
 thing. They drive great herds of sheep into this country from Mexico just for shear- 
 ing the wool. 
 
 Mr. Mills. That is a fraud. That is not done as a justification under any law ; it 
 is simply smuggling, the same as any other smuggling. 
 
 Mr. Payne. They do that from Canada and everywhere. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Seven or eight hundred breeding horses were imported from Europe into 
 my State this year. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. The average horse imported for the last eleven months for breed- 
 ing purposes was only about |275 to each. Hence, when they bring these horses and 
 sell them for |1,500, and $2,000 apiece, it is quite apparent that many are brought in 
 here that are quite worthless, and are not used for breeding purposes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are you through with that paper ? 
 
 Mr. Bkigham. I will submit at a future time the details I wish to present to the 
 committee. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I ask that because I desire to ask a question or two. 
 
 The Chairman. If you desire to submit any paper, it must be done in a very few 
 days. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I will attend to it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The position of the grange, if I understand it, is that if there 
 is to be protection it should be all round. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That is the position of the grange ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. That is the position of the grange, and the only position an orga-n- 
 ization representing all parties could take. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And all pursuits. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. No, sir ; none but farming. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I misunderstood your point. What is the membership of 
 your grange. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I could not tell you, as the membership varies somewhat. We have 
 had enrolled in that organization, I think, 26,000 suborganizatious. They probably 
 would average 50 to 75 members, but what is the total membership at present, I could 
 not say. 
 
880 EEVISION OP THE TAKIFP, 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Where is this membership principally located— in what States t 
 
 Mr. Brigham. The representation is strongest now, perhaps, in Michigan, in Ohio, 
 in Pennsylvania, in New York. The New England States are also quite strong in 
 membership. Texas has quite a large membership. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much has Iowa? 
 
 Mr. BuiGHAM. It has not a large membership in the grange at the present time, but 
 the Farmers' Alliance is very strong in membership there now. 
 
 Mr. Gear. There is a very strong Farmers' Alliance, somewhat on the character of 
 your organization ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does the Farmers' Alliance participate with you in conven- 
 tion? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. No, sir ; we have not had a union or meeting, although we have in- 
 terchanged courtesies, and I think the farmers in the alliance are substantially 
 agreed with the members of our association upon these questions. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is the principal product produced by the members of the 
 grange. What do Ihey produce and sell most largely ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. They produce all sorts of agricultural products. The production of 
 States varies in different localities. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But every State has some principal crop. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Of course in the South cotton is the principal crop among the mem- 
 bers of the association. In the Northwestern States, probably wheat, oats, and po- 
 tatoes ; in the Middle States, corn and stock, wheat and potatoes. In the New Eng- 
 land States it is largely hay, poultry, butter, dairy products. The cattle industry is 
 very low in the East, in the New England States, as I understand it, at the present 
 time. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Now, throughout the States our order is located in, what are 
 their principal products for the purpose of sale — wheat, beef, pork, and dairy prod- 
 ucts, such as cheese and butter and things like that ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. That is true of the Central and Eastern and Northeastern States, 
 probably ? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Now for your grange as a whole. What is it that sells most 
 largely of those great staples I speak of other than the small products, fruits, etc., 
 that you have enumerated. I presume, for I think there is no doubt of it, that in 
 some sections they raise quite extensively of wool, but I believe in the older States it 
 amounts to a good deal less than the chickens and eggs — that it is merely an inci- 
 dent. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. It is an important industry in Ohio, California, Oregon, Michigan, 
 and several other States. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But I speak more particularly of the older States. Our observa- 
 tion is that the wool crop has enormously declined in the older States, however 
 much it may have risen in the Territories. I want to get at the point of what con- 
 stitutes the great bulk of what we have to sell, which I think we have covered. If 
 protection is to be all around, is it not a fact, where you protect, for instance, manu- 
 factures, agricultural implements, or machinery, or bagging, or binding twine, that 
 you protect every dollar's worth of stuff the manufacturer has to sell, that being the 
 total product and the only product of his factory ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I believe if we received the same protection the result would be as 
 for instance when the farmer grows a surplus of wheat, corn 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That is not the point. I am speaking of applying it to all 
 products. When you come to the subsequent question of surplus and exports, that 
 is auother proposition, and that ia not the one I reached at that time. Now, is it not a 
 fact that the farmers produce a surplus of all these great staples and crops, such as 
 beef, wheat, pork, and things of that sort ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Yes, sir, I think so. 
 
 Mr. Bkeokinridgb. Therefore it is not a fact that protection is absolutely inop- 
 erative upon the great bulk of what the farmer has to sell ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I would not say in every instance that it is inoperative. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am speaking of this instance. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I can not say what the absolute effect would be if the duty was re- 
 moved from wheat. Of course I know we export wheat, but if the duty was entirely 
 removed I do not know but what the northern district of Canada and other coun- 
 tries that grow wheat with cheap labor might send in their wheat and compete with 
 us in our markets; but at thepresent time I do not think the duty upon wheat in- 
 creases the price of wheat to the farmer, but it prevents importations. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I will state in that connection a year or two ago I had the 
 matter very carefully analyzed by the Department of Agriculture, and what we knew 
 must be the case from every reason in the matter proved to be the case, and that was, 
 that we only exported those products with the reasonable expectation of doing a little 
 better than we could do at home. Therefore it wasselling for less at home than abroad< 
 
EEVISION OF THE TAEIFF, 881 
 
 The method of protection as now applied is simply a tax against imports, and I 
 want to ask you as a practical man if by that mode of applying protection it is totally 
 inoperative upon the hulk of what the members of the grange have to sell, can you 
 not suggest some other mode by which they can get some of the benefits of pTotec- 
 tion 1 It would seem to be idle to adhere to a mode that provides no protection at 
 all upon the bulk of what we have to sell. Have you another mode of applying the 
 idea of protection so you can get some benefit from it upon the bulk of your sales ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. We recognize the fact that upon many of our commodities we donot 
 think we get very much protective benefit, and for that reason we are asking for an 
 increase of duties on imported farm products. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am directing you to another point. 
 
 Mr, Brigham. I know what your point is. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Tben I would be obliged if you will please address yourself to 
 the point I am asking about. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I am going to come to that. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am not asking about free trade or protection. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. The general policy of the Government we disagree upon ; but many 
 farmers believe — although there is a difference of opinion — that they get some in- 
 direct benefit from a protective system. That is, he gets a better price for bis wheat 
 and his meats, etc., than he would under a system that did not aiford protection to 
 our people. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Of course you know you are wandering entirely from my ques- 
 tion. My question is, can you suggest some mode by which the farmer will derive a 
 positive, actual benefit, as the manufacturer does, on the bulk of those things which 
 he has to sell. I am not asking you a question in regard to free trade or protec- 
 tion, but ask you if you can give some mode of protection that will accomplish this 
 result. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. If it was decided to put a bounty on all these products we would 
 get the benefit of that. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Would you take a bounty at one central point as enhancing 
 the price upon one article? Would you not think it was just as fair to adopt any 
 other mode to enhance the price to oue as to another? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. There has been no general expression of our people upon this ques- 
 tion of bounty that would be a guide to me in this matter ; but I think our people 
 generally would not favor a bounty upon any commodity that we produce in suffici- 
 ent quantities to supi^ly our people. There are many of them in favor of bounties. 
 Take sugar, for instance : Many of them are in favor of free sugar, with a bounty 
 sufficient to give the producers all the encouragement necessary to increase the pro- 
 duction, if possible. The same is true of other commodities that are not raised in 
 quantities sufiicient to supply our people, and it is undecided yet whether they can 
 or not. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I understand you to say, as presenting the opinion of your or- 
 der, that they have a general idea that some indirect benefits accrue from the tariff 
 upon the price of those articles which they export 
 
 Mr. Brigham. No, sir ; I did not say so. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What did you state? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I stated we hoped for some direct benefit from a duty upon these 
 agricultural products that are now imported into this country. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I was speaking of those articles you export ; not of those you 
 import. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I do not wish to express an opinion as to the direct benefits that 
 may come from a duty. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I do not say that. I speak of the idea of the indirect benefit. 
 That was my word. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I have heard it mentioned by farmers that they think they get an 
 indirect benefit from the building up of other industries of this country ; that they 
 get more for their products here. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am speaking in regard to your great products ; these staples 
 you spoke of. Now I understand you further to say, going a step beyond that idea 
 you have just expressed, these same geutlemen who hold to that belief are not pre- 
 pared, however, to formulate a demand for such a bouuty upon that part of their 
 products which they export as would give them the same increase in price as is usual 
 to articles that are usually imported and protected by the tariff. 
 
 Mr; Brigham. There has been no action by any organization composed of our 
 grangers that would justify me in asking that. We have not declared for it. Per- 
 haps sdme organization somewhere may have asked for it, and possibly one or two 
 different States ; but there has been no such general demand as to justify me in ask- 
 ing it from our organization. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I understand you to say you are not prepared, to suggest any 
 feature in legislation by which these great products that they sell can be advanced in 
 485 56 
 
882 EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 price further tban what may he derived under the general idea of advantage they 
 receive uuder the present protective system. 
 
 The Chairman. He wants that present protective system, as far as the farmers' in- 
 terests are concerned, in eHect to its full extent. 
 
 Mr. Breckinkidge. That is apart from my question. I am speaking only of these 
 products 
 
 Mr. La Follette. He proposes to increase the prices of these staples by develop- 
 ing a diversity of industries 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Let him answer his own questions. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I was asliing if he does not propose by a protective duty more 
 geneially and adequately applied to farm products to develoj) a diversity of which 
 will relieve the overproduction of these staples by the protective system. 
 
 Mr. Flower. If I understand it, he proposes the farmer shall get his share of this 
 protection. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I fully agree with him that protection should be all around or 
 not at all ; but what I am trying to get out of the colonel is the mode by which he 
 expects the farmer to get that protection. 
 
 Mr. Flower. He does not get that now, but he wants to get it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. There is no doubt about that ; but the farmer does not want to 
 be put oS by jugglery. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. No, sir ; we do not want any foolishness about it. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you think the putting of wool on the free list was to the in- 
 terest of the farmers as proposed by the last Congress ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. No, sir; I do not think so ; and I do not think the farmers thought 
 80. Now, we hope to get some benefit to the wheat-grower, if we can have protect- 
 ive legislation to induce them to grow all the barley used in this country, and to pro- 
 duce all the poultry, eggs, and live stock used in this country, whenever laud is de- 
 voted to the raising of barley and other products and stock, it will not be devoted to 
 raising wheat. "We would like to discover some crop or some product we can raise 
 that will enable the farmers to meet their obligations and expenses without grow- 
 ing so much wheat. We do not think it is an advantage to us to grow so much wheat. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I understand your idea is that by stimulating the production 
 of certain agricultural products we now import we will produce those things and 
 displace a certain amount of those products we now export.' 
 
 Mr. Brigham. That is it, we would not devote so much of our land and labor to the 
 producing of these iiroducts we send abroad which are selling at a low price. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Unless the production of these imports is enough to take up 
 enough land to stop the production of what we now produce of wheat, pork, etc., 
 this stimulus would not be operative as far as affects those articles. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I do not presume it would stop entirely the raising of wheat and 
 meat, but the surplus would not be so great. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you not think an increased duty on barley would enable you to 
 lessen the import ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Flower. It is claimed by some gentlemen at this table that a protective duty 
 cheapens the article to the consumer. Now, sir, if you had this protection which you 
 desire on everything raised by the farmer, if that be true, would it not tend to cheapen 
 what is raised by the farmer ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. The ultimate eifect might be that, but the immediate effect would 
 be probably to increase the price as it has in other cases. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You have had twenty-five years of it ; that is, on things that are pro- 
 tected. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. But it has not been adequate on farm products. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. On some things it has not. I think as a general thing the farmers 
 are complaining not so much about the prices they pay for things as the prices they 
 are getting. 
 
 Mr. Gear. They get things reasonably cheap. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. It is not the prices we pay for things we complain so much of; but 
 if we could get better prices for the things we sell we would be happy. The thing 
 we complain about is we have to sell our products at less than cost at present prices^ 
 and if we must c mbine to do so we are going to ask for everything else to be very 
 cheap. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You arc something over fifty years of age ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. .Just about. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The price of merchandise is much cheaper than it wastwenty or twenty- 
 five years ago? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Tin y have been discussing the tariff on wheat. You are aware that 
 Winnipeg, and Assiuilioine, .and the provinces of the northwest are great wheat-pro- 
 ducing countries, and produce from 40 to 50 bushels to the acre ? 
 
REVISION OP THE TAEIFF. 883 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I have been there and I have seen it. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Yes, sir ; I know it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I was up there four years ago, and they were producing 
 
 Mr. Flower. They have taken it in since then. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Oh, no. It is about 350 miles from the Minneapolis mills to the Winni- 
 peg country, which produces a large amount of wheat, and the amount of wheat is 
 constantly increasing, because that climate and country is peculiarly adapted, as we 
 all know, for wheat. If you did not have a tariff of 20 cents a bushel on wheat 
 what would prevent the Canadian farmers from shipping tbeir wheat to the Minneap- 
 olis mills and coming in direct competition with Iowa and Minnesota farmers t 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Nothing, if they could make money. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Now, would he not come in direct competition with the Iowa and Minne- 
 sota farmers by doing so ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Certainly. We are willing the duty should remain there for any 
 future exigencies. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would not that have a tendency to lessen the price of the Iowa, Wis- 
 consin, and Minnesota wheat ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Yes, sir ; if they ship the wheat and sell it for less than we could. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. Daring the discussion of the Mills bill here in the House last 
 session I know that telegrams were sent to two points, one just across the Canadian 
 border up in that section of the country you speak of, and the other just on this side 
 of the border, asking for the price of wheat on the same day. The reply came that 
 the price of wheat on this side was 6 cents per bushel higher than on the other. 
 
 Mr. Gear. This protection you are asking for on these industries is for the purpose 
 of bringing about a diversity of farming. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. That is one of the purposes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The American farmer ships a large amount of wheat and dairy products 
 abroad. Does he not come right in competition, face to face, with these products 
 raised by cheaper labor in Europe than we have in this country? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Therefore, is it not better for the American farmerto sell all to our own 
 people and have the benefit of this home market? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Giving my individual opinion I should say this 
 
 Mr. Gear. I am asking for your individual opinion. You represent farmers, and 
 it is fairly supposable you are chosen for the higher place you are in 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I said in the outset that there are many members of our organiza- 
 tion who differ radically from my own individual views. 
 
 Mr. Gear. But you represent a certain class of men engaged exclusively in certain 
 agricultural pursuits, and you are chosen for that place, I have no doubt, by reason 
 of your special fitness. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I do not know about that. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I consider you qualified to answer for the agricultural interests you 
 represent. Yon were speaking about a bounty on sugar. It is true, I take it, which 
 no gentleman will dispute, that we have had a tariff on sugar for one hundred years, 
 varying from 24 per cent, at its lowest to 80 per cent, at its highest point. It is also 
 true that we have not produced during this one hundred years an average of 10 per 
 cent, of the sugar we consume. Therefore, the idea of some of your people, of many 
 of the people who are in favor of free sugar, would be that we should give a bounty 
 on sugar for the purpose of stimulating that industry both in cane and for the ulti- 
 mate purpose of stimulating the production of sorghum and all sugar of this coun- 
 try. Is not that your idea? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I think our people generally favor that. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You think the people generally in this country favor it t 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I speak more parttcularly for the farmers. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I represent farmers here, as my people are all farmers, 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I have taken a little pains to investigate 
 
 Mr. Gear. Yon think that ia the general conclusion among the farmerst 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I agree with yon. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I think it is pretty nearly unanimous. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you reside in Michigan ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. No, sir ; I reside in Delta, Ohio. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you raise any beet sugar there ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. One more question— I do not know what your politics are — you say 
 there is a difference of opinion among your people, and of course we understand 
 that— would not the passage of the proposed Mills bill in your judgment have been 
 a serious blow to the agricultural industries of this country in a large degree? 
 
 Mr. Bkigham. a great many of our people feel that way and others do not. 
 
884 REVISION OP THE TAEIFF. 
 
 Mr. Geak. Wonld not the putting of wool on the free list be a great blo^r to the 
 agricultural industries of this country t 
 
 Mr. Brigham. X think a ^at many farmers felt in the drafting of that bill that 
 there was an unjust discrimination against the farmer's interests. They felt that way, 
 but not all of them. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Was anybody in favor of putting wool on the free list ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. But the effect of putting beans on the free list is that you want to be 
 protected by a duty of 50 cents a bushel on them now t 
 
 Mr. Brigham. The farmers felt that there was a discrimination against^the agricult- 
 ural interests. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is the average price of beans in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I do not know that I can give you the average price, but it runs 
 from about $1 to |2.50 a bushel. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Our farmers in the State of New York are great bean raisers, and 
 they get about $2 a bushel ; is not that one of the the best crops that the farmer can 
 raise at $2 a bushel? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is there anything better t 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I do not know. They are not raised in our section at all. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Let me ask one question there. I do not know whether the gentleman 
 is familiar with the culture of beans, but Mr. Flower represents a bean district and 
 Mr. Payne represents a bean district. Is not the bean crop one of the most perilous 
 crops a farmer can raise T 
 
 Mr. Brigham. It is so considered in our country. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You have not the climate to do it. The bean crop is a safe crop in 
 New York; all the money they get they get from their beans. I am not aUuding to 
 the seed peas and beans, but the regalar old Boston bean. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It is not so certain as a com crop or other crops. All our competition 
 comes from Canada. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Oh, no ; they raise them in Germany and France, where we are getting 
 competition. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Where we get the competition is right from the Canadian bean, and 
 it drove us out of the market. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridgk. Have you ever made a calculation to determine how the farmer 
 classifies the wool in all the older States, so as when he has received his protection 
 on the wool and paid what the wool tariff requires him to pay extra on the clothes 
 to see whether he is ont of pocket or not ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. The farmer who does not grow wool 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. No ; the farmer who does. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I have figured on that some. I could not give the result of my fig- 
 uring exactly ; but I do not think it takes a wool-grower a great while to figure that 
 it is to his detriment to put wool on the free list. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are you prepared to show that in these older States the wool- 
 grower does not pay out something like $2.50 on his clothes for every dollar he re- 
 ceives with that duty on his wool ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I think I can show that he does not. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Can you incorporate that in your remarks t 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Our extensive wool-growers 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Take the average wool-grower as you have given in your offi- 
 cial reports in the States of, say, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 
 New York, and you can give Iowa if you like, and Kansas and Minnesota, and see 
 that this is incorporated in your remarks: How much a wool-grower pays for his 
 clothing and how much a wool-grower gets on the wool on an average. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Of course, it would be impossible for a farmer to estimate that ex- 
 actly. We do not know exactly how much wool there is in a suit of clothes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You could get exactly what the consumption of woolen goods 
 is in this country. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Of course a man who makes wool-growing the great industry on his 
 farm and keeps two or three hundred sheep 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am not speaking of that man. I am speaking of the average 
 of the farmers in the States mentioned. You have farmers in your State who grow 
 wool. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. A great many farmers do not grow any sheep at all. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. So it does not hurt that man. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. It might. We take this view of it, that when a man does not grow 
 wool and raise sheep he has got to do some other thing, and in doing that thing he is 
 increasing the surplus already in the market and cheapening the price. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do I understand you to say the sheep are kept in the older 
 States to the exclusion of other products on the farm J 
 
HEtiSION OF THE TARIFF. 885 
 
 Mr. BriGHAM. If we reduce tbe number of sheep we should certainly raise some- 
 thing else to take their place. They require considerable land for fodder, hay, and 
 forage crops. If they dispose of the sheep they must raise more cattle, which they 
 can not do now at a profit. What the farmer is hunting for is for the Lord to point 
 out something which he can raise with a profit. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. In regard to sheep, what I understand you to say is perfectly 
 true of the ranchman and the man who has several hundred sheep, but it is not true 
 in any sense of the man who keeps twenty-five, thirty, or forty sheep, that if he 
 keeps them that reduces any other crop on his place. Now you are better informed 
 about that than I am. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. The farmer who keeps several hundred sheep reduces his other crops; 
 but the farmer that raises twenty-five or thirty sheep does not see any reason why, 
 if the woolen manufacturer is to be protected, he could not be protected on the wool 
 he raises. 
 
 Mr. Brecktnridgb. Is not that the way in which most of the farmers keep the 
 sheep in most of these older States — in small flock f 
 
 Ml-. Brigham. No, sir; you will find a great many farmers with no sheep at all. 
 I have been in the Northern States a good deal during the last two or three years 
 and I think that is true there, except in the great West. But to take my own county 
 of Fulton, which, of course, I am more familiar with than any other. It is a county 
 well adapted to raising grain of all kinds. It has a very rich soil. Yet there are 
 farmers who keep sheep, and where they do keep them they keep them in consider- 
 able flocks. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I amaskiag in regard to the condition of the Grange district. 
 I want a general idea. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Yon visit Kentucky and you will find there farmers wiU grow a few 
 sheep largely for the early lambs that go up into the Cincinnati market. They will 
 perhaps not have over fifty in a flock. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Take these States yon have mentioned where the Granges 
 exist ; is it more general to keep sheep in large flocks than in small ones ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I think the farmers, where they keep sheep at all — of course there 
 are exceptions to all rules — keep flocks ranging from fifty to four hundred and five 
 hundred. Of course some large wool-growers run into thousands, but very few in 
 Ohio. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What would yon take to be the average flock of this region ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. The average flocks of Ohio and Michigan run from seventy-five to 
 one hundred, I think. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it as much in the other States of which you have spoken ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. In the New England, with the exception, perhaps, of Vermont, they 
 do not raise sheep for the wool to any extent now, but they keep a few mutton sheep. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. More in regard to size than for other purposes ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Yes, sir ; for that reason they only keep a small flock of ewes for the 
 early lambs. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Am I to understand that outside of Ohio, Michigan, and these 
 older States you have been speaking of, the flocks wUl average smaller than they 
 will in those two States of Ohio and Michigan ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Yes, sir ; and I presume it is true of New York, and, of course, 
 along the sea-coast, where they keep flocks at all they keep them for the mutton, 
 lambs, etc. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am speaking of size, not purpose. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I say for that reason they would not keep large flocks where they 
 do not make a point of raising them for the wool. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you speak of personal knowledge of New York State T 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Partly, as I have traveled in New York somewhat in the past few 
 years, representing the farmers ; but I could not speak decisively of New York ; but I 
 have got an impression that, sheep in northeastern New York would be the same as 
 New England ; yet I am guessing at it. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I think you are right about northeastern New York. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What difference does it make to the farmer, so long as we are 
 selling wheat upon the world's market, whether that meets the Manitoba wheat at 
 Minneapolis or Liverpool? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. The difierence would be this : Perhaps the wheat could come in 
 from this country you speak of (I can hardly pronounce the name), Manitoba, the 
 transportation would be less than across the ocean. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If it reaches Liverpool as cheaply t 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Then it does not make any difference at Liverpool, if it is the same 
 grade of wheat. 
 
 Mr. Bebckinridgb. That is whether it meets it at Minneapolis or meets it at Liv- 
 erpool t 
 
886 REVISION- OP- THE'~TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. In regard to wheat, of course we are not asking any increase of 
 duty. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am asking in regard to the wheat question as to the effect 
 of the duty. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I hope I make myself understood in regard to this wheat. There is 
 very little wheat imported into this country. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am speaking of the Minneapolis market and the Manitoba 
 wheat. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. It is not probable the wheat-grower would be in favor of removing 
 the duty from wheat for fear there would be importations which would decrease his 
 price. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am speaking of the effect of its meeting, since meet it must, 
 either at Minneapolis or Liverpool, whether there is any choice of where you shall 
 meet it. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. As the case stands at the present time I do not think it would make 
 any material difference. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does not the miller when he grinds that wheat and exports get 
 a drawback on all the duty paid on it ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I understand that he does. I think that is true of all commodities. 
 
 Mr. Gear. When the Canadian and American wheat goes into the market of the 
 world, which our friena uere has discussed so much, does not that wheat come also 
 in competition with wheat from the Black Sea, and with wheat firom Jndia, which is 
 produced by still lower-priced labor t 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. One other inquiry in regard to wool. You are a wool-grower, and raise 
 sheep f 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Did you raise sheep prior to 1860 t 
 
 Mr. Brigham. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are you familiar with the prices obtained at that time ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Not personally, but I know something near it. I did not have any 
 wool or anything else to sell then. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Did not you know at that time in a general way as every man who reads 
 the history of his country does, we had at that time an ad valorem tariff on wool, and 
 is it not true that wool was much lower at that time than it is to-day ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. At some periods before 1860 it was lower, and at other periods it was 
 higher. 
 
 Mr. Gear. But from 1850 to 1860. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. I could not give an intelligent answer without looking it up. 
 
 Mr. Flower. It must have been lower. 
 
 Mr. Gear. But it is higher now ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Yes, sir. Further back I remember my father sold 
 
 Mr. Gear. But it is higher now than it was at that time in a general way ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Yes, sir ; I think it ran from 20 to 26 cents a pound for unwashed 
 wool at that time. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it not also true that merchandise manufactured of wool is much lower 
 now than it was in those days ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. Generally I think it is. 
 
 Mr. Gear. A large percentage ? 
 
 Mr. Brigham. That is my recollection. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I will just ask that the colonel insert in his written paper the 
 price of wool between 18.50 and 1860 and the prices of wool at later periods as they 
 are given by the Department of Agriculture. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I would suggest in connection with Mr. Breckinridge's suggestions that 
 in those days the large bulk of wool was sold sheep-washed, and that now the inva- 
 riable rule is to sell the wool unwashed. 
 
 Mr. Brecicijjridge. He could find out officially these facts, as I am not familiar 
 with them. 
 
 Mr. Brigham. -We sell wool washed in our section. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 887 
 
 Washington, T). C, January 24, 1890. 
 SiR: In accordance with promise we herewith submit a list, as supplemental to 
 our remarks of yesterday before your committee, asking for duties and iucriJase of 
 duties upon agricultaral and horticultural products imported, viz : 
 
 Amount of duty asked. 
 
 Cattle per head.. $5.00 
 
 Horses. do.... 20.00 
 
 Sheep and hogs do 50 
 
 Bristles per lb . . .20 
 
 Butter do 05 
 
 Cheese do 05 
 
 Eggs per dozen.. .05 
 
 Hair per ct.. .10 
 
 Hides -.do 15 
 
 Barley per bushel.. .25 
 
 Barley malt do 35 
 
 Beans per bushel.. $0.50 
 
 Peas do 25 
 
 Potatoes do 25 
 
 Green fruit per ct . . .25 
 
 Preserved fruit do .SO 
 
 Dried fruit do 30 
 
 Canned fruit do 20 
 
 Hay per ton . . 4. 00 
 
 Hops per pouud.. . 12 
 
 Pickles and sauces per ct . . .35 
 
 Sumac, double present duty. 
 
 Wool, same as asked for by the Wool Growers' Association. 
 
 This list does not include all articles produced by farmers which should be pro- 
 tected, but those only to which we desire to call especial attention. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 J. H. Brioham, 
 Joii.v Tia.Miii-K, 
 Of Legislative Committee, National Grange. 
 Hon. William McKinlet, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 Washington. D. C, January 27, 1890. 
 
 SlK: In answer to the question of Mr. Breckinridge, of your committee, we beg 
 leave to submit the following : The question was, in substance, "Have you ever iig- 
 ured out what was the effect of the wool tariff upon the farmer?" 
 
 Answer : The importations of manulactures of wool for the fiscal year ending July 
 1, 1889, according to the Bureau of Statistics, Department of the Treasury, amounted 
 in round numbers to $52,700,000, and at the usual calculation of 3 pounds of wool 
 in the grease to the dollar's worth of the manufactured product was equivalent to 
 158,000,000 pounds of wool. The importations of wool by the same authority for the 
 same year are given at 126,787,606 pounds. 
 
 The Department of Agriculture estimates the total amount of the domestic product 
 at 260,000,000 pounds. The importations of ring waste, noils, etc., may have slightly 
 increased the sum total, but we have here an aggregate of 540,000,000 pounds as the 
 consumption of wool by 65,000,000 of people, an average of SJ pounds per head, and 
 in a family of five persons this would amount to 41 pounds. The duty levied upon 
 clothing wool is 10 cents per pound, and that amount is quoted in illustration of what 
 protection to the wool-grower costs the consumer, and it is asserted that wool in this 
 country is advanced in price just that much over the markets of the world. That 
 was the intention of the law and what the wool-grower expected. But the market 
 quotations of Montevideo prices in the London market' on July 1, 1888, and of Michi- 
 gan X, the same grade of clothing wool of domestic production in the Philadelphia 
 market on the same date, shows a difi^erence of but 3^ cents, notwithstanding the cost 
 of transportation, handling, etc., and the tariff of 10 cents per pouud. This was under 
 the law of 1883, as it has been admiuistered, admitting scoured wools as Wi^stes and 
 noils at a duty of but 10 cents per pound, and a fair article of clothing wool as third- 
 class wool, paying a duty of but 2|- cents per pound. But admitting that the price 
 was advanced 10 cents per pound by the duty, the increased cost to each head of a 
 family would be $4.10. 
 
 The census of 1880 shows there was over 42,000,000 sheep in this country that year, 
 owned by 1,000,000 people, an average of 42 sheep to each flock owner. The average 
 weight of fleeces is given at 5 pounds, or a clip of 210 pounds to each owner, and if 
 the price was advanced 10 cents by the tariff, the amount to him was $J1, as com- 
 pared with a cost to him of $4.10, or abalancoin hisfavorof $16.90. Theother farm- 
 ers in the land can well afl'ord to pay this increased cost, supposing that it is Ihus 
 increased for the reason that these 42,000,000 sheep required not less than 85,000,000 
 acres for their sustenance, and if not utilized for wool-growing could and would 
 have been used to grow wheat, corn, and beef, and have added millions to the larga 
 
"888 REVISION 'OP ■■ THE ' TARIFF. 
 
 surplus of those products, which now exist principally- hecause there are to-day 
 10,000,000 fewer sheep in the country than there were in 1884. But it is a fact no 
 one will deny, the 260,000,000 pounds of wool raised here helps to keep prices down. 
 Destroy this competition and wool will be higher, bat we will have no sheep upon 
 which to grow it. 
 
 J. H. Brigham, 
 John Trimble, 
 legislative Committee, National Orange. 
 Hon. William McKtbtlbt, Jr., 
 
 Ckairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 27, 1890. 
 Sir: In reply to the second question of Mr. Breckinridge, of your committee, in 
 regard to prices existing before the war and those now paid for wool, we answer: 
 On page 109 of the Treasury Department report on " wool and manufactures of wool" 
 the average prices of wool on July 1 of each year from 1824 to 18B7, inclusive, is given. 
 At first view there seems to have been great variation, the limits being $1 in 
 1864 to 32 cents per pound in 1885. A careful analysis of this table shows that when 
 there was a protective tariff on wool, or whenever there were devastating wars and 
 thereby an increased demand, prices advanced, and when there was peace and a low 
 duty on wool, and the American farmer brought into competition with the outside 
 world, prices declined. During the fifties prices were high under a low tarifl', but 
 during that time the armies of Europe and Asia were in the field. 
 
 During the late war in this country prices in currency was greatly advanced, and 
 notwithstanding the tariff' of 1867, 1868, 1869, and 1870, prices declined, caused by our 
 own Government putting in the market 4,585,982 pieces of clothing on hand at the 
 close of the war. When this had been absorbed, by 1871, prices advanced to a pay- 
 ing basis under the protection of the tariff, and remained so until the legislation of 
 1883, which was so loosely worded as to admit of frauds at the ports of entry, and 
 prices have been since then so low that the flocks of the country have been reduced. 
 The belief that wool-growers will be protected, and the low price of cereals, cattle, and 
 hogs, incline the farmers to increase their flocks, and thus reduce the area devoted to 
 crops. We see no reason why the flock-master should not have the same protection 
 accorded to manufactures. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 J. H. BrkJham, 
 John Trimble, 
 Legislative Committee, National Grange. 
 Hon. William McKinlet, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 VIEWS OP J. W. BOLLINGER. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, about a fortnight ago two eminent 
 Pennsylvania grangers journeyed hither to stand before you in the interests of tbe 
 grangers of the " old Keystone." Mr. Brown, of York County, told the tale of the 
 farmer's gloom and despair, and Mr. Piolet followed in an attempt at a remedy for 
 the ills which beset the brethren whom they represented. I do not know if Mr. 
 Brown was in sympathy with his co-worker's remedy or not, but if he is I am certain 
 of this one thing, that the majority of his constituents of York County are emphat- 
 ically not. Mr. Piolet's remedy reminds me of the man who attempted to lift himself 
 over a fence by the straps of his boots, and in order to make the fact more plausible 
 he asks that there be another rail added to the height of the fence. Mr. Brown and 
 Mr. Piolet are not alone engaged with laudable zeal in helping the granger brethren 
 from this slough in which they find themselves. An eminent co-worker hailing from 
 Ohio has since been here, and with marvelous backwoods simplicity asks that the 
 farmer be extricated from the mire of despair by adding additional weight to his al- 
 ready intolerable burden. 
 
 I do not come representing a grange or any organized association, but speak for 
 and in behalf of farmers, millers, and all the wage-workers engaged in agricultural 
 jjursuits ; for that vast army of more than eight millions of able-bodied, sturdy, 
 brawny, intelligent, hard-working people who form the solid base of all our national 
 wealth, whose labors are so little appreciated and so illy repaid; in the interest of 
 that host who by far out-number the combined employed of whatever occupation, 
 profession, engagement, or calling they fill in the length and breadth of this beauti- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 889 
 
 ful land of ours. Not only are the material interests of tbis greatest class of workers 
 depressed by the burdens legislated upon them, but in spirit and in person they bear 
 the marks of despair, as slaves always do. Why, sir, theirtoils nevercease. Dayaftor 
 day the farmer is early and late, and night after night the miller stands faithfully by 
 his post of duty ; consequently their education is more limited, they are poorer clad, 
 enjoy less social enjoyments, toil harder, and have more hours of harder work for less 
 pay than any workers upon God's beautiful earth. And why is this so? Is it becanse 
 they are fitted for nothing higher mentally? Some of the brightest examples on the 
 bench or at the bar came from the plow, and may have dusted the flourfrom off their 
 hats to take their seats in the judiciary or to grace the halls of legislation ; let these 
 give the emphatic " no" to all such insinuations. 
 
 Perhaps you readily admit these facts set forth and ask, why this depression ? My 
 answer is, increased cost of living in consequence of protective taxes. Not only must 
 he pay from 20 to 100 per cent, on every form of household purchases, including 
 wearing apparel, as his protected neighbors do, but also upon all manner of farming 
 implements, live stock, mill machinery, building materials, hardware, lumber, etc.; 
 being the greater consumer of these, certainly becomes the higher tax-payer. Uufir- 
 tunately, the miller and farmer interests are identical. They bear unequal portions of 
 the burdens, without any of its supposed benefits, together. Their product to a consiil- 
 erable extent competes, with the markets of the world ; the price of their principal 
 products are made for them in a foreign market without their advice or consent, and 
 between the unremunerative prices they can obtain for their products, and the high 
 tariff' taxes they are obliged to pay upon the cost of their living. The life-blood of 
 their business is being squeezed out; they are being ground to powder between the 
 upper and nether millstone taxation and low prices. That this is so I need only to 
 point to the rapidly increasing indebtedness of farmers and millers, and the often re- 
 peated sheriff sales, or to the enormous piles of mortgages registered against farms 
 and mills all over the land, and particularly so in the great West, and their inability 
 to meet their obligations as they become due. 
 
 I am aware that many bright promises are biennially held out to farmers aud 
 millers to hoodwink them into voting for Congressmen who will continue this galling 
 taxation ; none are more deceptive than the so-called home-market theory. Congress 
 has no control over the home market, from the fact that it does not, nor can it, regu- 
 late the foreign, and from the marketing of onr surplus in the foreign market to a 
 very great extent is regulated the home market ; it is a hoodwink ; it cau not he done ; 
 this so-called home-market theory is all bosh of the worst kind. Frequently you are 
 told that farmers are protected and that they reap many substantial benefits from 
 .protection. Yes, gentlemen, I know something about farmers being protected. The 
 country in Which I reside I can safely say stall-feeds more cattle for the beef market 
 than any other in the United States, and many of them are exported and go into the 
 market of the world. I know that when our buyers go to Buffalo, N. Y., to purchase 
 stock cattle for winter feeding that they must pay a protective duty of 20 per cent, 
 upon Canadian cattle, aud that, price with tax added forms the basis for other cattle 
 either from Ohio or Virginia ; therefore Canadians have the advantage of 20 per cent. 
 over our feeders who ship to foreign markets, and here again the foreign to a great 
 extent rules the home market. When farmers want to improve their stock by im- 
 porting thoroughbred breeders from England or elsewhere they have to pay 20 per 
 cent, on cattle and 25 per cent, on horses, swine, sheep, etc. So, too, when they wish 
 to improve their grain , grass, or vegetables by importing seeds, 35 to 40 per cent, is 
 asked of them as a reminder that they have a parent Government which takes gentle 
 care of their every interest to protect it. 
 
 The farmer is also asked to pay the " lion's share " of the twelve millions of taxes 
 annually collected from imported sugar, to protect a few Louisiana cane raisers ; he 
 also helps along the Carolina rice farmers in the same way ; he does not back down 
 when the Michigan and Wisconsin lumbermen ask him to stand by them to the tune of 
 |2 per thousand feet as a tax to help enrich their bank accouuts ; nor is he forgotten 
 when the final " round-up " is made of six millions annually on tin that he may have 
 his house or mill well covered ; and that his pork, beef, lard, vegetables, corn, and 
 frnit may be properly clothed with a can for export or home use, aud that to protect 
 an imaginary tin mine to be discovered way out West somewhere, perhaps in the dim 
 future, of which the farmer hears about every second year, about the time Congress- 
 men are elected. They are asked to pay $5 in protected woolens to protect 5 cents in 
 sheep culture; they are forced to join in a voluntary contribution of 40 per cent, for 
 tariff tax on jute, manilla, and sisal-grass, that they may have bags into which to put 
 thoir phosphate, and that they may have twine to properly bind their sheaves, and 
 sacks to sack their grain for the mill, and paper bags into which the miller can put 
 his flour, that, too, without the semblance of protection, for we cau raise neither ma- 
 nilla, jute, nor sieal-grass. Yes, gentlemen, the farmers aud millers are protected to 
 the full ; it is a little expensive, but they will not object to that so long as they have 
 
•890 EEVISrON. OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 a correspondingly good article furnished them, -which will always please and satisfy, 
 and cause them to vote right, even tijough it keeps them poor. 
 
 And now, Mr. Chairman, a few remedial suggestions and I am done. You can not 
 by legislation control the price of the market into which we are compelled to sell, 
 nor do we expect you to ; the only thing you can do for us is to legislate so that farmers 
 and millers can live cheaper and produce their products cheaper, thereby giving them 
 a greater margin. I would first suggest that tin be placed upon the free list, thereby 
 lifting a burden of more than six millions from not only the farmers and millers, hut 
 would cheapen the living of all users of can goods. Three-fourths of all tin imported 
 is used for cans, and all are for the product of the soil except fish. Much of this 
 would necessarily result in the benefit of the farmer and despoil the interest of none. 
 Secondly, lumber should be free, which would benefit the farmer and miller by cheaper 
 houses, barns, mills, mill machinery, farming implements, fences, etc. Free lumber 
 would, to a certain extent, protect our forests, and they in turn would protect our 
 valleys from calamitous floods and our streams from protracted drought. For the 
 special benefit of the farmers and millers, who use great quautities of bagging, twine, 
 rope, and paper sacks, and for all users of burlap for packing and baling, I would vote 
 jute, manilla, and sisal-grass as free as the air we breathe or the light that shiues at 
 noonday ; perhaps it would break the iron grip of the bag trust, the twine and cordage 
 trust, or the manilla paper combine. I believe that the benefits derived from cheaper 
 clothing, woolen goods, etc., would fully compensate two-fold for any loss we might 
 sustain in sheep husbandry, and that our woolen manufactories would increase ^two- 
 fold, as our leather manufacturing interest did with free hides ; therefore, 1 would vote 
 freedom to wool. For the improvement of the curing qualities of American salt, and 
 the cheaper use in the dairy or the meat and fish curing establishments, I would admit 
 the competition of the world. Cheaper chemicals would make cheaper phosphates 
 for the use of our farmers, and would greatly benefit his cheaper production. 
 
 The tax on sugar and rice seems to me a very fruitful soured for cheaper living. A 
 comfortable reduction, not entire freedom, would be about what the farmers' would 
 like. As the benefits of production are limited and so sectional, and the burdens 
 so universal and great, it would be wise to at least give the matter careful examina- 
 tion. For the benefit of farmers, especially of the eastern States, who feed cattle,! 
 would suggest that all stock cattle of two years old or more, and less than 1,'100 
 pounds in weight, be admitted free, eliminating all competition of fat cattle by 
 the present duty. For theimprovemeut of horses and cattle I would admit thorough- 
 bred breeders of a value of .|500 and upwards free, and continue to debar all cheap 
 stock by continuing the present tariff. The farmers could be greatly relieved by a 
 lower tax on glass and hardware especially used by them, including cotton ties. 
 Free fishing and free fish would give us cheaper living. I might give you many 
 more, but hope this will sufflce. Thanking you kindly for the privilege of these sug- 
 gestions and the patience you have manifested, I am, gentlemen, with great respect, 
 your humble servant, 
 
 Jesse Bollinger. 
 
 Hanover, Pa. 
 
 STATEMENT OP ALEXANDER J. ■WEDDBRBURN. 
 
 Alexander J. Wedderbdrn, a resident of Alexandria, Va., representing the 
 State Grange of Virginia and the National Grange, at the request of the secretary of 
 the National Grange, addressed the committee as follows: 
 
 Mr. Chairman, it is not without great reluctauce that I appear before your com- 
 mittee on behalf of Dr. Trimble, of the legislative committee of the National Grange, 
 and as the representative of the farmers of Virginia, to ask at your hands relief from 
 the burdens borne by our people. I am not here as the representative of class leg- 
 islation ; on the contrary, I appear before you protesting against all legislation that 
 savors of that character. 
 
 The American farmer is the most conservative and most easily satisfied of all of 
 our people. He has supplied soldiers for our armies, raised bread to feed them, paid 
 taxes to buy the latter and to pay the expenses of our Government. He has done 
 this, and his labor has enabled the American people to meet the problem of specie 
 resumption, and to accumulate a surplus of many millions in the Treasury, after meet- 
 ing all legitimate expenses of the Government. It is true that he has not complained 
 while supplying the sinews of war to our people, nor has he resisted when told that 
 he must submit to the burdens laid upon him for the benefit of the country. 
 
 Patriotic, patient, and long-sufiering, the farmer has waited and hoped. As long 
 as money sufficient to meet the needs of his expenses was obtainable he paid all de- 
 mands upon his purse or labor, with little more th.'in a grunt of dissatisfaction. Con- 
 tent in his own apparent independence he cheerfully met all drafts upon him, feeling 
 proud that it fell to his lot to sustain his Government. 
 
REVISION OP 'THE" TARIFF. 891" 
 
 Now, sirs, this should change. The farmer from necessity hogitiS to realize that the 
 burden of taxation is robhing him of his toil, and of the little accumulations left him 
 by industrous ancestors. In looking over the country we find agriculture languishing, 
 farm mortgages increasing, and the American farmer from being the most independ- 
 ent and prosperous of human beings, fast becoming only a little better than the Eu- 
 ropean serf, who eats brown bread and drinks poor beer, never daring to hope for 
 meat or other luxury. = 
 
 Are you, sirs, as representatives of American freemen, ready to aid such a state of 
 affairs t I trust not. 
 
 I do not care to detain you longer with these views, but will add with Mr. Piollet, 
 who appeared before you a few days since, that the farmer needs and demands equal 
 protection, and that it lies within his power to secure what he needs. I am not here 
 to plead the cause of the American hen, or even of the cabbage, or more succulent 
 potato, all of which of right should be heard, and need protection equally with the 
 steel, iron, and woolen manufacturers. But I desire to say that more by accident 
 than design, but in the line of my duty, I came into this room yesterday and heard a 
 good portion of the argument used before you, all of which I found, no matter 
 whether it was in favor of free trade or protection, bore with equal weight and ad- 
 versely upon the farmer. Every argument adduced before you seemed to have but 
 one single aim, and that was to enrich some one at the expense of the agriculturist. 
 
 Referring to three of the witnesses who came before you yesterday. First, I list- 
 ened to the gentleman who desired you to increase the tariff on the pipes of the poor 
 smokers, and let the wood from which these pipes were made come in free. When 
 asked as to where this brier root came from, ar.d where it was produced in this coun- 
 try, the witness, as you remember, stated the roots were the product of France and 
 Italy, and that the product produced in this country was that of a few negroes in 
 North Carolina, who sold to the country merchants and they to the manufacturers. 
 
 Now, sirs, as a Southern man, I claim that, although tliis supposed- to-be-eulightened 
 manufacturer seemed inclined to insinuate that, because only the negroes of North 
 Carolina were interested in protecting this article, it should be free. On the con- 
 trary, I think that these ignorant wards of the nation are more entitled to your 
 guardian care than the rich and educated manufacturers, who would add to their 
 wealth at the expense of the poor ignorant North Carolina negroes. 
 
 The next gentleman that I remember was one who was advocating free wool and 
 protected woolen goods, again striking at the farmer for the benefit of the manufact- 
 urer. I would say, sirs, that the farmers of this country would be satisfied to have 
 the tariff taken off of his wool, provided an equal amount is taken off of tho manu- 
 factured goods that he consumes. It seems that what is "sauce for the goose should 
 be sauce for the gander." 
 
 The third, and a most important subject broached here, and which elicited but little 
 attention in opposition thereto, was the application of Mr. Waugh to have 65 per 
 cent, tariff put upon the sulphuric acid imported. 
 
 I will explain to you what this means, and leave it to your ideas of equity and fair- 
 ness whether such an outrage should be perpetrated upon the farmers of the coun- 
 try. Sulphuric acid is largely used in the manufacture of fertilizers ; it is a product, 
 the residuum of which, whether copper or sulphate of soda, nearly, if not quite, pays 
 the cost of production, and it is sold at $7 a ton. Now, 65 per cent, on this 
 means $4.55 per ton. As it takes 1,000 pounds to every 1,000 pounds of acid phos- 
 phate rock or 1,000 pounds of bone dust used to dissolve either of these products, it 
 will be seen that the result would be to increase the cost to the farmer of his dis' 
 solved phosphate or dissolved bone at least $2.27 one-half per ton. As about 1,000 
 pounds of dissolved phosphate or dissolved bone is used in the manufacture of every 
 ton of complete manure, it will be plain that the cost of this important article would 
 be increased not less than $1.14 per ton if the suggestion was carried out. At a low 
 estimate the amount of South Caroliua, dissolved pho8j)hate, dissolved bone, and 
 complete commercial fertilizers used by the farmers of the Eastern, Middle, and West- 
 ern States is not less than 1,000,000 tons, and the increased cost to them would very 
 nearly reach $2,000,000 each year. Further comment is unnecessary. 
 
 Recognizing the fact that the country has declared in favor of protection, in ap- 
 pearing before your committee the farmers of the country would enter their protest 
 against unequal taxation, but in so doing they know that differences of opinion ex- 
 ist on this subject, and we believe as, our declaration of purposes says, " That differ- 
 ence of opinion is no crime." Therefore, in appealing to you for protection, for our 
 class, we ask that if it is necessary in your opinion to protect our manufacturers and 
 wage-workers, that you grant a proportionate share of protection to the mouey-pro- 
 dncing, tax-paying farmer, and as you can not do this by levying a protective tariff 
 on his cotton, corn, wheat, hogs, and beef, all of which he exports, we come before you 
 to ask that this surplus, drawn from the farmer (not for the needs of Government — 
 it can not use the immense sums collected ; but for tho benefit of the manufacturer )• 
 be equitably divided among our class by a system of bounties to the agricultural 
 
892 EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 producer on what he raises over and above his individnal needs, so that the inequal- 
 ities now existing may be equalized and the surplus distributed among that clasg 
 from which it is drawn without equity or justice. 
 
 Mr. La Follbttb. I want to ask you if you know what quantities of crude potash 
 salt are imported into this country and used for fertilizing purposes only ? 
 
 Mr. Wbdderburn. I do not. I can find that out and let you know within two or 
 three days. This matter was sprung upon me yesterday, simply by hearing these 
 gentlemen trying to have a duty put upon sulphuric acid, which I knew would cost 
 the farmer from $2,000,000 to |3, 000,000 per annum. 
 
 Mr. La Follktte : 1 know that the Secretary of Agriculture hashad agreatdeal of 
 correspondence with the Treasury Department with reference to that subject. Yester- 
 day I wrote a letter to the Secretary asking him to furnish copies of that correspond- 
 ence. The Secretary of Agriculture contends that under this clause of the free list 
 " guano manures, and all substances expressly nsed for manure," crude potash salts 
 ought to come in free. The Treasury Department has, however, ruled otherwise. I 
 happened to be at the Department a couple of days ago, and had a conversation with 
 the Secretary about it. He suggested that it was a proper matter for the considera- 
 tion of the committee. I therefore asked him that the correspondence be laid before 
 this committee with a view of seeing whether the law should be corrected to provide 
 for the free importation of crude potash salts to be used for fertilizing purposes only. 
 Mr. Wedderbuen. I will say that I know a great deal about this fertilizing busi- 
 ness, having been for about twelve years representing the grange in the manufacture 
 of it. I know that these potash salts which you speak of "enter very largely into the 
 composition of the farmers' product at the rate of an average of about 300 pounds per 
 ton. Therefore, when you calculate the output at about 1,000,000 tons, you see that 
 you bring it up from 250,000 to 400,000 tons, as the amount imported. I have seen 
 the law and I have seen the ruling of the Secretary of the Treasury, but it is at this 
 minute a little cloudy in my mind. His ruling with regard to the matter has cer- 
 tainly cost the farmer a very considerable sum. I think the intention of the bill was 
 clearly that it should be admitted free of duty, and I was also told so by Secretary 
 Rusk himself. There is no doubt that the committee here ought to try to add to the 
 fertility of our soils. The American soil is being drained every day of its fertility, 
 and you will find that our crops are being shifted across the Mississippi and farther 
 west all the time, and the result is that we are getting poorer and poorer all the time. 
 If you are going to cripple agriculture in this way, instead of ballding it up, where 
 are you going to get your money to carry on your Government? 
 
 Mr. La Follkttk. If you will carry forward your investigation with reference to 
 this subject still further, and submit something to the committee in writing upon it, 
 I have no doubt the committee will be glad to have you do so, and will look into 
 the subject. 
 
 Mr. Weddbrburn. I will let you know all about this inside of three or four days. 
 I have the information amongst my papers in Alexandria. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Let your paper cover the manufacture, if any, in this country 
 of the crude potash salts for fertilizing purposes only. 
 Mr. Wbdderburn. I think it all comes from Germany. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I wish you would investigate that, and let your paper exhibit 
 the fact as to whether or not any of it is manufactured in this country, and if not, 
 the quantity which is imported into this country, and the sole purpose for which it 
 is used. 
 Mr. Batnb. What are the principal chemicals used in making fertilizers ? 
 Mr. Wbdderburn. The three elements which are considered most beneficial to the 
 soil are ammonia, potash, and phosphates. The ammonia is derived from blood and 
 tankage, fish scrap, sulphate of ammonia, or anything of that kind. The phosphates 
 are derived from animal bone, and the South Carolina phosphates are those which are 
 principally used. The West India phosphates are also used to some considerable 
 extent. 
 Mr. Batne. What is the use of sulphuric acid in fertilizers ? 
 
 Mr. Wbdderburn. It is used to dissolve South Carolina phosphate and bone. The 
 rock is taken out near Charleston, and analyzes something like bone ; but it is insol- 
 uble when it is ground, although it analyzes about 60 per cent, of bone phosphate of 
 lime. By actual experiment it was found that it is not a fertilizer at all until it is 
 treated with sulphuric acid. It is treated with about 1,000 pounds of sulphuric acid 
 to about 1,000 pounds of ground rock. 
 Mr. Bayne. The amount of that acid used is about one-half the weight of the rock 1 
 Mr. Wbdderburn. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne, Can it not be used over and over again t 
 
 Mr. Weddbrburn. No, sir ; it loses in treating probably 10 or 12 per cent. If you 
 take a little flour and put water into it you could not use that same water over again. 
 Mr. Batnb. Would it work in the game wiby t 
 Mr. Wkddbkburn. Yes, sir. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 893 
 
 Mr. Baynb. So that the sulphuric acid which is used in dlsolving.that roci is not 
 put npon the market again ? 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. No, sir ; it is just the same as if you made up a piece of bread, 
 the -svater and flour could not be used over again. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Sulphuric acid is at present on the free list ? 
 
 Mr. Wedderbhen. Yes, sir ; I think so ; I am pretty certain of that. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. The most of the commodities produced by the farmer, I l»«li»?e, are 
 exported ? 
 
 Mr. Wbddbbburn. Yes, sir ; except what is consumed in this country. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I do not mean that the larger part is exported, but that we export 
 more or less of nearly all of the articles which he produces f 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Therefore, these articles are not susceptible of protection by tht) tariff? 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. 1 do not think so. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Can you tell me any other way by which the farmer can be protected 
 except by reducing the taxes upon what he consumes or by paying him a bounty ? 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. I do not know of any other way. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. We have propositions here to pay bounties to people who want to en- 
 gage in the shipping business and in other branches of business; but do you inow of 
 any proposition to pay a bounty to those engaged in agricultural pursuits? 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. I don't know of any except this proposition I made here this 
 morning. Give him a bounty on what he raises over and above what he teeds for 
 his own consumption, and divide the surplus out amongst them in that way. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Are you a practical farmer? 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. I have been publishing an agricultural paper and been connected 
 with the grange movement for twenty years. I am an officer of the State grange of 
 Virginia, and I own and have run, for a long time, a farm. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Are you running it now ? 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. No, sir ; I am conducting my paper. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You are a newspaper man ? 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you want sulphuric acid admitted free of duty ? 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. Yes, sir. I think it would cost the farmer about $2,0il0,000 a 
 a year to put a duty on it. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do they manufacture sulphuric acid in this country 7 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What proportion of it do they manufacture here ? 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. I am not prepared to state. The trouble is that I came here 
 unprepared to discuss this matter fully. Mr. MoKinley told me yesterday this 
 would be the last day, or I should have been prepared to answer any question in re- 
 gard to the matter. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. We have plenty of the raw product in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. I think there is a great deal of the raw product here. There 
 is a great deal of it in our State. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. If we give a reasonable protection to it may not that industry flourish 
 in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. It will probably protect about fifty to one hundred manufactur- 
 ers and four or five thousand workingmen at the expense of five or six million farm- 
 ers. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You are not in favor of protecting the industries ? 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. Not this industry, certainly. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Are you in favor of protecting any industry ? 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. If you are going to take off the tariff on wool we want you to 
 take it off of woolen goods. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Are you in favor of protecting any industry? 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. If it was protected I would be. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is your individual opinion with reference to it? 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. My individual opinion is that protection, so called, protects the 
 manufacturers and combines and trusts, and takes everything out of the pockets of 
 the American farmers. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You are not very much in favor of protection ? 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. No, sir ; I am not. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Your sympathy with the farmer does not go to the extent of desiring 
 the protection of these farm products ? 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. Yes, sir ; I would like to have you protect eggs, to protect the 
 American hen. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Would you put a duty on eggs? 
 
 Mr. Weddeebuen. I believe I would go that far, and put a duty on eggs to protect 
 the American hen. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Fifteen million dozens of eggs are imported? 
 
 Mr. Wkddbeburn. A good many of them are imported. 
 
894 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Batne. Ybu are in favor of protecting the products of tlie farm ? 
 
 Mr. Weddbrbukn. I am in favor of exact justice to eacli class, and I have stated 
 distinctly in this argument that we are not in favor of class legislation at all. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Are you in favor of a duty of SO per cent, on sugar ? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. Individually, sir, I think not. I would be in favor of a bounty 
 on sugar raised in this country to protect the home producer. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How about ri ce ; are you in favor of 100 per cent, duty on rice ? 
 
 Mr. WEDDERBtJRN. No, sir ; I am not in favor of such a duty as that. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Are you in favor of protecting the iron ore produced in Virginia? 
 
 Mr. Weddekburn. You are getting me out of my own grounds now. I do not know 
 I do not believe in protecting one class without equally protecting all in proportion, 
 very much about this question and I don't pretend to know it ; but I will tell youthis : 
 
 Mr. Bayne. And suppose that all along the line we pr^;tect everything we can pro- 
 duce in sufficient quantities in this country for home consumption, would you in that 
 event be in favor of protecting the production of sulphuric acid? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. Yes, sir; if everything else was in proportion. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I mean if we take everything along the line that we can produce in 
 this country in sufficient quantities to supply the home consumption, would you, in 
 that view of the situation, be in favor of protecting sulphuric acid, on the assump- 
 tion that we can produce sufficient to supply the demand ? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. The assumption seems to be so at variance with anything I can 
 understand to be the facts of the case that I can hardly answer it. I have stated 
 here in this paper plainly the position which we come before you to support, and I 
 am authorized to make this request by the secretary of the National Grange. I read 
 him this paper last night, and I state that we come here and say that we recognize 
 the fact that the American people have declared in favor of protection, and we rec- 
 ognize the fact that you gentlemen who are protectionists and have a majority in 
 Congress. We recognize that fact, and we do not come here to try to argue with you 
 in favor of giving us free-trade. We simply come here to ask you to give the farmer 
 equal j ustice and equal protection, and not to make him bear the burden more heavily 
 than any other class. We go further than that, and say that you can not give him 
 this equitable adjustment by protecting his corn and beef which is exported, and 
 therefore we ask yon to give us a bounty upon what we raise. Put on your tariff if 
 you choose, and bring your surplus into the Treasury, but we want you to give it 
 out amongst the people. Therefore we ask that you give it back to the people from 
 whom you took it unjustly and inequitably. It would be foolish for us to come here 
 and ask you to give us free-trade, even if we were in favor of such a thing. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Why do you ask for free sulphuric acid ? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. Because, by not doing so you are protecting forty or fifty 
 manufacturers and from 1,000 to 5,000 laborers, and you are taxing millions of farm- 
 ers in this country who use fertilizers to the extent of about $2 per ton on all they use. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Would you have clothing put upon the free list because there are only 
 a few manufacturers as compared with the consumers? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. I say that if you intend to put wool upon the free list, then 
 in that exact proportion reduce the tariff on woolen goods. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you want wool on the free list t 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. No, sir; I am not individually anxious to have wool on the 
 free list ; but if you put it on the free list and do not reduce the tariff on woolen goods 
 then you strike at the farmer. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Would you have all woolen goods put upon the free list as well as 
 wool 1 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. If you put one upon the free list I would have you put the 
 other also. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you want it that way ; would you have it that way ? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. I never thought of it in that light at all. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. It has never occurred to you t 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The point that you make is that the present system taxes the iron 
 that the farmer uses, and does not give him the benefit of protection on the pork which 
 he produces ? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. That is it, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. It taxes the clothing he wears, and does not give him any relief on 
 the wheat he has to put in the market ? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. It taxes everything he has to buy and in that way raises the price, 
 and gives him no relief on the things which he has to sell? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I think that is about what it amounts to myself 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. I think you put the sulphuric acid matter in strong form, and 
 that you are right. 
 
REVISION OP THE TAEIFF. 895 
 
 Mr. Brbckinridgb. This system of taxing imports is incapable of giving any relief 
 to the farmer on the articles which he exports ? 
 
 Mr. Weddbeburn. The tariff of 40 cents a bnshel on corn coming into the country 
 don't help the farmer any on what is going out. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If it was $40,000 a bushel it would not help him any more. 
 
 Mr. Wei>derburn. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Therefore it has got to be supplemented by an additional favor 
 or a bounty on those things which he produces to give him any compensation for 
 the high prices he pays on those things which ho buys ? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. That is what I have been trying to say. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. There are therefore but two modes by which the farmer can be 
 benefited ; one is by a reduction of the taxes on those articles which he consumes, 
 or by paying a bounty on those articles which he produces, it being produced in sur- 
 plus in this country. 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. Yes, sir ; that is it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you know that we have a million or two of men engaged in these 
 industries in this country 1 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Earning fair wages ? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. Yes, sir ; I suppose so. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That is a good thing for the country, in your opinion ? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. Yes, sir; I wish we had more of them. 
 
 Mr. Gbar. Suppose, for instance, that by some means these men were discharged 
 from their labor ; or in other words, suppose that tliey could not get employment in 
 the different manufacturing trades and industries ; what, in your judgment, in the 
 natural course of things, would become of that class of people? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. If they were discharged I suppose they would either have to 
 go to farming or go to tramping, one or the other. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I agree with you. Now, if they went to farming they would come iu 
 direct competition with the farmers ? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would they not thereby reduce the price of farm products t 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. No, sir ; I think the price of farm products is reduced by spec- 
 ulating in futures and by the lack of the proper export facilities. 
 
 Mr. Gear. If the millions of men who are engaged in these difl'erent industries were 
 engaged in farming they would be direct competitors with the farmers and they would 
 necessarily increase the farm products ? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. They would more or less increase them, I presume. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would they not thereby increase the surplus of farm products, and thus 
 reduce the price f 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. I don't think that has anything to do with it, sir. I think that 
 the reduction of farm products is due more to speculation and gambling in futures and 
 to a lack of a foreign market for our farm products than to anything else. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would not that be the natural result ? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. No, sir; I don't think so. You will find that it is the lack of a 
 foreign market for our goods. If you will open the German market and allow us to 
 sell our pork there 
 
 Mr. Gear. That is a matter for the German Government. 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. No, sir ; it is bad legislation iu this Government. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Suppose that these men become tramps, then society would have to 
 support these tramps, would it not f 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. It is not necessary to turn these people out. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Answer my question. You say that they would either have to become 
 farmers or tramps, and I agree with you. Now suppose they became tramps, would 
 not society have to support them ? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. I will admit that. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Then it would add to the taxation of the people and also to the taxation 
 of the farmers themselves. 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. The whole trouble about that question is — and I am speaking 
 individually and not for the Grange — that I do not believe that protection helps the 
 laborer at all. I do not think it amounts to a row of pins to him. I think the systetn 
 is one which accrues to the benefit of the manufacturer at the expense of the laborer 
 and of the farmer. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Then why does a man who does a day's work iu this country get $1.27), 
 on an average, as against 30 cents a day in Germany, for the same class of labor, and 
 15 cents in Austria and 15 cents in Italy and 10 cents in India? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. I suppose it is owing to the question of supply and demand. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it not better for us to pay |1.25 than to have our "workmen get the 
 wages they get in Germany f 
 
896 EEVISION OF THE TAillFF. 
 
 Mr. Weddbeburn. I agree with you there. I would like to have them get $2.50 a 
 day ; but I don't believe you will get it in this way. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you think that free-trade will increase wages ? 
 
 Mr. Weddbeburn. I am not here to argue for Jree-trade now. I am only asking 
 for equal and exact justice for the cla.ss of ijeople I am here representing. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. According to my recollection there are about seven million men engaged 
 in farming in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Weddbrbdrn. Yes, sir ; about seven million. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. There are about four millions engaged in manufacturing ; that is, work- 
 ingmen ? 
 
 Mr. Wbdderburn. Yes, sir ; between three and four millions. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Suppose that by crippling the manufactuing industries of this country 
 one-half of these men now in the employ of the manufacturers shouldfgo to farming; 
 that would largely swell the farm production of the country ; it would add 28 per 
 cent., would it not ? 
 
 Mr. Wbdderburn. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. It would give us a still greater surplus of farm products than we now 
 have, would it not f 
 
 Mr. Wbdderburn. It looks as if it would, sir; I should think so. It would cer- 
 tainly increase it to some extent. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. That is reasonable. ^ 
 
 Mr. Wbdderburn. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. It would take from the consuming class and make producers of two 
 million men, and that with their families, say four to a family, would be eight mill- 
 ions of people who would cease to be entirely consumers and become producers as 
 well as consumers of farm products. Now, the consumption of farm products in this 
 country, leavmg out cotton, is about 95 per cent, of the entire production of the 
 country. You are aware of that ? 
 
 Mr. Weddbrbuen. I do not recollect exactly what the percentage of home con- 
 sumption is. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. It is about 95 per cent, of the entire production of the country, leav- 
 ing out cotton. We export a beggarly 5 per cent, of our farm products. Ninety-iive 
 percent, is consumed at home. Would you destroy the mining and manufacturing 
 centers, which yield a home market of 95 per cent., to protect the farmer, and at the 
 same time bring into competition with the farmer a million or two million or three 
 million of men ? 
 
 Mr. Wbdderburn. You put a direct question to me and I will give you a direct 
 answer, and then I will answer in my own way. To answer it directly I would say, 
 no. But, on the other hand, if I were to answer it in my own way, I would say this : 
 Let us take the New England manufacturing States, which are presumed to supply 
 the home market for the products of agriculture, and you will find that in these very 
 States agriculture has gone back steadily ; that the products of the New England 
 farmer has been brought into competition with the products of the Western farmer, 
 and he has not gained one single thing by this home market. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. I do not think you understand the situation with reference to New 
 England. 
 
 Mr. Wbdderburn. I am talking about the New England farmer. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. The home market is a market for the whole country, and whether the 
 wheat consumed there is produced in New England or in Pennsylvania, or in Virginia, 
 it makes no dift'erence on the hypothesis of the protectionist. 
 
 Mr. Wbdderburn. The fact, it seems to me, is this: We .all agree that with the 
 greatly increasing wealth in this country and with all the immense prosperity that is 
 talked about, the farmer is steadily and yearly going backwards. His farms are 
 yearly decreasing in value. His farm products are sold for less each year, and he is 
 mortgaging his farm, and becoming poorer and poorer every year. There is some 
 cause for it, but what it is I don't know. All that we ask is that if you propose to 
 protect these other gentlemen, do not tax the agricultural classes to pay this protec- 
 tion ; but if you do so, aU that we ask of you is that you give it back to us in the 
 shape of a bounty upon what we raise. The more we raise the better it is for the 
 country. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That would not break down protection f 
 
 Mr. Wbdderburn. No, sir ; not at all. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. As a representative of the farming interests it would be well for you 
 to look up the subject of the gradual trend of population to the cities and the vast 
 increase of urban as compared with the rural neighborhoods and population. You 
 will find that the outlook for the farmer in this country is encouraging, and all that 
 he has got to do is to have a little patience. 
 
 Mr. Wbddehburn. Do you think that drawing the population from the country into 
 the cities is any advantage to the agriculturist ; do you think it helps or encourages 
 them.or makes the condition of affairs better. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF, 897 
 
 Mr. Baynb. I thint that every place where a miniDg center or manufacturing 
 center is established and where a great population gathers enhances the value of the 
 farm products around that section of the country and enhances the value of butter, 
 eggs, garden truck, wheat, com, potatoes, and everything produced on the farm ; 
 and that is the experience of every community and it is common sense as well. 
 
 Mr. Wii DDERBURN. It seems so ; yet the statistics prove to us that agriculture is 
 steadily going backwards. 
 
 Mr. La Folletti:. Does it prove that agriculture is decreasing in the New England 
 States ? 
 
 Mr. Wedderbuen. I can bring you the figures, I think, to show that the agricult- 
 urists of New England have gotten Into debt and that the value of farm products 
 is steadily decreasing ; and, further, that the agricultural lauds in New England are 
 depreciating in value. 
 
 Mr. Batne. They are not here to complain at all about it ? 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. Do you know that in Maine the yield of corn in 1887 was worth 
 $23 per acre, while inWisconsin it was worth only |I0 ? Do you know that the yield 
 in wheat was worth in Maine fl2.80 per acre, and it was worth but .$(i.59 per acre in 
 Wisconsin, and in Iowa f6.10 per acre? 
 
 Mr. Weddeebdrn. No, sir ; I have not seen those figures. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. Do you know that in all of the New England manufacturing 
 States the yield per acre is more by from 25 to SO per cent, than it is in the States 
 which are purely agricultural States, without reference to their location? 
 
 Mr. Wbddbrburn. Do you mean the proportion per acre ? 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. I mean that with even a less production per acre — for there is a 
 much less production per acre in Maine than there is in the State of Iowa — they re- 
 ceive more for the crops. 
 
 Mr. Wkdderburn. I do not understand really what you say. I understood you to 
 say that the production was greater per acre. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. The production in dollars is what I mean ; the value of the 
 crop. "What canses the difference ? 
 
 Mr. Weddbeburn. Transportation companies step in and take all the profit from 
 the farmer. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. Take it right on that point. The water transportation frojn the 
 State of Wisconsin to Buffalo is quite insignificant when the Lakes are open. You 
 know that? 
 
 Mr. Wedderbuen. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. Do yon know what it is per bushel ? 
 
 Mr. Wedderbuen. No, sir ; I do not. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. It is something like 4 or -5 cents per bushel. Now, we can lay our 
 produce down in Buffalo for 4 or 5 cents per bushel, and in New York City, through 
 the canal, for a trifle more ; and yet in the State of New York corn was worth to the 
 farmer $18.80 per acre, while in Wisconsin it was worth |10 per acre, and in Iowa it 
 was worth $8 per acre, with twice the yield to the acre. Now transportation does 
 not account for that difference in value to the farmer per acre. It must be due 
 somewhat to his having a near market close to the farm and to savings on commission 
 and profits of middlemen. 
 
 Mr. Weddbeburn. I rather differ with yo^ there. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. I want to convince you that the value per acre shows plainly 
 that your statement that the farmer in the West, -where there is no manufacturing, is 
 better off than the farmer in the East, where there is manufacturing, is incorrect. 
 
 Mr. Wedderbuen. I don't think I said any such thing. I don't think I said any- 
 thing about the farmers in the West being better off than those in the East. I do 
 not think the farmer in any section is prosperous. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. You referred to the fact that the farmers in New England were 
 being driven out of their business because the manufacturers were protected. 
 
 Mr. Weddbrburn. I will state that the agricultural values in the great States — 
 New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, all of them manufacturing States — have 
 decreased in their taxable values in 'the last ten years $500,000,000. That is a fact, 
 and I can prove It. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You will give that in your statement ? 
 
 Mr. Bayne. And give the sources of your statistics when you file it ? 
 
 Mr. Weddbeburn. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. It was never discovered until it was set forth in the album of 
 agricultnral statistics that Maine was a greater corn State than Illinois ? 
 
 Mr. Weddbrburn. I don't know anything about that. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. I never heard it until I saw that album. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. The statistics to which I call your attention are taken from the 
 report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Hon. Norman J. Colman, recently the 
 Democratic Commissioner of Agriculture. 
 
 485 57 
 
898 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. GiSAR. And it is an album from whicli the gentlemen in the House quoted in 
 the last session as standard authority. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You say that the tendency has been continually towards the re- 
 duction of the value of farm products ? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. I say that the assessed value of farming lands in these iStates— 
 that is, in New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, which are manufacturing States- 
 have decreased |500,000,00b in the last ten years. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. You have heard the Representatives from these S.tates testifying 
 here before the committee. Were you here when they were examined ? 
 
 Mr. Weddekburn. No, sir ; I was not here. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is corn sold by the acre or by the bushel ? 
 
 Mr. WEDDERBURJf. In my country it is sold by the bushel. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridoe. Do you think that the tariti' makes it yield more per acre io 
 one place than another ? 
 
 Mr. La. FoLLETTE It furnishes a near market. The statistics from whioli I read 
 are on page 432 of the last report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, and they sliow 
 the yield per acre in all the farming products, by States, in dollars and cents. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Under that statement how much wheat does Maine produce? 
 
 Mr. La Follette. The Commissioner of Agriculture has answered your questiou 
 in this statement. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. He did not hear myquestion. Mr. Wedderburn, do you be- 
 lieve all this talk which Mr. Bayne has been getting off here about this reduction of 
 these onerous taxes throwing people out onto the big road ? 
 
 Mr. Wedderburn. I believe that if the taxes were redaced there would be more 
 employment for labor, and the more money we have in circulation the better it 
 would be for all classes. 
 
 I will state to the committee that I am not here to make any argument except to 
 ask for equal protection for the farmer, and to ask you, if you are going to tax him 
 for the benefit of the manufacturer, that you give it back to him in the shape oi' a 
 bounty. 
 
 STATEMENT OF CORNELIUS MORRISON. 
 
 Cornelius Morrison, a resident of New York City, addressed the committee as 
 follows: 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I represent the importers of brewers' rice, particularly in the city 
 of New iork. Last week the rice-packers came here to maintain tliat the duty ou 
 rice should be retained as it now is. The New York merchant wishes to have the 
 duty changed. He claims that there are only 7,000,000 pounds of broken rice pro- 
 duced by North and South Carolina and Louisiana. The breweries of Milwaukee, 
 Wis., and the Anhenser-Busch Company of St. Louis — either one of these breweries - 
 will consume the entire output of the American crop. We import into the United 
 States about 30,000,000 or 3.'),000,000 pounds of broken rice, and the duty is 'ZO per cent, 
 ad valorem. The duty is ascertained by sifting the rice through a sieve of twelve 
 meshes to the square inch, and the rice must be such as to go through these meshes. 
 We do not want the duty changed on whole rice. We want it continued, although 
 it is 2-i cents per pound, or 115 per cgnt. But we have asked for the reduction of 
 the duty on broken rice since 1862 or 1863, when the duty was increased. If tbe 
 United States should allow rice to be imported in vessels in a rough state, cleaned, 
 and then sold for re-exportation to the South American Republics, we think it would 
 be advisable. 
 
 The island of Cuba contains only a million and a half iuhabitants and consimies 
 3,000 boxes of rice, or 240 tons, per day; and the Spanish Main consumes about 500 
 tons per day. If we were allowed clean rice in bond, under the supervision of the 
 Government, and re-export it, it would probably start a new business, which would 
 require a capital of from $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 'in plants worth from $100,000 to $500,- 
 000 apiece for the purpose of cleaniug the rice. Then the small vessels going from 
 the United States into the West Indies and the Spanish Main would, all take 100 or 
 200 boxes of rice, and take American manufactures and products with them, which 
 they now can not take, because they have no ballast. The rice supplied now to tlio 
 West Indies is supplied from Liverpool, Bremen, Rotterdam, and Amsterdam, where 
 they have large mills. We think that if this rice could be brought into Now York 
 it would furnish a new industry, which would give employment to a capital of from 
 $3,000,000 to $5,000,000, and this rice would be used largely as ballast for the small 
 sailing vessels between the ports of the United States and the We.st Indies. We buy 
 from Brazil ,$60,000,000 worth of goods per annum and sell her less than $10,000,000. 
 We buy from Cuba $15,000,000 and sell her less than $5,000,000. We think that if 
 such a provision oonld be put through, allowing them to clear rice in bond, it would 
 be. brought to New York in largo quantities and bo cleaned there, :iudiii that way 
 it would start a new industry, by means of which wo could get some of the Spanish 
 and West India business, of which we now get none. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 899 
 
 MACAEONI. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JOHN F. SCANLAN. 
 
 Mr. John F. Scanlan, of Chicago, 111., appeared before the committee and roii<l 
 the following paper : 
 
 To the Chmmmn and Members of Ways and Means Committee of Fiftij-first Conr/rcss : 
 
 Gentlemen : I beg to respectfully iiresent the prayer nud petiliou of nmuy ciii- 
 zens of the United States, who hy reason of their expert kuowiedgo liiive engaged 
 iu the business of mannfactnring and selling niacaro-.ii, vermicelli, Italian pastes, 
 pastines, German egg noodles, and like products. They have iuvested a large 
 amount of capital in machinery, bnilding8,and matevi.'ils necessary for the manu- 
 facturing and selling the said products, which capital is now very much impaired by 
 reason of the arbitrary and sweeping act of the Forty-eighlh Congress, that removed 
 the entire duty from macaroni March :i, 188;i. 
 
 The result of that act has been that the American manufacturers are gradually 
 goingthrough the process of being exterminated as such manalacturerK by reason of 
 being brought into free competition with the vast capital, poor paid labor and low 
 money interest of the old-established manufactories of Europe, and the American 
 manufacturers must finally lose their business and the capital invested if your honor- 
 able body do not come to their relief by re-enaciing the duty that has been apart of 
 our tariff laws since 18 6, excepting the periods of two years, from 1872 to 1874, and 
 six years from 1883 to the present date. 
 
 We are but asking protection for our industry which almost amounts to i)ositive 
 right by reason of the long-established, old, and judicious import duties placed on our 
 class of goods in the infancy of our nation, and continued- through even the so-called 
 free-trade periods of ]833 to 1841 and 1846 to 1860. 
 
 To illustrate how careful were the early legislators of our country in protecting 
 this industry, and how wisely they reached out with a view of domesticating and 
 fostering the manufacture of this dainty and toothsome food — now found upon the 
 tables of every civilized peoples, and more generally used by the people of this 
 country than any other nation — I beg to call your attention to all the tariff acts 
 passed by Congress from 1816 to 1846, which imposed a duty of 30 per cent, on im- 
 ported macaroni. The act of 1857 reduced it only to 24 ])er cent., the act of 1861 in- 
 creased it to 30 per cent., while the acts of 18C2 to 18"2 increased the duty to 35 per 
 cent., in the latter year, in the act of Juno 6, macaroni was placed on the free list; the 
 result as we think of a mistake, oversight, or the want of not fully understanding the 
 importance of retaining the duty on that class of goods, for the succeeding Congress, 
 on June 22, .1874, re-imposed a duty of 2 cents per pound on all imported macaroni, 
 vermicelli, and like products. 
 
 It was under the wise and encouraging duties placed upon imported macaroni 
 from 1861 to 1883 that the principal part of the present invested capital embarked iu 
 the manufacture of the American goods, and a fair share of compensation fell to the 
 men who risked their money, time, and experience. 
 
 Under the above duties and until the act of 1883 went into force the home manu- 
 facturers were fast introducing American goods into general use, overcoming that 
 prejudice that should be unknown under the Stars and Stripes — that foreignfobia of 
 believing that an imported article must be better than the domestic, when, as in the 
 case of our goods, the very reverse is the fact. The act of 1883 threw the American 
 manufacturers back to again become a struggling industry, holding on to a part of 
 their business by sacrificing some of the profits made during the period of tariff 
 duties. 
 
 To illustrate how injurious to American manufacturers has been theresult of placing 
 macaroni on the free list, I will compare the imports of that goods under the tariff 
 period with the free-list period. 
 
 In 1878 we imported into this country macaroni and vermicelli, l,9Gfi,504-J- pounds, 
 valued at $154,541.05; in 1879 we imported 1,603,743 pounds, valued at $126,840.79 ; 
 in 1880 we imported 2,269,828 pounds, valued at $185,217.21; in 1881 we imported 
 2,270,776 pounds, valued at $178,506.59 ; in 1882 we imported 2,877,961 pounds, valued 
 at $227,331.55 ; in 1883 we imported 2,783,761-^i,!\r pounds, valued at $214,104.85. 
 
 At once, when macaroni was placed on the free list, the amount of imported goods 
 increased, with a corresponding decrease in the output of the domestic article. 
 
 In 1884 it increased to 6,393,459 pounds, valued at $408,417.85 ; in l(-85 we im- 
 ported 6,500,609 pounds, valued at$4O4,893.10 ; in 1886 we imported 6,929,719 pounds, 
 valued at $399,529.29 ; in 1887 we imported 8,866,977 pounds, valued at $500,970.20 ; 
 in 1888 we imported 10,238,489.50 pounds, valued at $.578,096.50, and in 1889 we im- 
 portedd0,414,002 pounds, valued at $576,577.50 ; being an increase in six years of over 
 
900 REVISION or THE TARIFF. 
 
 four times the amount in pounds imported under tariff duties, with theAmericau out- 
 put reduced to one-half its capacity in 1889, and 10 to 15 per cent, of American manu- 
 facturers driven out of business in the latter year, while the cost of the article to (he 
 consumer still remains at the same price as it was when this Government received 2 
 cents per pound on all imported macaroni. 
 
 The men who have now gained large experience in this busiuess, and who have 
 large sums of money invested in machinery that can not be utilized in any other 
 business, do not ask that a duty be imposed on foreign goods for the purpose of in- 
 creasing the price of the home product wholesale or retail; tbey simply ask that 
 American citizens, who pay taxes to support this Government, who are sworu (o de- 
 fend the Stars and Stripes if needs be with their lives, shall have a higher privilege in 
 this market than that of foreign traders, owing allegiance to foreign governments. 
 
 American manufacturers have the experience and capital, with as perJ'ect machinery 
 as there is in the world ; they ask to be allowed to supply the American market with 
 American macaroni, made from American farina, by American citizens, and to be in 
 part protected against the product of foreign labor, that is receiving one-fifth to one- 
 seventh of the daily wages that is to be paid to American employes. 
 
 Give us, if you can — and I pray God forbid that yon could — laborers who are paid 
 only from 10 to 60 cents per day, as the Italian laborer is paid, with whom we are 
 forced into free competition, and American manufacturers can compete with the world 
 without any duty ; but so long as American labor must have bright homes, plenty of 
 good food, carpeted parlors, and all that go to make up a higher civilization than 
 prevails in other countries — which can only come through well-paid labor — so long 
 should American law-makers throw the influence of American laws around the labor 
 and capital of this nation. 
 
 To impress you with the justice of our request and the necessity of re-enacting im- 
 port duties on foreign macaronis, if you would preserve the home manufacturers 
 from total extinction, permit me to give you a few facts — the number and location of 
 macaroni manufactories in the United States, cost of material, labor, packing, pre- 
 paring for and selling it to the consumers, compared with the expense of foreign 
 competitors. 
 
 There are some fifty-eight factories in this country, large and small, located atNew 
 York, Brooklyn, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Boston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Chicago, 
 Milwaukee, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Brardwood, New Orleans, Denver, San Jos6, San 
 Francisco, Los Angeles, and Oakland, Cal. 
 
 From the beet estimate at my command I learn that the average caj)acity of these 
 factories is about 20 barrels of flour per day. In consequence of the large importa- 
 tion of foreign goods the output of these factories is now reduced to an average of 
 10 barrels per day. 
 
 To convert 10 barrels of flour into macaroni and prepare it for the market it re- 
 quires the labor of fifteen men and women, hence this increased importation, by rea- 
 son of the decreased output, throws out of employment about one thousand men and 
 women in this country, not to speak of the increased employment this business would 
 give if we had control of the business of the entire home market. 
 
 Again, fifty-eight factories under the reduced output consume only 176,400 barrels 
 of flour per year. If running at the full capacity of 20 barrels a day each it would 
 amount to 348,000 barrels, double the amount now consumed. 
 
 Here, then, are two great losses resulting from the placing of macaroni on the free 
 list ; the American farmer sells 176,400 barrels of flour less, while the American work- 
 ingman loses over $300,000 (in round numbers) per year in wages, and the nation has 
 to yearly find a large sum to pay that portion of the foreign balance without any re- 
 turn to the American consumer, as the wholesale and retail price of macaronis duriiif; 
 the last ten years clearly show by not varying in price during that time from 9| to 10 
 cents wholesale and 15 cents retail. 
 
 The cost'of flour used in these goods in Europe and this country is about the same, 
 for the reason that the flour used in the commercial article imported into this counlry 
 is made from cheap India and Russian wheat and dark in color, while the flour usell 
 in American goods is made from the best spring wheat. It will lie gratifying to you 
 to know that American spring wheat makes the best flour in the world formacaroni, 
 and the product of our young sister State Dakota is the bo.st in America for this use. 
 
 Cost of mantifacturitig macaroni and preparing it for market. 
 
 The macaroni product of 10 barrels of flour, deducting wasie and shrinkage, 
 
 will amount to 1,704 pounds, at present prices of flour, amounts to $44. 10 
 
 Cost of labor in the factory to make the same 11.68 
 
 Salesmen, rent, coal, cartage.insuranco, book-keeper, wear and tear, machinery, 
 
 water, gas, incidentals, etc , 28.38 
 
 1,764 pounds will pack 70^ 25-pound boxes— cost of wooden boxes, labels, 
 paper, printing, etc., 30 cents per box 21. 15 
 
 Total cost _ 105.31 
 
SEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 901 
 
 The market price of macaroni in 1-poiind packages i8 6^^ cents— $1. 60 for 25- 
 poiind box. 
 
 Seventy and one-half boxes (product of 10 barrels of flour ) amounts to 112. HO 
 
 Cost of material, labor, incidental expenses for same 105. 31 
 
 Net profits 6.49 
 
 To sell American goods we have often to sell at 6^- ceuts per pound. 
 
 This is the result of one day's work reduced output of a |50,000 plant and the ex- 
 penditure of $105.31 in converting 10 barrels of flour into macaroni, taking the 
 chances of finding a market and getting returns from same. These fignres are taken 
 from the experience of Canepa Bros., Chicago, who have the al)Ove sum invested. Of 
 course they could not keep above water but for the fact that they are practical men, 
 working very hard, and really performing the labor of fourhired men. Their experi- 
 ence will prove to be the experience of all manufacturers in the United States. While 
 by reason of our class of goods being imported free, foreign macaroni of an inferior 
 quality is sold all over the country. This firm as well as all others engaged in the 
 manufacture of macaroni in this country could make a handsome return for the money 
 Invested without increasing the cost to the consumer, if they were permitted to sup- 
 ply the home market to the extent of their capacity, by reason of the decreased cost of 
 the increased output. 
 
 X would call your particular attention to the fact, that about the same date, 18S3, 
 that our Government placed macaroni on the free list, the Italian Government com- 
 menced paying bounties on all of that class of goods manufactured in Italy and ex- 
 ported to a foreign market. 
 
 It may have been a mere accident that both these laws went into force at the same 
 time ; however that may have been, the free importation of macaroni into our coun- 
 try and the jjaying of export bounties by the Italian Government on that same class 
 of goods has dealt a staggering blow to American manufacturers during the past 
 seven years, which, if permitted to continue wiihout our Government intervening by 
 protecting home manufacturers, it will be but a matter of a short time when the 
 manufacturing of American macaroni will be a thing of the past, then, as our past 
 experience proves, the foreign manufacturers will have entire control of our market 
 and will charge our people just what prices they choose. 
 
 Free importation encourages the sale of foreign goods because — 
 
 (1) The vicious impression of the people who think foreign goods .are best is en- 
 couraged. 
 
 (2) Italian bounties of 2.50 francs per hundred kilos — about one-half a cent per 
 pound — allow the importers to give inducements to the wholesaler, who uses the sit- 
 uation to beat down home goods below liviug figures. 
 
 (3) Italian dealers to get rid of surplus stock, when the opportunity occurs, consign 
 500 to 1,000 boxes to some man they have known in their native laud and let him 
 peddle it to the retailer at the best x^rice he can, thus depriving the wholesaler and 
 middle-men from participating in legitimate profits, all of which is encouraged by 
 placing this article on the free list— seven-eighths o^the value of which is labor. 
 
 Give the American manufacturers who have their capital invested in machinery 
 and factories an opportunity of supplying the homo njarket by restricting the impor- 
 tation of foreign macaronies and they will supply the consumer with a better article 
 than the foreigners can at the same price. [Here samples of foreign and American 
 macaroni were exhibited to the committee.] The labor that cost American macaroni 
 manufacturers $27.6ti to convert 10 barrels of flour into 70^ 25-pound boxes of maca- 
 roni, cost in Italy $6.15 (a liberal allowance), add to which the dry and genial climate 
 of that country permits the goods to be sun-dried, while in this country large, airy, 
 steam drying-rooms are necessary to bring the paste to perfection. 
 
 In conclusion, gentlemen, we ask you to impose a duty of 2 cents per pound on all 
 macaroni, vermicelli, Italian paste, pastnes, German egg noodles, and like products 
 imported in bulk, and 3 cents per pound on all like goods imported in 1-pound and 
 2 pound packages. 
 
 This will increase the consumption of the home product without increasing the 
 cost to the consumer. It will increase the consumption of American flour to the 
 benefit of the farmer and miller. It will increase the consumption of American paper 
 used in packing. It will increase the amount of the product of the American en- 
 graving and printing presses by the consumption of the large amount of labels. It 
 will increase the number of wooden boxes, requiring more labor and more nails, and 
 finally it will increase the happiness of a great number of American homes by reason 
 of the happy Saturday nights that will result from steady and well-paid labor em- 
 ployed in producing American goods for the home market. 
 
 Finally, the large sums of money now required to pay for the imported macaroni 
 will remain at home to swell the supply of the circulating medium required to keep 
 in motion the internal industries of this nation, without which medium no nation 
 can keep up in the march of modern civilization, commerce, and comfort. 
 
 Signed in behalf of American manufacturers. Jno. F, Scanixn, 
 
902 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Following is a list of the principal manufacturers of macaroni in the United States : 
 
 New York — New Fork City. — W. Hill, Aug. Chligioner & Co., P. Daussa, A. Husica, 
 V. Motto, E. Belling, E. J. Lombard!, Achilla Starage, C. B. Ressotto, A. Eegens- 
 berger. Broohhjn. — Dalet & Knowlton,A. Zerega, V. Savareza Bros., A. Castrucci 
 & Son. 
 
 New Jersey — Jersey City. — Neebahr V. Spagiolo. 
 
 Massachusetts — Boston.— JA. Battaglio. 
 
 Pennsylvania — Philadelphia. — Frank Cuneo, Guano & Raggio. Pittsburgh. — Geo. 
 Plaft'man. 
 
 Ohio — Cincinnati. — K. Zohbauer, E. Niederraan, A. Schneider, Jr. Werdeman & Co., 
 L. Hendrick, P. F. Jonte, E. H. Streilmior, John Spala. Cleveland. — Geo. Plaffman. 
 
 Illinois — Chicago. — Canepa Bros., Luige Mardi, Thos. Meyer, Mecello & Co., 
 Rocco Lovece. Braidwood. — P. Rossi. 
 
 Missouri — St. Louis. — Ghiglione & Rossi, John Spala. 
 
 Wisconsin — Milwaukee. — N. Moustad, R. Lorenz & Son. 
 
 Louisiana — New Orleans.— J. Sambola, J. Langles & Co., James J. Reys. 
 
 Colorado — Denver. — F. Magga. 
 
 California— 5a« Francisco. — A. Techranz Picciuelli and Pasiglia, J. P. Tenthory 
 & Co., Rareime & Co., G. Quiroli, Poineer Macaroni Company, C. R. Musto, C. E. 
 Spiolo, L. Valente. Los Angeles. — F. Bargaletta. Oakland. — Giacomette & Co. San 
 Jose. — S. Barocchi & Co. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you remember what the Senate bill did with macaroni? 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. I have not had time to look it up. 
 
 The Chairman. It put on a duty of 2 cents a pound I believe. Do yon suggest 
 any duty ? 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. I suggest 2 cents a pound upon all goods imported in bulk; and 3 
 cents a pound on imported 1 and 2 pound packages. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is the price in this market of macaroni at the present time ? 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. The jobbing price is 6| cents a pound. The per cent, of duties levied 
 since 181b has been 24| to 35 per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. When was the duty removed from 'macaroni ? 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. March 3, 1883. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. You say there has not been a reduction of the price to the con- 
 sumer ? 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. No sir. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. How is it, if there is no reduction of the price, that the American 
 producer has been driven out of the market ? 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. To the consumer there has not been a reduction. I have stated the 
 wholesaler used the foreign imported macaroni to beat down the jobbing prices of 
 American goods. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. And you say there has been no reduction in the price T 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. No sir ; macaroni is sold at 15 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. And it costs 6 to produce it ? 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. Six and one-half cents is the jobbing price. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. You demand a duty of 2 to 3 cents a ponnd 1 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. Yes sir. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. That would be 33J to 50 per cent, duty ? 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. Two cents will be about 24| ijer cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It would be 30 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Scanlan (correcting). It will be 30 per cent. 
 
 The Chairman. You say that since the removal of the duty in 1883 there has been 
 no reduction in the price to the consumer? 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Whatever reduction was made by reason of the duty has gone to 
 the dealer and wholesaler? 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. It has gone to the wholesaler and retailer. 
 
 The Chairman. And has increased his profit to that extent. 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. In some instances it has gone in this way to get rid of surplus 
 stock. A number of the Italian dealers ship to people not in business here, private 
 in<lividuals, 500 or 1,000 boxes, and they peddle it out. 
 
 Mr. Flower. If the price had not gone down, you would not make as much money 
 as you do? 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. The price has gone down to the manufacturers. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Why don't you run both ends of that business, the wholesale as well 
 as the other? 
 
 Mr. SoANLAN. That would require more capital than we have, and bring down on 
 our heiuls the opposition of the wholesale trade. 
 
 Mr. Flower. If there is so nuich jn-olit in the wholesale, why don't you enter the 
 busiucBS of wholesaling your own goods? 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 903 
 
 Mr. SOANXAN. Onr experience is confined to manufacturing, and the circumstances 
 of trade forbid it. 
 
 The Chairman. You can not manufacture as cheaply as they can on the other 
 side? 
 
 Mr. SCANLAN. No, sir ; and you must remember wages are one-fifth to one-seventh 
 lower on the other side. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is to prevent you having an agency in New York or Chicago, 
 where you could sell your goods at wholesale? 
 
 Mr. SCANLAN. It would require a large amount of capital. Our capital is wholly 
 employed in manufacturing, and if we go into the business of selling to retailers the 
 wholesalers, who are our medium of reaching a market, would refuse to buy and use 
 their influence to injure our goods, destroy our trade, and drive us out of the market. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is there to prevent you having an agency in New York ? It 
 would not require $1,000 capital. 
 
 Mr. SCANLAN. If we sold to the retailer, then the wholesaler would not buy of us 
 at all, and the law of limitation would prevent us from being at all places at ouce. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it your idea to employ labor in this country, where you sell your 
 product, instead of Italian labor? 
 
 Mr. ScANLAN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Have you ever made any other goods where you got 250 per cent, 
 profit ? 
 
 Mr. SCANLAN. We do not make 250 per cent, profit on these goods; the differences 
 between the manufacturers' prices and the consumers' is about 150 per cent.? 
 
 Mr. Flower. What other business pays 50 per cent? 
 
 Mr. ScAXLAN. There are kinds of business; take, for instance, the confectionary 
 business. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Manufacturers in New York and all these large cities have agents 
 and consign goods to them, and they sell them. If I were an American manufacturer 
 I would make that profit, and you can do it without much trouble. 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. I never saw a time when the manufacturer could go into the market 
 and break the profits of the wholesaler without breaking himself, and all these 
 agents which you refer to sell to the wholesaler. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What per cent, of the macaroni consumed in this country is made 
 here? 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. About 10,500,000 pounds were imported last year. Probably an 
 equal amount or more is manufactured in this country. We have no official data. 
 Importations have increased over four and a half times since the tarifl' was removed 
 from macaroni. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You are making in the neighborhood of one-half the amount sold 
 here? 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. Yes, sir ; about that. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You say it costs 6 J cents ? 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. No, sir ; that is manufacturers' price in the market. In Chicago it 
 recently sold for 6J cents, while the foreign goods sold for 6J cents. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What did you say it costs to produce ic ? 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. It costs $105.21 to produce 70 boxes of 25 ponnds each. That leaves 
 a profit of $6.49. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Vhat do you assume that you sell it at ? 
 
 Mr. Scanlan. I assume that we sell it at 6^ cents. That makes about one-half of 
 a cent a pound profit. 
 
 POTATO STARCH. 
 
 STATEMENT OP ALDEN SPEARE. 
 
 Mr. AiDEN Spearb, president of the Boston chamber of commerce, then read to 
 the committee the following paper : 
 
 Boston Chamber op Commerce. 
 
 Boston, January 7, 1890. 
 To the Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 The undersigned respectfully represent that they are manufacturers of potato 
 starch ; that a large proportion of the factories in the United States for sucli manu- 
 facture are located in Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Vermont, and northern 
 New York ; that the present duty on potato starch is 'i cents per pound ; that the 
 substance known as dextrine in commerce is a simple transformation of starch by 
 means of roasting, and that practically 300 pounds of starch when roasted will produce 
 200 jiounds of dextrine ; that this process- of roasting is done entirely in foreign 
 countries, where the economic conditions for ral.sing potatoes and the manufacture of 
 
904 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 starch are greatly superior to those which pertain to this country, and those condi- 
 tions, coupled with the lact th it dextrine pays a duty of only 1 cent x)or pound, Lave 
 caused an almost entire suspension of the manufacture of dextrine in this country ; 
 that starch and dextrine are practically tbe same in chemical composition and are 
 used in commerce for the same purposes; that by reason of the inequality in duty on 
 starch and dextrine your petitioners are at a great disadvantage in our home market. 
 Wherefore they respectfully suggest that the duty on dextrine be placed at 3 cents 
 per pound. 
 
 EusTis & Aldkich. 
 
 Mr. Speare (continuing). That is the statement of Messrs. Eustis & Aldrich, the 
 largest manufacturers of potato starch in the country. The following resolutions 
 were adopted by the chamber of commerce : 
 
 "Whereas the aforesaid statement shows a manifest injustice both to the manufact- 
 nrers of potato starch and those who did and still desire to continue the manufact- 
 uring of dextrine, an industry which has been practically annihilated by the present 
 tariff ; therefore, 
 
 " Ite-iohed, That we heartily indorse the suggestions that the duty oil dextrine be 
 made at least 3 cents per pound, and the request of Messrs. Eustis & Aldrich and 
 this resolution he presented to the Commitlee on Ways and Means by our president. 
 
 "Attest: 
 
 "Alden Speare, 
 
 "President." 
 
 Let me give you a little explanation of this matter of potato starch. It takes 250 
 bnshels oi^ potatoes to make a ton of starch, which, as you see, is hardly 2^ cents a 
 pound for the ]iotatoes themselves. Up to the tariff law which went into effect in 
 1883 dextrine was placed at a proportionate duty, and wo had a largo industry; 
 from 5,000 to 8,000 tons of dextrine were annually manufactured in the United States. 
 Every one of tbose dextrine factories has gone out of existence, and not a pound of 
 dextrine is made in this country, disjilacing the 5,000 tons of raw starch, and giving 
 to Germany the raising of tlio potatoes and to England the making of the g-um, so 
 that the present tariff has annihilated the manufacture of dextrine in this country. 
 I will read the provisions of the law as to dextrine. 
 
 Page 88, No. 27, "Dextrine, burnt starch, gum substitute, or British gum, 1 cent 
 per pound." 
 
 Page 130, No. 293, "Starch, iucludiug all preparations, from whatever substances 
 produced, fit for use as starch, 2 cents per pound." 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is dextrine ? 
 
 Mr. Speake. Dextrine is worth 3 or 4 cents a pound — 200 pounds of dextrine being 
 equal to 300 pounds of starch. 
 
 Mr. BuKROWS. Is the present duty on starch sufficiently high to be protective? 
 
 Mr. Speake. Sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. In 1887 we imported 4,000 
 tons. We import more or less every year from New Brnuswick. Potato starch can 
 he laid down at 2| cents a pound, without duty. 
 
 Mr. BUP.ROWS. What is the price to the trade of foreign starch? 
 
 Mr. Speare. There has been none imported this year. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Do you know the price in London? 
 
 Mr. Speare. I do not ; but, as I say, it can belaid down here at 2-J cents a pound, 
 without duty. 
 
 Mr. Borrov*^.s. How many bushels of potatoes were consumed last year in the manu- 
 facture of starch in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Speare. About 8,000 tons. 
 
 Mr. Borrows. Do you know what proportion that is of the entire potato crop of 
 the country? 
 
 Mr. Speare. I do not. Potatoes can only be laanufactui'ed into starch when they 
 can 1)6 sold at from 15 to 25 cents a bushel and when they are in proximity to railroads 
 or cheap transportation. 
 
 Mr. liURROWs. Is there any pan icular grade of potatoes required for the manu- 
 facture of starch? 
 
 Mr. Speare. No, sir. Of course, some produce more starch than others, but they 
 are taken as they run. 
 
 Jlr. BfiECKiNRiDGE. What is the proportion of corn starch as compared with potato 
 starch 1 
 
 Mr. Speare. Immensely more ; I should say five times as much, at least. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. You propose to raise the duty to what point? 
 
 Mr. Speare. On dextrine to 3 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. It is now 2 cents? 
 
 Mr. Speare. It is now 1 cent a pound. 
 
EKVISION OP THE TARIFF. 905 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. Then you propose to have the duty on dextrine advanced per 200 
 cent ? 
 
 Mr. Spearb. Yes ; simply for the-reason I have told you — that under the present 
 taritf this industry has been annihilated, and the raising of potatoes for it has been 
 given to Germany and the manufacture of it to England — both being taken from 
 this country. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. My constituents habitually produce two crops. of potatoes from 
 the same ground ; where that is the case can not potato starch he manufactured? 
 
 Mr. Speakb. No, sir. You can not make potato starch except in cold climates; it 
 sours immediately. 
 
 VIEWS OP ISAAC ALLEN. 
 
 HOLLBY, Orleans Countv, N. Y., January 14, 1890. 
 
 Sir: I saw in the Eochester Union, Jannary 11, under head of "tariff bearing," a 
 statement from a northwestern New York man concerning beans; tariff was too low for 
 champion pease and beans. Now, sir, I have lived in the heart of this region all my 
 life a farmer, and from before and since the war, a period of thirty-five years, I have 
 raised beans, and as farm crop. During this time, and with the same amount of land, 
 no crop has yielded the revenue as obtained from beans. The price has varied from 
 75 cents to |5 per bushel, the latter in time of war. A few uneasy, crazy ones, who 
 by neglect have failed to obtain the highest price this year, $2 here, are anxious to 
 do something, lean not conceive what, but want 50 cunts tariff for protection on the 
 bushel. Thisyearisan exceptional failure in the apple crop, and you are aware, no 
 doubt, this is a wonderfully favored spot for the apple, and farmers, many of them, 
 this year are pinched for money in consequence, and some of them, who had they 
 been minus this God send of beans, would have been financially sorelj crippled. Ger- 
 man beans or any foreign beans can not compete with us, for they are of an inferior 
 quality, and any man that Jsnows beans, and how to grow them and sell them, knows, 
 unless from selfish motives purely, that it is morally wrong to raise the tariff' on beans. 
 The member from this county will no doubt be made aware of the effort here by some 
 to petition Congress to raise this tariff. I would like to see the argument in its favor. 
 If this brief statement of facts, as they are believed to be beyond contradiction, are 
 worthy of consideration, I shall feel rewarded ; i f otherwise, to the waste basket. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 Isaac Allen. 
 
 Hon. E. P. Flower. 
 
 MEMORIAL FROM NEW YORK FARMERS. 
 
 Falconer, Chautauqua County, N. Y"., Fcbruari/ 1, 1890. 
 Dear Sir: Inclosed please find resolutions adopted by five or six granges ; also 
 reasons why the farmers should have help. This is the sentiment of the people of 
 this county. 
 Yours, 
 
 William Hartson. 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 Resolved, That it is the sense of the members of Kennedy Grange, 496, of Chans 
 tauqua County, N. Y., in convention assembled, that it is the duty of the Congress 
 of the United States to enact such tariff' laws as will protect the agricultural classes 
 from competition with foreign product produced by cheap foreign labor. We appre- 
 ciate the fact that the protection enjoyed by our mannfiicturing industries inures 
 greatly to the benefit of the farming interests by aff'ordiug a home market for our 
 products. We desire, however, to urge upon Congress the necessiiy of greater pro- 
 tection for the products of our farms that wo can pi'oduce successfully here, that come 
 in direct competition with the products from abroad ; to 1 hat end we ask that not only 
 shall duties be levied upon competing farm products now admitted free of duty, but 
 also that the duties be raised upon those iJioducts of the farm that are now being 
 brought into this country to the extent of many millions of dollars annually ; we also 
 ask that the duties be raised on manufactured articles that are manufactured from 
 products of the farm. We believe in American markets for American production, and 
 ask that the farming interests shall be placed upon the same plane by a tariff' tax as 
 the other industries of our country. 
 
 On motion the foregoing resolution was adopted. 
 
 H. B. Crosby, Master: 
 V. Page, Secretary. 
 
 January 22, 1890. 
 
906 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Hon. AViLLIAM McKlNLBT, 
 
 Ways and Means Committee: 
 We, the farmers of the county of Chautauqua, State of New York, petition your 
 honorable sirs to consider at once the insufficiency of present tariff duties upon the 
 commodities hereinafter mentioned, and to use all reasonable efforts at the present 
 session of Congress to secure the reliet hereinafter asked for : Barley, 20 cents per 
 bushel ; buckwheat, 20 cents per bushel ; beans, 50 per cent. ; beef, 5 cents per pound ; 
 eggs, 5 cents per dozen ; fresh fish, 2 cents per pound; hay, $5 per ton ; lard, 3 cents 
 per pound ; barley-malt, 40 cents per bushel of 34 pounds ; peas, 50 per cent. ; pota- 
 toes, 30 cents per bushel ; poultry, dressed, 20 per cent. ; railroad ties, 10 cents each ; 
 straw, $2 per ton ; telegraph poles, 20 cents each ; oleomargarine, 20 cents per pound ; 
 also 3 cents per pound on hides. 
 
 Union Grange, No. 244, Jamestown, N. Y., 
 Lb Rot Whipfoed, Mastei: 
 A. A. Van Vleck, Seereiary. 
 
 EKASONS FOE INCREASED DUTY. 
 
 First. For the reason that the tariff tax does, where there is an importation of the 
 article, help the producer or manufacturer of that article the amount of the tax. 
 
 Second. For it is a sad fact that the farmers in this country along the line of Can- 
 ada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have a hard time to make the year's ends 
 meet. 
 
 Third. Because it should not be expected by our Government that the farmers of 
 this country can produce their crops and sell them in competition with the low-priced 
 labor (if the '\\orld. 
 
 Fourth. For in Jiiriug their help they have the competition of good protected in- 
 dustries of this country to compete with. 
 
 Fifth. For in purchasing their necessary manufactured articles for use where there 
 is an importation of the same class of articles they have the tariff tax to pay as the 
 importation fixes the price. 
 
 Sixth. We ask that the manufactured arl:icles that are manufactured from the prod- 
 ucts of the farm, if there is an importation of them now, the tariff tax on them should 
 be rai,sed. 
 
 Seventh. If all of the necessary articles for use are produced or manufactured here 
 it will keep the money that is paid for them here and the mechanic and laborer will 
 get their share of it. 
 
 Eighth. There is no class of per.sons in the world that labor harder and economize 
 than the farmers of this country, and if our Government will grant the request, make 
 a strong tariff tax, our country will be prosperous. 
 
 Wm. Haetson. 
 
 beockpoet geange. 
 
 Beockpoet, N. Y. 
 Dbae Sie : I have the honor, as secretary of Brockport Grange, No. 93, to mail you 
 the following resolutions: 
 
 F. M. Gebbnb, Secretary. 
 Hon. Chaeles S. Bakib, M. C. 
 
 At a meeting of Brockport Grange, No. 93, Brockport, N. Y., the following pre- 
 amble and resolutions were unanimously adopted, and ordered that a copy be sent 
 yourself and Senator Hiscock, with the request you jiresent the same before the com- 
 mittee upon revision of the tariff. This grange is one of the largest in the State, hav- 
 ing over 330 members, containing many of the most progressive farmers of this part 
 of Monroe County, and largely represents the opinions of the western New York agri- 
 culturists upon this question. 
 
 F. M. Gkebne, Secretary. 
 
 Whereas the most important farming industries in western New York, viz, bean, 
 barley, and potato raising, are at the present time severely depressed ; and 
 
 Whereas such depression is caused by Europe and Canada flooding our markets 
 with their cheap beans, barley, and potatoes : 
 
 Resolved, That we, the meiiibci's of Brockport Grange, No. 9r!, do most earnestly re- 
 quest <<ur Eopreseutative in Congress, Hon. Charles S. Baker, and our Senator, lion. 
 Frank Hiscock, to nse all honorable means in their power to have incorporated in the 
 
REVISlOlsr OF THE TARIFF. 907 
 
 new tariflf bill now being perfected a duty upon beans of not less than 50 cents per 
 bushel; upon barley a duty of not less than 25 cents per bushel; and upon potatoes 
 a duty of not less than 25 cents per bushel; which duties will aii'ord us only reason- 
 able protection against the cheap labor of Europe and Canada. 
 Respectfully presented to your honorable committee by Brockport Grange, No. 93 
 
 F. M. Grebne, Sicretary. 
 
 ACTION or PENNSYLVANIA FARMERS. 
 
 Lancaster, Pa.^ February 5, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : By request I send to you the resolutions presented by Hon. John H. 
 Landis and passed by the Agricultural and Horticultural Society of Lancaster , 
 County at its regular monthly meeting on Monday, February 3d, 1890. Lancaster 
 County 18 perhaps one of the largest agricultural counties of the United States, and 
 therefore more deeply interested in this great question of the day than any other 
 county. 
 
 You will please give the subject embodied in these resolutions your due considera- 
 tion. 
 
 I am, respectfully, yours, 
 
 Johnson Miller, 
 
 Secretary. 
 Hon. William McKinley, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 Resolved,^ That we most earnestly protest against any further reduction of tarifif du- 
 ties imposed upon such agricultural products that can be successfully grown in this 
 country. 
 
 Besolved, That we demand as full and as complete protection of all farm products 
 as is given the most favored manufacturing industries. 
 
 Besolved, That we ask an increase of duty upon all leaf tobacco suitable for wrap- 
 pers. If stemmed, a duty of |3 a pound ; if not stemmed, a duty of $2. 
 
 Besolved, That we demand au increase of tariff duties upon wheat, corn, rye, bar- 
 ley, oats, wool, flax, hemp, potatoes, onions, beans, peas, cabbage, hops, hay, eggs, 
 butter, poultry, meats, and live stock. 
 
 Resolved, That we advise the enactment of a law forbidding the fraudulent impor- 
 tation of cattle and ether live stock on the pretense that they are brought into this 
 country for breeding purposes. 
 
 Besolved, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to our Representative in 
 Congress, the Hon. Marriott Brosius, and that a copy of the same be sent to the Hou. 
 William McKinley, chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the National 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 Hon. J. J. Belden, of New York, submitted for the consideration of the Committee 
 on Ways and Means the following letter from a constituent : 
 
 AMERICAN TEASELS. 
 
 Maecellus, N. Y., February 7, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : Replying to your favor of 29th ultimo, teasels are an agricultural prod- 
 uct used in mills for raising a nap on certain kinds of woolens. They are set in a 
 cylinder which revolv.es rapidly, the cloth moving against it which raises the nap 
 and is called " gigging." Afterwards it is sheared. Kerseys, meltons, broadcloths, 
 certain kinds of cassimers, and the back of fine worsteads are gigged. They are sold 
 by the pound, and the aggregate value annually is about $125,000. They are used in 
 small quantities by considerable numbers of manufacturers, but not in large quanti- 
 ties, excepting a few instances. There is not a manufacturer in this country that a 
 tariff on teasels would work any hardship. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 W. H. GCLLTJP. 
 
 Hon. J. J. Belden. 
 
908 KEVlSIOiT OF THE TARIFF 
 
 POTATOES, 
 
 EEASONS WHT THE IMPORT DUTY ON POTATOES SHOULD BE INCEEASED TO 25 
 
 CENTS PEE BUSHEL. 
 
 Potatoes, like similar vegetables, must lind a market in close vicinity to the grower. 
 The cities ou the Atlantic seaboard therefore, draw their supply of potatoes from the 
 seaboard States. In years when the conditions are favorable and the crop is good 
 the farmer gets from 40 to r>0 cents per bushel at his railroad station, and, with a fair 
 crop this pays him; but in years where there is a partial failure of the crop and 
 prices would naturally be higher, he is met by the foreign potatoe, which under a 15 
 cents duty will always seek the market when potatoes are worth 60 to G5 cents per 
 busliel in New York, and the freight on a bushel of potatoes being less from Liver- 
 pool than from 150 miles distant from New York the American farmer gets no advan- 
 tage that would naturallj' accrue to him on account of a partial failure of the crop, 
 and in such years he must lose money on his potatoe crop, and be discouraged from 
 continuing the cultivation of the potatoe. The increase of duty to 25 cents per 
 bushel would therefore reduce the competition of the foreign potatoe to the extent 
 of 10 cents per bushel, and would not be imported unless the price of potatoes in 
 Now York reached 70 to 80 cents per bnshel. This statement is from a farmer grow- 
 ing' potatoes on the eastern shore of Maryland and Chester County, Pa. 
 
 John W. Woodside. 
 
 PEAS, BEANS, AND BARLEY. 
 
 Dexter, N. Y., December 17, 1889. 
 
 Dear Sir : At a meeting of the farmers held in this town ou Wednesday last there 
 was a committee appointed to confer with you in relation to the revision of the tariff 
 on peas, beans, and barley. I being appointed one of that committee I thought I 
 would write you on the subject. I believe I do not exaggerate when I say that every 
 farmer in this and adjoining counties are in favor of a higher rate of tariff on the above- 
 named articles. There is only 10 per cent, ad valorem duty on peas and beans. I 
 will give you the difference in price paid in this county and in Canada for one kind 
 of peas. 
 
 The different seed-houses in this county paid on an average SI. 20 per bushel for 
 Champion peas. Some of the seed-houses had the same variety grown in Canada 
 for 80 cents per bnshel. 
 
 The freight per bushel from Canada was less than the fanners paid to freight them 
 from the different stations to the seed-houses. 
 
 No. 1 barley has sold in Canada from 35 to 37 cents per bushel. The duty I believe 
 is only 8 cents per bushel. 
 
 Barley is now selling in Watertown for 45 cents on account of the importation from 
 Canada. 
 
 The Waite Bros, have stocked the Mundy malfc-house, also two i'l Adams, mostly 
 with Canada barley, because ii; can be bought cheaper in Canada than here. 
 
 At a former meeting there was a committee appointed to visit the different seed- 
 houses in this county to ascertain their views in regard to raising the tariff on peas 
 and beans. 
 
 That committee visited every seed-house in this county, and with one exception 
 every one was in favor of having the tariff raised. 
 
 None, I believe, wished it less than 25 per cent. 
 
 W. H. Grenell, a large dealer at Pierrepont Manor, thought the farmers could not 
 be protected unless the duty was .50 per cent. 
 
 Fred Lansing was waited upon by a large number of farmers before he went to 
 Washington and ho will do all ho can for us. 
 
 Every favor from yon in this matter will be thankfully received by the farmers. 
 Tours, respectfully, 
 
 Lyman Ackerman. 
 
 Hon. R. P. Flower. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 909 
 
 TREES AND SHEUBS. 
 
 Flushing, N. Y., January 22, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen: I ask a duty of 30 per cent, on imported trees and shrubs, and would 
 •respectfally present the following reasons therefor: 
 
 1 have been a grower of trees and shrubs for more than fifty years and have noticed 
 the prosperous condition of nurseries while protected by a tariff and their struggles, 
 if not decadence, during a period of non-protection. 
 
 The last period of struggle and decadence is almost coincident with thu removal of 
 the duty by the private effort of a few amateurs and without the knowledge of the 
 growers. The result is that great numbers of foreign growers advertise in onr news- 
 papers and send their traveling agents over our country, taking orders at prices which 
 are impossible to American labor and must inevitably drive many nurserymen ont of 
 the business. They also flood our auction rooms with their products of cheap labor 
 and allow them to be sold at prices ruinous to American interests. 
 
 To obtain the number of nurseries in the United States 1 have written Mr. Charles 
 A. Green, secretary of the Nurserymen's Association of the United States, who pos- 
 sesses, by his oiHce, exceptional opportunities for reliable information. From his 
 rejily I quote: " We have record of iive thousand nurseries in the United States, and 
 I estimate that there are five thousand not recorded." 
 
 Of these mauy employ some hnndreds of men each, and others fift.y or twenty-five 
 or less. I think that 250,000 would be a low estimate of the number of nursery em- 
 ployes, and that $300 to $400 per year would be a low estimate for the wiigcs of each. 
 Thus the nursery business represents the labor of 250,00)) men, worth |T5,000,000 to 
 $100,000,000 per annum. The true estimate may possibly be much higher. 
 
 The nursery interest would be a largely-growing one under reasonable protection, 
 but, in competition with foreign labor, it suffers more than any other, because the 
 wages abroad of land laborers are lower than those of any others. 
 
 The nurseries are scaftered over the country and it is difficult to get them together 
 for concerted action. 
 
 They feel the situation very strongly, however, and many .are firm in the belief that 
 the 30 per cent, duty placed upon trees and shrubs in the hill introduced last year 
 will be fonnd in the one now under your consideration. The few on the Canadian 
 frontier who maj- desire otherwise are but a small fraction of the whole number. 
 On the behalf of all the nurserymen I would respectfully urge my request. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 S. B. Parsons. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 EXPORT or OLEOMARGARINE. 
 
 Providence, R. I., January ^l. 1890. 
 Sir: We would respectfnlly call your attention to the following statements rela- 
 tive to the export features of the oleomargarine laws. 
 
 (1) We are now compelled to iiack the oleomargarine which we manufacture ex- 
 pressly for export in packages which must contain not less than 10 pounds each. • If 
 the goods are intended for a warm climate they must be packed in tins. 
 
 The law requires that when a tin package is used it must be covered with a wooden 
 jack?et securely fastened to the tin. That provision serves not only to makethe goods 
 objectionable to the dealer, but increases the weight, and entails a double expense 
 both in the cost of the package and the freight. 
 
 (2) The trade in the countries to the south of us, demands that oleomargarine shall 
 be packed in tins ranging from oue-half to 5 pounds. In fact our correspondents have 
 informed us repeatedly that if wo could sell them oleomiirgarine in packages to suit 
 their wants, the export trade could be increased at least 500 per cent., because the 
 American make of oleomargarine is preferred to all others. 
 
 The smaller packages are preferred lor the following reasons, viz : 
 
 (o) All classes of people can purchase it when in jiackages ranging from one-half 
 
 to 5 pounds, because the cost of such packages represents an expenditure within 
 
 their means. 
 
 (i) Unless oleomargarine is used in a hot climate within a reasonable short time 
 
 after being opened it becomes like butter, unfit for use. 
 
 (3) Prior to the pa.ssage of the oleomargarine act, the American product had the 
 preference over all others, and the trade was rapidly increasing. At this date we have 
 lost nearly all the ground we had gained, and unless Congress comes tp our relief by 
 
910 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 El mending tlie export provisions in the law, tke trade will Toe absolutely wiped out 
 iu those countries whicli are classed as within the tropics. 
 
 The question which presents itself here is, why Congress should legislate for the 
 benefit of Holland and Germany I Such a question may seem absurd, but a close 
 examination of the practical effects of the application of the law will clearly demon- 
 strate that an act of Cougress has actually resulted in increasing the export trade of 
 Holland and Germany in this article, and destroying in a large measure the export 
 trade of the United States. 
 
 (4) It surely can not be alleged that the dairy interests of this country would suf- 
 fer if Congress gave us an equal chance with other countries to compete for the trade 
 of the West Indies and South America. They would not experience a corresponding 
 increase iu their trade if Congress forbade the export of tbe article altogether, be- 
 cause Holland and Germany would immediately receive the orders which would 
 otherwise come to the American manufacturer of oleomargarine. On the contrary a 
 liberal amendment of the law applicaljle only to the export trade would result iu 
 material benefit to the agricultural and dairy interests, as they would thus find a 
 market at home for their milk and oleo oil, which would not come in competition 
 with their butter in domestic markets. 
 
 In view of these statements, which are self-evident, we would respectfully request 
 that you prepare and submit to Congress the draught of an amendment to the law 
 that would serve to remove the barrier which effectually bars us out of foreign mar- 
 kets. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 Oakdale Manufacturing Company. 
 
 Hon. John W. Mason, 
 
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Washington, 
 
 D. C. 
 
 MANUFACTUEES AND AGRICULTURE COMPARED. 
 
 Alexandria, Va., January 27, 1890 
 Gentlemen : In response to a request of one of the gentlemen of your committee 
 to furnish figures and authority in substantiation of my statement in relation to the 
 depressed condition of agriculture iu the manufacturing States of New England, New 
 York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, I herewith submit my figures and authority, 
 although in so doiug I will further state that I desired to be just and equitable in my 
 first statement, and that in th'S supplement thereto that instead of going to state re- 
 l)orts and speeches to fish out threadbare facts, I have gone to the fountain-head of 
 information upon this subject, and herewith submit figures kindly supplied me ijy 
 Hon. J. R. Dodge, statistician of the Department of Agriculture, under date of Janu- 
 
 ary 
 
 1890. 
 
 Such figures so recently furnished rau.st fully bear out my position and prove beyond 
 controversy the statements made in reply to members of your honorable committee. 
 
 VALUE OF FARM LANDS IN THE MANUFACTURING STATES. 
 
 States. 
 
 1870. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Yaliie. 
 
 1880. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Yalue. 
 
 ilajne 
 
 Kcw Hampsliire . 
 
 Vemiont 
 
 Massachnaetts . - . 
 
 Kboile Island 
 
 ronneoticut 
 
 New York 
 
 !New Jersey 
 
 I'enusylvaiiia 
 
 Total 
 
 Average per acre . 
 
 5, 838, 058 
 
 3, 605, 904 
 
 4, 528, 804 
 2, 730, 283 
 
 502, 308 
 2,364,410 
 
 22, 100, 810 
 2,980,511 
 
 17, 994, 200 
 
 $102, 061, 051 
 
 80, 589, 313 
 
 139, 367, 075 
 
 116,432,784 
 
 2I,.'')74, 908 
 
 124, 241, 382 
 
 1, 272, 857, 766 
 
 257, 523, 376 
 
 1,043,481,583 
 
 6, 552, 578 
 3,721,173 
 4, 882, 588 
 3, 369, 079 
 514, 813 
 2, 4.53, 641 
 
 23, 780, 7.54 
 2, 029, 773 
 
 19, 791, 341 
 
 $103,^57, 615 
 75, 834, 389 
 109,340,010 
 146,197,415 
 25, 882, 070 
 121,06.3,910 
 1,056,170 741 
 190, 896, 833 
 975, 689, 410 
 
 62, 744, 384 
 
 3, 159, 030, 197 
 .$50. 35 
 
 67, 985, 640 
 
 2, 803, 443, 402 
 $41.24 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 911 
 
 VALU15 OF FARM PRODUCTS, ETC., IN THE MANUFACTURING STATES. 
 
 Statement showing the annual value of the eropa of corn, ivheai, oats, rye, barley, buclc- 
 wheat, hay, potatoes, and tobaoco, and of all farm animals, as estimated by the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture. 
 
 States. 
 
 1871. 
 
 1874. 
 
 Maint* 
 
 New Hampshire.. 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Masflachu setts ... 
 
 Kbode»Island 
 
 C'liinect.iciit 
 
 New York 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Total. 
 
 $45, 850, 809 
 29, 481, 771 
 
 46, 514, 860 
 
 47, 459, 001 
 6, 918, 213 
 
 35, 935, 829 
 333, 070, 654 
 
 60,734,310 
 263, 82«, 020 
 
 $38, 222, 
 28, 134, 
 43, 339, 
 40, 055, 
 6, 726, 
 
 ■ 34,232, 
 
 311,271, 
 58, 221, 
 
 251, 125, 
 
 023, 396 
 389, 437 
 444, 2C0 
 496, 676 
 202, 2.56 
 505, 945 
 402, 967 
 905, 123 
 356, 657 
 
 $42, 252, 
 28, 336, 
 38, 238, 
 40,016, 
 6, S74, 
 34, 870, 
 
 274, 919, 
 53, 723, 
 
 232, 877, 
 
 28, 
 39, 
 41, 
 6, 
 37, 
 
 293, 
 92, 
 
 239, 
 
 926, 053 
 739, 908 
 464, 304 
 602, 842 
 96.5, 869 
 205, 931 
 05-t, 081 
 254, 033 
 634,613 
 
 869, 793, 467 
 
 798, 876, 617 
 
 751, 808, 924 
 
 783, 838, 
 
 States. 
 
 Maine 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Massachusetts . 
 llhode Island — 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 New York 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Total 
 
 1875. 
 
 $42, 242, 820 
 27,940, 140 
 36, 945, 947 
 41, 635, 059 
 6,045,712 
 33, 746, 873 
 
 284,850,313 
 51, 014, 599 
 
 228, 657, 708 
 
 753, 079, 171 
 
 $39, 364, 540 
 25,413,688 
 34,541,330 
 38, 914, 064 
 6, 281, 192 
 28, 594, 701 
 
 282,246,412 
 46, 441, 502 
 
 213, 022, 242 
 
 714, 819, 671 
 
 $37, 140, 943 
 25, 069, 825 
 33, 861, 040 
 36, 953, 976 
 6, 472, 744 
 28, 243, 391 
 
 273,95,5,512 
 45, 655, 394 
 
 204, 713, 407 
 
 691, 956, 232 
 
 1878. 
 
 $33, 42.5, S08 
 20, 392, 305 
 31,085,077 
 37,856,019 
 6, 220, 105 
 25,111,544 
 
 242, 293, 411 
 40, 821, 184 
 
 185, 712, 577 
 
 621, 917, 530 
 
 $34, 863, 230 
 21, 466, 045 
 31, 400, 824 
 43, 510, 902 
 5, 626, 947 
 25, 679, 744 
 
 272, 055, 628 
 42, 100, 0.52 
 
 213,462,066 
 
 690, 165, 438 
 
 States. 
 
 1884. 
 
 Maine 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Massachnsetta . 
 Rhode Island — 
 
 Connecficnt 
 
 New York 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 Penn.sylvania ... 
 
 Total 
 
 $38, 105, 288 
 22, 602, 750 
 32, 444, 222 
 45, 106, 731 
 5, 324, 784 
 29, 925, 474 
 
 292, 452, 790 
 48, 608, 215 
 
 222, 816, 047 
 
 $34,516,917 
 20, .581, 187 
 36, 6M,, 049 
 32, 190, 063 
 4, 282, 005 
 28, 194,327 
 
 293,145,1.57 
 45, 148, 753 
 
 241,181,212 
 
 $40, 148, 162 
 23,891,083 
 40, 7M, 657 
 34, 842, 172 
 3, 494, 730 
 28,091,633 
 
 310,046,624 
 45, 473, 057 
 
 249, 997, 800 
 
 $41,312,323 
 22, 957, 958 
 38,976,819 
 35, 881, 104 
 4, 884, 176 
 28, 765, 737 
 
 290, 385, 471 
 44, 372, 963 
 
 243, 950, 297 
 
 $39, 331, 566 
 23, 370, 055 
 35,437,881 
 31,207,771 
 4, 635, 846 
 26, 025, 244 
 
 289,455,219 
 42, 664, 991 
 
 236, 355, 332 
 
 737, 386, 301 
 
 734, 763, 670 
 
 776, 099, 818 
 
 753, 489, 838 
 
 728, 483, 938 
 
 States. 
 
 1886. 
 
 1887. 
 
 1888. 
 
 Maine 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Massachusetts. - 
 Kbodo Island ... 
 Connecticut ... 
 
 New York 
 
 New -Jei'sey 
 
 Pennsylvania... 
 
 Total 
 
 $37, 470, 939 
 21, 907, 163 
 33, 876, 600 
 33, 048, 348 
 4, 539, 096 
 28,229,000 
 
 266, 885. 169 
 40, 334, 521 
 
 217, 229, 856 
 
 $39, 586, 830 
 22, 022, 486 
 34, 464, 238 
 33,286,414 
 4,611,393 
 26, 438, 384 
 
 266,687, 102 
 38, 559, 876 
 
 215, 800, 041 
 
 $42, 852, 889 
 23, 286, 298 
 37,313,627 
 34, 076, 241 
 5, 301, 333 
 28, 309, 599 
 
 271, 478, 862 
 40, 651, 305 
 
 220, 39.5, 719 
 
 $41, 303, 428 
 22, 039, 412 
 34, 560, 073 
 31, 984, 626 
 4, 909, 027 
 26, 983, 870 
 
 270, 308, 533 
 41, 338, 839 
 
 220, 489, 655 
 
 683, 420, 693 
 
 681, 415, 762 
 
 703,664,719 
 
 693, 917, 363 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 From these figures the following result is obtainable : 
 
 That the acreage of farm lands in the manufacturing States increased between ln70 
 and 1880, 5,241, 2.'>6 acres, while the total value for the same period decreased as fol- ■ 
 lows : 
 
 1680 : $2,803,44:^,402 
 
 1870 3,154,030,197 
 
 Pecreaae in the decade 355,586,71)5 
 
912 REVISION OX'' THE TARIFF. 
 
 Decrease per acre, 1870, $50.35 ; 1888, $41.24; equal to $8 91 during the nineteen 
 years, including the period of 1870 to 1888 inclusive. 
 The decrease in farm products, etc. , was — 
 
 1870 $869,793,467 
 
 1888 693,917,363 
 
 Total decrease 175,876,104 
 
 Add loss in land and we have 355, 586, 795 
 
 Or a total of 531,462,899 
 
 Or more than you will remember I claimed in my answer to your questions. 
 
 In presenting these important figures on behalf of our people I am not so unjust as 
 to lay the whole blame to the door of a protective tarilf, tor I recoguize that other cir- 
 cumstances combine to add to the burden of the farmer. But I do desire to emplia- 
 size the fact that agriculture in every department is depreciating in value, while 
 other industries are increasing in the same ratio that agriculture i.s losing ; that from 
 being the most prosperous our industry is steadily decreasing in wealth and power, 
 and yet at the same time this industry furnishes the wealth of all other classes; she 
 produces the greater part of the national wealth and in turn consumes the greater 
 part of the product of the American manufacture, furuishiug homo raw material for 
 the manufacturer, a home market for his productions, and is thus doubly made tribu- 
 tary to the transportation companies who owe their very existence to agriculture, 
 yet never seem to satiate their greed so long as the trathc can stand still larger in- 
 crease. 
 
 It is not in the great agricultural food-producing sections of the West, covered 
 over with mortgages to New England's usurious institutions, nor yet the cotton fields 
 of the South, which are practically owned by the New York t>tock-gamblers and com- 
 mercial men do I look for a depression in agricultural values, in answer to your re- 
 quest; but in replying to the assumption that American agriculture owes. its pros- 
 perity (God save the mark) to manufacture, I go directly into the small fields and 
 farms around these protected industries, the owners of which are rich and prosperous, 
 and find a languishing agriculture and dejireciating valuation of land and produee, 
 an increase of debt, and a discontented and unhappy people, overburdened by di- 
 rect taxation, weary and discouraged at the fact of the lack of their prosperity, which 
 they are loath to attribute to its true cause — unnecessary aud unequal taxation. 
 
 Having tried to answer as best I can your questions, 1 repeat that the country peo- 
 ple look to you for relief, and if the majority of your commit tee and House feel con- 
 straiued to follow out the policy upon which you were elected, that of protection for 
 American industries, I beg of you not to overlook or forgot that most important of all 
 industries, agriculture, and in arranging your tariff protect, such articles as have 
 been suggested by Colonel Brigham and JDr. Trimble, of tlie National Grange com- 
 mittee on legislation, so as to protect our people when they compete with for- 
 eign underpaid labor; but in the vast majority of cases where no relief can he given 
 us in this manner I appeal again to you to so flislribnte the surplus collected from 
 the farmer that he maybe incited to send abroa.d his jiroducts and bring foreign 
 gold to our shores, thus adding to the national prosperity and distributing wealth 
 not among the few, but among the vast majority of the people.* 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Alex. J. Wedderbuun. 
 
 EXTRACT OF MEAT. 
 STATEMENT OF THE CIBILS COMPANY. 
 
 Boston, January 27, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen: It is with some hesitancy that I address the Conmdtteo on Ways and 
 Means in what must seem an individual interest, but a section of the last Senate 
 tarift'bill, in providing for an increase of duty on "fluid extract of meat," might 
 have seriously interfered with this individual interest, and it is the hope of prevent- 
 ing a like clause from entering into the tariff bill to bo formulated by your commit- 
 tee that prompts me to place before you these facts. 
 
 " The Cibils Company of the United States " are importers of a fluid beef extract, 
 on which they now pay a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem, and on the glass contain- 
 ing it 30 per cent. 
 
 * Mr. Wedderburn's figures are misleading. See page 925 for explanation. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 913 
 
 It is not my purpose, at the present time, to aslc relief from tliis tax, but only to 
 beg that the" present law may rcmaiu uuchaiij;od ; or, if it be thought desirable to 
 substitute a speciiiofor an ad valorem duty, that such speoitic duty ujay not exceed 
 the rate of 10 cents per pound on the extract, arid that the duty on the glass contain ■ 
 iug it may still be based on its value, as at present, which must seem the only eqni- 
 table method, as our bottles weigh about twice as ninch as the extract they contain ; 
 to weign them with the extract and siibject them to the same specific duty would 
 prohibit the importation of the goods. 
 
 I speali of this as an individual interest, because I have been unable to learn of 
 any individual, other than uiy associates and myself, and indirectly the invalid 
 public, who would be atfected by any change in tlie present law ; for as a matter of 
 fact, so far as I am aware, the " Ciblls fluid beef extract " is the only fluid extract of 
 meat imported into this country. (If there is any other, the amount imported is so 
 infinitesimal as to have no influence on the market.) 
 
 On the other hand there is no fluid extract of meat manufactured in tlie United 
 States, unless we class the " Valentine meat juice" as such ; but this valuable prepa- 
 ration occupies a unique place of its own, and its output can iu no "way beatlccted by 
 the sale of the Cibils extract. The raw goods of Murdock and Bush should in no 
 sense be classed as meat extracts, as the only semblance to meat they contain is raw 
 blood ; we, of course, have nothing in common with them. 
 
 Furthermore, and I desire to emphasize this fact : it is not possible that an honestly 
 prepared fluid beef, worthy of the coiifideuce of the physician, should beeconomicaily 
 made in this country; our most remote herds of cattle are still so near civilization 
 (the facilities for transportation being so gnat) that the beef is worth too much as 
 fresh meat to warrant its being put into an extract. 
 
 So that we may say that the Cibils fluid beef extract is the only fluid beef im- 
 ported into this country, and that it antagonizes no present or probable domestic 
 industry. 
 
 Why,'then, should the duty be increased? There appears to be but one reason; 
 that is, revenue to the Goverument. And when I assure you that the Cibils extract 
 18 prepared expressly for the sick chamber and not the bar-room or kitchen, and, in 
 substantiation of this assertion, state that it is now the only extract included in the 
 hospital supplies of the United States Navy, and is exclusively used in the United 
 States Marine Hospital Service, the question must present itself: is it not unworthy 
 of a nation to gather its revenue from its sick and disabled citizens whose power of 
 earning has been cut off. 
 
 Should the duty on this preparation be increased our Government would bo pl.iced 
 in this position of forcing the invalid to pay his tax, be he fortunate enough to be 
 able to bear the burden, but depriving of its benefit the great army of the poor Avho, 
 though needing it the most, would be unable to pay the increased cost, for there is 
 absolutely no substitute for this preparation. 
 
 I believe this to be the most forcible argument we can put forth as a reason why 
 the duty on this preparation should not be increased. I believe this to be the most 
 forcible argument that can be put forth why any article that enters the sick room, to 
 comfort or heal the invalid, should not be taxed. 
 
 In considering this argument there should be taken into account the material dif- 
 ference between the "paste" and the "fluid" extract. The advent of a fluid pre- 
 paration of beef is so recent that this vast difleience is ]irobably but little under- 
 stood, except by those who have had occasion to keep pace with the advance of chem- 
 ical and medical knowledge during the past few years. Ten years ago the paste ex- 
 tract of Liebig was widelj' prescribed by the physician with just what benefit to 
 the patient it is difficult to tell, it certainly afforded no nutrition. But during the 
 past few years there has Ijoen a radical change, and to-day the enormous output of 
 Liebig's is through the grocer and its consumption is in the kitchen and b.ar-rooni. 
 The discriminating pliysician does not prescribe a paste extract. 
 
 But the physiological and therapeutical drawbacks to the value of the paste ex- 
 tract have been completely overcome in the fluid preparation, so that the latter finds 
 its legitimate place in the sick room, and the output of our preparation depends al- 
 most entirely on the physician's prescription. 
 
 To fully establish the place this fluid extract holds among the more adv.auced 
 thinkers of the profession, I quote Irom Dr. Geo. E. Fell's report of the celebrated 
 "Baere case," included in his paper on "Forced respiration," read at the annual 
 meeting of the New York State Medical Association, 1888: 
 
 "The 2 ounce vial of laudanum was found empty; the throat of the patient was 
 cut, severing the trachea and anterior jugular vein ; it was found also that the left 
 arm had been mcised with the razor so as to clearly expose, without opening, the 
 basilic vein. At this time the pationt was nialcing a faint gasp once in about teu 
 gpconds, and breathing tUrough the hole he had mt^de in tho trachea. 
 
 * - # # » ff 9 
 
914 REVISION OF THE TARIFF 
 
 ' "As he gradually became weaker from contlDued movements of the bowels and 
 frequent attacks of vomiting, attempts were made to nourish him. The most easily 
 assimilable substances were rejected. Milk and lime water, peptonized liquids and 
 powdered peptonoids, iced champagne, brandy, etc., wore used, but the stomach 
 would not retain them; vomiting continued; the patient approached the stage of 
 collapse; brandy hypodermically was frequently given without marked benefit. 
 The action of the heart was of a bounding, uncertain character. 
 
 "The unsuccessful attempts at feeding by the stomach had been discontinued for a 
 time after the stercoraceous vomiting. The nourishment of the patient, however, 
 had become a matter for serious consideration, and, at the suggestion ol^ Dr. C. R. 
 Jewett, half-teaspoonful doses of Cibil's fluid extract of beef, diluted with a little 
 carbonic acid water were administered. This was the first substance to be retained ; 
 the dose was repeated, increased, and at last the patient showed signs of improve- 
 ment." 
 
 I think this fully establishes the claim of the preparation to its place in dietetic 
 therapeutics. 
 
 The individuals controlling the Cibils extract in this country are citizens of the 
 "United States, and the money expended in the introduction of the goods has gone, 
 and is going into circulation here. The business has never netted a profit, nor has it 
 been expected that it would for several years to come, all the revenue being expended 
 in the still further introduction of the goods; we werelooking to the future for our re- 
 muneration. Bnt as an increase of duties would be so nearly prohibitory as to make 
 the business unprofitable, the passage of such a law would, without benefit to any 
 other interest, virtually wipe out of existence a business made valuable by five years 
 of incessant labor and the expenditure of over |90,U00. 
 
 Believing that, with these facts before you, you will not allow so uncalled-for and 
 unjust a measure to find a place in your tariff bill, I have the honor to be, 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 E. D. Lowe, 
 President of the CibiJs Companij of the United States. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 VIEWS OP TALCOTT, FRISBIE & CO. 
 
 Gentlemen : We respectfully urge, as the American agents for Liebig extract of 
 beef, a reduction of present duties on said article to an amount equal to 15 per cent., 
 and for the following, among other reasons: 
 
 First. This extract of beef has become an article of largest use among the poorer 
 classes of our people. 
 
 Second. With tlie reduction of duty prayed for, it would still be undersold by imi' 
 tations and American products of similar character. 
 
 Third. If the rcdnction asked for i.s made, it would inure to the benefit of the Ameri- 
 can consumer and not to the foreign producer. 
 
 Fourth. It is believed the United States 'freasury would in no way suffer by such 
 reduction, as it would be likely to result in :i suHicieut increase of importation to 
 maintain the present nominal amount received as reveoue on this article. 
 
 Fifth. Were there a total abolition of the present duty, and the Liebig meat extract 
 adnutted entirely free, it would, in consequence of the greater cost of its production, 
 chemical testing, and shipping, still have to be sold in this country at a higher price 
 than other similar products of American manufactures of any reputaVde and relialilo 
 character. Every reasonalile conmiereial advantage is thus insured to the American 
 manufacturer of meat extract. 
 
 Sixth. The Licliig meat extract is a South American product, made at Fray Bentos, 
 Uruguay, from whence it is shippeil in Ijulk to Antwerp, Belgittm, wlicre if. is sub- 
 mitted to a thorough chemical test and then packed into jars, and for convenience of 
 di8trit)ution to all parts of the wculd its .selling agency is established in London. 
 
 Seventh. While a granting of the relief asked for does not put the Liebig Extract 
 in unfair or unec^ual competition w ll.h similar American products (as its price in this 
 market must, ot necessity, still remain higher), it would reduce the price to the 
 American consumer to the full extent of the reduction prayed for, and which reduc- 
 tion, it is earnestly hoped, will be granted by your committee. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Talcott, FinsBiE & Co., 
 General Atjcnts, etc., Hartford, Conn, 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 915 
 
 ESSENCE OF COFFEE. 
 
 Gentlemen: We, the undersigned, manufacturers of essence of coffee, chicory, 
 and other articles of a similar nature aud purpose, understand that in the prepara- 
 tion of a new tariff law you will shortly consider the question of duties on chicory, 
 and as the result of your deliheratious on this article will be of vital importance to 
 our business, we would ask the privilege of submitting the following for your con- 
 sideration before you act finally on the question : 
 
 At the present time, and dnring the past several years, thousands of tons of chicory 
 (both manufactured — packed iu small packa"es for household consumption, and 
 roasted — bulk, iu casks and barrels), are annually imported into the United States — 
 the importations constantly increasing in volume each year — the prices of the for- 
 eign article being sold at such prices as to wholly stop the growing and manufact- 
 uring of chicory in this country — it being impossible for the growers or manufact- 
 urers of this country to compete with the foreign competition. 
 
 Besides this, a large proportion of tbe foreign article, especially that manufactured 
 and put up in small packages and a great deal of the roasted packed in bulk in casks 
 and barrels, is largely adulterated, the adulteration consisting mainly of beet roots, 
 roasted and ground. The German importations especially containing a large percent- 
 age of adulteration, which is made from the refuse of the beet-sugar refineries of that 
 country. 
 
 Aside from the low duty now existing on chicory, which is so low that it is 
 impossible for either the home grower or manufacturer to follow the business with- 
 out los^, the wholesale importations of the adulterated article wholly shuts off any 
 possibility of the developing of this industry in the United States in the future, 
 unless some legislation is enacted that will check these fraudulent importations and 
 a duty sufficiently high enough to warrant our farmers to grow it aud our manufact- 
 urers to prepare it for consumption. 
 
 For the past several years our business of manufacturing essence of coffee, chicory, 
 and other articles of a similar nature has been constantly decreasing, notwithstand- 
 ing our prices have been so reduced that the business for the past two years has 
 been done at an actual loss, and in the meantime the imi)ortations of the foreign 
 goods has constantly increased in volume. 
 
 On August 31, 1889, P. C. Tomson & Co., of Philadelphia, Pa. (manufacturers, and 
 one of the signers of this iietition), wrote to the Hon. William Windom, Secretary of 
 the United States Treasury, complainiug of the importation of adulterated chicory, 
 and in reply to this letter received from the Secretary, under date September 16, 
 1889, his reply "that there was no law under which he could stop this importation." 
 The Secretary's letter is appended. 
 
 Your committee will also find on file in the State Department at Washington 
 advices from United States Consul Andrew F. Fay, of Stettin, Germany, reporting 
 the adulteration of chicory shipped from that port. 
 
 By a careful consideration of the foregoing we feel that you can not but see that 
 we have no way of protection from this wrong other than by some legislation from 
 Congress that will check this evil, for the Secretary of the Treasury informs us 
 "there is no law that he can stop these importations," and yet on the other hand 
 many of our States have laws enacted against the manufacture of adulterated foods, 
 thus preventing manufacturers of the United States from making goods that could 
 be scdd in coraiietition with the adulterated foreign article, aud yet the United States 
 Government permits the adulterated goods to come into our country, to the detri- 
 ment of the agriculturist, manufacturer, and citizens at large of this country. 
 
 We can not help believing, that if this matter is properly brought to the notice of 
 your committee you will take some action towards restricting these importations, and 
 make such recommendations to Congress as will increase the duties on chicory, so 
 that instead of depending on foreign countries for our wants, we will grow it here, 
 thus affording our farmers another means of utilizing some of their lands, and the 
 manufacturers and their employiSs occupation. 
 
 We would therefore recommend and ask that a duty of 5 cents per pound be placed 
 on all chicory manufactured or partly manufactured, and 3 cents per pound duty on 
 chiciiry root not roasted ; that the importation of adulterated chicory be prohibited 
 by law or a duty placed on it so high that it would prohibit its importation. 
 
 The chicory industry is a very important business of some of the countries of Eu- 
 rope, especially of Germany, giving employment to thousands of hands iu factories, 
 besides affording farmers a valuable crop to raise, and with a duty such as we recom- 
 mend this industry can be developed in the United States and the imposition on our 
 people of the adulterated chicory stopped. 
 
 We trust the foregoing will be fully considered by your honorable committee, and 
 that you will in making your reoomtuendation to Congress make such reoommenda- 
 
016 KEVl.SION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 lions ill vdiir bill that llio complaints anil ii_'0(iiiiin(iii(Liti(iiis hureiii set forth will be 
 liiUy actcil on, to the' satisfaction of the uudersigued luannfacturers and justice to 
 all citizfns of the United States. 
 Yours, most respeutfnlly, 
 
 P. C. TojisciN it Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 
 Weikkl A.M) .Smith Spice Company, 
 * Geo. W. Weikel, Prrsulcnt, Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Geo. FlotI'.'s Sox.-^, liro(d<lyn, N. Y. 
 Jewett and iSuEiiMA.^r (Company, 
 A. C. JJniiMiES, iVeasKcer, Milwaukee, Wis. 
 Paiuush Bkos., Baltimore, Md. 
 The Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 [Exhibit.] 
 
 Trea.stry Department, 
 
 OFiac:E of the Secretary, 
 WdshiiKjIoii, IK C. ,'ieptember 16, 1889. 
 Gentle.mkn: Referrino- to previons corri'spondcni;e in relation to your complaint 
 (if tile iiuportati(m of chicory adulterated with waste fi'oni beet-snj,'ar refineries, you 
 ai-e informed tli.it after an in'vestiuation of the sulijeet it appears that there is no legal 
 authority nniler which this Department can prevent such importations. 
 KespoctfuUy, vours, 
 
 W. WiNDOM, 
 
 Secretary. 
 Messrs. P. C. Tomson & Co., 
 
 A'os. 246 and 24b North Tliird Street, Fhiladelpliia, Pa. 
 
 SUGAR OF MILK. 
 
 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. VAN SYCKLE. 
 
 Mr. William M. Van Syckle, of Hamburgh, N. Y^, addressed the committee. He 
 said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the several sugar-of-milk com- 
 panies in the United States resjiectfnlly .sulimitto your consideration the facts lierein 
 contained, and humbly pray that your eotiiuiittee, in preparing a bill to present to 
 Cougre,ss, will place the inauufactured jirodnct of sugar-of-niilk on the dutiable list. 
 
 Sngar-of-niilk is made from whey by evaporation at the a.ssociateil creameries after 
 the cheese is tlr.st extracted. In the jiractieal jirocess of manufacture less than 3 per 
 cent, of sugar-of-niilk is obtained from the total amount of whey. 
 
 There are only two countries in the world in which sugar-of-milk is made, namely, 
 Switzerland and the United States. In the former country there are said to be nine 
 factories. In the United States there are five factories, located respectively at Lan- 
 sing, Mich., Oxford, N. Y., Burlington, Vt., Unionville, N. Y., and the factory at 
 Hamburgh, N. J. 
 
 Owing to the prevailing low prices at which the foreign article is unloaded upon 
 the American market, the companies operating at Lansing, Oxford, and Burlington 
 liave been forced to shut down business. The company at Hamburgli was the first in- 
 dustry of t!.e kind ost.ablislied in this country. This was about six years ago. At 
 that time sugar-of-milk wholesaled in the New York market at prices averaging 
 nearly forty cents a pound. At the pre.sent date (December 31, l>iH'J') the price in the 
 same market is rated from 14 to IG cents, figures at which no margin of profit is left 
 to the American producer. 
 
 The great consumpticm of sugar of milk is of recent date. Twenty years ago there 
 was scarcely any of it used in this country, and but very little in the whole world. 
 It was then an article .almost unknown so far as its use was concerned. In the year 
 lri73 there Avere only about 2,000 pounds imported into the port of New York. The 
 amount of importation in 1879 was not f,ar from 54,000 pounds. The importation at 
 the port of New York in the year 1889 was about 700,000 pounds. This amount does 
 not include what may have been shipped to, other ports. For the correctness of 
 these figures reference is respectfully directed to the accompanying lists, which 
 .show the importations of sugar of milk for a number of years at the port of New 
 York. 
 
 In the Medical Pharmaco'iiia it will be found that sugar of milk enters into some 
 fifty-nine preueriptions. Homeopathic yihysioians use it as a diluteut with dry raedi- 
 cincH, Sacoharatcd pep.i^iii, poijlonoids, and all such jireparations contain about 80 
 per cent, milk sugar. It is largely u.sed in the manufacture of invalitl tVnd inft^Ot 
 fOQdfl, A'l'h'il to cow's miljs: it p)ftkt>H .in equivalent pf mother's millj, 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIPP. 917 
 
 As stated above, the wholesale price in tlm American market in a few years has 
 gone from 40 cents a ponnd to 15 cents. Foieifrn competition has done this. This 
 great reduction in price lyis not benefited either the consnmer or the retail pnr- 
 chaser. They pay the same price now as before. It beneflis no one except the 
 wholesale druggist and the nianiifacturiug chemist. 
 
 This great reduction in price was not anticipated by the American projectors of 
 milk-sngar factories, and if encouragement is not received byway of a protective 
 dnty, it will only be a short time before an industry of the kind will not be found 
 on this continent. 
 
 It is a fact that nulk sugar can be m.anufactured ujuch cheaper in Switzerland than 
 in the United States. Labor in that country costs .scarcely nothing. The wages 
 there are not more than '25 to 40 cents a Oay. For $1,000 a whole town can bo em- 
 ployed. Fuel also costs but very little, and much of the wood used in the making of 
 mills sugar is stolen from the niountain sides. 
 
 With this condition of affairs tlie American manufiictnrcr and laborer can not com- 
 pete. As already foreshadowed, tlie production of miili; sugar in tlie United States is 
 aa infant industry. It was started some six years ago. The business thus far has 
 been one of expenditure. . As yet not a dollar has been made. However, with a pro- 
 tective tariff placed on the foreign product, there wi^l then unquestionably open up 
 a profitable field {6r future enterprise in the business. American genius can now 
 make as good an article as the worl<l can produce. And there are now rivers of whey 
 unused and thrown away amply sufficient to produce all the sugar of milk that will 
 be needed on this hemisphere. 
 
 It is a well-established principle that what wo can produce ourselves we should 
 have the exclusive manufacture of so long as it tends to the general good and welfare 
 of the people. 
 
 It is understood to be the policy of our Govornnu;iit, regardless of party or condi- 
 tion, to foster all infant industries; and tliis should be doubly true in regard to the 
 industry of sugar of milk, a business benefitting especially, the agricultural classes. 
 
 Should the proper protection on the industry be secured much of the profits real- 
 ized in the business would accrue to the American farmer and laborer. Anything 
 that tends to the use nf anj' jiart of milk at factories a.s anuitferof fact benefits cattle 
 and milk producing communities. This can not be denied. It has been estimated 
 that every farmer on an average supplying bis milk to acreamerj', where a milk sugar 
 factory is operated, will be directly benefited fully $30 annually. 
 
 The importations of sugar of milk the past year, if produced in this country, would 
 have distributed among our countrymen nearly a quarter of a million of dollars under 
 the ban of protection, whereas the Swiss producer reaped the benefits. 
 
 The American miJk-sugar factory. 
 
 Cost of plant $10,000 
 
 Annual production pounds.. 52,000 
 
 Total proceeds, at 15 cents per pound f7, 800 
 
 Annual operating expenses — 
 
 Coal and wood ,$2,700 
 
 Labor : 
 
 Superintendent |1,000 
 
 Fireman 600 
 
 Engineer 7'iO 
 
 Six workmen 2,700 
 
 $.'^, 020 
 
 Whey 1,400 
 
 Eepairs and inciilentals .'idO 
 
 Interest on capital .'iOO 
 
 $10. 120 
 
 Net loss $2, 320 
 
 Upon examination of these figures it will be seen that sugar of nulk can not he 
 made in this country without realization of profit for nn:cli less than 20 cents a 
 pound. To properlj operate a factory of the .above capacity incurs fully the ex- 
 penses denominated in the estinnite given. The Swiss people can numufacturo the 
 product at half of this cost and still realize a goodly profit. Therefore, under sucli 
 unlike conditions existing between the American milk-sugar factory and the Swiss 
 factory there is an im)icrativo necessity of a protective barrier in order to stop tlio 
 present unfair competition by a fonsign land. Huch restriction im the imported arti- 
 cles should not be niaile less than from 10 to 15 cents a pound specific duty. With 
 this amount of protection to the iulant industry here sugar of milk factories would 
 quickly multiply in the United States with a total capacity to a.nii)ly supply all the 
 demands of the m.irket, and the home competition would safely regulate the prices 
 at fair and honest profits. 
 
918 
 
 EEVISIOK OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 IMPORTATIOJf SCHEDULES. 
 
 Followiug is a list of importations of sugar of milk at tbe port of New York for 
 the years stated lierei n : 
 
 1878. 
 
 January 3 cs.. 12 
 
 .Jaunary 12 do.. 5 
 
 January 18 do.. 3 
 
 March (! do.. .5 
 
 March 6 do.. 13 
 
 June 2R do.. 3 
 
 September 9 do.. 5 
 
 September 9 do.. 15 
 
 October 10 Pgs.. 5 
 
 1879. 
 
 March 17 cs . . 10 
 
 June 19 do.. 10 
 
 September 20 do., (i 
 
 October 4 do.. 10 
 
 October 14 do . . 5 
 
 November 25 do . . 15 
 
 November 28 do,. 15 
 
 1880. 
 
 January 7 
 
 .cs .. 
 
 3 
 
 January 16 
 
 .do.. 
 
 2 
 
 January 17 
 
 .do.. 
 
 3 
 
 Jan u ary 2 
 
 .do.. 
 
 4 
 
 Februarv 9 
 
 • do.. 
 
 5 
 
 February 19 
 
 . do . . 
 
 5 
 
 Februarv 19 
 
 .do.. 
 
 10 
 
 March 29 
 
 .do.. 
 
 1 
 
 March 1 
 
 .do. 
 
 8 
 
 April 10 
 
 .do.. 
 
 13 
 
 April 9 
 
 -do.. 
 
 2 
 
 June 10 
 
 -do.. 
 
 'J 
 
 August 26 
 
 .do.. 
 
 19 
 
 August 27 
 
 .do.. 
 
 1 
 
 August 27 
 
 .do.. 
 
 1 
 
 October 13 
 
 October 13 
 
 October 28 
 
 October 28 
 
 November 26 
 
 December 24 ... 
 
 1881. 
 
 . .. CH.. 
 
 . . . do . . 
 ...d<i.. 
 ...do.. 
 ...do.. 
 ...do.. 
 
 January 15 cs.. 2 
 
 January 20 do.. 10 
 
 .January 20 do.. 5 
 
 February 7 PgS-. 'i 
 
 February 25 cm . . 10 
 
 AprilG.! do.. 10 
 
 August 10 do.. 5 
 
 August 31 do.. 28 
 
 Septenilior 7 do.. 4 
 
 Sciitember21 do.. 1,2 
 
 October 5 . do.. 4 
 
 October 5 do.. 2 
 
 November 23 do.. 1 
 
 Dccember21 do.. 5 
 
 1889. 
 
 January 7 cs .. 10 
 
 Jr.nuary 14 pgs. 27 
 
 January 14 do.. 46 
 
 January 16 clvs, 24 
 
 January 22 cs .. 20 
 
 January 31 ck.s. 8 
 
 Fe br u ary 4 pgs . 56 
 
 l^obrnary 6 cs.. 15 
 
 February 15 do.. 3 
 
 February 15 do 20 
 
 February 27 do.. 7 
 
 February 27 cks. 2 
 
 March 4 cks. 4 
 
 March 6 cs.. 20 
 
 March 9 do.. 17 
 
 March 9 do.. 36 
 
 Marcli 15 cks. 2 
 
 Marcli20 do.. 16 
 
 March 30 cs . . 22 
 
 March 27 cks. 2 
 
 April 4 pgs. 44 
 
 April 15.. cs.. 30 
 
 April 16 cks. 5 
 
 ■April 24 cs.. 17 
 
 May 17 cs .. 17 
 
 May 1 do.. 16 
 
 May23 do.. 15 
 
 May29 do.. 13 
 
 June 12 do.. 14 
 
 June 22 do.. 17 
 
 June 16 do.. 16 
 
 June 24 do.. 15 
 
 August 7 cks. 4 
 
 August 7 do.. 6 
 
 Augu.st 23 cs .. 10 
 
 September 5 cks. 16 
 
 September 5 cs.. 12 
 
 September 5 cks. 4 
 
 Septeuiber 25 cs .. 21 
 
 October 9 do.. 3 
 
 October 30 do.. 56 
 
 November 2 cks. 6 
 
 November 3 cks. 9 
 
 November 20 do.. 9 
 
 December 4 cs.. 10 
 
 December 9 cks. 5 
 
 Dece?nlier 11 c.s.. 21 
 
 December 11 cks. 2 
 
 Decemlier 17 do.. 10 
 
 December 18 cs.. 18 
 
 I desire to say that sugar of milk is a new process in this country and practically a 
 new product upon the face of the globe. Six years ago the first that was ever made 
 on American soil was produced. Until within the last twenty years none was uiau- 
 ufactured anywhere in the world. It is princijially used in making lacteal foods, 
 invalids' foods, infants' foods, made from the saccharated lactiiu'. This is imported 
 under various names, which appear at the importation list at the port of New York.. 
 Foreign competition has forced the jirice down, until now it retails in New York at 
 14 or 16 cents, making the average price about 15 cents, a price at which it can not be 
 manufactured in this c(ututry at all. 
 
 Now, gentlemen of the committee, to start a sugar of milk factory in this country 
 re((uires a, capital of about $10, 000 to properly equip a plant in order to manufacture 
 sugar of milk successfully. At tlie present time there is no factory existing in the 
 United States or anywhere else in tbe world that has a plant costing |10,000. The 
 plants now existing in the United States have been on somewhat of an e.Kpcrimental 
 plan, although, sugar of milk is made here eipial to anywhere else. In fact, at Ham- 
 burg this )ear there was mauul.ictnred about 55,000 ))oundsof sugar of milk. Its ca- 
 pacity for sugar of milk pTciduction depends upon the amount of the supply of whey 
 from the creameries. The creameries existing throughout the United States at the 
 present tiiTie consid(<r whey useless, an<l let it run lo the lirook, and nouseisnuide of 
 it whatever. \Vr claim that there is em)ugli whey running to tbe brook which, if 
 made into sugar <d' milk, would nnike 1,000,000 poun(I,s of sugar of milk, which would 
 more than supply all the denumds in this ceuiitry. If some tariff can be secured upon 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 919 
 
 sugar of milk then factories will start up in different parts of the United States, and 
 we can supply the markets ourselves. Labor in Switzerland is very cheap. A man 
 can be secured at fi-om 2.5 to 40 cents a day. You can biro a whole town for $1,000 
 dollars, and the wood upon the mountain sides costs them nothing. We can not ran 
 a sugar of mill<: factory here for nothing, nor can we hire labor at 40 cents a day. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How many men does it take to run a sugar-of-milk factory? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. Ten or fifteen men. They are not common laborers. They have 
 to be skilled men, although the making of sugar of milk i.s not a secret industry. A 
 description of how it is ujade is given in the Encyclopedia Britannica. 
 
 Mr. Baynk. What are the average wages which you pay? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. Cue thousand dollars to the foreman and $1..50 a day to the other 
 laborers. 
 
 Mr. Baynk. How much sugar of milk will a gallon of whey make 1 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. Three per cent. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Three per cent. ? How much would that be in a pound? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. I do not know how much that would be in a gallon, but not very 
 much. 
 
 Mr. Gear. About 4 ounces. 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. Hardly that. 
 
 Mr. Bay'NE (to Mr. Gear). You know more than the manufacturer. 
 
 Mr. Gear. He said ', per cent., so I took the weight and reduced it to ounces. 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. The process of making it does not consist simply in evaporation. 
 It has to be crystallized. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Wliat does whey cost per gallon ? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. It costs dittereut prices. 
 
 Mr. Carlisli. There must be some average price, or about some average price. 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. For a large assorted creamery, milking 4,000 cows, the whey 
 would cost $1,200. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That does not answer my question. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What does whey cost your company? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. Twelve hundred dollars. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You have given the amount of sugar of milk that can be extracted 
 from a gallon of whey, anil the price at which you sell ua sugar of milk. My ques- 
 tion is, What does that gallon from which you produce 4 ounces of sugar of milk cost 
 you ? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. Three to 5 cents per hundred pounds. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Three to 5 cents per hundred pounds. That would make about 3 
 pounds of sugar of milk. 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. A hundred jjonnds of whey would make 100 pounds of sugar of 
 milk. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. And you get how much per pound for sugar of milk? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. At the present time, 14 or 15 cents. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you get that much a pound? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Then you get 42 cents for this whey which costs 3 to 5 cents? 
 
 Mr. Van Sycki.e. Yea, sir; not considering the cost of manufacture. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Of course, I am only gettingatthe cost of the material of your pro- 
 duction. You say your establishment employs ten hands? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. It employs nine hands, I believe. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How mrmy establishments are there in the United States ? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. Five. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How many hands do they all employ? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. I do not kuo'.« just the number there is employed. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. About the average; how much compared in size? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. Establishments of the same capacity require the same number. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you use the same machinery? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. Yes, sir; and it is expensive machinery. We have engines and 
 boilers and a great deal of tubing. The copper costs a great deal and the evaporat- 
 ing vats and boilers. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How much did your establishment cost? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. About .$6,000. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How much sugar of milk do you make in a year? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. Fifty-fire thousand pounds. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you run a creamery in connection with it ? 
 Mr. Van Sy'CKLB. Yes, sir; we have a large creamery. 
 Mr. Gear. Do you run the creamery yourself? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. The three factories at Hamburgh have a creamery representine 
 4,000 cows. • 
 
 Mr. Gear. Then you work uj) your own residuum ? 
 
920 REVISION 01^ THE TARIFI'. 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. Yes, sir ; the maniifaoturtrs of sugar of milk, provided they get 
 reumucrative prices for the article manufactured, could afford to pay better prices. 
 
 Mr. LSayne. What duty do you think should be placed on it ? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. I think it would be best uot to ask for an ad valorem duty. Wo 
 ■would like to have a speciiic duty of 10 or 12 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Bay'NE. Is it used for peptonic purposes ? 
 
 Mr. Van Sy'CKLE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. B.AY'NB. I guess that is the chief ingredient in these peptonized pills. 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. About 8 per cent, is sugar of milk. The public does not derive 
 any benefit by reason of this decrease of price from 40 to 15 cents. An ounce bottle 
 containing these pepsin lozenges retails at |1. It contains simply an ounce, so you 
 can see there is a big margin to the wholesale dealer if he does have to pay 40 cents 
 a pound. 
 
 Mr. Geak. Is there any duty on it now? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. No, sir ; none whatever. The facts .are that the manufacturers 
 of sugar of milk now will have to shut down and close up business unless a tariff is 
 secured upon the articles, as they can uot compete. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. What did I understand you to say you paid as wages to your 
 Lands? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. One dollar and a half a day, and the superintendent gets |1,000 
 a year. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And the others get $1.50 a day ? 
 
 Mr. Vajsi Syckle. The engineer aud fireman have to he paid more money. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much do you pay the engineer? 
 
 Mr. Van Sy'CKle. Seven hundred dollars a year. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much do you pay the fireman ? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. Six hundred dollars a year. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And the balance you pay $1.50 a day, except the foreman, who 
 gets $1,000 a year? 
 
 Mr. Van Sy'CKLE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You pay him f3 a day? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. About that a day. He gets $1,000 a year. 
 
 Mr. Bay'NE. How long has this industry been in operation in this country? 
 
 Mr. Van Syckle. Six years. That is the reason it has never been on the dutiable 
 list, as it is a new commodity. It really has uot been made successful in the United 
 States for longer than three years. 
 
 STATEMENT OF M. FLORY. 
 
 Mr. M. Flory, of Hamburgh, N. Y., next addressed the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I do not know that I can give you 
 any further information. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Are you connected with the same factory ? 
 
 Mr. Flouv. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. (tEau. You are a chemist? 
 
 Mr. FLOi;y. I am, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bay'NE. What are the principal uses of swiss? 
 
 Mr. Flory'. The principal uses are for saccharated pepsin for infants' food, for in- 
 valids' food, for children, and for trituratious in the homeopathic pharmacy. You 
 can add sugar of milk to cows' milk, and you can make cows' milk resemble mothers' 
 milk. It is equivalent to it, because the cows' milk does not contain sufliciont sugar 
 of uiilk ; but by putting sugar of milk to the cows' milk you can make cows' milk 
 nearly equal to mothers' milk. 
 
 Mr. Bay'Nk. It is medicinal chiefly ? 
 
 jMr. Flory. Yes, sir. And then it is used for invalids and forhaby food. When we 
 scdd that sugar of milk first, about six years ago when wo commenced, we got about 
 :i0 to 35 and 40 cents a pounds for it; but the moment the Swiss manufacturers 
 found out that we made it here they dropped the price down, and consequently wo 
 hail made our calculation that we could get along if we could get 25, 2('>, or 2ri cents; 
 that we could exist at that price. You know the Swiss manufacturers do not pay 
 over 20 or 2."i centH a day for labor. 
 
 Mr. ItAYXE. Is their sugar of milk imported into this country pure? 
 
 .Mr. Flory. Ypn, sir; some of it is adulterated. 
 
 Mr. (iKAR. Do you make as good sugar of milk as that imported? 
 
 Mr. I'loio. Yes, sir; it compares very favorably. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Has the tendency been downward abroad for the last ten or fifteen 
 years ? 
 
 Mr. Floicy. It is only since we commenced making it here. 
 
REVISION oi" The taeiff. 921 
 
 Mr. McJIiLLiN. How is it abroad; liave tbo prices gone down there? 
 
 Mr. Flory. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You have now got a use for wliey, which would be otherwise 
 wasted ? 
 
 Mr. Floey. The demand for sugar of milk has increased the demand for whey, and 
 every creamery utilizes the whey, which makes quite a little industry. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. And this has brought dowu the prices all over tho world? 
 
 Mr. Flory. It has gone downall over the world. Tho moment we stop manufact- 
 uring the price will go up. There are very few manufacturers, and they will soon 
 combine. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. And they could soon put the price up? 
 
 Mr. Flory'. I should not wonder. 
 
 VIE"WS OF THE AMERICAN MILK SUGAR COMPANY. 
 
 Burlington, Vt., Fehruary 1, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : It was the intention of the American Milk Sugar Company to have ap- 
 peared before the Ways and Means Committees and asked for aheariug relalive to the 
 placing of a duty upon imported sugar of milk, l)ut at the time that our representa- 
 tive should have done this, he "was prevented from going to Washington by an attack 
 of the prevailing epidemic 
 
 As we understand that your committee has ceased to give such hearings, we beg 
 leave to submit to the committee, through you, a statement of our reasons for de- 
 siring such a duty to he placed ou this article. 
 
 We believe that this company "was the first to make a success of the manufacture 
 of the article in this country, and a brief r<Ssumc of their experience may be of 
 interest. 
 
 In the year 18'54, a few gentlemen of this city who were interested in developing 
 improved dairy processes, employed an expert chemist to assist them. While en- 
 gaged upon the line of work they wore interested i]i the chemist's attention was 
 called to the fact that a large amount of sugar of milk was being lost, by reason of 
 its crude material, whey, being thrown away as of little value, at many of the cheese 
 factories in the dairy sections of the country. This led him to investigate aud ex- 
 periment along the line of the manufacture of this article. 
 
 After a long series of experiments he developed a process by which the article can 
 be made to advantage. He submitted tho matter to the gentlemen who are now in- 
 terested in this company, aud after iuvestigati<jn they concluded to form a company 
 for the special purpose of the manufacture of sugar of milk, although investigation 
 showed them the attempt to make it had been several times made, but had always 
 failed, often disastrously. 
 
 Owing to various unexpected hindrances no sugar of our manfacture was offered 
 in the market until late iu the year 1S86. The qualily was very superior, and it was 
 preferred by the leading consumers to the best of the foreign importation. We have 
 continued the manufacture of it Irom that time until the present, but we regret to 
 say without ever getting our company on a paying huancial basis. We have in- 
 vested a CTood deal of money in jilant and in experiments, but so far have been una- 
 ble to make a dividend, while the stockholders have had to submit to several assess- 
 ments to furnish meaus to continue the business, else by giving it up they would 
 have lo.st what had been invested in the plant. 
 
 The reason of this is the fact, as shown on statement herewith submitted, that as 
 soon as our make made its appearance on the market, the price of the foreign article 
 was immediately reduced, so that from selling at 23 cents in July, 1885, aud at. 26 
 cents in July, 1886, it was steadily reduced until in July, 1889, it was selling in the 
 New York market at 15 cents per pound, at which price it still remains. Tho agents 
 of the foreign makers assert that this is below cost of production, but they no doubt 
 believe that by keeping tho price down a sufficient length of time, the manufacture 
 in this country will be abandoned, and then the price can be advanced again to the 
 old figures. 
 
 If it were not for foreign competition, there is no question but that we should he 
 able to supply all the milk sugar required iu this country. We believe that we are 
 entitled to a rate of duty that will prevent foreign manufacturers from throwing 
 their surplus stock upon our markets, and which will enable us to continue our bus- 
 iness to a successful issue. This company assures you that if it can receive the pro- 
 tection repuested, it cau make this industry a source of profit to the great dairy 
 interests of the country, as it will dispose of, at a fair price, a large quantity of the 
 raw material, whey, which now runs to waste, or is used for feeding purposes at a 
 very low rate of value. 
 
922 KEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 We therefore earnestly request that a tariff of 10 cents per pound be placed upon 
 milk sufjar. 
 
 We beg- to call your attention to a pamphlet containing a series of reports from the 
 consular officers of the United Slates in Switzerland, ndative to the manufacture of 
 the article in that country. This pamphk-t is Executive Document No. 188 of the 
 House of Representatives of the Forty-ninth Congress, and was transmitted by Pres- 
 ident Cleveland to the House on April 21, 1880. 
 
 In this report. Hon. T. F. Bayard, then Secretary of State, said: "The mannfactur- 
 ini; of this product is not at present pursued to any extent in the United States, 
 though the large and valuable dairy interests would seem to offer an opening for its 
 introduction, an end which may be'attained by these reports describing so minutely 
 the details of the process. lu thus directing public attention to this industry the 
 Government will \>e performing a function legitimately belonging to it, seeking to 
 extend and promote the industries of the United States without offering, directly or 
 indirectly, to maintain this new manufacture to the profit of one part of the com- 
 munity and at the expense of the other part. The jiroduct and maintenance of the 
 industry properly belong to private capital and individual enterprise." 
 
 It is evident that the honorable S-cretary saw in this an opportunity to foster and 
 build up an industry as yet undeveloped in this country, and that it was a case in 
 which the apidication of the American principle of protection to new industries in 
 their beginnings was greatly needed. 
 
 We trust, dear sir, tliat you will lay this matter before your committee, and that 
 they will consider it fully in its liearing, both upon the dairy industries of the coun- 
 try in giving ailditional value to their products and also in the way of building up a 
 new manufacturing industry which will sujiply a product of Amei'ican manufacture 
 which hitherto has been wholly of foreign make. 
 
 We want 10 cents per pound for duty iu order to make a success of this industry 
 which, until now, has been a failure in this country. 
 
 Should you desire further information we will be very happy to furnish it. 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 A. E. Richardson 
 President American Milk Sugar Company. 
 
 Hon. Wiij.iAM McKiNLEY, Jr., 
 
 Chairnunt Co^nmitfee on JVays and Means. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT. 
 
 BuKLiNGTON, Vt., Fehmary 11, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: General T. S. Peck, one of our directors, has just returned from a visit 
 to Washington, and he reports that he had an interview with you there in regard to 
 the .subject of our former letter, i.e., placing a duty on imported milk sugar; also 
 that lie was present at a meeting of several inomhers of the Himso Committee of Ways 
 and Means, in your room, where he wat' asked lo explain the uses of milk sugar. Aa 
 he could answer only in jiart, at his suggestion we submit the following : 
 
 The uses of milk sugar are constantlv increasing, and its consumption will un- 
 doubtedly he a growing one. We would refer, you to the special tlocumeut relatiug 
 to milk su gar, of which we believe you have a copy, it being Ex. Doc. No. 188 of the 
 HcuiHc of Representatives of the Forty-ninth Congress. On page 8 of that pamphlet 
 you will have a full description of the uses of milk sugar up to that time. Its use in 
 homeopathic jiharmacy still continues to be one of the largest items of consumption, 
 as it is the basis of all their pellets, powders, triturates, etc. It is also being used to 
 a. large extent in regular pharmacy tbrthe production of the new preparations known 
 as "saturated lactates," "compressed tablet triturates," and "powdered triturates." 
 In addition to this, it has, as ever, a large use in iiharmacy iis an article used in pre- 
 scri])tious for various luirposes. Another growing item of consumption is its use in 
 infant foods. You will .see this alluded to on page Oof the document above referred 
 to, wher" it is spoken of as follows: 
 
 "As yet, owing to its comparatively high price, sugar of milk has been little used 
 to replace ordinary cam', sugar in the nourishment of young children, notwithstaud- 
 iiig its advantage over the latter aa a corrective for troubles of the digestive organs." 
 
 Physicians are becoming aware of the above fact, and are prescribing the class of 
 fooils containing the milk sugar, to a very large extent, and also recommending its 
 use by itself. 
 
 We know of no use for the article where it could not re.adily bear a price that 
 would give a fair return for the labor and capital put info its nianiifacture. 
 
 Trusting tliiit our reciuest may meet with such favcu' at the hands of your com- 
 mittee that you will recommeiKl the protection asked for, and th.at wo may he 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 923 
 
 permitted to continue tlie developiiient of an iiulnstry wliicli, altbour^li new in this 
 country, bids fair to increase tiio value of rbe dairy jiroduct by utilizing the wbey 
 now comparatively worthless, I am, 
 Very sincerely yours, 
 
 A. E. Richardson, 
 President American Milk Suf/nr Compaiii/. 
 Hon. William McKinley, ,Ir., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 New York, Jannari/ 17, 1890. 
 The annftxed list of prices of powdernd siij^iir of luilk for tlie past four yoars are 
 furnished by Stallman & Fulton, of Ne.v York, importers of drugs. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 .January 1, 1886 ^7 January 1, ISs'j 
 
 .January 1, 1887 2U January 1, 1891) 
 
 January 1, 1888 l(i July 1, 18Hli 
 
 Cciit.s. Cents. 
 
 ... U; July 1,1887 17 
 
 ... 15 July l,18-<8 16 
 
 ... 26 ,Jnly 1,1889 1.5 
 
 CONDENSED MILK. 
 
 VIE"WS OF THE ANGLO-SWISS COMPANY. 
 
 New York, January 16, 1890. 
 
 Sir: We beq; to respectfully request that in your coniniittce's tariff investigations 
 the question of duty on condensed niillc reeeive due consideration. 
 
 While this company, as you will see from, our letter heading, is organized under the 
 laws of Switzerland, it was establi,shed by American citizens, has been and is man- 
 aged'by American citizeus, who are the largest share-holders. 
 
 This company has invested in buildings, machinery, and apparatus in the States 
 of New Y'ork and Illinois about $600,000. 
 
 The company employs in this country about three hundred laborers, and has facil- 
 ities already provided for employing eight hundred. 
 
 The business closely touches farming interests as well as railway traffic iu the 
 transportation of large quantities of materials, sugar, tin plates, and coal, as well as 
 the product itself. This company believes in American-nuide condensed milk for 
 Americans. Tbe present duty on condeused milk levied by the principal forei"n 
 conutries is, reducing foreign moneys to dollars, about as follows: 
 
 Canada, 1^5 per cent, ad valorem, 
 ]j1us li cents per pound, equals 
 per lUO pounds |2. 
 
 France, per 100 pounds 2. 
 
 ISelgium, per 100 pounds 2, 
 
 South Australia, i)er 100 pounds... 2. 
 
 New South Wales, Australia, per 
 100 jiounds 2. 
 
 91 
 
 78 
 24 
 
 o:i 
 o:? 
 
 Russia, per 100 pounds $19. 39 
 
 Spain, per 100 pounds 9 21 
 
 Geru'an Zollverein, per 100 pounds 7. 62 
 
 Italy, per 100 pounds 7. 02 
 
 Austria, per 100 pounds 4. 93 
 
 Holland, per 100 pounds 4.69 
 
 Queensland, Australia, per 100 
 
 pouiuls - 4. 06 
 
 Victoria, Australia, per 100 pounds 4. 06 
 
 The American duty ii 20 per cent, ad valorem, equaling an average, at varyino' 
 market prices, of about |1.7.'j per 100 pounds. 
 
 It will be seen from tbe foregoing that American producers of condensed milk are 
 practically excluded from tbe thirteen foreign markets named, hence tlie greater im- 
 portance that the American market be [ircserved to American manufaclnrers. 
 
 Barring uudervaluations, foreign mnnnfactnrers can send condensed milk to this 
 country sometimes getting their money back and sometimes realizing a slight profit, 
 but they are always able to pay the 20 per cent, (buy, malcing the American licdd of 
 demand serve as a convenient dumping gronml for tlieir surplus stocks. 
 
 By means of undervaluation, means liable to be resorted to ^ih long as ad valorem 
 duty is the rule, tbe foreign producer can send condensed uiilk to this country, pay 
 20 per cent, duty, and reap a percentage of profit more or less satisfying to foreiti-ii 
 capital. 
 
 No class of goods is better suited to tbe application of specilic duty than con- 
 densed milk. Condensed milk, unlike other articles, is not subject t'o "-rades of 
 value; it is either good and perfect, or worthless; there is no lialfway quality. 
 
924 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Condensed milk is put up in all countries where produced in cans containing even 
 pounds net milk. 
 
 Wo would be jileased to see the duty made exclusively specific instead of ad valorem. 
 \Vu rrspectfully snj^fjest that a speci'lic duty be tixed at 3 cents per pound, reckoned 
 on the net product exclusive of tlie tin cans, as well iis packing cases. 
 
 There need be no fear that an advance of duty w ill increase the price of these goods 
 to the consumer, for the reason tliat competilion among home manufacturers is al- 
 ready exce:<Kive, milk condensing being already one of the most overdone businesses 
 in the United .States, as well as in Europe. 
 
 The chie materials ior canned preserved milk are fresh milk, the best grade of re- 
 fini'il sugar, and tin-plates. This brings us to the iiuestion of duty on tin-plates. 
 
 We hold ih at the preseut tin-plate duty is neither one thing nor another. The 
 present duty does not encourage the uiinnfaelure of [dates in this country, there- 
 fore, in our opinion, the duiy should be either entirely removed or be dou*)led. 
 
 While we make use in our iudustry of enormous fjuantities of tin-plate, if it bo 
 thought that doubling the duty will eucoiuage the manufacture of plates in this 
 country we are not opposed to doubling the tin-plate duty, provided the duty on 
 condensed milk be advanced from 20 per eeiit. ad valoreiu to S cents per ponnd spe- 
 cific. Doubling the duty on tin-plate would increase the cost of production of con- 
 densed milk to the extent of only aliout the tenth part of 1 cent per pound. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Anglo Swiss C(.)xdenseii Milk Company, 
 
 George H. Page, 
 
 General Manager. 
 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Commitlee on Ways and Means. 
 
 MEMORIAL FROM THE NEW YORK COMPANY. 
 
 The New York Condensed Milk Company petition Congress to amend the existing 
 laws relating to the allowance of drawback on exports of domestic manufactures, 
 under sections 3019 and 30'2(l of the Revised Statutes, and section 2502, Schediile N, 
 of act March 3, lrf83, and to allow a drawback ef|ual to the duties paid on the im- 
 ported sugar used in preserving condensed milk prepared and packed by them for 
 export. That the amendment asked for would be in accord with the act of March 3, 
 1883, section 2.")02, Scliedule N, which provides ihat "exporters of meats, whether 
 packed or smoked, which have been cured in the United States with imiiorted salt, 
 shall, upon satisfactory proof, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury shall prescribe that such meats have been cured with imported salt, have re- 
 funded to them from the Treasury the duties paid on the salt so used in curing such 
 exported meats." 
 
 The petitioners represent that the foreign demand for this article of food in such 
 countries as China, .Japan, Australia, and Central America is constantly on the in- 
 cr<'a3e, and, with the duties paid on the imported sugar so used beiiig refunded by 
 way of a drawback oil export, it would enable theiu to successfully com])ete Avit.h 
 European countries, which are now using every effort to 3n|)ply and einitrol the mar- 
 kets of the countries already named, with the advantage on their side of cheaper 
 sugar, chi-'.iper labor, and cheaper transportation. 
 
 The petitioners further re]ireseiit that the enactment to amend the existing draw- 
 back laws as asked for in this petition would bo doing but simple justice to American 
 enterprise with a view to induce and encourage exports of American iudnstry. 
 
 The duties paid on the sugar thus used operate under the present state of affairs as 
 an export tax, which in principle, at least, is uuconstituticnal and against the best 
 iutiTests of the country. 
 
 England and Switzerland at the present day send condensed milk to the United 
 States, to Central America, China, Japan, and Australia, .and notwithstanding the 
 disadvantages we have to contend with against our rivals, our goods are sought for 
 lu those countries on accouut of their superior quality. 
 
 It therefore only remains with Congress to nifund the duties wo have to pay on the 
 sugar used in our l)usiness, and our export trade will grow rapidly in the foreign mar- 
 kets, now ready to receive our goods. 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 New York Condensed Milk Company. 
 
 Wm. J. Rogers, Secretary. 
 
REVISION OV THE TARIFF. 925 
 
 VIEWS OF S. L. DOWS. 
 
 Siotix City, Iowa, January 10, IWO. 
 
 Dear Friend : Yours received. lu reply would say that we have in central Iowa 
 what I believe is acknowledged to be one of the bo>st dairy eonntries in the world. 
 
 The grasses are of such a quality as to yiroduee the richest and best of milk, and 
 the manufacture of condensed milk should be one of the great manufacturing indus- 
 tries of central Iowa: but on account of the high price of sugar, also of tin, we are 
 BOt able to compete with goods manufactured in SAvitzerland and shipped to this 
 country. 
 
 lu each case of 48 cans weighing 1 pound each we use from 18 to 22 pounds of best 
 granulated sugar, depending somewhat upon the time of year that the milk is man- 
 ufactured. We manufacture our cans, which takes about a box of tin vreighing IGO 
 ponnds to make 500 cans. 
 
 The capacity of our factory at Cedar Rapids is 150 cases, or 7,200 cans, per day. 
 The daily consumjition of tin was aljout 14 boxes, and the daily consumption of 
 sugar about 3,000 pounds, or an average the year round of 20 pounds to the case. 
 
 At the cost of milk at 90 cents per 100 pounds and sugar at 8 cents, and cans at an 
 ■average cost of li cents each, and the eases 10 cents each, would bring the cost of a 
 case of milk in Iowa at about $4. 
 
 To compete with foreign milk we ought to be able to lay down a case of milk in 
 New York at $3.50, which ligures 50 cents on cost and 35 cents on freight, making 85 
 cents against our manufacture. 
 
 We think with the duty oil' sugar and tin that we could compete with the world 
 in the manufacture of these goods. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 S. L. Dows. 
 
 Hon. John H. Gear, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 MR. WEDDERBURN'S FIGPRES CORRECTED. (See ante p. 910). 
 
 In reference to the comparative tables furnished by Mr. Wedderburu touching the 
 value of farm lands, Mr. LaFoUette furnished the following- 
 Mr. Chairman, in view of the statements made by Mr. Wedderhnrn in his paper 
 dated January 27, 1890, 1 wish to call the attention of the committee to these facts, 
 which will very materially change the results of his calculations. 
 
 From the total number of acres in the States he names, and the value as returned 
 in 18G9 for the reports of 1870, he figures out the value of the land per acre at just 
 ISO. 35 ; and in the same way for tlie years of f-<79 and 1880, makes the value of the 
 land per acre for the same States $41.24. He giVes from the same sources the total 
 value of the land for 1870 as |3,154,030,197; for 1880 as $2,803,443,402, thus showing 
 a decrease in value of $355,586,795. He gives also from the same sources the total 
 value of farm products from the reports of 1870 for these nine States as $869,793,4(i7, 
 and of 1888 as $603,917,363, thus showing a decrease in value of farm products of 
 $175,876,104. 
 
 Now, the currency in which the value was returned for the reports of 1870 was, in 
 1869, the year the return was made, worth but seventy-two cents to the dollar. 
 Reducing the gentleman's figures to the same basis as the years with which he makes 
 his comparisons, it discloses that the land was worth in 1869 (1870 reports) but 
 $36.25 per acre, instead of $5;l.35; and that instead of decreasing in value from 1870 
 to 1880, or more accurately from 1869 to 1879, $9.11 as he gives it, the lands in- 
 creased in value from $36.25 per acre, to $11.24 per acre. Subjiieting his other tigures 
 to the same tests, I find that instead of farm values in these Slates having decreased 
 $175,876,104 from 1870 to 1880, that they increased $.532,542,6^1 ; auci that instead ot 
 the value of farm produce in these States having decreased in that period $355,.5b6,795, 
 that there was an actual increase of $67,666,067. 
 Further comment, I think, Mr. Chairman, is unnecessary. 
 
926 xtJi^ViSlOJS OH' TUii TAKiFi. 
 
 EICE. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JOHN SCREVEN. 
 
 Mr. John Screven, of Savanuab, Ga., addressed tlie coiumittee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Cbairmau and gentlemen of the couiiuittee, I desire as niucli as possible to 
 refrain from intruding upon the patience and consideration of the committee. But 
 the rice industry is one of great importance in the South. It runs pari passu with 
 sugar and cotton. It is therefore entitled to a fair and just explanation of its needs. 
 I have in my hand here a report which was drawn up by a committee of the Eice As- 
 sociation of Savannah, Ga., which has gone very fully and carefully into an explana- 
 tion of the conditions attached to the rice industry, and explaining fully what its 
 requirements are. This statement, gentlemen, is the more necessary because we of 
 the South who are producers of rice have been somewhat alarmed by the constant 
 declaration that the rice duty is too excessive. 
 
 I propose Mr. Chairman, before we get tbrongh with these proceedings to show, so 
 far from the rice duty being excessive, that it is only so in sound, and that it ought 
 in fact, in all fairness, to be raised. I do not presume to ask that, gentlemen, be- 
 cause I do not presume that it would possibly be allowed. 
 
 I should state, Mr. Chairman, in tin-, outset that the statistics which I will take the 
 liberty to read to the committee contained in this report will not conform, so far as 
 the production of rice is concerned, to the st.itistics that may be derived from the 
 Agricultural Department or from the Census. The sources of information of both De- 
 partments, if I may so express it, are quite diii'erent from those contained in this 
 jiamphlet. Those contained here are statistics which are derived from a strict exam- 
 ination of the sonrc.es, derived from the boards of trade, from the exchanges which 
 form a basis for all commercial transactions of the merchants of this country in regard 
 to rice. I wish that statement to be clearly understood, Mr. Chairman, because it has 
 been a subject of some confusion. So far as the statement of the foreign market is 
 concerned and the amount imported into this country, »11 those facts are derived 
 from Government reports, and I think will lie found to be correct throughout. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, there are three distinctive periods in the history of the rice 
 industry in the United States. First, from its introduction into South Carolina, late 
 in the seventeenth century, down to 1861 ; second, from 1861 to 1866, both inclusive ; 
 third, from 1866 to July, 1881. 
 
 Anterior to 1720, there are no data to be found as to Iho amount of the production 
 of this grain, but the export of rice from South Carolina, from 1720 to 1729, inclusive, 
 was 264,788 barrels of 32.5 pounds each, or 86,056,100 pounds. This would be equiva- 
 lent to an average anunal export, for the period embracing nine years, of 9,795,777 
 pounds. McCuUough's Dictionary of Commerce and Nayigation states the produc- 
 tion of rice in America in 1724 at 1H,000 tierces, or 10,800,000 pounds, an amount so 
 near the average annual exportation of the nine years just mentioned, which include 
 1724, that it is probable production is in this instance confounded with exporta- 
 tion. 
 
 In 1728 and 1729 the export of rice from the port of Charleston was 32,384 barrels 
 of 400 ]iound8 each, or 13,147,600 pounds; and in the period from November 1, 1770, 
 to Octobei- 10, 1771, 130, .500 barrels, or 52,200,000 pounds. Of the latter, showing the 
 dire(ti(m ol' exportation, 103,630 barrels were sliip{)ed to Great Britain and the British 
 West India Islands. The remainder was exported to Portugal, Spain, Italy, and to 
 ports on this continent. From November 1, 1772, to August 2, 1773, there'were ex- 
 ported from Charleston 112,649 barrels, and from all South Carolina ports, of the crop 
 of 1773, 125,076 barrels. 
 
 It ajipears that in 1770 there were exported "from the colonies" 150,529 barrels, 
 or 60,211,600 pounds, showing that about 20,000 barrels, or 8,000,000 pounds, were ex- 
 ported from other than South Carolina ports. It is probable that the colony of 
 Georgia, then in vigorous growth, chiefly assisted the increase in production. 
 
 From the year 1773 down to 17'Jl, a period mainly covered by the Revolutionary 
 war, there are no statistics of production or of exportation, but in the latter year 
 there was exported fnim the United States 9(>,980 tierces of 600 pounds each, or 58,- 
 368,000 pounds. Tlie following year, 1792, the export sprung up to 141,763 tierces, 
 or 85,057,200 pounds. 
 
KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 927 
 
 The followinf? table shows the export of rice- Croiii the United States, beginning 
 with 1791 and continued by decades to 183U, inclusive : 
 
 Tears. 
 
 Tierci.'S. 
 
 90, 980 
 1 12, 060 
 
 nil, :j4,l 
 
 71, 003 
 130, 097 
 
 Puuuda. 
 
 ]791 
 
 58 368 000 
 
 180O. i 
 
 
 1810 
 
 78, 804, 000 
 
 1820 
 
 42 997 800 
 
 1830 
 
 78, 418, 200 
 
 
 Beginninff with 1H40, the statistics, until then wanting in positive data as to pro- 
 duction, become njore instructive as tliey bectmie uioie cdiiiplete. The following table 
 exhibits the production, export, and liouie consumption in the decades stated: 
 
 Year. 
 
 Production. 
 
 Poimds. 
 
 80,841,4:^2 
 21.^, ril3, 097 
 1S7, 167, 032 
 
 Export. 
 
 Home 
 consuraptiOD. 
 
 1840 
 
 Founds. 
 60, 99fj, 000 
 
 68, 000, 000 
 75, 373, 000 
 
 Founds. 
 19, 845, 422 
 
 
 1860 
 
 HI, 794, 032 
 
 
 In the first of these years, the export was 7.5 per cent. ; in the second, 31 per cent, 
 in the third, 40 per cent, of the production. With tlio year 1860 eiulcd the tirst 
 period of the American rice industry, which was distinctive in the absence of the 
 importation of foreign rice, in maximum home ]u-oductiou, in low prices, and in ex- 
 portation, which controlled the markets of foreign countries and made them large 
 contributors to American prosperity and wealth. 
 
 The second period began in 1861 and ended in 1866, with characteristics the reverse 
 of those which distinguished the first period. In 1860 there was no import of foreign 
 rice, and the export of domestic rice reached to 75,373,000 po'unds; but in 1861, the 
 first year of the Confederate war, theio were imported 148,550 pouuds, and there were 
 exported only 39,683,000 pounds. The blockade of the Sontliern ports was begun in 
 the spring of 1861, and from this time the Government record of domestic rice could 
 have been partial only, and therefore affords no criterion of the amount of produc- 
 tion, or of the capacity of the country to export for that year. But the following 
 year, 1862, the statistics are decisive. Domestic jirodnction and consumption of the 
 domestic product were both exclusively confined to the Southern States, and the 
 Government statistics show that, in 1862 there were inijiorted 56,961,317 pounds of 
 foreign rice, and that there were exported only S.-^ijOOO pounds, the latter being 
 doubtless foreign rice, reshipped for lack of a market. 
 
 The following table will show the stfttas of Amerioau production and commerce in 
 rice for the second period: 
 
 ia60-'61 
 ]861-'62 
 1862-'(!3 , 
 ]803^'64 
 1864-'06 . 
 186.5-'66 . 
 
 Production. 
 Foundij. 
 
 11, .192,000 
 
 12, 206, 720 
 
 Im port. 
 
 Poviuls. 
 U8, ,"550 
 .%, 96l,:;l7 
 61, 196,790 
 99, mi, 447 
 44, 6m,.'jl9 
 7.1, D14, 064 
 
 Export. 
 
 Poxtnds. 
 
 39, 683, 000 
 
 3, .W2, OOO 
 
 1, 300, 000 
 
 1, 633, 000 
 
 718, .'iOO 
 
 703, 711 
 
 The crops of 1861, 1862, and 1863 were wholly lost to the Union. Hence the con- 
 sumption in the Northern aud Western States was limited to foreign rice, and ex- 
 portation for these years from Aiiieri can ports was exclusively of foreign rice laid 
 down in bond. Desjiite the cro|i of lH6.",-'66, 12, '211(1, 720 pounds, tlie imjiortation of 
 foreign rice in 1866 readied 75,514,064 pounds, or aliout 10,000,000 pouuds more than 
 the average annual iinporlation of the four i>revious years. 
 
 This, tlie seconil period of t\v American rice industry, is distinctive as the period 
 of maximum prices, in wliich importation took the plnceof domestic production, and 
 foreign rice jiractically monopolized the American market. 
 
928 
 
 REVISION OF THE TAKIFF, 
 
 The iiricoB iif iici' in tlio New York iiiiirket, per pounil, were as follows in the 
 moutbs <<( Jauiiary and July of this peiiod : 
 
 C'ai'oliua . 
 K:ui;;iioii - 
 V-.iUa.... 
 Pal a 
 
 Cardlina . 
 Kaniruoii, 
 
 Parua 
 
 Para 
 
 18C1. 1.S82. I 1863. 1864. 
 
 Jainiat y. 
 
 July. 
 
 ■I?,-..; 7-1-7,! K -8i 
 fi^W 7V-7i , 73-8 
 8 -iOs 8 -8,1 I 81-8-; 
 
 .. '. 4i-.',; 8,1-81; ' 11-113 
 
 K-rd 8 -8}, 11-113 
 
 ; 1 : 1 12-12J 
 
 1865. 
 
 134-133 
 
 'ii'liij' 
 
 83-lOJ 
 9 - 9i 
 
 1866. 
 
 124-13J 
 9-lCJ 
 
 13 -13S 
 93-10 
 
 The prices from ]^A"i2 ouward were war prices, peculiarly the result of armeil con- 
 flict betsYeen iiiterdependent seofions of the same conutry, one of which no longer 
 supplied the other with a domestic, now supi)lanted by a, foreinn product, command- 
 ing prices limited only by the ueeessities ol' the consumers and their ability to pur- 
 chase. Under the couilitum of w;n, rice becomes very largely an article of hospital 
 eonsumptiiHi. Hence, in tbe years wlieu tlie armies of the United States were most 
 numerous and mo.st active, tlie consumption of rice was the largest. In 1863 the 
 consuujption was 6(J,8:!ii,790 pounds. In 1864 it reached 98,059,447 pounds, or only 
 3,7:i.'),.58."j pounds less than the whole consumption of the United States in 1860, when 
 they were at peace. 
 
 The third distinctive period of the American rice indnstry commenced in 1866. The 
 following table epitomizes the history of the domestic production, foreign importa- 
 tion, and consumption of rice in the United States in this period. It embraces the 
 import from the Hawaiian Islands duty free, and that of ''granulated rice," which 
 bears a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Tahle showing doniesiic production, inqxjrtaiion, exportation, and consumption of rice. 
 
 Tears. 
 
 Domestic 
 productloD. 
 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1865-'66 
 
 11, 592, 000 
 
 lS6C-'67 .... 
 
 12, 2UC, 729 
 
 ]867-'08 
 
 14, 602, 000 
 
 ]8ns-'i;9 
 
 20,7:10.2011 
 
 1809-'70 
 
 53, 937, 000 
 
 l«7l)-'7l 
 
 47, 348, 000 
 
 1871-'72 
 
 39, 625, 990 
 
 187-'-'7,^ 
 
 52, 634, 400 
 
 ls7:i-'74 
 
 62, 900, 3S0 
 
 1874-75 
 
 68. -J-ll, 400 
 
 1873-71) 
 
 72, 300, 800 
 
 187li 77 
 
 81, 391,800 
 
 1877-78 
 
 77, ■: 10, 400 
 
 1878-79 
 
 84. 739, '200 
 
 ]87U-'8(I 
 
 88, 996, SliO 
 
 188II-S1 
 
 117,700,1100 
 
 IK.-il '82 
 
 9.1, 512, 800 
 
 3:*-2-'8:) 
 
 107, 171, 125 
 
 1S8:1 '81 
 
 107, (1.S0. 03(1 
 
 18S4-'85 
 
 1 08, 1 38, 700 
 
 ]8--'.')-'8l'. 
 
 l.-.l. 1(13,920 
 
 1 «8fl-'87 
 
 1.55, 7'!7, 06(1 
 
 18S7-'88 
 
 139, 111(1,-103 
 
 1888-'81J 
 
 137, 285, 00(1 
 
 Domestic 
 rice ex- 
 ported. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 639, 080 
 
 2,212.901 
 
 1, 394, 007 
 3, 074, (143 
 
 2, 232, 833 
 2, 133, 014 
 
 445, 842 
 403, 835 
 270, 637 
 568, 922 
 277, 357 
 439, 091 
 1, 306, 982 
 03 1 , 105 
 178, 534 
 150, 451 
 143, 289 
 186, 140 
 163,519 
 108, 837 
 256,311 
 644, 384 
 39s, 535 
 457, 300 
 
 Domestic 
 
 nee <■ 
 
 ni- 
 
 same 
 
 d. 
 
 P 
 
 ounds. 
 
 10 
 
 953, 
 
 520 
 
 9 
 
 993 
 
 819 
 
 13 
 
 3(18 
 
 593 
 
 ''3 
 
 710 
 
 1.57 
 
 51 
 
 704 
 
 167 
 
 45 
 
 214 
 
 986 
 
 39 
 
 1,K0 
 
 UK 
 
 5'* 
 
 33(1 
 
 
 62 
 
 02i 
 
 743 
 
 07 
 
 683 
 
 478 
 
 72 
 
 (i,s:; 
 
 443 
 
 80 
 
 951 
 
 809 
 
 75 
 
 933 
 
 41 s 
 
 81 
 
 108 
 
 095 
 
 86*818 
 
 30(i 
 
 117 
 
 015 
 
 519 
 
 05 
 
 009 
 
 511 
 
 1(1(1 
 
 984 
 
 9S5 
 
 111(1 
 
 933 
 
 111 
 
 107 
 
 il59 
 
 833 
 
 1.5(1 
 
 818 
 
 009 
 
 155 
 
 003 
 
 470 
 
 139 
 
 100 
 
 403 
 
 130 
 
 80S 
 
 394 
 
 Foroiffn 
 
 riee 
 
 im 
 
 ported. 
 
 1' 
 
 mnds. 
 
 60 
 
 407 
 
 750 
 
 75 
 
 514, 
 
 (ii;4 
 
 44 
 
 782 
 
 223 
 
 59 
 
 140 
 
 707 
 
 53 
 
 005 
 
 194 
 
 43 
 
 123 
 
 93.9 
 
 61 
 
 055 
 
 8-!0 
 
 74 
 
 042 
 
 031 
 
 83 
 
 755 
 
 225 
 
 73 
 
 257 
 
 710 
 
 59 
 
 414 
 
 744 
 
 71 
 
 661 
 
 852 
 
 64 
 
 013 
 
 U04 
 
 47 
 
 4H9 
 
 878 
 
 57 
 
 304 
 
 848 
 
 68 
 
 739 
 
 409 
 
 79 
 
 412 
 
 841 
 
 90 
 
 673, (180 
 
 100 
 
 030 
 
 523 
 
 81 
 
 077 
 
 410 
 
 97 
 
 562 
 
 3,53 
 
 93 
 
 950 
 
 3.57 
 
 1.52 
 
 361, 
 
 205 
 
 ISO 
 
 243, 
 
 -106 
 
 Foreign 
 rice e.s:- 
 ported. 
 
 Fniiads. 
 
 7, 998, 996 
 
 8, 650, 000 
 4, 070, 0S2 
 
 11, 90,-;, 953 
 
 8, SOS, 664 
 16,212,833 
 10,212,920 
 
 12, 251, 950 
 20,202,774 
 ■25, 840, 877 
 12, 352, 33,0 
 16,610,614 
 14, 483, 646 
 
 9, 056, 593 
 8, 793, 395 
 
 10,819,807 
 0, 855, (1.50 
 2,312,008 
 
 10, 140, 1 54 
 8. 030, 900 
 
 '0,591,090 
 
 *4, 858, 709 
 3,398,122 
 8, 303, 904 
 
 Foreijin 
 rice coa- 
 aumed. 
 
 Pounds. 
 52, 408, 760 
 00, 858, 004 
 40, 100, 141 
 47,231,754 
 44, 190, 630 
 27,911,106 
 54, 442, 900 
 62, 390, 672 
 03,, 5.52, 451 
 47,416,839 
 47, 002, 414 
 54,951,238 
 49, . 5-29, 419 
 37, .S33, 285 
 48,571,453 
 .57, 919, .542 
 72, 557, 785 
 94,361,012 
 96, 484, 369 
 72, 440, .550 
 91,391,263 
 89, 111,. 590 
 147, 963, 0(i3 
 177, 940, 531 
 
 Total con- 
 aumptioQ. 
 
 Pounds. 
 63, 362, 280 
 76,851,8-23 
 53, 314, 734 
 70,947,911 
 96, 900, 097 
 73,120,092 
 93, 023, 048 
 114,621,237 
 126, 176, 194 
 115, 099, 317 
 119,14.5,857 
 136,903,047 
 125, 402, 837 
 121,941,380 
 1 35, 389, 710 
 175, 635, 091 
 167, 727, 296 
 201, 345, 997 
 203,407,480 
 180, 400, .383 
 242, 239, 872 
 2(4, 175, 060 
 287, 003, 548 
 314,768,836 
 
 NoTK.- 
 
 dacliou. 
 
 llotli 18S7-'88 and 1888-'89 were years of great Hoods, hence tbe decrease in the domestic pro- 
 
 Ill the first ye.'irof tlu- third period ^l865-'(!6) the domestic prodncMon was 11,592,600 
 pounds, and Hie foi'ei<.;u rice importiMl 60,407,706 ])ounds. As early as tlie liftb year, 
 the domestic prodncti'in iiad swidled io .'');i,9;)7,000 jionnds, showing an increase of 
 
 iiC'iU'lv ;ii'o jiei'eeoit., iiulcc-d overliHMiing thi; fonni^n imiiortatioi) ; but still the gt'Oas 
 
REVISION OF THE TAKIFE. 929 
 
 importation (292,909,944 pounds) iu the first five vears exceeded the gross domostio 
 production (119,129,120 pounds) 18;^,780,8'24 iioiinds. 
 
 It is remarkable, that iu these first five years the exportation of domestic rice was 
 greater than in any subsequent years. 
 
 In the ten years beginning with the crop of 16Gi)-'70 and euding with that of 1878- 
 '79, the domestic product was 640,419, 370, pounds and the foreign import 634,980,0(53 
 pounds, clearly showing, that the duty {2i cents i:)er pound) was so adjusted as that 
 foreign rice could be imported without embarrassment toRupply any deiioienoy in the 
 domestic crop. In the period of eight years from 1879-'«u to l8!^6-'87, the domestic 
 product has been 929,472,095 pounds and the foreign import 681^7 10, H-Jl pounds, showing 
 an increase in the latter period of eight years as compared with the previous pi-riod 
 often years of 46 per cent, in the domestic product and of 7 per cent, in the foreign 
 import. 
 
 The consumption in the former period averaged, say, 112,000,X)00 pounds and in the 
 latter 19.5,000,000 pounds per annum. In lS69-'70 it was 70,947,911 pounds, in 1879-'d0, 
 135,389,710 pounds, and in 1886-'b7, 244,175,060 pounds. ■ 
 
 Of the gross consumption in 188'i-'87, the domestic rice consumed was 1.55,063,476 
 pounds and the foreign import consumed was 89,111,590 pounds. The latter was the 
 largest amount of foreign rice consumed in any one year in twenty-two successive 
 years, with the exception of 1882-'83, 1883-'84, and 188.5-'86. In the second year just 
 mentioned, the consumption of the foreign import reached 96,484,369 pounds, or about 
 double the amount consumed in. 1879- 80. In 1887-'8H, the consumption reached 
 147,963,083, and in 1888-'89 177,940,531, nearly doubling the consumption of the foreign 
 import in two years, and exceeding the domestic crop about 64,000,000 pounds. 
 
 These facts show conclusively that the consumption of the foreign import has 
 greatly increased, though not in the same volume as that of the domestic product ; 
 but it is clear, that at no time .since 1866 has the duty been so onerous as to impede 
 the demand for foreign rice or to prevent its liberal itujiortation, while a large sur- 
 plus is always iu bond in the United States custom-houses held against any exigen- 
 cies of the market and decisively restricting the price of American rice. These causes 
 of repression would be more potential were foreign commonly equal iu quality to 
 American rice, and did not the marked increase in domestic iiroduction strengthen 
 the competitive forces in American markets. 
 
 Holding in view these prominent facts, it may be now considered whether the 
 protection given to the domestic rice industry by the present import duty may be 
 justly maintained. 
 
 It has been seen that the domestic production increased 130 per cent, in twenty 
 years, from 1340 to 1860. During this perirod, the duty on foreign rice was 20 per 
 cent, ad valorem. 
 
 This, Mr. Chairman, will tend to show the error which was stated in the House of 
 Representatives during the last session, tliat the amount of rice produced iu the 
 United States at that time was double what it was before the war. It was quite the 
 contrary. Before the war it was double what it is now. 
 
 Mr. Geak. Yes, the productiou was double what it is now. 
 
 Mr. ScKEVKN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What was the duty on that prior to the war? 
 
 Mr. Screven. Twenty per cent, part of the time. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And 15 per cent, part of the time 1 
 
 Mr. Screven. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And 10 per cent, at the opening of the war. 
 
 Mr. Screven. Yes, sir; and I wish to call the attention of the committee particu- 
 larly to the fact that that duty was entirely perfunctory. We exported nearly as 
 much rice as we consumed. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That was because we had an excess in the South ? 
 
 Mr. Screven. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The high price was incident to the depreciation of j)aper? 
 
 Mr. Screven. No, sir. If you make the calculation you can find out. I am not 
 prepared to make it just now. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Yes, paper was depreciated then. 
 
 In all the rice-producing division of the country slave labor was then employed, 
 and no foreign rice was imported. Quite contrary to present ex|ieiience, when so 
 little domestic rice is exported as to be inappreciable in the marketing of the crops; 
 more than 147,000,000 pounds were exported in 1850, and 112,000,000 pounds in I860. 
 In the former year, the average pric(i of rice in the New York market was |3. ISA, and 
 in the latter year .|4.20 per 100 pounds. The aver.qge price of the whole period from 
 1850 to 1H60 was materially increased by the great storm of 1851, whicli swept away 
 the greater part of the crop of that year, and by the draught made on the labor of the 
 South Atlantic States by emigration to the West and South '.vest. But it maybe 
 stated, as an evidence of the cheapness of production not long anterior to this period, 
 485-^—59 -' 
 
930 REVISION OF THK TARIFF. 
 
 that in January, 1843, prime rice sold in the Savannah market for $1.50 to $1.75 per 
 100 pounds. 
 
 These minimum prices represented about one-third more than the sheer cost of pro- 
 duction with slave labor before the late war boweeu the States. The per diem of 
 slave labor did not much, if at all, exceed 20 cents, and on this basis the cost ot cul- 
 tivating rice was about |1.10 per 100 pounds. 
 
 Comparing these data, ascertained as nearly as possible for the same period and for 
 the same industry in China, the great competitor with the American producer, it is 
 found that in 1847 the wages of a Chinese field laborer were about 14 cents a day. 
 He could live for about .$2 to |2..50 per month, including clothes and rent, or froDi 
 7.6 to 9.0 cents per diem for twenty-six working days. We learn from the same 
 authority that rice was worth about 9 mills per pound, or 90 cents per 100 pounds. 
 
 In view of these facts alone, it is evident that if American rice was produced at 
 fl.lO per 100 pounds, Chinese rice could not have been profitably brought into the 
 United States, even if relieved of the then subsisting import tax of 20 per cent, ad 
 valorem. 
 
 The result was a monopoly to the American producer, not only in the home, but 
 practically in the European and West India markets, where the American staple pre- 
 dominated. This commanding position gave the American producer greater and more 
 assured profit than is now possible with free labor, even with the advantage of a 
 heavier import duty on foreign rice. 
 
 In the period between 1840 and 1860, the duty op foreign rice was absolutely need- 
 less as a protection to the American producer, and valueless as a source of revenue to 
 the Government. The former was wholly independent of protection to an industry 
 maintained by labor in cheapness second to that of Asia only, and in effectiveness 
 unsurpassed. He was in a position to defy competition, and triumphantly met the 
 almost free importation of East India rice, even in the English markets. He pointed 
 to his fields as unexcelled examples of industry, skill, and profit. Holding the same 
 rank with the American cotton producer, and moving pari passu with him in the 
 commerce of the civilized world, protection was as unnecessary to him as it was use- 
 less to the Government. To have called the duty protection would have been ab- 
 surd; it was, in fact, merely supererogatory. 
 
 But, in 1862, the importation of foreign rice was 56,961,317 pounds. Except for the 
 internal supply of the Southern States, the cultivation of rice was then rapidly dimin- 
 ishing. The rice fields, which lay chiefly in the great tidal deltas, the first to be 
 reached in the military operations against the '.•outh, were soon laid waste or aban- 
 doned. The planters retreated with their slaves into the interior. The result was, 
 that in 1865, the crop had dwindled from 187,000,000 pounds in 1860, with an expor- 
 tation of 75,000,000 pounds, to 12,000,000 pounds production, with an importation of 
 45,000,000 pounds ! Indeed, the importation for 1864 was nearly 100,000,000 pounds, 
 and the production nought! In short, Asiatic rice had taken entire possession of the 
 American markets, except within the Confederate military lines, and at this time, 
 despite the immense volume of importation, the prices in the New York market 
 ranged as high as from $12.00 to $14.50, and iu some exceptional instances to $17.00 
 per 100 pounds. 
 
 The duty on cleaned rice had been raised in 1862 to 1| cents per pound. In 1864 it 
 was again increased to 2| cents per pound. It was reduced to 2|- cents under the rec- 
 ommendation of the Tarifl' Commission. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Was that done purely as a revenue measure to raise money ? 
 
 Mr. ScKEVEN. It was for revenue. It was a war tax. This duty was imposed in 
 time of war, but why may it not be continued iu time of peace? In time of war it 
 was contributary to the cost of the war, but it was also a tax on a foreign monopoly. 
 In time of peace, it remains a tax 011 a foreign imported commodity, undiminished in 
 volume and contributary to the maintenance of the Government, while it is a neces- 
 sary prevention against the re-establishment of a foreign monopoly, and a protection 
 alike to the American producer and consumer. 
 
 The conditions surrounding the American producer have changed wholly since the 
 imposition of the high duty on foreign rice. In 1865 the American rice crop was, say, 
 12,000,000 pounds, about equal to the crops iu the early history of the culture, say 
 from 1725 to 17.30. The industry had been remanded to its infancy. The planters 
 had returned to their estates, to find buildings, machinery, and implements destroyed; 
 the appliances of a wonderful system of irrigation and drainage mutilated or wrecked ; 
 the long abandoned fields grown up in tangleil wilds of brush, vines, and trees; the 
 once disciplined and supremely efficient labor of the country turned into a mob, stolid 
 when not outrageous, but rapt in the delusion of race supremacy, and credulous, that 
 emancipation meant unbridled license or easy indolence. 
 
 It should be no marvel that the great majority of the planters recoiled from an 
 industry which seemed only a desperate adventure. A few who undertook the 
 work of recuperation, succeeded at the risk of the little capital orcredit left to them, 
 and often at the peril of life itself. Many failed. None so wretchedly as those who 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 931 
 
 were unfamiliar with a culture demandini; peculiar experieace and skill, <jr wlio 
 were unable to adapt themselves successfully to the new r(5gime of labor, aud to the 
 unexpected character of employes, who had yet to learn the severe lesson of quickly 
 earned and untried liberty. , 
 
 In short, relegated to its earliest historical conditions, the rice industry of the 
 South was practically commenced anew, aud if it had any encouragement at all, it 
 was in the protection aflbrded by the import tax on foreign rice. This was equivalent 
 to giving the home producer a start of, say, 80 per ceut. ad valorem in the home 
 markets against the foreign grain delivered duty paid. But oven with thisadvan-, 
 tage, while the ijrices glittered, they were not necessarily protitable. The crojis were 
 cultivated for many years at extraordinary cost aud at gieat hazard. These em- 
 barrassments were diminished in process of time, and meanwhile, as labor became 
 more efflcieut and less costly, aud the consumi)tiou of rice increased, so the area of 
 cultivation and the production expanded. But at no time since IbtiS could rice have 
 been cultivated, as a staple product, without the protection aflbrded by the import 
 duty on the foreign grain. 
 
 Since the emancipation of the slaves the cost of agricultural labor in the South has 
 been greatly increased. In the rice districts of the Caroliuaa aud Georgia ileld labor 
 ranges from 40 to 60 cents, and the best export (not mechanical) labor to $1 per 
 diem — this without the efUcieucy to be expected from free labor. The laborers fre- 
 quently refuse to undertake tasks, easy under a sterner system and essential to nice 
 cultivation. A day's labor is commonly reduced to six liours iuNtea<I of ten. For 
 such reasons great waste attends the harvest, which, from the peculiar conditions re- 
 quired in curing this grain, do not as yet, despite the efforts of inveution, admit the 
 horse reaper, and are still conducted with the sickle. The consequences of these em- 
 barrassments are reduced production and, commonly, minimum crops. Added to these 
 are the disastrous storms which sweep over the tidal deltas on which the most ex- 
 tensive and most productive plantations are found. As an example of the destruc- 
 tiveness of these great convulsions, the storm of the 27th of August, IbSl.laid waste 
 from 40 to .50 per ceut. of the rice crop on the coasts of South Carolina aud Georgia, 
 besides mutilating the plantations and destroying buildings, implements, live stock, 
 aud many lives. In some instances, indeed, the crops were annihilated aud the plant- 
 ers were compelled to abandon their property. Storms of such extreme destructive- 
 ness seldom happen more than once in a generation, but their ravages are appalling, 
 and their effects upon the property and fortunes of the sufferers, if not absolutely 
 ruinous, may be protracted through many years. Storms of less violence occur, how- 
 ever, at much nearer intervals, and despite protectives against them, erected at ex- 
 traordinary outlay, they sometimes inflict losses sufficient to cancel far more thau the 
 profits of a crop. 
 
 In 18d5 the inland rice crop and those on the short streams of South Carolina and 
 Geoigia were destroyed by excessive rains aud inundations, aud again in 1887 aud in 
 1888, those on the greater streams, as the Savannah aud Altamaha, were swept away 
 by freshets, and from similar causes great losses were suffered in Louisiana. 
 
 Such extraordinary hazards are peculiar to rice husbandry, and should be fairly con- 
 sidered in estimates of its cost; rjut without raking them into consideration, the 
 price of labor alone renders it impossible, at this stage of the industry, for rice to be 
 cultivated at its low cost in the slave period. In that period the domestic jiroiluct not 
 only monopolized the home market, but controlled those of Europe and the West 
 Indies. The Southern ports were the nearest in time and distance to all these 
 markets. Shipments from the East Indies took the circuit by the Cape of Good 
 Hope, occupying many months in the voyage, at high rates of insurauce and freight, 
 with loss of interest, and at the risk of fluctuating markets. 
 
 The American had then the advantage not only iu cheapness of production, but in 
 the commercial conditions. All these conditions are now changed. The scene of 
 competition is transferred from European aud West Indian to the American market, 
 and the producer of the American grain now tinds the Asiatic grain meeting his prod- 
 uct almost in his own fields, to be cleaned in amounts nearly equal to and in the same 
 mills with his own. The establishment of the Suez Canal has revolutionized the 
 commerce of the world. Shipments from the East, formerly made by sailing vessels, 
 may now be made by swift steamers of great burden, by this short and direct route, 
 with all the charges of transportation reduced to a minimum, aud cargoes delivered 
 to destination within forty to flfty days. They may be ordered by telegraph to meet 
 the exigencies of markets, aud bills formerly drawn at six months may now be drawn 
 at sixty to ninety days. 
 
 In these respects the change is absolute, and it is more intensified by the compari- 
 son of the cost of labor in Asiatic rice-producing countries and iu the South. It has 
 been stated that the price of labor iu the Caroliuas aud Gcorgin. is now from 40 to 60 
 cents per diem, aud expert labor, not mechanical, as high as $1 per diem. In most 
 instances the laborer is furnished lodgings and laud for his own crop ; in other in- 
 stances, he is himself commonly owner of both. But as to the value of labor In the 
 
932 EEVISION OF THE TAKIP^F. 
 
 rice-fields of China, we learn from a report of the United States minister at Peking 
 (Reports from the Consuls of the United States No. b3, Sept., 1887, page 489), as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 "Couaing now to the field-hand whom the farmer hires, we arrive at the sub- 
 stratum of labor. The average wages of an able-bodied young man is |12 per annum, 
 food, straw shoes, and free shaving. Deducting |4 for his clothing, he saves |B an- 
 nually — or may do to. Ten years' saving will enable him to buy one-third of an acre 
 of land (value ]ier acre |1.50) and necessary implements, by which he can attaiu by 
 his own labor a subsistence. In twenty years he can become possessor of two-thirds 
 of an acre and one-third of a buffalo, and with six years more saving he may pur- 
 chase a wife, with whose assistance he can maintain himself on his own land, in his 
 own hut, and rear children. Thus, in twouty-."ix years from zero, a Chinese farm 
 laborer may obtain what to him i,-; a competence. Ascertain now the number of years 
 in which the same result might be accomplished in all lands and we shall have, ap- 
 proximately, their relative wage rate. This labor gauge can not, of course, embrace 
 the imiiortant factors of decency and comfort in living, nor the death rate, which 
 with other matters pertain to a full consideration of the subject." 
 
 In Japan, tield-hande receive their food and lodging, with wages from $8.60 to $12.96 
 per annum. The wages of females are about |6 per annum. (See U. S. Consular Re- 
 ports No. 48, December, 1884, page 732.) 
 
 In British India, welearu from the British Indian Famine Report, 1871 to 1881, that 
 in Delhi, occasional labor is paid for males, per diem, 6 cents ; for females 1^ cents; 
 for children 1 cent. 
 
 In Kurnal, the highest permanent wages, with or without one meal per diem, is per 
 month 50 cents. 
 
 In JBorat, men employed by the year, get from 80 to 100 pounds of grain per month 
 and from 44^ cents to $1.98 per annum. 
 
 In Bombay and Madras laborers are paid from 6 to 12 cents per diem, and when 
 employed throughout the year, if furnished food, 224 cents per month, and without 
 food, 50 cents per month. 
 
 Hence the wages paid to laborers in the-rice fields of the South are manifold greater 
 than those paid to laborers in the rice-producing countries of Asia. In the former 
 not less than two-thirds of the cost of production is disbursed in wages, and doubt- 
 less the same fact will hold true in China, Japan, and India, while evidently the 
 contrast in this element of cost should render unnecessary any further comment than 
 that without the intervention of the existing import tax on Asiatic rice competition 
 would seem impossible. It is common to cry out against the so-called excessiveuess 
 of this duty, when it is in fact very far from being apportioned to the comparative 
 value of American and Asiatic labor. The main bulk of rice, other than " granulated, "* 
 has hitherto beeu brought into the United States from China at an import value of 
 only 2 cents per pound, while the cost of the American product is not less than 3| 
 cents per pound, without taking into consideration the peculiar hazards of the in- 
 dustry and the interest on the cajjital investment in land and improvements. The 
 present duty on cleaned rice is 2J cents per pouud, so that foreign rice should bring 
 presumirtively 4^ cents per pound to be of profit to the importer. Thus three-fourths 
 of a cent per pound is the margin left the American producer, all of which may be 
 swept away in the signal casualties to which the rice fields are peculiarly and always 
 exposed. 
 
 In the estimates of cost, the interest on the investment in land and improvements 
 have not been considered. But this is really of first importance. Perhaps no better 
 evidence of this can be presented than the following extract from an address, pub- 
 lished in the proceedings of the Georgia State Agricultural Society in 1884 : 
 
 " In order that the character and extent of the embanking and drainage system 
 may be understood in a general way, I will venture, before concluding, the statement 
 of a few facts in regard to these, tide chief extraordinary burdens of a rice planta- 
 tion. 
 
 "The storm flood of 1854 rose about 11.5 feet above mean low water in the Savan- 
 nah River. This would make the still-water level of the flood over the fields 4.8 feet. 
 The storm flood of 1881 was about 6 feet maximum over the lields, or 1.2 of a foot 
 higher than that of lb54. No rice-field embankments exist which could repel such 
 storms as these. If any were constructed high enough to reach the still-water level 
 of the flood, its waves, which surge like those of the ocean, and to a height quite 
 double the elevation of that level, would roll over such embankments and submerge 
 the field as effectually as if no .such protectives existed. No effort, therefore, has yet 
 been made to bar oil' extraordinary cataclysms like those of 1854 and 1881, and the 
 
 "Import of granulated rice. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 lRR4-'85 37,907,167 
 
 IHttS-'m 37,608,720 
 
 16S«-'87 ...,..: 47,021,a«a 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 933 
 
 rice planter raises only such embankments ns will defend his fields against ordinary 
 storm tloods. 
 
 " The exterior embankments of a rice plantation are nsnally originally constructed 
 4 feet wide on top, 5 feet in height, with a base of 10 feet. On insular plantations, 
 and, in fact, all rice plantations are practically insular, because each is necessarily 
 self-dependent, these dimensions are carried entirely around the property. Unless 
 creeks and other surface irregularities incr(':is(! the quantities, these embankments 
 contain (3,845.5 cubic yards per mile. Thus, the exterior embankments of a planta- 
 tion of 640 acres, 1 mile square (which is used here for easy estimates), would be 
 4 miles In length and contain 27,378 cubic yards, or 44 cubic yards to the acre. 
 Such interior embankments as are thrown up along canals or are used for roadways 
 exceed the exterior embankments, and may be assumed as 6 miles in total length, 
 and in solid contents to measure 49.28* cubic yards, or 77 cubic yards per acre. If 
 now this plantation be divi<led into 30 squares of, say, 17.5 acres each, the divisions, 
 •which are called check banks, will roughly be 8 miles in length, with contents of 
 34,417 cubic yards, or 53 cubic yards to the acre. It should be stated that on many 
 rice plantations the squares or tields will average less acreage than is here assumed. 
 Asa rule, the area of the rice-tieldsis in some measure governed by the character of the 
 surface of the land — the more irregular the surface, the smaller the area and the more 
 numerous the check banks. But summing up the statement of e iibankment, its 
 gross length is 18 miles, its contents are 111,079 cubic yards, or 174 cubic yards to 
 the acre. 
 
 "But the drainage of the rice-fields and its annual maintenance is a servitude more 
 burdensome than their embankments. It is, however, also true, that while the rice 
 plant of the tidal lands is acquatic, or perhaps more correctly, amphibious, it is para- 
 doxical in demanding the most thorough drainage for its successful growth. * * * 
 Interior embankments not necessary to the siifety and convenience of the fields may 
 demand no more than i^erfunctory renewals, but the drains imperatively require to 
 be not only thoroughly excavated in the origin, but to be constantly kept down to 
 their original depth, and, as the land settles, to be lowered to the same relative 
 depth. 
 
 "A properly arranged plantation of 640 acres, looking to the best control of flow- 
 ing water and to thorough drainage, would require four parallel canals, each 20 feet 
 in width and 5 feet in depth. The total length of these would be 3.33 miles. Each 
 would require a flood-gate at its extremity on the river, so arranged as to admit or 
 bar the tide-water at pleasure. Along these canals, one on each side of each field, or 
 two to the Held, are laid small flood-gates, commonly called trunks, by which the 
 ■watering and drainage of each field is independently regulated. The main flood- 
 gates of the canals are frequently true locks, so that canal and river navigation 
 may be united. The four cauals mentioned call for the excavation of 48,889 cubic 
 yards, or 76 cubic yards per acre. 
 
 "In addition to these canals, which are the great arteries of the rice-fields, each 
 square or field must be surrounded by a main or margin ditch, cut 6 feet wide by 4 in 
 depth, and parallel drains, called quarter drains, must be sunk through the fields 
 from 1.5 to 2 feet in width by 3 feet in depth, usually 75 feet apart, but m some in- 
 stances still nearer. If now, for easy computation, we throw off' spaces not actually cut 
 through margins and embankments, which would not seriously affect the result, it 
 will be found that the linear measurement of this drainage will be 94 miles, and the 
 excavation 1.57,226 cubic yards, or 246 cubic yards per acre. 
 
 "To sum up for this illustrative rice plantation we have — 
 
 
 Linear 
 miles. 
 
 Cubic 
 yards. 
 
 
 18. 
 97.3 
 
 Ill 079 
 
 
 206, llfi 
 
 
 
 Total .... ... 
 
 115.3 
 
 317 294 
 
 
 
 
 0.18 
 
 490 
 
 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, if I am not risking too much to the patience of the committee, 
 I would like to be permitted, if it is at all a matter of iuterest, to give some descrip- 
 tion of what a rice-field is. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Let me ask you one question. Is the rice imported here generally im- 
 ported foi* edible or other piir|i08es, or is it mostly edible ? 
 
 Mr. Screven. Yes, sir. I am myself a practical rice-grower, and I have been so, I 
 may say, for generations ; for it begaTi with my lorefatliers and came down to me. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, these figures may seem to be very astonishing. I expect that 
 
934 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 they may possibly excite the incredulity of tLuse who are not familiar with this sub- 
 ject ; but this ill iisl rati ve rice plantation will have to have a bank around the whole 
 of it, say 4 n)iles in len;j;th. That exterior einbaukruent is made to jirotect it against 
 storms and freshets and high tides, and would certainly have to average IS feet on 
 the base to very nearly 5 feet in height, and wide enough on the top to drive a wagon 
 on it. Now, this plantation would be divided into what planters call squares. The 
 scjuares will lie divisions of the fields. All of these fields have to be surrounded, and 
 I will state that in a plantation of 640 acres perhaps there would be some thirty odd 
 S(iuare8. Each would be divided from the other by a substantial bank for the purpose 
 of assisting the cultivation. Then there are what are called maiu ditch&s, which are 
 sunk all around each of these squares, which usually are 6 feet in width by about 5 
 in depth and about 2 to 'Zi feet on the bottom. 
 
 Then the field has again to be divided by a<inarter drainage, sunk across the fields, 
 ditch to ditch, aud which are usually about 2 to 2^ feet in width and about '.i feet 
 in depth. Then each of these squares is furnished with what is known among us 
 as trunks, which might be known in the West as flumes, and which are notbiug in 
 the world but water-gates. They are usually made in the shape of long boxes 30 or 
 40 feet in length. This is sunk to the depth of about 3 feet and furnished with double 
 gates, one inside and one outside, so that whether we flow the water inside or out, 
 the water can be perfectly controlled. Now, in order that this plantation may be 
 made complete, that this rice or agricultural factory may be complete, it is necessary 
 to sink other canals, one in the middle of the plantation, which would be about 20 
 feet in width, and one on each flank of the plantation of a siujilar size, and at the 
 mouth of these canals are put what are known as flood-gates. These gates may be a 
 trunk or flume on a large scale, which will admit the passage of barges for the pur- 
 pose of moving the rice from the back fields and also for the purpose of unloading at 
 the mills. 
 
 You will want to know why we have to go to all this enormous expense to prepare 
 the land for the purpose of making a rice crop. It is very simply explained. The 
 rice crop is amphibious. At one time it is a crop which demands a continuous supply 
 of water. At other times it recpiires to be very dry, so that very often these lauds 
 which to-day are under water a foot deep, in three days afterwards would be as firm 
 as that table. I do not suppose you care for me to go into an expert explanation of 
 all this matter. I merely state tiiese simple facts in order that you may understand 
 what causes the original investment in a rice plantation, which are not computed in 
 this statement, to cost more than any other agricultural industry at all. In some in- 
 stances there are artificial methods of raising the water into the rice-fields by means 
 of steam-pumps and the like, but the most of the cultivation of this amphi bious plant 
 is done by the use of tide-water, aud the land upon which rice is comniouly cultivated 
 is below the high water gauge of the tides. As, for instance, in the Savannah River 
 the water rises just before neap in the spring over 6 feet and as high as 10 feet. This 
 is the class of tides we use on the fields. That water is taken off for the purpose of 
 drying the fields in the process of cultivation, in order to keep the grass out of it, and 
 in order to hoe aud iflough it. The water is also taken ott' for the purpose of cutting 
 the grain. I have been particular to state, in what I have said heretofore, that we 
 are unable practically yet to use reaping machines, and consequently we are put to 
 the expense of manual labor in cutting the grain. We have to do it that way. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Colonel, have you much more to read 1 
 
 Mr. SCKEVEN. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Do you think probably you might condense your statement some- 
 what. 
 
 Mr. Screven. I would be very glad to do it, but there are a great many figures to 
 which I wish to refer. There is not much more, so I trust the committee will allow 
 me to finish. I do not think it will take much time to do it. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Very well. 
 
 Mr. Screven. This extract expresses the formidable costliness of the original in- 
 vestment in the tidal rice fields of the South Atlantic coast, without embracing the 
 cost of buildiugs, machinery, implements, and working live-stock — a costliness so 
 efiectually deterrent that any attempts to establish them from nature are but rare 
 in the present regime of free labor. Their value in times before the emancipation 
 ranged from |7!j to |200 per acre. Their value is now greatly reduced, and a large 
 acreage!, especially of lands most exposed t<i Hoods and storms, has been abandoned. 
 This diminution of value aud of acreage is not due to casualties alone, but in great 
 degree to the impoverishment of the planters from other causes, while the expansion 
 of the industry in Louisiana has not only sujiplied the recent deficits of production 
 in the C'arolinas and Georgia, but has increased the gross American product about 45 
 per cent, in the last five years. 
 
 From what has been stated, it is apparent that the methods and appliances of rice 
 culture are ]ieculiar and not assimilable to any other siiecies of agriculture, while 
 the product itself in its final output for the market is not a farm product in the 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF, 
 
 935 
 
 common sense, but is a niannfactiired product, as much so as wlioat, flour, bagging, 
 or any of the plain textile fabrics. So fully is this true, that the cost of the manu- 
 facture is more than 12 \<ev cent, of the value of the article. Besides differing in this 
 respect from the ordinary products of the farm, none of these, except barley, are im- 
 ported into the United States, and the import of this grain is only about 17 per cent., 
 while the import of rice in 1888,-'!!l9 was 63 per cent, of the gross consumption. 
 
 Besides all this, in the manufacture of rice from the crude product, this industry 
 encounters the competition of foreign manufactures, chiefly in China, Japan, Eng- 
 land, Germany, and the Netherlands, in all of which labor is less costly than In the 
 South — in China and Japan as 1 is to 14. 
 
 The American producer labors, too, under the disadvantage of the import of rice 
 free of duty from the Hawaiian Islands. Although there is no apparent commercial 
 benefit derived by the United States from the Hawaiian reciprocity treat.y, an annual 
 average of 9,950,668 pounds with a maximum of 12,926,951 pounds of rice has been 
 imported in the past five years from the Hawaiian Islands. Unlike the Asiatic rice, 
 annually remaining in bond, although approximating it in amount, the Hawaiian im- 
 port is not only a check, but a direct andunconditioued participant in the freedom of 
 the market, pari jyassu with the home product, is produced by Asiatic labor, and 
 shares none of the burthens of government borne by the home producer. 
 
 In 1871, the exportation of rice from the Hawaiian Islands was 1,264,443 pounds, in 
 1872, 1,349,513 pounds ; of the latter 1,317,203 pounds entered the United States. 
 There are no data at command as to the intermediate years, but the reciprocity treaty 
 was made in 1875, under which rice is imported into the United States free of duty. 
 Following upon this, the import of Hawaiia,n rice sprung up, as follows : 
 
 Years. 
 
 Elce. 
 
 Tears. 
 
 Kice. 
 
 1876-'77 
 
 Pounds. 
 3, 034, 405 ; 
 0, 063, 5U ! 
 5, 553, 676 
 
 5, 062, 646 
 
 6, 9P4, 406 
 10,135,678 
 
 1882-'83 
 
 Pounds. 
 12 926 951 
 
 1877-'78 
 
 1883 '84 
 
 12, 378, 433 
 8 291 360 
 
 1878-'79 
 
 1884-'85 
 
 1879-'80 
 
 ia85-'86 
 
 6, 892, 900 
 9 263,700 
 
 1880-'81 
 
 1886-'87 
 
 1881-'82 
 
 
 
 It is evident, however, that despite these disadvantages, there has been an extraor- 
 dinary increase in the home product in the twenty-one years elapsing since the cult- 
 ure was resumed in 1865-66, springing from about 12,000,000 to 156,000,000 pounds. 
 This has been accompanied by a decline in pricfs so marked as to correspond with 
 those existing for several years anterior to the war. These conditions have resulted 
 from the adjustment of the import tax so as to encourage the home industry without 
 discouraging the foreign import. Remaiuing undiminished the duty forbids monop- 
 oly to either. Diminished so as to become ineffective as a means of healthy growth 
 to the domestic industry, the domestic competition will be weakened and finally aban- 
 doned, and monopoly practically created in favor of the foreign product. When such 
 a foreign monopoly existed from 1363 to 1866, the prices of rice were higher than had 
 ever been known in its history before or since in this country. 
 
 Such consequences following upon an import duty ineffective to promote the home 
 industry, its abandonment may be expected, and the lands remanded to nature. There 
 are now cultivated in rice approximately 200,000 acres, yielding 156,000,000 pounds 
 of commercial rice per annum, and supporting a labor population alone of about 
 200,000 persons, without including proprietors, mill men, mercantile agents, and 
 others engaged in the commercial organism of the rice industry. Abandonment would 
 entail great suffering upon all these, but most upon the proprietors and laborers — on 
 the former a total loss of investment ; for extraordinary as it may appear, experience 
 has demonstrated that the rice lands of the tidal regions are incaiiable of any other 
 profitable culture — on the laborers, now suifflciently tried before a generation has sur- 
 vived the throes of recent emancipation, such a change would fall with cruel severity. 
 
936 
 
 EKVISiON OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Lowest and highest prices of vice per 100 pounds in each year in the New York market from, 
 
 ItSif) to 1886, inchmive. 
 
 (American Almanac for 1888. ] 
 
 Year. 
 
 HL'8 
 ]«l;7. 
 1828 
 1829 
 1830. 
 1831. 
 1832 
 1833. 
 1834 
 1835 
 1838 
 1837 
 1838 
 1839. 
 1840 
 1841 
 1842 
 1843 
 1844 
 184.5 
 1846 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 a 
 
 00 
 
 $4. 00 
 
 (10 
 
 3,87 
 
 r,o 
 
 4,00 
 
 50 
 
 4.00 
 
 ,50 
 
 3,75 
 
 (10 
 
 3. ,50 
 
 50 
 
 4,00 
 
 7.'. 
 
 4,25 
 
 3, 
 
 3,62 
 4,50 
 4,25 
 5,00 
 5,37 
 5,00 
 4,00 
 4.12 
 3,31 
 3, 00 
 3, 02 
 4,75 
 4,50 
 
 Year, 
 
 1847,.. 
 1348... 
 1849... 
 
 1K5() .. 
 ]«,'il... 
 L-,,52.-, 
 1853... 
 1 K54 , . . 
 1855... 
 18,50... 
 IH57... 
 I8.-18... 
 1850... 
 IK(il),.. 
 l,S(il... 
 18G2... 
 1803... 
 1864... 
 1,SG5... 
 I8'jli... 
 1867... 
 1 .'^08 . - - 
 
 +J 
 
 
 a> 
 
 
 b 
 
 
 
 
 i-i 
 
 
 *^H. 
 
 25 
 
 *7, 
 
 75 
 
 •2. 
 
 25 
 
 2, 
 
 •25 
 
 2, 
 
 75 
 
 2, 
 
 75 
 
 3 
 
 37 
 
 4. 
 
 12 
 
 2. 
 
 .50 
 
 3. 
 
 62 
 
 3 
 
 25 
 
 2 
 
 76 
 
 3 
 
 00 
 
 3. 
 
 00 
 
 3, 
 
 00 
 
 6 
 
 62 
 
 3, 
 
 75 
 
 7, 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 75 
 
 11 
 
 50 
 
 K 
 
 5(1 
 
 8. 
 
 25 
 
 Yoar, 
 
 1869 
 
 1870 
 1871 
 1872 
 1873 
 1874 
 1875 
 1876 
 1877 
 1878 
 1879 
 1880 
 1881 
 1882 
 1883 
 1884 
 1885 
 1886 
 1887 
 1888 
 1889 
 
 $7,25 
 5,60 
 6,75 
 7,50 
 7,00 
 6,75 
 6,50 
 6,00 
 6.00 
 5. .50 
 .5, 50 
 5.50 
 5, 00 
 6,25 
 4.00 
 4,50 
 3,26 
 3,00 
 3,50 
 3,50 
 3.75 
 
 w 
 
 $10. 00 
 
 9.50 
 9,76 
 9,60 
 9,60 
 10,00 
 8,60 
 7.50 
 7,00 
 8,00 
 7,25 
 8,00 
 7,75 
 8.50 
 7,26 
 6,60 
 5,38 
 5,00 
 6,26 
 5,50 
 5.76 
 
 Error, 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is there a larger proportion of the land suitable for nee cultivation in 
 the Sontbern Sta.tc.'s? 
 
 Mr, Screven. There is a great deal that has not been taken in that is in the 
 natural state, which is capable of being cultivated. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What per cent, is lliat? 
 
 Mr. SCRKVEN. It would be very ilifBcult for me to state the per cent. ; I do not 
 know. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the present acreage of rice in this country ? 
 
 Mr, Screven. I shoiihl think it would be about 1,000,000 acres. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Largely iu South Carolina? 
 
 Mr. Screven. Yes, sir; largely iu South Cnrolina. South Carolina and Georgia 
 produce about half the rice Louisiana does. We do not produce as much as they do 
 there. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You do not produce as much to the acre? 
 
 Mr. Screven. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. (Jeak. Is the rice land mostly taken up for cultivation in this country? 
 
 Mr, Screven. Yes, sir ; it is nioKtly taken up. The rice land which has been aban- 
 doned is that which lies too near the coast, and is therefore subject to storms. 
 
 Mr. GEAR. So far as your country is concerned, your ability to produce has practi- 
 cally liceii reached ? 
 
 Mr. Screven. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Geai:. Ynii can not produce any more rice : yon have not much more acreage. 
 
 Mr. ScnE\'EX. I entertain rather a ditrcrcnt opinion from that. It is quite possible 
 for rice to l>e produced on tlic hind where it has formerly been produced ; that is, the 
 upper lands where tl.'cy only get back waters, but they can not compete with tidal 
 lands. 
 
 Mr. fiEAR. You do not produce upland rice ? 
 
 Mr. Screven. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. liF.AU. Much? 
 
 Mr. Scia';\'EN. Yes, sir; it enters very largely into the industry among the negroes. 
 
 Mr. (ii:AR. It is generally liltlc patches for their own use ? 
 
 Mr. 
 Mr. 
 Mr. 
 Mr. 
 crop ? 
 Mr. 
 Mr. 
 
 S(.'i;even. Yes, sir. 
 
 (iEAi!. It is not conimi'ici.nlly pi'oducod? 
 
 Si'iii-.\ EN, No, sii; not, to a large extent. 
 
 CiKAi:. Would that |irodui;tion of rice on the upland be ordinarily a profitable 
 
 ScuF.VE.v. I think not. 
 
 Geai;, Wh;it iivoporti<in of the rice was imported from 1850 to 1860? 
 does it coin[iare with the home crop ? 
 
 How 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 937 
 
 Mr. Screven. I liave it here, sir. 
 
 Mr. Geak. I tliought you gave it. If that be there, do not repeat it, because we 
 have it in evidence. 
 
 Mr. Screven. I will gladly place the pamphlet at the disposal of the committee. 
 I can not leave it now, however, as I will have to use this. 
 
 Mr. Elliott. In auswering the questions of the committee, you stated all the val- 
 uable lands were now cultivated. 
 
 Mr. SCKEVEN. All the valuable tidal lands. 
 
 Mr. Elliott. Are there not a good many lands which have been abandoned which 
 ■were formerly in a state of cultivation ? 
 
 Mr. Screven. I did not include the abandoned lands at all. 
 
 Ml-. Breckinridge. You are ouly statiug in regard to your own State ? 
 
 Mr. Screven. I am statiug in regard to the whole southern coast. In the State of 
 Louisiana there is a large amount of abandoned laud. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The impression you have left upon the committee by this 
 statement I think is that there is no land that can be taken in for the purpose of cul- 
 tivating rice profitably now. 
 
 Mr. Screven. I should not be quite so broad as that, Mr. Breckinridge. I think 
 there is some land on which there can be a very extensive cultivation of upland rice. 
 
 M. Gear. Do you think that can be made prolitable ? 
 
 Mr. Screven. I think it can ; but I hardly see how it can be profitable under the 
 present status of labor. For instance, in Louisiana there is a very large part of the 
 Louisiana crop which is capable of a large extension and practical cultivation here- 
 after. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I was only asking in reference to South Carolina and Georgia. 
 
 Mr. Screven. I do uot think with our present experience there is a good deal of 
 land there that can be taken in and added to the present cultivation. 
 
 VIEWS OP THE SAVANNAH BOARD OF TRADE. 
 
 Mr. Lester, a Representative from the State of Georgia, presented the following 
 paper : 
 
 Savannah, Ga., January 4, 1890. 
 
 The following resolutions were adopted by the Savauuah Board of Trade this day : 
 
 Whereas the rice industry is the only means of livelihood to large part of the pop- 
 ulation on the South Atlantic coast and elsewhere ; and 
 
 Whereas it is apparent that the present duties on imports of foreign rice are nec- 
 essary to protect said industry against the low-paid wages of the rice-producing coun- 
 tries of the far East ; and 
 
 Whereas the failure of the rice industry would arrest the cultivation of extensive 
 areas of land redeemed at great cost and not adapted to any other known culture, 
 impoverishing the inhabitants thereof, and also seriously impairing large investments 
 directly dependent on said industry ; and 
 
 Whereas the present duties on imports of foreign rice are so adjusted as to induce 
 wholesome competition in the domestic production and in the importation of foreign 
 rice, so as to discourage monopoly in either: Therefore 
 
 Resolved, That this Board of Trade respectfully protest agaiust any reduction in the 
 present duties on imports of foreign rice and prays the Committee of Ways and Means 
 of the House of Representatives to recommend the retention of said duties. 
 
 John R. Young, 
 
 President. 
 C. Wallace Howard, 
 
 Superintendent. 
 
 STATEMENT OF F. J. ERNST. 
 
 Mr. F. J. Ernst, of New Orleans, next addressed tbe committee. He said: 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here as representing the man- 
 ufacturer or rice miller. In regard to what it costs to produce rice I am not so well 
 posted, but in getting up a schedule on the rice question, I wanted to see whether 
 we could not have yon gentlemen insert a proper definition of the different kinds of 
 rice that are on the schedule at present. There has been a difference of opinion be- 
 tween the appraisers at ditierent points. About a year ago there was a cargo im- 
 ported into New Orleans as uncleaned rice. Experts were called in and the rice was 
 found to be a clean rice, adulterated with a little rice polish that could be rubbed off 
 with a pocket handkerchief, whereas quantities of that rice had been coming through 
 the port of New York without any one knowing about it. Tbat was three years ago. 
 The case .it New Orleans was brought into the United States district court there and 
 
938 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 occupied tlicattiMition of the court tn-o weeks. All rice business was suspended, and 
 over :i hundred witnesses wi'ro examined. It was fully jnoveD that the rice was cleaned 
 rigiit there in court. Another thing. Our crop was cut short that year by the tornado 
 (jr hurricane which occurred August a year ago. We expected high prices on that 
 account, the crops being short; Ijut to our astonishment we were compelled to carry 
 a portion of that cro]) over. The meaning of this was that au enormous quantity of 
 rice imported into this country as uucleaned rice, when it was really cleaned rice, so 
 they could compete with us alter paying the duty the tariff calls for. 
 
 The first on tlie list is what we call paddy rice. There is a difference of opinion in 
 regard to paddy rice. Paddy rice is this [exhibiting sample]. This is rice as it 
 comes from the held. The proper definition of this is, "Rice, paddy rice, or rice with 
 the outer husk on." This is the definition I would ask you gentlemen to put on 
 paddy rice. Uncleaned rice is this [exhibiting sample"]. This is rice with the outer 
 husk off, aud the definition I would ask for that rice is, " Rice with the outer husk 
 off, and the inner cuticle still remaining on." The inner cuticle is what is called rice 
 bran. It takes one hour's work to get that off the rice. After this is off we screen it 
 and get the bran. After this the rice is milled. To enhance its value it is milled. 
 As far as it is concerned as au article of diet it is as good ; but it does not look well 
 to the eye, but to make it look well, we jjut a polish on it. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Are they marked? 
 
 Mr. Ernst. Yes, sir; on the boxes. That rice has been through the pounders. * Now 
 we get that husk off'. It is a very simple process aud it does not take a second to do 
 it. It is like polishing your shoes. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. This does not improve its nutritive powers ? 
 
 Mr. Ernst. No, sir; that rice is just as good before as after it is polished. Now, 
 the geutleiuen in New York have taken that rice after it was polished and have taken 
 the llour that came off', and mixed them together and shipped to this country as un- 
 cleaned rice, evading the rules to the extent of three-fourths of a cent a pound, and 
 compelling us to carry the bulk of our short crop over into another crop until that 
 case was decided, so we could meet the competition again. Therefore, gentlemen, I 
 think it would be justice to the rice trade that this definition go into the tariff. 
 
 Another variation has been made some years ago with the granulated rice. Now, 
 I do not propose to say that we can supply this country with granulated rice, be- 
 cause it would not pay to grind up rice, and get a smaller price for it as uncleaued 
 rice. There is always a percentage in the mill that amounts to about 10 per cent., 
 but they hare been in the habit some years ago of taking granulated rice and mix- 
 ing it with whole grains of rice and getting it into the custom house as broken rice. 
 All the grocer had to do with the importation was to run it through a sieve and the 
 whole rice would remaiu at the top and the granulated rice would run through. I 
 would like to have inserted in the bill that granulated rice shall be such rice as will 
 pass through that sieve. This is a grocer's granulated sieye. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Describe that sieve. 
 
 Mr. Ernst. That is what we call ten meshes to the square inch. It measures ten 
 meshes to the square inch and is of wire which among wire-workers is called No. 20 
 wire. I should say it should be described as 10 by 10 No. 20 wire, and this should be 
 used by appraisers for granulated rice. 
 
 Now, there is another thing. In niakiuff the difference in these rates ; to bring 
 that paddy rice up to its finished state it only takes 75 cents a hundred. I believe 
 the tariff to-day on paddy rice is 1 cent a pound ; cleaned rice, 2J cents ; so the differ- 
 ence is too great. It is li where it ought to be only 75 ceuts. which is the cost of 
 bringing it to that state. Now, the nncleaned rice ought to be put almost at the 
 same rate, because the price of the hulling is alnmst nothing. It just runs through 
 the stone aud comes out. So I do not think there ought to f>e so much difference be- 
 tween the paddy rice and uncleaned rice. 
 
 The difference between that uucleaned rice and clean rice is very nearly the same 
 thing. There should not be so much diflercuce between paddy and uucleaned rice, 
 and between clean and uncleaned rice. Seventy-live cents is a very liberal allow- 
 ance. In fact it could be done for less, in a mill of large capacity. I am not speak- 
 ing of my mill, which is of a small capacity. 
 
 Now, to show how the rice milling industry has increased in Louisiana, in 1878 
 there were oidy six millaiu the State of Louisiana, having acapacity of 62-pounder8. 
 Poundi;rs are mortars that beat the rice in and work the bran up. In 1890 we have 
 twenty-one mills with 212 pounders, instead of 62-pounderM twelve years ago. Be- 
 sides there are two mills in course of erection now. They have .started the founda- 
 tion of them, aud they stilfiucrcase the number of ]iiinuder9 to 32 more, which makes 
 a total of y.Vi pouuders for the crop of IHDO agaiust (')2 pounders in 1H78. That shows 
 the rice iudustry has Ijcen large aud the crop has increased. Notwithstanding the 
 present duty on rice, we have succeodcil in keeping the price of rice down to where 
 it was before the war. Rice is just as cheap to-day as before the war, but we can 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 939 
 
 stand no further cut. lu fact some of them ciiii not ui:iko it at these prices. These 
 old lands can not make ric<! at the present prices. 
 
 Mr. McKenma. I suggest that .yon compile a definition of the schedule rates, and 
 see that the stenographer gets them. 
 
 Mr. Ernst. Very well, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Leave those samples with us, 
 
 Mr. Eknst. Yes, sir. 
 
 STATEMENT OF EMILE DUPRE. 
 
 Mr. Emile Duprb, a rice merchant of New Orleans, La., next appeared before the 
 committee. 
 
 The Chairman. State the crop of rice in Louisiana before the war. 
 
 Mr. DuPRE. Well the crop did not amount to anything before the war. Louisiana 
 Eever produced rice for the market before the war. 
 
 The Chairman. Well, just after the war. 
 
 Mr. DUPKE. In 1866 and 1867 it amounted to about 100,000 bushels of rough 
 rice. That would amount to 2,700,000 pounds of cleaned rice. That was in 1867. 
 That was the first year after the war. 
 
 The Chairman. And now ? 
 
 Mr. DuPRE. Now it is — I have a memorandum here. In 1«77 it amounted to 
 150,050,360 pounds of cleaned rice. From 1877-1878 to 1889, it gradually increased 
 UL til now it is 03,663,000 pounds. These are taken from the rejjorts of our ex- 
 changes. We produce 3,112,000 bushels of rough rice. 
 
 Mr. MoMiLLiN. About three times what you had before? 
 
 'Mr. DuPRE. Three times what we had in 1877, 93,663,000 pounds of cleaned 
 rice. This present crop will amount — I think, for five months up to this time they 
 have received 2,472,000 bushels of rough rice. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What is Louisiana's capacity to grow rice? 
 
 Mr. Ddpre. It is almost unlimited; for the territory is susceptible of growing 
 rice. We calculate there are to-day 2, .500 square miles in different parishes in South- 
 western Louisiana susceptible of being cultivated for rice, out of which there are 
 1,600 square miles unfit for anything but rice and raising cattle. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. That could furnish all we could use in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Ddpre. That would furnish all we could use, and I am satisfied that if the im- 
 migration continues at the rate at which it has been couiiug in for the last four or 
 five years from Kansas, Iowa, Michigan and several of the Northwestern States, aud 
 the consumption increases in the same ratio, I would not be at all surprised If, in 
 five years, we make 20,000,000 bushels of rough rice. 
 
 STATEMENT OP J. B. BISSELL. 
 
 Mr. J. B. BisSELi., of Charleston, S. C, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have no statement to make. I am 
 only here to answer questions. I will state, however, that I differ with Colonel Screven 
 in regard to the abandoned land. I think one third of our river woirld be taken in if 
 we knew the duty would be kept on. One-third of the river is abandoned, which is 
 capable of being taken in, but no one cares to run the risk unless we are sure the duty 
 will remain on it. I think Colonel Screven has covered the; ground entirely in regard 
 to the cost of rice ; but I think on the Cooper River there is at least one-third aban- 
 doned laud, but we are afraid to go to the expense of reclaiming it because we are 
 afraid the duty might be taken ofi'. 
 
 Mr. Geap,. When was that land abandoned ? 
 
 Mr. BissELL. A good deal of it since the war. Now and then we raise courage and 
 take in a piece. For instance, I have taken in a. plantation since the war which only 
 cost me $15,000 ; but I had to spend |10,000 to take it in. I refused |60, 000 for it after 
 it was taken in ; but if I thought the duty was taken off, would sell it for $10,000, 
 for I would give up the cultivation of rice. You have a member of Congress hero — I 
 believe he is a Republican, Mr. Taylor — who was in South Carolina a year or so ago. 
 I sent a buggy for him aud he made a visit to my place. I would like for you to call 
 him in, and he would tell you something of the expense of keeping the lands in order 
 in Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. Do you cultivate the lowland rice? 
 
 Mr. BissELL. Yes, sir. We have any amount of water, but we have great expense 
 to get the trunks and boxes put in. I would like, if it is necessary, to call Mr. Tay- 
 lor in, and I think he could state in regard to this. I can state this fact : Rice land 
 was worth formerly $150 to $200 an acre. In a great many places they would not sell 
 
940 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 for $200 an acre. Now, the place I bought, which I illustrated, was worth $200,000 
 before the war. It had 1,000 acres, and it was wortli §200,000 at least. I bought it 
 after it was abandoned for $15,000. 
 
 Mr. McKexna. Do you think any reduction of the duty would be disastrous? 
 
 Mr. BissELL. It would ruin us. We would rather see you increase it, but we do 
 not a.sk anything but to leave it where it is. 
 
 VIEWS OF DAN TALMAGE'S SONS. 
 
 New York, January 9, 1890. 
 The Commiltee on Ways and Means : 
 
 We beg to address your honorable committee on the subject of "rice." It is not 
 our desire to make any suggestion in regard to what the tariff in general should be, 
 except to ask that the relative differences which are now made in the existing tariif 
 between rice in its various conditions— cleaned rice, 2^ cents per pound; uncleaned 
 rice, 1 J cents per pound ; paddy or rough rice, l-J cents per pound — may be main- 
 tained, or slightly enlarged. 
 
 These differential duties are now about relatively correct, yet if any change is 
 made we suggest that there be a slight widening of the difference between " cleaned" 
 and " uncleaned." The reason of our request is so as to assure that whenever im- 
 ports of foreign rice are required they may be brought in an uncleaned condition 
 and the preparation for market perfortned within our own borders, thus advant-aging 
 the millers and laborers of tlie United States. 
 
 We beg most respectfully and earnestly to protest against the insertion of any 
 term descriptive of "uncleaned" rice, as that suggested in the bill known as the 
 Mills bill of the last session, which detiiied " uncleaned" rice to be "rice free of the 
 outer hull and still having the inner cuticle on." 
 
 Our objection to said detinition is that it would limit imports of "uncleaned" rice 
 to those of a single country (Japan), and exclude those of other sections (Beugal, 
 Burmah, Cochin China, Java), which furnish nearly nine-tenths of the supply of the 
 world at large. 
 
 Of those which we state would be excluded by said defining clause is the "un- 
 cleaned" Bengal or Patna (sometimes called " mealed "). While it is in a somewhat 
 advanced stage of cleansing (largely freed of the inner cuticle), it still contains the 
 meal, and being of long and brittle grain it loses heavily in the process of finishing 
 fortable use. None of the grains when imported are in any true sense " cleaned," as all 
 have more or less of the "inner skin or cuticle" adhering, thus compelling the use 
 of machinery to remove such, and entailing loss in wastage of the portions which go 
 out in meal, flour, and finer broken particles. 
 
 Another of those which we state would be excluded by the said defining clause is 
 the " uncleaned" Burmah (Rangoon, Aracau, Moulmein). This stylecomes in abulk 
 composed of part paddy and part "uncleaned," say two-fifths to three- fifths paddy, 
 the remaining portions being more or less freed of the inner skin or cuticle. None of 
 the grains, however, are in any true sense " cleaned," as all, even those most advanced, . 
 alifce with rough or paddy, require the use of machinery to prepare it for market. 
 The wastage therefrom is quite as heavy as that made in the milling of the " un- 
 cleaned " Japan. 
 
 Of other styles of " uncleaned " which we state will be excluded by said defining 
 clause, that of Cochin China is somewhat similarly prepared to the Burmah, and 
 Java like the Bengal. 
 
 Asking your thoughtful consideration, which we are assured will be given, 
 Very respectfully yours, 
 
 Dan Talmage's Sons. 
 
 VIEWS OP BULLOCK & CO. 
 
 New York, January 23, 1890. 
 
 Sirs: We beg to ask for the abolition of the present duty of 20 per cent, ad val- 
 orem on graniilateil rice and rice flower for the following reasons: 
 
 Because they are used by the breweries of this country in the manufacture of beer. 
 They are heiilthful articles and if the duty of 20 per cent, were removed, they would 
 be used in much larger quantities, to the exclusion of less desirable articles. 
 
 Because they do not enter into competition with rice grown in this country. The 
 rice raised by our own planters is limited in quantity and the entire output, of 
 domestic granulated or broken rice would be necessary to supply one or two of the 
 larger breweries for ,a year. 
 
 Because this granulated rice and rice flour arc sold exclusively to brewers for thfe 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 941 
 
 production of beer, and has no bearing or effect on grocers' rice or on the rice used for 
 the table. 
 
 As only a trifling part of the granulated rice and rice flour used by the breweries of 
 this country can be supplied by our planters, the imported articles do not enter into 
 competition with them and there is no good reason why the duty of 20 per cent, ad 
 valorem should not be removed. 
 
 It is simply a tax on the brewery interests w^hich pa.v an enormous revenue to the 
 Government and the said interests should not be unnecessarily burdened. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 Bullock & Co. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 VIEVrS OP ERNST & CO. 
 
 New Orleans, January 18, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : I noticed by a special to the New Orleans Picayune, that the Ways and 
 Means Committee bad closed their hearings, and expected to report a-tarilf bill simi- 
 lar to the one adopted by the Senate at last session. If such is the case the rice and 
 sugar industry, together with the State of Louisiana, are doomed. But I can not be- 
 lieve that the gentlemen composing said committee can adopt such a course, after 
 the enlightening we gave them on rice and sugar. 
 
 My particular reason for wiiting is to inform you that I met a gentleman to-day 
 from New York, who informs me that the iniportersandmillersof New York are play- 
 ing a silent game. Their idea is to keep the present duty on cleaned rice, or get it 
 raised, if possible; but to get the paddy and nncleaned rice on the free list, or at a 
 great reduction of dnty. The grounds are very plain: by getting cleaned rice up, 
 they stop all importations of that grade, and with a low rate on paddy and nncleaned 
 they make a large profit in their milling business. If the committee will call for a re- 
 port from the Secretary of the Treasury they will find after deducting the amouut of 
 granulated rice, Hawaiian rice, which floods the Pacific coast free of duty, aud the 
 amouut of uncleaned rice fraudulently imported as cleaned rice, that the imports of 
 cleaned rice are trifling. 
 
 If the committee will refer to my testimony they will see that a margin of 75 cents 
 will pay any miller very handsomely for converting uncleaned or paddy rice into 
 cleaned rice. It is of the utmost importance that the definitions which I asked lie 
 placed on the different grades of rice be adopted. I left a copy of them with you, 
 and at the request of Mr. McKenna, who was acting chairman, I wrote them out and 
 gave them to Mr. Wilkinson to hand to the cleric of said committee. Please see if 
 the clerk has them; whatever rate they fix, see thai the m.argins on paddy and un- 
 clean, are only 75 cents less than on cleanedrice. If the committee are not satisfied by 
 my word, let me know and I can get every miller in the South to substantiate that 
 the margin is ample. 
 
 The New Yorkers are slick and laying mw, and I would impress on the Louisiana 
 delegation to keep their eyes open, especially on rce. 
 
 I don't think a single New York miller will testify that he is running his mill on 
 domestic rice. If you can give me any encouragement, please let me hear from you. 
 Any further information you want, command me. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 F. G. Ernst. 
 
 Hon. H. Ddplby Coleman, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 [Clipped from Timea-Democrat, January 7, 1890.] 
 
 ALLOWED TO PASS THROUGH ST. JOSEPH STREET. 
 
 A car containing fifty emigrants was, by permit from the mayor, allowed to pass 
 over the St. Joseph Street Belt line last night to make the Soutbem Pacific connec- 
 tion. The permit was at first refused, but when it was learned that the car contained 
 emigrants from the Northwest who had come South to locate in Western Louisiana, the 
 mayor issued it. 
 
 The party were brought South by Mr. S. L. Carej', of Jennings, La., who called on 
 the mayor yesterday and thanked him for granting the permit. 
 
 The major told Mr. Carey that he did not want to block business, and he was com- 
 pelled to countermand the order, because he did not want to punish the Illinois Cen- 
 tral on account of the action of the Southern Pacific. The mayor further told Mr. 
 Carey that he was anxious to see the tide of emigration come Soutli. It was desir- 
 able to have that class of people ceme and locate here, and lie would afford every fa- 
 cility iu that direction. 
 
t 
 942 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 DESCRIPTION AND RATES OF TARIFF. 
 
 [Requested by Meaars. Dnpre and Ernst, of New Orleans.] 
 
 Paddy, or rice, havinp; the outer hull on, 1| cents per pound ; uncleaned rice, or rice 
 free from the outer hull iiiiil still having the inner cuticle on, 1 J cents per pound ; 
 rice, cleaned, '2J cents per pound ; grauulated rice, or broken rice which Tfill pass 
 through a siuve known commercially as No. 12 wire sieve, which has ten meshes or 
 openings to the running inch and one hundred openings or meshes to the square 
 inch, made of wire known as No. 20 wire, 20 per cent, ad valorem ; rice flour and rice 
 starch, 1 cent per pound ; rice meal and rice bran, 15 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 DUTY IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Tebasuey Department, 
 
 Office of the Secretaky, 
 irasldnglon, D. C, January 29, 1890. 
 Sir : I have the honor to inclose herewith, for your information, copy of a report 
 dated the 20th instant, of Special Agents Charles J. Mulkey and James J. Brooks, of 
 this Department, in relation to the duty in the United States and Canada on un- 
 cleaned rice and rice flour. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, Geo. C. Tichenou, 
 
 Assistant Secretary. 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee o» Ways and Means. 
 
 Beport of Special Agents Mullcey and BrooTcs. 
 
 Office of Special Agent Treasury Department, 
 
 Port Townsend, Wash., January 20, 1890. 
 
 Sir : The government of the Dominion of Canada, in its schedule of duties, has the 
 fo] lowing : 
 
 "Rice uncleaned, unhulled, or paddy, when imported direct from the country of 
 its growth, 17^- per cent,; rice flour, 2 cents per pound. 
 
 The table of duties of the Government of the United States on the same articles 
 reads: " Rice, uncleaned, 1,^ cents per pound ; rice flour and rice meal, 20 per cent, 
 ad valorem." Under the fostering care of the tariff' of Canada mills for the cleaning 
 of rice and its reduction to the form of granulated rice or rice flour are in operation, 
 the products of which, being sent to the United States, meet all the demands of our 
 customs, and put competition by our own millers outsnde the limit of successful en- 
 deavor. 
 
 A milling firm in Victoria, British Columbia, gave the following as the products 
 obtained from 100 pounds oi^ uncleaned rice : 64 pounds cleaned rice, 24 pounds broken 
 rice or rice flour, 10 pounds rice meal. The value of 100 pounds uncleaned rice, $1.50 ; 
 100 pounds rice flour, |1.50. 
 
 Duty on 100 pound,s uncleaned rice in Canada $0.26 
 
 Duty on 100 pounds of uncleaned rice in United States 1.50 
 
 Duty on 100 pounls rice flour in Canada 2. 00 
 
 Duty on 100 pounds rice flour in United States 0.30 
 
 It is almost needless to remark in connection with the foregoing that the Dominion 
 government is protecting the rice milling interests to the furthermost limit, and we — 
 well, it would seem are incidentally aiding them. 
 Respectfully submitted. CiiAS. J. Mulkey, 
 
 James J. Brooks, 
 Hon. W.M, WiNDOM, Special Agents. 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 BREWERS' RICE. 
 
 Mr. Gear filed the following note from Mr. Charles Fowler: 
 
 16 West Twentieth street, 
 
 jS^cw York, January 9, 1890. 
 Friend Gear : I am still confined to the house. Thanks for your telegram. I will 
 not be able to appear before the committee, but ho])e they will classify all "brewers" 
 rice as rice llower and granulated or broken rice that will pass through seive com- 
 mercially known as number 12 (same as now in use) 15 per cent, ad valorem ; now 
 20 per cent. . Chas. Fowler. 
 
KEVISION OF XHE*TAK1FF. 94o 
 
 SALT. 
 
 STATEMENT OF SAMUEL T. KERR. 
 
 Mr. Samuel T. Kekr, of Philadelphia, addressed the committee on the subject of 
 the duty on salt. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman aud gentlemen, I am here to ask the committee to let the duty on 
 salt remain where it is. I can speak about it both as importer and as a manu- 
 facturer. Sometime ago I was on a committee representing the Western New York 
 Salt Association, which appeared before the last Committee on W.ays and Means, 
 aud the printed document which we had then is perfectly good at this time. I will 
 therefore submit it to the committee. Within ten years the salt industry of the 
 United States has sprung up wonderfully all over the country. 
 
 The Chairman. What are the prices of salt ? 
 
 Mr. Kekr. In our mill in 1867 tlie price was 77 cents a barrel ; in 1886 the price 
 was down to 61 cents a barrel ; and to-day the price is from .55 cents to 60 cents a 
 barrel. That inclu<le8 barrel and all, which costs us 25 cents. We get about $i.oO a 
 ton for ordinary salt such as packers use. We get from |4 to ij5 a ton for the best 
 refined table salt or butter salt. Our geographical position gives us no advantage 
 because the rates of freight from Liverpool to the principal ports — Boston, New York 
 and Philadelphia — are less than the railroad rates from the salt works to those 
 ports. The rate to Boston, especially for the last ten years, has averaged from 1 to 
 2 shillings a ton, to New York 4 shillings a ton, aud to Baltimore as low as a shilling 
 and 2 shillings a ton. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do they make abroad the same kind of salt that you make ? 
 
 Mr. Kerr. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Flower. It is not a rock-salt that is imported? 
 
 Mr. Kerr. No, sir; a salt spring is found, aud they dig a shaft, aud go down proba- 
 bly 200 feet. In western New York they go down from 800 to 2,000 feet. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is this rock-salt? 
 
 Mr. Kekr. It is all manufactured salt — manufactured out of brine, and is made by 
 artificial evaporation. Our coal in this country costs us considerably more than the 
 English coal, and our labor costs us considerably more. That, however, we say noth- 
 ing about; but we call attention especially to the fact that, in years gone by, the 
 cost of ocean freight used to be a protective duty iu itself. Now that freight amounts 
 to almost nothing — I shilling aud 2 shillings a ton ; and our principal markets for the 
 salt manufactured iu the West and iu New York are the sea-ports. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Have you not the Western market for your salt ? 
 
 Mr. Kerr. The Western market goes as far as the Michigan Salt Comi)any's terri- 
 tory. That company has taken part of our territory. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. You have given the prices iu this country for certain years? 
 
 Mr. Kerr. Yes. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Do you know the prices in Liverpool for the corresponding 
 years 1 
 
 Mr. Kerr. Yes. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What were they from 1872 to 1877? 
 
 Mr. Kerr. The price in Liverpool (or those years were as follows : 1872, 10s. 6(Z. ; 
 1873, 15s. ; 1874, 16s. ; 1875, 12s. ; 1876, 10s., ami 1877, 9s. 
 
 The Chairman. If salt were put upon the free list, how would that aifect your 
 business? 
 
 Mr. Kerr. It would shut us up. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is there a salt trust in existence ? 
 
 Mr. Kerr. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. There was an attempt to make a salt trust ? 
 
 Mr. Kerr. But it did not work. The interstate commerce bill helped us a little in 
 regard to freights from Liverpool to Chicago. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The analysis of your salt makes it equal to the foreign salt for every 
 purpose ? 
 
 Mr. Kerr. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Have you anything to prove that? 
 
 Mr. Kerr. The analysis is in the paper that I have furnished. 
 
944 KEVISIOS OF THE TAKIFF. 
 
 Mr. Flowbr. Do you get competition from the Michigan salt works? 
 
 Mr. Kker. Wo do when we go West. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you get any competition from the salt works at Hutchinson, 
 Kans.? 
 
 Mr. Kerr. Not as yet. We do in St. Louis. 
 
 Mr. Fi.owER. Do you get any in New Orleans ? 
 
 Mr. Kekr. New Orleans is practically supplied by the rock salt of Louisiana. 
 
 There is another article that I would like to speak about. Since we. appeared be- 
 fore the other committee the English have formed a salt trust. Their own circular 
 is here and I will hand it in. It will show the total exports of salt from the custom- 
 house at Liverpool. Had it not been for the American salt, and if our salt works 
 had been under a trust, the people would have been paying considerably higher for 
 their salt to-day. As an illustration, in South America, which depends entirely upon 
 English salt, salt was sold prior to this trust (which has been in force only a year) 
 at iT shillings a ton, and now it is 43 shillings a ton. New York to-day is the cheap- 
 est market for salt that the Englishman has. The English have put np the price of 
 salt in Calcutta and in the West Indies; and they have raised the price in Australia 
 from 6 to 7 shillings a ton to lis. bd. a ton. 
 
 The following is the printed paper referred to by Mr. Kerr: 
 
 MEMORIAL RELATIVE TO THE DUTY ON SALT IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Hon. Roger Q. Mills, Esq., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 Sir: In January, 1888, the salt manufacturers ot western New York appointed a 
 committee to prepare a statement concerning the salt industry of this country, and 
 especially of the section which they represent, and present the same to the proper 
 committees of Congress. With that intent the committee, then appointed, respect- 
 fully ofter the following for your consideration : 
 
 The principal arguments that have beeu offered in favor of the removal of the duty 
 on salt may be briefly summarized: 
 
 (1) It is asserted that, owing to the protective duty, the price paid for salt by the 
 American consumer is too high. 
 
 (2) It is asserted that American dairy salt is not as good for butter-making as the 
 English salt, and that to produce the best grades of butter it is necessary to use the 
 latter. 
 
 (3) It is asserted that it is requisite to use foreign salt for the packing of meat, as 
 American salt will not keep the meat as well as the other. 
 
 (4) It is asserted that the salt-makers of this country have organized a monopoly 
 or trust for the control of prices, and that the same are thereby maintained at au 
 artiticially high standard. 
 
 These assertions we take the liberty of replying to, seriatim. 
 
 (1) Until about twenty-live years ago America possessed but a limited salt indus- 
 try, chiefly confined to the environs of the city of Syracu.se, in the State of New York, 
 the salt fields there located being the property of the State and not of individuals. 
 At that time the country depended almost entirely on the products of this iield, to- 
 gether with a pretty large quantity of the imported article, and the price, owing to 
 the limited domestic competition, was high. About the year 1860 the manufacture 
 of salt was commenced in the State of Michigan, and in a few years developed with 
 surprising rapidity, so that by 1866 the price of salt had fallen from a very high 
 figure to the then low price of |1.80 per barrel for " common fine " salt, this grade 
 constituting the main bulk of American siilt. As these fields became further developed 
 and competition more active the price of salt fell during succeeding years, the aver- 
 age price being for — 
 
 1872 $1.46 1877 $0.85 
 
 1867 
 
 1868 
 
 1869 
 
 1870 
 
 $1.77 
 
 .... 1.85 
 
 .... 1.58 
 
 1. :« 
 
 1871 
 
 .... 1.46 
 
 1873 1.37 
 
 1874 1.19 
 
 1875 1.10 
 
 1876 1.05 
 
 1878 85 
 
 1879 1.02 
 
 1880 75 
 
 1881 85 
 
 1882 
 
 1S83 
 
 .... 10.75 
 .81 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 18860.... 
 
 73 
 
 70 
 
 61 
 
 About the year 1883 the discovery of salt in western New York, distant about 125 
 miles from the Syracuse field, led to an extensive development of this industry in 
 that region, and with the result that standard common tine salt was freely offered 
 during 1886 and 1887 as low as 55 cents per liarrel (barrels worth 25 cents included), 
 being equivalent to 6 cents a bushel for the net salt. 
 
 Domestic competition has been the chief factor in reducing the price of salt, and 
 we believe that the tiguresjust given should be suflioieut refutation of the assertiou 
 
REVISION OF THE TAKIFP. 945 
 
 that the price of salt is artificially high and that the reDiedy lies in the removal of 
 the present duty. 
 
 (2) In reference to the claim that American dairy salt ia not equal to the English, 
 and that fine grades of butter can not be made with it, we will simply state that the 
 organization known as the National Butter and Cheese Association, representing the 
 whole country, appoints judges to examine and pass upon the exhibits of butter and 
 cheese made at its annual meetings. At the meeting held at Manchester, Iowa, in 
 November, IHST, fifteen premiums were awarded on butter, of which thirteen were 
 taken by butter salted with American salt. At the annual meeting of the Associa- 
 tion held in Chicago in 1886 the majority of prizes for butter and cheese were taken 
 by users of American salt. The most noted producer of creamery butter in the world, 
 the Elgin Butter Company, uses American dairy salt exclusively. As their butter com- 
 mands the highest market price, they would certainly employ English salt if it were 
 in reality of better quality than American. We conceive that assertion No. 2 needs 
 no further refutation. 
 
 (3) The assertion that meats preserved in brine made with American salt will not 
 keep so well as those in which foreign salt is used, is met by the fact that the prin- 
 cipal packing houses of this country, situated at Cincinnati, Chicago, St. Louis, and 
 Kansas City, rely almost exclusively on American salt. 
 
 The reason that American salt has gained the confidence ofthe better class of butter 
 makers and meat curers is due in great part to its superior quality, both as regards 
 its chemical purity and mechanical excellence. Repeated and frequent chemical 
 analyses, both of butter salts and packing salts, have shown them to be superior in 
 point of purity to the best equivalent grades of English salt. The claim, therefore, 
 that the introduction of English salt should be facilitated on the ground of its super- 
 iority is utterly and unqualifiedly false. 
 
 . (4) As regards the assertion that a saltpool or trust has been organized, with a view 
 to the artificial elevation of prices, or the curtailment of production, "the undersigned 
 committee are not aware of such an organization, and are able to state in the most 
 positive manner that such does not exist, so far as the salt district of western New 
 York is concerned ; and a general pool among the salt producing interests of this 
 country could hardly exist withoui; the fact coming to the knowledge of one or the 
 other of this committee. 
 
 Turning from these general considerations, we invite the attention of your com- 
 mittee to the salt trade of western New York. This held embraces two contiguous 
 districts, commonly spoken of as the Warsaw and the Genesee, lying within the 
 counties of Wyoming, Genesee, and Livingston. In the Warsaw district there are 
 fifteen large salt blocks with an aggregate capacity of about .5,000,000 bushels an- 
 nually. These are the Castile Salt Works, Castile, N. Y. ; Duncan Salt Company, 
 Silver Springs, N. Y. ; Silver Lake Salt Company, Perry, N. Y. ; Kerr Salt Company, 
 Eock Glen, N. Y. ; Eldridge Salt Company, Empire Salt Company, Hawley Salt Com- 
 pany, Gouinlock & Humphrey Salt Company, Warsaw Dairy Salt Company, Miller 
 Salt Company, Crystal Salt Company, Warsavi', N. Y. ; Pearl Salt Company, Pearl 
 Creek, N. Y. ; Le Roy Salt Company, Le Eo.y, N. Y. 
 
 The amount of capital invested in these works, according to the estimate of a com- 
 petent authority, is about |2, 100, 000, and the number of persons directly supported 
 by this industry numbers about 2,000. 
 
 As regards the profits of the business in this district, this committee believes itself 
 to be in possession of reliable information to the effect that no company paid any 
 dividend during the past year, two companies failed during 1887, and from the best 
 information we can obtain we are persuaded that the production of salt in the west- 
 ern New York district for the last two years has not paid the cost of producing. 
 Some companies have made a little, bat others have lost more, so that on the whole 
 the business has not paid. 
 
 We may further say, that in consequence of the development of the salt manu- 
 facture the counties of Genesee, Livingston, and Wyoming are experiencing a pros- 
 perity never before known to them. Money is more abundant than civer before, labor 
 finds employment, and the farmer and the mechanic find market for their products 
 and their skill. Salt is cheaper than ever before and of a better quality. 
 
 Butter and cheese manufacturers formerly looked abroad, especially to England, 
 for their salt, but now as good an article is furnished of domestic production, and at 
 a much lower price. ■ 
 
 Should the duties on salt be removed and the price of the article correspondingly 
 decline, every salt plant in the States of New York, Michigan, Virginia, California, 
 and Louisiana would be rendered worthless, the large amount of capital invested 
 lost, and the laborer, the mechanic, and the farmer obliged to seek other markets for 
 their products. 
 
 In the Genesee district of western New York there are two salt blocks, located at 
 Mount Morris, N. Y., on the line of the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Rail- 
 road, and known as the Lackawanna Salt Company, and the Royal Salt Company, 
 
 485 60 
 
946 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 ■while in tbe same district on the line of the Western New York and Pennsylvania 
 Railroad there are the Leicester Salt Company, at Cuylerville, N. Y.; York Salt Com- 
 pany, at York, N. Y.; Livingston Salt Company, Genesee Salt Company, andRetsof 
 Mining Company, at Piifard, N. Y. 
 
 This latter company mines the rock salt, instead of evaporating the brine, as is the 
 case with all the other companies mentioned. 
 
 The shipments of salt during 1887 from the stations on the Western New York and 
 Pennsylvania Railroad are stated by Mr. George S. Gatchell, general superintendent 
 of that road, to have amounted to 79,194 tons, or a little more than 5,000 car-loads. 
 He further says : " We expect the same to be materially increased during the coming 
 year." 
 
 Of the companies in the Genesee district, it is believed that none have paid divi- 
 dends from the earnings of the years 1886 or 1687. The business has been conducted 
 without profit, and in most instances at a loss. This is due in part to the earnest ef- 
 fort put forth by manufacturers to improve the quality of their product, leading to 
 costly experiments, which absorbed profits without yielding any immediate return, 
 other than the increased appreciation of customers. 
 
 During the past three years the average quality of the salt produced in the west- 
 ern New York field has very rapidly improved and it may be said, without fear of 
 successful contradiction, that the best salt produced there, for dairy and packing 
 purposes, is superior to the best produced in England for similar purposes. It would 
 seem, therefore, from the standpoint of the political economist, bad policy to destroy 
 in its infancy an industry which in the near future promises to render the country 
 independent, in this respect, of foreign control. 
 
 In the district represented bj' this committee immense quantities of standard salt 
 for packers' use have been sold during the years 1886 and 1887, at a net price of from 
 $2 to .|2.40 per ton of ;2,000 pounds, the average probably being about .f2.25, prices 
 which, as already shown, have not paid the cost of manufacture. 
 
 In estimating the influence of the removal of the duty on salt we must consider its 
 relations, both to the consumer and to the domestic manufacturer, and the tariff 
 should be equitably adjusted in such way that neither interest should be placed en- 
 tirely at the mercy of the other. 
 
 Fine salt for dairying purposes comes from England in sacks holding 224 pounds, 
 and pays a duty of 12 cents per 100 pounds, equal to about 27 cents per sack. The 
 best quality of this salt sells in New York for about |2.25 per sack or say one cent a 
 pound. One pound of salt is usually added to 16 pounds of butter, so the salt in 
 each pound of butter costs in this market one-sixteenth of a cent. If now the duty 
 of 27 cents a sack be removed and the market price correspondingly fall, there will 
 be a saving to the butter maker of about one-eighth of the present cost, equal to 
 about one-one hundred and twenty-eighth of a cent for each pound of butter made. 
 In other words, removal of the 12 cent tariff on dairy salt will save the creamery 
 and dairy men 1 cent for every 128 pounds of batter made. 
 
 Is this saving to the butter maker or the consumer of butter worth the sacrifice of 
 the dairy -salt-making interest of the United States? 
 
 Salt, imported for packers' use and commonly known as "Liverpool ground," usu- 
 ally comes in bulk and pays a duty of 8 cents per 100 pounds, equal to .f 1.60 per ton 
 of 2,000 pounds. If the market price of salt in the United States should be reduced 
 to the extent indicated by these figures, it is clear that the domestic manufacturer 
 would receive but 65 cents a ton for tbe salt that he makes. As fuel required for 
 making a ton of salt costs a little over |1, the salt manufactories of this region, and 
 in fact of all the salt-making regions of the United States, must inevitably close. 
 With the salt works of this country closed and the plants dismantled, the market 
 would be in the hands of English manufacturers and prices would jirobably reach, if 
 not surpass, those of twenty-five years ago. We trust that such a condition of affairs 
 may be averted. 
 
 In all reports on salt it has been classed as a raw material. We beg to state that 
 it is a manufactured article, using large quantities of coal, machinery, iron, and wood 
 in its production, and, owing to its nature, the major part of the plant has to be re- 
 newed in three to five years. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 H. G. PiFFAKD, New York, 
 
 S. T. Kerk, Philadelphia, 
 
 C. T. Bartlbtt, Warsaw, N. Y., 
 
 Committee. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 947 
 
 FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC SALT. 
 
 Hon. KoGBR Q. Mills, 
 
 Chairman of Committee Ways and Means : 
 
 Sir: In compliance with your request the uudorsigned liog leave to lay before you 
 a short cottipendium of the relations existiug between foreign and domestic salt, and 
 we beg that this paper may be talcen in connection with and as supplementary to 
 the memorial recently addressed to you by us. 
 
 Consumption of salt. — The salt consumed in the United States is partly of domestic 
 production and partly imported from other countries, and the relative proporliou of 
 domestic to foreign has been as follows : 
 
 1883 
 1884 
 1885 
 1886 
 
 Tons. 
 774, 029 
 894, 360 
 979, 7(i9 
 983, 385 
 
 Foreign. 
 
 Tons. 
 387, 460 
 40.5, 749 
 403, 422 
 380, 104 
 
 These figures, compiled from Day's "Mineral Resources of the United States" 
 [Government Printing Office, Washington, 1887], show a gradual increase in the de- 
 mand for salt in this country, which demand was chiefly for ,salt of domestib uiaun- 
 facture, and the domestic production to meet this demand has increased about 2.5 per 
 cent, in four years, while the demand for imported salt has actually decreased. It is 
 a fair inference, therefore, that consumers to the extent of over 200,000 tons beliive 
 that they have found better value for the same money in domestic than in foreign 
 salt. 
 
 Kinds of salt. — There are four principal kinds or grades of salt used in this coun- 
 try. The grades made in the United States are as follows : 
 
 •' Common fine," corresponding to the English " common." 
 
 Dairy (factory filled), corresponding to the Englirth "fine" (factory filled). 
 
 Solar (Syracuse, Cal.), corresponding to sea salt (West Indies, etc.). 
 
 Eocksalt (Louisiana, western Now York), corresponding to rock salt (England). 
 
 " Common fine," and factory filled or dairy salt, is made, lioth at home and abroad, 
 by evaporating strong brines in either wooden or iron vessels. The wooden vessels, 
 called grainers, are long tanks containing steam pipes, and the iron vessels are large 
 kettles or pans with furnaces underneath them. 
 
 Solar salt (American) is obtained by exposing the brine contained in wooden tanks 
 to the open air and without the use of artificial heat. This industry is chiefly 
 carried on at Syracuse, N. Y. But the demand on the Paoilie coast for a good solar 
 salt at a reasonable price has led within a recent period to the development of this 
 branch of salt making in California. 
 
 Sea salt (foreign) is usually obtained from ponds or small lakes connecting vTJth 
 the sea. 
 
 Eock salt is mined much after the manner of coal, and is found quite near the sur- 
 face in Louisiana, acd at a considerable depth (1,000 feet) at tUe Eetsof mine at I'if- 
 fard, in the western part of the State of New York. (See circular Eetsof Mining 
 Company, Exhibit A. ) Eock salt is furnished in large Uiniits for salting cattle and 
 horses, or crushed into small pea-sized fragments for hide-salting, acid-making, ai\d 
 other purposes. 
 
 Price of salt. — The selling price of common salt at the various works in western 
 New York during the past two years has averaged less than $-^.50 per net ton (2,000 
 pounds), and in Michigan the price has been still lower. The freight from works in 
 western New York to Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New York City is at present 10 
 cents i)er 100 pounds and to Boston 12 cents, being somewbat higher than before the 
 passage of the interstate-commerce act. 
 
 The selling price of English common salt at Liverpool is nominally 7s. 6(J. per ton 
 (2,240 pounds), but large sales have recently been made as low as 6s. Hd. The freight on 
 this salt from Liverpool during the past three years has varied from 1.9. to 8s., accord- 
 ing to the port to which it is sent, season of the year, etc. The average freight for 
 this period to the principal ports of oui Atlantic coast has probably been less than 4s. 
 
 Salt of this grade is brought over in bulk and pays a duty of 8 cents per 100 pounds. 
 
 Dairy or factory filled is chiefly prepared from common salt by certain processes of 
 purification, drying, grinding, etc., and fetches at the wovk» in Syracuse, western 
 
948 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 New York, and Michigan from $5 to $6 per ton (2,000 pounds). A better quality, 
 made direct from the brine by more expensive processes, fetches a higher price. 
 
 English fine salt varies greatly in quality; the lower grades, e. g , Falk's, be- 
 ing obtainable for 21s. f. o. b. Liverpool; Deakin's at 25s., while the highest grade, 
 Ashton's, is not quoted to the trade for shipment to America, as the entire quantity 
 brought to this country comes through a single house, namely, that of F. D. Moultou 
 & Co., of New York, who thereby enjoy a monopoly of the sale of this salt in Amer- 
 ica. This salt is quoted in the New York market in sacks at $25 per ton. The duty 
 on this salt is 12 cents per 100 pounds, equal to |2.68 per ton. 
 
 The sacks in which English fine salt is brought to America pay no duty, but the 
 American salt manufacturer using similar sacks is obliged to pay a duty of 40 per 
 cent, on them, or on the material from which they are made. 
 
 English lump or rock salts cost in Liverpool about 7s. to 8s. per ton, and until quite 
 recently was sold to the American consumer at a very large advance in price. 
 
 Sea salt from Turk's Island and the Mediterranean is held in the New York market 
 at from |8 to $12 per ton. Just how much of this is profit to the importer we are not 
 prepared to state. Until recently there existed among the importers of sea salts in 
 New York a combination or pool which controlled the price in that city, and it was 
 not until American rock salt from western New York was freely ofiered in the New 
 York market at comparatively low prices that consumers were able to obtain coarse 
 salt at a reasonable price. 
 
 Cost of manufacture. — The comparative cost of manufacture of salt in this country 
 and in England involves a comparison of the original cost of the plant, the cost of 
 repairs, the fuel used for evaporating the brine, and the labor employed in raking or 
 lifting the salt from the pans and g^-ainers and jiutting it in the bins. 
 
 The first cost of a salt plant in America is about double that of an English plant of 
 the same capacity, due to the greater cost of the wood and iron which enter into 
 their construction, and to the higher wages received by the masons, carpenters, and 
 laborers employed in the work. Much of the machinery is liable to rapid deteriora- 
 tion, and the large iron pans costing say 552,000 for a pan 100 by 30 feet in size will 
 require annually repairs amounting to fully 20 per cent of their prime cost. These 
 reiiairs are relatively more expensive than they would be in England. 
 
 All of tLe boiled salts, that is, the grades known as "common" and "fine "(factory 
 filled), necessitate the use of large quantities of coal and the employment of much 
 labor. 
 
 Coal is cheaper in England than here, and the rate of wages paid in England is 
 about one half that which is paid in America for similar services. 
 
 The cost of fnel for evaporating brine in this country we can state with some 
 exactness, based on the actual production of salt and consumption of coal during the 
 months of December, January, and February just jiassed, at one of the works in 
 western New York. 
 
 During these months 165,033 bushels of salt were made at a cost of |5,000.93 for 
 fuel, or a little over 3 cents per bushel, or .'|1.23 per ton (2,000 pounds). 
 
 The rate of wages paid in western New York to rakers and lifters of salt is f 1.50 
 per day, and the actual cost for labor on the salt above referred to amounted to 
 |i4,403, equal to 2.Gli cents per bushel, or §1.06 per ton (2,000 pounds). A ton of salt 
 therefore costs for fuel and the labor of raking and putting in bins f2.29. Dairy salt 
 requires a further expenditure o£ fuel and labor to dry, grind, and- screen and fit it 
 for its intended purpose. It will be noted that the expense of packing and putting 
 on cars, the expense of selling the product, and the expenses of administration are 
 not included. 
 
 From the above it will be clearly seen that, under existing circumstances, common 
 and fine salt can not be manufactured as cheaply in America as in England. We 
 may further state that rock salt can not be mined, even with improved machinery, as 
 cheaply in this country as in England, and that solar salt can not be made and 
 gathered as cheaply by American labor as it can by the native Portuguese, Italians, 
 and West Indian negroes. 
 
 In a communication from Messrs. F. D. Moulton & Co. to your committee a state- 
 ment is made as to the comparative expense of laying down a ton (2,240 pounds) of 
 Syracuse and a ton of English salt in New York. It is there stated that it costs 
 .|4.20 to deliver a ton of Syracuse salt in New York, while English salt can be placed 
 there for|3.32 if admitted free of duty, which is entirely iu harmony with what we 
 have ourselves stated above. 
 
 The inference of F. D. Moulton & Co., " that the American manufacturer takes the 
 full advantage of his position jn extorting from the consumer every cent that he can, 
 consistently with keeping out the foreign article," and "that the American manu- 
 facturer is receiving an unduly large percentage of profit," are not warranted by the 
 facts, as the cost of producing Syracuse salt is probably greater than even that of 
 western New York. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 949 
 
 Much valuable information concerning the relations of English to American salt 
 will be obtained from an examination of Falk's salt circulars. From these circulars, 
 covering a period of several years, we iind that the average prices of English salt at 
 Liverpool have been as follows : 
 
 YearB. 
 
 Common 
 salt. 
 
 Kne salt. 
 
 Tears. 
 
 Common 
 salt. 
 
 Fine salt. 
 
 1872 
 
 «. d. 
 10 6 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 12 
 10 
 
 9 
 10 
 9 
 
 «. d. 
 35 
 40 
 42 
 40 
 31 
 28 
 28 
 27 
 
 1880 
 
 1881 
 
 s. d. 
 9 
 9 
 9 
 9 6 
 7 9 
 9 
 9 6 
 7 9 
 
 «. d. 
 26 
 
 1873 
 
 28 
 
 1874 
 
 1882 
 
 26 
 
 1875 
 
 1883 
 
 26 3 
 
 1876 
 
 1884 
 
 25 9 
 
 1877 
 
 1885 
 
 27 
 
 1878 
 
 1886 
 
 26 
 
 1879 
 
 1887 
 
 21 6 
 
 
 
 
 The very remarkable, but gradual, fall in the price of English salt is probably not 
 duo to accident or special benevolence on the part of the manufacturer, but is unques- 
 tionably due either to overproduction or great (chiefly) American competition. 
 
 An examination of a series of Falk's circulars reveals some very interesting facts 
 relating to the formation of a combin'ation or trust among the salt producers of 
 England to control production and regulate prices, and the hope and expectation 
 that the American Congress will pass laws that will enable them to recover the 
 American trade now slipping from their grasp. That English salt manufacturers 
 are losing money on their shipments to America is frankly conceded, and the unpre- 
 cedentedly low prices prevailing can only be explained on the theory that the 
 English makers are selling in this market at prices greatly below cost in order to 
 discourage, and if possible crush out, American manufactuie with the ultimate 
 result of a return to the high prices they formerly obtained. (Exhibit B.) 
 
 The crisis in the salt industries of America and England is at hand, and the ques- 
 tion for the American Congress to decide is which shall yield to the other. 
 
 The fear has been expressed that if English salt is shut out of the American market, 
 domestic manufacturers will form a pool or trust for the purpose of putting prices up 
 to an unreasonable figure. This fear is baseless. 
 
 The salt manufacture of England is practically confined to a single county, Cheshire, 
 and an English pool has been formed and can be readily maintained. The salt man- 
 ufacture of this Country, on the other hand, is widely distributed, and experience has 
 shown that an American pool is impracticable, for if an attempt were made to unduly 
 raise prices, new territory would be developed to offset it. 
 
 The salt deposits in western New York alone cover an area of over 2,000 square 
 miles, under which there is a stratum of rock salt 60 or 70 feet in thickness. Mich- 
 igan possesses an equally extensive deposit of the raw material, and other local- 
 ities are abundantly supplied. America is fully equal to the ta^k of furnishing all 
 the salt needed by the domestic consumer, and at a reasonable price. Remove the 
 present duty, destroy domestic manufacture, and you make our entire country, as a 
 great portion of the civilized world now is, tributary to Cheshire. 
 
 The communication from Messrs. F. D. Moulton & Co., already referred to, com- 
 ing Ifom a house that has so long been identified with the English .salt interests, 
 merits careful consideration, as they are unquestionably in a position to be well in- 
 formed as to the matters of which they speak. We must, however, join issue with 
 them on some points, both of fact and inference. 
 
 These gentlemen, the sole agents for Ashton's English dairy salt, attack the 
 quality of American salt, especially that prepared for dairy use, speaking as follows ; 
 
 " American brine is full of lime, gypsum, and other foreign matter which can not 
 be wholly eliminated by any process of manufacture. English is free from these in- 
 jurious elements." 
 
 These statements we absolutely and categorically deny. The fact is, there is 
 absolutely no "lime" (oxide of calcium) in American brine. Gypsum (sulphate of 
 lime) does exist in American brine; also, and, to a great extent, in English brine. 
 As, however, butter makers use salt, not brine, the purity of the manufactured article 
 is alone in question. 
 
 From an analysis made by Dr. F. E. Engelhardt, formerly New York State chemist, 
 we learn that Ashton's salt contains — 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Pure salt 97.75 
 
 Sulphate of lime 1.22 
 
950 
 
 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 From the same authority we have analyses of several American salts, as follows: 
 No. 1 : Per eent. 
 
 Pure salt '. 98.48 
 
 Sulphate of lime • 99 
 
 No. 2: 
 
 Pure salt 98.89 
 
 Sulphate of lime 0.72 
 
 No. 3: 
 
 Pure salt 99.84 
 
 Sulphate of lime. 16 
 
 From Dr. Goessmau, director of the Massachusetts State experimental station, at 
 Amherst, we have an analysis of American dairy salt, yielding : 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Pure salt 98.52 
 
 Sulphate of lime - 1.01 
 
 From Prof. C. F. Chandler, of New York, an analysis of American dairy salt, yield- 
 ing: 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Pare salt 99.69 
 
 Sulphate of lime 04 
 
 From J. F. Geisler, official chemist. New York mercantile exchange, we have a 
 direct comparison hetween English and American common salts, as follows: 
 
 English. 
 
 Pure salt 
 
 Sulphate of lime. 
 
 Per cent, 
 98.67 
 1.28 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 98.88 
 
 .97 
 
 The utter falsity of the charges preferred by Messrs. F. D. Moulton & Co. against 
 the purity of American salt is shown by the above. 
 
 F. D. Moulton & Co. further state that "salt evaporated from sea-water is very 
 strong and remarkably free from impurities, and on this account is preferred by pack- 
 ers and others to American salt." The true fact is that repeated analyses, both here 
 and abroad, show that sea salt produced by solar evaporation usually contains but 95 
 to 9G per cent, of pure salt, the balance consisting of various impurities. We are sur- 
 prised that F. D. Moulton & Co. are so ill-informed on the question of the purity of 
 sea-salt. 
 
 We arc not in a position to know what the preferences of American meat packers 
 may be, but will simply state that to our knowledge over 2,000 tons of salt were 
 shipped by one works in western New York to the packers in a single western city, 
 during six months ending December 31, 1887. 
 
 That the dairymen of America do not universally prefer English, or even Ashton's 
 salt, is shown in the "memorial" previously addressed to your committee. Addi- 
 tional evidence on this point may be obtained from the advertising circular of, one of 
 the American companies. (Exhibit C.) 
 
 In F. D. Moulton & Co.'s communication it is stated that the cost of mining and 
 crushing rock salt at Pifiard, N. Y., is from 50 cents to $1 a ton, and that the company 
 receives for the same from $(i to |7 a ton. The officers of the Mining Company have 
 stated to the undersigned that the cost of mining this salt and putting it on the cars 
 is fully $2 per ton. They further state that they do not receive the prices named by 
 Moulton, and offer in evidence au account of sales with that house. (Exhibit D.) 
 
 In conclusion the undersigned desire to express their candid belief that the Ameri- 
 can salt industry will not be able to survive the removal of the present duty on salt, 
 and that with this industry destroyed the trade will be almost wholly in the-hauds 
 of the English, who, with their American agents, will reap the profits that will in- 
 evitably accrue from the advance in price to the consumer. 
 
 We do not believe th.'it other conclusions can be arrived at, or that it is the desire 
 of your committee, or of Congress, to bring about this state of affairs. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 H. G. PiFFAKD. 
 S. T. KiSRK. 
 
 Majich, 1888. 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIPF. 951 
 
 The original exiiibits can not be conveuiently giveu in fall, but will be briefly re- 
 ferred to as below : , 
 
 Exhibit A. — This was a copy of one of the advertising circulars of the Retsof 
 Mining Company, giving description of mine and stating their facilities for produc- 
 tion. 
 
 Exhibit B. — Was Falk's circular for January 4, 1888, giving prices of different 
 grades of salt at Liverpool and freight rates to various parts of the world. These 
 circulars are issued monthly, and besides the above usually contain a brief disserta- 
 tion relative to the condition of the English salt trade. In the one given we find the 
 following : 
 
 "The salt trade is at the most deadly crisis. Implacable competition among a 
 small section of the largest makers has brought prices below all records, salt being 
 freely offered at 50 per cent, below cost. All the large chemical contracts for 1888 
 have been taken at ruinous prices. Nor has there been any more extensive demand 
 for the article below cost. The total export, shown on annexed list, proves a consid- 
 erable decrease on the average. The principle of association has been violated 
 again, and with more disastrous result than ever yet known. Nothing but a new 
 form of general consolidation can resuscitate the trade." 
 
 Exhibit C. — Was the advertisement of an American salt company, with testimoni- 
 als as to the quality of American dairy salt. 
 
 Exhibit D. 
 
 [Francis D. Moulton ^ Co., sole agents for Ashton's factory filled salt. Importers and dealers in all 
 kinds of foreign and domestic salt. Francis B. Moulton, "Wm. A. Hazaxd, 127 "Water street, 'Sew 
 Yiitk, April 8, 1887.] 
 
 Betsof Mining Company, Neiv York : 
 
 Dear Sirs : We have your account sales for car-load salt consigned to us last fall,- 
 showing net proceeds |8.70, with check to balance same. 
 
 You will observe that we have not charged you any commission for our trouble in sell- 
 ing the salt. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 F. D. Moulton & Co. 
 
 Sales for account Retsof Mining Company. 
 One car salt. 
 
 12^1^ tons rock salt, at $4.50 •_ $57.40 
 
 s^A tons rock salt, at 5.60 1.50 
 
 6 barrels fine rock salt, at 91 cents - 5. 46 
 
 64. 36 
 Charges : 
 
 Freight |32.00 
 
 Storage aud labor 17.75 
 
 Insurance 20 
 
 Weighing 5.71 
 
 55.66 
 
 Net proceeds 8.70 
 
 F. D. Moulton & Co. 
 
952 KEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 TOBACCO. 
 
 STATEMENT OF BERNHARD BARON. 
 
 Mr. Beenhakd Baron, of Baron &, Co., Baltimore, addressed the committee. He 
 said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee ; My object in coming here is to 
 plead for the entire abolition of the internal-revenue tax as far as it appertains to 
 cigars and tobacco in all its forms. I will submit to you the following practical 
 reasons : 
 
 I understand that some members of the Ways and Means Committee favor the ab- 
 olition of the tax on smoking and chewing tobacco only, and a reduction of the tax 
 on cigars. To me this seems unjust to the farmers of the cigar-tobacco growing 
 States. The States which raise tobacco for smoking and chewing purposes are Vir- 
 ginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Maryland, a small quantity in Ohio, the most of 
 the Ohio tobacco being suitable for cigars. The States raising tobacco for cigars are 
 Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, part of New Jersey, Wisconsin, 
 and Ohio. 
 
 By abolishing the tax on smoking and chewing tobacco you give the farmers of the 
 four States (Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, and Kentucky) the privilege of 
 manufacturing it, allowing them to sell to whom they please; their boys can learn 
 the manipulation of tobacco ; they can pack it in any way they please and sell it to 
 the dealer and let the dealer pack it up as his custom demands, not being hampered 
 by Government form of packages, as at present. The price to the consumer will be 
 cheapened, the consumption will be greatly increased, and farmer and public will 
 both be benefited. 
 
 Now, you say to the farmers of the States that grow cigar tobacco, your product 
 must be under the internal revenue, a tax must be collected, and a tax can not be 
 collected except packed in original packages, boxes, or otherwise, which be can not 
 get at his farm-house. His children could easily learn the manipulation of tobacco 
 and making of cigars, but they can not work there because they can not get the 
 boxes and do not understand book-keeping, which the Government requires in order 
 to collect the tax. He must give bond ; he can not get the stamps at the moment he 
 requires them, and he must remain at the mercy of the licensed dealer who wants to 
 buy his tobacco. Above all, if the poor man wants to smoke a cigar, he must pay 
 double its value for it. I ask you, gentlemen, is this justice ? These are only reason- 
 able facts. Now, gentlemen, what I want to get at is to give the same privilege to 
 the farmer as I have, and if he can do better than I can he is welcome to it, and I will 
 step aside ; but if he can not, after having all the privileges that I have, he has no 
 one to blame, and can not ask any more from you than the same rights given to 
 every one else. This can only be done by the abolition of the entire internal-revenue 
 tax on cigars as well as tobacco. 
 
 If I were one of the Eepresentatives of the States that grow cigar tobacco, I would 
 certainly protect my people, as well as the people of the States that grow only smoking 
 and chewing tobacco. Now let me show to you how unjtist tbe revenue tax is and 
 where it falls the hardest. Of the $36,000,000 collected yearly, I would say that at 
 least $25,000,000 is paid by the poorest, that is, he that uses the cheapest tobacco, 
 which I will prove to you by facts. The tax as it stands at present is $3 per 1,000 
 cigars and 8 cents a pound on smoking tobacco. The purchaser of a pound of tobacco 
 at 20 cents pays 8 cents internal-revenue tax, while the one who buys a pound at |2 
 pays the same tax, the former paying the Government nearly one-half the amount in 
 taxes and the latter but one-twenty-fifth. The one who purchases a cigar for 2 cents 
 pays about one-sixth of the amount of tax, while the smoker of 10-cent cigars is taxed 
 but one-thirtieth of the amount of his purchase. Furthermore, cigars containing 3^ 
 pounds tobacco to the thousand pay the same tax (|3) as those containing 25 pounds, 
 which quantity the law allows. Taxing the smallest cigar or cheroot the same as 
 the larger ones has brought the paper cigarette to such an enormous consumption in 
 this country, it being impossible to make from tobacco entirely a marketable article 
 under the weight allowed for cigarettes, that is, 3'pounds per thousand at a tax of 
 7)0 cents. We pay annually |1, 500,000 to France for imported cigarette paper, which 
 we could substitute tobacco for, were we allowed to use 5 pounds to the thousand in- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 953 
 
 stead of 3 ; we would thereby utilize at least $2,000,000 of our own product and make 
 a, healtheir article for the consumer. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much does that weigh ? 
 
 Mr. Bacon. About 4 to 41 pounds. 
 
 I also understand that the largest tobacco manufacturers in this country request 
 you to keep a tax on tobacco of 2 cents a pound. The reasons they give are that 
 they would like to keep up the system. Now, I ask you, gentlemen, who in the name 
 of common sense prevents them from keeping up this system after the internal rev- 
 enue is taken off? Why should you compel the farmer and the people in the small 
 villages in the country to pack their tobacco under the system now existing, in pack- 
 ages assigned to them by the internal revenue laws, which consists of certain sized 
 bags or boxes, while otherwise he could pack it in barrels or cases, just as he pleases, 
 and the dealers will pack it to suit their own Convenience for their custom. They 
 also say they have brands on which they have expended a great deal of money that 
 are protected by the internal revenue. Why should they be thus protected? Are 
 the fruit-packers, who expend as much on their brands of tomatoes, pears, peaches, 
 etc., protected-in such manner? 1'he Patent Office is the place to demand that protec- 
 tion. If they are afraid that the poorer or smaller manufacturers will get the best 
 of them on equal terms it proves that they have had a monopoly under the revenue 
 system. I have also valuable brands on which I have expended thousands of dollars, 
 ■ but I do not want the Government to claim the credit of having assisted me, and if 
 a smaller manufacturer can do better than I can I am willing to stand the conse- 
 quences. 
 
 I claim that the entire abolition of the tax will be equally beneficial to everybody. 
 Now, gentlemen, here comes also the request from the farmer asking you to raise the 
 tarifl on Sumatra to $1 per pound. This 1 consider unjust. If the farmer gets the same 
 rights and privileges that I have and every one else has, that he can manufacture and 
 sell to whom he pleases, and if he has aprotectivetariffof at least 400 per cent., what 
 right has he to ask for more ? He states to you that the Sumatra tobacco has ruined 
 his product; let us consider it. The price of the Sumatra in this country, after the 
 tariff is paid, is from $1.50 to $2 ijer pound ; the farmer claims that his tobacco only 
 brings from 9 to 12 cents. Has the farmer so little confidence in the ability of the 
 cigar manufacturers of this country that they would pay from $1.50 to $2 a pound for 
 Sumatra if they could buy home product evenhalf as good if they had to pay 50 to tiO 
 cents a pound for it ? Every manufacturer and every business man trys to get the 
 best article for the cheapest price, and they would certainly utilize our own tobacco 
 if it could replace the Sumatra tobacco. If yon protect the farmer by placing a duty 
 of 50 cents a pound on Sumatra it is all he can demand. Why shall he be more pro- 
 tected than the farmer who ra.ises vegetables ? Take peas, for instance, which are 
 imported from France ; are they more protected by the tariff' than tobacco ? I will 
 vouch to say that after the internal revenue is taken off and some of the farmers go 
 into cigar manufacturing they will be the first to use Sumatra, because they will find 
 a demand for it, and I would not be surprised if after the internal revenue is off, in a 
 few years, they should ask you to reduce the tariff from 50 cents to 25 cents a pound 
 duty. 
 
 I hope, gentlemen, I have brought sufficient facts before you to bring this question 
 to a speedy settlement, and that you will take the internal revenue entirely off', which 
 will relieve the stagnation which at present is in our trade and which atiects at 
 least two hundred and fifty to three huudred thousand people, aud that we may never ' 
 again have such agitation as we have had for the past few years. 
 
 I challenge any cigar or tobacco manufacturers who are in favor of the internal 
 revenue system remaining to dispute the facts 1 have presented to you. 
 
 I thank you, gentlemen, for your kind attention. 
 
 REMARKS OF J. S. VAN DUZER. 
 
 Mr. J. S. Van Duzer, farmer, of Horseheads, N. Y., next addressed the committee 
 He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman andgentlemen of the committee : I regret very much that I was not 
 present this morning to hear the opening arguments upou this question of tariff 
 rates on leaf tobacco. I had been informed that the discussion to-day would coucerii 
 only the manufacturers of cigars aud tobacco, aud that the question in which the 
 farmers were interested would come up to-morrow. It was by chance that [ have 
 heard the clossing portion of Mr. Schroeder's argument. 
 
 It was my pleasure to listen to the statements made before your committee yester- 
 day, many of them settiug forth the condition .and needs of the faruiers iu various 
 sections of the country. Being myself a farmer, and a farmer exclusively, I was es- 
 pecially gratified to find that some appreciation of the farmers' interests has seemed 
 to have reached the halls of Congress, and even the rooms of the Ways and Means 
 Committee. I believe you are beginning to realize that something must bo done, if 
 possible, to help the American farmer. 
 
954 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 It is a, fart, o-eDtL-'iueu, beyoud dispute, that in the production of all the staple prod- 
 ucts of the farm tlio groat body of American farmers are jinding no profit. They 
 are falliug behind und becoming discouraged. 
 
 In many sections of the country attention has beeu given to the production of 
 specialties which recxuire rich lands in a high state of cultivation as well as intelli- 
 gent management and large outlays for labor and special facilities. One of these 
 specialties, which for the past fifty years has been for the most part remunerative, is 
 the production of cigar-wrapj)er tobacco. The tobacco grown in the Southern States 
 is mostly made into smoking and chewing tobaccos, and is largely exported to foreign 
 countries ; but the cigar leaf is raised principally in the New England States, in New 
 York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Ohio, and to some extent in several 
 other States. 
 
 Not until 1882 was a foreign tobacco brought into this market that seriously inter- 
 fered with our domestic cigar- wrapper leaf. For years many millions of dollars had 
 annually reached the pockets of the American farmers through the production of 
 cigar- wrapper tobacco. When we saw our market encroached upon by this product 
 of cheap coolie labor we appealed to Congress and in iSS'i the present duty on cigar 
 leaf tobacco was established. Unfortunately the wording of that law was so defect- 
 ive that it has utterly failed to accomplish its purpose. It was clearly the intention of 
 Congress to place a duty of 75 cents per pound on all foreign wrapper-tobacco. For a _ 
 brief period imports were checked, but importers soon found the holes in the phrase-' 
 ology of the law and began to evade its clear intent. Treasury ofQcials by restrictive 
 rulings have sought to enforce the 75 cent rate of duty on all foreign wrapper 
 tobacco, and recent rulings have been so far effective that nearly 30 per cent, of the 
 last year's importations have paid this higher rate. Could it have been enforced 
 from the start no doubt it would have afforded a large measure of protection to the 
 American grower ; but it has been practically a dead letter. All our efforts to have 
 the law amended in its wording, so as to establish the rate which it nominally fixed, 
 have failed during several sessions of Congress. 
 
 At the low rate of duty on this high grade tobacco, put by cheap labor in a highly 
 manufactured state, foreign wrapper has come into this country in largely increased 
 amounts every year, until it has now nearly monopolized our market to the exclusion 
 of domestic ciga,r wrapper. 
 
 Our farmers find their crops valued at the price of fillers and binders. American 
 grown wrappers are practically unsalable, just as the American made cigars would 
 be to-day if the high rates of duty were taken off' foreign made cigars, which are now 
 kept out of our market by a duty of |40 or more per thousand, which is from four to 
 ten times the cost of labor in their manufacture. 
 
 There were nearly 4,000,000,000 cigars made in this country last year. If the Amer- 
 ican farmers were protected in growing the wrappers for these 4,000,000,000 cigars, 
 they would receive, at even a moderate price, at least $20,000,000. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What has beeu the average selling price of American tobacco for 
 the last four or five years ? What have the farmers of the whole country reoeiTed for 
 their cigar leaf ? 
 
 Mr. Van Ddzbr. I should say about 7J to 8 cents per pound. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is the present duty on the other ? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzee. Nominally 75 cents. But tliese questions are misleading, for in 
 naming 7 to 8 cents as the price of American tobacco I am stating what the farmer 
 gets for his whole crop through, only a small portion of which is wrappers. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I mean the wrappers. 
 
 Mr. Van Dczer. I can not answer that question. The farmer usually sells to the 
 dealer at one fixed price for all grades through. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Then the dealer separates them? 
 
 Mr. Van Dozer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Prior to 1875 or about 1865 there was a duty on this tobacco ? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. I can't state what the duty was then. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What I was trying to get at was, how the duty is to help you, when 
 the duty is now four times what the farmer gets for the wrapper when he sells it? 
 
 Mr. Van Ddzer. I will endeavor to explain it to you 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I wanted to call attention to that point in the case. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Perhaps it would be better to let Mr. Van Duzer make his state- 
 ment first. 
 
 The Chaikman. We have been in the habit of interrupting witnesses. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. 11 was not my purpose to confuse him. 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. I do not object to these interruptions — I welcome them ; but I 
 hope the committee will boar with mo if my remarks are somewhat disordered, as 
 I have no prepared speech and was not expecting to say anything to-day. I have 
 stated that the average price for our home-grown tobacco, as it leaves the hands of 
 the farmer, is from 7| to 8 cents pey pound. Before the foreign tobacco came in to 
 take the place of our home-growth our best grades of cigar wrappers were in demand 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 955 
 
 at from 60 cents to $1 per ponnd; It is this elas.'f of toTiacco that seeks protection 
 against its foreign competitor, and not the whole crop. Wipe out the demand for 
 ■wrappers and we have salable only binders and flllors, which we always produced at 
 a loss. It was the wrapper which afforded whatever of profit the farmers obtained 
 from producing cigar leaf tobacco. 
 
 But it has been intimated that the growers are asking for something unreasonable 
 iu the way of protection, and it has been stated that we already have from 400 to 800 
 per cent, protection. I have alluded briefly to the protection enjoyed by the Ameri- 
 can cigar-manufacturer. Let us compare more carefully his protection with that 
 afforded the grower. A duty of $2.50 per pound is levied on all imported cigars and 
 iu addition an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent. The average weight of imported 
 cigars is something over 12 pounds to the 1,000. This would make the duty $40 on a 
 cigar costing $40 abroad. The duty on the amount of tobacco used in 1,000 cigars 
 would be on, say 16 pounds fillers, at 35 cents, 115.60, 3 pounds wrappers, at 75 cents, 
 $2.25 ; a total of $7.85. 
 
 I have given the outside rate on leaf tobacco, notwithstanding the fact that a large 
 part of the foreign wrapper comes in at filler duty. Even with this statement of the 
 case, the cigar-maker has .$32.15 more protection than the farmer, or 500 per cent, 
 more protection. Will any one pretend that it costs $40 per thousand in labor to 
 manufacture cigars? Remove the duty, and cheap cigars will flood our market. 
 Reduce it to a line with the protection afforded the farmer, and Havana cigars will 
 drive out of business all the manufacturers of high grade goods. We do not ask such 
 injury to be permitted. We do ask that the farmers be considered, as well as the 
 manufacturers, in establishing tariff duties, and this leads me to repeat what 1 said at 
 the outset, that I am glad to find that here in Washington and in Congress there 
 is a disposition to consider the needs of the farmer. As the great wealth-producing 
 class they are clearly entitled to have their needs considered. In the present de. 
 pressed state of their business it is high time their interests were being looked after 
 If, therefore, in rearranging the scale of tariff duties help can be given to the farme. 
 it is clearly the part of wise statesmanship to give it with a hold and steady hand- 
 
 I ought to speak of the merits claimed for this Sumatran tobacco. It has been stated 
 here that smokers prefer it, and that there is no longer any demand for cigars wrapped 
 with American grown wrappers. I do not believe tliat smokers like it, or that there is 
 any real good reason for its having possession of the market beyond the cupidity of the 
 importer and dealer who have taken advantage of the American disposition to buy 
 new things, and especially if they are imported. The tobacco is not pleasant to the 
 taste, and the only advantage that can reasonably be claimed for it, so far as the 
 smoker is concerned, is that it is more glossy than either the Havana or doiiestio 
 wrapper. Its success is largely due to a condition of things which I sincerely regret 
 having to admit exists in this country. We Americans, with all our pride in Ameri- 
 can institutions and American achievements, seem to believe that anything that is 
 imported is better than that which is produced at home ; and I believe that this fact 
 has had much to do with the successful introduction of Sumatran wrapped cigars. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What duty do you desire ? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzek. It is now 75 cents per pound. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How much do you desire '!; 
 
 Mr. VanDuzer. Enough to protect the American grower against the foreign com- 
 petitor, and I helieve a great deal higher duty will be required now to protect the 
 American grower than would have sufficed four or live years ago. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Would you put a high rate on Cuban tobacco too? 
 
 Mr. VanDuzer. No, sir. We have no disposition to interfere with Havanaor the 
 rate of duty on it. 
 
 I wish to remind the committee that the American market — our home market — is 
 of more importance to the American producer than any other market on the face of 
 the earth. It is especially the greatest market anywhere to he found for oigar-leaf 
 tobaccr). As I have said, we made last year 4,000,000,000 cigars. In an effort to 
 meet the fastidious demands of this home market the growers have yearly increased 
 the cost of their crops by using an increased amount of labor. They have been 
 growing finer varieties of leaf, setting more plants to the acre, and handling with 
 greater care. It is safe to say that the best growers have added from 3 to 5 cents per 
 pound in labor upon their crops during the last five years. That is, the labor now 
 costs 5 cents per pound more than it did five years ago. Every farmer who has made a 
 business of raising tobacco has an investment in buildings and appliances, especially 
 adapted to its needs, amounting to at least 11200 per acre. If he grows 20 acres his 
 investment would amount to $4,000. This would not seem a large sum to the large 
 business concern iu a large city; hut an investment of $4,000 on a small farm is of no 
 small importance. Permit this tobacco-growing industry to be wiped out by foreign 
 competition and all this investment goes for naught. Save this industry by needed 
 legislation and you preserve millions of wealth-producing property. 
 
 One argument urged against what we ask comes from ttiose people who want "raw 
 materials" free. They are disposed to class all the products of the farm as raw ma- 
 
956 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 terials. Tobacco aud wool uud cotton are tbey not in a very higli sense uianufaot- 
 nred articles ? and yet they are sjioken of as raw materials. Tlie trouble is the man- 
 ufacturer has urged his claims for protection, while the farmer has plodded along on 
 his farm and has suffered. He has borne uncomplainingly whatever of burdens pro- 
 tection to many important industries may have placed upon him. It is true that he 
 has been to a certain extent an indirect beneficiary, for factories have been estab- 
 lished among our farms and their employes have furnished a market for our prod- 
 ucts; but now we find that there are certain products which we can only hope to 
 have preserved for us by the workings of protection duties. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Can you not raise Sumatran tobacco in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Van Duser. Sumatran tobacco does not prove desirable when grown here ; 
 but even if we had in this country the necessary conditions so far as 8oil and climate 
 are concerned we would even then be powerless, for the reason that the farmers of 
 this country have to pay American wages. It is beyond dispute that labor is ob- 
 tained in Sumatra at 8 to 10 cents per day. Our labor costs from $1 to fl.50 or from 
 1,200 to 2,000 per cent. more. 
 
 The cheapness of this foreign labor enables the grower to do work upon his tobacco 
 which was formerly done in the cigar factory. He re-sorts his leaf. In this work, 
 being done abroad, a considerable amount of the labor heretofore employed in the 
 American cigar factory is displaced. This in a measure accounts for the higher price 
 of the foreign tobacco. In fixing a rate of duty it must therefore not only cover the 
 difference of the cost of labor on the farm, but the labor which (in using the Amer- 
 ican leaf) was employed in the factory. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you use girls and boys in cultivating tobacco ? 
 
 ilr. Van Dozer. I do not. In sosie cases that is done in the assorting of tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Flower. There is 500 per cent, duty on this Sumatran tobacco. How much 
 duty do you want ? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. Our rate of wages are 1,200 per cent, higher than in Sumatra. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You say your tobacco sells at 8 cents a pound and this duty averages, 
 .55 cents. 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. It can not be fairly claimed that we have 500 per cent, or 100 per 
 cent. duty. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Ton say the duty on this wrapper tobacco is 75 cents per pound if it 
 were collected, and that it averages 35 to 40 cents per pound. That would be five 
 times as much as you get for your home product and therefore 500 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. If we raise 1,300 pounds wo get, say, 300 pounds of choice wrapper 
 out of the 1,300 pounds grown on an acre. These 300 pounds would have been worth 
 a good deal more than 8 cents. If they sold at 40 cents it would not be a high price. 
 We ask protection only on one grade of tobacco— a small part — the wrappers — the 
 only part on which we make any protit. "VVe want, a duty that will be ample. If it 
 requires 500 per cent, we want 500 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do yon want it made specific ? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. Yes, we want a specific duty on wrapper tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How would you get around the difficulties of classification ? 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. The difficulties in the way have been greatly exaggerated before 
 this committee. I have given careful attention to this question. M.j friend, Mr. 
 Morse, and myself spent last Saturday in New York in consultation with custom- 
 house officials upon this very point. We reached a conclusion, which, on arriving here, 
 we submitted to Treasury officials ; among others. Colonel Tichenor, the Assistant Sec- 
 retary, who is thoroughly familiar with this question in all its phases. I do not think 
 there will be any difficulty in reaching a wording that will accomplish its purpose. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I want to know what you .suggest. 
 
 Mr. Van Duzer. I will submit in writing a wording that has been approved by the 
 Treasury officials, and which I believe will end these troubles. 
 
 We ask that you place the duty on wrappers at |2 per pound. This foreign wrap- 
 per tobacco, in its highly manufactured condition, is selling in our market to-day as 
 high as .$2.75 per pound. We do not believe that a 1^2 rate of duty will exclude Su- 
 matran wrapper. Those who oppose the farmer before your committee maintain that 
 at least |3 per pound duty will be necessary to effectually protect the American 
 grower. But we believe that §2 will go far toward discouraging the use of the for- 
 eign wrapper and in encouraging manufacturers to go back to the native grown leaf. 
 We want protection, and believe that at least $2 per pound is necessary to that end. 
 Do not think that we name that as a high figure. It is as low as can be safely trusted 
 to benefit the grower. One dollar per pound or $1.50 might be preferable if you were 
 simply endeavoring to fix a rate that would swell the custom receipts of the Govern- 
 ment, but in fixing a protective duty, with the purpose to discourage imports, at 
 least |2 a pound should be fixed. I trust in this really new departure on behalf of 
 American agriculture no half-way work will be done. Let us see the policy of pro- 
 tecting the farmer boldly and fairly carried out, not by slight and feeble advances in 
 rates on a few articles, )jut liy good round protection rates on such articles as we can 
 produce to advant,age in this country. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 957 
 
 A high rate of duty on foreign wrapper rloes not bring loss or liar(lnhip to tlie ioa- 
 trade or to the cigar manufacturer. Tlie leaf dealer, if he cinutiuues to handle Suf 
 matran tobacco, will simply add the amount of increased duty to his selling price. If 
 he finds less demand for the foreign wrapper he can turn his attention again to do- 
 mestic tobacco. The manufacturer will, if lie continues to use the foreign wrapper, 
 make his customers pay the increased cost. The retail dealer might have his liberal 
 profit slightly shaded or the smoker got a somewhat inferior smoke. That is just 
 what the smoker is experiencing to-day. In order to use this high priced and ill- 
 flavored wrapper the manufacturer is cheapening the filler of his cigar. Instead of 
 full Cuban filler and fine flavored domestic wrapper, some inferior cheap tobacco is 
 mixed in with the Cuban filler and covered with the much vaunted Siiraatrau wrap- 
 per. Now I have shown that neither the dealer in leaf nor the mannfaoturer is asked 
 to lose anything through the advance in tariff rates asked for by the growers who 
 expect to get advantage from these higher rates. 
 
 In producing tobacco the farmer is really a mimufacturer in many respects. A large 
 force of men is necessary thp year aroand. All through tlio winter months a large 
 number of hands is required by the grower of a few acres of leaf. But in one impor- 
 tant respect the tobacco grower differs from the manufacturer. As a rule, the manu- 
 facturer has a steady and reliable market for his product. At least the fluctuations 
 are not wide or frequent. He is generally able to figure cost accurately and add his 
 margin of profit to determine the selling price. 
 
 But the farmer grows his crop as cheaply as possible, consistent with the high re- 
 quirements of a trade constantly increasing in its fastidiofis demands, and no matter 
 whether the cost is high or low it has to be sold at the market for what dealers ixie 
 pleased to pay. It does not matter whether that price is below or above the cost of 
 production. We can not charge up to a dealer the increased cost of production, nor 
 will the retail dealers or consumers help us out. The farmer, as a rule, can notfix the 
 sailing price of any product of his farm. The protective duty asked for will certainly 
 help the farmer and will not hurt any other class. Nor will it increase the cost of 
 cigars to the consumer, for a better and cheaper cigar can be made from Cuban tiller 
 and domestic wrapper than is produced to-day with the foreign wrapper. 
 
 Even if you raise the rate of duty sufficiently high to entirely exclude foreign 
 wrapper tobacco it would not insure very high prices for domestic wrappers, for in 
 the present depressed condition of agriculture farmers are looting to the right and 
 and left for some product in which there is profit. American farmers can produce all 
 the wrapper tobacco, not only for this country, but for the whole world, and it would 
 not be long before this home competition would bring the price of domestic leaf 
 down to a level with other special farm products. 
 
 But there is more than possible profit to the individual producer in what we ask 
 and expect from legislation. It means the saving or restoring an important industry 
 to the agriculture of the country. It means saving to the American farmer at least 
 twenty millions of money yearly, which, without this j)rotection, will go abroad to 
 enrich wealthy foreign syndicates who fatten on the pauper labor they employ. 
 
 During recent years Congress has been beseeched to protect the American laborer 
 against the Chinese immigrant who brings with him uncivilized habits and even in 
 this country is willing to work for wages which will not support a self-respecting 
 American. Let me ask, is it not as important to |>rotect American labor against the 
 products of coolie labor as against the labor itself i Is not the coolie a menace to us, 
 even though confined to foreign shores, if the products of his labor are iiermitted to 
 come here in direct competition with similar articles produced here with labor paid 
 for at living wages ? 
 
 STATEMENT OF WALTER E. BARNETT. 
 
 Mr. Walter E. Baknbtt having addressed the committee on the regulation which 
 requires the placing of an inspection stamp on imported cigars (which will be found 
 on page ), said: 
 
 I would like to speak of the Sumatra question. I was here during the first session 
 of the Forty-seventh Congress, when the law was euacted. I am sorry Mr. Randall 
 is so ill. He said to me at that time, "Mr. Barnett, what we are trying to do is 
 simply to legislate against the product of a country with which we are in treaty re- 
 lations." It was arranged that this tobacco should be described, or rather named, 
 and the 85 per cent, and the one-hundred leaf clause was made at that iiime. It was 
 supposed that it would be fully carried out under the bill. What we do want is that 
 there shall be no prohibitory duty levied on Havana wrappers, as there are inside of 
 the city of New York seven or eight thousand wage-earners, the International Cigar 
 Makers' Union, a body composing nearly one hundred thousand cigar-makers, who 
 would be seriously injured by the passage of any bill which would destroy their 
 chances of obtaining Havana wrappers. If in any way you can exempt Havana 
 from the prohibitory provision of such a bill, then we are with you. 
 
 The Sumatra tobacco has no friends now even among the men who work in it. I 
 
958 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 know that to be a fact. An honest way for the United States to have clone, when this 
 Asiatic invasion began, was to have turned to the Government of the Netherlands and 
 said franlily, " We give notice of our desire to abrogate the treaty aud to put a 
 prohibitory duty on the tobacco, or get your permission to put a prohibitory duty on 
 the tobacco, that comes from your Indian possessions." Tlien farmers would proba- 
 bly have joined hands with us and asked for a lower duty on Cuban tobaccd. We 
 must have Cubau tobacco wrappers and fillers or close our factories. We are com- 
 pelled to sell our cigars 30 and 40 per cent, below the cost of imported cigars, of the 
 same size and character. Why? Because the dealer sells them surreptitiously. I 
 had something to do, I believe, with the suggestion of the 85 per-cent. clause'. It 
 was done for the purpose of securing us the Havana without increased duty on the 
 wrappers. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. About what proportion of the Havana tobacco is wrappers? 
 
 Mr. Barnett. I have seen magnificent bales whore almost every leaf would make 
 two wrappers; but they are like angels' visits, few and far between. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Then ordinarily, or except in rare cases, you would find a much 
 less percentage of wrappers in a bale of Cuban tobacco than you would fillers, of 
 course ? 
 
 Mr. Barnett. Oh, no. Our sixes are about the best grade that comes in here. 
 Some of them might make all wrappers, only some of these would be red in color and 
 so useless. Some would probably be turn on the selvage, aud if it was not torn it 
 would make a wrapper. If you arrange the dnty so as to give us a higher duty on 
 wrappers than on fillers ybu would make us pay a higher rate of duty for a large 
 proportion of fillers. One bale of tenths might yield 15,000 wrappers and the brother 
 bale would not have a wrapper in it at aU. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You are a manufacturer ? 
 
 Mr. Barnett. Yes, sir ; and I have been for twenty years. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you manufacture your cigars in a large factory ? 
 
 Mr. Barnett. Mine is a medium factory of about fifty men. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is there a law in the State of New York against the manufacture of 
 cigars in tenement houses. 
 
 ilr. Barnett. There was, but it was declared to be unconstitutional. The matter 
 was pressed to the attention of the legislature by the boards of health of New York 
 and Brooklyn. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It was purely sanitary ? 
 
 Mr. Barnett. Yes, sir. There was a remark made here by the gentleman who pre- 
 ceded me. I would simply state that while I am making no question as to the aboli- 
 tion or favoring the retention of the internal-revenue tax the International Cigar 
 Makers' Union (a body which consists of nearly 65,000 men) met recently in conven- 
 tion in Binghamton, N. Y., and passed a resolution opposing the repeal of the internal- 
 revenue tax on cigars. ' 
 
 Mr. Gear. They are opposed to the repeal of the internal-revenue tax on cigars? 
 
 Mr. Barnett. I think it would be no advantage to the farmer ; and there is an- 
 other thing about it: you gentlemen want to avoid a plethoric Treasury, and I think 
 that this is bothering the minds of this committee more than any o rher one thiiig. You 
 probably will, in your judgment, take good care of that. Let uks say if you are 
 bothered with a suiplus in the Treasury every time you put on a duty which is in- 
 tended to be prohibitory of Sumatra you will increase the ditficulties of the Govern- 
 ment by increasing the surplus unless you make the duty over |3 per pound. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What is wrapper leaf Cuban tobacco worth per pound ? 
 
 Mr. Barnett. It depends. You could buy wrapp(.-rs in New York, duty paid, all 
 the way from $1 to $4 per pound. Of course, the $4 a pound would be a. good variety. 
 It is used for making fancy cigars. Wrappers are all sorts of prices. We can not 
 exist in our manufactures if you ]>ut any more duty on the Havana tobacco. The 
 average cost in Havana is about sjl per pound now for running lots, which includes 
 the product of each farmer, wrappers and fillers combined. 
 
 VIEWS OF NEW YORK STATE TOBACCO GROWERS' ASSOCIATION. 
 
 GnNTLB:\rEN: We ask for protection because our combined associations represent 
 hundreds of thousands of Americans v>'ho own property and pay taxes for the sup- 
 port of the Government. They own millions of dollars' worth of property in ware- 
 houses, a.s8orting rooms, tobacco sheds, tools, etc., that would be of little value for 
 any other farm product. 
 
 Our dangerous and unjust competitors are the rich Holland syndicates, who employ 
 nothing but coolie labor to raise, handle, cure, assort, pack and prepare their product 
 for the market at the nominal sum of from 8 to 10 ei-uts a day. By so doing they are 
 enabled to divide from 100 to l;i5 per cent, dividend per a'uuum'on the amount of 
 capital iuvosteil in their biisiiiens. They do not jiay 1 cent for the support of this 
 Government; hence we have a right to exjjcct ample protection against sucti com- 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 959 
 
 petitors. The cbange of the tariif duties will not affect in the least any branch of 
 the tobacco business except that of the manufacturer and grower, for the following 
 reasons : 
 
 First. There are no exclusive importers in Sumatra tobacco, as all who import it 
 deal in domestic tobacco, and if the tariff should bo raised so that they would lose 
 custom on tbe imported goods they could hold the same trade on domestic goods, as 
 one or the other must and will be used. 
 
 Second. The jobbers and dealers iu leaf tobacco would not be affected in the least. 
 They are tired of the ambiguity and uncertainty of the present law regulating the im- 
 portation of leaf tobacco, and are anxiously waiting the time wljen a specifically drawn 
 law will be adopted so that they can tell with a reasouable degree of accuracy whiit 
 the duty on a pound of Sumatra will be and what they can afford to pay for domestic 
 tobacco yi order to comj>ete with it. 
 
 Third. As it is very evident that the only branches of the tobacco trade to be 
 affected by the change in the tariff', justice should demand that protection should be 
 equally divided between those two industries. We will now show you what protec- 
 tion the cigar manufacturers of this country are receiving under the present law. 
 
 The duty on imported cigars is $2.50 a pound specific and 25 per cent, ad valorem, al- 
 lowing that 1,000 cigars would weigh 15 pounds andbe $60 per 1,000, and which we think 
 a fair estimate. The specific and ad valorem duty would be $52.50 ; take from that the 
 duty on 21 pounds of fillers and binders at 35 cents per pound and 4 pounds of wrap- 
 pers at 75 cents per pound, which is $10.35, and you have $42.15 to be divided by io 
 pounds, the Government iillowance for 1,000 cigars, which gives the manufacturer a 
 protection of $1.68 and a fraction on every pound of tobacco consumed in the manu- 
 facture of 1,000 cigars. 
 
 Again, if the cigars weigh 12 pounds and their value is $50 per 1,000, the ad va- 
 lorem and specific duty would be $42.50. Take from that the duty on 18 pounds of 
 fillers at 35 cents and 4 pound of wrappers at 75 cents, which is $9.50, will leave |33 
 divided by 22 pounds, and the manufacturer is protected by $1.45 and a fraction on 
 every pound of tobacco consumed in the cigars. 
 
 This IS the protection afforded to the manufacturers who manufacture clear Hav- 
 ana cigars exclusively, and they will not exceed 5 per cent, of the total number of 
 cigar manufacturers in this country. All other cigar manufacturers who use do- 
 mestic wrappers and binders have the advantage of saving the duty on the binders 
 and wrappers, which will be equal to 25 cents a pound more protection tliq^n the clear 
 Havana manufacturer receives, which would be a protection for them of from $1.70 to 
 $1.93 on every pound of tobacco consumed in the construction of every 1,000 imported 
 cigars; besides, the manufacturing business has become the monopoly by the intro- 
 duction of a war measure, in time of emergency, in the form of the internal-revenue 
 laws, which prevents thousands of honest American tax-payers from embarking in 
 the business for the want of means and credit to comply with the restrictions and 
 provisions of the law. Hence we say that the manufacturers of cigars have no just 
 •right to refuse or oppose the protection of growers of leaf tobacdo, at least to the ex- 
 tent that they themselves are protected. 
 
 The immense importation of Sumatra tobacco at the lowest rate of duty has availed 
 the consumer nothing. None of the leading brands of cigars have been reduced in 
 price; consumj)tiou has not been stimulated by its use. When domestic tobacco was 
 being used principally, the production of cigars increased in the United States from 
 1,978,574,246 in 1879 to 3,392,528,869 iu 1883, and from 1884 to 1885, while Sumatra 
 was in its greatest favor, the production of cigars fell oft" nearly one hundred millions, 
 as shown by the internal-revenue report of the Government. The increase since that 
 time has not began to keep pace with the increase in the population. As late as 
 1883 and 1884 good domestic crops of leaf tobacco were conceded to contain from 60 to 
 80 per cent, of wrappers. By that time, however, the Sumatra had gained a foothold. 
 and established a fashion /or light-weight, thin, silky, and glossy tobacco for wrap- 
 pers, and in order to follow the fashion the people were educated to smoke with their 
 eyes instead of their taste, as it is acknowledged to this day that so far as quality is 
 concerned the American tobacco is inhuitely superior to its foreign rival. This 
 fashion, created by the use of Sumatra tobacco, has ruined the profit of the American 
 grower, as the percentage in their crops of fashionable tobacco kept growing smaller 
 and smaller year after year, until at the present time it is claimed that a large per- 
 centage of the American tobacco is unfit for wrapping purposes, and that in the best 
 crops of the American product there is no more than one-third of the crop that con- 
 tains wrappers of the fashionable character, and even at that only a very small per- 
 centage. 
 
 As the manufacturer can wrap 1,000 cigars with 3 pounds of Sumatra, which at 
 the very highest price will not cost him to exceed $5 or $6, and as it would require 
 at least 20 pounds of the very best domestic wrappers to select 6 pounds of the fash- 
 ionable kind from, whicih would require a large amount of labor and would be worth 
 $1 a pound, and what was left would be nondescript tobacco, according to the 
 
9G0 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 fashion established, and not fit for wrappers on account of the color and gloss re- 
 quired for that purpose to make them fashionable, not fit for binders or tillers, hence 
 only worth a very nominal price, not to exceed what the labor was worth to sort out 
 the fashionable 6 pounds necessary to wrap 1,000 cigars, hence you see the reason 
 why the manufacturer prefers to buy the Sumatra wrapper and save the labor of 
 sorting by transferring it to the cooly labor of Europe. 
 
 What is called a good domestic crop of tobacco will actually cost, at the very 
 least, 12^ to 13 cents a pound. Say in classification it contains one-third of which 
 contains a small quantity of wrappers, one-third binders, and one-third fillers. The 
 filler will be estimated at 2 cents a pound, binders at 6, and the wrappers at 30 cents. 
 This is the way the round jirice is figured out. These are the absolute facts in the 
 case, and ought to convince any honest disinterested party that the American tobacco- 
 grower is badly in want of protection at your hands. , 
 
 We fear that there is a disposition on tlio part of our enemies, and even some of the 
 representatives of the tobacco-growers, to insert in the new tariff law to be adopted 
 ambiguous language, such as "commercially known" and "chiefly used," which 
 would, in our opinion, render the billentirely worthless for protection and impossible 
 to operate according to the intent of its fr.araers. 
 
 The Hon. Frank Hiscock introduced a bill as an amendment to the present am- 
 biguous law, the language of which was agreed upon by the representatives of the 
 various tobacco-growers' associations for the past five years or more as being thor- 
 oughly safe and impossible to evade. It relieves the custom officers of all discretion 
 except the weighing of the package. The Hiscock bill reads as follows : 
 
 " Leaf tobacco in any bale, box, package, or bulk, any part of which is suitable for 
 wrappers, if not stemmed, 7.5 cents ; if stemmed, |1 a pound on the whole contents of 
 such bale, box, package, or bulk. All other leaf tobacco manufactured and not stem- 
 med, etc., 35 cents. " 
 
 The language of this bill does not diifer particularly from the bill reported by the 
 Senate committee, who were careful to keep out all ambiguous language, except in 
 the enacting clause, which says that " if any tobacco suitable for wrappers is found 
 in any package, the high rate of duty must follow the entire importation instead 
 of the bale, box, package, or bulk." This, we think, would make the bill odious and 
 invite trouble by law suits, etc., for if one bale in the importation of 1,000 bales 
 or packages was found to contain tobacco suitable for wrappers, the balance 999 bales 
 of which were conceded to be nothing but fillers, the high rate of duty must be col- 
 lected from the whole importation according to the provisions of the Senate bill. 
 
 The Hiscock bill has been considered by lawyers, judges, all experts, and all classes 
 of the cigar and tobacco industries to be perfectly iron-clad and impossible to evade. 
 The only objections that we have ever heard raised against it are by the importers, 
 who claim that there is tobacco suitable for wrappers to be found among the filler 
 grade, etc. We balieve this claim to be without the least foundation whatever, as 
 Havana wrappers of fine quaUty are worth |5 or |8 a pound to the established man- 
 ufacturer of fine cigars in Cuba, who requires all the wrappers of that character that 
 the island produces. There are, however, a few Cuban manufacturers in New York 
 City and Key West who make a specialty of imitating imported cigars and selling the 
 products of their factories at enormous profit, who are able and pay the price neces- 
 sary to import fine Havana wrappers enough to meet their demands. There is no 
 tobacco imported from Cuba to this country that is fit to be used for wrapper pur- 
 poses, except what is used by those Cuban factories. 
 
 The present law requires that all tobacco suitable for wrapi>ers shall pay 75 cents 
 duty, and there is not an instance on record where any Havana has ever been sub- 
 jected to that rate of duty, except what is used by the Cuban factories mentioned 
 above. Outside of what they consume anything that might be considered fit for a 
 wrapper is found to be wanting in color or it is too strong for wrappers ; it does not 
 burn freely, blisters in such a way that it would render it unfit for wrapper purposes. 
 In fact, such goods are not even fit for binders or fillers and are of a nondescript type, 
 not worth nearly as much in the market as ordinary filler sizes. The fact is that the 
 line of difference between what is suitable for wrappers in Havana tobaccos and 
 fillers is more distinct than between wrappers and fillers in any other grade. There 
 is no similarity whatever between Havana wrappers and any other Havana goods 
 in leaf tobacco. Hence this talk of the importers about finding tobacco suitable for 
 wrappers in Havana fillers is a humbug. 
 
 We are totally and most earnestly opposed to the introduction of the words " com- 
 mercially known, chiefly used" or any other ambiguous language in any tariff bill 
 for the protection of our industries for the following reasons : 
 
 First, and perhaps most important, is the fact that'Europe is full of Sumatra of small 
 sizes and light weight, which require from two hundred to two hundred and fifty 
 leaves to weigh a pound, each side of every leaf of which will make the very finest 
 kind of a wrapjier, which has been nearly or quite entirely neglected by the Ameri- 
 can importer, as he knew full well ho could not bring it to this country Tinder any 
 other than the highest rate of duty. Under any law with " commercially known" 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 961 
 
 inserted in, when thia dangerous competitor was brought to this country it would 
 not be christened Sumatra wrapper, as that would render it too expensive to the im- 
 porter. The aim and object of the American importer has been to buy such goods as 
 he hoped to get through the custom-house under the one hundred leaf clause of the 
 present law at 35 cents a pound. Whenever he pays more than that he invariably 
 pays it under protest, expecting to recover a gain in the courts under the provisions 
 of the present ambiguous law. 
 
 Second, the commercial name of all grades of tobacco ia very easily changed, es- 
 pecially so if the Government offers big rewards for so doing. A wrapper of a cigar 
 is also a cover of a cigar, and if a Sumatra cover can be bought for $1 a pound less 
 than a Sumatra wrapper, it will not take long to change the commercial name of the 
 commodity. 
 
 Third. A binder is also a holder as it binds and holds the filler together. If a Ha- 
 vana binder would cost Jll a pound more than a Havana holder, the commercial 
 name " Havana binder" would be soon forgotten. The low grades of all domestic 
 tobacco, not many years since, were all called fillers, and now all except Havaua 
 fillers are known by the trade as " lugs." Not long ago the hands that were drawn 
 from a package to represent its contents were invariably known by the name of ' ' sam- 
 ples," and now that is considered a vulgar phrase by tide trade who claim the proper 
 name "types." 
 
 We might continue to give illustrations of this character but hope the above will 
 prove sufficient. 
 
 If the law is not specifically drawn the package may be mixed in Europe. Products 
 of the Island of Cuba go to Holland free of duty and it costs no more to import 
 Havana fillers from Holland than from the-Island of Cuba. Hence importers might 
 mix Havana fillers with Sumatra wrappers, and this would bring in the percentage 
 question again. 
 
 As Mr. Shrouder says: "Gentlemen, you can draw your own conclusion as to 
 whether $100 for each package would change the actual percentage of wrappers and 
 fillers in the package." 
 
 This was done to evade the present law by Faulk Bros., of New York, which re- 
 sulted in a lawsuit against the Government and is now pending. Give us a specific- 
 ally drawn law in plaiu English, language covering the entire package and you will 
 have no further trouble in the custom-house. There will be no more mixed bales. 
 All goods will be packed alike. The weight will follow the invoice. The duty of 
 the custom-house officers will be to reweigh the package to find if it is correct. 
 
 It has been claimed that Sumatra tobacco is superior in quality and makes a better 
 cigar than the domestic tobacco. This we emphatically deny. The manufacturer 
 who insisted upon using Sumatra tobacco, even if he was obliged to lower the 
 standard of the filler in order to do so, could not compete with the manufacturer who 
 kept up the standard of his filler and used domestic tobacco wrappers, as that is the 
 principal and important compartment of a cigar. 
 
 The domestic filler has no resemblance or similarity to the imported Havana filler, 
 and a comparison would be simply ridiculous, as the one is worth from $1 to fl.SOper 
 pound and the other about two cents, and there is as much difierence in appearance, 
 quality, flavor, etc., as in the price. 
 
 Connecticut tobacco was greatly in favor for cigar purposes for a number of years, 
 and the change of fashion from light to dark colors gave the preference to Pennsyl- 
 vania, which State held the trade for a number of years before Sumatra came in 
 fashion. Hence, it will be seen that the change of fashion has caused revolutions 
 before this time. 
 
 No other farm product has anything to do with the prices of cigar leaf-tobacco. 
 That idea is preposterous. » 
 
 All duties on Sumatra tobacco are paid under a protest, and always will be under 
 ambiguous laws, so as to leave a resort to the courts for the importer. 
 
 A uniform duty on wrappers is no discrimination against Holland, as a law can he 
 drawn specifically which will treat with all countries alike. 
 
 We deny that minor children and youths are employed to any extent in cigar fac- 
 tories. The law of the land restricts and prevents such employment. Sumatra 
 wrappers, or even any cigar wrapper can not be stripped by children or youths with 
 advantage and profit to the manufacturer. Sumatra wrappers cost on an average 2 
 cents a piece, and any but expert strippers would destroy more than their wages 
 were worth. A good Sumatra wrapper stripper can demand from |9 to |lSiper week. 
 The sorting of cigar leaf tobacco never was and never will be intrusted to minors or 
 youths as it requires an expert to assort ont the fashionable wrappers of the present 
 day. He must be a judge of the color, of the texture, of the elasticity, of the fine- 
 ness, of the style and all which goes to make a first class fashionable wrapper. The 
 people employed for this part of the work are practical cigar-makers, who are paid 
 more for sorting tobacco than they can earn at the table by their trade ; such help in 
 factories, generally, receive from |15 to |18 per week, Hence it will be seen that no 
 
 485—^61 
 
962 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 cheap labor caB be used in cigar factories, except what may be used in stripping fil- 
 lers Tvhicli would not be damaged to any great extent by being broken or torn. 
 
 No Havana for wrappers can be bought for leas than from $3 to $6 per pound. 
 About $1 is the average price for other grades of Havana, and there is as much dif- 
 ference in the looks, in the flavor, in the quality, in the color, in the luster, in the 
 elasticity between the two as there is in the price. 
 
 The average protection afforded the manufacturers under the present law is equal 
 to about $1.80 a pound on foreign leaf-tobacco ; in equity we should be entitled to the 
 same protection. But we are satisfied that with a law specifically drawn, with all 
 ambiguous language carefully avoided, that $1.50if not stemmed, |2 if stemmed, and 
 all other leaf manufactured and not stemmed 35 cents, if stemmed 60 cents would 
 be ample, fair, and just protection for the tobacco-growers and would render their 
 business again profitable. 
 
 We would ask this in all sincerity and believe that we are justly and equitably en- 
 titled to it. We would rather be satisfied with $1 per pound ou unstemmed tobacco 
 under the form of the Hiscook bill than $3 a pound under any bill containing any 
 ambiguous or double meaning language. 
 
 If the manufacturer of cigars insists on cultivating a fashion which is no earthly 
 use or benefit to any one in this country, but is of a serious damage, with a prospect 
 of entirely destroying the business of a very large and important portion of our citi- 
 zens, besides transferring the labor of factories from this country to the cooly labor 
 of Europe, thereby increasing the now already largo profits of the rich Holland syn- 
 dicates, who pay nothing for the support of this Government, to the detriment of our 
 market and laboring people — if the manufacturers persist in furthering and fostering 
 such a habit, we say that they should pay for it. 
 
 We also honestly and sincerely hope that your lionorablo committee will abolish 
 all internal-revenue laws covering leaf-tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, cheroots, etc.; also 
 all restrictions and laws connected therewith. This is the only way you can reheve 
 and benefit the consumer. 
 
 Hoping that you will give our brief and arguments your careful and earnest atten- 
 tion, we sincerely pray. We are. 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 M. ToBiN, President. 
 A. H. Toll, Secretary. 
 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chainiiaii Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 KE80LUTI0NS ADOPTED. 
 
 The following resolutions were adopted by the New York State Tobacco Growers' 
 Association when the Senate bill was under consideration : 
 
 Resolved, That in view of the great importance of speedily and judiciously revising 
 the existing tariff laws, and especially those sections relating to the duty on leaf-to- 
 bacco, we earnestly request that the Fifty-first Congress be convened at the earliest 
 day practicable after the expiration of the present Congress, believing, as we do, that 
 a wise and proper revision of the tariff will settle the business of the country and 
 place the nation on a solid basis of prosperity, and that the sooner this result is 
 brought about, the more speedy will be the impetus given to the great industries of 
 the land. 
 
 Resolved, That we unreservedly condemn the tricks and frauds by which it is alleged 
 that large quantities of Sumatra tobacco are passed through the bonded-warehouses 
 in a crooked manner, thus defrauding the Government out of large sums of money 
 that rightfully belong to the Treasury of the United States ; andthat these undoubted 
 frauds add increased evidence that the existing ambiguous tobacco tariff law should 
 be wisely and clearly amended in order to render gross violations hereafter, in the 
 importation of foreign leaf, impossible. 
 
 Resolved, That this conference of the New York State Tobacoo-GTOwers' Association 
 earnestly i)rotest against the clause in the Senate's tariff' substitute, which recently 
 passed the Senate, recommending a reduction of 15 cents per pouud duty ou foreign 
 tillers ; that we are unalterably opposed to the duty of 20 cents per pound recom- 
 mended by the subcommittee of the Senate, as inadequate, unjust to the producers 
 of domestic tobacco, and insufficient to fairly protect the growers of cigar leaf in the 
 United States ; and that we most respectfully ask Congress to auieud the section re- 
 ferred to by striking out the words " 20 cents " and inserting in lieu thereof ' ' 35 cents per 
 pound;" and believe this proposed change meets the hearty approval not only of the 
 Ijroducers, but of a largo UHnib(!r of manufacturers of cigars in this country. 
 
 Resolved, That wo respectfully ask the members of the House of Representatives 
 from this State, and esyjecially those who reside in the tolj.icco-growing districts, to 
 aiil the gi'owers in securiug the aiuenduieut to tlie la.w of 18.S3 in silull il HUl)]!JO!' tbatl 
 
 its iJi-i)\isi<>u8-oau iiot bo violntotl nor fraiiJa nestle in itn i'oldH, 
 
REVISION OF THE TAKIPF. 963 
 
 VIEWS OF LEVI KITTILSEN. 
 
 Utica, Wis., January 14, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : I will embrace this opportunity to write yon in regard to the duty on 
 tobacco. I represent one hundred and forty of the largest growers of this associa- 
 tion, and we ail wish to impress upon you the necessity of protecting us from the for- 
 eign product on the Island of Sumatra. Since that article has been flooded into our 
 country, and in a large measure under the lowest rate of duty, the growing of to- 
 bacco in Wisconsin has become unprofitable, and unless a higher duty in the future 
 is not collected we shall have to abandon its productiou altogether, which would 
 bring the value of farming lands that a few years ago were worth flOO per acre down 
 to less than a third of said sum. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 Levi Kittilsen. 
 
 Hon. E. M. La Follbtte, M. C, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 REPEAL OP TAX ON TOBACCO. 
 
 (1) Common leaf tobacco, selling at 2 cents per pound, can not pay a tax of 8 cents 
 and rules and regulations 7 cents more. 
 
 (2) Without the rules and regulations, tax can not be collected. 
 
 (3) The internal-revenue tax on tobacco creates monopoly manufacturers. 
 
 (4) By taking the tax off you will please ten million consumers, who will buy the 
 tobacco at one-half of present prices. 
 
 (5) Leaf sold at present at 2 cents will be worth 4 cents without the tax. 
 
 L. H. Neudrikek. 
 
 VIEWS OP N. S. POMROY. 
 
 SuEFiELD, Conn., January 9, 1890. 
 To the Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 In reading newspaper reports of the argument before you regarding Sumatra to- 
 bacco, they do not seem to bring out an important fact that is worthy of considera- 
 tion, viz, its merits in point of quality. 
 
 It is a conceded fact by all tobacco men, including cigar-manufacturers, who are 
 its strongest advocates, that a cigar made from clear Sumatra tobacco would not be 
 smoked by the most degraded smoker. No manufacturer dare make them and put 
 them on the market ; they would drive people out of the house. Please ask some of 
 its manufacturing defenders why they do not advertise clear Sumatra cigars. The 
 fact is that every ounce of Sumatra wrapper that is put on a thousand cigars dete- 
 riorates their quality. 
 
 The real reasons why manufacturers want it are these : 
 
 It produces a more glossy and handsome surface for a cigar wrapper than do- 
 mestic tobacco ; and the manufacturer can perpetrate frauds upon the smoking 
 community that they can not with domestic tobacco. 
 
 It has a peculiar rankness that overpowers the taste of the filler, consequently 
 the mauufacturer can fill the cigar with any kind of trash, flavored a little, and with 
 a Sumatra wrapper the average smoker can not tell what it is made of. 
 
 Therefore its use is not only a damage to the tobacco-growers, bnt also a fraud 
 upon and an injury to the smoking jjublic. If i's importation could be prohibited 
 entirely, it would be a blessing to all. Not so with Havana ; we all need it for fillers 
 to improve the quality of cigars. You see plenty of clear Havana cigars advertised, 
 bnt never hear of a clear Sumatra cigar. 
 
 I am not a tobacco-grower, but am in a position to know what 1 am talking about. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 N. S. PoMRoy, 
 
964 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF, 
 
 VIEWS OP MANUFACTURERS OF DETROIT. 
 
 Detroit, Marcli 26, 1888. 
 To the Senators and Members of the House of Representatives in Congress assembled : 
 
 We, the undersigned tobacco manufacturers of Detroit, Mich., respectfully state 
 that the agitation of the reduction or repeal of the tobacco tax is paralyzing to that 
 industry. We desire above all things to be let alone, and it is of very great impor- 
 tance to us that if anything be done with the tax this session, that it should be done at 
 once. From such information as we can get it seems probable that Congress in their 
 wisdom will decide to make some change in the tobacco tax. While as good citizens 
 we propose to be satisfied with whatever action they may tate, wo most respectfully 
 suggest, should any changes be determined upon, the following : 
 
 ( I) That the tax on all manufactured tobacco be reduced to 2 cents per pound. 
 . (.!) That all licenses and restrictions on the sale of leaf-tobacco on the growers and 
 dealers be abolished. 
 
 (3) The abolition of all licenses for the sale of manufactured tobacco. 
 
 (4) The reduction of the penal bond required of manufacturers in proportion to the 
 reduction of the tax. 
 
 (5) That a rebate equal to the reduction of the tax be allowed. 
 
 For twenty-five years these industries have been absolutely under the control of 
 the internal-revenue law, which specifically prescribed the style and size of packages 
 which must be used. The compliance with these laws necessitated the ubj of expen- 
 sive machinery, suitable buildings, packages, and labels. It has also given steady 
 employment to many thousands of men and women. 
 
 The compensating advantages of the revenue system to manufacturers are the more 
 perfect identification of their brands and goods, which at present represent the result 
 of years of labor and expense. It has stimulated them to raise the quality of the 
 goods to a much higher standard than would otherwise have been possible, and has 
 benefited the consnmers in enabling them to obtain exactly what they wanted in- 
 stead of being imposed upon by imitations. 
 
 This continued protection to the consumers would be worth to them far more than 
 the payment of the small tax of 2 cents per iiound. 
 
 There seems to be no demand on the part of the consumer or dealer for the entire 
 abolition of the tobacco tax, the only necessity for this measure being a reduction of 
 the revenue. By a reduction of 6 cents per pound and the abolition of the entire 
 system of licenses in connection with this industry, a large decrease of the revenue 
 can be etfected and a merited protection afforded to manufacturers and consumers, 
 and in case that a larger revenue should be again required from this source the ma- 
 chinery for its collection would be already established and an increase in the tax the 
 only thing necessary. 
 
 Under the present and previous rates of tax it has been necessary to place restric- 
 tions upon the sale of leaf-tobacco ; these regulations have been a source of annoyance 
 to the growers, but the modifications suggested would leave them no possible cause 
 of complaint, because, so far as they are concerned, it would be equivalent to the 
 total abolition of the tax. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 Daniel Scotten & Co. 
 
 Jno. J. Bagley & Co. 
 
 American Eagle Tobacco Company. 
 
 Banner Tobacco Company. 
 
 Globe Tobacco Company. 
 
 To the Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Mepresentatire < : 
 
 Gentlemen: The above is a copy of a petition of the tobacco manufacturers of 
 Detroit, Mich., presented to the Congress of the United States in March, 1888, and 
 ■we respectfully submit that their position is the same to-day. 
 
 Geo. H. Hopkins, 
 
 Fresident. 
 A. A. Brutell, 
 January 7, 1890, Secretary Detroit Tobacco Exchang*. 
 
REVISION OP - THE '^ TAEIFP. 965 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES ERTHEILER. 
 
 Mr. James Ertheilbr, tobacco liroker of New York, addressed the committee. He 
 said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I come here as a committee appointed by the New 
 York Leaf Tobacco Trade to ask certain legislation. Before going into the details I 
 ■would state that the Now York Leaf Tobacco Trade is an incorporated institution in 
 the State of New York, and I believe that fully seven-eighths of the leaf- tobacco inter- 
 est in New York City are more or less represented in it. The interest of the Havana 
 men, the Sumatra men, and the seed-leaf men are all represented. I am not person- 
 ally interested in that question. I am a leaf-tobacco broker, and it is immaterial to 
 me whether I sell one kind or the other. I would rather sell |100,000 worth of the 
 home product than $50,000 worth of Sumatra any day. 
 
 Mr. Gbak. Why ? 
 
 Mr. ERTHEILER. My brokerage is 1 per cent. If I sell $100,000 worth of the home 
 product my brokerage is $1,000, and $50,000 worth of Sumatra I make $500. We 
 have resolved to ask for the entire repeal of the internal-revenue tax. We want it 
 completely vviped out. We have been suffering more or less for twenty-five years. 
 We are prevented from selling tobacco to any one we please for the reason that we 
 can only sell to a licensed dealer. We have found that injurious to us. The ques- 
 tion was put this morning by one of the committee as to whether a man who can not 
 speak English can manufacture cigars. If you will permit me, I will answer it. A 
 man that speaks every language in the world can not manufacture cigars until he 
 has first been fortunate enough to find bondsmen. If he has no friend to go on his 
 bond he can not manufacture. Suppose he tiuds a bondsman and he can not keep 
 books, then he has got to get a book-keeper. 
 
 The officials come around monthly and examine his returns, and if he does not know 
 how to keep his books correctly, he is constantly in hot water. Finally he says in de- 
 spair, "Let it go; I will get out of it." You will hear arguments from manufacturers 
 that the reason they want the revenue retained is that it protects their trade-mark, 
 and that if you abolish the tax everybody can go into the business and fill up their 
 boxes and get the benefit of their trade-mark. I would not dwell on that subject for 
 It is unworthy of notice. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is it a fact that a man going from his house to the boss' house, if he 
 has cigars in his possession, is liable to be arrested and get into the State's prison? 
 
 Mr. ERTHEILER. Yes, sir ; arrested and put in prison. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Has it not been done in New York City ? 
 
 Mr. ERTHEILER. I think it has. A man can not make cigars without a license. 
 
 Mr. Flow:er. Is a man liable to arrest with an empty cigar-box in his house? 
 
 Mr. ERTHEILER. I believe that is the effect of the caution notice on the box. It 
 says the stamp must be destroyed, and that it is a fraud if that is not done. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is he subject to a fine ? 
 
 Mr. ERTHEILER. Yes, sir. If the manufacturers want this revenue retained because 
 it protects the trade-mark, I ask you was this law created for that purpose % 
 
 Mr. Gear. How many journeymen cigar-makers were there in New York in 1860? 
 
 Mr. ERTHEILER. I can not tell you. I know there were a great many wholesale 
 cigar stores, and there were retail stores in every nook and corner of the city. How 
 many I could not tell. If a vote was taken on repeal, it would be unanimously 
 carried. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You say the cigar-makers are in favor of the retention of the tax ? 
 
 Mr. Ertheilbr. The cigar-makers are not in favor of retaining the revenue. We 
 had an indignation meeting in New York which filled the Cooper Institute with 
 cigar-makers praying for the abolition of the tax. The manufacturers say reduce it', 
 but keep on a little. We do not want it reduced. We say " wipe it out; there is no 
 need for it." The President in his last annual message, supported by tlie Secretary 
 of the Treasury, has recommended the abolition of the tax, and we only come here 
 supporting the President and the Secretary. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Did you support him at the polls ? 
 
 Mr. Flower. You need not answer that unless you desire. 
 
 Mr. Ertheiler. I will not answer it. I believe I have no more to say on the in- 
 ternal revenue question. I do not wish to take up your time any further on that. 
 
 The next question is the tariff. We want a uniform duty of 35 cents a pound on 
 all imported tobaccoes. During the meeting yesterday the spirit prevailed in favor of 
 free tobaccoes, but we do not come hero to ignore the interest of the farmer. He has 
 rights. We say that if 35 cents a pound is not enough, no amount will help the 
 farmer. We do not want a duty on wrappers and fillers. It can never work. There 
 are few men in our line of business who really can tfeU what is a wrapper and what 
 is a filler until they put it through this casing process. The misfortune is simply 
 
B66 REVISION^ OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 this : They say they waut to bo protected against tlie Sumatra tobacco, but do not 
 care to be protected against Havana tobacco. Congress must care for the Havana 
 tobaccoes. 
 
 To put a separate duty upon fillers and wrappers would destroy that industry, for 
 the reason that thousands and thousands of bales of Havana tobacco are sold to 
 people in the United States by samples while the tobacco remains in Havana, and 
 unless the purchaser knows what duty he is going to pay, he is not going to buy. 
 I claim there is not a bale of Havana tobacco imported which does not contain some 
 wrapper leaves. The misfortune is that we can not draw the line at Sumatra tobacco. 
 I do not believe there is a man in New York City that does not sympathize with the 
 farmer. Sumatra tobacco has taken the field. The only protection is prohibition. 
 You can not prohibit Sumatra tobacco unless you prohibit all tobacco. Put f 1 on 
 Sumatra and the importation would be as much or more than last year. If you put 
 $2 on Sumatra it will be used, and if you put $3 upon it there will be some used. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What rate would protect the farmer against it? 
 
 Mr. Erthbiler. You can not protect him by any rate. If you gave him protection 
 to the extent of a dollar or two it would not keep out the Sumatra tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Paynb. What would make it prohibitory ? 
 
 Mr. Ertheiler. Three dollars would not. There would still be some used and pay 
 that duty. This is not the right place to ask the remedy. You would have to go 
 down to the Island of Sumatra and destroy it with an earttiquake. I am an old eeed- 
 leaf man. I am selling seed-leaf to-day. Give them $1 on Sumatra wrappers, and 
 you interfere with the Island of Cuba. If you put a uniform duty of $1 upon to- 
 bacco, you will drive out the Havana tobacco. Thirty- five cents a pound is too much 
 duty for Havana fillers. It is an unfortunate thing, and I do not know how it is 
 going to be helped. 
 
 I agree, in a measure, with my friend, Mr. Schroeder, that there should be a higher 
 rate on stripped fillers, but I disagree with him on one thing. He said the labor 
 employed is of such a description that it does not amount to anything. The labor 
 employed in stripping fillers in the United States are old people, as a rule, who could 
 not make a living at anything else. If you take that from them, the next thing is 
 the poor-house. The Tobacco Board of Trade recommends 60 cents per pound on 
 stripped fillers. 
 
 There was a question raised here about the importation of cigars. Imported cigars 
 pay $2.50 a pound and 25 per cent ad valorem. What protection the manufacturer 
 gets would have no effect on the leaf. That law was made for the benefit of the far- 
 mer. If you reduce the duty on imported cigars, the farmer will find that the Ger- 
 man cigars will flood our market, and cigars made out of American tobacco will sell 
 for one-half what they sell for to-day in the United States. That law was not made 
 to protect the cigar manufacturer only. It was also intended to protect the tobacco 
 industry. 
 
 Another little thing in relation to this importation of cigars: The only article im- 
 ported to-day that is designated by a foreign stamp is the cigar. The law discrimi- 
 nates in favor of the foreign cigar. Why should that be? I will not take up your 
 time any longer. 
 
 STATEMENT OF F. A. SCHROEDER. 
 
 Mr. F. A. Schroeder, of New York, addressed the committee. He said : 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, you will be asked to make the duty 
 on wrapper leaf tobacco, and every package containing any proportion of wrapper 
 leaf, at least |1 per pound. I am in favor of a uniform rate of duty on leaf tobacco 
 of 35 cents per pound, believing that a higher rate of duty isinjurious to the business 
 interests of the dealers, the manufacturers, and operatives, and the jiroducers engaged 
 in handling or producing cigar leaf. If by facts or figures it could be shown that by 
 the higher duty of 75 cents per pound since 1883 any one branch of the business had 
 been benefited, the question would be a serious one for the Government, but no such 
 facts or figures can be established, for they are all on the other side. You may by a 
 prohibitive duty compel the American smoker to smoke the American wrapper to- 
 bacco, but he won't like it, and he will take to the pipeor cigarette or give up smok- 
 ing altogether ; he has learned to know a better article and become accustomed to it ; 
 the cigar is a luxury, not a necessity ; you might as well expect to force the American 
 who has acquired the habit of drinking imported wines and champagnes, to take 
 kindly to being forced to drink the coarser wines produced in this country by pro- 
 hibiting the importation of the foreign article ; you would much reduce the consump- 
 tion and injure the farmer in the end. If you increase the duty on wrapper leaf, the 
 result will be that tlie manufacturer will iu the first place reduce the quality and cost 
 of his filler to make up lor the difference in price; he will not take the American 
 wrapper as long as he can get a filler cheap enough to make up for that difference, 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 967 
 
 The American smoter wants, as a rnlo, a 5 or 10 cent cigar ; that cijj;ar will stand a 
 certain price at wholesale ; the appearance and good burning of the wrapper leaf 
 makes the market for the product. The experience of the last few years has shown 
 that an increase in the cost of the wrapper is followed by reduction in the quality of 
 the filler and the cigars produced by the manufacturer, and, what is worse, still by a ' 
 reduction of the wages of the cigar-maker. 
 
 Sumatra leaf tobacco has become the standard for wrapper leaf all over the world, 
 as the finer wrapper of Cuba is not produced in sufficiently large quantities to be a 
 factor in thisregard. Cuban filler leaf tobacco is the standard cigar filler by which all 
 others are judged and classified ; that leaf which is nearest to the product of Sumatra 
 as a wrapper comes next in value in the market; that which is nearest to Havana 
 filler comes next in value when that grade is considered. The territory where tobacco 
 can be raised in the United States is commensurate with the extent of the country 
 from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and tobacco will be raised in the United States when- 
 ever the producer can get as much or more for tobacco, as the result of his labors, as 
 for other farm products ; the price per pound depends largely upon the particular seed 
 used, the soil upon which it is planted, and the humidity of the atmosphere during the 
 growing and curing season. In the cigar-leaf growing States several kinds of seed 
 are planted ; the Havana or Cuban seed produces the smaller leaf, which brings the 
 higher price; the old style of seed produces the larger leaf, which is sold for less per 
 pound ; the result per acre in most States is now in favor of the Cuban seed ; the pro- 
 duction will be, as a rule, equal to the demand, and when you protect tobacco by a 
 duty equal to the whole cost of production — which in no State in the Union, except in 
 Florida, is more than 12 cents per pound — you have done all you can possibly do for 
 the farmer; you can no more help him to get a better price by putting a higher duty 
 on foreign tobacco than you could by increasing the duty on tea or coffee ; yon may 
 by a large increase in the duty temporarily, for a year or two, advance the price if 
 the American smoker is willing to return to the American wrapper leaf, but the price 
 of com and potatoes will control the price of tobacco in a year or two after you have 
 raised the duty, for the temporary scarcity artificially caused by such means will at 
 once stimulate production, and tobacco will be inevitably again brought to the level 
 of corn, cotton, and potatoes. 
 
 If you could materially increase the consumption of all your farm products per- 
 manently you might do some benefit, but the quantity of the whole cigar-leaf crop 
 and the result in money, is so insignificant when compared with the great staple 
 articles, corn, cotton, and such heavy tobaccos as are raised in the Southern States, 
 and for which no substitute has yet been discovered in any part of the world, that 
 even if the quantity of cigar leaf produced were doubled but a very small fraction 
 would be added to the total farm product of the United States. Now, in every State 
 where cigar leaf is grown, from Wisconsin down to Florida and from Ohio to New 
 Tork, a large proportion is so near in quality and aroma to the Cuban tobacco for 
 filler purposes, that not less than 50,000 cases, weighing from 300 to 400 pounds each, 
 are annually consumed by cigar manufacturers as a substitute for Cuban fillers, and 
 no one knows the difference ; yet the price for the best of this class of leaf is less 
 than one-quarter of the price of the imported artice. I am confident if the price of 
 the Cuban tobacco were 20 cents less per pound than it is we should still consume 
 just as much of the American fillers; in Germany the duty on the American cigar 
 leaf, costing from (5 to 12 cents per pound, is 11 cents, exactly the same as the duty 
 on Cuban filler leaf, costing from 9 to 50 cents per pound ; still Germany takes from 
 10,000 to 2.'), 000 cases annually of our product, fully as much as of Cuban leaf. Not 
 so with American wrappers; no smoker will accept the American wrapper in place 
 of Sumatra ; it bears the stamp of coarseness or inferior quality on its face when 
 compared with Sumatra. It is too late ; had you prohibited the importation at the 
 start he might have remained content, but it will be hard to make him smoke what 
 he has abandoned as inferior: and here let me say, a tobacco leaf may make a bad 
 cigar if used as a wrapper, while the same if used for filling inside of a fine quality 
 wrapper often produces a cigar of excellent quality and aroma. 
 
 In this relation I call attention to the 1881 and other crops of the State of Penn- 
 sylvania, the so-called Zimner Spanish of Ohio, the fine, heavy bodied New York 
 State tobacco, and last, but not least, the leaf produced for the last two years in the 
 State of Florida. But the representatives of the farmers will tell you that formerly 
 they received larger prices for their product and they can not understand the change ; 
 they did many years ago, when gold was at a premium, and all other produce brought 
 ahigh price in greenbacks. The reason of the advance in price after 1863 to the year 
 1870 is found, first, in the premium on gold, while tobacco was sold for currency, and 
 in the enormously rapid increase in the manufacture of domestic cigars caused by 
 the tariff of 1863, which so raised the duty on cigars as to shut out Germany entirely 
 from our market, closing a number of factories in that country employing many 
 thousand operatives, who had almost wholly supplied this country. Suddenly a 
 
968 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 great demand for the domestic leaf was created, and producers were not sufficient to 
 supply the demand ; the scarcity of the article, coupled with rapidly increasing de- 
 mands of the manufacturers, caused a large increase in the price of cigar leaf. But 
 long before Sumatra leaf appeared in this marliet, in the year 1882, tlie price of do- 
 mestic leaf had found its true level. The fall began in 1871, and after that only excep- 
 tional crops of fine quality, such as the 1873 and the 1875 crops of Pennsylvania, 
 brought high prices ; the farmers had iu 1870 succeeded in catching up with the de- 
 mand, and from 1870 on for a number years large stocks were carried over and re- 
 mained unsold from year to year. 
 
 The same condition of affairs exists in regard to Sumatra ; as soon as it made its 
 appearance in the market it was liked and the demand rapidly increased; even now 
 the producers have not been able to meet the demand for the fine goods used by our 
 own manufacturers, and an enormous increase in price of these grades has been the 
 result, though the average price of the whole Sumatra crop has receded from $1.5.5 in 
 1886 to $1.28 in 1868. Our importationshave constantly increased, but these increased 
 importations have made no difl^rence in our home market, as far as the price of the 
 home product is concerned. Domestic tobacco has held its own, and tobacco farmers 
 have done a little better even during the last three years than formerly, and better 
 in comparison than those raising other products, and while the farmer has not done 
 worse the American people have had better and more wholesome cigars, for it is an 
 established fact that no leaf tobacco contains so little nicotine as that produced year 
 after year in the warm and equal and moist climate of the Island of Sumatra ; and 
 even the farmers themselves, who smoke cigars, reject their own product and have 
 kindly taken to the combustion of what they consider their arch enemy. I have said 
 the price of corn, potatoes, and cotton governs the value of domestic leaf tobacco, and 
 the farmers will admit this as a fact, as I have had occasion to ascertain more than 
 once ; in Wisconsin they have admitted to me that at 8 cents a pound they can do 
 better raising tobacco than corn, and in Florida they told me only two months ago 
 that at 30 cents they can do better than they could by raising cotton. 
 
 Now, we always have had a surplus of low grades of domestic cigar-leaf, as is evi- 
 denced by the fact that we export annually to Germany from 10,000 to 20,000 cases of 
 cigar-leaf, weighing 300 pounds each, and the German manufacturer pays 11 cents 
 per pound duty on it, exactly the same as he pays on Sumatra leaf tobacco and 
 Cuban tobacco, and Germany raises a great deal of tobacco and the farmer continues 
 to raise it, though he is protected only to the extent of 11 cents per pound, and, be- 
 sides, is taxed by the Government on his own product. The German Government 
 knows that a larger import tax will not benefit the farmer, and while it follows a 
 protective policy it does not unreasonably increase the price for the manufacturer 
 and consumer. 
 
 Let us follow the history of tobacco culture in those cigar-leaf growing States, aud 
 you will see how useless is the scheme of increasing the price of the home product by 
 shutting out the wrapper which the smoker demands, aud which is needed to cover 
 up aud make salable the common growth of our cold climate. Up to the year 1870 
 Connecticut tobacco was in fashion, the product of Massachusetts also being sold 
 under that name ; the prices for that growth had since 1863 rapidly advanced ; the 
 farmers prospered, they sent their daughters to boarding-school and their sons to 
 college ; they loaded their farms with debt, feeling confident of their ability to pay 
 it oft in a few years ; but the fashion changed, and the crop of 1870 Connecticut 
 found a market only at a great loss to the farmer who held it or to the dealer who 
 had bought it on speculation. Fortunes were lost in that year and in the year fol- 
 lowing by the farmers and those wlio invested in their crops ; they had not counted 
 on the overproduction and the change in taste ; many farmers were ruined because 
 of the shrinkage in the value of their lands before Sumatra leaf tobacco was ever im- 
 uorted here. 
 
 The Pennsylvania and Wisconsin leaf tobacco, which up to 1870 had been used 
 only for very common cigars or exported, found favor with manufacturers ; the prod- 
 uct of those States was increased and improved by special care and suitable fertilizers. 
 Wisconsin became known as a tobacco-growing State, but for some years Pennsyl- 
 vania ranked first ; farmers there became rich, until 1881 when a bad crop caused 
 immense losses to holders ; after that New York State and Wisconsin became the 
 favorites, until 1887, when a large and very fine crop was raised in Pennsylvania 
 from Cuban seed, and Pennsylvania came to the front again, selling at high prices ; 
 good crops always bring good prices, and the same rule holds good in all States, and it 
 holds as good now as it did formerly. A good crop is now and always has been very 
 profitable to the farmer, while a poor crop, such as -n-as the 1887 crop in all States 
 except Pennsylvania, will still give as good a return as other farm produce, and in 
 the same State and the same town one farmer will receive double the i)rice which his 
 neighbor receives if he takes good care of it while growing and curing. 
 
 I beg to submit some figures which I have compiled from the statistical reports of 
 the Bureau of Agriculture and of the Secretary of the Treasury. They ought to be 
 
EEVisiON OP The tariff. 
 
 969 
 
 conclusive to the mind of any fair and reasonable person tljat the increased importa- 
 tion of Sumatra leaf has no damaging effect on the value of the home product, for it 
 will be seen that in the face of the very largest importations domestic cigar-leaf to- 
 bacco has advanced in price in every State; it is true the statistics do not appear to 
 show this fact in Ohio, but the low price there is easily explained by the fact that in 
 southern Ohio is produced a heavy class of tobacco not suitable for cigars, and sold 
 almost wholly for export at a very low price ; this puts the average price reported 
 for that State much below the price of the Ohio cigar-leaf. In no other cigar-leaf 
 tobacco growing State is that class of tobacco raised. I read statements showing 
 the quantity of tobacco raised in the various States growing cigar-leaf tobacco 
 from 1879 to 1888, both years inclusive, with price per pound and result per acre, 
 from the records of the Department of Agriculture. 
 
 First, I will give the total acreage, and value and result per acre, on the corn 
 raised in the six cigar-leaf tobacco growing States. It will be seen at a glance that 
 the acreage of corn planted has about kept pace with the acreage of tobacco planted, 
 while the price of tobacco has been kept up and that of corn has fallen. The talk 
 and agitation among farmers on the Sumatra question has doubtless led many of the 
 unthinking to refrain from growing tobacco, and in that way they have been injured. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Acreage. 
 
 Bueliels 
 raised. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Eesult 
 per acre. 
 
 Price. 
 
 1879 
 
 6, 117, 600 
 6, 499, 634 
 6, 43H, 300 
 6, 360, 977 
 8,220,119 
 6, 211, 250 
 6, 369. 517 
 0, 36S, 886 
 e, 046, 843 
 6, 151, 370 
 
 216, 413, 100 
 240, 904, 192 
 106,317,000 
 192,620,000 
 156,258,600 
 181,442,000 
 217,131,000 
 191, 582, 000 
 171, 988, 000 
 197, 601, 000 
 
 $97, 388, 904 
 110,444,030 
 108, 128, 180 
 123, 987, 195 
 87, 056, 373 
 82,'672, 570 
 85, 181, 390 
 78, 3^2, 000 
 84, 865, 650 
 82, 083, 320 
 
 $15. 91 
 16. 99 
 16.79 
 19.47 
 U.Oli 
 13.31 
 13.37 
 12. 30 
 14.03 
 13.43 
 
 Cents. 
 45 
 
 1880 . 
 
 45i 
 
 1881 
 
 65f 
 
 1882 
 
 64J 
 
 1883 
 
 66 J 
 
 1884 
 
 47i 
 
 1885 
 
 39i 
 
 Ig86 - 
 
 405 
 
 1887 
 
 49J 
 
 1888 
 
 ilk 
 
 
 
 CONNECTICUT. 
 
 Year. 
 
 1879 
 1880 
 1881 
 1883 
 1883 
 1884 
 1885 
 1880, 
 1887. 
 
 9, 602, 840 
 
 Price per 
 
 Kesult 
 
 pound. 
 
 per acre. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 
 m 
 
 $108 
 
 15 
 
 231 
 
 16 
 
 254 
 
 13? 
 
 141 
 
 13i 
 
 146 
 
 12i 
 
 158 
 
 12i 
 
 195 
 
 13J 
 
 228 
 
 14J 
 
 210 
 
 13 
 
 234 
 
 Total re- 
 sult. 
 
 $1, 159, 200 
 2, 323, 149 
 2, 202, 201 
 1, 270, 390 
 1, 292, 871 
 1, 175, 644 
 1, 496, 193 
 1, 633, 380 
 1,311,745 
 
 1, 248, 369 
 
 Kemarks. 
 
 The fluest crop in many years. 
 Poor crop. 
 Injured by froat. 
 
 Crop injured by rain, causing 
 
 loss but fine quality. 
 Poor crop ; seed leaf. 
 
 "WISCONSIN. 
 
 1879 
 1880, 
 1881 
 1882 
 1883, 
 1884 
 1885, 
 1886 
 1887, 
 1888, 
 
 5,300 
 9,108 
 
 10, 045 
 
 11, 260 
 
 12, 750 
 14, 663 
 27, 127 
 24, 229 
 11, 050 
 
 13, 813 
 
 6, 474, 900 
 
 12 
 
 $123 
 
 11, 395, 824 
 
 12 
 
 148 
 
 8, 702, 770 
 
 12.i 
 
 108 
 
 10,443,324 
 
 12 
 
 111 
 
 6, 743, 828 
 
 12 
 
 53 
 
 14, 360, 000 
 
 12 
 
 91 
 
 31, 19.6, 000 
 
 8J 
 
 109 
 
 27, 719, 000 
 
 10 
 
 98 
 
 11,271,000 
 
 11 
 
 110 
 
 12, 840, 090 
 
 9 
 
 92 
 
 $656, 988 
 
 1, 367, 499 
 
 1, 087, 846 
 
 1, 253, 199 
 
 681, 821 
 
 1, 464, 720 
 
 2, 963, 625 
 
 2, 374, 400 
 
 1,235,810 
 
 1, 220, 379 
 
 Destruction by frost. 
 
 Largest crop over raiaed. 
 Poor crop. 
 
 Largo loss by drought. 
 Destroyed and iBJured by frost 
 HO as to injure price aad yield. 
 
970 
 
 EEVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Price per 
 pouDd. 
 
 Eesult 
 per acre. 
 
 Total re- 
 sult. 
 
 Hemarks. 
 
 1879 
 
 2,900 
 3, 242 
 3, 291 
 2,968 
 2,614 
 2, 730 
 2,594 
 2,694 
 2,464 
 2, 464 
 
 Pounds. 
 4, 360, 000 
 
 4, 927, 840 
 
 5, 000, 964 
 4,250,819 
 4, 038, 278 
 3, 715, OOO 
 
 3, 798, 000 
 
 4, 231, 000 
 3,511,000 
 3, 893, 120 
 
 Genu. 
 11 
 15 
 15 
 12J 
 
 isl 
 
 12i 
 
 12 
 
 14 
 
 18 
 12i 
 
 $166 
 228 
 228 
 179 
 190 
 184 
 171 
 225 
 240 
 197 
 
 $478, 500 
 739, 176 
 750, 144 
 
 631, 352 
 633, 053 
 
 632, 300 
 455, 714 
 592, 340 
 696, 904 
 486, 640 
 
 
 
 
 1881 
 
 Fine crop. 
 
 1882 
 
 Poor crop. 
 
 1883 
 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 
 1886 
 
 
 1887 
 
 
 1888 
 
 
 
 
 OHIO. 
 
 1879 
 1880 
 1881 
 1882 
 1883 
 1884 
 1885 
 1886 
 1887 
 1888 
 
 21, 000 
 
 35, 489 
 
 36, 760 
 
 33, 819 
 
 32, 128 
 
 35, 883 
 
 36, 703 
 
 36, 805 
 31,281 
 
 39, 105 
 
 14, 091, 000 
 38, 434, 587 
 35, 419, 913 
 33, 648, 917 
 29, 947, 586 
 29, 349, 000 
 33, 767, 000 
 85, 333, 000 
 19, 240, 000 
 35, 194, 500 
 
 40 
 
 845, 460 
 
 66 
 
 2, 306, 075 
 
 77 
 
 2, 883, 693 
 
 69 
 
 2, 336, 424 
 
 74 
 
 2, 39.5, 803 
 
 59 
 
 2f 113, 128 
 
 6H 
 
 2, 127, 306 
 
 67 
 
 2, 473, 310 
 
 65 
 
 1, 781, 669 
 
 70 
 
 2, 746, 171 
 
 Large loss ; injured by drought. 
 Large loss. 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 1879 
 1880 
 1881 
 1882 
 1883 
 1884 
 1886 
 1886 
 1887, 
 1888 
 
 1,850 
 5,135 
 
 5, 037 
 8, OLe 
 5,440 
 5,388 
 
 6, 733 
 5,833 
 5,776 
 6,179 
 
 2, 432, 750 
 
 6, 672, 800 
 
 6,291,217 
 
 9,751,386 
 
 9, 068, 789 
 
 8, 162, 000 
 
 10, 234, 000 
 
 7,683,000 
 
 7, 623, 000 
 
 6, 487, 960 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 12J 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 12 
 
 10 
 
 llj 
 
 11-i 
 
 12 
 
 $168 
 1.53 
 174 
 145 
 139 
 161 
 162 
 148 
 163 
 128 
 
 $291, 930 
 
 788, 736 
 
 880, 770 
 
 1, 170,168 
 
 1,178,943 
 
 979,440 
 
 1, 023, 416 
 
 872, 04.') 
 
 870, 646 
 
 778, 654 
 
 Poor crop. 
 
 Wisconsin displaced New York. 
 Pennaylvaniar'was preferred. 
 Crop injured by frost ; much of 
 it destroyed. 
 
 PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 1879 
 1880 
 1881 
 1882 
 1883 
 1884 
 1885 
 1880 
 1887, 
 1888. 
 
 20 
 
 300 
 
 29, 739 
 
 33 
 
 OKI) 
 
 29 
 
 773 
 
 28 
 
 879 
 
 25,091 1 
 
 23 
 
 .392 
 
 28, 659 1 
 
 28 
 
 121 
 
 19 
 
 500 
 
 29, 617, 700 
 34, 8.54, 108 
 38, 305, 661 
 31, 044, 529 
 36, 322, 000 
 2.3,143,000 
 23, 392, 000 
 34, 951, 000 
 40,213,000 
 24, 180, 000 
 
 9 
 10 
 13 
 12 
 12 
 1.5* 
 16" 
 11* 
 16 
 lOf 
 
 $130 
 117 
 140 
 124 
 150 
 134 
 104 
 143 
 214 
 132 
 
 $2, 665, 593 
 3,485,411 
 
 5, 044, 735 
 3, 726, 343 
 4, 368, 052 
 3,585,016 
 2, 456, 160 
 4, 124, 218 
 
 6, 031, 955 
 2, 587, 260 
 
 Poor crop ; fly-bitten . 
 
 Bejian to raise Havana-seed leaf. 
 
 Bad crop. 
 
 Bad crop all through. 
 
 Part very fine ; part very poor. 
 
 Very poor crop. 
 
 Tlie total produce of the cigar-leaf growing States and of the United States for the 
 years from 1879 to 1888, inclusive, was : 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Total acreajie 
 
 of cigar-leaf 
 
 States. 
 
 Total pounds 
 
 of cigar-leaf 
 
 States. 
 
 Total acreage 
 
 of United 
 
 States. 
 
 Total pounds 
 of United 
 
 States. 
 
 1879 
 
 68, 250 
 92,843 
 96, 969 
 94, 627 
 90,156 
 92, 817 
 104,210 
 102, 412 
 84, 892 
 87, 197 
 
 66, 566, 350 
 
 111,672,819 
 
 105, 684, 084 
 
 98,911,044 
 
 94, 697, 275 
 
 88, 210, 000 
 
 114, 463, 000 
 
 117, 609, 000 
 
 91,031,000 
 
 92, 244, 500 
 
 492,100 
 602, 618 
 646, 239 
 671, 522 
 638, 739 
 724, 668 
 752, 620 
 750, 210 
 698, 620 
 747, 328 
 
 391, 278, 360 
 
 1880 . 
 
 446, 296, 889 
 
 1881 
 
 449,880,014 
 
 1882 
 
 513, 077, 658 
 
 1883 
 
 451,645,641 
 
 1884 
 
 641,504,000 
 
 1885 
 
 562, 736, 000 
 
 1886 
 
 532, 637, 000 
 
 1887 
 
 »386, 240, 000 
 
 1688 
 
 505, 794, 264 
 
 
 
 *Lo88 by drought. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 971 
 
 The falling off in 1887 is accounted for by tlie failure of the crop in Wisconsin and 
 Ohio; 30,000,000 pounds lost by drought. In 1888 a serious loss, both in price and in 
 quantity, was caused by early frost. 
 
 Two circumstances govern and change the value of cigar leaf when differeut States 
 are compared: Whenever a State happens to produce a good quality crop the price 
 there advances, and viceveraaii a poor crop is raised it falls again; when in conse- 
 quence of high prices in one year the production is very much increased in a State, 
 the following year the price falls in that State, unless the quality is superior to the 
 crops raised in any other States. The figures prove conclusively that in the face of 
 all complaints of farmers tobacco has kept up better than any other farm product 
 during the last ten years. The productions of corn in the whole United States had 
 fallen off from 1,617,025,000 bushels, bringing an average price of 48| cents in the 
 year 1882, to 1,456,161,000 raised in 1887, when the crop was hurt by drought and 
 sold at 44| cents average. In 1882 com sold in Connecticut at 96 cents per bushel ; 
 in 1887 at 67 cents. In Massachusetts corn sold at 95 cents in 1882 ; at 70 cents in 
 1887. The reverse was the result on tobacco ; the average price in 1882 was below 
 that of 1887 in every State except Wisconsin and New York, and nearly two cents 
 more per pound on the whole crop of cigar leaf. 
 
 The average price for corn in all the States duriug the ten years preceding 188.0 
 was 42.6 cents per bushel; the average price from 1880 to 1888, 40.8, and from 1882 
 to 1888 still less ; the average result per acre 11.54 as agaiu8t9.71. The lowest price 
 for the United States, 32.8 per bushel, was reached in 1885, exactly as the lowest price 
 for cigar leaf was reached in that year ; the average price for the whole tobacco crop 
 in the ten years preceding 1881 was 8.6, the same as from 1881 to 1888 — 8.6 
 cents. The yield per acre 61.13 as against 61.94; a much smaller percentage of loss 
 than on corn. As compared with potatoes the difference is still more in favor of 
 tobacco ; the annual average price per bushel from 1881 to 1887 was 51.9, result per 
 acre 49.31, as against 56.9 per bushel, and 49.31 per acre for the ten years preceding, 
 and the same shrinkage is shown in every other class of produce raised in these cigar- 
 leaf tobacco growing States. 
 
 The demand for the Sumatra tobacco all over the world and the increase in the 
 consumption of this article, especially in this country, and the increase iu duty in 
 1883, amounting to about 55 cents per pound average now, has had the result that in 
 the face of an increase in the production of the Island of Sumatra from 82,000 bales 
 n 1881 to over 182,000 bales in 1888, the price for the class used iu this couutry has con- 
 stantlv advanced, but in spite of the advance the importations have increased from 
 489,090 pounds iu 1882 to 6,224,890 pounds in 1887, and 7,140,000 in 1889, and with 
 this large quantity of foreign leaf in the market the farmer received better returns 
 for his tobacco crop in 1887 and 1888 than in 1882 and 1883. 
 
 I give below the total imports of leaf tobacco generally from 1881 to 1888 ; also in 
 a separate column the total imports of Sumatra leaf; also the prices ruling in these 
 years for Sumatra leaf tobacco in the United States, and the exports of leaf tobacco 
 and stems, which it seems to me is worthy of consideration in this connection. I am 
 free to admit that the acreage of cigar leaf grown has not kept pace with the increase 
 in population ; but the increase in cigarette smoking is partly responsible for this — 
 two or three cigarettes to the smoker are equal to one cigar ; since the year 1881 the 
 product of the cigarette factories has increased from 567,386,983, iu 1881, to 1,862,726,- 
 100 in 1888. These cigarettes are manufactured almost exclusively of other than 
 cigar leaf tobacco. It is admitted that they have hurt cigar manufacturers very 
 materially, and I verily believe that had not Sumatra leaf arrived to improve the 
 appearance and quality of the better grades of 5-cent cigars the consumption of 
 cigarettes would have been very much larger, and the acreage of cigar leaf grown 
 might be even less than it is to-day ; the whole output of cigars, in ft88 was little 
 more than double that of the cigarette factories in number. The increased importa- 
 tion of Cuban leaf— 6,895,-505 pounds iu 1881, 11,501,749 in 1888— has possibly taken 
 the place of not less than 12,000,000 pounds of farmers' weight of domestic leaf: 
 
 Tear. 
 
 18S1 
 1882 
 1883 
 1884 
 1885 
 1886 
 1887. 
 1888 
 
 Imports of leaf tobacco. 
 
 Total. Cuban. Sumatra. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 7, 408, 661 
 11,899,823 
 14, 983, 131 
 12,935,017 
 12, 924, 265 
 16, 669, 570 
 17,519,194 
 18, 600, 142 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 6, 89.0, 505 
 10, 377, 360 
 10,917,635 
 11,703,393 
 
 9, 754, 099 
 
 10, 883. 660 
 
 11, 830, 898 
 11, 501, 749 
 
 Pounds. 
 573,1.59 
 1, .')23, 463 
 4, 065, 496 
 1,231,024 
 3, 170, 166 
 
 4, 785, 004 
 
 5, 68S, 200 
 7, 098, ;i03 
 
 Total 
 
 product of 
 
 If at tobacco 
 
 in United 
 
 States. 
 
 Pounds. 
 419, 880, 014 
 5lT), 077, 558 
 451,515,641 
 541, 504, 000 
 562, 730, 000 
 532, 637, 000 
 380, 243, 000 
 565, 794, 264 
 
 Exports of 
 leaf tobacco 
 and sterna. 
 
 Pounds. 
 227, 026, 605 
 223, 605, 980 
 236, 628, 360 
 207, 157, 687 
 230, 48:i, 040 
 292, 773, 890 
 304, 860, 123 
 262, 683, 821 
 
 Totiil 
 
 cif^ar leaf 
 
 raisofl. 
 
 Pounds. 
 105, 684, 084 
 98,911,044 
 94, 6!)7, 275 
 88, 210, 000 
 114,433,000 
 117,509,000 
 91,031,000 
 92, 244, 500 
 
972 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Price of Sumatra, duty paid — 1881 to 1889 — in the United States. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Per 
 peand. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Per 
 poaod. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Per 
 pound. 
 
 1881 
 
 $1.15 
 1.26 
 1.35 
 
 1884 .. .. 
 
 $1.40 
 1,45 
 1.50 
 
 1887 
 
 $1.60 
 1 65 
 
 1882 
 
 1685 
 
 1888 
 
 
 1886 
 
 1889 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 In 1889 there were 7,200,180 pounds imported, the largest quantity for any one year. 
 
 The increase in the price of Sumatra since 1882 has not reduced the consumption of 
 the article; the duty now averages 55 cents; if you make it |1 per pound and find 
 some mode of collecting it, 45 cents per pound may be added. The increased cost of 
 Sumatra wrappers per 1,000 will then be from $1.10 to |1.25; the quality of the filler, 
 or price of work, or the profits of the manufacturer, or all three items may be slightly 
 reduced to meet the difference ; but mark my word, nothing but a prohibitive duty or 
 a duty of at least $3 per pound will cause any material reduction in importations; 
 you may annoy the importer, the manufacturer, and the smoker, but you can not 
 benefit the farmer, and a prohibitory duty will ruin all for some years, farmer as 
 well as manufacturer. 
 
 It will be seen that all the States except Ohio did as well and better in 1887, when 
 6,224,890 pounds of Sumatra were imported, as they did in 1882, when but 1,155,490 
 pounds were brought hero. You will notice that our exports of leaf tobacco have 
 much increased during the last three years and that our imports of leaf tobacco are 
 quite insignificant as compared with our exports, only 17,519,194 pounds imported in 
 1887 against 304,360,123, and 18,600,142 pounds imported in 1888 against 262,683,821 
 pounds exported. Now the United States have a monopoly of producing the class of 
 heavy tobacco raised in the Southern States, of which is composed the bulk of our 
 exports ; the world must buy it from us, or not at all ; nothing is imported to com- 
 pete with the article ; still the price never varies unless a crop fails ; the supply is 
 almost always equal to the demand, and the value of corn and cotton controls the 
 price of this product just as it does that of the cigar leaf tobacco. 
 
 Now a few words on another point. It is proposed to have three or four specific 
 duties on leaf tobacco — one on wrapper leaf, one on filler leaf, aud another on stemmed 
 tobacco of both kinds. A law discriminating between wrappers and fillers can not 
 be fairly or equitably administered, for the simple reason that no one can tell the 
 dividing line between the wrapper class aud the filler class in leaf tobacco ; no one 
 can to a certainty tell what is a wrapper leaf except the manufacturer or operative 
 after the leaf is moistened, stripped, aud prepared for the cigar-maker's work-bench. 
 Any cigar manufacturer will tell you that what is commercially known to the farmer 
 and dealer under the name of wrapper is used for fillers about as often as it is used for 
 wrappers, and there is a large quantity of tobacco imported from Cuba which is 
 wrapper leaf— I estimate not less than 600,000 pounds — much of it is finer by far than 
 Sumatra leaf, enough to cover 120,000,000 cigars. You can not make any description 
 of wrapper leaf which will cover Sumatra leaf alone without naming the article. 
 This your treaties with Holland forbid, and whenever you attempt to collect the 
 higher duty on wrappers generally you strike a snag in the product of Cuba and 
 other countries, which makes such legislation impossible, because of the difficulty I 
 have stated. If you could name the product of Sumatra in your bill you could ar- 
 range the matter; but you can not, and it is not necessary that you should, for the 
 American smoker is taxed enough, more than any other except the Englishman and 
 in England cigars are not popular. By the high rate of duty all but the richest are 
 driven to the pipe and cigarette. 
 
 I have here some carets of Cuban tobacco ; they look alike, aud a customs inspector 
 would readily class them as wrapper leaf; but one carot is nut suitable for wrappers 
 though it looks large and sound enough for wrappers, and the other is ; one will be 
 used for fillers, the other for wrappers. Still no two men will express the same judg- 
 ment on a simple inspection; the tobacco nmst be manipulated by a manufacturer 
 before he can tell what it is. You have a law now on the statute-book which can 
 not be enforced, and for almost every dollar of duty which has been paid in excess of 
 35 cents per pound suits for the recovery are pending in the United States courts, 
 aud I am assured by the best revenue lawyers and experienced customs officials that; 
 the Government will have to refund most, if not all, over 35 cents per pound. We 
 say, therefore, do not enact another such anomaly of law which will work endless 
 injustice and cause countless appeals lor redress to the courts. 
 
 There is some justice in asking for a greater difference than 5 cents per pound be- 
 tween the duty on unstemmed and on stemmed tobaccos, butthedifierence should not 
 be greater than equal to the weight of the stems, which are of no value and which 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 973 
 
 on the average, amount to 25 per cent, in weight of the whole leaf. If, therefore, 
 you will add one-third to the duty ou leaf, making that the duty on stemmed to- 
 bacco, yon will cover fully the difference. You will be told by some of the import- 
 ers of leaf tobacco, or their representatives, that in the interest of American labor 
 you should make the duty on stemmed tobacco prohibitive, but when you inquire 
 you will find that American labor does not ask for it, that minors and children are 
 mainly employed in stemming tobacco in this country, and that you will injure the 
 manufacturer who has his Cuban fillers stemmed and prepared iu the city of Ha- 
 vana, thus improving the quality, and who is in that way better able to compete 
 with the Havana manufacturers, and thereby increases his business and employs more 
 labor. I will leave with you the statistical tables of the Department of Agriculture 
 for reference, if desired. 
 
 I thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, for your kindness in pa- 
 tiently listening to my remarks. I have taken much of your time and hope I have 
 made some impression on your mind. 
 
 The witness exhibited to the committee several samples of Havana and Sumatra 
 tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Have you any cigars made from tbis Havana tobacco ? 
 
 Mr. ScHEOEDEK. No, sir ; but I could roll some. It requires manipulation to find 
 out what is a wrapper and what is a filler. 
 
 The Chairman. It requires manipulation to distinguish them? 
 
 Mr. SCHROKDER. This [indicating] is a Wrapper ; and this [indicating] is not fit for 
 a, wrapper. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is this [indicating] Sumatra [showing three cigars] ? 
 
 Mr. ScHEOEDER. (Examining One.) I think that is Sumatra; it is difficult to tell 
 from tbe appearance of one cigar what the wrapper is. I have seen leaf raised in 
 Florida that looked like that; one is red and the other is not. The two carots of 
 Havana I show are both equal in length and texture ; one is of this year's crop, and 
 the other is last year's crop ; tobacco will dry out by keeping. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What is its capacity to retain moisture? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. This carot is just as dry now as the other will be a year hence. I 
 defy any inspector to tell which is a wrapper and which is a filler ; no one can define 
 the exact line between wrappers as a class and other classes of leaf tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You say the inspector can not tell ? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. He can not tell, unless he makes a cigar, first manipulating the 
 leaf, as the manufacturer does. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. Whatdo you mean by "manipulating?" 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. By "manipulation" I mean the wetting " or "casing" of the to- 
 bacco. In its dry state it all looks entirely alike. How is the inspector to tell ? He 
 can not draw the dividing line; it is impossible ; size does not indicate its utility for 
 cigar wrappers. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the difference between one duty and the other ? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. This article, if the proper duty intended to be collected under the 
 regulations of the Secretary were collected on this it would be 35 cents, and that 
 would be 75 cents. A difference of $70 per bale. An inspector receives $1,800 a year 
 salary, and there are imported over 120,000 bales. I leave you to draw your own con- 
 clusions. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there much imported under the high rate ? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. The average duty on all tobacco to-day is not to exceed 38 cents 
 per pound. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you mean that it is imported under the low duty ? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. The majority of the tobacco is imported from the Island of Cuba ; 
 and the inspector, taking his cue from the discussions before the Ways and Means 
 Committee, and the Finance Committee of the Senate, concluded that they did not 
 mean to tax Cuban wrappers ; that they only meant that the importation of this Su- 
 matra tobacco should be stopped, and therefore he does not see any wrappers in the 
 Havana tobacco, but he sees it in the Sumatra. The present law will never stand 
 the test of the courts. Every time a man pays a duty of over 35 cents, there is a suit 
 brought against the Government. We are assured by the best revenue lawyers and 
 experienced officials that the Government will be compelled to pay such amounts 
 back. The claim is that there is 85 per cent, suitable for wrappers ; a fact which no 
 examiner can establish. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It is not a question of the validity of the law, but a question ol 
 fact. 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. You can not frame a law that will cover that tobacco raised in 
 Sumatra alone. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Except by naming the article. 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. Yes, sir. Again, it is proposed by the farmer to put a tax of $1 a 
 pound on all packages of tobacco imported of which any portion is suitable for 
 vnappeia. The manufaotuiers wiU tell you that there is hardly a bale of tobacco im- 
 
974 EEVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 
 
 ported from the Island of Cuba where an inspector who desires to find a wrapper, 01 
 desires to black-mail the importer, can not find one. Here [exhibiting another bnnch 
 of leaf tobacco] is what is commonly sold as Havana fillers. There is in this hand of 
 tobacco half a dozen good wrappers from which a man could make a good cigar; if 
 you like, I will roll one and you can smoke it. ifou put it in the power of the in- 
 spector, who receives $1,800 a year, to findone wrapper in this and make me pay 75 
 cents a pound duty; while another inspector may not see it, and another importer 
 will pay only 35 cents a pound. Ought such a law to be on our statute-books? I 
 say no. You can not impose an ad valorem duty on tobacco, because it is not an ar- 
 ticle with an established or known price. It is impossible to collect such a duty. 
 You cannot put two specific duties on the article, because it is impossible to collect 
 that equitably. There is nothing left, except to put a specific duty on all classes of 
 unstcmmed leaf tobacco. If, from the arguments, you are not convinced that 35 
 cents is sufficient, make it what you like; but make it specific, so that we will not 
 be at the mercy of an inspector in the custom house, against whose decision we have 
 no appeal and no redress, except in the courts after years of litigation. I say such 
 laws ought not to be framed, nor any attempt made to enforce them, because they 
 can not be equitably enforced. 
 
 This [indicating] is American tobacco, and you see it is much larger. Here [indi- 
 c.'iting] is Sumatra tobacco. This is an article on which we are invariably required 
 to pay this amount of 75 cents per pound duty, because of the shortness of the leaf, 
 which is small, and it takes a great many more than one hundred to weigh a pound. 
 On that we have to pay 75 cenls a pound. This is a finer article of Sumatra, and it 
 is also 75 cents a pound. But the lightness of weight and the length of the leaf is 
 no indication of value; leaf weighing less than one hundred per pound, paying 35 
 cents duty, is often of more value than that which pays the higher duty. 
 
 Mr. Geae. Explain the law on that point. 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. The law reads this way: Leaf tobacco of the requisite size and 
 fineness of texture to be suitable for wrappers. The inspector admits that he never 
 examines Sumatra tobacco as to fineness of texture. He simply says it is 75 cents, 
 if it takes more than one hundred leaves to the pound. " Have you examined as to 
 that «'' he is asked m court. He says, "No ; we have not. It is impossible to do it. 
 We have no cigar factory in the custom-house. Nobody can tell that; but it is com- 
 mercially known as wrappers." There is a peculiar thing about tobacco 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Would not the Cuban tobacco come in, too, under the same rule? 
 
 Mr, ScHKOEDEK. Yes, sir; it you can draw the dividing lino between wrappers 
 and fillers. But you made this qualification expecting to describe Sumatra leaf 
 A\ rappers as a class. You failed ; and that is where the law will be set aside in the 
 courts, so far as it refers to Sumatra tobacco. 
 
 There is another point : You will be asked here to increase very much the differ- 
 ence in duty between stemmed and unstemmed tobacco. There is some justice in 
 that demand. The difference between stemmed and unstemmed tobacco is such that 
 in order to receive the same amount of duty on the stemmed part, which is the only 
 part used, the stem being of no value, you would have to add one-third of the duty 
 on unstemmed tobacco, in order to equalize both duties; in other words, if unstem- 
 med be 36 cents a pound, the stemmed must amount to 25 per cent, more, because 
 the stems amount to about one-third of the weight of the whole leaf. The duty on 
 stemmed tobacco should, then, be 4S cents a pound, unless you wish to put on it a duty 
 that would prohibit the importation of stemmed tobacco. You will be asked to make 
 the duty on stemmed tobacco 00 cents per pound. It will be said to you that it will 
 be in the interest of American labor. The American manufacturer, especially he who 
 makes pure Havana cigars, has the filler tobacco stemmed and cured in the city of 
 Havana, before it is brought here, to improve the quality by manipulating the to- 
 bacco the same as does the Havana cigar manufacturer. 
 
 Mr. Carllsle. That, is to get tlio benefit of the climate? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. There is a diliereuce in the humidity of the atmosphere which 
 makes the climate more favorable lor stemming tobacco, and there is a difference in 
 duty, and I am free to admit, that fact also influences this action on the part of the 
 manufacturers and importers. But when it is claimed you should put a prohibitory 
 of 60 cents per pound on stemmed tobacco, I say wait until the American laborer 
 asks you for that protection. Do not yield that point because some importer, who 
 is not engaged in that business and would like to drive his more enterprising com- 
 petitor out, asks it, and because perhaps the home manufacturer will buy of him to- 
 bacco in the leaf if he can not stem it in Havana. The class of l.ibor employed in 
 stemming tobacco is mainly minor children and a few old people ; and I do not think 
 that there is much harm done if there should bo less of that class employed. But 
 even if you wish to protect the American laborer, au increase to 50 cents a pound, or 
 rather 2 or 3 cents more than one- third of the duty on stemmed tobacoo, will cover it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I do not get your calculation. 
 , Mr, SCHKOKDEK. Ouo bimdieii pouuda of tobacco will come in at 35 oeuts, stemjaedt 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 975 
 
 The stem is equal in weight to 25 per cent, of the whole leaf, so one-third increase 
 on the 75 per cent, left alter stemming will bring you exactly where you were before, 
 and one hundred pounds unstemmed are equal to 75 pounds stemmed. Now, 46f cents 
 on stemmed tobacco will be equal to 35 cents on unstemmed ; at present the dilierence 
 IS 5 cents, so it is 7^ cents in favor of the unstemmed per pound. 
 
 Mr. Cakuslb. Is not the manufacture of cigarettes in paper wrapper increasing 
 in this country V 
 
 Mr. ScHEOKDER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Suppose we were to reduce the internal-revenue tax upon this lat- 
 ter class of cigars so that a cigar could be made of tobacco of the same weight that 
 the paper cigarette now has, what effect would it have on the paper cigarette ? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. I do not think it would have any effect on it. It is a matter that 
 makes so small a difl'erence that it would not affect consumption. The duty is only 
 |3 per thousand. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Can you make a cigar entirely out of tobacco now of the size of the 
 ■ paper cigarette, without paying more than |3? 
 
 Mr. SCHROBDEK. No, sir, I think you can not. But I am not suffloiently posted to 
 say positively. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. So that in order to get the lower-taxed cigar by the internal-reve- 
 nue laws you have to wrap it with paper. 
 
 A Gentleman. A million are made with cigar wrappers. I believe they pay the 
 same tax. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What would be the effect of abolishing the internal-revenue tax 
 on the cigar manufacturing business f Would it be to keep it in the large establish- 
 ments, or to cut it up among a larger number ? 
 
 Mr. ScHROBDER. I do Dot think it would have any effect at all. I manufactured 
 cigars before there was a tax on them. I also have paid the internal-revenue tax for 
 a number of years. Cigars are sold by the manufacturer on merit and reputation, 
 and when you go to a dealer to buy cigars, you buy those of some manufacturer in 
 whom you have confidence, for a fine wrapper on the outside will cover a poor filler 
 and other deficiencies. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. It hides a multitude of faults. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Are you a manufacturer in New Yoik ? 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDER. No, sir; I am an importer and dealer in domestic cigar leaf tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you know how many manufacturers of cigars there are in New 
 York? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. There are a large number of them. 
 
 Mr. Flower. There are twenty-two hundred, I believe. Do you know how many 
 there were in 1860 ? 
 
 Mr. Schrobder. There were not two hundred and twenty. 
 
 Mr. Flower. My information is there were fifteen thousand. 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. There were not fifteen thousand cigar makers in New York State. 
 I doubt if there were fifteen thousand m the United States. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Every one, I suppose, was a cigar manufacturer in 1860, before the 
 law went into effect — that is, every one who made cigars was a boss, was he not ? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. Anybody could have made cigars who could buy the tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What does he have to do now ? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder, He has to procure a license. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is the amount of the bond t 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. It is according to 4he number of hands employed. 
 
 A Gentleman. It is $500, and an additional amount for every hand employed. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Any man who could not read the English language could not very 
 well manufacture cigars as a boss? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. I think a man who could not speak the English language would 
 hesitate about going into the business. As far as 1 am coucerued I do not argue the 
 matter either in favor or against a repeal of the tax. I am only expressing Arliat my 
 opinion is. I manufactured under both systems. I am not afraid of the abolition of 
 the tax, so far as the manufacturer of these domestic cigars are concerned. The sin- 
 gle cigar-makers could not compete with them. They can not present their goods in 
 packages like regular manufacturers; and when they can even now, they soon be- 
 come regular manufacturers, because somebody who sees their merit will back them 
 or take them as partners. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Have you read the schedule proposed by the Senate bill ? 
 
 Mr. Schroeder. I did, but I do not know whether I quite caught it. If this com- 
 mittee decided that the duty on such tobacco shall be 75 cents per pound, then make 
 it 75 cents specific on all tobacco. Do not leave us to the mercy of the custom-house 
 inspector, who will claim in a bale of fillers where 90 per cent, are suitable for fillers 
 and 10 per cent, may be suitable for wrappers that they should pay 75 cents a pouBd, 
 oven tbouglj tio tm't say to a t*rt»jijty wliat percentage tliete way be. 
 
976 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. How much manipulation is required to discover whether it is a 
 wrapper or tiller? 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDEK. A manufacturer takes this tobacco, moistens it with water, and 
 lets it lie until the water is gone through the fibers of the tobacco, or he puts it in a 
 warm place, where it lies until thoroughly softened, and the quality is then tested by 
 burning it, and he discovers what proportion, if anj-, ho may use for wrappers. 
 
 Mr. La Follkttk. Do you say he does not know until he has subjected it to that 
 test and waited for the period of time necessary to elapse ? 
 
 Mr. ScHKOEDER. I Say he does not. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLrK. That process would destroy any subsequent bulk and it would have 
 to be used. It would be impracticable to apply that test in the custom-house. 
 
 Mr. SCHKOEDER. It would not be at all practicable to apply that in the custom- 
 house. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. In purchasing, how is that determined by the purchaser? 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDBR. By subjecting samples to that treatment ; the manufacturer would 
 not dare buy a bale of Sumatra without that test. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is it necessary to subject our tobacco to the same operation? 
 
 Mr. SCHROBDER. Not so much so. Our tobacco is a larger leaf ; it is packed solidly 
 and firm, retaining its moisture and flexibility, and you can tell about it very much 
 quicker. But you can not tell whether the domestic wrapper is suitable for a wrapper 
 without burning it ; that you must do. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You must subject the domestic to that soaking process ? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. No manufacturer would buy any quantity of domestic tobacco, 
 unless he satisfied himself how it would take water. That is, how it will go through 
 that process. There is a great deal of business done on confidence. A man may buy 
 a package of tobacco on the representation of a dealer that it will stand all these 
 tests. No large transactions are made without subjecting the samples to that test. 
 After the manufacturer has seen the samples drawn by himself out of the package 
 before he buys a lot of Sumatra tobacco, he wants to test it to see how much it will 
 yield and how is the quality. And not until he has done that, will ho make up his 
 mind whether he is going to purchase or not. That is done both with wrappers and 
 fillers. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The manufacturer buys from a dealer, does he, or from the farmer? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. Mainly from the dealer; frequently from the farmer; very large 
 transactions have been made direct. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do these buyers, as they go about through the country, bum some, 
 of the tobacco before buying it ? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. Yes, sir. No buyer will ever make a success unless he does it. It 
 is the rule and the custom of the trade to draw from every package of domestic to- 
 bacco a sample by a regular inspector, and which is guarantied by him, for which he 
 is paid. You can not draw such a sample from foreign tobacco, and I will give you 
 the reason why. The tobacco that is packed here is put up regularly, each package 
 contains a certain grade, but the dealer or manufacturer does not know anything 
 about the history of the bale that comes from Havana or Sumatra. He can only get 
 at the outside, and you can not get any inspector to draw a sample from any given 
 package of foreign tobacco and guaranty the packages to be alike ; therefore no such 
 inspector's samples are drawn. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The reason for that is that the tobacco imported, especially this 
 Sumatra tobacco, is mixed, is it not ? That has been done for the purpose of evading 
 the dnty. 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. That is an erroneous Idea. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you give in your statement just read the quantity of importa- 
 tions for the various years since 1880 ? 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do you give the number of pounds, and the number which pays 
 75 cents a pound and that which pays 35 cents ? 
 
 Mr. ScHROKDER. No, sir, but the average duty paid last year on Sumatra leaf was 
 about .55 cents, or half of each. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. This [showing a clipping from the Tobacco Journal] gives what 
 purports to be the importation of Sumatra by months from 1881 to 1889. Is that 
 correct ? 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDER. Yes, sir; that Is correct. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I will file it with our papers on this matter. If you have no objec- 
 tion, I will be obliged if you will leave your tabular statements and argument with 
 the committee. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Does it show whether this [indicating] pays 35 cents or 75 cents? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. Tlie duty average is 55 cents. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. How do you ascertain that average of 55 cents? 
 
 Mr, SCHBOEDEB. From the importations, 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 977 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. Tou had to know how muoli paid 75 cents and how much paid 35 
 cents in order to ascertain that average? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDBR. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LaFollette. How much paid 75 cents? 
 
 Mr. SCHHOEDER. About one-half. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. About one-half comes in by paying 35 cents. It is all wrapper 
 leaf, is it not? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. No, sir; not as graded by the law. It is not all suitable for 
 wrappers. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. Is the Sumatra not all used for wrappers ? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I suppose there is always waste on wrapper leaf. Is that used 
 for fillers? 
 
 Mr. SCHROEDER. It is used for fillers and for making smoking tobacco. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. The statistics read here in reference to the domestic productions 
 are from what sources? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. From the agricultural reports. I will leave you these. I wiU 
 also hand in my tabular statements, 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is this tabular statement also taken from the agricultural sta- 
 tistics? 
 
 Mr. ScHROEDER. Yes, sir ; I got it from Professor Dodge himself. 
 
 Mr. Schroeder submitted the following papers : 
 
 485 62 
 
978 
 
 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 COTTOIT. 
 
 States. 
 
 1879. 
 
 1880. 
 
 1881. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 625, 900 
 944, 600 
 
 1, 692, 000 
 161, 600 
 
 1,892,700 
 
 2, 055, 000 
 1,. 322, 000 
 1, 935, 000 
 1, 177, 600 
 
 762, 900 
 
 120, 300 
 
 97, 640, 400 
 136, 077, 800 
 248, 352, 000 
 
 16, 968, 000 
 321,7.i9, 000 
 382, 230, 000 
 267, 014, 000 
 338, 625, 000 
 323, 812, 500 
 204, 457, 200 
 
 31, 575, 000 
 
 $10, 740, 444 
 14, 858, 668 
 24, 835, 200 
 
 1, 696,80u 
 36, a93, 490 
 38, 223, 000 
 26, 704, 400 
 33, 862, 600 
 32,381,260 
 20,445,720 
 
 2, 999, 626 
 
 933, 000 
 
 1, 441, 600 
 
 2, 786, 300 
 251, 600 
 
 2, 460, 600 
 2, 275, 000 
 
 888, 000 
 2, 395, 100 
 1, 080, 200 
 
 816,200 
 
 1 47, 700 
 
 184, 734, 000 
 266, 696, 000 
 464, 160, 900 
 35, 727, 200 
 378, 933, 400 
 391, 300, 000 
 161,616,000 
 550, 873, 000 
 232, 243, 000 
 165, 688, 600 
 
 32, 494, 000 
 
 $18, 473, 400 
 29, 336, 560 
 46, 416, 690 
 3,215,448 
 37,893,240 
 39, 130, 000 
 16,161,600 
 49, 578, 570 
 23, 224, 300 
 14,911,974 
 
 2, 924, 460 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 AU other States and 
 Territories. 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 12, 695, 500 
 
 2, 367, 540, 900 
 
 242, 140, 987 
 
 15, 475, 300 
 
 2,854,471,100 
 
 280, 266, 242 
 
 
 
 
 States. 
 
 1884. 
 
 1886. 
 
 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Pounds.* 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Pounds.* 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 
 46, 302 
 1,061,048 
 
 1, 716, 128 
 
 2, 958, 930 
 268, 111 
 
 2, 740, 941 
 
 2, 392, 447 
 
 922, 681 
 
 3, 186, 668 
 
 13, 500 
 404, 100 
 511, 800 
 807, 400 
 
 57, 300 
 648, 7u0 
 883, 200 
 485, 200 
 995, 400 
 631, 400 
 313, 800 
 
 30, 200 
 
 $593, 852 
 17,663,2)1 
 22, 237, 986 
 35, 141, 278 
 3, 161, 600 
 29, 862, 905 
 39,420,018 
 21, 426, 432 
 45, 330. 516 
 23,711,068 
 14, 153, 949 
 
 1,304,040 
 
 44,913 
 1, 071, 658 
 
 1, 733, 289 
 3, 047, 698 
 
 273, 473 
 
 2, 795, 700 
 
 2, 635, 994 
 1, 005, 613 
 
 3, 606, 335 
 1, 348, 048 
 
 864, 618 
 
 74, 466 
 
 14, 821 
 407, 230 
 654, 6,i2 
 960, 025 
 73, 837 
 760, 447 
 
 1, 019, 470 
 487, 722 
 
 1, 332, 027 
 610, 666 
 331, 638 
 
 32, 765 
 
 $579, 501 
 16, 923, 693 
 21,969,766 
 39,413,826 
 4,357,860 
 31,349,428 
 41, 854, 341 
 20, 106, 339 
 54, 613, 107 
 26, 226, 612 
 13, 259, 627 
 
 1, 336, 812 
 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 South Carolinia 
 
 1,071,658 
 l,655,29r 
 2, 956, 267 
 270, 738' 
 2, 823, 718^ 
 2, 548, 674' 
 1,035,781: 
 3,771,740, 
 
 Florida 
 
 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Texas 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 All other States and 
 Territoiiea 
 
 1, 259, 858 
 816, 678 
 
 70, 920 
 
 1,354,7881 
 847, 326 
 
 75, 955 
 
 Total 
 
 17, 439, 613 
 
 6, 682, 000 
 
 353, 993, 386 
 
 18, 300, 865 
 
 6, 575, 300 
 
 269, 989, 812 
 
 18, 454, 6O3: 
 
 
 *BaIes. 
 
 CORN. 
 
 States. 
 
 Maine 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Massachusetts . . . 
 Hhode Island . . . 
 Connecticut .... 
 
 New York '.. 
 
 New Jersey .... 
 Pennsylvania. . . . 
 
 Delaware 
 
 M.aryland 
 
 Virjiinia 
 
 North Carolina . . 
 South Carolina .. 
 
 Georfiia 
 
 Florida 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Texas 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 West Virginia. . 
 
 Kentuciiy 
 
 Ohio ....' 
 
 MicliiKan 
 
 Indiima 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Acreage. 
 
 52, 900 
 57, 200 
 56, 600 
 38, 500 
 8,400 
 76, 600 
 688, 000 
 263, 800 
 271, 600 
 180, 000 
 448, 400 
 050, 400 
 711, 900 
 293, 600 
 218, 000 
 228, 900 
 954, 100 
 557, 900 
 820, 600 
 246, 000 
 9:j4, 700 
 0:i,'i, 900 
 364, 600 
 023, 000 
 019, 600 
 835, 600 
 088, 600 
 920, 600 
 
 Product. 
 
 1. 587, 000 
 
 1, 859, 000 
 
 2, 037, 600 
 
 1, 386, 000 
 268, 800 
 
 2, 218, 500 
 22, 704, 000 
 
 8, 969, 200 
 44, 606, 000 
 
 4, 800, 000 
 13, 721, 040 
 
 19, 957, 600 
 26, 678, 500 
 
 9, 702, 000 
 
 20, 627, 400 
 1, 946, 650 
 
 26, 403, 300 
 24, 926, 400 
 13, 592, 600 
 
 29, 198, 000 
 22, 432, 800 
 50, 897, 600 
 11, 302, 600 
 04, 736, 000 
 
 105, 686, 000 
 
 30, 913, 500 
 134, 920, 500 
 312, 221, 000 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acreage. 
 
 $1,206,120 
 
 1, 450, 020 
 
 1, 487, 418 
 
 1, 081, 080 
 
 201,600 
 
 1, 641, 690 
 
 13, 649, 440 
 5, 202, 136 
 
 24, 033, 210 
 
 2, 673, 000 
 7.134,941 
 9, 779, 224 
 
 14, 893, 630 
 7, 276, 500 
 
 14, 439, 180 
 
 1, 676, 976 
 
 16, 760, 178 
 
 15, 454, 368 
 
 9, 570, 300 
 
 30. 073, 940 
 
 13,011,024 
 
 18, 832, 076 
 
 6, 199, 198 
 
 23, 962, 320 
 
 41, 217, 640 
 
 13,911,076 
 
 45, 872, 070 
 
 96, 788, -510 
 
 31,300 
 
 30,1 
 
 56, 300 
 
 65, 9S0 
 
 12, 106 
 
 56, 900 
 
 801, 600 
 
 347, 200 
 
 1, 374, 500 
 
 203, 120 
 
 678, 190 
 
 1, 809, 200 
 
 2, 253, 300 
 1,263,000 
 2, 384, 700 
 
 374, 700 
 1, 828, 980 
 
 1, 690, 300 
 784, 880 
 
 2, 670, 160 
 1,294,010 
 2, 788, 830 
 
 676, 000; 
 
 2, 956, 700, 
 
 3, 198, 400 
 855, 430] 
 
 3,421,7001 
 8, 840, I8OI 
 
 Product. 
 
 1, 108, 020 
 
 1,401,820 
 
 1, 801, 600 
 
 1. 875, 330 
 
 363, 180 
 
 1, 621, 100 
 
 27, 896, 680 
 
 14, 235, 200 
 
 55, 804, 700 
 
 6, 407, 840 
 
 21, 703, 080 
 
 45, 230, 000 
 
 36, 064, 120 
 
 11,746,900 
 
 21, 939, 240 
 3, 522, 180 
 
 22, 679, 3.52 
 
 23, 218, 380 
 14, 913, 720 
 66, 764, 500 
 32, 350, 250 
 62, 409, ' 
 17, SOT, 000 
 86, 039, 970 i 
 
 119,940,000 
 34,816,001 
 09, 229, 3001 
 
 240, 452, 8961 
 
 Valu 
 
 $853, 175 
 1, 023, 329 
 1, 279, 136 
 1, 406, 497 
 326, 662 
 
 1, 215, 825 
 15, 900, 638 
 
 8, 266, 416 
 29, 576, 491 
 
 3, 233, 920 
 10, 634, 019 
 18, 996, 600 
 19,216,142 
 
 9, 044, 343 
 
 15, 138, 07_ 
 
 2, 993, 653 
 
 16, 195,166 
 14, 027, 679 
 
 9, 096, 759 
 35, 379, 865 
 16,851,626 
 2i, 489, 125 
 
 8, 134, 290 
 32, 095, 189 
 49, 175, 400 
 16,015,360 
 39,691,720 
 80, 503, 043 
 
 1881. 
 
 31, 300 
 
 36, 900 
 
 35, 
 
 66, 000 
 
 12, 100 
 
 66, 900 
 
 761, 600 
 
 336, 800 
 
 1, 374, 600 
 
 204, 100 
 
 671,400 
 
 1,809,200 
 
 1,301,600 
 
 1, 308, 900 
 
 2, 388, 700 
 359, 700 
 
 2, 035. 700 
 
 1,600,200 
 
 74.5, TOO 
 
 2, 803, 700 
 1, 425, 600 
 2,915,300 
 
 571, 100 
 
 3, 042, 400 
 3,134,400 
 
 894,000 
 3, 657, 800 
 9, 096, 600 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFr. 
 COTTON. 
 
 979 
 
 1881. 
 
 1882. 
 
 1883. 
 
 Poniids. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Pounds.* 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Pounds. * 
 
 Value. 
 
 
 
 61,985 
 
 1, 050, 643 
 1,587,244 
 
 2, 844, 305 
 260, 402 
 
 2, 534, 388 
 2, 233, 844 
 
 887, 624 
 2,810,113 
 1, 110, 790 
 
 815, 700 
 
 79,793 
 
 24, 000 
 463, 000 
 630, 000 
 942, 000 
 62, 000 
 810,000 
 
 1, 064, 000 
 560, 000 
 
 1, 320, 000 
 697, 000 
 337, 000 
 
 42, 000 
 
 $1, 032, 000 
 19, 909, 000 
 27, 090, 000 
 41,448,500 
 3,472,000 
 36, 450, 000 
 47, 348, OOO 
 24, 920, 000 
 69, 670, 000 
 31,365,000 
 15, 165, 000 
 
 1, 827, OOC 
 
 55, 786 
 
 1, 050, 543 
 1,618,989 
 
 2, 872, 748 
 257, 799 
 
 2, 610, 420 
 
 2, 278, 531 
 931,900 
 
 3, 034, 922 
 1, 188, 545 
 
 807, 602 
 
 70, 218 
 
 17, 300 
 398, 200 
 469, 600 
 752, 600 
 
 58, 900 
 630, 400 
 901,300 
 490, 200 
 1, 118, OCO 
 518, 600 
 3J0, 700 
 
 35, 000 
 
 $735, 250 
 17, 321, 700 
 20, 662, 400 
 33, 110, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 28, 052, 800 
 39, 657, 200 
 
 21, 568, 800 
 49, 192, 000 
 
 22, 814, 000 
 13, 360, 100 
 
 1, 470, OOO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 16, 276, 691 
 
 6, 957, 000 
 
 309, 696, 500 
 
 16, 777, 993 
 
 5, 700, 600 
 
 250, 694, 750 
 
 
 
 1886. 
 
 1887. 
 
 1888. 
 
 Poonda. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Pounds.* 
 
 Valoe. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 6, 400, 050 
 168, 250, 306 
 231, 740, 740 
 405, 008, 579 
 27,886,014 
 367,083,310 
 453, 663, 972 
 228, 907, 601 
 754, 348, 000 
 325, 149, 120 
 144, 892, 746 
 
 13, 899, 765 
 
 $537, 604 
 14, 133, 020 
 19, 234, 481 
 33, 210, 703 
 2, 286, 653 
 30, 467, 917 
 37, 6.=i4, 110 
 18,999,331 
 61, 102, 188 
 26, 662, 228 
 11, 881, 205 
 
 1, 125, 881 
 
 40, 334 
 1,066,301 
 
 1, 622, 185 
 
 2, 941, 486 
 262,616 
 
 2, 8U9, 599 
 
 2, 548, 674 
 1, 066, 8.54 
 
 3, 060, 327 
 1, 388, 658 
 
 856, 799 
 
 78, 234 
 
 16,134 
 443, 581 
 695, 342 
 947, 158 
 68, 179 
 842, 880 
 
 1, 062, 797 
 504, 622 
 
 1, 584, 131 
 611,010 
 316, 646 
 
 29, 729 
 
 $638, 261 
 17, 762, 112 
 
 24, 343, 534 
 39,388,513 
 
 1, 829, .383 
 35, 881, 402 
 43, 872, 200 
 20, 917, 591 
 66, 530, 334 
 
 25, 495, 761 
 13, 188, 306 
 
 1, 207, 889 
 
 42, 351 
 1, 071, 633 
 
 1, 646, 518 
 
 2, 970, 901 
 259, 990 
 
 2, 851, 743 
 2, 592, 001 
 1, 088, 191 
 4, 158, 343 
 1, 416, 431 
 881, 473 
 
 79, 016 
 
 6, 649, 107 
 176, 819, 445 
 200, 735, 916 
 463, 460, 656 
 30, 158, 840 
 466, 278, 880 
 633, 584, 202 
 219, 814, 582 
 806, 718, 642 
 297,450,510 
 176, 294, 600 
 
 14, 223, 880 
 
 $551, 876 
 15, 029, 663 
 22, 672, 553 
 39, 394, 147 
 2, 633, 343 
 38, 783, 705 
 45, 028. 241 
 18, 904, 054 
 67, 764, 358 
 25, 283, 293 
 14, 985, 041 
 
 1, 208, 945 
 
 3, 127, 230, 233 
 
 267, 295, 327 
 
 18, 641, 067 
 
 7,020,209 
 
 291, 045, 346 
 
 19, 058, 591 
 
 3, 438, 188, 080 
 
 292, 139, 209 
 
 •Bales. 
 
 COEN. 
 
 1881. 
 
 1882. 
 
 1883. 
 
 Product. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acreage. 
 
 Product. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acreage. 
 
 Product. 
 
 Value. 
 
 1, 064, 000 
 
 $968, 240 
 
 30, 987 
 
 904,400 
 
 $832, 048 
 
 30, 367 
 
 1, 062, 800 
 
 $871, 496 
 
 1, 262, 000 
 
 1, 097, 940 
 
 37, 269 
 
 870, 700 
 
 835, 872 
 
 38,014 
 
 1,368, .500 
 
 1. 122, 170 
 
 1, 990, 000 
 
 1,711,400 
 
 56, 916 
 
 1, 930, 300 
 
 1, 814, 482 
 
 ■ 58, 623 
 
 1, 817, 300 
 
 1,435,667 
 
 1,406,000 
 
 1, 237, 280 
 
 67, 120 
 
 1, 237, 200 
 
 1, 175, 340 
 
 68, 263 
 
 3, 039, 100 
 
 1,631,280 
 
 327,000 
 
 294, 300 
 
 12,100 
 
 277, 900 
 
 255, 668 
 
 13, 947 
 
 414, 300 
 
 352,165 
 
 1,427,000 
 
 1, 141, 600 
 
 67, 577 
 
 1,155,800 
 
 1, 109, 668 
 
 57,001 
 
 1, 710, 000 
 
 1, 385, 100 
 
 20, 085, 000 
 
 16, 465, 450 
 
 769, 115 
 
 21, 187, 500 
 
 16,314,376 
 
 761,423 
 
 17, 512, 700 
 
 13, 784, 271 
 
 7,829,000 
 
 6. 038, 330 
 
 343, 536 
 
 9, 942, 800 
 
 7, 556, 638 
 
 346, 971 
 
 9,716,100 
 
 6,314,815 
 
 34,599,000 
 
 25, 949, 250 
 
 1, 388, 245 
 
 43, 518, 800 
 
 30, 463, 160 
 
 1,403,127 
 
 37, 857, 400 
 
 26,364,4.'i8 
 
 2, 940, 000 
 
 1, 764, 000 
 
 208,182 
 
 3, 936, 600 
 
 3, 333, 694 
 
 212, 346 
 
 3, 822, 200 
 
 1,911,100 
 
 16, 277, 000 
 
 10,417,280 
 
 691,642 
 
 17, 904, 700 
 
 10, 384, 726 
 
 691, 542 
 
 16, 251, 200 
 
 8, 288, 112 
 
 27, 200, OOO 
 
 19,312,000 
 
 1,881,568 
 
 36, 904, 000 
 
 19, 039, 130 
 
 1,919,199 
 
 26, 868, 700 
 
 16, 121, 220 
 
 26, 977, 000 
 
 21,311,830 
 
 2, 416, 056 
 
 34, 200, 000 
 
 18, 158, 171 
 
 2, 494, 977 
 
 28, 693, 200 
 
 18, 049, 930 
 
 8, 809, 000 
 
 8, 720, 910 
 
 1,301,256 
 
 16, 356, 200 
 
 11, 122, 316 
 
 1,388,481 
 
 11,107,800 
 
 8, 108, 694 
 
 19, 745, 000 
 
 19, 152, 650 
 
 2, 747, 005 
 
 36,617,500 
 
 23, 801, 375 
 
 2, 829, 415 
 
 24, 615, 900 
 
 16, 402, 663 
 
 3, 170, 000 
 
 3, 170, 000 
 
 392, 073 
 
 3, 708, 900 
 
 2, 967, 120 
 
 399, 914 
 
 3, 399, 200 
 
 2, 787, 344 
 
 20, 250, 000 
 
 19, 612, 600 
 
 2, 300, 341 
 
 31, 983, 600 
 
 19, 188, 600 
 
 2, 277, 338 
 
 26, 189,300 
 
 16,761,162 
 
 17, 646, 000 
 
 16, 940, 160 
 
 1, 798, 944 
 
 30, 233, 600 
 
 16, 628, 480 
 
 1, 670, 902 
 
 36, 257, 100 
 
 16, 911, 973 
 
 9, 693, 000 
 
 9, 499, 140 
 
 790,336 
 
 14, 630, 400 
 
 8, 781, 840 
 
 924, 691 
 
 13, 130, 600 
 
 8, 666, 196 
 
 33, 877, 000 
 
 33, 043, 230 
 
 3, 280, 329 
 
 63,416,300 
 
 36,781,454 
 
 3, 608, 862 
 
 63, 146, 300 
 
 37, 887, 780 
 
 21, 028, 000 
 
 19, 766, 320 
 
 1, 596, 672 
 
 34, 485, 900 
 
 15,863,514 
 
 1, 740, 372 
 
 30, 456, 500 
 
 10, 141, 945 
 
 36, 232, 000 
 
 26, 087, 040 
 
 3,119,371 
 
 75,188,000 
 
 31,579,212 
 
 3, 312, 952 
 
 64, 259, 000 
 
 28, 273, 960 
 
 12, 980, 000 
 
 9, 60.^, 200 
 
 588, 233 
 
 14, 927, 000 
 
 8. 657, 600 
 
 688, 233 
 
 14, 294, 000 
 
 7, 575, 820 
 
 51,021,000 
 
 36, 136, 600 
 
 3,103,248 
 
 75, 600, 900 
 
 39, 200, 468 
 
 3,268,410 
 
 78, 201, 800 
 
 32, 844, 750 
 
 79, 760, 000 
 
 48, 053, 6110 
 
 2, 977, 680 
 
 93,319,200 
 
 57,8.57,901 
 
 2, 818, 480 
 
 73, 560, 000 
 
 34. 573, 200 
 
 2.1, 008, OUO 
 
 15, 7!I2, 840 
 
 929, 760 
 
 38, 581, 600 
 
 16,80,3,144 
 
 911,165 
 
 21, 412, 300 
 
 11, 134, 396 
 
 79, 618, 000 
 
 47, 770, 800 
 
 3, 438, 332 
 
 107, 484, 300 
 
 61, 692, 404 
 
 3, 541, 483 
 
 95, 620, 000 
 
 39, 204, 200 
 
 170,733,000 
 
 103,505,140 
 
 7, 814, 043 
 
 183, 336, 900 
 
 85, 698, 343 
 
 8, 161, 463 
 
 203,786,500 
 
 81, 514, COO 
 
980 
 
 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 COEH"— Continued. 
 
 States and Territo- 
 ries. 
 
 1879. 
 
 Acreage. 
 
 Product. 
 
 1880. 
 
 Acreage. 
 
 Product. 
 
 Value. 
 
 1881. 
 
 Acreage. 
 
 "Wisconsin ... 
 Minnesota ... 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 California 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Nevada 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Arizona 
 
 Daltota 
 
 Idaho '. 
 
 Montana 
 
 'New Mexico 
 
 Utah 
 
 "Washington 
 
 Total . 
 
 1, 023, 400 
 
 419, OUO 
 
 4, 873, 400 
 
 3, 836, 200 
 
 2,718,800 
 
 1, 523, 400 
 
 100, 500 
 
 4,450 
 
 39, 913, 600 
 
 15,715,000 
 
 185, 189, 200 
 
 141, 939, 400 
 
 89, 720, 400 
 
 62, 459, 400 
 
 2, 814, 000 
 
 142, 400 
 
 $15, 565, 914 
 
 4, 243, 050 
 
 44, 445, 408 
 
 35, 484, 850 
 
 21, 224, 608 
 
 13, 116, 474 
 
 2, 223, 060 
 
 132, 432 
 
 1, 023, 254 
 
 443, 230 
 
 6,847, 180 
 
 5, 650, 120 
 
 3, 625, 200 
 
 1, 919, 600 
 
 80, 050 
 
 4,850 
 
 487 
 
 13, 795 
 
 33, 767, 382 
 
 15, 478, 050 
 
 260, 192, 840 
 
 160, 463, 408 
 
 106, 218, 360 
 
 50, 507, 600 
 
 2, 680, 800 
 
 113, 005 
 
 9,740 
 
 265, 207 
 
 $13, 169, 279 
 
 5,572,r-- 
 
 67, 650, 138 
 
 67, 766, 827 
 
 30, 803, 324 
 
 14, 876, 900 
 
 1, 961, 408 
 
 92,664 
 
 7,792 
 
 196, 509 
 
 1, 054, 000 
 
 608, 500 
 
 6, 710, 200 
 
 6, 650, 100 
 
 4, 196, 500 
 
 2, 149, 200 
 
 98, 700 
 
 5,000 
 
 525 
 
 la, 800 
 
 2, 751, 000 
 
 2, 475, 900 
 
 167, 000 
 
 8, 607, 200 
 
 178, 700 
 
 53, 085, 450 
 
 580, 486, 217 
 
 62, 317, 842 
 
 1, 717, 434, 543 679, 714, 499 64, 262, 025 
 
 States and Territo- 
 ries. 
 
 Maine 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 "Vermont 
 
 Massachurtetts- . 
 Khode Island ... 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 New York 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 Pennsylvania .. . 
 
 Delaware 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Virginia 
 
 North Carolina . 
 South Carolina- . 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Florida 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Texas 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 "West Virginia . 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Illinois 
 
 "Wisconsin 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Midsouri 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 California 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Nevada 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Arizona 
 
 Dakota 
 
 Idaho 
 
 Montana 
 
 New Mexico 
 
 Utah 
 
 "Waahington 
 
 Total 
 
 Acreage. Product. 
 
 30, 610 
 38, 744 
 60, 282 
 57, 097 
 
 12, 818 
 67,000 
 
 753, 810 
 343, 600 
 403, 000 
 214, 450 
 698, 400 
 938, 391 
 619,927 
 444, 020 
 857, 700 
 403, 91 
 322, 885 
 889, 600 
 865, 450 
 752, 709 
 757, 710 
 245, 082 
 594, 115 
 258, 410 
 846, 664 
 929, 388 
 012, 312 
 151,463 
 066, 685 
 705, 340 
 329, 652 
 995, 931 
 565. 000 
 235; 298 
 160, 000 
 5,800 
 830 
 
 25, 300 
 
 2,850 
 
 465, 000 
 
 1,820 
 
 830 
 
 47, 200 
 
 13, 473 
 3,210 
 
 69,683,780 
 
 Value. 
 
 1, 062, 000 
 1, 286, 000 
 1, 999, 000 
 1, 941, 000 
 390, 000 
 1, 768, 000 
 
 22, 674, 000 
 10,992,000 
 43, 466, 000 
 
 3, 976, 000 
 15, 237, 000 
 29, 480, 000 
 31,499,000 
 13, 320, 000 
 30, 925, 000 
 
 3, 837, 000 
 30, 197, Olio 
 
 25, 610, 000 
 11,007,000 
 60, 290, 000 
 32, 465, 000 
 65, 72:t, 000 
 11,900,000 
 71, 880, 000 
 85, 393, 000 
 
 26, 022, Olio 
 104, 757, 000 
 244, 544, 000 
 
 20, 200, 000 
 
 23. 630, 000 
 252, 600, 000 
 197, 8.50, 000 
 168, 600, 000 
 122, 100, 000 
 
 4, 800, 000 
 164, 000 
 
 21,000 
 710, 000 
 
 60, 000 
 13, 850, 000 
 
 36, 000 
 
 21,000 
 950, 000 
 293, 000 
 105, 000 
 
 1, 795, 528, 000 
 
 $796, 500 
 
 977, 360 
 
 1, 299, 350 
 
 1, 397, 520 
 
 304, 200 
 
 1, 149, 200 
 
 13, 604, 400 
 
 6, 935, 680 
 22, 602, 320 
 
 1, 709, 260 
 7,313,760 
 
 16, 508, 800 
 18, 899, 400 
 
 9, 057, 600 
 21, 647, 600 
 
 3, 069, 600 
 18, 420, 170 
 
 16, 816, 200 
 
 7, 374, 690 
 37, 379, 80O 
 
 17, 531, lOU 
 
 20, 575, 350 
 
 6, 664, 000 
 30, 908, 400 
 35,011,130 
 10, 408, 800 
 35, 617, 380 
 76, 808, 640 
 
 8, 90S, 000 
 
 7, 797, 900 
 68, 098, 000 
 61,441,000 
 37, 070, 000 
 
 21, 978, 000 
 
 2, 880, 000 
 101, 680 
 
 14, 
 461, 600 
 
 40, 200 
 4, 186, 000 
 
 27, 000 
 
 16, 750 
 646, 000 
 204, 400 
 
 78, 750 
 
 1885. 
 
 Acreage. Product. Value, 
 
 640, 735, 500 73, 130, 160 
 
 31, 222 
 
 38, 386 
 
 61, 488 
 
 57, 668 
 
 12,818 
 
 58, 140 
 
 731,196 
 
 350, 370 
 
 1, 4"i7, 030 
 
 216, 595 
 
 726, 336 
 
 % 132, 230 
 
 2, 64.5, 126 
 
 1, 487, 341 
 
 2, 857, 700 
 420, 070 
 
 2, 346, 114 
 1, 927, 392 
 
 917, 377 
 4, 090, 443 
 1, 898, 327 
 
 3, 569, 590 
 665, 409 
 
 3, 551, 667 
 
 3, 017, 464 
 
 938, 682 
 
 3, 720, 681 
 8, 559, 036 
 1, 088; 019 
 
 648,913 
 7, 549, 642 
 6, 29,5, 728 
 
 4, 884, 550 
 3, 526, 475 
 
 165, 200 
 
 6,479 
 
 847 
 
 27, 830 
 
 2,993 
 
 630, 100 
 
 1,911 
 
 880 
 
 47, 672 
 
 13,742 
 
 3,371 
 
 Acreage. 
 
 1,009,000 
 1, 299, 000 
 
 1, 979, 000 
 1,961,000 
 
 429, 000 
 
 2, 033, 000 
 22, 448, 000 
 11, 212, 000 
 46, 074, 000 
 
 4, 174, 000 
 15, 999, 000 
 31, 838, 000 
 25, 199, 000 
 13,453,000 
 32,162,000 
 
 3, 799, 000 
 
 31. 405, 000 
 25, 765, 000 
 15,410,000 
 
 84. 406, 000 
 38, 309, 000 
 75, 581, 000 
 15, 827, 000 
 90, 509, 000 
 
 111,865,000 
 
 30, 706, 000 
 
 131, 994, 000 
 
 268, 998, 000 
 
 32, 750, 000 
 
 18, 431, 000 
 
 242, 496, 000 
 
 106, 861, 000 
 
 158, 390, 000 
 
 129, 426, 000 
 
 3, 840, 000 
 
 148, 000 
 
 21, 000 
 
 959, 000 
 
 66, 000 
 
 15, 345, 000 
 
 41,000 
 
 23, 000 
 
 979, 000 
 
 409, 000 
 
 89, 000 
 
 1, 936, 176, 000 
 
 $706, 300 
 
 922, 290 
 
 1,266,660 
 
 1, 372, 700 
 
 308," 
 
 1, 280, 790 
 
 13, 919, 840 
 
 5, 942, 360 
 22, 576, 260 
 
 1, 669, 
 7, 359, 540 
 
 14, 963, 860 
 13, 859, 460 
 
 7, 633, 680 
 18, 653, 960 
 
 2, 659, 300 
 17, 272, 750 
 13,913,100 
 
 8, 167, 300 
 41, 368, 940 
 17, 623, 140 
 29, 476, 590 
 
 6, 330, 800 
 31, 609, 150 
 35, 796, 800 
 10, 440, 040 
 38, 278, 260 
 76, 319, 440 
 11, 135, 000 
 
 6, 897, 920 
 68, 199, 040 
 49,216,2.50 
 38, 013, 600 
 24, 590, 940 
 
 2, 611, 200 
 103,600 
 
 15,750 
 652, 120 
 
 49, 500 
 4, 290, 600 
 
 33, 620 
 
 17, 600 
 763, 620 
 245, 400 
 
 63, 190 
 
 1886.. 
 
 635, 674, 630 
 
 31,534 
 
 38, 578 
 
 62, 718 
 
 68, 831 
 
 12,946 
 
 58, 140 
 
 716, 672 
 
 346, 866 
 
 1, 438, 285 
 
 216, 595 
 
 719, 073 
 
 3, 110, 908 
 
 2, 696, 029 
 
 1, 457, 594 
 
 2, 886, 277 
 
 441, 074 
 
 2, 393, 036 
 1,946,666 
 
 936, 725 
 
 4, 417, 678 
 2, 069, 176 
 3, 533, 894 
 
 665, 409 
 
 3, 516, 160 
 
 2, 987, 289 
 948, 069 
 
 3, 720, 681 
 8, 659, 036 
 1, 109, 779 
 
 668, 380 
 7,927,019 
 6, 484, 600 
 
 5, 812, 616 
 3, 879, 123 
 
 166, 762 
 
 6 673 
 
 '855 
 
 29, 778 
 
 3,020 
 
 663, 625 
 
 1,050 
 
 890 
 
 48, 626 
 
 13, 330 
 
 3,375 
 
 75, 694, 208 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIPP. 
 
 CORN— Continned. 
 
 981 
 
 1881. 
 
 
 1882. 
 
 
 1883. 
 
 Product. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acreage. 
 
 Product. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acreage. 
 
 Product. 
 
 Value. 
 
 29, 040, 000 
 
 $15, 681, 000 
 
 1, 117, 240 
 
 32, 201, 600 
 
 $17, 060, 848 
 
 1, 122, 820 
 
 23, 579, 300 
 
 $11,318,004 
 
 16,252,000 
 
 8, 613, 560 
 
 661,050 
 
 21, 127, 600 
 
 9, 507, 420 
 
 727, 165 
 
 15, 124, 800 
 
 6, 503, 66 1 
 
 173, 289, 000 
 
 76,247,160 
 
 6, 777, 302 
 
 175,487,600 
 
 66, 085, 248 
 
 6, 980, 021 
 
 169, 629, 000 
 
 64, 281, 280 
 
 53, 069, 000 
 
 60, 494, 850 
 
 5, 763, 102 
 
 170, 037, 000 
 
 66, 314, 430 
 
 5, 878. 304 
 
 161, 655, 000 
 
 56, 579, 250 
 
 76, 377, 000 
 
 44, 298, 660 
 
 4, 280, 430 
 
 144, 452, 600 
 
 63, 447, 402 
 
 4, 708, 473 
 
 172, 800. 000 
 
 44,928,231 
 
 68,913,000 
 
 22, 976, 070 
 
 2, 364, 120 
 
 82, 478, 200 
 
 27, 217, 806 
 
 2, 813, 303 
 
 101, 278, 900 
 
 24, 306, 930 
 
 2, 633, 000 
 
 2, 0.53, 740 
 
 98, 634 
 
 2, 790, 900 
 
 2, 372, 265 
 
 100, 007 
 
 2, 464, 800 
 
 2, 095, 080 
 
 101, 000 
 
 75, 750 
 
 5,450 
 
 130, 000 
 
 104, 000 
 
 5,504 
 
 129, 300 
 
 96, 975 
 
 13, 000 
 
 13, 000 
 
 f 830 
 
 18, 000 
 
 16, 200 
 
 847 
 
 31, 100 
 
 8,440 
 
 352, 000 
 
 369, 600 
 
 21, 076 
 
 432. 400 
 
 380, 160 
 
 21, 287 
 
 533, 100 
 
 452, 285 
 
 
 
 
 2,709 
 
 67, 000 
 
 62, 700 
 
 2, 736 
 
 54,700 
 
 47, 042 
 
 
 
 186, 247 
 
 4, 650, 000 
 
 2, 371, 600 
 
 270, 058 
 
 4, 916, 055 
 
 2, 211, 776 
 
 B,"76i,"io6 
 
 "5,472,' 950 
 
 1, 580 
 
 45, 000 
 
 47, 250 
 
 1, 627 
 
 32, 500 
 
 29, 2:0 
 
 
 
 492 
 45, 594 
 
 18, 000 
 965, 000 
 
 18,900 
 1, 061, 500 
 
 502 
 40, 000 
 
 10,040 
 930, 100 
 
 9, 030 
 
 
 
 771, 983 
 
 
 
 13, 208 
 
 275, 000 
 
 247, 500 
 
 13, 340 
 
 280, 100 
 
 240, 488 
 
 
 
 2,646 
 
 63, 000 
 
 49, 600 
 
 2,672 
 
 61, 400 
 
 55, 200 
 
 
 
 
 1, 194, 916, 000 
 
 759, 482, 170 
 
 65, 659, ,545 
 
 1, 617, 025, 100 
 
 783, 867, 176 
 
 68,301,889 
 
 1,651,066,895 658,051,485 
 
 1886. 
 
 1887. 
 
 
 1888. 
 
 Product. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acreage. 
 
 Product. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acreage. 
 
 Product. 
 
 Value. 
 
 989, 000 
 
 $662, 630 
 
 32, ]65 
 
 1, 133, 000 
 
 $769, 760 
 
 30, 878 
 
 696, 000 
 
 ,$447, 000 
 
 1, 364, 000 
 
 927, 520 
 
 38, 678 
 
 1, 323, 000 
 
 912, 870 
 
 37, 421 
 
 810, 000 
 
 009, 130 
 
 2, 058, 000 
 
 1, 358, 280 
 
 62, 001 
 
 2, 304, 000 
 
 1, 498, 720 
 
 61,470 
 
 1,494,000 
 
 986, 10 
 
 1, 922, 000 
 
 1, 268, 520 
 
 59, 997 
 
 2, 124, 000 
 
 1, 486, 800 
 
 59, 397 
 
 1, 788, 000 
 
 1, 315, 840 
 
 408, 000 
 
 273, 360 
 
 12, 946 
 
 414, 000 
 
 289, 800 
 
 12, 558 
 
 382, 000 
 
 367, 400 
 
 1, 992, 000 
 
 1, 254, 960 
 
 68, 140 
 
 1, 977, 000 
 
 1, 324, 690 
 
 66, 977 
 
 1,778,000 
 
 1, 165, 700 
 
 22, 428, 000 
 
 12, 558, 560 
 
 709, 406 
 
 23, 410, 000 
 
 13, 343, 700 
 
 706, 859 
 
 22, 870, 000 
 
 13,204,000 
 
 9, 418, 000 
 
 4, 709, 000 
 
 346, 866 
 
 10, 406, 000 
 
 6, 723, 300 
 
 350, 335 
 
 11, 351, 000 
 
 6, 016, 0,10 
 
 40, 545, 000 
 
 19, 056, 160 
 
 1, 394, 661 
 
 44,905,000 
 
 22, 452, 500 
 
 1, 397, 350 
 
 45, 414, 000 
 
 33, 707, 000 
 
 3, 500, 000 
 
 1, 507, 800 
 
 216, 595 
 
 4, 332, 000 
 
 1, 802, 760 
 
 220, 927 
 
 3, 844, 000 
 
 1, 691, 300 
 
 16, 039, 000 
 
 6, 466, 770 
 
 719, 073 
 
 19, 415, 000 
 
 8, 736, 750 
 
 740, 645 
 
 17,653,000 
 
 7, 898, f r,0 
 
 32,793,000 
 
 14,756,850 
 
 2, 163, 126 
 
 37, 080, 000 
 
 17, 709, 000 
 
 2,131,595 
 
 34, 745, 000 
 
 17, 02.5, 0.^0 
 
 27, 216, 000 
 
 16, 512, 560 
 
 2, 673, 910 
 
 35, 830, 000 
 
 21, 139, 700 
 
 2, 673, 910 
 
 28, 343, 000 
 
 16,438,010 
 
 13,318,000 
 
 7, 990, 800 
 
 1, 501, 322 
 
 15,013,000 
 
 9, 308, 000 
 
 1, 670, 388 
 
 13, 715, 000 
 
 8, 239, 000 
 
 31, 197, 000 
 
 18, 718, 200 
 
 2, 916, 140 
 
 33, 007, 000 
 
 20, 202, 210 
 
 2, 923, 885 
 
 28, 009, 000 
 
 16, 841, 000 
 
 4, 597, 000 
 
 3, 263, 870 
 
 454, 306 
 
 4, 810, 000 
 
 3, 419, 300 
 
 403,392 
 
 4,541,000 
 
 2, 951, 050 
 
 28, 893, 000 
 
 17, 336, 800 
 
 2, 464, 827 
 
 33, 522, 000 
 
 18,101,880 
 
 2, 489, 476 
 
 31, 616, 000 
 
 17, 388, X. 
 
 25, 507, 000 
 
 16, 049, 130 
 
 1, 886, 319 
 
 32, 633, 000 
 
 17, 390, 490 
 
 1, 033, 477 
 
 38, 433, 000 
 
 15, 347, m) 
 
 U, 640, 000 
 
 8, 052, 000 
 
 1,001,226 
 
 IH, 022, 000 
 
 9,191,220 
 
 1, 031, 203 
 
 15, 263, 000 
 
 8, 089, :i:io 
 
 69, 213, 000 
 
 38, 759, 280 
 
 4, 499, 405 
 
 76, 490, 000 
 
 39, 000, 900 
 
 4, 814, 303 
 
 92, 430, 000 
 
 37, 898, 7(;u 
 
 42, 140, 000 
 
 20, 648, 600 
 
 2, 068, 349 
 
 41,367,000 
 
 20, 683, 500 
 
 2, 130, 309 
 
 41, 543, 000 
 
 19,940,010 
 
 73, 314, 000 
 
 29, 325, 600 
 
 3, 497, 848 
 
 75, 204, 000 
 
 37, 003, 000 
 
 3, 037, 7()3 
 
 76, 605, 000 
 
 31, 779, ilOO 
 
 16, 194, 000 
 
 6, 381, 480 
 
 658, 755 
 
 12, 616, 000 
 
 0, 758, 640 
 
 678, 518 
 
 16, 149, 000 
 
 7, 751, 5J0 
 
 88, 758, 000 
 
 30, 177, 720 
 
 3, 160, 668 
 
 57, 840, 000 
 
 30, 055, 200 
 
 3, 160, 008 
 
 81, 545, 000 
 
 27, 725, 300 
 
 96, 204, 000 
 
 33, 071, 400 
 
 2, 805, 961 
 
 73, 797, 000 
 
 35, 422, 500 
 
 2, 863, 080 
 
 93,018,000 
 
 32, 556, 300 
 
 27, 636, 000 
 
 10, 601, 300 
 
 841, 316 
 
 18, 930, 000 
 
 9, 080, 400 
 
 967, 513 
 
 29, 025, 000 
 
 12, 190, 500 
 
 118, 795, 000 
 
 38, 014, 400 
 
 3, 569, 994 
 
 71, 400, 000 
 
 32, 130, 000 
 
 3, 605, 094 
 
 125, 478, 000 
 
 38,898, 180 
 
 209, 818, 000 
 
 65, 043, 580 
 
 7, 347, 915 
 
 141, 080, 000 
 
 57, 842, 600 
 
 7, 788, 790 
 
 278, 000, 000 
 
 80, 637, 4110 
 
 28, 493, 000 
 
 10, .543, 410 
 
 1, 018, 778 
 
 26,775,000 
 
 10, 825, 500 
 
 1, 069, 717 
 
 32, 733, 000 
 
 11, 783, 880 
 
 19,905,000 
 
 6, 767, 700 
 
 606,756 
 
 18, 081, 000 
 
 6,089,970 
 
 703, 837 
 
 20, 022, 000 
 
 6,699,010 
 
 198, 847, 000 
 
 69, 664, 100 
 
 7, 190, 148 
 
 183, 503, 000 
 
 64, 225, 700 
 
 7,771,840 
 
 278, 232, 000 
 
 00, 775, 0(1 
 
 143, 709, 000 
 
 44, 549, 790 
 
 6, 406, 785 
 
 140, 949, 000 
 
 63, 151, 130 
 
 0,631,921 
 
 202, 583, 000 
 
 60, 774, 900 
 
 126,712,000 
 
 34, 212, 240 
 
 5, 242, 979 
 
 76, 547, 000 
 
 28, 323, 390 
 
 6, 924, 566 
 
 158, 180, 000 
 
 41, 128, 300 
 
 106, 129, 000 
 
 21,225,800 
 
 3, 805, 168 
 
 93, 1.50, 000 
 
 27, 945, 000 
 
 4, 097, 067 
 
 144, 317, 000 
 
 31, 727,7,' 
 
 4, 262, 000 
 
 2, 642, 440 
 
 156, 752 
 
 4, 703, 000 
 
 2, 868, 830 
 
 155, 181 
 
 4, 314, 000 
 
 3, 010, Hi;o 
 
 178, 000 
 
 133, 500 
 
 6,673 
 
 182, 000 
 
 lie, 480 
 
 7,140 
 
 101, 000 
 
 109, 480 
 
 22, 000 
 938, 000 
 
 16 72c 
 
 863 
 
 24, 000 
 
 14,880 
 590, 940 
 
 
 
 
 409! 000 
 
 31, 267 
 
 938, 000 
 
 34,' 394 
 
 777,'66o 
 
 442,' 800 
 
 67 OOC 
 
 53, 600 
 5, 847, 850 
 
 3 11] 
 
 69, 000 
 20, 992, 000 
 
 38 350 
 
 
 
 
 15, 805i 000 
 
 636^ 120 
 
 7, 347, 200 
 
 '"'737,' 899 
 
 ""ii',m,m 
 
 "'6,'269,'2';0 
 
 42 OOC 
 
 28, 140 
 
 14, 300 
 
 681, 100 
 
 1, 989 
 
 56, 000 
 25, 000 
 
 33, 000 
 
 
 
 
 22,' 000 
 973, OOO 
 
 '90^ 
 
 15, 000 
 
 
 
 
 51, 050 
 
 970, 000 
 
 698, 400 
 
 63,' 609 
 
 992,' 600 
 
 hei'jm 
 
 267, 000 
 
 160, 200 
 
 13, 197 
 
 285, 000 
 
 213, 760 
 
 33, 600 
 
 480, 000 
 
 306, 180 
 
 88, 000 
 
 60, 000 
 
 3,375 
 
 74, 000 
 
 49, 580 
 
 6,100 
 
 122, 000 
 
 70, 760 
 
 1,665,441,000 
 
 610, 311, 000 
 
 72, 392, 720 
 
 1,450,161,000 
 
 646, 106, 770 
 
 76, 672, 763 
 
 1, 987, 790, 000 
 
 677, 661, 580 
 
982 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 TOBACCO. 
 
 
 1879. 
 
 1880. 
 
 188L 
 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 "9"alue. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 2,900 
 6,900 
 2,860 
 
 20, 300 
 40, 800 
 
 113, 400 
 
 21, 400 
 
 4, 360, 000 
 9, 660, 000 
 2, 432, 760 
 29, 617, 700 
 25, 826, 400 
 86, 524, 200 
 11, 898, 400 
 
 $478, 500 
 1, 159, 200 
 
 291, 930 
 2, 066, 693 
 1, 291, 320 
 4, 326, 210 
 
 832, 888 
 
 3,242 
 10, 070 
 
 5,136 
 29, 739 
 26, 726 
 118, 821 
 63, 229 
 
 4, 927, 840 
 15,487,660 
 
 6, 572, 800 
 34,854,108 
 18,841,830 
 78,421,860 
 35, 721, 385 
 
 $739, 176 
 
 2, 323, 119 
 788, 736 
 
 3,485,411 
 1,318,928 
 6, 273, 719 
 
 3, 215, 186 
 
 3,291 
 
 8,763 
 
 6,037 
 
 33,080 
 
 38, 265 
 
 139, 663 
 
 66, 071 
 
 2,023 
 
 40, 286 
 
 4,112 
 
 23'?, 911 
 
 30, 760 
 
 10, 760 
 
 5,062 
 
 10,015 
 
 13, 950 
 
 6,170 
 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 MarvlaiKl 
 
 Vir<;mia 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 
 55, 200 
 
 2,850 
 
 160, 000 
 
 21, 000 
 7,900 
 7,000 
 6,300 
 
 22, 700 
 
 2,600 
 
 44, 160, 000 
 
 1, 876, 300 
 126, 880, 000 
 
 14, 091, 000 
 6, 636, 000 
 4, 550, 000 
 6, 474, 900 
 
 16, 050, 100 
 
 2, 251, 600 
 
 2, 208, 000 
 112,518 
 
 6, 344, 000 
 845, 460 
 331, SOO 
 273. 000 
 656, 988 
 762, 505 
 
 157, 612 
 
 38, 603 
 
 4,071 
 
 224, 087 
 
 35,489 
 
 10, 042 
 6,574 
 9,168 
 
 14, 120 
 
 3,800 
 
 24,319,890 
 
 2, 898, 6,"i2 
 149, 017, 866 
 
 38,434,687 
 7,609,030 
 
 3, 912, 948 
 11, 396, 824 
 11, 027, 720 
 
 2,850,000 
 
 2, 188, 790 
 
 318, 811 
 
 10, 131, 260 
 
 2, 306, 075 
 380, 151" 
 195,047 
 
 1, 367, 499 
 882, 218 
 
 199, 500 
 
 "West Virpinia 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Indiana 
 
 
 "Wisconsin 
 
 
 AU other States and 
 TeiTitories 
 
 Total 
 
 492, 100 
 
 391. 278. 350 
 
 22, 727, 524 
 
 602, 616 
 
 116, 296, 889 
 
 30, 414, 016 
 
 640, 239 
 
 
 States. 
 
 1884. 
 
 1885. 
 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 2,730 
 
 8,064 
 
 5,386 
 
 25, 991 
 
 41,811 
 
 149, 495 
 
 69, 600 
 
 2, 18.) 
 
 45, 048 
 
 4,149 
 
 276, 139 
 
 35, 983 
 
 12, 812 
 
 5,736 
 
 14, 663 
 
 16, 170 
 
 8,706 
 
 3, 715, 000 
 9, 481, 000 
 8, 162, 000 
 34, 143, 000 
 31,255,000 
 99, 763, 000 
 31, 858, 000 
 
 1, 111, 000 
 31,392,000 
 
 2, 3«, OOO 
 208, 692, 000 
 
 29, 349, 000 
 9, 318, 000 
 
 3, 944, 000 
 
 14, 300, 000 
 
 15, 810, 000 
 
 3, 808, 000 
 
 $463, 230 
 
 1, 175, 644 
 
 979, 440 
 
 3, 585, 015 
 2,281,615 
 7, 382, 462 
 
 4, 008, 670 
 
 83, 325 
 
 2, 197, 440 
 
 224, 928 
 
 15,651,000 
 
 2,113,128 
 
 024, 306 
 
 270, 080 
 
 1, 464, 720 
 
 1, 201, 560 
 
 450, 088 
 
 2,594 
 
 7,661 
 
 6, 7:13 
 
 23, 392 
 
 43, 065 
 
 161,445 
 
 77, 952 
 
 2,294 
 
 46, 850 
 
 4,100 
 
 265, 093 
 
 30, 7u3 
 
 13, 324 
 
 6,908 
 
 27,127 
 
 16, 493 
 
 8,096 
 
 3, 798, 000 
 12, 066, 000 
 10, 231, 000 
 23, 392, 000 
 2-1,552,000 
 
 107, 711, 000 
 37,117,000 
 
 1, 606, 000 
 20, 939, 000 
 
 2, 7(i2, OCO 
 200, 423, 000 
 
 33, 767, 000 
 9, 593, 000 
 4, 963, 000 
 31, 196, 000 
 14, 614, 000 
 
 4, 783, 000 
 
 $435, 714 
 1, 496, 193 
 
 1, 023, 410 
 
 2, 456, 100 
 
 2. 084, 303 
 7, 970, 649 
 
 3, 006, 198 
 112, 400 
 
 1,885,713 
 
 211,411 
 
 13, 012, 526 
 
 2, 127,306 
 803, 396 
 146, 645 
 
 2, 903, 625 
 
 1, 015, 969 
 
 573, 936 
 
 2,594 
 7,292 
 5,833 
 28, 695 
 4,1, S92 
 161,397 
 76, 141 
 2,409 
 49, 629 
 4, 398 
 251,838 
 36, 805 
 22, 645 
 10,710 
 24, 229 
 10, 053 
 
 6,750 
 
 New York 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Virginia 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 ATkn.Tisnq 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 "West Virginia 
 
 Ohio....' 
 
 Indiana 
 
 
 Missouri 
 
 All other States and 
 Territories 
 
 Total 
 
 724,668 
 
 541, 604, 000 
 
 44, 160, 151 
 
 752, 520 
 
 662, 736, 000 
 
 43, 265, 698 
 
 750, 210 
 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 TOBACCO. 
 
 983 
 
 1881. 
 
 1882. 
 
 1883. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 5, 000, 064 
 
 $760, 144 
 
 2,962 
 
 4, 260, 819 
 
 $531, 352 
 
 2,814 
 
 4, 038, 278 
 
 $533, 063 
 
 13, 763, 759 
 
 2,202,201 
 
 8,665 
 
 9, 772, 269 
 
 1, 270, 396 
 
 8,145 
 
 0, 676, 824 
 
 1, 292, 871 
 
 6,291,217 
 
 880, 770 
 
 8,059 
 
 9, 761, 386 
 
 1, 170, 166 
 
 5,440 
 
 9, 068, 789 
 
 1, 178, 943 
 
 38, 806, 661 
 
 6, 044, 736 
 
 29, 772 
 
 31, 014, 520 
 
 3, 725, 343 
 
 28, 879 
 
 36, 322, 099 
 
 4, 358, 662 
 
 25, 869, 218 
 
 2, 069, 537 
 
 39, 030 
 
 29, 232, 216 
 
 1, 763, 933 
 
 40, 693 
 
 31, 670, 793 
 
 2, 052, 102 
 
 77, 649, 854 
 
 6, 077, 907 
 
 143, 853 
 
 89, 297, 332 
 
 6, 518, 705 
 
 129, 900 
 
 67, 865, 972 
 
 5, 429, 278 
 
 24, 827, 532 
 
 3, 3.nl, 716 
 
 64, 482 
 
 32, 275, 792 
 
 3, 873, 095 
 
 00, 000 
 
 29, 048, 213 
 
 3, 031, 027 
 
 979, 922 
 
 83, 313 
 
 2,124 
 
 1, 175, 906 
 
 99, 952 
 
 2,300 
 
 1, 100, 000 
 
 95, 700 
 
 22, 157, 300 
 
 1, 683, 964 
 
 41,897 
 
 31, 020, 220 
 
 2, 078, 355 
 
 40, 221 
 
 28, 638, 602 
 
 1,712,316 
 
 2, 066, 531 
 
 175, 655 
 
 4, 236 
 
 2, 169, 858 
 
 216, 986 
 
 4,108 
 
 1,952,872 
 
 206, 052 
 
 163,037,700 
 
 14,347,316 
 
 243, 227 
 
 198, 906, 994 
 
 15,912,480 
 
 230, 116 
 
 171, 059, 155 
 
 14,711,087 
 
 36, 419, 913 
 
 2, 833, 593 
 
 33, 819 
 
 33,648,917 
 
 2, 365, 424 
 
 32, 128 
 
 29, 947, 636 
 
 2, 395, 803 
 
 7, 719, 373 
 
 678, 952 
 
 11, 298 
 
 9, 108, 800 
 
 637, 620 
 
 11,863 
 
 8, 471, 240 
 
 636, 343 
 
 3, 346, 195 
 
 274, 387 
 
 6,163 
 
 3,818,124 
 
 307, 850 
 
 6,679 
 
 3, 165, 462 
 
 252,437 
 
 8, 703, 770 
 
 1, 087, 846 
 
 11, 250 
 
 10,443,324 
 
 1, 253, 199 
 
 12,760 
 
 6, 743, 828 
 
 031,821 
 
 12,233,959 
 2, 008, 146 
 
 1,016,418 
 
 
 
 
 16, 400 
 8,307 
 
 10, 640, 000 
 3, 645, 978 
 
 895, 900 
 443, 977 
 
 316, 892 
 
 22, 686 
 
 17, 132, 012 
 
 1,*485, 094 
 
 449, 880, 014 
 
 43, 372, 336 
 
 671, 522 
 
 513, 077, 558 
 
 43, 189, 950 
 
 638, 739 
 
 461, 645, 641 
 
 40, 465, 362 
 
 1886. 
 
 1887. 
 
 1888. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 4, 231, 000 
 
 $593, 340 
 
 2,464 
 
 3, 511, 000 
 
 $596, 904 
 
 2,404 
 
 3, 893, 120 
 
 $486, 640 
 
 11, 667, 000 
 
 1, 633, 380 
 
 6,198 
 
 ■ 9, 173, 000 
 
 1,311,745 
 
 6,136 
 
 9, 602, 840 
 
 1, 248, 369 
 
 7, 583, 000 
 
 872, 045 
 
 6, 776 
 
 7, 628, 000 
 
 876, 645 
 
 6,179 
 
 6, 487, 950 
 
 778, 554 
 
 34, 951, 000 
 
 4, 124, 218 
 
 28, 121 
 
 40,213,000 
 
 6,031,955 
 
 19,500 
 
 24, 180, 000 
 
 2, 587, 260 
 
 25, 238, 009 
 
 1, 640, 470 
 
 41,697 
 
 20, 603, 000 
 
 1, 463, 148 
 
 33, 775 
 
 14,016,025 
 
 770,914 
 
 91, 189, 000 
 
 6, 383, 230 
 
 132, 346 
 
 79, 408, 000 
 
 6, 352, 608 
 
 127, 052 
 
 64, 034, 208 
 
 3, 842, 052 
 
 31, 559, 000 
 
 2, 998, 105 
 
 60, 113 
 
 29, 16.5, 000 
 
 2, 915, 481 
 
 57, 107 
 
 25, 765, 257 
 
 1, 931, 644 
 
 2,108,000 
 
 158, 100 
 
 2,361 
 
 1, 228, 000 
 
 196, 435 
 
 2,408 
 
 1, 165, 840 
 
 80, 909 
 
 31, 763, 000 
 
 1, 905, 780 
 
 45, 659 
 
 26, 254, 000 
 
 2, 756, 062 
 
 67, 119 
 
 45, 640, 920 
 
 3,651,274 
 
 2, 749, 000 
 
 192, 430 
 
 3,958 
 
 2, 216, 000 
 
 281, 493 
 
 6,620 
 
 4, 496, 000 
 
 359, 680 
 
 193, 915, 000 
 
 11,634,900 
 
 196, 434 
 
 115, 896, 000 
 
 13, 907, 527 
 
 323, 408 
 
 283, 306, 284 
 
 21, 247, 971 
 
 36, 333, 000 
 
 2,473,310 
 
 31, 284 
 
 19, 210, 000 
 
 1,731,669 
 
 39, 105 
 
 35, 191, 500 
 
 2, 745, 171 
 
 14, 880, 000 
 
 892, 800 
 
 8,450 
 
 3, 718, 000 
 
 185,900 
 
 18, 253 
 
 16, 153, 020 
 
 1,130,711 
 
 6, 168, 000 
 
 369, 480 
 
 3,320 
 
 1, 494, 000 
 
 149, 400 
 
 4,648 
 
 2, 946, 832 
 
 223, 969 
 
 23, 744. 000 
 
 2, 374, 400 
 
 11, 050 
 
 11,271,000 
 
 1, 239, 810 
 
 13, 813 
 
 12, 846, 090 
 
 1, 220, 379 
 
 11, 959, 000 
 
 837, 130 
 
 12,842 
 
 6,421,000 
 
 643, 100 
 
 14, 126 
 
 IS, 108, 938 
 
 1, 048, 714 
 
 3, 610, 000 
 
 386, 100 
 
 6,548 
 
 2, 816, 000 
 
 337, 877 
 
 6,613 
 
 2, 975, 850 
 
 312,464 
 
 532, 537, 000 
 
 39, 468, 218 
 
 598, 620 
 
 386, 240, 000 
 
 40, 977, 259 
 
 747, 326 
 
 666, 794, 264 
 
 43, 606, 665 
 
984 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 STATEMENT OP J. S. VAN DUSER. 
 
 Mr. J. S. Van Dfser next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairnuiu and gentlemen, Mr. Schroeder has attempted to show to the commit- 
 tee that the prodncers of cigar leaf tobacco are asking for something impracticable 
 and unreasonable. 
 
 He boldly declares that the farmers instead of suffering injury from the introduc- 
 tion of this foreign wrapper tobacco are better off to-day than before it began to come 
 into this market. He seeks to have you believe that manufacturers are using more 
 American-grown fillers in place of the Cuban filler, which compensates for the loss 
 in the use of American wrapper by the introduction of the Sumatran. 
 
 He gives tables of so-called statistics to verify his statements. It is enough to say 
 for his figures, wherever he obtained them, that so far as they can be compared with 
 the official census reports they do not prove trustworthy. For instance, he states the 
 product of tobacco in Wisconsin for 1879 at 5,474,900 pounds. The official census 
 states the product for that year at 10,608,423; quite a discrepancy. In Connecticut 
 he puts the 1879 product at 9,669,000, and on page 670 of the first part of the Tenth 
 Census it is given as 14,044,652 pounds. There is a like discrepancy between his fig- 
 ures and those of the official census for each of the other States mentioned. As to the 
 price per pound for the several years after 1879 no reliance can be placed upon them, 
 for at the best they are estimates, whieh, the farmers in the several States know are 
 very far from correct. Mr. Schroeder's own statements go to disprove his figures, for 
 he has explained how the quality of the crops in the various sections fluctuates from 
 year to year, making Connecticut the favorite one year and Pennsylvania the next, 
 etc., and yet from lb79 to 1885 there is a variation in the annual price of Wisconsin 
 tobacco according to his figures of only one-half cent per pound. The price is ex- 
 actly the same in 1879, 1880, 1882, 1883, and 1884, while there is but slight variation 
 in the prices given in any of the States. A collection of estimates and tables that 
 would fill a volume the size of an unabridged dictionary will not change the fact 
 that during the present decade a foreign wrapper tobacco has been imported into this 
 country that has almost wholly displaced the cigar wrapper-, of our own growth. 
 
 Seven million pounds, Mr. Schroeder stated, were imported in 1889. This would 
 wrap, at the estimate made by Mr. Schroeder, 2,333,333,000 cigars. He states in his 
 paper that the Havana wrappers imported last year would wrap 120,000,000 cigars. 
 Add the 120,000,000 Havana wrappers to the 2,333,333,000 of Sumatran wrappers, and 
 we have a total ot imported wrappers in 1889 amounting to 2,453,333,000. We made 
 nearly 4,000,000,000 cigars. This leaves about 1,500,000,000 cigars to be covered with 
 domestic wrappers. Five-eighths of all our American cigars were wrapped with for- 
 eign wrappers, whereas eight years ago more than nineteen-twentieths of tbem were 
 wrapped with home-grown tobacco. Can such a change be brought about without 
 the home producerfeeling its harmful eflect on his industry ? Remember it is the cigar 
 wrapper in our domestic crop that makes it profitable. And the most intelligent and 
 painstaking growers who have provided at great expense every facility in the way 
 of improved curing sheds, rooms for assorting, improved machinery, implements, and 
 devices, as well as choice varieties'of seeds, who have given years of study and research 
 in increasing their knowledge and perfecting their methods, find that as the market 
 DOW stands all is of no avail, for the carelessly-grown crops are worth as much as the 
 best, for all are rated as binder and filler. The dealer may get fancy prices for a large 
 portion of the fillers, as Mr. Schroeder has explained, or he may put oft' some of the 
 fancy selected wrajjpers to be worked ou cigars as Sumatran wrappers, but the 
 farmer fails to get any of these advantages. He sees no way out except by the inter- 
 vention of the tariff, by which importations of foreign leaf, prepared by cheap coolie 
 labor, may be restricted. 
 
 Mr. Schroeder in his zeal makes his statements most too broad at times. He very 
 naturally favors a uniform duty of 35 cents on all foreign tobacco, but when he de- 
 clares that he believes that any higher rat6would*be injurious to all business interests 
 concerned, including the producer, he says too much. 
 
 Then when he calls your attention to the danger of compelling the American peo- 
 ple to stop smoking by driving them back to domestic-wrapped cigars through the 
 workings of a protective duty, he carries his agreement to an absurd length. Cer- 
 tainly no harm could be done this nation by checking the smoking habit. Why could 
 he expect the committee to hesitate about protecting an important industry for fear 
 of checking a habit out of which few make money. 
 
 Mr. Schroeder atti-mpts to make his case still stronger. He says, "You might as well 
 expect to force the American who has acquired the habit of drinking imported wines 
 and champagnes to take kindly to being forced to substitute the coarser wines 'pro- 
 duced in this country by prohibiting the importation of the foreign article. You 
 would much reduce the consumption and injure the farmer in the end." 
 
 Here appears his solicitude for the farmer again. The farmer could not stand aliii- 
 
REVISION OP TfiE TA&IFf. 985' 
 
 tie prosperity which profection would bricg. It would iujure him in the end. As to 
 the wine : The importers of foreign tobacco can probably afford to gratify a taste for 
 foreign wines. But he seems to say between the lines, " cold water ought to satisfy 
 the groveliug farmer. It is the only safe beverage for the tiller of the soil." 
 
 Again says Mr. Schroed^r, " Tobacco will be raised in the United States whenever 
 the farmer can get as much or more for tobacco as the result of his labor as for other 
 products." There is some truth in this, but if you are going to let foreign tobacco 
 come into this market unhindered, to displace the only part of the American crop 
 which sells above the cost of production, there can be but one result, the wiping out 
 of the cigar leaf-tobacco production as an American industry, and crowding the to- 
 bacco-growers back into the production of other farm staples, just as by taking off 
 the protective duties from cigarssou would annihilate that industry. 
 
 Mr. Schroeder says, "The production will be as a rule equal to' the demand, and 
 when you protect tobacco by a duty equal to the whole cost of production, which in 
 no State in the Union, except in Florida, is more than 12 cents per pound, you have 
 done all you possibly can for the farmer." 
 
 We are therefore to understand that the present tariff rate of 35 cents per pound 
 is three times too high. Still Mr. Schroeder has said that he owns a tobacco farm in 
 Florida, and that where he grows tobacco is the only place where the cost exceeds 
 12 cents per pound. Therefore, we infer that on account of high prices for labor in 
 Florida Mr. Schroeder is willing to let stand the present exorbitant tariff. It is 
 fortunate indeed for the growers of New York, Now England, and other sections 
 of the North that Mr. Schroeder has embarked in tobacco growing, else he would 
 demand a reduction of the tobacco duty to 12 cents per pound. But according to his 
 theory, no one but the Forida growers will receive any benefit from the excess of 
 duty over 12 cents per pound, and we should therefore think his unselfish interest 
 in the consumers and the cigar operatives would lead him to sacrifice any possible 
 gain to himself and still insist on bringing the duty down to 12 cents per pound. 
 Let me ask Mr. Schroeder, is protection a sham or does protection protect? Is it 
 possible to build up, defend, or restore an industry on American soil by preventing 
 the products of cheap foreign labor from supplying our market, or is it all an idle 
 dream? Does not the duty on cigars protect the American manufacturer? Why 
 not, according to Mr. Schroeder's theory, put the tariff on cigars at 40 cents per pound 
 instead of $2.50 per pound, and leave off t be ad valorem 25 per cent.? This would 
 amount to the cost of the cheap German cigar. The trouble with M. Shroeder and 
 with a great many city people is that ho looks upon the farmer as a veritable " beast 
 of burden." He (the farmer) should be satisfied if he gets enough to eat, however 
 plain and coarse, and should uncomplainingly suffer hardships, the result of unjust 
 and unequal laws, if only those laws are supplying the conditions which will pro- 
 tect the favored ones in the enjoyment of their luxurious living, their foreign wines 
 and champagnes." 
 
 Mr. Schroeder's zeal lets us into one of the tricks of the trade. He tells us that 
 at least 50,000 cases of our domestic fillers, weighing from 300 to 400 pounds per 
 case, are annually used by the cigar manufacturers of this country, and adds, "No one 
 knows the difference." According to Mr. Schroeder, 20,000,000 pounds of American 
 filler tobacco, for which the farmer has received from 1 to 3 cents per pound, has 
 been smuggled into " pure Havana-filled cigars " and takes the place of 20,000,000 
 pounds of Havana filler, which would have cost the manufacturer |l per pound, or 
 $20,000,000. The profits of the transactions are shared in this way by the. farmer 
 and the middlemen. 20,000,000 pounds at say 2 cents equals $400,000 as the farmer's 
 share. It costs the farmer $2,400,000 to grow it at 12 cents per pound. The manufact- 
 urers and dealers get what is left, or $19,600,000, and Mr. Schroeder thinks the farmer 
 ought to rejoice over this increasing demand for his filler tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Schroeder's statement may be true. The American smokers may be defrauded 
 'in buying for Havana- filled cigars those that contain only such tobacco as the farmers 
 have sold at 1 or 2 cents per pound. But the farmers are not partners in the scheme. 
 They do not seek such partnership. It may be that cigar-filler tobacco can be profit- 
 ably grown in Florida, but the cigar-leaf growers must get profit from that part of 
 their crops required for cigar wrappers or their industry is gone. As well destroy 
 the market for flour and try to make the miller believe that an increased demand for 
 bran, by reason of it being used to adulterate spices or other food, will be as well for 
 him. The farmers have seen how high tariff rates of duty have kept out foreign com- 
 petition and how they have built up and enriched other industries, and they believe 
 they have one industry at least that is in peculiar and pressing need of this same 
 kind of national protection. 
 
 Note what Mr. Schroeder says about the rapid advance in the prices of tobacco from 
 1863 to 1870. "The reason for the advance in price after 1863 to the year 1870 is 
 found, fijst, in the premium ou gold, while tobacco was sold for currency ; and in the 
 enormously rapid increase in the manufacture of domestic cigars, caused by the taxiff 
 Of ]S63, Tvhich 80 raisrd the duty on cigars as to shut Germany entirely from our mar- 
 
986 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Ifet, closing- a nnmlier of factories in that country, employin graany thousand oper- 
 ators, who had np to that tiiui; almost -.vholly supplied this country." If, as Mr. 
 Schroeder says, the high tariff of 1863 did just what it was expected to do, shut out 
 cheap German cigars, and restricted the importation «{ the better grades, why will 
 not a high tariff on cigar wrappers in 1890 shut them out ; and if they are shut out, 
 why don't it follow that the American farmers will have to raise the leaf to take 
 their place, and why won't prices be restored ? It is true that home competition will 
 ultimately affect prices, but we do not complain of this, for all American producers 
 have to pay American wages ; besides, wherever the tobacco is grown on American 
 soil our country receives the benefit. 
 
 The same home competition exists to-day amang American manufacturers of cigars. 
 But take off the protective duty, and how long before those German factories, closed 
 by the tariff of 1863, would be again in full blast, again supplying the coveted Amer- 
 ican market f That tariff of 1863 placed a minimum duty on cigars of nearly -$4(l per 
 thousand, when the German cigars were sold in our market without duty at from 
 $5 to |10 per thousand. 
 
 And those German cigars would be sold here at these prices to-day if the duty 
 were removed. Sumatran tobacco costs nearly $1.50 per pound to import without 
 duty. If the farmers were given the same measure of protection against it which 
 the cigar manufacturers were given in 1863 against German cigars, the rate of duty 
 would be fixed at over $6 per pound. Mr. Schroeder has sought to convey the irii- 
 pression that American-grown wrappers never were fit for the purpose for which they 
 were used. But the fact remains that previous to the introduction of Sumatran 
 wrapper in 1882 American-grown wrappers were almost exclusively used on American- 
 made cigars. 
 
 It is also true that the 10-cent cigars sold in our market previous to 1882 (not- 
 withstanding the fact that they had to pay a much higher internal tax than is now 
 required) were really better than the 10-oent cigar you can buy to-day. It is also a 
 fact that American-grown wrappers are as a rule much finer, more carefully and expen- 
 sively grown and handled to-day than before 1882, when they were almost exclusively 
 used. It is true that the crops of some seasons are much better in quality than of 
 others, and that preference is properly given to the prodnct of different sections in 
 different years, owing to weather conditions, etc. But the essential fact remains, 
 that as long as American growers are protected in growing the wrapper leaf our great 
 market requires, we will all have an equal chance for preference and a hope for our 
 chosen industry. 
 
 But Mr. Schroeder again attempts to show that the farmers have not been injured. 
 He says, " Our importations have constantly increased, and increased importations 
 have made no diiference in our home market, as far as the price of the home product 
 is concerned. Domestic tobacco has held its own, and tobacco farmers have done a 
 little better even during the last three years than formerly." Who knows better 
 about this, Mr. Schroeder or the farmers themselves? Mr. Schroeder is too intelligent 
 a man to believe what I have quoted above. When a foreign article has so effectually 
 superseded our own product that it supplies the place of two-thirds of the only part 
 of that product that is salable above the cost of production, it does not need any 
 argument to prove that an injury has been done and that producers of the home 
 product mnst suffer. 
 
 The tables of yearly prices are misleading and totally unreliable, as an examination 
 of market reports or actual sales in any tobacco-growing section for the years named 
 would show ; but if they were correct, there might still be loss to the producer, for in 
 the growing of finer varieties, more plants to the acre, requiring an increased amount 
 of labor, prices that would have been profitable ten years ago would now leave loss 
 to the grower. 
 
 Mr. Schroeder's figures as to production are not to be relied upon, as I have shown 
 from the census reports for the year 1879, but if they, too, were true, and if it were a 
 fact that nearly as much tobacco is grown now as was grown eight or ten years ago, 
 the fact would remain that there should have been an increase to have kept pace 
 with the growth of the cigar industry, and would have been, had the prevailing prices 
 afforded a profit. We should be producing more tobacco than we produced eight 
 years ago and the fine quality we are now ijroducing should bring higher prices. I 
 stated before the committee that the tobacco raisers have added from 3 to 5 cents per 
 pound to the cost of raising their crops of tobacco during the past few years. For 
 in8t.ance, in the early days of tobacco growing, tobacco was sorted into but two 
 grades and this was done as it was stripped from the stalk. No examination of the 
 separate leaves was made. The small bottom leaves wore put into the filler grade 
 and all the rest into the higher grade for wrappers and binders. This operation was 
 simple and inexpensive, costing not more than one-half or 1 cent per pound. But the 
 practice now is to strip ofl'theleaves with great care, put them up in bundles wrapped 
 in paper, and these bundles are carefully ranked away to be sorted during the winter. 
 In this process each leaf is opened and carefully examined and put in the grade to 
 
EE VISION OP THE TARIFF. 987 
 
 ■which it belongs. It is quite commoD to sort into eightor nioe grades " AA" (first- 
 class wrappers), long, medium, short ; "A" (second-class wrappers), long, medium, 
 short, and binders, which are sometimes put into two or three sizes, and iillera. I 
 am told that in Connecticut whole packings have been sorted into as many as seventeen 
 separate grades. This work at the prices paid for labor in this country costs much 
 money. We can not do here what is practicable in countries where labor costs only 
 from 5 to 10 cents per day. Nor can we compete in the production of leaf tobacco 
 with raisers and handlers who get their labor at these rates. It is an easy thing to 
 say that tobacco raisers have done better the last three years than formerly. Mr. 
 Schroeder's remarking it does not make it so. The empty pockets and depl-eted bank 
 accounts, ay, the increased debts of the farmers (all in spite of rigid economy), dis- 
 prove his statements. 
 
 " But," adds Mr. Schroeder, "while the farmer has not done worse the American peo- 
 ple have had better and more wholesome cigars." If it were possible to marshal the 
 great army of American cigar smokers of teu or fifteen years standing, I would cheer- 
 fully submit this statement to their verdict. I most emphatically believe the cigars 
 of the higher cost to the smoker are not only not better but not as good as they were 
 ten years ago. 
 
 Sumatran tobacco, it is everywhere admitted, of itself would make an intolerable 
 cigar. Mr. Schroeder says much of our tobacco is being used to displace fine-flavored 
 Havanafiller. It is therefore better than formerly. How then can Sumatran •wrap- 
 pers make the cigars any better? But Mr. Schroeder makes such statements as are 
 pleasing to his mind. He does not think it necessary to spend much time in proving 
 them. Consider this statement: "And even the tobacco farmers themselves, who 
 smoke cigars, respect their own product, and have taken kindly to the combustion 
 of what they consider their archenemy." So far from the truth is this statement that 
 in tobacco-growing districts there are cigardealers who have even to this day refused 
 to handle the Sumatran-wrapped cigars. Tobacco-growers who smoke get a cigar 
 with domestic wrapper whenever they can, and so would the vast army of smokers 
 were they guided by their own taste in the matter. One would hardly think Mr. 
 Schroeder would make such statements sincerely. The picture of the tobacco farmer 
 enjoying the combustion of his arch enemy is a happy one, but it is stated in most 
 toomnch of a matter of fact way to be funny, and if not funny it was not worth say- 
 ing. 
 
 Listen to Mr. Schroeder again : " I have said that the prices of corn, cotton, and 
 potatoes govern the price of tobacco." Of course farmers won't raise tobacco which 
 requires large outlays for sheds, fixtures, and labor if they can make as good a profit 
 from corn or potatoes. Mr. Schroeder would evidently have the farmers interpret his 
 meaning to be: "If you don't like the profits you get from growing tobacco under the 
 35-cent duty, why just try your hand at corn and potatoes." 
 
 Suppose 1 retort, "If you, Mr. Schroeder, don't think you can make sufficient money 
 out of dealing in Sumatran tobacco with |2 a ponud duty to enable you to live on 
 foreign champagne and a kindred diet, you can trydigging sewers or shoveling coal for 
 a living." Mr. Schroeder is reported to have made one or more millions out of the in- 
 troduction of Sumatran tobacco in our market — more probably than all the 100,000 
 farmers engaged in growing cigar leaf tobacco have saved from their hard and 
 patient labor during these past seven years, and he has the hardihood to come to you 
 and tell you what is for the good of the tobacco farmers and what you can and what 
 you can not reasonably give them in the way of protection. It is certainly hnmiliat- 
 ing for intelligent American farmers to listen to such an address as that of Mr. Schroe- 
 der's. He practically says that we don't know enough to realize what is for ourowu 
 good. When in good faith and with confidence in the law-making power, as now con- 
 stituted, we ask protection for an industry that is being crowded to the wall by com- 
 petition with the product of pauper labor he turns upon us with the advice to raise 
 corn and potatoes. Has the American farmer no rights which the American million- 
 aire or the millionaire Jew is bound to respect? Is the farmer not worthy of consider- 
 ation when his interests threaten to interfere with the schemes of a speculator in the 
 products of cheap Chinese labor ? 
 
 Are we to patiently submit to all manner of burdens, and be called fools because in 
 our desperation we have come to the halls of Congress to ask that the policy of pro- 
 tection be made to include our own special industries? But Mr. Schroeder draws a les- 
 son from the policy of the German Government. He says, " The German Government 
 knows that a large import tax will not benefit the farmer, and while it follows a pro- 
 tection policy, it does not unreasonably increase the price to the manufacturer and 
 consumer. " Perhaps the farmer is treated in Germany so far as legislation goes as 
 he has been too long treated here. But in this country farmers are numerous. They 
 cannot be choked off by the sophistries of Mr. Schroeder. If their interests are not 
 considered in the future legislation, who can blame them if they cause changes in 
 party supremacy or governmental policy. 
 Mr, Schroedei teUs you that this Sumatran wrapper ia needed " to cover up and 
 
988 REVISION OF TflE TAEIFF. 
 
 make salable tbe commou growtU of our cold climate." Before the Sniuatran tobacco 
 was known in this country, "this growth of our cold climate" was used to cover the 
 aromatic and deliciously flavored tobacco of Cuba. Now our "common tobacco of 
 this cold climate" is found to be so good in flavor that it is substituted for Havana 
 fillers and covered up with the Sumatran wrapper. There is no trouble about rais- 
 ing wrappers in this country enough to cover "our common growth" but also to 
 cover the Cuban filler as well. 
 
 But Mr. Shroeder, in his brief history of the rise and fall of tobacco prices in 
 America, tells us, "The farmers prospered; they sent their daughters to boarding- 
 school and their sons to college ; they loaded their farms with debt, feeling confident 
 of their ability to pay it off' in a few years." What right had the farmer to think of 
 sending his daughters to boarding-school or his sons to college f They should be kept 
 upon the farm struggling to produce wealth to be amassed by their friends— the 
 speculators of the city, according Mr. Schroeder. 
 
 It is wrong to permit legislation which might embarrass a man in gratifying his 
 appetite which by habit long indulged, had became partial to foreign wines and 
 champagne, but the farmer who would seek to have his industry saved to him, that 
 he might continue to educate his his sons and his daughters, is presuming to ask 
 something unreasonable of your committee and to seek encouragement in an extrav 
 agance not to be tolerated as belonging to his position in the business affairs of the 
 country. 
 
 Has Mr. Schroeder an adequate conception of the farmer's importance in the in- 
 dustrial plans of this great people ? Without the producers of wealth what would 
 the speculator have to feed upon t Would it not be well to inquire as to what has be- 
 come of the daughters who were sent to boarding-school and those sons who went to 
 college 1 What if the tobacco crops have failed to bring profit I What if financial 
 misfortune has overtaken some or many of the self-sacrificing New England farmers 
 who dared to educate their sons and daughters ! It is fortunate, indeed, that the chil- 
 dren have been saved from the wreck. They have not proved failures, else where 
 would our great commercial cities get their renewals of wealth, of mind, strength, 
 and ambition from year to year. The children of those who live on foreign wines 
 are not equal to the onerous burdens which belong to great enterprises. 
 
 As Mr. Schroeder approaches his tables he makes another happy fli ng at the farmer. 
 He says: "The talk and agitation among farmers on the Sumatran question has 
 doubtless led many of tbe unthinking to refrain from growing tobacco, and iu that 
 way they have been injured." Yes, the farmers by their agitation and talk have done 
 whatever injury has been done. No one has stopped growing tobacco because it 
 ceaaed to be profitable. Farmers are most apt to bo influenced by talk which has for 
 its purpose protection to their industry. Why, if the talk and agitation has had any 
 effect it has encouraged farmers to cling to the industry and to continue to grow 
 tobacco, because of the belief that sooner or later Congress would come to their relief 
 and put up the bars against their foreign enemy. 
 
 Mr. Schroeder says the farmers received better returns for their tobacco in 1887 and 
 1888 than in 1882 and 1883. It is false. The same quality of tobacco was sold by the 
 farmers at much better prices in 1882 and 1883 than in 1887 and 1888, Mr. Sohroeder's 
 figures to thecontrary notwithstanding. I sold my 1883 crop at IS cents though, audit 
 was not worth within several cents per pound as much as my 1888 crop, which I sold 
 at 13 cents. Both were sold at about the same time of the year. The same is true of 
 other tobacco districts. 
 
 After various explanations and comments on his array of figures Mr. Schroeder says 
 solemnly, " But mark my words, nothing but a prohibitive duty of at least $3 per 
 pound will cause any material reduction in importations. You may annoy the im- 
 porter, the manufacturer, and the smoker, but yon can not benefit the farmer, and a 
 prohibitory duty will ruin all for some years, farmers as well as manufacturers." Mr. 
 Schroeder is given to strong and solenm statements, but if you examine them closely 
 you can not fail to see they are more ridiculous than solemn. How, indeed, is a pro- 
 hibitory duty on the article that competes with his product going to ruiu a farmer 
 for some years? How is it going to ruin the smoker for some years, especially when 
 in another sole&in moment Mr. Schroeder assures us that such duty would cause the 
 smoker to cease smoking entirely? Now, the farmers boldly invite such ruin. They 
 face the danger without a quiver. Take Mr. Schroeder at his word and make the duty 
 $3 per pound, and I pledge you no American tobacco grower will be here asking for a 
 removal of the duty " for -some years to come." Mr. Schroeder depicts in quite glow- 
 ing sentences the growth of the American cigar industry which followed the pro- 
 hibitory tariff' on cigars passed in 1803. 
 
 A similar protection against wrapper tobacco might bring joy and gladness and 
 profit to the patient grower of the weed. When you prepare a dish of ruin like that 
 described by Mr. Schroeder, just let the farmers have a taste of it. He thinks per- 
 haps such talk will frighten ns " unthinking " farmers, as he has seemed to bebeve 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 989" 
 
 that many Buch have given up tobacco raising because of the " talk upon the Sumat- 
 ran question " by their neighbors. 
 
 Mr. Sohroeder continues to harp upon his " corn and cotton theory. " Toward the 
 close of his paper he says of the coarser Southern tobacco, "The supply is most always 
 equal to the demand, and the value of com and cotton controls the price of this prod- 
 duct just as it does that of cigar leaf tobacco." Yes, the price of cotton in the South 
 has a good deal to do with the price of cigar leaf tobacco m New England and Wis- 
 consin, and the price of corn in the grea.t cereal producingWest must closely regulate 
 the price of lugs in the Virginias and Mississippi and other Southern States which pro- 
 duce about 300,000,000 pounds of their peculiar tobacco in excess of this country's 
 needs. 
 
 Mr. Schroeder mildly reminded the committee of his suits pending against the Gov- 
 ernment for all duties paid by him in excess of 35 cents per pound. He has paid the 
 duty, added it to the cost of the tobacco, sold the tobacco at prices to cover cost, duty, 
 profit, etc., and now proposes to collect back the duty for which his customers have 
 re-imbursed him. He stated to the committee that no tobacco was 85 per cent wrap- 
 per ; that is, the stem on every leaf is more than 15 per cent, of its weight, and on 
 this ground he expects to win his suits. He wishes to exaggerate before your minds 
 the difficulties of a tariff that would discriminate between fillers and wrappers. I 
 am glad he called especial attention to " percentage clauses, " for I believe they 
 shomd be avoided. But I further believe that it is perfectly practicable to formu- 
 late a tariff that will place a high duty on wrapper tobacco and not necessarily inter- 
 fere with filler goods. 
 
 Chinese laborers are excluded from our country. They are prohibited, yet that 
 prohibition is of small avail if the products of their labor which compete with articles 
 of our own production are not also prohibited. In the tropical climate where the 
 Chinese coolie works in the tobacco-field, he lives on next to nothing and works for 
 the merest pittance, 5 to 10 cents per day. Why, our wages for farm hands are 
 2,000 per cent, higher. We have never asked for a duty higli enough to even up 
 the rates of wages. We have never asked forenough to prohibit the product of coolie 
 labor. It ought to be excluded. The duty ought to be prohibitory. It ought to be 
 ^ per pound. We have promised to be satisfied with $2. 
 
 STATEMENT OP P. R. DIFFENDERPPER. 
 
 Mr. F. E. DtPFENDERFFER, secretary of the Pennsylvania Tobacco Growers' Associa- 
 tion, appeared before the committee and said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I desire to say at the outset that in 
 seeking for increased duties on imported cigar tobacco, I do not do this in the inter- 
 ests of revenue. On the contrary, the tobacco-growers would only be too glad if not 
 a single dollar from this source ever found its way into the Treasury to increase the 
 surplus. 
 
 Bear in mind there is no political bearing in what we ask. The tobacco farmers 
 in fifteen States ask for increased duties, irrespective of politics. Who is benefited 
 by the present rate of duty ? The answer is, a few hundred makers of high-priced 
 cigars. Who will be benefited by a higher duty ? Thousands of farmers and farm 
 laborers in the unbroken line of States reaching all the way from Massachusetts to 
 Wisconsin. 
 
 Our friends, the Sumatrau importers, tell me a high duty will not give us what we 
 wish; that this tobacco will come in let the duty be what it will. We regard this 
 view as absurd. We believe protection protects. We know it answers that purpose 
 80 far as our woolens, our cottons, and our countless other industries are concerned. 
 By parity of reasoning we cannot see why it will not answer the same purpose in this 
 case. Besides, if the importers are so certaiu that they will continue to import high- 
 priced foreign wrappers let the duty be what it may, why don't they give us a 
 chance to put our views to the practical test f That is all we ask. If we are wrong 
 they will have lost nothing and we will be convinced of our error. 
 
 That protection does protect, even in this tobacco matter, circumstances have 
 already proved. In 1883, under the old law, 3,818,931 pounds of Sumatrau tobacco 
 were imported ; then the 75-cent law came in and during the year 1864 the importa- 
 tions fell off to 603,536 pounds— five-sixths in a single year. 
 
 I wish to distinctly impress upon this committee the very important fact that 
 while the major portion of the Sumatran im])ortations come into this country under 
 the filler rate, there are no Sumatran fillers brought here at all. They are utterly 
 worthless for cigar-making purposes. The street gamin who gets all his smoking 
 from the stumps he fishes out of the gutter, would turn away with Infinite scorn from 
 the offer of a cigar made solely of Sumatran tobacco, if he knew the true character 
 of the article.. Jt follows, therefore, that every ponud of Sumatran tobacco that has 
 
990 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 come into tbe country at the filler duty, since the present law went into operation, 
 has come in in clear violation of the intentions of those at whose instance the law was 
 framed. The legislator who drew it thought he knew better what would suit us than 
 we did ourselves, changed the phraseology we gave him, and the consequence has 
 heen that tobacco-laden vessels from the Netherlands have sailed right through the 
 law without let or hindrance ever since. The Government has lost immensely inrev- 
 enue by it while the growers have been crowded to the wall all along the line from 
 the East to the West. 
 
 Of all the 42,?..')4 bales of Sumatran wrappers brought into this country last year 
 every one has been a wrapper bale, and yet three-fourths of the entire lot came as 
 fillers and paid filler duty. A more outrageous swindle was never perpetrated on the 
 Government. 
 
 Let us glance at the results of this Sumatran invasion. Ten years ago, in 1879, we 
 had the most profitable tobacco season ever known in Pennsylvania, and doubtless 
 it was the same all over the country. The East Indian enemy had as yet created no 
 alarm. The farmers made money, paid off their mortgages, and were happy. Then 
 this foreigner came in, slowly at first, but this year to the extent of 42,354 bales. 
 What has been the result ? Our domestic crop of last year lies in the hands of grow- 
 ers, unsold, unasked for. How has it affected my own county of Lancaster ? lu a 
 good year we grow 45,000 cases. We have as much there now, but there is no sale 
 for it. The 42,354 bales which have come from the Netherlands this year equal about 
 7,410,950 pounds, but 1 pound of these goods will cover as many cigars as 3 pounds 
 of our domestic article, so we get what is equivalent to 22,235,850 pounds of pure 
 wrappers or far more than the total product of Lancaster County. In short, the en- 
 tire, magnificent yield of my county and State has been displaced by this unwel- 
 come intruder. Yea, more. The importation this year equals the entire wrapper 
 production of New England and Pennsylvania combined. Let us go a step farther. 
 The United States Tobacco Journal, tbe persistent advocate of low-rate duties, some 
 time ago asserted that there were not more than 25,000 cases of first and second 
 grade wrappers grown in the country last year. If this be true, then our importa- 
 tions of Sumatran wrappers already exceed the entire wrapper-leaf product of the 
 country. Is further comment needed ? Is it any wonder there is no longer a demand 
 for domestic wrappers ? 
 
 We have over 9, 000 farms in Lancaster County ; three-fourths of them grow tobacco. 
 Every farm has at least one tobacco barn — not a shed, but costing from $500 to many 
 timesthatsum. Mauyhavetwo. Withinsightof my ownhomeisone that cost$5,000. 
 Our farmers have millions of dollars invested in tobacco barns and apparatus. All 
 this is now threatened. We have one hundred and twenty-five tobacco warehouses 
 in the county. Most are fine, large brick structures costing much money. All this 
 investment is also threatened. Our tobacco is worth more to us than our wheat crop, 
 although we are a great wheat-growing county. Do you wonder that these many 
 thousands of farmers request us to come here and tell you this story, and ask you to 
 give them relief — that relief which they believe will come through protection and 
 through that only ? 
 
 I wish briefly to allude to another objection to an increased duty on foreign cigar 
 tobaccoes, heard principally from manufacturers. How much protection do you ask, 
 they say ? Ain't several hundred per cent, on the value of the home-grown article 
 enough f Let us examine and see who getsmost protection, the farmers or these grum- 
 blers ? We take as a basis the amount of tobacco that enters into the composition of 
 1,000 cigars. Here is the manufacturer's protection; we have taken the average 
 weight of Havana-made cigars and their average cost: 
 
 One thousand cigars, weighing 12 pounds, at |2.50 per pound $30.00 
 
 Twenty-five per cent, ad valorem on an average cost of $50 12. 50 
 
 42.50 
 
 I desire to state the above are ofBcial figures furnished by the collector of customs 
 at the port of Philadelphia within a week, therefore their accuracy is indisputable. 
 
 Now let us see to what extent the farmer and grower are protected in their domes- 
 tic product. Here is their side of the case. 
 
 Twenty pounds Havana fillers, at 35 cents per pound $7. 00 
 
 Three pounds Sumatran wrappers, at 60 cents per pound '. 1. 80 
 
 8.80 
 
 Eight dollars and eighty cents as against $42.50, or $33.70 more for the manufact- 
 urer than the farmer gets. It would be siruple justice to equalize these accounts more 
 nearly. Does it appear unreasonable to you that we should ask you to re-adjust the 
 account? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 991 
 
 There is another point -wliioli I tnist your forbearance will allow me to explain. 
 The importers and cigar manufacturers allege the Sumatran tobacco has become a 
 necessity in this country. Is that so ? Let us see. The cigar industry of this conn- 
 try was on a very substantial as well as profitable basis ten or twelve years ago. 
 Then all our home-made cigars were wrapped with domestic leaf. The cigars gave 
 satisfaction, and no one dreamed that a few years later a foreign wrapper would be 
 insisted on as a necessity. We grow as good an article to-day as we did then. It has 
 been said we can't grow as good tobacco as we did a dozen years ago. We deny the 
 assertion. On the contrary, we grow better goods. Our barns, our appliances, and 
 our methods are better than they were then, and so is our product. Fashion now de- 
 mands a better-looking cigar, but does not get a bettor one than then. The domestic 
 linsey-woolsey is discarded for the foreign broadcloth. It does seem to smack a little 
 of the ridiculous for our friends the importers and manufacturers to tell us that the 
 cigar wrapper leaf used in this country for a century has all at once become next to 
 valueless, and that we must have a foreign article to replace it. 
 
 The halcyon days of the domestic tobacco-growers were just before the Suinatran 
 article came among ns. From 20 to 30 cents were paid for entire crops of seed-leaf 
 wrappers, seconds, and fillers ; now we are getting from 8 to 12 cents for seed-leaf 
 wrappers, with the fillers thrown in. As it costs about 9 cents per pound to grow, 
 the margin of profits may be easily estimated. It remains also to say that tobacco 
 is the most risky of all crops — encounters more dangers than all others. 
 
 The domestic tobacco-growers are handicapped in this contest with Sumatran 
 tobacco. The latter, as all know, is grown exclusively by wealthy syndicates, em- 
 ploying cheap coolie labor on cheap lands, which reduces the cost to a minimum. 
 Their profits are phenomenal, while the home grower can barely manage to make 
 both ends meet on his tobacco field. I hold that the American tobacco-grower is en- 
 titled to the same protection against the foreign tobacco producer that the American 
 cigar manufacturer now has against his foreign rival. 
 
 One thing more, and I am done. The farmers bear their full share of the burdens 
 of taxation as uncomplainingly as any other class, even when tariff legislation seems 
 to bear unequally upon them. From the nature of their pursuits it is but rarely that 
 they ask for special favors. They now come, therefore, with all the more confidence, 
 asking your kindly oflSces in securing to them the stability and permanence of almost 
 the only profitable pursuit left them. Their case demands no subtle demonstrations ; 
 they believe it tells its own story. The tobacco growers of Pennsylvania also ask for 
 the abolition of the internal-revenue laws relative to tobacco in all its forms. They 
 believe these to be detrimental in many ways, but more especially by preventing a 
 fuller development of the cigar-making industry. There are at the present moment 
 1,850 cigar manufacturing establishments in the ninth district, with an annual out- 
 put of 274,132,250 cigars. This couldbelargely and rapidly increased by the removal 
 of the many vexatious restrictions now imposed by law. 
 
 To prove that protection does protect, I will mention the fact that in 1883, before 
 this law went into operation, there were imported 3,819,931 pounds of Sumatra wrap- 
 pers. In 1884 the imports fell off five-sixths as a result of the new law, when it was 
 enforced. We grow as good an article to-day as we did then. Our tobacco is better now 
 than it was then. Our methods of raising tobacco are better now, and our tobacco 
 throughout the country is better. While three-fourths of all the Sumatra tobacco that 
 came into this country during 1888 came in as fillers, the fact remains that no Sumatra 
 fillers were brought here. The Sumatra tobacco is bitter. We cannot smoke it at all. 
 You have to disguise the outside wrapper by putting on a binder. I think three-forths 
 of all the Sumatra importations have come in as fillers. There never was a greater 
 outrage upon the farmers than that. This Sumatra tobacco cuts up more advantage- 
 ously for the purposes of the manufacturer. Sumatra is fine throughout. It cuts two 
 wrappers to the leaf. It takes 20 pounds of it to make a thousand cigars. I will say 
 that I got this from the custom-house in Philadelphia on last Saturday. Therefore, 
 these figures are official. They are the ofiicial amount of cigars entered at the port 
 of Philadelphia during the last year. The average cost at the port of Philadelphia 
 last year was $50 per thousand. The ad valorem duty is $12.50 additional. That 
 makes a total |62.50, and it is an enormous protection to the manufacturer. Now we 
 get 8 to 12 cents apound for seed-leaf wrappers. Three times out of four the tobacco- 
 man will throw in 'the fillers. You can get them for the asking. Tobacco-growing 
 is the most risky of all crops. No other crop has so many disasters as that has, which 
 makes it a doubly risky crop. That is all I have to say. 
 
992 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OP P. R. DIPPBNDERPPER. 
 
 In addition to the argument already submitted to the committee, I beg leave to 
 make a few additional remarks chiefly to expose the fallacies contained in the ad- 
 dress of Mr. Schroeder. 
 
 He admits that " you may by a prohibitive duty compel the American smoker to 
 smoke the American wrapper tobacco." Iq saying this he concedes the entire ques- 
 tion and directly contradicts the views of his low-duty colleagues, who have asserted 
 Snmatran tobacco can not be kept out of the country. 
 
 It is the merest fody to assert, as he does, that tokeepoutSuraatran tobacco would 
 be to decrease the consumption of cigars and "injure the farmers in the end." I 
 merely have to say the farmers of Peunsylvania are very anxious to make this inter- 
 esting experiment, and if it proves a failure they are willing to assume all the blame 
 themselves. 
 
 He says ' ' tte American smoker wants, as a rule, a 5 or a 10 cent cigar." No w, would 
 an additional cost of $5 per thousand, which a $2.50 duty per pound on Sumatran 
 wrappers would entail, increase the cost of 5 and 10 cent cigars to the consumer? 
 Every person at all familiar with the subject knows it will not. There is an enor- 
 mous proht in high-priced cigars at retail, and an increased duty on Sumatran wrap- 
 pers would not affect the retail price a single mill ; and if it did, would it prevent the 
 men who he says want high-priced cigars from buying them ? He answers the ques- 
 tion himself in the negative. 
 
 An increase of the duty on wrappers it is alleged, " will result in the manufacturer 
 reducing the quality and cost of his filler to make up for the difference in the price" 
 (of wrappers). There is nothing to substantiate such an assertion. The sharp rivalry 
 between manufacturers would eflfectually prevent such a course. The argument does 
 not merit serious consideration. 
 
 When Mr. Schroeder asserts " you can not help the grower to get a better price by 
 putting a higher duty on foreign tobacco than you could by increasing the duty on 
 tea and coffee," he utters what every school-boy knows is not so. Is not the grower 
 of sugar and the maker of iron helped by the duty put on foreign-made sugars and 
 iron ? Does not the same rule operate alike in every case, and why will it not give 
 the tobacco-grower the same assistance it confers on the Louisiana planter? But 
 even here he contradicts himself, for in the same breath he exclaims " you may by a 
 large increase in the duty, temporarily, for a year or two, advance the price." Give 
 ns the opportunity of getting this advance and we will run the chances of making it 
 permanent. 
 
 It is almost impossible to read with a sober countenance the assertion that the price 
 of corn and potatoes will regulate the price of tobacco. As well might he assert that 
 the price of corn and potatoes regulates the price of sealskins and tombstones. The 
 industry of the American farmers is a diversified one and can never run in the direc- 
 tiou of an exclusive crop. 
 
 It is certainly a novel idea to assert that a wrapper weighing a few grains may 
 make a bad cigar, while twenty times its weight used as a filler may produce a cigar 
 of excellent quality. 
 
 • He describes in detail how increased duties on cigars shut out the German article 
 which came to ns, created a demand for domestic leaf which could hardly be supplied, 
 and made the tobacco industry prosperous. Can he deny the shutting out of Sumat- 
 ran leaf would produce the same results no w ? The cases are identical, and like causes 
 produce like results. 
 
 He asserts that "long before Sumatran leaf appeared the price of domestic leaf had 
 found its true level," and yet his own statistics show that in 1881, a year in which 
 503,47.5 pounds of Sumatran leaf were imported, farmers realized higher prices than 
 they over did before. 
 
 lie further declares "domestic tobacco has held its own and tobacco farmers have 
 done a little better even during the last three years than formerly." His own quoted 
 figures disprove his assertion. He admits it costs 12 cents per pound to grow cigar 
 tobacco, and yet I have before me at this moment a list of twenty-nine sales made in 
 this locality within the last ten days, twenty-three of which are under that figure, 
 averaging 7} cents, showing that the tobacco was grown at a loss in a large majority 
 of the sales made. Most farmers can not hold their tobacco ; they must sell at current 
 prices, let the result be what it will. Do these sales show the "farmers have done a 
 little better even during the last three years?" 
 
 The declaration that farmers reject their own product and take to Sumatran tobacco 
 is an assertion no attempt is made to prove ; it can not be proved; it is without the 
 slightest foundation in fact. 
 
 Far on in his argument Mr. Schroeder asserts it is fallacy that a high duty will 
 shut out Sumatran wrappers, forgetful of the fact that he had previously admitted 
 that it would have that effect. But we turn from his own contradictions and remind 
 
KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 993 
 
 him that an increase of the duty from 35 to 75 cents per pound in 1884 cut down the 
 Sumatran importations tive-sixths. 
 
 Mr. Schroeder declares "the increased importation of Sumatran leaf has no dam- 
 aging etfect on the value of tlie home product." Every man who appeared before your 
 committee testiiied emphatically to the contrary. Such a reckless assertion is simply 
 astounding. 
 
 Nowhere does Mr. Schroeder show his incapacity to deal fairly with this question 
 more than when he attempts to contrast tobacco-growing and the prices realized with 
 corn-growing and what it nets the farmer, The two crops admit of no comparison. 
 It costs the Pennsylvania farmer perhaps $25 to growanacre of corn, and if he makes 
 a good crop he may realize |140 from it. The planting, cultivation, and harvesting 
 are simple operations, and nearly all can be done when opportunity offers. Not so 
 with tobacco. It is the most uncertain and risky of all crops. From the time the 
 seed is sown until it is cured in the shed, it is a period of unceasing vigilance 
 and toil with the tobacco-grower. Seldom does a day pass that he is not in his field 
 early and late. The enemies of his crop are legion, and no amount of care can avert 
 more or less damage. A good farmer will pat from $100 to 1150 worth of material and 
 labor on a single acre. Is he not entitled to results commensurate with his labors 
 and his outlay ? To contrast corn-growing with tobacco-growing is to compare the 
 fitful light of the fire-fly with the splendors of the aurora borealis. 
 
 Time fails me to note all the fallacies and contradictions to be found in Mr. 
 Schioeder's argument. He repeatedly declares a high duty will not keep out Suma- 
 tran tobacco and as often declares that it will. He admits prices of domestic leaf 
 have declined and he attempts to show why, and then repeatedly asserts that in the 
 face of the large importations of Sumatran goods " domestic cigar leaf tobacco has 
 advanced in price in every State." One tires in exposing these glaring inconsist- 
 encies. 
 
 Finally, he cautions Congress against enacting another law like the one now in 
 existence, which he say^i can not be enforced. Why can not it be enforced? Because 
 his friends the importers of Sumatran leaf have tried every means cupidity and cun- 
 ning could suggest to evade it and defraud the Government. These men have packed 
 their tobacco in such a way as to avoid the payment of the duty the law imposes. 
 They have suits now pending against the Government for charging 75 cents a pound 
 duty on Sumatran wrappers, which they claim should have come in under the filler 
 rate, when the whole world knows not a pound of Sumatran fillers is ever brought 
 into the country. Mr. Schroeder is in the habit of holding up these peuding suits at 
 every hearing in terrorem as it were, informing the Governm<"nC how much it will event- 
 ually have to return to the poor, ill-treated and defrauded importers. I respectfully 
 submit it is time to give us a rest on this phase of the question. If the importers 
 had given that honest obedience to the law they should have done, they would not 
 come here to twit the Government about its contiuuous evasions. 
 
 But I do not apprehend there will be any dilficulty in framing a new law that will 
 hold even a New York importer and compel him to pay the duty the statute imposes. 
 I ask in behalf of the growers of Pennsylvania in the first place a law which shall 
 recognize two classes of tobacco and two only, the two classes indicated by nature 
 herself — wrappers and fillers. I ask for them in the second place a law which shall 
 more nearly equalize the protection received by the cigar manufacturer and the. 
 tobacco grower. Mr. Schroeder is apprehensive men competent to distinguish 
 fillers from wrappers can not be found. Let him possess his soul in peace. I will 
 undertake to find hundreds of men in my own district amply qualified for this duty. 
 They are to be found everywhere. I have shown in my earlier argument that the 
 duty received by the manufacturer is |42.50 on every 1,000 cigars, while the farmer is 
 protected only to the extent of |8.80. This is an unfair and unjust discrimination. 
 Instead, I ask that the growers shall be protected in this wise on the material that 
 enters into 1,000 cigars : 
 
 Twenty pounds Havana fillers, at 50 cents per pound |10. 00 
 
 Three pounds Sumatran wrappers, at |4 per pound 12. 00 
 
 22.00 
 
 Even these rates would still cause the manufacturer an advantage of more than 
 $20 over the tobacco farmers. 
 
 In 1861, if I am not mistaken, the protection of the cigar manufacturer was only 
 $12.20 per 1,000 cigars. Repeated changes in the tariff have increased that sum to 
 142.50, where it now is. The only attempt to benefit the grower in all that time was 
 to increase the duty from 35 to 75 cents, and even that proved a dismal failure. 
 
 A law that will prove satisfactory to the growers of domestic leaf everywhere, and 
 which I do not believe even the cunning of a Sumatran importer will be able to 
 evade, is one that imposes a duty of f 4 per pound " upon all tobacco in any bale, box, 
 package, or bulk, any pi^rt of w|4iQh ia snittible for wrappers if not stemmed, aud 
 
 ■ ' 485^-63 
 
994 BE VISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 ■when stemmed |5 per pound upon the entire contents of such bale, box, package, or 
 bulk ; on all other tobacco in leaf, unmanufactured and not stemmed, 50 cents per 
 pound; if stemmed, 75 cents per ponnd. Such a law could not only be easily en- 
 forced, but would, I feel sure, raise a most important agricultural industry from a 
 state of deplorable depression to its former prominence and prosperity. 
 
 Mr. Ertheiler, the speaker immediately preceding me, wiis emphatic in his state- 
 ment to your committee that the case of the domestic farmers was desperate. Like 
 the rest who demand lower duties, he literally bemoaned their fate. 
 
 Yet, while moaning over us, he actually advocated a reduction of the present duty 
 to 50 cents per pound. 
 
 He said to you, as did others, that a duty of |l per pound will not keep the Suma- 
 tran inrader out; that a |2 duty even would give >is no relief, and that a $3 duty 
 might temporarily check the importations. He and his friends have themselves indi- 
 cated what the duty should be — what is required to give the home growers protec- 
 tion. These men have indirectly advocated our cause, and we thank them for it. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. NUDECKBR. 
 
 Mr. Nddecker next appeared before the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am in favor of the entire aboli- 
 tion of the internal revenue tax. The rules and regulations under the revenue laws 
 are about as expensive as the tax itself. Tobacco costs 2 cents to put it up. Take 
 the same without the rules and regulations, and it could be put up a great deal cheaper. 
 Ofsmoking-tobacco, 95 per cent, is sold in small 2-ounce packages. The law requires 
 four packages — 2, 4, 8, and 16 ounces. The great bulk is sold in 2 ounce packages. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You would not favor a reduction of the duty and a retention of 
 the machinery ? 
 
 Mr. NuDEOKEE. The machinery is what we want to get at. If you collect the tax, 
 yon must have the machinery. You can not keep one without the other. The inter- 
 nal revenue tax on tobacco creates monopolies. I do not believe that can be success- 
 fully denied. The rich farmers come here and ask for protection ; but the poor man 
 can not come here unless be walks, and he may not have any shoes. Now, leaf can 
 not be sold. Our warehouses are full. I am a broker, however, and I represent 
 three large firms, from which I get extraordinary dividends every three months. Is 
 that a business for a Government which claims to be the free Government of the 
 United States? If this is not a monopoly, there is none. I know that cigars can be 
 made in the garret. The poor man can manufacture a cigar. Mr. Jones may buy 
 his leaf at 2 cents, make cigars, and pay his grocery bill with it ; and a man can go 
 in and smoke his cigar for 2 cents. The only thing we need is a cigar two for a 
 cent. The cigar which to-day sells for two for 5 cents retail will be sold for 1 cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How do you make that ? 
 
 Mr. NuDECKBR. I can figure it for you. The present price is two for 5 cents. The 
 internal revenue tax is 3 cents. There are 2^ cents on the leaf. Labor is 20 cents, 
 box ten labels 11, labor 5, manufacturers' profit 15 ; jobber's profit |1.45. Of 
 that kind of a cigar we sell 20,000 or 30,000 a month. They nearly all retail two for 
 5 cents, without the tax. There would be2i cents worth of leaf, 30 cents in labor, box 
 5, manufacturer's profit 5 cents, jobber's profit 5 cents, total 75, or at retail $1 — every- 
 body happy, and the common leaf worked up. At present the common leaf can not 
 be worked up. The leaf sold at present at 2 cents will be worth 4 cents without the 
 tax. We claim that to repeal the internal revenue tax will benefit the whole 
 business ; but in all that it will benefit cheap labor, cheap growers, cheap everybody, 
 cheap mechanics — and they have but liitle now. A cigar-maker will go and buy that 
 class of leaf. He will make it upstairs, and put it down at 30 cents, with 5 cents for 
 profit. He can go home and work without any rent. He can do his work in hia 
 dwelling, and have his children to strip his tobacco. If he got 35 cents out of it be 
 would make a profit. 
 
 STATEMENT OF GEORGE M. TRADER. 
 
 Mr. George M. Trader, of Atlanta, Ga., and Danville, Va., next addressed the 
 committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and {jentlemen of the committee, we ask your committee to give us 
 an internal-revenue bill separate from every other bill, abolishing entirely the tax on 
 loliacco. We do not want it introduced, and have it hanipere<l by a tariff bill, or 
 any bill which will delay it. If a bill is passed Ave would want a rebate, and we 
 would [irefiT to have it take efffct by the 1st. of March, if possible— the sooner the 
 better— and we find that the longer you ]iut oH' the time for the taking effect of the 
 aw the greater the complications will be. Manufacturers' JigentB will go out and 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 995 
 
 Bell a bill of goods without saying about the rebate. Two or three months before 
 the rebate is to be collected he will ship the tobacco. The man goes on and uses a 
 little of the tobacco. A great many other agents have guarantied ihe rebates ; and 
 when the time expires, and the tobacco rebate is to be paid, the manufacturer 
 claims that he did not make a promise to pay a rebate in a good many instances. 
 
 The Chairman. Yon would want a rebate, and have it paid quickly ? 
 
 Mr. Trader. We would want the law abolished completely aud the rebate paid 
 quickly. 
 
 STATEMENT OF I. BIJUR. 
 
 Mr. I. BiJUK, of New York, next addressed the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, some of my friends the tobacco- 
 growers in the country have requested me to appear before you and state some facts. 
 I brought along no samples of tobacco to show you what tobacco is. I suppose you 
 all know what is meant by tobacco. I brought along no cigars to sliow you how 
 cigars ought to be made or anything that would take up your time. What I want 
 to present are the facts. 
 
 Now there has been a great cry about foreign tobacco. You are told such tobaccoes 
 do not interfere with the trade. It is said tlie farmer cUies not sutfer from the tobacco 
 brought from the Island of Cuba, because it coiitiiins very little wrapper. Others 
 maintain that the great injury which the farmers claim has been done to them has 
 been caused by the importation of Sumatra tobacco, but if you come to the true facts 
 of the matter you find that one class of tobacco comes from the West Indies and the 
 Island of Cuba, and the other class of tobacco comes from the East Indies, from the 
 Island of Sumatra, and between these two kinds of tobacco they commeuce aud iujure 
 us from both sides, the one from the West and the one from the East ludies. The ques- 
 tion is, whatiujury these tobaccoes have inflicted upon our growers. Now, gentlemen 
 came here and proved or intended to prove that all tobacco that comes from the West 
 Indies has hardly any eJfeot upon our growers; that that tobacco is no injury what- 
 soever; that that tobacco contains, as they claim, very little wrapper, and instead 
 of being an injury they claim that that tobacco has assisted in building up an ex- 
 traordinarily iarge trade and great industry; but at the same time they intend to 
 make the committee here believe that that tobacco is no injury whatsoever, pnd there- 
 fore to please let it alone. Do not touch it. But if you want to touch anything, 
 touch Sumatra. Keep it out; put the prices as high as you please, but be careful 
 not to touch us. Now you must not touch us. 
 
 Now you want to get at the true merits of the case. Mr. Burnett stated here that 
 there is no judgment in tobacco; that tobacco has to go through a certain process 
 before you are able to determine how much wrappers are contained in tobacco that is 
 brought from the island of Cuba. In order to do that you have to take and submerge 
 the tobacco. He brought some samples of different kinds. I brought none to show 
 you. If that tobacco is put in order and is examined you can see whether it contains 
 any wrappers and enough to be used for wrappers. Mr. Burnett comes here and states 
 that tobacco brought from the island of Cuba never in any way or manner interferes 
 with the growers of the domestic wrapper tobacco, V)ut assists it aud has helped to 
 build up a great trade aud great industry; that they employ 100,000 men a year to 
 manufacture that foreign article into cigars. If you want to get at the true fact 
 whether that tobacco contains any wrappers or not, all we have to do is just to see 
 it does or not. Now, 100,000 men employed in making cigars, each man would prob- 
 ably produce 1,000 cigars a week, and, if I am not mistaken, 100,000 would produce 
 in one year 500,000,000 cigars from that tobacco which is no iujui-y to our growers 
 at all, according to the statement of Mr. Burnett. It has helped to build up a great 
 city ; a city on a piece of land which is nothiug but sand, and with 30,000 people 
 who are also occupied in that industry, and I leave out those 30,000 people also en- 
 gaged in that industry and only claim these 100,000 men who are employed in manu- 
 facturing this foreign tobacco into cigars from the island of Cuba. On the other hand, 
 another gentleman made a statement, and he said : " Gentlemen, be careful ; do not 
 touch the Havana tobacco, because it is no injury whatever. The Sumatra tobacco 
 that comes to our country — that is the thiug that ruins us. Gentlemen, be careful 
 not to hurt innocent men." 
 
 The Chairman. What duty do you suggest on this '? 
 
 Mr. BijUR. I want to show where the injury is inflicted upon our growers. 
 
 The Chairman. What duty would yon suggest? 
 
 Mr. BiJUR. I shall come to that presently, if you please. 
 
 The Chairaian. You know we only have a limited time. 
 
 Mr. BiJUR. I will not detain you very loug. I will try to make it as short as I can. 
 
 The CiiAiii.MAN. There are a number of great interests here waiting to be heard. 
 
 Mr. BiJUJ;. I w.ts promised a hearing ycslerdiiy, liiit through no fault of mine I 
 was prevented from appearing liefore the committee. 
 
996 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 A Member. There are two gentlemen here from my own county, farmers of west- 
 ern New York, who are largely interested in the prodnction of potatoes. They desire 
 to be heard. One is Mr. Smith, and the other is Mr. Tolk, and, as I can not remain, 
 I will be glad if yon will hear them as soon as possible. 
 
 The Chairman. We will be very glad to bear them just as early as we can; as soon 
 as we get through with other interests. [To Mr. Bijur.] Proceed. 
 
 Mr. BijUR. It was stated here yesterday that Smuatra tobacco, no matter under 
 what oircnmstances, has taken hold of the country ; that no matter what price you 
 put as a duty on that tobacco, it will come in any how ; that it is an article with 
 which we can not dispense. That I deny. Now, the next question is not what that 
 tobacco is doing, but what injury it does. The answer is very plain. That tobacco 
 is crippling the industry of seven of the principal (States of the Union ; that is what 
 that tobacco does. Whether it comes from the island of Cuba or whether the tobacco 
 comes from the island of Sumatra, that is just what it does. It destroys the industry 
 of seven big States in our Government, and those seven big States, when the Govern- 
 ment was in trouble, were the first to make sacrifices to preserve the Uniou. These 
 people, the farmers of the seven States, threatened with annihilation, come before 
 you and ask you to help them, and I believe they are entitled to it. 
 
 Now, what is the protection they ask and what is the remedy ? That is a very im- 
 portant question. They came here three, four, and five years ago, in 1883, I think, 
 and asked for the same identical thing, and Congress gave them a hearing, and they 
 gave us in that connection a plain law which almost any child could understand, a 
 law which ought to be enforced, but I am sorry to say the executive power did not 
 see it in that light. If it had not been for that you would have cut oft' the first bale 
 of Sumatra that came to this market. Had the ruling of the Secretary of the Treasury 
 been as the law prescribed, the first bale of Havana wrappers and the first bale of 
 Sumatra wra^ipers would not have come to this country, and we would not be obliged 
 to-day to appear before you again and ask your kindness to interfere in our behalf 
 That law states plainly that leaves of a certain fineness shall pay 75 cents a pound. 
 For every leaf that is contained in a bale in excess of 100 pounds another duty shall 
 be imposed upon it. If it was less than 100 pounds, '.it> cents is exacted and no more; 
 anything more would be a violation of the law. Now, there w'as the ruling of the 
 Secretary of the Treasury. The law stated that the tobacco should be assorted, and 
 for over a hundred any such leaf of tobacco should pay 75 cents a pound, and if it 
 was under it should pay 35 cents a i^onnd. Had that law been carried out at that 
 lime we would not have seen such a muddle; the law was very plain. Que amouut 
 is brought in at 35 cents, another amount is brought in at 4'^j cents on an average, 
 and another amount is brought in as tobacco at, say, 50 cents on an average. The 
 first time any fine bales of tobacco .suitable for wrappers has been taxed at 75 cents a 
 pound was in 1880, when some was brought from Cuba. Now it is plain, if it is true, 
 as they claim, that there is very little wrapper in that Havana tobacco ; that it is too 
 thick and too large, as Mr. Burnett states; that out of every ten he gets a few wrap- 
 pers to make up his loss on his first and seconds 
 
 The Chairman. Will you be kind enough to state what you think is a remedy ? 
 
 Mr. BijUR. It is rather a difficult thing to state a subject in a few words which has 
 now been almost fifteen years in dispute and quarrel aiuong the growers. The rem- 
 edies for this are two. One remedy is, not to give the manufacturers of foreign leaf 
 the advantages they have. The manufacturer, so long as he sees an advantage in 
 one class of tobacco, just so long will he manufacture that class of tobacco. He 
 ■will take the tobacco which yields him the largest profit. If it is foreign tobacco, so 
 well and so good. He buys it and manufactures it, and he will drop the domestic 
 tobacco and go to the foreign. If the imported tobacco gives him the greatest advan- 
 tage, then he will drop the domestic tobacco and go to the manufacture of the for- 
 eign tobacco. The foreign article is whiit he wants. The dealer does not care one 
 way or the other. He will deal in one thing as well as another, provided he has his 
 orders trom the manufacturer what to give him. It is not material to the dealer 
 whether he deals in Sumatra, Havana, or domestic tobacco, so long as the manufact- 
 nrcr requires that tobacco. It so happens that the manufacturer who oxclusivcly 
 manufactures foreign tobaccos has much bettor protection than any manufacturer 
 "who would undertake to manufacture our domestic tobacco : and there is where the 
 trouble is. Now, what is the remedy ? It has been generally asserted that all cigars 
 manufactured from foreign tobacco have no competition because the duty on foreign 
 cigars is so high that no matter at what price they manufacture thl^ tobacco from the 
 leaf they are always protected, and can not compete against the foreign article. But 
 our manufacturers ought to have been protected from the .start. They are protected 
 against the foreign cigars. They have to face that new enemj', the manufacturers who 
 brought here exclusively foreign tobaccos. 
 
 It was found for the iirst time that any manufacturer who undertakes to manufact- 
 ure foreign tobacco for cigars in this country could manufacture tlu^m cheaper than 
 
 tl)i-',y ooulil do it Willi the tobncio riiisci! iu tliis couutiy, ami ho would have tw eaaiei" 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF'. 997 
 
 Sii/le oil account of the reputation of tho foreign tobacco. The manufacturer on ac- 
 count of the cheapness of that tobacco could manufacture cheaper thau our article, 
 and we could not comi)eto with the other. Aud so it Avas found there was no use for 
 the American wrapper. That article which used to pay the farmers for four or five 
 acres of tobacco as high as four or five, thousand dollars, in round numbers (they re- 
 ceived a dollar a.pouiid for tobacco), would sell in any quantity at 75 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What remedy do you suggent ? 
 
 Mr. BijUR. The remedies are two. Jt should be so regulated and taxed that the 
 manufacturer of foreign tobacco shall have no advantage between the cost of im- 
 ported cigars and the cigars manufactured here from the imported tobacco. If that 
 is given to the manufacturer he will drop that foreign tobacco just as quick as a hot 
 copper. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Aud the second remedy ? 
 
 Mr. BiJUE. The second remedy is to raise the tax on all tobaccos that come in com- 
 petition with our tobacco. How to do it is the difficulty. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That is what we are here for. 
 
 Mr. BiJUK. That is what I will explain. I believe I can if I am not interrupted. 
 Now, tobaccos are an altogether different production from any other production 
 known in the trade. The highest value of a pound of tobacco from Kentucky, under 
 the name known commercially as "fillers," may be very expensive at 2 cents a pound. 
 The same size tobacco brought in from the island of Cuba, not any larger and only 
 used for the same purpose, is cheap at 9U cents and $1 a pound. So there is a great 
 difference. Now, it was asked here yesterday whether 3.") cents a pound duty on 
 tobacco is not enough protection on tobacco that brings 8 cents a pound. There are 
 two questions. How far can our grower stand the raising of tobacco at the rate of 
 8 cents a pound? The next question is, where the protection is 35 cents a pound, 
 what protection is 35 cents a pound against that tobacco? The answer is very plain. 
 The one tobacco being dear at "2 cents, and the other tobacco very cheap at 90 cents 
 and $1 a pound, and of course the one does not bear any resemblance to the other. 
 The tobacco has to be judged by its intrinsic value. Every country and every island 
 produces tobacco different from that produced in any other country or any other isl- 
 and, and in every spot yon find the same, on the island of Cuba the same conditions. 
 You find tobacco worth 5 cents a pound, and dear at that. You will find tobacco 
 raised that is worth $4, ijjD, and ffC< a pound, and if there is a duty of 35 cents a pound 
 on all tobacco you will find tobacco worth 5 cents a pound pays in proportion the 
 same duty of 35 cents that tobacco worth $4, |5, and |6 a pound pays. If tobacco is 
 taxed at 35 cents a pound that comes from the island of .Sumatra, what is that tobacco 
 able to do ? I have shown to you that tobacco is able to destroy the industry of seven 
 extraordinarily large States, aud why? Because 3 jiounds of that tobacco is able to 
 cover 1,000 cigars, because that has a glossy and extra fine appearance. Three pounds 
 of Sumatra or Havana wrappers, which are much the same thing, would cover 1,000 
 cigars. Then 30 pounds of Sumatra tobacco or fine Havana wrappers would cover 
 just 10,000 cigars, and the work is very trifling on those 30 pounds of tobacco. 
 
 Now, it f/e want to imitate, which is the great object in our mannfacturing indus- 
 tries, especially of cigars, that identical cigar we would use domestic tobacco, which 
 would require 400 pounds. Of these 400 pounds the lowest estimate at which this 
 tobacco can be put into the manufacturers' hands would be 25 cents a pound. If 
 you have a rate of 8 cents a pound duty, the wrappers could not be sold at le.ss than 
 25 cents a pound. If any manufacturer undertakes to imitate those 10,000 cigars 
 made out of 30 pounds of tobacco, all he possibly, at the utmost, could get out of 
 400 pounds would be 10,000 cigars ; all the balance is destroyed. Its value is small. 
 It has hardly any value, say 5 or ti cents a pound. Then the next question will be, 
 will he be able to compete with cigars made of foreign tobaocoes? I claim not. The 
 advantage will be to the men who make 10,000 cigars from 30 pounds of these foreign 
 wrappers. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What do you think the rate of duty should be ? 
 
 Mr. BiJUR. To be on an equal footing with any foreign tobaccoes, the lowest esti- 
 mate of wrappers should be at .fS a pound. Then there will be protection to the 
 farmer. He can not compete with this imported article, because the imported article 
 is generally worth 60 cents, 80 cents, andfl a pound, and it is so uniform that there is 
 waste in that tobacco. Our waste from this tobacco which costs 25 cents would be 
 very great. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What rate do you think the dealers should pay ? 
 Mr. BijOR. That is a different question. I have not finished my first statement 
 yet. If there should be a protective taritt' on wrappers, between $3 and $5 would be 
 something of protection to the growers, and the minute that point is reached the 
 manufacturers will drop their foreign tobaccoes, because there would be no profit in 
 them, and they would go to the other. Now, the next question is the fillers. Fillers 
 I guess we could not change, because 35 cents is not too ranch. It does not hurt the 
 Bmoker when he gets a cigar when the tillers pay a tax of 35 cents. 
 
998 HE VISION OP THE TARIPP. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. So you think you should leave the tax on fillers at 35 cents, and 
 put the duty on wrappers at |3 to |5. 
 
 Mr. BiJUR. Yea ; in fact that will give the growers a chance to sell their tobacco. 
 Uuder the preseut system they can not sell it at all. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Are you a farmer or grower of tobacco ? 
 
 Mr. Bljdr. I am a packer of tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You are not a grower ? 
 
 Mr. BiJDR. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Where is your place of bnsiness ? 
 
 Mr. BiJUR. New York. 
 
 STATEMENT OF S. G. HUBBARD. 
 
 Mr. S. G. Hubbard, of Hatfield, Mass., president of the New Eagland Tobacco- 
 Growers' Association, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 I represent an orjranization which I thiuk was the first associati'm in the field. We 
 were organized in December, 188'2. We had just then seen the effect the Sumatra to- 
 bacco had upon our product. There was a large importation for the first time that 
 year, and our orgauizatiou sent delegates to Washington to see if we could not get a 
 law that would prevent that alarming increase of importation. We succeeded in 
 getting the rate of duty raised to 75 cents. I think the provisions of the law, with 
 which we were satisfied, is in the House revenue bill of the Forty-seventh Congress; 
 but before the committee of conference agreed on that bill it was reduced in the Sen- 
 ate bill to what the present law is. We did what we could to prevent its enactment, 
 but without avail. It was too late. 
 
 I want to say a word about the internal revenue tax. Our association have voted 
 repeatedly, year after year, asking for a repeal of the internal-revenue tax. We look 
 upon that as a tax upon the product of 12 cents a pound. It has been .said here that 
 the average value is about 8 cents per pound in the tobacco-growing States. If so, 
 that is a tax of 150 percent, on our product. The question has been asked, and I have 
 heard it asked here, if we did not have a pretty large percentage of protection. I 
 think it is very easy to show from the facts that it has no protection at all. Tiiis 
 growth of the foreign industry has resulted in spite of that, which shows that under 
 the protection of the present law it is simply a tarilf for revenue, and it is the unfor- 
 tunate condition of the agriculture of the United States that we have no protection 
 comparatively with other industries. There may be a fair protection on the rice and 
 sugar, but aside from that I claim that we have no adequate protection on onr agri- 
 cultural industries. The people are uneasy about this matter; we feel that Congress 
 ought to do something for the farmers, and so we appear here confident that you will 
 do something for us. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You w^ould keep the tax on, or raise it on the imported Havana or 
 Sumatra tobacco and cigars, or do yon think we ought to repeal the internal leveuue 
 on domestic tobacco? 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. I would like to see the internal-revenue tax repealed. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I mean on imported Havana and Sumatra tobacco. Would you like 
 see it raised or kept at the present rate ? 
 
 Mr Hubbard. We want to see it increased. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Do you mean on the manufactured cigars or on the raw material 
 or leaf tobacco ? 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. On all. We do not object to the protection the cigar manufacturers 
 have. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Do you ask to have it increased ? 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. No. I did not understand your question. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I stated 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Before you proceed on that point, you spoke of a tax on tobacco 
 being equivalent to 150 per cent., assuming it is worth 8 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. It would be 150 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Carllsle. That is on the cigars, not on the leaf. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. It amounts to just 12 cents. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. On the cigars? 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. On the tobacco used in the cigars. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. But you do not pay a tax ou the leaf tobacco used in cigars? 
 
 Mr. HuBBAitD. There is a Government tax of $;i a thousand. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That is on the cigars when they are made. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. That is on the basis of the tobacco of 2.') pounds to the thousand. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That is not imposed on the leaf until it is converted into the cigar. 
 In other words, the farmer does not pay it. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. We think that is indirectly the fact. 
 
HaVlSION OF THE TARIFF. 999 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Will you explain to the committee how it affects you in the end? 
 That is what I wanted to know. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. I think it would he appareut from the mere statement of it. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If it is so plain, please state to us how it is that the t.ix on the 
 manufactured tobacco is a tax on the farmer. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. I would like to read something which I have prepared here. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If you have something to re."id, of course I will wait until you get 
 through. 
 
 Tobacco, the seventh in importance, of agricultural prcductious of the United 
 States, requires a greater amount of labor in its growth aud preparation for market 
 than any other farm crop. Up to the year 1880 American tobacco furuished all the 
 domestic requirements in material for cigars, cigarettes, and manufactured tobacco in 
 all its varieties to supply the wants of our own people and a large export trade. 
 Tobacco for the finest cigars has always been au article of import from Cuba to a 
 limited extent. 
 
 The present tariff law on imported tobacco is in part as follows: 
 
 " Leaf tobacco, of which 85 per cent, is of the requisite size and of the necessary 
 fineness of texture to be suitable for wrappers, and of which more than one hundred 
 leaves are required to weigh a pound, if not stemmed, 7.5 cents per pound ; if stemmed, 
 $1 per pound. All other tobacco in leaf, unmanufactured and not stemmed, 35 cents 
 per pound." The law went into effect July 1, 1883. It was adopted at the close of 
 the Forty-seventh Congress in response to the requests of American farmers. The 
 law was framed by a cigar manunicturer, and was substituted in the revenue bill in 
 place of one the farmers had agreed upon, which is a part of the House revenue bill 
 of that Congress. See Congressional Record, vol. 61, 18h3, page '^066. 
 
 This remarkable law was so artfully worded and seductively introduced by an 
 enemy disguised as a friend of farmers, that it was adopted by the committee of con- 
 ference and became the law. There is no question that a majority of Congress at 
 that time intended to give our agricultural interests protection to the extent of 75 
 cents per pound against the Sumatra tobacco grown and controlled to this day by 
 grasping foreign syndicates and trusts. 
 
 This tobacco, used solely in wrapping cig<ars, has displaced to a large extent the 
 American wrappers since the year 1881. As tlie wrajiper grade is the only part of 
 their crop «hich pays a profit to Americans, this foreign competitor has driven hun- 
 dreds of farmers into bankruptcy and many others out of the business from the At- 
 lantic to the Mississippi, through the success of importers in evading the 7.5-cent rate 
 of the law, in spite of the extraordinary efforts of the Treasury Department to enforce 
 it. Statistics show that the law has been and still is practically null and void in its 
 75-cent per pound rate of duty. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1887, less than 
 one-half of 1 per cent, of the Sumatra wrappers imported paid a duty of 75 cents per 
 pound. It was expected after the new decision of Assistant Secretary of the Treasury 
 Maynard, which went into effect September, 1887, that a large percentage of this to- 
 bacco would pay the higher rate of duty. For the three mouths ending December 31, 
 1887, only 52,891 pounds paid the 75-cent rate of duty, which is not over ti per cent. 
 of the total amount imported, and the fact is known that the importers in every in- 
 stance filed appeals against the decisionsof custom-house appraisers when the tax was 
 assessed at the higher rate of the law. 
 
 Although checked by the late decision of the Secretary, the imports of Sumatra tobac- 
 co have reached alarming proportions. Daring the last calendar year they amounted 
 to more than 42,000 bales, and the foreign trustsorsyndicates that control thistoliacco 
 have made dividends of more than 200 percent, annually to their share-holders. These 
 facts clearly show the necessity of correcting the law and imposing a higher rate on all 
 imported wrappers, if Congress cares to protect American farmers and laborers against 
 the persistent encroachments of Chinese and Coolie labor which are represented in 
 this product of the East Indies. 
 
 Sumatra tobacco of the grades imported into the United States is sold in Amster- 
 dam, the port of export, at prices ranging from 75 cents to $2 per pound. 
 
 Would first call attention to the high rate of protection that has given prosperity to 
 cigar mannfactnrers. On imported cigars $2.50 per pound and 25 per cent, ad valorem. 
 One thousand cigars will average to weigh 15 pounds. The duty is 35 cents per pound 
 on leaf tobacco, amounting to $12.75. The duty, |2.50, and 25 per cent, ad valorem on 
 cigars, |47.50. Excess of protection cigars vs. leaf, $38.75 on each 1,000 cigars manu- 
 factured, which gives American m.anufacturers a complete monopoly. This statement 
 of facts should be kept in view while the committee are endeavoring to make a fair 
 and equitable adjustment of tariff duties for protection of the manufacturers of cigars 
 and domestic tobacco-producing industry. Previous to the year 1881 and back to the 
 war period all the material u,sed in the ordinary cigars was grown in the United 
 States. This tobacco then averaged to the farmers about 20 cents per pound ; 25 
 pounds of unstemmed leaf w.is required to make a thousand cigars and cost the manu- 
 facturer $6 to $10, paying an equitable profit to farmers and manufacturers. Since the 
 
1000 
 
 KEVlSlOK OF Tllii; TAfilE*F. 
 
 substitution of Sumatra for doiiiestit wrappers tlie American farmer, -while Still fnr- 
 uisliiug the bulk of material used as before shown, has been driven to the verge of 
 baulcniptcy. 
 The following statement will show conclusively the loss to farmers : 
 Since Sumatra tobacco has come into use as a wrapper the domestic wrapper has 
 been largely supplanted by this foreign product. The present taritf law has iuitsun- 
 justly low rates of duty on imported wrappers proved to be totally inadequate to 
 furnish protection to the farmers. Now, we call your attention to the following 
 proof: It takes the same number of pounds of tobacco when Sumatra wrappers are 
 used as it does when domestip tobacco alone is used, the relative cost being about as 
 follows: 
 
 Three pounds Sumatra, at $2.25 $6.75 
 
 Twenty-two pounds American, at 10 cents 2. 20 
 
 Total 8.95 
 
 Showing a loss of two-thirds of her market. 
 
 As compared with the first statement it shows a relative loss to our farmers, to 
 state it moderately, of $5 on each 1,000 cigars manufactured. We are now consider- 
 ing the common grade of cigars, which sell for about $20 per 1,000. The usefulness 
 of the cigar depends upon the aroma and quality of the American tobacco it contains, 
 and only on the Sumatra for its good looks externally, quality and aroma being en- 
 tirely deficient in the latter. 
 
 It is an unfortunate condition of our farmers that the present tariff on tobacco is 
 a tariff for revenue only, which favors the rich syndicates of a foreign nation and 
 impoverishes our own agriculture. 
 
 We are sent here to represent the great body of farmers in our respective States 
 who have contributed, each as he was able, a small sum to support us, their repre- 
 sentatives, to petition your body for relief. Some of us have been engaged in this 
 unpleasant work before the last thi-ee Congresses. Now, when we are making a final 
 effort we hope and expect our appeal wi 11 be heard. A tarift' rate of |2 on unstemmed 
 wrapper leaf tobacco, while not giving us anything like the protection enjoyed by 
 cigar manufacturers, will be satisfactory to us; even with such a rate we are told 
 that Sumatra wrappers would still be used. Two dollars per pound is only about 
 one-third the rate of tariff on imported cigars; therefore no injustice would be done 
 to manufacturers, as they would be left in full control of this entire manufacture 
 through the high tariff on all imported cigars. 
 
 Our predictions of the growth of this strong competitor, which has been pushed by 
 powerful syndicates of a foreign nation, have been verified by the remarkable re- 
 sults until we find that in the year 1889 more than 40,000 bales, which is equivalent 
 to 160,000 cases, of American wrappers were used as a substitute for the American 
 product. The simple statement of this fact is conclusive that the present law gives 
 us no protection for our wrappers, which is the only portion of the crop that ever 
 paid the cost of production. 
 
 A simple statement will show yovr what the farmers and domestic dealers have lost 
 in the tobacco used to make 1,000 cigars. For that purpose 25 pounds of unstemmed 
 tobacco is used. If domestic tobacco, the following is a fair estimate of the grades 
 and cost of material before the advent of Sumatra: 
 
 Fourteen pounds wrappers, at .50 cents per pound, cost $7. 00 
 
 Eleven pounds binders and fillers 1. 10 
 
 Total cost 8.10 
 
 Over 42,000 bales of Sumatra wrappers were imported into the United States dur- 
 ing the last calendar year, and it is estimated that 50,00" bales of Sumatra were 
 iised as cigar wrappers. Sumatra tobacco will average about 180 pounds per bale. 
 It is claimed by the importers that 2| pounds of this tobacco will wrap 1,000 cigars, 
 and that it sells for $2.50 per pound. Assuming that it take8 3])ounds, then one bale 
 of this tobacco contains 60,000 wrappers and 50,000 bales contains 3,000,000,000 cigar 
 wrappers. 
 
 Three pounds of these wrappers cost, at $2.25 a pound |G. 75 
 
 Twenty-two pounds of domestic tobacco used as binders and tillers, at 8 cents, 
 
 cost 1.76 
 
 Total 8.51 
 
 The unit of 25 pounds is used because it is agreed that 25 pounds of unstemmed 
 leaf is required to make 1,000 cigars. It is conclusive, therefore, that the American 
 farmer has lost his market to the amount of $6.75 on each 1,000 cigars manufactured, 
 
liEVI.SIOiN OF THE TAliIi''t\ lOOl 
 
 and on tlio whole ",000,000,000 Iho eiiormons sura of $90,250,000 taken from American 
 farmers to enrich foreifju syndicates from a produet of Asiatic coolie labor. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, we ask for a rate of duty tjjat will fi'i'^e us fair and reasonable pro- 
 tection against this foreign couipetitor that is rapidly nndcrmining an important 
 industry in ten Northern States. 
 
 After careful and thorough iurestigalion of the condition of the farmers in the 
 States I represent, of the dealersiu domestic tobacco who usually purchase this prod- 
 uct from the farmers, we have reached the conclusion that nothing less than .^J-J per 
 pound will give the protection required to place our industry on a paying basis aud 
 inspire a gleam of hope to our despondent farmers. . Our condition in reference to 
 this foreign competitor is analagous to that of the rice planters of the South, who 
 find that the Chinese, through their cheap labor, are alile to lay down rice in New 
 York at If cents per pound. The law properly gives them protection, 2J cents per 
 pound, a protection of 125 per cent. Now, if our foreign competitor is valued at the 
 average price of $2 per pound, such a rate of duty will give us only 100 per cent, 
 protection as against it. 
 
 In considering this question fairly it will he seen that only from one-tenth to one- 
 eighth of any cigar is Sumatra, therefore it will be found that if the 25 pounds was 
 of foreign tobacco, under this arrangement of duties the following would bo the re- 
 sult if only the finest of this tobacco was imported : 
 
 Two and one-half pounds, at $2 duty |5. 00 
 
 Twenty-two and one-half pounds imported fillers, at 35 cents 7. 87 
 
 Total 12.87 
 
 Average duty per pound, 51 cents. 
 
 To offset this the cigar manufacturer has a much higher rate of protection on im- 
 ported cigars. It now averages |o per pound on the entire weight of each 1,000 
 cigars imported, i$40, still securing to them the advantage of $27. 13 on each |1,0U0 
 cigars they manufacture. 
 
 I am a grower of tobacco to the extent of about 24 acres annually in the Connecti- 
 cut Valley, and give my experience of the cost of handling a single acre : 
 
 Eental of land and shed |3r>. 00 
 
 Manures and fertilizers - 60. 00 
 
 Labor preparing ground, weeding beds, setting, watering, worming, cultivat- 
 ing, harvesting, and stripping into bundles 60. 00 
 
 Labor, sorting and packing 30. 00 
 
 Interest on capital employed and insurance to carry the crop through the 
 
 sweat 15. 00 
 
 200. 00 
 
 In 1886, the total co.st per acre of 1,500 pounds was 13J cents per pound. lu 1888 
 the total cost per acre of 1,300 pounds was 1.5 i^j cents per pound. 
 
 This country has the capacity of producing all the wrappers required by the cigar 
 industries of the country and a large surplus for other nations if required. 
 
 I want to say one word about our friends on the other side. They do not seem to 
 care or seem to want the tax removed. Some want them retained. Even the New 
 York Leaf Board of Trade do not care. Some of the nieniliers of the board want the 
 tax with a rate of 35 cents. Other members of the board of trade want two rates aud 
 a tax of .$2. I have a letter from a large importer ,in New York who would like to 
 have the tariff rate $2 on imported Sumatra. He is one of the largest importers in 
 the country. I suppose it would not be fair to mention the name. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Have you stated the relative wrapping capacity of these two 
 kinds of tobacco, the domestic wrapper and the imported wrapper 1 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. I think I had it in the paper there. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. If yon have stated it you need not read it again. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. My figures are about 14 pounds of domestic tobacco to wrap 1,000 
 cigars. That formerly brought 40 and .50 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Mr. LaFoUette's idea was, will the American tobacco wrap as many 
 cigars as the Sumatra tobacco ? 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. It takes 14 pounds of American to wrap 1,000 cigars, and 3 pounds 
 of Sumatra to do the same. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. When you speak of 14 pounds you mean 14 pounds uusteinmed ? 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. When you speak of Sumatra you mean the same as unstemmed 1 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Are you a tobacco grower ? 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. I have been one for a good many years. I have been engaged in 
 the business ever since 1851. I have also been a tobacco dealer. 
 
1002 
 
 EEViSION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. How many acres do yoa grow each year ? 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. About 25. . . 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Have you for a series of years kept careful count of all tlie ex- 
 penses of producing that tobacco, so tliat you can make a statement to this commit- 
 tee of the cost per pound per acre ? If you have made that calculation, yon. can just 
 state it in substance without taking up tbe time of the committee to read it. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. I think I have it here. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. If you have a detailed statement, you may leave it with the 
 stenographer-. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. I will state that fifteen years ago land in my section of the country 
 was worth $.500 an acre. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Have you got that written out, Mr. Hubbard ? 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. Yes, sir. I have this, but it is in such form that I would rather 
 read it. Now, I put the rental of th:it land at |10 an acre. This is the first item, 
 " Manures and fertilizers, $60 ; preparing tbe ground, weeding, planting, seeding, cul- 
 tivating, harvesting, and stripping, |tiO per acre." I will state that I rent some of 
 my laud. I rented V^ acres this past year. I paid |60 an acre. That hangs the to- 
 bacco in the sheds, takes it down, strips into bundles, and delivers it in my ware- 
 house. Then we have sorting and packing in the cases, $30 an acre; the interest 
 and insurance on tbe capital employed, $15 an acre, and then there is the rent of the 
 sheds, $25 per acre. My plant of slieds cost $8,000. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That is $200. Now, what do you get for an acre? 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. We get from 1,300 to 1,500 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You receive how much ; from 12 to 15 cents ? 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. When I get 1,500 pounds per acre, the cost of raising is 13Jcent3per 
 pound. At 1,300 pounds per acre, which was the last two crops, it would make the 
 cost 2 cents more than that. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You would get from 12 to 15 cents ? 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. It would hardly get your seed back. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. I am holding now two crops. I have got about $8,000 of capital 
 invested. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Do you know from your own observation whether there is a con- 
 siderable quantity of tobacco unsold held now in the hands of tbe farmers because of 
 the low prices ? 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. Oh, yes; there is a large quantity of it. There is very little yet 
 sold. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. How much of the crop of this last year ? 
 
 Mr. Hubuard. The old crops are pretty much sold, but the present crop is iu the 
 hands of the farmers mostly. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Uo you have to manure and fertilize the lands every year? 
 
 Mr. Hubisard. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. At an expense of about |60 an acre? 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. On an average. 
 
 STATEMENT OF W. C. MORSE. 
 
 Mr. W. C. Morse, of Painted Post, Steuben County, N. Y., next addressed the 
 committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here as one of the represent- 
 atives fpf the Chemung Valley Tobacco Growers' Association, an organization of farm- 
 ers reaching into three Congressional districts for perhaps 200 miles iu the valley of 
 the Chemung and its tributaries, and reaching to tlie Susquehanna. 
 
 The tobacco interest in the valleys which I represent has for many years beec the 
 leading product of our farmers, and has drawn us largely from the production of the 
 staple ))roducts, of whicli we have a surplus, lint for the past few years we have 
 been suffering from the importation of a foreign product into our market, with a 
 steady and rapid increase, until it has driven out of our market almost entirely that 
 portion of our crop which brings a price aliove the cost of production ; and the mat- 
 ter to be determined hero is whether this large industry and source of wealth to the 
 country, spreading over many States, must be abandoned and giveu over to a foreign 
 country to supply our market with the product of Mongolian labor. This is the con- 
 dition which confronts us at the present time. 
 
 The proof (in yiart) of which you will realize from the following official statistics. 
 This foreign proiliiot was first brought to this country in l^?8l, paying a 35 cent per 
 pound rate of duty. In iHa'i it liai.'. increased to tho enormous amount of 3,818,931 
 pounds. 
 
 The tariff rate of duty of 75 cents per pound was that year imposed. The following 
 
HEVlSioN Oi* tSE TARIFF, lOOS 
 
 year but 603,536 pounds were imported. Means of evasion were devised to escape 
 thp higher rate of duty, so that, in 1885,2,217,917 pounds were brought into our mar- 
 ket. Its yearly Increase has been such that during the past year (1889) it amounted 
 to 5,670,540 pounds. Bear in mind that we are taking Sumatra 13 pounds to the 
 thousand cigars. Eight there let me state in regard to sometbiug that is misleading 
 in regard to the estimate of 14 pounds to the tbousaud for our tobacco. While the 
 Sumatra leaf is small, when we cut away the selvage wo t.ike almost the entire leaf, 
 which leaves very little waste, and that waste is very bitter. Our leaves are large, 
 and when cut make a large waste, which waste is utilized by the dealer in tobacco, 
 BO that the actual wrapping capacity of our tobacco, so far as the tobacco is used, 
 very little exceeds theirs. That poiut is misleading, because they s.ay it takes .so 
 much more of ours. 
 
 Mr. La Follktte. One of the cigar manufacturers here yesterday — Mr. F. A. 
 Schroeber, I believe — stated that all the cuttings and the waste from the Sumatra 
 was used; was made up into tobacco to be sold as smoking tobacco or used in the 
 cigars. State the facts about that. 
 
 Mr. Morse. I will tell you my experience about the matter, and what I found out 
 in regard to the ramifications of this imported tobacco. In the city of Detroit I in- 
 quired of many cigar mannfacturers in regard to its price, etc., and knowing it was 
 very bitter I said to one manufacturer : "What do you do with the refuse or cut- 
 tings?" He said, "We put them in and sell them." I asked if they were not objec- 
 tionable. He said except for its being such an intinitesimally small thing it would 
 destroy the sale. That is the practical condition. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. It is put in in such small quantities that it is not detected by 
 the consumer ? 
 
 Mr. Morse. By the way, it is only used on the wrapper; on that part where they 
 cut off the tips. That is so small I presume it would add very little to it, and during 
 the past five years there has been brought into our market 21,317,699 pounds, for which 
 $18,895,227 has gone to a foreign country, depriving us of our own market, which we 
 had from its infancy satisfactorily supplied. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Has not the price been reduced? • 
 
 Mr. Morse. The prices have been reduced and we hold the oases ; they are stored 
 to-day. There is another hiisleadiug answer of Mr. Hubbard's. You asked if a con- 
 siderable quantity of tobacco still remained unsold in his locality. There is to a very 
 large extent in some localities, but in my locality there is not. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Mr. Schroeder was asked yesterday how much stock he had on 
 hand of domestic tobacco. He said there were over 7,000 cases in the warehouse at 
 Lancaster, N. Y. 
 
 Mr. Morse. I know the farmers' warehouses at home have become bankrupt be- 
 cause the prices have been depressed. We have had this market from its infancy. 
 Tobacco is a native of this country. We found it here, and it has grown up in this 
 large proportion, making this last year nearly 4,000,000,000 cigars in this country. 
 
 And had it not been the product of cheap labor, beyond a doubt it would never 
 have become a competitor in our market. Our opponents are artful in taking the 
 through price in our primary markets, at tbe present depressed condition, as a basis 
 of calculation of per cent, of rate of protection. When tbe competition reaches less 
 than one-half of our entire product, and that portion only which has ever paid the 
 cost of production and on which we formerly made any profit, so while it competes 
 with less than half it destroys the whole. 
 
 The wrapper portion is the only part of our tobacco which ever paid us any profit 
 above the cost of production. The binders and fillers always come below the cost of 
 production and are not taken into account. We have looked to the wrappers for 
 years and years for our profits. So you will see that all the profit we get is from 
 these wrappers, which must produce a profit on the whole thing. 
 
 The proper basis of calculation is the wrapper only, and that at its former remu- 
 nerative price, and the degree of protection, commensurate with that given our oppo- 
 nents, the cigar manufacturers, and has for many years kept in check foreign com- 
 petition. Add to the above sufiScient to dislodge an intrenched competitor who has 
 had years to grow to large proportions while we have been striving in vain to get 
 proper recognition during the past four years. 
 
 The farmers of our country have been .struggling for the past few years desperately 
 to keep good their homes, and many have not succeeded, and all are despondent. 
 We can not much longer endure this strain and loss. Do not expect us to supinely 
 rest under present conditions. 
 
 The protection which was indicated in the schedule I got from the Department 
 yesterday would not be of any consequence to-day, as there was only a small amount 
 brought in. Something must be done, not ouly in our State, but all over the 
 country, and I want to say right here we are burdened with a surplus of staple 
 products from our large Western wheat-fields and corn-fields, etc. Within my recol- 
 lection the granary of this whole country was In the western and central part of my 
 
1004 
 
 KEVrSION Oi' THE 'J[*ARii^i?. 
 
 State, what is known as tbe Genesee country. We have but a small portion of tliis 
 whole country, and yet we have special industries in tliat State which will undoubt- 
 edly be represented before you. They need careful consideration, forthe reason it has 
 drawn us from the production of these staples ; they have moved farther west, and 
 we are to-day consumers, and have been for the la.st ten years, of the production of 
 these Western jirairies. We do not grow any wheat tlirough the tobacco region. 
 To-d.ay I am feedinfi; cattle bought in Michigan. I am feeding corn brought from the 
 State of Illinois. This is the way our tobacco money is disseminated, and we have 
 been converted into consumers when heretofore we were producers. This is the crisis 
 of this tobacco business, and if we do not get redress to-day forthe losses which have 
 been entailed upon us, we feel that it ends the cigar leaf tobacco production of this 
 country. We go back to the production of the staple products in competition with 
 the far West, and they will still further depress that market. Instead of being con- 
 sumers we become producers, and augment the store on hand. 
 
 While for many years nearly all the other industries and interests have received 
 recognition here, the farmers has been forgotten ; his modesty has nearly caused his 
 ruin and not until we were driven to the wall have we adequately realized our con- 
 dition. We are much the largest labor element of the country. Our labor results in 
 the production of wealth to the entire country, from which all other industries and 
 interests draw. Who but the farmers pay the larger burden of taxation ? 
 
 Now, the farmers pay the great burden of taxes. Now, gentlemen, we were told 
 here yesterday, as before I was told in New York by a great many interested in 
 Sumatra tobacco, that it was utterly impossible for nsto grow a wrapper that would 
 be acceptable to the consumers to be put upon the cigar. 
 
 Mr. La. Follette. On the ground of its appearance only ? 
 
 Mr. Morse. On the groiyid of its appearance. No one has ever attempted to con- 
 trovert the assertion that Sumatra has any quality whatever as a smoke. It is bit- 
 ter, but it is glossy and bright and line in texture ; but unless you can get the aroma 
 from our own tobacco, it is utterly impossible to use it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You consider the chief value of the Sumatra to belts appearance ; to 
 make the domestic cigar look nice f 
 
 Mr. Morse. Yes, sir. It is a good "dude" cigar. That is the kind he smokes; that 
 is the idea. Now, that is all there is of Sumatra; only just that one thing. Now, the 
 American people are sharp in looking up new things, and they take on to new things 
 very readily. That very thing has brought this Sumatra to the front. When one 
 competitor goes into the market in competition with another, he wants to get the 
 start of him. He goes to the dealer and says: " I have got something new; some- 
 thing you have not had, and something you can introduce with a good deal of flourish. 
 It will take and go to the front, and you can sell a good deal of it." I was standing 
 in the lobby of a hotel in Detroit one Sunday. This was four years ago, in the infancy 
 of Sumatra. Two salesmen were standing there, and one was telling his companion, 
 this is his expression, how he " waxed " another salesman with his bright cigars, and 
 called the domestic cigars "stinkers." " Why," said he, "I can beat them every 
 time. I have something new; something they are not acquainted with, and lean 
 beat them every time. They have no orders, and my pockets are full." This was the 
 practical working of the Sumatra tobacco at that time. When we go to New York 
 they tell ns they do not want the goods. One man said: "Yon can not raise wrappers. 
 There is no wrapper iu the United States grown in any State to-day." I teh^graphed 
 to the manufacturing establishment who manufactured these cigars here [exhibiting 
 box] from a crop of tobacco grown within about a mile of my own farm. Take 
 one and smoke it, Mr. Breckinridge; you love a good smoke. This is not very expen- 
 sive ; three for a quarter, or .$5.5 a thousand, I think. These are a domestic wrap- 
 per and binder, with Havana filler. That man told me the other day that he 
 manufactured about 6,000,000 cigars, and yet he was a small manufacturer in a 
 small town, and that he never yet had worked the Sumatra wrapper. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I want to ask you about the sales of American tobacco. Take, 
 for instance, your own crop. You arc a grower? 
 
 Mr. Morse. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. BRECKiNRiiif.E. Why have you not sold your crop of this year and last year? 
 
 Mr. MOHSE. I could not get a buyer. I made an effort to sell them. I got them 
 sampled in Octoljer, and made a trip West, where I had formerly sold. 
 
 Mr. Bbeckinridge. Where did you go? 
 
 Mr. Morse. Buffalo, Detroit, Cleveland, and Cincinnati. 
 
 Mr. BuKCKiNRiDGE. Did you see the niiinivfacturers in those cities? 
 
 Mr. Morse. Yes, sir ; I visited the manufacturers. 
 
 Mr. BiiECKiNRiDGE. Did you try to sell your crop? 
 
 Mr. Morse. I did. 
 
 Mr Breckinridge. Would they not buy it ? 
 
 Mr. Morse. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it a good crop? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1005 
 
 Mr. Morse. It is. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it a good wrapper tobacco ? 
 
 Mr. Mouse. I will relate somethiug so as to give you the practical working and 
 results of that trip. lu Detroit I t'oimd ouo geutleTuau to whom I bad sold formerly. 
 The last crop I sold liim was my Iti-^G crop. I will state this so you will uuderstaud 
 it more thoroughly. Our 188.5 crop %vould not be tit to work until 1886. Tobacco 
 has to be aged, and that is another disadvantage under which we labor. It is not 
 like wheat, where we can send it immediately into the market. 
 Mr. Gear. It has to be carried over about a year? 
 
 Mr. Morse. Yes, sir. They have to dry it or introdnco some artificial process to 
 age it. In some instances they claim it is successful, but the general production has 
 to be carried a year, and at two years It attains the highest degree of perfection, and 
 the fillers perhaps at three or four. This gentleman wanted to see my crop, and this 
 is the condition under which it exists to-day. He said that he reluctantly went into 
 Sumatra; that his salesmen were driven oft' the road in cousequence of Sumatra, and 
 they could not get orders for any of his brands (that he had formerly covered with 
 domestic goods) unless he would change and cover them with Sumatra. So, in couse- 
 quence, he was obliged to go into the Sumatra. He sent a i^ortiou of my 188.5 crop 
 to Canada and had it on sale. He sent a man there and sold it. That was the condi- 
 tion of my 1885 crop. When ho looked at the 1885 crop he said that it was the finest 
 crop of Havana seed leaf domestic goods he had ever seen. He said that he wanted to 
 look at my present crop, and that if it was possible for him to go back to domestic 
 wrappers he wanted my goods and he would buy them. He was the onl3' one who 
 gave anv attention to it. The only factorythat I could learn of (and I visited a num- 
 ber of factories there) that was using partially domestic wrappers was a firm who 
 used Miami Valley, Ohio, seed-leaf wrappers in the peuitrtitiary shops, making stoga 
 cigars. At Cincinnati I was told by a gentleman of one firm that was still running 
 one brand of cigars on domestic wrappers, aud he said if I had nici?, light, fashionable 
 wrappers he thought I could sell them if they continued to make these. But the 
 gentleman said : "They are on the fence, with one foot on the ground ready to go 
 into Sumatra." I went to see them, and they looked at the crop with a great deal of 
 interest. They were satisfied with the quality, color, and all the requisites. I left 
 them with this condition of arrangement: Within two weeks they would determine 
 whether they would put that brand into Sumatra or not. If not, they would order 
 me to ship. My tobacco stauds at home to-day under these conditions. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. As you have conversed often with these manufacturers, what 
 reasons have they given for using Sumatra instead of the native leaf? Was it be- 
 cause it was a better quality, because it was finer in finish, or simply because it had 
 got to be the fashion? 
 
 Mr. MoitsB. Before I answer that question I want to add one thing more to the 
 other. Not in a single instance could I get a man to give me a partial recognition or 
 to look at it. They simply said : " I do not want it." If I had had a basket of po- 
 tatoes I would not have got less recoguition from cigar manufacturers than I did 
 with the finest wrappers I could grow. I have yet to find the first man, either the 
 importer, jobber, manufacturer, or smoker, that has ever said to me that there was 
 the least particle of quality in Sumatra which goes to make up a good smoke. As I 
 said about the cigar salesmeu, in their endeavor to get customers from other compet- 
 ing houses, they always offer inducements and are always seeking to get somethini'- 
 nevr. Consequently the result of that is new eflorts to get out something of that 
 kind. It not only enters into the cigar interest, but every production, and this pro- 
 duction has crowded out something that is staple. They start in that way with the 
 salesmen, who endeavor to increase their sales, and in that way they have driven out 
 the domestic tobacco in every instance in every town. There is not a smoking stand 
 or a jobber, or anything of that kind, but what inducements would be held out to 
 by saying: " Here is something new and attractive, take it and push it." In that 
 way it is done, without referring to its merits in any particular, but only on account 
 of its being a bright, good-looking cigar. That is all there is of it. 
 Mr. La Follette. Is it a more sightly cigar than the domestic? 
 Mr. Morse. Gentlemen, you may go through this town aud yon will see cigars 
 exhibited in the show-cases in the most attractive forms they can possibly put them. 
 I venture to say that box of cigars [exhibiting] will lead more than half the exhibits 
 in that case, if not more than half in the city, and in quality it would exceed any 
 cigar, however n ucb you may pay for it, covered with Sumatra wrapper, unless a 
 man was a lover of quinine. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Was that box prepared especially as an exhibit for this com- 
 mittee ? 
 
 Mr. Morse. No, sir. When I got to New York and our opponents told ns that there 
 was no such thing as a domestic wrapper in the country aud it could not be grown 
 I then spoke to my companion and asked him if we had not better send for some 
 Iiotne-grown product of one of our jnanufactuiei's, lie thought it was a good idea, 
 
1006 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 and I telegraphed to these gentlemen, who forwarded me by express these cigars, 
 wrapped from a crop which I knew all about. I knew where it was grown and I 
 knew it wa» a domestic wrapper. I have the letter here, and it is as follows : 
 
 January 4, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : Your telegram of the 4th instant received at 8.14 p. m. I shipped the. 
 cigars as soon as 1 read the telegram. I shipped by Wells, Fargo & Co.'s express. 
 I hope yon will receive them in due time. They are made of Haynie's wrappers and 
 imported Havana iillers. We sell this cigar at $55 per thousand. 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 HlRMAN KRETSCHMAR & SoN. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Can the domestic producers furnish wrapper leaf sufBcieut 
 to wrap all the cigars of this country of as good quality as this exhibited here ? 
 
 Mr. Morse. This is just what the grower would like to make and contract for to- 
 day. This is what we are seeking for. As I said before, from its infancy the cigar 
 interests and the domestic production have grown up hand in hand, in harmony and 
 in entire satisfaction to the producer, to the manufacturer, and particularly to the 
 consumer. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What does that wrapper sell for per pound — I mean, what does to- 
 bacco such as that sell for in the market? 
 
 Mr. Morse. I am a little at a loss to put a price when I am not able to sell. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. What is about the average price ? 
 
 Mr. Morse. The average price through ? 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Yes, sir ; for a few years past. 
 
 Mr. Morse. Eight there is a very misleading statement that enters into this mat- 
 ter to you gentlemen who are not conversant with the tobacco trade and interests. I 
 will say tobacco is usually sold in our primary market all qualties for one price, and 
 that is what we mean when we say "the price through." 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Lugs, etc. ? 
 
 Mr. Morse. We grow no lugs. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. What is that price ? 
 
 Mr. Morse. I could not give the present price, because there have not been any 
 crops sold in our part of the country. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. What was it last year ? 
 
 Mr. Morse. Last year our fancy crops sold from 15 to 15^ cents. The average 
 through the valley would not exceed from 7 to 8 cents. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. The import duty on that which takes its place is from 35 to 75 
 cents. 
 
 Mr. Morse. Takes the place of what — the 7 or 8 cents 1 
 
 Mr. McMillin. lam speaking of the wrapper; the imported Sumatra wrapper, 
 used instead of this, pays a duty of from 35 to 75 cents per pound, respectively. 
 
 Mr. Mokse. Seventy-five cents on wrappers. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Seventy-five cents on wrappers, with 35 cents on the other. That is 
 what I want to get at — the relative price of the two. 
 
 Mr. Morse. Do you understand the rating of the types ? 
 
 Mr. McMillin. In what respect do you mean 1 
 
 Mr. Morse. Now, we have that fancy crop which we sell for wrapper at 15 to 15^. 
 You will see, then, we have these lower grades of filler and binder which take ! per 
 cent, of the crop and are worth from 1 to 2 cents for the fillers and 6 or 7 cents for 
 the binders. Where we get a through price of 15 cents there are three types of wrap- 
 pers, what we call A, AA, and AAA. The lower grade would be perhaps 10 cents, a 
 little less than the cost of growing ; so it would take not to exceed 35 to 40 per cent, 
 of the entire production, upon which wc get a price for growing that entire production, 
 and which the Sumatra tobacco competes against. Do you understand this 1 In or- 
 der to get the rating prices through, it would run these wrappers np to 30 cents a 
 pound. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Seventy cents is the highest you can get for them under any cir- 
 cumstances ? 
 
 Mr. Morse. Yes, sir ; a man would be quite fortunate to get that. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. In my country we have three qualities ; but ours is the heavy 
 tobacco. That is all I wish to ask. 
 
 Mr. Morse. There are a few points of interest in this matter which I wish to relate 
 in addition to what I have already said. 
 
 First, why a $2 rate of tariff duty is necessary to sustain in a healthful condition 
 our cigar-lc:if industry. 
 
 It seems only necessary to name the fact that prior to 1881 wc had built up a cigar 
 }iroduction, from theletif to the finished cigar, in quality and q-nantity far exceeding 
 that of any other country in the world. The evidence of its quality and the accepta- 
 bility to the consumer is its rapid growth to HO great projio^tiuns. The fpTeigu spec- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1007 
 
 nlators, seeing tLis great market and the increased margin of profit wliicli would ac- 
 crue to tliem by the iutroduotion of the product of Asiatic labor, was the cause and 
 mainspring of the introductioQ of this foreign wrapper product into our market ; 
 not the neaessity uor the requirements for a better article than we produced, nor fail- 
 ure to supply the demand. It is all speculation, and foreign at that. The nationality 
 of all our opponents was evideut. 
 
 While it is the boast of every American tbat in this country above all others labor 
 is the most generously paid, and it is well kuown tliat Asiatic labor is of the lowest 
 order and price of any in the world, and so demoralizing was it in this country that 
 it was excluded by Congressional legislation, is not the product of such labor equally 
 demoralizing? Is it not evident that two extremes enter into this problem? And 
 who are entitled to your cousid'eration, a foreign speculative interest, limited to a 
 few importers, or a thousand of productive farmers, and a great and valuable indus- 
 try ? A $2 rate of duty is not equal to the protection which the cigar manufacturers 
 liave had for many years, and of which all our opponents boast as the cause of the 
 industry's great growth and prosperity, and they never were subject to this Asiatic 
 labor. 
 
 Make a fair and just computation between the wage rate of the two countries and 
 you will see, even at a $2 rate of duty, we will not be made equal. From all sources 
 from which we can get any information as to prices of Asiatic labor, the rates are 
 from 50 cents per month to 10 cents per day, the latter maximum rate, while we pay on 
 an average over |1.25 per day. This shows a disadvantage of from 1,250 to 2,000 per 
 cent, as against ns, to be overcome by protective rates. 
 
 The foreign product is fully cured and aged, ready for the cigar manufacturer. It 
 can not justly be compared with our product, in the state it is in when it is generally 
 sold by the grower, as our opponents represented to you. 
 
 It is in the manufacturers' market where they are brought into competition when 
 both are fully cured and aged. In that market our wrappers formerly brought from 
 50 cents to $1 per pound. It is at that point that the rating should be made, and from 
 the prices here given and for wrappers alone, ru,ther than the entire product, with all 
 the low grades included and in an unfermented state, asouropponents so unjustly rep- 
 resented to you. You will readily see the difference in the value in the green and 
 after fermentation and shrinkage in the weight has taken place. 
 
 Is it not unjust that a few unscrupulous importers who have for the past five years 
 defrauded the Government out of millions of dollars, using every device and trick they 
 can conceive to evade theintent of thelaw, and boasting of their success, men who filch 
 from the Government rather than support it, evidence of which is abundant in the 
 United States Treasury Department, should be allowed to destroy the property and 
 income of so great a number of farmers, who do at all times loyally support our Gov- 
 ernment ? 
 
 STATEMENT OF JONATHAN "WYCKOFF. 
 
 Mr. Jonathan Wyckoff, of Navarino, Onondaga County, N. Y., next addressed 
 the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemeu of the committee, I represent the ISfew York State To- 
 bacco Growers' Association, located in the central part of the State of New York, 
 comprising the Twenty-fith and Twenty-seventh Congressional districts of New York. 
 Our society in sending their delegates authorized them or instructed them to petition 
 to your honorable body to repeal the internal tax on the grounds, first, tliat It was 
 unnecessary for the purpose of raising revenue, for the reason tbat our Treasury now 
 is sufficiently full, and contains more than is practically necessary for the wants of 
 the country ; therefore it is a direct tax on the people. Secondly, because it is all 
 derived from our own resources. 
 
 I have heard it suggested here that the manufacturers want it retained for the pur- 
 pose of a trade-mark. Gentlemen, what other occupation is there that asks the Gen- 
 eral Government to furnish them with a trade-mark ? Do the farmers who produce 
 the butter, cheese, and such things, petition the Government for a trade-mark for their 
 product ? If I manufacture a special article of very fine butter, do I want this Gov- 
 ernment to furnish me a trade-mark to protect my article? No, sir; and what is the 
 reason the manufacturer of cigars shall ask this country for a protection in order to 
 put it to the expense of procuring him a trade-mark? I think that reason was very 
 unusual, for I do not think there is any reason in it. That seemed to be the reason 
 with the opponents or parties that were opposing the abolition of the internal reve- 
 nue ; that was the only claim they set forth, that they wanted protection which 
 would be a certain brand for their cigars. I think their argiimont was very poor, 
 and I do not see any reason in it any more than that any other atticle should ask this 
 country to furnish them with a trade-mark. 
 
 In regard to the tariff, we ask and petition your honorable body for protcclion. As 
 farmers we claim we are not justly protected with other producers and mauufact- 
 
1008 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 urers. The man iifactiirer of cigars at tlid present time has got about three-fold more 
 protection on the manufactured article than the producer of the leaf has. Why is 
 that 80 ? What is the reason of discriminating between the i)roducer, the farmer, and 
 the niannfactuver? In regard to the depreciation in the price of the crop, I would 
 say here that in lrf84 I sold my tol>acco tor 16 cents in the bundle. That means be- 
 fore it is sorted. In preparing our tobacco which we make in our neighborhood, 
 there are five assortments. In the first place we pull it off the stalk and put it in 
 bundles weighing somewhere from 10 to 20 pounds. I sold my tobacco in this state, 
 and I got 16 cents a pound. It was iu bundles, merely pulled from tbe stalk. That 
 ■would be eijuivalent to about 18 or 20 cents a pound of assorted tobacco. This year 
 I sold my crop for >'i cents a pound, and throughout our part of the couutry the most 
 of the tobacco has sold at an average price of 8 cents. It sold 8 to 'J cents a pound, 
 the very best about 64- cents. Now, you can see the dejjreciation in the product of 
 tobacco. At the same time the Sumatra tobacco has displaced our tobacco at the 
 rate of four-bniidred-fold. The Sumatra ti)l)iicco has increased since 1884 at a rate of 
 four-hundred-fold, and our tobacco has decreased iu price 65 per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What would Sumatra tobacco sell at with the import duty paid — 
 the tobacco that takes the place of yours? 
 
 Mr. Wyckofp. I could not tell you the figures, because I am not versed iu them. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. It would be over .50 cents, tax paid ? 
 
 Mr. WycIiOff. I would not undertake to answer the question, because I do not 
 understand it. I do not want to make any assertion of which I am not sure. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. I did not know but what you knew it. 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. I see the practical eftect as a farmer and as a producer of tobacco. 
 I see the ctt'ect that the introductiou of this foreign tobacco has had on our tobacco, 
 and to illustrate the disadvantage and the deiireciation iu the value of the property 
 of the farmers, in l-'84 and 18^5, when we were getting good prices for tobacco, to- 
 bacco land was worth in our section somewhere about $200 an acre. To-day we can 
 not sell tobacco laud for over ,|1100 an acre ; that is, good land that will produce good 
 tobacco. In 1884 I rented laud and paid $25 or $30 an acre, as a tenant, to raise to- 
 bacco on. At the present time last year a tenant or tobacco-raiser could get what 
 good land he wanted for $10 an acre. Now, gentlemen, you can see the present con- 
 dition of affairs. That represents it. This is why we ask for this protection, and 
 "we think it is just. These are facts. 
 
 I would state here one thing more in regard to the tariff law. The reason that we 
 petition to your honorable body for the repeal of that law is that at the present time 
 this Government is collecting the taxes from the people of the United States to the 
 amount of $30,000,000. Gentlemen, it is just taking $30,0(i0,000 from circulation. It 
 is taking it a,nd locking it up iu the Treasury. We have too ranch money now iu the 
 Treasury. It is wrong to have this money locked up iu the Treasury and to keep it 
 away from the \ieople when we w aut it to use. Gentlemen, why do you not com- 
 mence at home? Take this money and let the jjeople retain this money instead of 
 paying it for taxes and locking it up iu the Treasury. Gentlemen, there is no pro- 
 tection to it, and there is no arguujecit for protection. 
 
 Mr. JIcMiLLiN. I find the (xuoations for Sumatra tobacco, duty paid, are $1.60 a 
 pound. Now, if that be true, do you think there is any tax which can be imposed 
 that will force the use of yours, which they now might use at 18 cents a pound 
 against tobacco that costs $1. 60 a pound ? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. Gentlemen, if there is auy protection in a tariif, I can not see why 
 it would not be. 
 
 Mr. MoMii.LiN. But it has not protected you thus far. It is already very much 
 higher than the very highest price that you got, and that you say is declining. 
 
 Sir. Wyckoff. I will answer the question in this way : It is not protected because 
 the duty has not been high enough or else the oflicers in charge of collecting the 
 revenue have evaded the meaning and purpose of the law. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. The duty is three or four times the price of your tobacco — four 
 times what you got at the best sales you made in 1884. Now, if that has not done it, 
 do you think it is in the power of the tariff to increase the price? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. I think so. I think it is within the ijower of Congress to give it, 
 and I think it will enhance the price of our product. It has been stated here so often 
 before this committee that I thought it was not necessary to state it — that in the first 
 ])bici; Sunuitra tobacco is a better tobacco to handle. The quality is not as good, and 
 no one claims that, but it is a better tobacco to handle with our present jjrices of 
 la.bor, which w(! waut to maintain, and we can not handle our tobacco to advantage iu 
 compiirison with it as far as economy is concerned. Really, I am not as well versed 
 in this as I am )ierh:ip8 in agriculture. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You are a practical farmer? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. Yes, sir; a practical farmer. 
 
 Mr. McMii.LlN. Is it not a lamentable fact thstt lands hayf' TUU doyru rapidly in tbe 
 l.'wfc lew years— all a,^ricultural lands '? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1009 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. Let me answer tbe first question. The manufacturers would rather 
 have Sumntra tobacco, because there is not so much waste and it does not cost near 
 as much to make cigars out of Sumatra as out of domestic tobacco, and that is one 
 reason why I thinli it should be taxed and kept from this country to benefit the 
 laborers. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it not true that the large proportion of Sumatra tobacco imported is 
 fit only for wrappers ? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Geak. It is assorted, and it is imported with that view. 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. That is the purpose, certainly. This is really the purpose, for it is 
 not used for anything else. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The high price of this tobacco is partly owing to the less waste ? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. There is less waste in tliis Sumatra tobacco. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You sell tobacco just as it comes from the field, " by and large?" 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Now, if you assort your wrappers, there would not be that relative dis- 
 tinction ? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. Yes, sir. I will explain it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What would that wrapper be worth in the market if you sepa- 
 rate it ? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. In 1884, when I sold that crop for 16 cents, these wrappers were 
 worth 30 to 40 cents. There is one misleading statement I wish to explain. In tbe 
 first place we sell our tobacco when it is green. We sell this tobacco for 16 cents, as 
 I did this year. In the first place, we will take that tobacco aud it will cost 2 cents 
 to arrange and assort it. Then we sell it green, as Ave call it, to the dealer. He buys 
 that tobacco. If he holds that tobacco it will sweat ott' 20 per cent, in many oases. 
 That fact has not been brought out. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The man who buys that tobacco has to hold it in order to get the age on 
 it, which is done at the expense of losing this 20 percent, and that goes to bis expenses, 
 while the Sumatra tobacco has the age when it is imported into this country ? 
 
 Mr. Wy'Ckoff. Tbe Sumatra tobacco, as I understand it, is imported prepared in 
 every way for manufacture. It does not have to go through any extra process to get 
 it in shape except to stem it. There is just where the labor question comes in. I 
 claim that it would be better if we could exclude it ; that it would be better for the 
 laboring men, because it would give them employment in the preparation of our to- 
 bacco. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I agree with you that the farmer is getting the worst of this bar- 
 gain some way or other, and like you I am candid enough to say I would be glad for 
 him to get a little better. Is it not a fact that agricultural lauds all through your 
 country have run down in price for the last six or eight years? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. Somewhat. But I will now illustrate that to prove it. There is no 
 one of our products that has depreciated equal to tobacco. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I understand that. 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. The reason that tobacco laud has depreciated a great deal more 
 than that 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But all lands have depreciated. 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. All lands in a measure, but not so much in six years. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Have they not all depreciated in the last nine or ten years, since 
 1879 or 1880 ? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. Well, sir, I could not say they have. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You do not think they have? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. There is no sale for them. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is not that an element of depreciation, that you can not sell them ? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. I should say they have depreciated. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is it not a fact that corn has depreciated in value? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. It has not depreciated. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLFN. I mean taking it relatively. 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. It has in a measure. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And wheat has depreciated in value? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. In a measure. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And potatoes. I believe you grow potatoes in your country ? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. That I could not tell. One thing I know about, and that is the 
 beet crop has increased in value. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But the standard crops have decreased in value ; and have not the 
 cattle raised upon your lands decreased in value ? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. In a measure. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And horses? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. No, sir; not those. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. But the cattle have. Do you raise hogs in your country? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. Yes, sir. 
 
 485 M 
 
1010 EE VISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The hogs liavo? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. Not i^articularly. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Ou an average now, are not these things lower than they were six 
 years ago ? 
 
 Mr. AVyckoff. No, sir. 
 
 Jlr. McMiLLiN". Well, your country is very differont from mine. In our country we 
 have run down about one-half in value. 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. Six years ago I sold pork at |4.50 ; this year I sold it from $4.50 
 to $5. 
 
 Mr. Gbar. Light weight? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. Dressed. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLix. The rule has been that the agricultural products have descended in 
 price in the market. 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. They have in a measure. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLix. Also the land ou which they are gown. 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. Yes, sir ; but if you 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiisr. That is all I wanted to know. 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. This does not apply directly to the question. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I am asking you as a practical agriculturist. I intended to make 
 the point that the decrease in the tobacco crop and tobacco land has been more rapid ; 
 but! wanted also to show what effect had been produced ou agriculture generally. 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. Tobacco has depreciated more than 50 per cent. We raised a good 
 deal of barley in our country this year. This year it is 43 cents. Last year it was 
 85 cents; so we cannot take any certain average. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. The tendency is downward with the barley crop ? 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. I can not tell that. Wo claim that there is a ring, and that it is 
 not from legitimate causes. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. There has been a large importation of barley from Canada. 
 
 Mr. Wyckoff. Yes, sir that is one reason; but it is not the reason for the deprecia- 
 tion in value. We claim, and we are well satisfied, there is a ring which has held 
 barley. There are some large dealers through our part of the country who have got 
 the barley in their own hands. Last year it was high enough, hut this year they 
 have got it down. You average a price for the present year and the price for the 
 year before, and it makes a good fair average. 
 
 STATEMENT OP F. "W. FENNER. 
 
 Mr. F. W. Ff.nnek, of Little Utica, N. Y., representing the New York State Tobacco 
 Growers' Association of Central New York, next addressed the committee. He said; 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we were told yesterday by the 
 manufacturers that the farmers were receiving fabulous prices per acre for tobacco. 
 You have been informed m a few words by some speakers to what extent you have to 
 use fertilizers and other articles in order to produce a crop of tobacco. Now, there 
 is another consideration in regard to land which produces tobacco. We may have 
 good fertile soil, and but few acres of that soil is good to raise a crop of tobacco. 
 Cousecjuently we have to take the very best lands ; that alone would be worth a good 
 deal more than our lands as a whole. We also have to have a great deal of property 
 invested in sheds, etc. So you see it is plain enongli that the price we receive for the 
 tobacco is very little, and at the present time there is no profit in it. Now, when 
 our market was good, befor the Sumatra tobacco invaded us, the buyers came to see 
 us and figured on our crop in proportion to the amount of wrappers which would he 
 suitable to wrap cigars. Now they say we have not any wrappers. They simply 
 buy it to take the place of fillers and pay filler prices, making, you see, a great differ- 
 ence. I would like also to keep before your mind that we believe in protection, and 
 we believe that the judgment of this committee will give us that, because we think 
 we are asking no more than any other industry is asking, and that you would be do- 
 ing no more for us than for any other industry. 
 
 This ia all the time I will take up^ unless there are some questions which you wish 
 to ask. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ROBERT STE'WART. 
 
 Mr. Robert Stewart, of Baltimore, secretary of the Tobacco Board of Trade, ne^-t 
 addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I would say here that I think con- 
 sumers desire the abolition of the tobacco tax iu its entirety on tobacco and cigars. 
 I came here to advocate the Brower resolution which is now before the House. I 
 think the manufacturers must be very hard up if they can not protect their own 
 brands. What other goods are protected? In other occupations people are not. i,p 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 1011 
 
 the habit of filling up empty boxes. I have been a manufacturer for twenty years 
 and I thiuk no man of any repntation is afraid of his goods being imitated. There is 
 a machine in New Yorlc that will brand every cigar and put a tag on it. What more 
 do they want? Do they want somebody to smoke the cigar for tliem ? The Govern- 
 ment is not in need of the money, and what is the use of paying a tax which the 
 Ooverument does not need ? We have paid this tax mauy years ; we are tired of it 
 and of the regnlatious. The manufacturers want the tax ; they do not care whether 
 it is 1 cent or |1. As long as the Government wanted the money the consumers were 
 willing to pay. Now the Government does not require the money and the people are 
 not satisfied to pay this tax. On the millions of cigars that the ijeople smoke they 
 do not want to pay a heavy tax; they have not the money. Things are no longer as 
 they were during the time of the war. These mauufacturers are making big profits 
 and are not satisfied ; but they will have to be satislied. Leaf tobacco now does not 
 bring as much as it formerly did, and yet there is profit in growing it. The Govern- 
 ment does not require the tax and the manufacturers uiust bo satisfied to do without 
 it. A few men in the employ of big corporations come up here ,and want the Gov- 
 ernment to protect their brands. Why can not they protect their ovi^n brands? Of 
 the tobacco that costs no more than 4 cents a pound the consumer has to pay 40 cents 
 a pound. That is not fair. The poor laboring man in the United States does not 
 want to pay it. He requires some protectioQ while it is going round. But we are 
 not altogether selfish. 
 
 You gentlemen in Congress must legishate for the United States, for the whole peo- 
 ple, and not for a few individual manufacturers and dealers. Some consideration 
 should be given to the poor. It is not fair that Ihey should be compelled to pay this 
 tax. If you keep on 1 cent or Scents that requires the machinery to be kept on. 
 That is what we object to. For instance, one man smoking tobacco costing 4 cents 
 for the stock pays 4 cents tax. Each pack.age must have the Government stamp on 
 it. It requires labor to put it on. There is also a label put on the pack.age. This 
 tax is not fair when you do not want the money. One man may smoke a cigar cost- 
 ing |10 a hundred; on that the tax is 30 cents a box; another man buys 100 cigars 
 costing 80 cents ; there is 30 cents tax on tliat, leaving only 50 cents for the cigar. 
 The poor man pays the same amount on his cigar that the rich man does on his tine 
 Havana. That tax is entirely too higli. 
 
 Those manufacturers in Maryland and Pennsylvania who "make those goods — there 
 are a good many made in Virginia and North Carolina — would make finer goods and 
 get better prices if the tax were otf. And yet they will come here and ask for pro- 
 tection, 
 
 CIGAES AND CIGARETTES. 
 STATEMENT OF WALTER E. BARNETT. 
 
 Mr. Walter E. Barnett, representing the cigar mauufacturers of New York, ad- 
 dressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am representing w-th my col- 
 leagues here the cigar manufacturers of New York. I desire to call attention to a 
 matter with which I see yon jiave already done sometliing and then revoked it. I 
 refer to section 2604 of the Revised Statutes, whicli calls for an inspection stamp to 
 be placed upon imported cigars. Your chairman has explained to me the reason why 
 it was cut out, and suggested what should be done in future in regard to it. I there- 
 fore propose only to give you an ol)ject lesson on the subject, and will furnish a brief 
 letter if the commitree would rather not take up time now. 
 
 In the original bill your committee, on page 34, which commences on line 17, en- 
 acted that "so much of section 2804 of the Revised Statutes which requires that a 
 stamp shall be affixed to each package of imported cigars," etc. Allow me to say 
 how that section of law originated. It never had been suggested until an importer 
 of cigars was appointed appraiser of the port, and, selfishness being the motive that 
 moves the world, he suggested the enactment of a law to put a distinguishing brand 
 upon imported cigars. There are many people prejudiced in favor of imported arti- 
 cles. Tliat is one of the reasons, but not the sole rea.sou, why Sumatra has been pre- 
 ferred to the American seed-leaf. We demand of Congress to abolish this stamp 
 simply for the reason that the manufacturers have cheerfully paid tax from the en- 
 actment of the law down to the present day to support the Government, and are 
 then compelled to place our goods upon the market handicapped by this stamp the 
 Government places freely upon the goods which compete with ours. 
 
 This cigar [showing an imported cigar-box] may be made in China, Japan, or in 
 the islands of the sea, hut when it passes the custom-house they put a distinguishing 
 mark upon it. The manufacturers have cheerfully comjdied with the laws and have 
 ■^iJlingly paid the tax, and would willingly submit to a removal of the tax, if, in (^g 
 
1012 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 judgment of Congress, repeal waa necessary, but every one of us contend that we 
 ought not to be compelled to place our goods upon the market with the brand of 
 " Cain" upon them and the imported indorsed liy the Government. 
 
 Mr. La Folt.ette. The law will not let you sell your goods as imported goods ? 
 
 Mr. Barnett. V\'6 only want to sell them on tlieir merits as other merchandise is 
 sold. The silk manufacturers at present are building up a fine industry. If at the 
 time when they cdmmenced putting their silk on the market the Government had 
 put a distinguishing mark upon the foreign silk, they would not have been able to do 
 much. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there any oortiticate on any other class of merchaudise? 
 
 Mr. Barnett. No, sir; nothing else that is imported into this country. To some 
 ])eople, though a cigar may 1)0 made of the meanest and dirtiest tobacco grown in any 
 part of the world, if it is imported it is good. A good many nieu are like a man who 
 went into the Hoffman House and a.skcd for some good old imported Bourbon whisky, 
 not knowing that Bourbon County was in the State of Kentucky. A good many men 
 fancy that they are doing the proper thing when they are asking for an imported 
 cigar. 
 
 We have built up our manufactures iu spite of all this. We respectfully ask either 
 in this administrative bill, or in some other bill, a repeal of section 2804. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Is this merely a brand, or is there a revenue stamp ? 
 
 Mr. Barnett. It is a stamp put on all packages, whether large or small. It refers 
 to the inspection solely. Unlike the internal-revenue stamp, it has no money value. 
 It is put on to cheap imported and high-priced cigars alike. It is a gratuity to the 
 importer. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. There is no fee fixed as the price of this stamp ? 
 
 Mr. Barnett. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. When you import a box of cigars they attach this internal-revenue 
 stamp as if it had licen put on by the man who made the cigars? 
 
 Mr. Barnett. We buy internal-revenue stamps and we x>ay for them, but the Gov- 
 ernment kindly puts this on free for the importer. 
 
 I want to bring one other fact to the atteuticni of the committee. I import as well 
 as manufacture. I make the accusation thatnineteen-tweutieths of the retail dealers 
 of the United States violate the law. 1 stand here and say, that part of my cigars, 
 and the cigars of those who are with me, at least two-thirds of them, are sold by re- 
 tail dealers out of imported boxes iu direct violation of the law. The dealers know 
 we are producing finer goods than the imported ; we are bringing in a finer quality 
 of leaf, but they know that the prejudice which the Government has fostered by that 
 stamp and tliey take advantage of it. Hence they will buy two hundred or three hun- 
 dred, and give ns an order to make others in the same shape and size of the imported 
 goods. Yougoinand buy thematsixfor $l,or two foraquarterand you thinkyouare 
 smokiog the Havana-made cigars. We get no reputation out of that; we simply 
 make a living, but make neither great money nor reputation. Two-thirds of the re- 
 tail imported cigars are made inside the city of New York. That may seem to be a 
 pretty broad statement. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Are they li.able to arrest under the law ? 
 
 Mr. Barnett. Yes, sir; but you can not catch them. 
 
 MEMORIAL OF MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 Gentlemen: We, the undersigned committee of cigar manufacturers, respectfully 
 petition your honorable committee to incorporat(^ into your forthcoming bill for the 
 revision of the tariif a provision for the repeal of section 2804, of the Revised Statutes 
 of the United States, or so much of it as requires tliat a stamp shall be affixed to each 
 box of imported cigars to indicate the inspection thereof by the customs offlcers, 
 and state our reasons for the re(iue.st as follows, viz: 
 
 First. That such inspection stamp is of no material advantage to the Government 
 iu the matter of preventing the refilling of empty cigar-boxes bearing au internal- 
 revenue stamp. Any person desirous of using such box will do so, whether it bears 
 such inspection stamp or not ; in fact, the presence of such inspection stamp on a box 
 would be an added incentive to one desirous of using old boxes, for he could then 
 dispose of his cigars under the pretense that they were imported and so get a better 
 ]iriee for them. It is a Udtorious fact that about all the old cigar-boxes now used in 
 fraud of the revenue laws are old imported boxes, and this only because they benr 
 such inspection stamp. While being ol no material benefit to the Government in the 
 collection of its revenues, it is .'i grevious injury to that large class of cigar manu- 
 facturers who make cig.irs entirely from Havana tobaeid (both wrappers and fillers), 
 an industry in which millions of dollars capital are iinested and thousands of work- 
 men axe continuously employed, Ibr the reason that there is a large class in this 
 fion.Qtry who believe thnt nothing car) be nijide as good in tUe IJjiitied StS-teg ^8 gOWe* 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF, 1013 
 
 thing from abroad. Tliercforo Hie inspoction stanij) is logarded by such jieople as a 
 guaranty by the Groveruineut that the cigars Cdntaiiii'd in a box beariug; this inspec- 
 tion stamp must necessarily be better than any made in this country. 
 
 As the only cigars to compete with those of Havana must be made from Havana 
 tobacco entirely , we pay our duties on the raw material, as well as the internal- 
 revenue tax, comply with all the requirements of the internal-revenue laws, and are 
 then compelled to place our goods upon the markets of our own country in competi- 
 tion with goods from abroad, handicapped by this indorsement of tiie Government 
 placed upon every box of the foreigners' goods. 
 
 Second. Cigars are the only article in the whole tariff list that bear such a desig- 
 nating stamp. 
 
 Third. Interested people, such as importers of cigars, claim that such inspection 
 stamp prevents smuggling. Our answer to this is two-fold, viz: First, that cigars 
 are a bulky article and cau not be as easily smuggled as laces, silks, jewelry, kid 
 gloves, etc., yet it had never Lieen found necessary to put such a stamp ou laces, silks, 
 jewelry, kid gloves, etc. And secondly, that we, as manufacturers, are just as much 
 interested in preventing the smuggling of goods which would compete with those of 
 our own manufacture as would the (.Jovernment in quest of its revenue. 
 
 Fourth. The presence of this inspection stamp ou the boxes causes the importation 
 of an immense quantity of foreign " cheap trash," which is palmed off on the peo- 
 ple of this country, the only merit of which is the indorsement of the Government of 
 the United States home iipon each box certifying that it is "imported." There has 
 been a more or less regular trade for years past of manufacturing oheai) grades of ci- 
 gars in the Mexican sea-ports, of Mexican and other cheap tobaccos, and shipping 
 them to New York by the same steamers which call at Havana, Cuba, and these goods 
 are regularly palmed olf on our people as Havana cigars and our Government lends 
 (unconsciou.sly) its aid to the fraud by placing this inspoction stamp upon them, 
 thereby certifying that they are " imported ; " therefore something better than cau be 
 made in the United States. 
 
 Fifth. Yourhonorable committee is confronted with a plethoric public treasury and 
 a demand for the reduction of the surrdns. Remove tliis inspection stamp Ironi im- 
 porled cigars and you will lind that the iTuportatiou will fall oft' at least one-half im- 
 mediately, as then home-made cigars will sell uiiou theirmerits and the imporlatiou 
 of " cheap trash " from abroad will cease when they no longer bear a certificate from 
 our Government, which to-day is the only thing that tiuds them a market in the 
 United States. 
 
 We ask nothing from the Government but a fair field and no favors. All we ask is 
 the right to place our goods upon the markets of our own country on their merits, as 
 other manufacturers are allowed to do, uuhandi capped by the Government of our own 
 country. To us this is of far more importance than questions of internal-reveuiie 
 taxes, or even duties, so long as an equitable ratio be retained between raw material 
 and the imported manufactured article. 
 
 The retention of this section (2804) upon the statutes of the United States is the 
 reverse of protection to American manufacturers; it would be, as it is now, protec- 
 tion to the foreign manufacturers at our expense. 
 
 We believe it only necessary to lay this matter before you in its proper light to 
 have you strike these galling .shackles from the limbs of one of the largest labor-em- 
 ploying industries in the United States. 
 
 Respectfully submitted on behalf of the committee. 
 
 E. Mayrara, 
 Chairman, 89 Water Street, A'cio York City. 
 Walter G. Barnett, 
 Secretary, 135-139 Maiden Lane, New Toric C\Uj. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 REMOVAL OF TAX. 
 
 Washington, January 7, 1890. 
 To the lionorable Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives : 
 
 The cigar manufacturers of the United States, as a rule, favor the retention of the 
 internal-revenue system. Some of them favor the abolition of the tax, or its rednc- 
 tion. Many of them favor the plan of making the industry free, and exempting it 
 from the supervision and restrictive operation of the existing provisions of law. 
 
 But every honest manufacturer, every honest dealer, and every consumer of cigars, 
 who gives the matter any thought, must be, .and of necessity are, in accord in ad- 
 vocating the retention of these safeguards, which prevent the refilling of the empty 
 package with spurious cigars, and which will protect the manufacturer in making 
 and selling his wares and the consumer in buying them. 
 
1014 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 The New York court of appeals, in its opiuiou in the celebrated case of the matter 
 of Jacobs, reported iu the 98 New York court of appeals, page 98, uses the following 
 language : 
 
 " We must take judicial uoiico of the nature and qualities of tobacco. It has been 
 in gi'ueral use among civilized men for more than two ceutnries. It is used in some 
 form by a majority of the men in this State, by the good and bad, learned and un- 
 learned, the rich and poor." 
 
 When a court of tlie standing of the New York court of appeals takes judicial notice 
 of the use of tobacco we may safely advance the proposition that many millions of 
 the male citizens of the United States use tobacco, aud it is certain the majority of 
 those use it in the form of a cigar. 
 
 In protecting both the manufacturer aud consumer of cigars from fraud a valuable 
 service is therefore reudered to a \ ery large portion of the community. 
 
 The position taken by the cigar mauufacturerson this question may be fairly stated 
 as being the following: 
 
 Most of them would prefer not to have their business disturbed by any agitation 
 or interference with the tax on cigars. 
 
 In case it is fouud necessary as a nuitter of governmental policy to reduce the in- 
 come of tlie Government from this source, then it is most earnestly urged that the 
 entire iutemal-revenne system, as applied to cigars, should not be annulled an 
 abolished, but with a reductiou of the tax to some nominal amount the good and 
 protective features of the system may be retained. 
 
 The cigar manufacturers are not averse to the loosening of the strict legislative 
 bands now encircling their industry; their only fear is, that .should the present sal- 
 utary aud beneficial features of the iuterual-reverue sy.stem be swept aside, that such 
 repeal will be followed by a perfect avalanche of fraud in refilling empty packages 
 and the piracy of trade-marlss. Under the present state of the law forbidding the 
 refilling of the empty package, both manufacturer and consumer are fully protected. 
 Should these safeguards be removed, it is certain that a reign of terror in the raids 
 made bj' unscrupulous and dishonest dealers ou the trade-marks of well-known and 
 reputable dealers will follow. 
 
 The cigar manufacturers, therefore, simply ask that this protection be accorded, 
 not alone to them, but to the many millions of consumers of cigars throughout the 
 United States. 
 
 The tendency of all modern legislation in all civilized countries effecting commerce 
 is towards the enactment of laws which shall preserve commercial honesty and give 
 commerce protection. The tendency of such legislation in this country is towards 
 securing uniform national laws, which will protect our commerce and our people. No 
 State laws can do this so efficiently and completely as the laws enacted by the Gen- 
 eral Government, and the consumers of cigars, or the manufacturers thereof , have as 
 much right to ask that the protection now afforded them by existing laws be contin- 
 ued as those interested in those matters succeeding in securing new legislation in the 
 matter of our interstate-commerce laws or the laws regulating the manufacture 
 and sale of oleomargarine. 
 
 The cigar manufacturers do not ask for the perpetuation of a system which shall 
 uphold 9r sustain a class or a monopoly. They only ask that the grand protection 
 afforded the con.sumer, as well as themselves, iu the direction of honesty and fair 
 dealing may be continued. They do not ask for new legi.slatiou on this subject. They 
 only claim, and with right and reason, that wherever and whenever the Government 
 can protect commercial interests it should do so. Tobacco yields a revenue to the 
 government of every n.ition on the face of the earth. In some countries it is even ex- 
 clusively handled or controlled by the governments thereof. 
 
 The cigar manufacturers of the United States who have contributed so many hundreds 
 of millions of dollars to the United States Treasury, ask but a slight boon in the name of 
 honesty and fair dealing when they ask that the protective features of the internal 
 revenue system be retained, even if every other part considered obnoxious or useless 
 be swept aside. 
 
 No legislation, which will, as in this case, surely open the flood-gates of piracy, im- 
 itation and fraud, .should be recommended by your honorable committee, nor even pre- 
 sented for the consideration of Congress. 
 
 In as much as it is not proposed to ahnlish the entire system, and as its operations 
 must be maintained so long as the whisky and oleomargarine taxes are to be col- 
 lected, .so the said system may l)e continued as well to prevent fraud and imposition 
 in the sale of manufactured tobacco, as its operations were extended to protect the 
 dairy interests of the country. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 Morris S. Wise, 
 
 Counsel. 
 Edward Heyman, 
 President Legal Protective Association of Cigar 
 Manufacturers of the Citii of Neio Torle. 
 
Revision of the tariff. 1015 
 
 STATEMENT OF MORRIS S. "WISE. 
 
 Mr. MoiilitS S. Wise, of the Cigar Manufacturers' Association of New York, next 
 addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, The National Cigar Mannfaoturers' 
 Association of New Yorlf, wliich comprises within its membership men from all parts 
 of the United States, have aslied me to appear for them, as their counsel. 
 
 I wish to state that the tenement house cigar law is not in force in New York City 
 to-day ; it was declared to be unconstitutional. As to the question of the retentiori of 
 the internal-revenue tax, we do not care what you do with the tax sO far as the 
 amount goes. We do not care in that respect whether yoii increase it of reduce! it, 
 but we do care very much for a system that has grown up and become a part and 
 parcel of the cigar manufacturing business. A preceding speaker asserted that in 
 his opinion the farmers and merchants thought that tobacco should be made free by 
 the removal of the tax, so the very poor man in his garret with the use of child labor 
 could buy tobacco and make cigar.s that would sell two for a cent. The cigar man- 
 ufacturers of the city of New York, taken as a sample, are the best evidence that the 
 interual-revenue system has not tended to prevent the poor niau from rising to a po- 
 sition of commercial supremacy in this great industry. Ninety-five per cent, of the 
 wealthy cigar manufacturers in the city of New York, and perhaps in the United 
 States, were at one time workmen at the bench ; so it is very certain that the inter- 
 nal-revenue system has not tended to prevent these men from coming to the front. 
 If the Treasury surplus is too large, the proper thing to do is to reduce it by reducing 
 the source of the income of the Government from the tax on cigars. 
 
 In the first place, the manufacturers ask a retention of the revenue system; and in 
 the next place every workman demands it. As one preceding speaker said, the Inter- 
 national Cigar Makers' Union, comprising a membership of over 100,000 workmen, 
 have unanimously passed a resolution requesting Congress not to repeal the internal 
 revenue system. The consumers of cigars in America liave aniuterest in tills question. 
 Piracy and the refilling and imitating of packages, as is well known, is done now, 
 and after .a repeal of the law would bo more successfully done. It would be an en 
 tirely different thing if the cigar-makers were demanding the abolition of this system. 
 To my mind they need it as a protection, and for the convenience of the trade. We 
 think we have the same right to ask this protection as the dairyman had to come to 
 Congress and ask it to extend the njgis of protection against the manufacturer of oleo- 
 margarine. We think we have the same right to ask for the retention of this system. 
 If the system is removed the packages of well-known manufacturers throughout the 
 country will be refilled and sold as the genuine article of the manufacturer. 
 
 The tendency of all modern legislation in all civilized countries affecting commerce 
 is toward the enactment of laws which shall preserve commercial honesty and give 
 commerce protection. The tendency of such legislation in this country is towiird se- 
 curing uniform national laws wliicfi will protect our commerce and our people. No 
 State laws can do this so efficiently and completely as the laws eQactod by the Gen- 
 eral Government, and the consumers of cigars, or the manufacturers thereof, have as 
 much right to ask that the protection now attbrded r,hem by existing laws be con- 
 tinued as those interested in those matters succeeded in securing new legislation in 
 the matter of our interstate-commerce laws, or the laws regulating the manufacture 
 and sale of oleomargarine. 
 The Ch/ in.MAN. Would yon bo protected by trade-marks ? 
 
 Mr. Wise. Trade-marks can not be made to fully protect thisindu.stry. Our goods 
 are imitated now. I think this trade is in this respect mil generis. It stands alone. 
 Cigars are not packed in such a way that you would destroy the trade-mark and de- 
 stroy the outer covering of the p^ickage in opening It. A dealer could keep on refill- 
 ing our boxes with cigars, which were made, perhaps, in a garret, of tobacco that 
 cost 2 cents a pound, and which would make cigars so cheap, as was so eloquently 
 depicted by my friend who preceded me. 
 
 JMr. La Follette. Could not the entire form of the package he changed so it would 
 be destroyed in opening it ? 
 
 Wr. Wise. No, sir; I think not. We find cedar wood answers hest the require- 
 ments for packing cigars. 
 Mr. La Folbttb. Suppose the packages were made of paper, for instance? 
 Mr. Wise. That would be of an ephemeral nature. I took a box of cigars to 
 Washington. If it had been packed in a paper box it would have been liable to 
 destruction. This form of c'gar-packing is recognized throughout the world. We 
 have adopted this as a standard package, and we do not think the clg.ar raanufact- 
 nrers should be compelled to change their package, and this standard package has 
 been demonstrated to be the fittest for that purpose, and it should not be changed. 
 Abolish this system and you will absolutely destroy many valuable brands of cigarai 
 
1016 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The system is of great value to iis, and it is also of benefit to the consumers throughout 
 the United States. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You think, in view of the fact that the Government has this internal- 
 revenne system applied to spirits, that the expense of collecting the revenue on cigars 
 would be incidental f 
 
 Mr. Wise. It would of course cost something to collect the tax. You would need 
 a few more inspectors. The cost would, however, be quite small, say 10 cents a thou- 
 sand cigars. We do not care how low you make the tax as long as you preserve 
 unto us the protection of the system. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MOSES KROHN. 
 
 Mr. Mo.SES Krohn, of Cincinnati, Ohio, next addressed the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have been requested to come here 
 by the cigar manufacturers of Dayton and Cincinnati to [)re.sent their views to this 
 committee. The gentleman who preceded me has so thoroughly given all the views 
 on the matter, and as you have been kept here so long giving your attention to to- 
 bacco, I do not care to take up your time unnecessarily. I only wish to state that 
 the manufacturers, as well as the working-men, and all those eng.iged in the cigar 
 industry in Cincinnati and Dayton are heartily in favor of the retention of the tax on 
 cigars. 
 
 Mr. Gear. On cigars alone? 
 
 Mr. Krohn. On cigars. They believe that it is a protection to them, as it encour- 
 ages honest industry, and that a man who has striven to establish a reputation-in 
 his line of business ought to be protected. If you remove the present system it is apt 
 to create a system of piracy of favored brands, as has been already stated, by refilling 
 the cigar boxes. I believe the internal-revenue system in relation to the manufacture 
 of cigars has tended to give the smoker a more healthful and a better cigar than he 
 could get for the same money before the system was inaugurated. If you abolish this 
 system of protection, artificial flavoring will be used. We are using artificial flavor- 
 ing now, but of such substances as are not hurtful. If cigars are to be made in garrets 
 and kitchens, scraps from the table will be mixed with the tobacco and become a 
 component part of the cigar. I do not think that is very desirable ; and I believe 
 that under this system the industry has been fostered and working-men have been 
 paid far more wages under it than they were before or than they will be again. While 
 I could urge other reasons, I will simply close by saying that I think the industry in 
 Cincinnati and Dayton are entirely unanimous in favor of the retention of this tax. 
 I do not think there is any diversity of opinion on the subject. 
 
 STATEMENT OP GEORGE H. HOPKINS. 
 
 Mr. George H. Hopkins, of Detroit, Mich., representing the Detroit cigar manu- 
 facturers, read the following paper : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, for twenty-eight years the tobacco 
 manufacturers have been compelled by the Government to do business in a certain 
 way. That way has been changed twenty-three times. Whatever you do in refer- 
 ence to it do it quickly. We desire above all things to be let alone. I have a reso- 
 lution adopted two years ago when this question was under consideration ; a peti- 
 tion of manufacturers presented to Congress in March, 1888, and we respectfully sub- 
 mit it as covering our case to-day. 
 
 STATEMENT OP CHARLOTTE SMITH. 
 
 Mrs. Charlotte Smith, of Washington, D. C, addressed the committee. She said: 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee : I come before you as representa- 
 tive of the Woman's National Industrial League, an organization of wage-women 
 believing thiit the daily increasing cousurnpitou of cigarettes is the direct cause for 
 the increase of epilepsy, imbecility, and insanity. In some of the States the increase 
 of insanity is reported as high as4U per cent., which is mostly attributable to immod- 
 erate smoking of cigarettes by our youths. 
 
 In 1888 I wrote to every superintendent of public schools .and private edncatioual 
 institutes in the State of Massachusetts to ascertain, if possible, the number of youths 
 under fifteen years of age who were addicted to the use of tobacco. In some of the 
 public schools the returns were as high as 70 per cimt., and the general average was 
 00 per cent. How largo is the general consumption of cigarettes is best illustrated 
 
REVISIOK OF THE TAEIPP. 1017 
 
 ty tlio official retnrtis of the Uuitcd States commissioner of internal revenne, liaving 
 in 1888 collected a tax npou 2, 1">1,515,360 cigarettes. 
 
 Injurious as the smoking of cigarettes is, the wouion who are engaged in the man- 
 nfactnre of cigarettes are still greater snlferi'rs. According to some returns furnished, 
 seventy-six out of one hundred girls engaged in these factories become sick after 
 having worked about six mouths making cigarettes. The mortality among these 
 girls has been as high as 20 per cent, in New York and San Francisco. 
 
 Young girls attending grammar school at 2ri Lafayette avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y., 
 are in the habit of smoking cigarettes when at school, and have been known to smoke 
 when outside of the building, ou the street, and in front of the schaol-house. Prin- 
 cipal Tuthill's attention has been called to these facts, yet his eliorts in breaking up 
 these noxious habits have proved in vain. 
 
 On June 28, 1839, the newspapers chronicled the fact that Mrs. Sadie Walters, of 
 Chicago, an accomplished and beautiful woman, bad become insane from smoking 
 cigarettes. I have in my possession a list of four hundred and six women who have 
 become insane from the immoderate use of smoking cigarettes during the past year 
 (1889). Also, the death rate from cancer directly attributable to the use of cigarettes 
 and cigars from 1860 to 1884 has increased from 32G to 542 to each million inhabit- 
 ants. 
 
 Another equally reprehensible evil is the u.se of snuff liy women of the South. Re- 
 ports from Arkansas state that 90 per cent, of their women population are addicted 
 to snuff-dipping. 
 
 The tobacco used in the manufacture of cigarettes is often adulterated, sometimes 
 admixed with aka and sometimes with morphine. Kag-pickers collect stumps of ci- 
 gars thrown away by smokers into the sticct; these stumps are cut up fine and used 
 in the manufacture of some of the cigarettes. 
 
 It is also an admitted factthat paper used for cigarettes is injurious to health. There 
 are three kinds of paper used in the manufacture of cigaicttrs. They are made from 
 cotton and linen rags and from rice straw. The cotton paper is manufactured from 
 the scrapings of rag-pickers; is bought in large r[uantities by the manufacturers, who 
 turn it into pulp and subject it to a bleaching process. The lime and other sub- 
 stances used in the bleaching process have a very harmful influence upon the mem- 
 brane of throat and nose. This cotton paper is so cheap that a thousand cigarettes 
 can be wrapped at a cost of only 2 cents. Kice paper, which is less injurious, is too 
 expensive, hence seldom used. 
 
 A tobacconized paper is also raannfactnred of common cotton paper saturated with 
 tobacco, and in such a manner as to imitate the veins of the tobacco leaf. Arsenical 
 preparations are also used. Dr. Probst, of the State board of health of Columbus, 
 Ohio, reports the case of a young man who was stricken with a peculiar disease. Hc^ 
 lost bis appetite, became pallid and emaciated, and seemed to be fast approaching 
 the last stages of consumption. It was ascertained that the young man was a cigar- 
 ette fiend. But so rapid was his decline that his friends demanded an analysis of 
 the wrapper of the cigarette. An analysis was made, revealing the truth of the young- 
 man's condition. The wrapper contained ar.scuic in large quantities, and the victim 
 was suffering from arsenical poisoning. 
 
 The Michigan hou,se of representatives pas.sed the "Jackson cigarette bill," which 
 prohibits the manufacture, sale, keeping for sale, or giving away of any cigarettes or 
 any imitation thereof. 
 
 Before closing allow me, gentlemen, to call your atteution to the fact that for the 
 past seven years I have used my best endeavors to call the attention of the parents, 
 guardians, and legislators to the injurious habit of the use of tobacco. I have visited 
 several States during that period, and have publicly spoken against the evil habits, 
 and have particularly paid special attention to warn and plead with the youths of 
 our country. I have repeatedly demonstrated to them that it not only stunts them 
 in their growth but actually impairs their intellect. 
 
 BRIEH-WOOD PIPES. 
 STATEMENT FROM DEMUTH & CO. 
 
 Mr. Burrows presented the following letter: 
 
 New York, January 4, IH'M. 
 
 Dear Sir: In the bill broughtbefore the United States Senate last fall to simplify 
 the laws in relation to the tariff, we find changes which, if adopted, will cause addi- 
 tional trouble in deciding the currect classifications of the articles in questiim. 
 
 In the belief that you are ready to receive suggestions from manufacturers and 
 importers, which will eventually lead to simplify the present existing tariff laws, 
 put an end to the unlimited protests and appeals, and consequent litigations, and 
 
1018 
 
 EEVISION OP THE TAfelFf. 
 
 give less olianoe to imscriipiiloug importers to evade the laws, we respectfully sut' 
 mittUat sections 429, 430, and 431 could easily bo condensed into one clause to read 
 as follows: 
 
 "Pipi'H, pipe-bowls of any material, all smokers' articles whatsoever, including 
 cigarette paper in all forms, and cigarette book covers, bags or pouches, whether 
 used fur chewing or smoking purposes, 70 per cent, ad valorem." 
 
 This would cover everything in the smokers' articles line and would set at rest the 
 maujf doubts as to just classification. If you believe, as we do, that smokers' articles 
 are a luxury, tbey should be classified alike. 
 
 The word " common " clay pipes is indefinite, and is therefore often misconstrued. 
 Clay pipes, we believe, should, in order to do justice to that class of manufacturers, 
 also be protected with 70 per cent. They now pay 35 per cent., while clay-pipe 
 bowls, for which reed stems are used, pay 70 per cent., an omLssion, no doubt, of the 
 tarift' framers, and certainly an unintentionally wrong classification. The clay-pipe 
 manufacturers are not protected with 35 jier cent. Millions of boxes of these goods 
 are imported annually, and nearly every clay-pipe manufacturer who formerly, when 
 wages were much lower, succeeded in this country had to give up manufacturing, and 
 the very few who are now working do so at starvation wages. We do not think 
 that of all the clay pipes sold there is more than 5 jier cent, of American manufact- 
 ure. 
 
 We believe that this great difl'erence in classification between clay at 35 per cent, 
 and other material at 70 per cent, was made under the belief of the framers of the 
 law that it would enable even the poorest men to get a pipe at a cheap price. But 
 the clay pipe will be sold at retail for 1 cent, whether the duty is 35 per cent, or 70 
 per cent., the only difl'erence being that at 35 per cent, more protit is enjoyed by 
 the dealer, while the consumer has nobenefit therefrom. Clay pipes are sold at about 
 40 cents per gross today, and it will be immaterial whether they are sold at 50 cents 
 or even CO cents per gross, there is still a very good margin for the retailer and no 
 lo.ss to the consumer, hut the raise in duty would only be a just equivalent to other 
 l^rotections of this class, and would give employment to many working-men who have 
 been driven out of their branch of bu.siness since more than twenty years. 
 
 The reason why we suugest to insert " tobacco-pouches or tobacco-bags, whether for 
 the use of the smoker or of the chewer,"iuthe same clause with "smokers' articles" is 
 that these omissions have also given the Government considerable trouble, and we 
 never know where the line can be drawn. We can not driscriminate between the 
 shape and style of these pouches. Tne same bag or pouch is used by the smoker as 
 well as the chewer, and it is now held by the custom-house that if the bag is of a cer- 
 tain small size it pays 35 per cent., otherwise 70 per cent. 
 
 We fail to see why a special material, such as wood, needs the extra protection of 
 one-half cent each. Wo believe that 70 per cent., as heretofore, is ample. The process 
 of manufacturing wooden pipes, as far as the Labor is concerned, is not more costly 
 than tbat of any other material, such as meerschaum, china, rubber, clay, etc., 
 especially with our new improved and excellent machinery. There is always a small 
 demand for a cert.ain French brier-wood pipe, and these pipes, owing to the nature 
 of the material and their peculiarities, are not made in this country. They certainly 
 form no part wortliy of extra protection in our manufacturing bu8ines|. 
 
 The wooden cigar-holders, also proposed at 70 per cent, and one-half cent each, 
 are not imported, with the exception of the weichsel holders. The American article 
 sells as low as :|1.50 per gro.ss. Europe can not compete, and we do not see what ben- 
 efit the manufacturers would hav<! in putting an additional duty of 72 cents per 
 gross on this innocent article. A weichsel, or so-called cherry cigar-holder, is im- 
 ported, and sold for $2.50 per gross. They are the product of special cultivation of 
 one place in Europe, and are not made here .at all. 
 
 Our stock represents the largest assortment of domestic and imported smokers' arti- 
 cles in this country. We believe that wc cati therefore fairly assert, without going 
 into details of the cost of manufacturing and wages, that the old rate of 70 percent, 
 is fully !ill that is needed now. Our stock of smokers' articles amounts to about 
 $250,000, over 80 per cent, of which is manufactured in this country. About 10 per 
 cent, arc imported pipes, which are not made here, and lOper cent, consist of pouches, 
 cigar-cases, cigarette papers, etc. 
 
 The adoption of this extra half cent is positively not needed, and will be an annoy- 
 ance to the importer as well as to the custom-house in ne\. classifications and 
 decisions when the qui/stion arises, for instance, as to whether a pipe made of wood 
 with a meerschaum top bowl is to be classitied as a wooden pipe, or a meerschaum 
 pipe. Others would use the cigar-holders in applyingthem to the pipe-shank, which 
 is very often done h(!re on i)ip(!S, and then the (luestion would arise as to whether 
 this was a cigur-lioldcr and a pipe, or only a pipe, and whether it should pay onceor 
 twice this specific duty of 72 cents per gro.ss. 
 
 Another striking proof that the present protection is sufficient is that wooden pipes 
 consist of the wood bowl, a mouth-piece which is made mostly of rubber or horn, and 
 
REVISION Oi? THE TARIFF. 10l9 
 
 a cover and pipe-band made of metal. These fittings of the wooden bowl constitute 
 •half the value of the finished pipe. Our pipe manufacturers with a protection of 70 
 percent, are prospering, and manufacturers of wood, horn, and rubber have a pro- 
 tection of 35, :!0, and 25 per cent. No%v, if all these manufacturers of above mate- 
 rials, in other branches than ours, must get along with an average protection of not 
 over ;i5 per cent., do you not think that we, as manufacturers of wooden pipes, are 
 fully protected with 70 per cent.? This shows that there can be no loss if the three 
 sections are condensed into one as above stated. 
 We remain, very respectfully, yours, 
 
 Wm. Demuth & Co., 
 Manufacturers and Importers. 
 Hon. J. C. Borrows, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 New York, January 13, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : We beg to refer to a letter which we wrote to the Committee on Ways 
 and Means, in regard to smokers' articles, in which we gave an impartial opinion as 
 to how the tariff could be simplified, and complications avoided. 
 
 Since writing the above a gentleman, with his attorney, appeared before yon, 
 asking that brier-wood be imported free, and brier pipes be taxed at 70 per cent, ad 
 valorem and $6 per gross. 
 
 This gentleman has no facilities for preparing and steaming American brier wood, 
 and therefore finds it quite handy to ask you to have brier wood, cut into shapes of 
 pipes, and, consequently, partly manufactured, come in free of duty. The present 
 tariff protects this partly manufactured wood, but a decision of the Treasury De- 
 partment, which was procured through misrepresentations, makes it free now. French 
 brier-wood should be free, if imported in its natural crude state, but such wood as 
 we now import, cut into shapes on which considerable work has already been done, 
 should undoubtedly pay duty as well as any other partially manufactured article. 
 
 There is less American brier used than heretofore, but this is only because it could 
 not compete since the decision referred to above was rendered. To put a tax of 50 
 cents per dozen on wood pipes would give our worthy competitor a protection of not 
 less than 300 per cent, on wooden pipes which are manufactured and sold by all of us 
 as low as $4.50 per gross. 
 
 We remain, dear sir, respectfully yours, 
 
 Wm. Demuth & Co. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlby, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. STRAUSS. 
 
 Mr. William Strauss, of New York, appeared before the committee. lie said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and geutlemen : The subject that I am interested in and to which I 
 wish to call your attention is the subject of brier-wood pipes. The last Senate bill 
 proposed a specific duty of one-fourth of 1 cent on each pipe, and an ad valorem 
 duty of 70 per cent, as against the existing 70 per cent, ad valorem, and at the same 
 time suggested in another section of Schedule D, under wood ami wooden ware, an ad 
 valorem duty of 20 per cent, on brier-root on brier-wood. At present there is no duty 
 upon brier-rout or brier-wood. 
 
 The Chairman. Does it come in free now ? 
 
 Mr. Strauss. It comes in free at present. Any inequities of the projiosed change 
 would come in this way : It is proposed to increase the duty upon what is now free 
 and comes in as a raw material and leave the ad valorem duty on pipes, because the 
 proposed increase of one-fourth of a cent on each pipe at a spec! lie rate would hardly 
 be sufficient to compensate for the diflereuce which we would be obliged to pay upon 
 the wood, which is 20 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. Borrows. It would be half a cent on each pipe? 
 
 Mr. Strauss. Yes, sir ; half a cent on each pipe, and 70 cents a gross. We enter into 
 competition with the cheap labor of Austria, Germany, and France, where the la- 
 bor averages |2.40 per week in factories turning out brier-wood pipes as against », 
 compensation of |12 to |18 per week for the same class of mechanics in this country. 
 In other words, we are paying more than 500 per cent, difference in wages. Compe- 
 tition is keen and the business is not a ijrofitable one, for, by reason of a Treasury 
 decision, the American manufacturer is not alone hampered by the duty of 70 per 
 cent, which now exists, but the Treasury decisions allowing packing to come in free, 
 jjermitting the cases in which these goods are packed to come in free, so that by an 
 ingenious method adopted by the importers elreap brier-wood pipes come in from 
 Europe in a very respectable case upon which there is no dutjf, so that we are 
 burned at both ends. They put a great many cheap pipes in fine cases, and in that' 
 
1020 
 
 REVISION OP The tariff. 
 
 way they come in. The competing pipes being snsceptible of cheaper manufacture 
 here than it is abroad causes the importation of pipes willi a celluloid bit which is 
 attached to the foreign imported pipe which comes iu free pacliing. The case pays 
 no duty. 
 
 The Chairmax. Suppose we restore the package clause? 
 
 Mr. Strauss. That would go a loug ways towards relief. Wh.at we ask is an in- 
 crease of tlie specific rate to 50 cents a dozen and the removal of the tariff on the 
 wood and leave the wood as it is. 
 
 The Chairman. Is that assuming that the package clause will remain ? 
 
 Mr. Stkauss. That is assuming the package clause be removed. There was a 
 specific duty upon pipes of $1.50 jier gross that was removed and changed. Now, we 
 should like to have about 50 orpossibly 45 cents a dozen duty, with the package clause 
 removed. That would do away with what we have now to contend with. In 
 other words, we want the pipe imported as a pipe to begin with. We do not wtsh to 
 have a hybrid article to come in at an ad valorem duty and allowing them to aftix 
 this manufactured celluloid bit. We want them to jiay on what comes in. It is a 
 peculiarity of brier-wood that many imperfections are found in it. When the article 
 is manufactured 55 to 65 'per cent, of the goods manufactured turn out as what we 
 call imperfect. They are called imperfect by the trade. The consequence is, when 
 the imperfection is of a slight char.acter, the consumer and person not well informed 
 upon tlie tricks of the trade would not discover it. This [indicating] would be an 
 imperfect pipe, for with a little putty tilling it would be sold as a sound pipe. Tlio 
 percentage of imperfect pipes produced out of brier- wood is equivalent to from 55 to 
 65 per cent. The.se cheaper goods to the trade are sold at a lower price than the per- 
 fect goods. 
 
 The Chairm.vn. But to the consumer how arc they sold ? 
 
 Mr. Strauss. To the consumer they are not sold cheaper. That is another inequity. 
 When the pipe is badly bruised or scratched, or if an ornamented pipe, if it is dis- 
 figured, of course there is a nominal concession made to the consumer, but such a 
 concession is not made to the buyer of the foreign goods when he is buying the goods 
 abroad. The proportion say, iu round numliers, is 60 per cent., so that we have to 
 contend not only against the unfinished pipe imported in free cases paying no duty, but 
 we also have to contend with a pipe nominally imperfect, but actually sound for com- 
 mercial purposes. We do not have the advantage the importer has because wo have 
 to pay our workmen the same price per gross whether ninety-five or ninety-two of 
 those pipes prove to be imperfect, or whether the one hundred and forty- four happen 
 to be good. In other words, our labor is not fixed by the proportion of imperfect 
 pipes, but on the proportion of goods turned out. What we want to call the atten- 
 tion of the conuuitteetois the fact of these iuequitie.s — free packing aud the unfinished 
 pipe paying a nominal ad valorem duty ; and then, in the third place, gets iu under 
 this nominal duty as against the pipe which we make and for which we pay full 
 wages. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What do you suggest as the rate of duty ? 
 
 Mr. Strauss. We desire to have 50 cents, per dozen specific duty, and we wish to 
 drop the 20 per cent, ad valorem which the Senate proposed. 
 
 Mr. Fliiwer. How many men are engaged in this industry in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Strauss. Five to ten thousand. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Where do you obtain your wood from ? 
 
 Mr. Strauss. We import it. Except a small proportion found and dug up by some 
 colored people in North Carolina there is no real trade in brier- wood iu this country. 
 All the brier-wood raised here would not be sulficient to supply the tenth part of 
 what is necessary in the manufacture of pipes. People dig it out of the ground in 
 the south aud simply sell it to a shop keeper. There is no traffic in it. Such wood is 
 found in lumps like this [indicating]. When found, it is in such form that it re- 
 quires extra preparation to get it ready for market. It comes to us iu this shape 
 [indicating]. It is rather in the form of a bowl. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Where is it imported from? 
 
 Mr. Strauss. Italy and France. The German and French peasants dig it up. 
 Upon examination of the records I find the difTerence between lSb7 and IHciS in the 
 amount of duty ]iaid on brier-wood [lipes to have increased about K< per cent. In 
 1887 there were 1146,000 paid for pipes aud suu)kers' articles, and in 1888, $191,000 
 were paid. That is probably due to the additional fact that packing and the unfin- 
 ished pipe business was taken advantage of by the importers. We close with the 
 suggestion that the duty be made specific upon piiics at 50 cents per dozeu, ,and we 
 ask for a removal of the ad valorem duty on brier-wood which is proposed by the 
 Senate bill, and that it lie put on tlie free list. 
 
 Mr. Hreckinrukje. And you want the present ad valorem rate retained ? 
 
 Mr. Sti:auss. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is the price of your cheapest pipes? 
 
EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 1021 
 
 Mr. Stkauss. We are making brier pipes as low as $9 a gross or 75 coats a dozen. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Wliat is tlie cheapest ? 
 
 Tbe witness here exhibited various Ijiuds of pipes and gave the prices of them, 
 giving the lowest price per gross as |i7.50, and the highest price per gross as $54. 
 
 VIEWS OP MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 We desire a specific duly in addition to the present ad valorem, so that paragraph 
 No. -i'^d, page 66, of last year's Senate bill should read as follows : 
 
 " Pipes, pipe-bowls, and cigar-holders of wood, 48 cents per dozen and 70 per cen- 
 tum ad valorem." 
 
 We also desire that " briar-root or briar-wood " be taken out of Schedule D (of the 
 proposed Senate bill), and be continued ou the free list. The Senate bill in paragraph 
 216, page 51, proposes to place a 20 per cent, ad valorem duty. Believing that such 
 a duty would work additional hardship upon manufacturers and increased advan- 
 tages to the importers of pijjes, we oppose the passage of such legislation on that 
 ground. 
 
 The decisions of the Treasury Department having seriously affected manufacturers 
 of pipes, we desire to call the attention of your committee to the same. 
 
 In support of the foregoing propositions wo submit the following points: 
 
 Firxf. The present importation of pipes, pipe-bowls, and cigar-holders of wood 
 is of such a character that the condition of our manufacturers is simply one of hard- 
 ship. 
 
 (A) The labor market here compels us to pay to our workmen an average of from 
 $12 to §15 per week for this class of work, the greater part of which is hand work and 
 not machine work. The labor nuirkct of Austria, Italy, and southern France, where 
 many of these goods are made and against which we staud in competition, rests upon 
 such a basis that the wages earned by these foreign workmen making such wares 
 amounts to no more than between 7 and 8 guldeu=$2.8U oriro.2 - per week. 
 
 (B) One of the features of the trade is the enormous sale of so-called "seconds," 
 or second quality goods, by which term is meant such manufactured articles as are 
 not perfect in every respect. The proportion of " seconds" is equal to about 65 per 
 cent, of the entire jiroduction. The " seconds" are sold at a reduction, running 
 from 40 to 70 per cent, below the regular price — the reduction depeudiug upon the 
 amount of damage or defect appearing on the article. These nominal defects (for they 
 consist merely of slight depressions or scratches, or abrasions, which .are easily filled 
 with putty, red lead, or other soft material, so as to deceive or jiass unobserved by 
 the unpractised eye) are sold to the consumer at substantially full market prices in 
 this country. 
 
 A consumer thus obtains no advantage by reason of the reduced price of imperfect 
 goods, but the American manufacturer is virtually deprived of his market. The 
 goods are imported and entered as ''seconds" and at a corresponding valuation. 
 
 (C) In addition to the "seconds," or imperfect goods, which the American manu- 
 facturer has had to contend against, he has also been compelled to witness the impor- 
 tation of pipes partially finished, and which, by reason of their unfinished state, were 
 also entered at a nominal valuation, thus again paying a nominal ad valorem duty. 
 Thus a pipe witliout the mouthpiece, or "bit," would be imported as an unfinished 
 pipe ; as such, the imiiorter would be at liberty to have his own valuation placed 
 thereon. 
 
 Jlany of the better class of pipes are imported in this unfinished state, thus paying 
 a nominal ad valorem duty upon a good pipe. It would thereafter be finislied here by 
 adding a " bit," or mouth-piece, very often of celluloid — an American invention — or of 
 amber, which is entered free of duty and turned into a variety of forms in this coun- 
 try at a nominal cost. 
 
 (D) The cost of the pipe iu this country is based upon the amount of labor bestowed 
 upon it. In other words, workmen are paid a certain price per gross, and receive 
 such price whether 60 or 70 per cent, of the pipes turned out are imperfect (classed 
 "seconds") or not. It thus happens that to the American manufacturer the cost of 
 the imperfecii or second class of pipes is as great as that of perfect pipes, of which 
 last named only 110 to 40 per cent, come from a gross. 
 
 The second quality of pipes, by reason of facility of importation, comprises the bulk 
 of imported briar-wood [iipes. The first quality is mainly disposed of in Europe. The 
 "seconds," being readily "doctored" or re)iaired liy the use of putty or other soft 
 material, are freely sold to the American consumer iu competition with our first qual- 
 ity of pipes. 
 
 Now, with an American labor market showing an increase of from 300 to 500 per 
 cent, compared with the labor market of Europe iu this particular article, .issumiu"- 
 t^Jiat tte goods of both countries were .sold on a par as to quality, wc have the a4^ 
 
1022 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 ditional disadvantage of being compelled to submit to the low valuation at which 
 the defective foreign manufacture is imported into this country, and thereupon sold 
 as a sound article at just enough below American quotations to force our own manu- 
 facture out of the market, without giving the consumer a particle of benefit. 
 
 TREASURY DECISIONS AFFECTING THIS INDUSTRY. 
 
 The result of Treasury decisions in the packing carton or wrapping oases was of 
 sucli a character as to cast additional burdens upon the manufacturer of pipes. 
 
 (A) The case or wrapper in which a pipe is packed is a very attractive feature and 
 a very important element in its sale. The importer no longer pays duty upon that 
 jjart of the pipe, hence the American manufacturer, if he wishes to have any pipe 
 cases or wrappers, not only must pay 500 per cent, more for the labor necessary to 
 make the case than is paid for the case in Europe, but must contend against the free im- 
 port.itiou of the same. It should be remembered that the pipe casing or covering is 
 made of good leather, papier-mach6, brass hinges, plush, velvet, s,atin, orsilklining, and 
 other materials which, if imported in bulk alone, would be dutiable. It thus happens 
 that in addition to an increase of 500 iier cent, in labor, the American manufacturer 
 of pipe cases must iiay so much more for the material entering into a case than the 
 foreign manufacturer. 
 
 (B) In this way it happens very often that a very fine case covers an ordinary pipe. 
 The .case is entered free of duty; the low-priced pipe (perhaps a defective one, or it 
 may be an unfinished one) is entered at a nominal price, paying a nominal ad valorem 
 duty. After importation the case is used for a better class of pipes, or for pipes im- 
 ported in an unfinished state but finished here. The low priced or damaged pipe 
 imported in a fine case is taken from the case and is made to compete against our 
 American manufacturer. 
 
 It may be incidentally remarked that the case is very often offered for sale. Tlie 
 profit made by the sale of the case by the importer goes to the still further reduction 
 of the cost of his imported pipe. 
 
 (C) It will thus be seen that the effect of the Treasury decision is to place the 
 American manufacturer of pipes at a disadvantage and disable him to compete with 
 the importer, who already has the advantage of a low duty upon (a) defective pipes 
 called "seconds," or (b) unfinished pipes (generally of good quality), but entered at 
 a nominal valuation ; (c) a non-duty paying case or packing sold at a profit. 
 
 Second. We desire to call the attention of your committee to the fact that briar- 
 root or briar-wood is now on the free list. It should remain so, for the reason that 
 there is no established industry of the sort in this country. The only wood of the 
 kind that is to be had here is dug up in an indifferent way in a few localities. The 
 fact is, that while we pay no more for the small production of domestic wood even 
 Avithout duty than we do for the imported, such limited production or quantities 
 finding a ready enough market for some purposes, yet the domestic wood can never 
 supercede or become a substitute for the imported article, as the latter is always 
 necessary in order to make the "French" briar pipe. 
 
 (A) Notwithstanding the fact that the importers were clamorous for the duty on 
 briar-wood and briar-root, the Mills bill avoided the snare. It is clear that the im- 
 position of a duty on this wood would be a measure in favor of the importer and in 
 direct hostility to the interests of the American manufacturer of pipes. The duty 
 proposed on wood would add 1^ cents to the cost of each i)ipe, and thereby still fur- 
 ther remove the American manufacturer from competition with the imported pipe, 
 which has .already the numerous advantages and methods of escaping customs duty 
 above pointed out. The addition of 18 cents per dozen to the cost of our manufacture 
 would be just so much premium to the importer, as it would virtually operate as a 
 reduction of duty to the importer. 
 
 (B) Tlie demand by the trade and by the consumers for what is known as the 
 "French" briar pipe is a fact. The trade and the consumer know the difference between 
 thciinporteil briar-woodandthe American briar- wood, and a demand for the "French" 
 briar-wood pipe could not be filled by American briar and pipes. Pipes made of im- 
 ported briar-wood are generally designated by the trade .as " French." There is not 
 enough wood grown here to affect the pipe market, even with the present limited 
 manufacture of briar pipes, inasmuch as the bulk of briar-wood that is needed by 
 manufacturers is necessarily iuj ported. 
 
 (C) The demand for duty on the imported bri.ar-root or wood comes from the im- 
 porter. His motive is not patriotic, nor is his business one of charity. Ifthepresent 
 law in regard to briar-wood is not to stand, but if, on the contrary, proposed legisla- 
 tion would compel us to pay a duty on the wood which we use in manufacturing 
 pipes, increasing the cost of each pipe 1^ cents, we would not he immodest in asking 
 for a speci tic duty of at least 60 cents per dozen on pipes, pipe bowls, and cigar-hold- 
 ers of wood, instead of 48 cents, as above requested, in addition to the proposed ad 
 valorem. 
 
 Third, We believe that the sales of goods cot(ueot6(I with the industry in tW9 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1023 
 
 country amounts to upward of $4,000,000 per annum. If a specific duty were im- 
 posed upon the pipe as requested, and the wood be permitted to come in free of duty, 
 a large industry would be built up here, wliereby many more workingmeu could ob- 
 tain employment at remunerative wages. Thei'e are employed at present in the 
 trade and in all its branches, probably between five and ten thousand persons; the 
 number now employed could be doubled and trebled. 
 
 The result of a specific duty, such as is asked for, would be to increase the output 
 or iiroduction of the American pipe. Hence the greater demand for the briar-wood 
 found in this country. Thus it would come that in addition to the sale of briar 
 pipes made of imported briar-wood, the manufacturer would also sell briar pipes 
 manufactured oat of American briar-wood, so far as the limited supply of American 
 briar- wood should permit. 
 
 To summarize the foregoing, our application seeks to secure a specific duty upon 
 pipes, pipe-bowls, and cigar-holders of wood, in addition to the ad valorem duty, 
 and also to secure the retention of briar-root or briar-wood on the free list and tak- 
 ing it out of the proposed Schedule D. We also desire to re-enforce and execute our 
 rights under such proposed legislation by asking your committee to impose a proper 
 duty on cases, packings, or wrappings in which the briar pipe, pipe-bowl, or holder 
 is imported. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 William Strauss, 20 Nassau street, New York, 
 
 Eepreseniiny manufacturers of hriar-wooA irii^es. 
 
 AMERICAN CLAY PIPES. 
 
 The following papers were presented and ordered to be printed in the record : 
 To the mernbers of tlie Forty -ninth Congress of the United States : 
 
 Gentlemen: Having submitted a lengthy appeal to you through the Secretary of 
 the Treasury for a revision of the tariff laws on manufactured clay pipes brought intO' 
 this country from the factories of Europe, and asking that the s.ame be changed 
 from ad valorem to specific duty, we would respeetfnlly add the following very per- 
 tinent arguments why our plea should receive due consideration at your hands: 
 
 First. By granting onr request, .and making the duty 25 cents per gross, you will 
 not only protect American-made goods, bnt you will do so at no extra cost to the; 
 consumer, and as that cost is now at the lowest possible price within the me- 
 dium of our currency — namely, 1 cent apiece for those in most general use — reduc- 
 tion on same is of course out of the question. It is also conceded by those who are 
 acquainted with the facts that the American clay pipe is much superior to the Euro- 
 pean article — American clay being ranked with the best in the world, and, being, 
 generally more porous than foreign, is hence more healthful to the habitual user. 
 
 Second. By increasing the import duty, and thus to some degree discouragiug the 
 importation of foreign-made pipes, this line of manufacture will be greatly stimulated 
 in this country, and there will necessarily spring up factories for their production in 
 regions where they could not now exist, and which are at present reached only by 
 foreign goods. This is true of the entire South, the nearest home factory to this por- 
 tion of the country being situated in the city of Baltimore. It may be asked, " Why 
 do not American clay pipes reach the South ? " The reason is very apparent. Im- 
 porters in introducing foreign clay pipes to Southern dealers, through the medium of 
 commercial travelers, do so at little or no cost for this special commodity, from the 
 fact that clay pipes constitute but one of many articles so introduced, as their wares. 
 also include meersch.anm, brier-wood, and every other variety of pipe, besides all 
 other kinds of smokers' articles generally. On the other hand, the American manu- 
 facturer would be compelled to send agents to this distant portion of the country for 
 the sole purpose of introducing clay pipes alone, and at the ridiculously low prices 
 at which he is now compelled to produce his goods in competition with the cheap 
 labor of Europe this would be next to impossible. For these reasons importers of 
 European pipes have the Southern field virtually to themselves, and make good use 
 of it, as will be seen from the fact that a common 1 cent pipe costs the consumer in 
 the Southern States 2 cents apiece. With proper encouragement to American manu- 
 facturers to establish themselves in this large section of the country, this extortion — 
 which ojalnly comes from the pockets of the poorer classes — would cease to exist. 
 
 Third. As our business is really a branch of pottery — the same methods being em- 
 ployed — we should at least receive the same protection accorded the other branches 
 of that industry. The mechanics employed in the various potteries in the United 
 States are thus enabled to earn living wages, while a skilled clay-pipe maker is com- 
 pelled to work long hours to secure the bare necessaries of life, and this because the 
 
1024 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 product of his labor comes in direct competitioa Tvith European starvation prices, and 
 tlie numerous other .similar advantages enjoyed by foreign manufacturers. 
 
 For the foregoing reasons we therefore respectfully ask that the form of duty be 
 changed from ad valorem to speciUc, and that said duty be not less than 25 cents per 
 gross. 
 
 If, in the wisdom of Congress, the form of duty be not changed, then we ast that 
 the ad valorem doty be so increased as to place us at least on an equal footing with 
 other deyiartiuents of pottery in geueral. 
 
 The effiirts now being made to increase protection on American clay pipes are not 
 coufiued to the manufacturers alone, but are strongly stimulated by their workmen, 
 whose interests are identical with those of their employers on this all-important sub- 
 ject. 
 
 Kespeotfully subuiitted. 
 
 United Ameeican Clay Tobacco Pipe Manufacturers' Association, 
 Wm. Masteks, Secretary, C38 Kosciusko strett, BrookUjn, N. T. 
 
 To the Senators and Representatives of the Fiftieth Congress of the United States : 
 
 Gentlemen : Having already sent our appeal to both sessions of the Forty-ninth 
 Congress, asking for a revision of the tarilf lawsou mauufactured clay pipes brought 
 into this country froui the factories of Europe, aud hopiug that the members of the 
 Fiftieth Congress may grant the assistance we failed to procure from the other two 
 sessions and help to prosperity an almost exterminated industry, we would respect- 
 fully add the following very pertinent arguments why our plea should receive due 
 consideratioD at vour hands: 
 
 First. By grautiug our request of making the duty 25 cents per gross you will not 
 only protect American-made sioods, but you will do so at no extra cost to the con- 
 sumer ; as that cost is now at the lowest price within the medium of our currency — 
 namely, 1 cint apiece for those in most general use, reductiou on the same is, of course, 
 out of the question. It is also conceded by those who are acijuainted with the facts 
 that the American clay pipe is much superior to the European article, American clay 
 being the best in the world because of its being more porous than foreign, aud hence 
 more healthful to the habitual user. 
 
 Second. There are only about eighty-five pipe-makers earning a living at the busi- 
 ness in the United States where tljore was once, at the very least, two thousand; 
 aud, if we produced 'J2 per cent, of the pipes consumed iu the United States, which 
 is the aggregate consumption of all other products in the United States, there would 
 be at least five thousand. 
 
 Third. It will be seen from this that this business has been and is still left out in 
 the cold, as we do not produce 2 per cent, of what are consumed, and import over 98 
 per cent- 
 Fourth. To illustrate: When the other branches of our industry had no more pro- 
 tection than we have they never produced over 2 per cent, of our consumption. 
 
 Hfth. By increasing the import duty, and thus to some degree discouraging the 
 imporation of fcireigu-made pipes, this line of manufacture will be greatly stimulated 
 in this country, and there will necessarily spring up factories for their production in 
 regions where they could not now exist, which are at present reached only by foreign 
 goods. This is true of the eutire South, the nearest home factory to that portion of 
 the country being situated iu the city of Baltimore. 
 
 Sixth. It may be asked: "Why do not American clay pipes reach the South? The 
 reasou is very apparent. Importers in introducing foreign clay pipes to Southern 
 dealers through tlie medium of commercial travelers do so at little or no cost for this 
 Kliecial commodity, from the fact that clay pipes constitute but one of many articles 
 so introduced, as their line of goods also include meerschaum, brier-wood, aud every 
 other variety of jiipes, besides all other kinds of smokers' articles generally. 
 
 Seventh. On the other hand, the American manufacturer would be compelled to 
 send agents to this distant portion of the country for the sole purpose of introducing 
 clay pipes alone aud at the riiliculonsly low price at which he is now compelled to 
 produce his gciods in competition with tho cheap labor of Europe. This wonld be 
 absolutely impossible. 
 
 Eighth. For these reasons importers of European pipes have the Southern field 
 virtually to themselves and make good use of it, as will be seen from the fact that a 
 couiuiou 1-cent pipe costs the cousamer in those parts 2 aud 13 cents apiece. With 
 proprr euconingc^Tiient to American manufacturers to estalilish themselves in this 
 large section of the country this extortion, which maiuly couies from the pockets of 
 the poorer classes, would cease to exist. 
 
 Ninth. During the period that gold was at a promiutn there were several facto- 
 jiea in the United States aud about two thousand mou making pipes aloacj but wheft 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1025 
 
 greenbacks were put on par they had to give up after struggling hard and with great 
 loss. 
 
 Tenth. The rates of interest, rents, and many other incidental expenses are much 
 greater in the United States than in Europe. 
 
 Eleventh. In $1 worth of pipes there is 88 per cent, of labor and 12 per cent, of 
 materials. 
 
 Twelfth. It has been claimoil that the proximity of the American manufacturers 
 to the consumers gives them a great advantage in the item of freights. This is a 
 mistalie, for the freights from New York to any distant part of the country is oftener 
 more than the freight from Europe to those distant points. 
 
 Thirteenth. The surplus revenue is increasing at a very alarming rate, and if pipes 
 were 25 cents per gross specific duty it would discourage foreign pipes, and, we be- 
 lieve, would decrease the revenue on the item of pipes. 
 
 Fourteenth. As our business is really a branch of pottery, the same methods being 
 employed, we should have at least received the same protection accorded the other 
 branches of our industry. The mechanics employed in the various other kinds of pot 
 teries in the United States are thus ena,bled to earn living wages, while a skilled clay- 
 pipe maker is compelled to work long hours to secure the bare necessaries of life, and 
 this because the product of his labor comes in direct competition with European star- 
 vation prices and the numerous other similar advantages enjoyed by foreign manu- 
 facturers. 
 
 For the foregoing reasons we therefore respectfully ask that the form of duty be 
 changed from ad valorem to specific, and that said duty be not less than 2.5 cents per 
 gross. If, in the wisdom of Congress, the form of duty be not changed, then we ask 
 that the ad valorem duty be so increased as to place us at least on an equal footing 
 with the other departments of pottery in general. The efforts now being made to in- 
 crease the protection on American clay pipes are not confined to the manufacturers, 
 but are more strongly stimulated by their workmen, their interests being identical 
 with those of employers on this all-important subiect. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 ' United American Clay Tobacco Pipe Employees' & Employes' Ass'n 
 
 TOBACCO AND SUGAR IN WISCONSIN. 
 
 Mr. Caswell, of Wisconsin, appeared before the committee and said: 
 
 Gentlemen of the committee, I am very grateful for this opportunity of expressing 
 to you the wish of my constituents in reference to a revision of the tariff. My peo- 
 ple are deeply interested in the growth of tobacco. Large quantities are raised in 
 my district. They are largely interested in buildings and laud specially prepared 
 for that crop. They can raise an excellent grade, suitable for wrappers, but the in- 
 dustry is greatly injured, I may say rendered unprofitable, because of the importa- 
 tion of Sumatra tobacco. My constituents believe we should fix the duty ou that 
 article at $2 per pound, and that rate should be placed upon every package any part 
 of which is suitable for wrappers. 
 
 Let me express also the hope that you will make a large reduction in the rate now 
 levied upon sugar, if you do not take it oflf altogether. I do not believe in collect- 
 ing fifty or sixty millions of dollars annually from this article of universal con- 
 sumption to protect an industry wjpich does not yield, with such aid, one-tenth of the 
 amount consumed. I think nine-tenths of my constituents are for free sugar. 
 
 I thank you, gentlemen, for this opportunity, and trust you will give us such a 
 bill as will meet with universal favor. 
 
 485 65 
 
1026 
 
 KEVISrON OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 HOPS. 
 
 VIEWS OF THE UNITED STATES BREWERS' ASSOCIATION. 
 
 To the Senators and Representatives in the Congress of the United States : 
 
 III reference to a bill introduced iu the House of Representatives by Mr. De Lano, 
 of 2Sfew York, and entitled "A bill to fix the rate of duty on hops, hop auxiliaries, 
 and hop substitutes," said bill imposing a duty of 20 cents on hops in lien of the pres- 
 ent duty of S cents, your petitioners, the undersigned, trustees of the United States 
 Brewers' Association, most respectfully beg leave to submit the following reasons 
 ■why said bill should not become a law: 
 
 While the brewers of this country, the almost exclusive consumers of hops, are sin- 
 cerely and earnestly in favor of protecting domestic agriculture against the competi- 
 tion of what is usually styled the pauper labor of Europe, they can not concede either 
 the necessity or the justice or the wisdom of an increase of the present duty on hops. 
 Far from being in need of additional protection against foreign competition, the 
 hop-growers of our country have for years successfully competed with foreign hop- 
 growers in European markets, and have done and are doing so in a measure far ex- 
 ceeiling the degree of competition which they have to meet in their own home mar- 
 kets at the hands of foreign growers. From the statistical abstract for 1888, issued 
 in 1889 by the United States Treasury Department, it appears that the quantities of 
 hops imported into and exported from our country from 1882 to 1888, inclusive, were 
 as follows : 
 
 Hops imported. ■ Hops exported. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1882 955,854 
 
 1883 2,122,589 
 
 1884 701,104 
 
 18S5 1,642,086 
 
 1886 2,672,762 
 
 1887 18,538,049 
 
 1888 5,585,033 
 
 32, 217, 477 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 882 5,867,363 
 
 883 7,817,228 
 
 884 13,516,642 
 
 885 7,055,289 
 
 886 13,665,661 
 
 887 260,721 
 
 888 6,793,818 
 
 64, 976, 722 
 
 From the quantity imported must be deducted 1,152,316 pounds offoreign hops 
 exported from our country, leaving for consumption an aggregate of 31,065,161 
 pounds as against 54,976,722 pounds of American hops exported during this period of 
 seven years. It will be seen at a glance that the excess alone of exportation over im- 
 portation — being 22,759,245 pounds — amounted to nearly three-fourths of the entire 
 quantity of hops imported from foreign lands for consumption in the United States. 
 The successful competition of American hop-growers with foreign hop-growers in the 
 home markets of the latter is still more strongly illustrated by a table of the value 
 of the quantities of hops imported and exported, respectively. The figures are taken 
 from the official source already quoted and are as fallows: 
 
 Value of imported hops. 
 1882 $302,102 
 
 1883. 
 1884. 
 1885. 
 1886. 
 1887. 
 1888. 
 
 Value of exported hops. 
 
 882 $1,436,786 
 
 883 
 
 884 
 
 885 
 
 5, 610, 370 
 
 3, 265, 211 
 
 1, 391, 854 
 
 1, 714, 488 
 
 54, 970 
 
 1, 203, 060 
 
 14, 702, 739 
 
 1, 579, 003 
 
 304, 297 
 
 433, 706 
 
 444, 988 
 3, 404, 669 
 1, 017, 494 
 
 7, 486, 269 
 
 The value of imported hops as stated above does not include duty or cost of trans- 
 portation, etc. 
 
 These data, considered in connection with the fact that the present duty of 8 cents 
 on every pound of hops amounted to an ad valorem duty of 49.50 per cent, in 1886, 
 of 42.64 per cent, in 1887, and 43.90 per cent, in 1888, prove conclusively that there is 
 no noce.s.sity for further protection to the American hop-growers — the successful com- 
 petitors offoreign growers in foreign markets. 
 
 In addition to being unnecessary, the propo,sed increase of the hop duty would be 
 extremely unwise, even if the interests of the hop-growers only were to be consid- 
 ered. In view of the l.-irgi- excess of American exportation over importation, itisnot 
 to be wondered at that hop-growers in those foreign countries in which American hops 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1027 
 
 are largely consumed, evince great dissatisfaction and clamor loudly for protective 
 duties. An increase of the American duty to the point of prohibition, such as the 
 bill in question proposes, would intensify the discontent of foreign growers and lead 
 to retaliatory duties excluding American hops from these markets. 
 
 That it would not be just to allow the bill in question to 'become a law is easily 
 demonstrated, for a duty of 20 cents on every pound of hops would be absolutely 
 prohibitive in its character, and its effect would of necessity be exceedingly detri- 
 mental to the interests of the brewers, of small benefit to domestic growers, and of 
 decided advantage only to the intermediary agent between producer and conlumer; 
 in fact, the absolute control of the market would then be in the hands of a few dealers. 
 The glaring iujuatioe of the proposed increase of duty becomes still more manifest 
 when the likelihood of occasional failures of American hop crops is taken into con- 
 sideration. In such cases, examples of which are still fresh in the recollection of 
 your petitioners, the brewers would sustain great pecuniary losses, while'the domes- 
 tic hop-grower would reap no benefit whatever from the existence of the proposed 
 exorbitant duty. 
 
 Your petitioners beg leave to add that the New York State Brewers' Association, 
 at a meeting held in March, 1889, adopted the following: 
 
 "Resolved, That to further encourage the cultivation of hops in this State we will 
 join the various hop-growers' associations in a petition to Congress to so regulate the 
 duty on foreign hops as to insure {jrotection to one of the principal agricultural in- 
 terests of this State." 
 
 It is worthy of note that at the said meeting only twenty-seven out of a total of 
 one hundred and eight brewing members were present, while hop-dealers, malstere, 
 and kindred trades were represented by forty-four delegates. This resolution was 
 submitted to the United States Brewers' Association at a convention held at Niagara 
 Falls in June, 1889, and there referred to a special committee, with instructions to 
 ascertain whether all the local brewers' associations throughout the country would 
 favor any increase of the duty on hops. 
 
 The result of this inquiry shows that all local brewers' associations are unanimously 
 opposed to any such increase, and this result includes the unanimous negative vote 
 of the local associations of the cities of New York, Brooklyn, Buffalo, and Rochester, 
 the very associations whose members constitute 95 per cent, of the hop-consuming 
 members of the New York State Brewers' Association. 
 
 The latter fact simply shows that on examining the question thoroughly the New 
 York brewers became convinced that the present duty, under which the exportation 
 of hops reached a point far exceeding the importation of foreign hops, affords the very 
 protection which the resolution called for. 
 
 These are the reasons which, in the opinion of your petitioners, should prevent the 
 passage of the bill here in question. 
 
 Thies J. Lefens, Chairman, Chicago, 111. August Uihlein, Milwaukee, Wis. 
 
 Henry Clausen, Jr., New York. Leo Ernst, Chicago, 111. 
 
 George Ehret, New York. Leo Ebert, Ironton, Ohio. 
 
 Joseph Liebmann, Brooklyn, N. Y. Edward W. Stiefel, Carroll P. C, 
 
 I. Danenberg, East Newark, N. J. Baltimore, Md. 
 
 Henry H. Roeter, Boston, Mass. James Liebmann, 
 
 G. F. BURKHARDT, Boston, Mass. H. B. Soharmann, 
 
 C. W. Bergner, Philadelphia, Pa. Vice-Presidents. 
 
 Ellis Wainwright, St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 New York, February 6, 1890. 
 The above is a correct copy of the original petition on file in the office of the United 
 States Brewers' Association. 
 [seal.] Riohd. Katzenmayer, 
 
 Seweiary. 
 
 Columbus, Ohio, January 20, 1890. 
 
 We, the undersigned brewers and malsters of the city of Columbus, county of 
 Franklin and State of Ohio, having heard that the member of Congress representing 
 the twenty-fourth district of the State of New York is making an effort to greatly 
 increase the import duty on hops, and as the present specific duty of 8 cents per 
 pound is equal to an ad valorem duty of from 40 to 60 per cent, and fully represents 
 the average cost of production of hops in the United States, respectfully protest 
 most earnestly against any advance in the duty, as it would be a great hardship to 
 the large number of consumers in all parts of this country, and would be prohibitorv 
 in its effect. 
 
 The hop producing sections of this country are confined to a very few counties in 
 the State of New York, and also to a very few counties in the three States on the 
 Pacific coast, vi?, Califoffl^a., Oregon, an4 Wa^Uington, wbicli alojje cQold l»e eeeiH' 
 
1028 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 ingly benefited by any increase of the duty, while some of the largest industries in 
 every State of the Union will be directly and very seriously injured by any increase 
 in the duty. The duty which for many years was 5 cents per pound was a few years 
 ago, without cause, increased to ri cents per pound, and has been very oppressive and 
 is out of all proportion in comparison to other products. 
 
 As any further increase in duty would be disastrous in its consequences, we re- 
 spectfully request you, as a member of Congress from this county, to use your in- 
 fluence and best efforts to prevent any increase in the duty and to have it reduced to 
 its former standard. 
 
 The L. Hoster Bubwing Company, 
 By Louis Hostee, President. 
 
 N. SCHLITZ. 
 BOKN & Co. 
 
 Hon. Joseph H. Outhwaitb. 
 
 VIEWS OF G. S. HINMAN 
 
 Footprints, N. Y., January 15, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: Nearly all of the industries are having a hearing before your commit- 
 tee, but no one, so far as I have observed, has taken an interest in the hop industry, 
 which is a great one in central New York. In many counties it is almost the entire 
 industry, and for the last five years the prices have been ruinously low and disas- 
 trous to many growers. This county raises more hops than are brewed here, and yet 
 our brewers import large quantities of hops, and pay at times 15 to 20 cents more 
 than they could buy our hops for of as good quality. The reason is that nearly all 
 brewers are Germans, and think they have got to have German hops to give their 
 beer a German taste. I know of one brewery in Cleveland, Ohio, that uses nothing 
 but Bohemian hops, and will buy nothing else. 
 
 These brewers can afford to buy any hop they choose, as their business is one of 
 the most profitable in the country. You will note that foreign corporations are buy- 
 ing up all the best breweries in the country. Now the importation of hops into this 
 country has a depressing effect upon our markets here and keeps the price way below 
 the cost of production, and the growers are getting poorer every year. It is an indus- 
 try that they can not go out of without great loss, as all growers have been to the 
 expense of costly dry-houses .ind large outlay for poles, hop-boxes, and various other 
 implements and tools that, if they were to give up growing hops, would be a total 
 loss ; besides, it is an industry that gives lots oferaployraent to laboring classes, and 
 if the grower is driven out of the business they would lose their employment. And 
 I think, in justice to the grower and the laboring interest connected with him, you 
 ought to increase the duty from 8 cents to 20 cents per pound. I have known of sev- 
 eral instances where hops were bringing a fairly good price. Dealers here combined 
 and imported large quantities of poor quality of German hops and thrown them on to the 
 market and depressed the market so that it was almost impossible to sell at any price. 
 Truly, 
 
 G. S. Hinman. 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 STATEMENT OP HON. GEORGE E. ADAMS. 
 
 Thursday, March 6, 1890. 
 
 Hon. George E. Adams, Member of Congress, of Illinois, addressed the committee. 
 He said : 
 
 When I was before you the other day I had in my hand a memorial of the American 
 brewers in relation to the increase in the duty on hops. My contention then was 
 that American hops are largely exported as well as imported ; and also that 
 American brewers buy German hops at a higher price than they would have to pay 
 for the domestic article. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You spoke of American hops being exported as well as im- 
 ported. You mean hops — American hops — are exported. 
 
 Mr. Adams. Of course, I mean that American hops are exported, and that foreign 
 hops are imported. Thank you. 
 
 If the American brewers use German hops in the brewing of American beer and pay 
 a larger price for them than they could get good American hops for, it is for this 
 reason : A certain number of years ago, say eight, ten, or fifteen j'ears ago, there came 
 to be a large importation into this country of certain brands of German beer. They 
 came here and American brewers had to compete with them. They bad to use German 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. ' 1029 
 
 hops in order to produce those particular brands of American beer which would 
 successfully compete with the German beer which have been imported to this country 
 for the last ten years. 
 
 Under these circumstances I contended that an increase in the duty on hops would 
 be unreasonable and unnecessary. 
 
 It would not necessarily lead to a larger use of American hops for the brewing of 
 beer, but it would simply lead to a larger importation of the German beer. German 
 hops would come into this country, not as hops, but as beer. When I had made that 
 statement, and Mr. De Lano had followed it with a statement in behalf of the hop- 
 growers, members of the committee asked me about the manufacture of beer and the 
 cost of hops, and other questions which I could not answer; nor could Mr. De Lano 
 answer all the questions that were put to him in regard to bop-growing. It was 
 therefore a greed that we should have this morning a statement by experts on the 
 one side and the other. Mr. De Lano, I think, is absent, and the representatives of the 
 hop-growing industry can not be here until March 10, but Mr. Lefens and Mr. Ernst 
 have come on from Chicago, and other gentlemen have come on from New York by 
 the invitation of Mr. Fitch, and they desire to be heard this morning; and I will 
 now ask you to listen to Mr. Lefens, of Chicago. He is a business man, and under- 
 stands that he is not to make a formal address, but is to answer such questions as 
 the committee may choose to ask. 
 
 STATEMENT OP THIES J. LEFENS. 
 
 Mr. Thies J. Lefens, of Chicago, nest addressed the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, as Mr. Adams has stated, I am 
 not prepared to make a speech in your presence here to-day, but appear simply for 
 the purpose of answering any questions which the committee may desire to ask me. 
 I would only make the general statement that Mr. Adams made, that hops ordinarily 
 are imported only for the purpose of manufacturing a beer with a flavor like that of 
 German beer, and in order to do that we have to import German or Bohemian hops, 
 as the case may be. The proportion of German and Bohemian hops used in the manu- 
 facture of beer will differ in different sections of this country. I would say from .5 to 
 15 per cent, are used at the present time. The business of brewing the so-called 
 Bavarian beers has increased and we need the German hops to give them the proper 
 flavor. They are growing in favor, and it is for that reason only that hops are 
 imported. Ordinarily, hops have, up to within the last ten or fifteen years, been 
 grown plentifully iu this country; but owing to the failure of our crop we have 
 had to import hops in order to have them ; though we imported principally in 1882, 
 when we had a complete failure in New York State. Towards the end of the season it 
 was learned that more hops had been exported — American bops— than we could spare, 
 so we were forced to import European hops. That accounts for the large value 
 of imported hops as stated in the memorial jjresented to you for that year. I believe 
 we imported more hops in 1887 than in any other year. We imported that year 18,- 
 538,049 pounds. That is the highest importation, I believe. That, as I say, was 
 caused by the failure of the hop crop in New York State. I find that the importation 
 of hops for that year amounted in value to $3,404,669. The importation that year 
 was far greater than in any other. 
 
 As we have to compete wilh the material into which these foreign hops go— Bava- 
 rian beers — there is certainly no necessity for raising the duty to the extent proposed 
 in your bill, namely, 20 cents per pound, or any sum like that. It has been repre- 
 sented that the increase in the duty on hops is a necessity. The hop- growers of New 
 York, I want you to understand, are here asking for an increase of duty on the foreign 
 product. That represents the State of New York alone. The hop-grower there does 
 not understand that he is suffering from competition from the Pacific coast. The Pacific 
 coast States — California, Washington, and Oregon — have developed into large hop- 
 growing States ; in fact thev are very close on the heels of New York in growing 
 hops, and for the reason that in their hop crop they have so far not had a failure. 
 Their climate is exceptionally adapted for growing hops. They do not know such a 
 thing as worms getting into the hops or rainy weather spoiling them. They not only 
 have the weather in their favor, but also have the labor — the kind of labor — on the 
 Pacific coast in their favor. Hop-picking is a large part of the cost of hop-growing. 
 It is finger labor, for which the Chinese are particularly well adapted, and they are 
 employed. They have no such labor in New York State. They employ also Indians, 
 I understand, in Oregon. In fact, it is their climate and the cheapness of the labor 
 that makes them the competitors of New York State. They are ever increasing as a 
 hop-growing section of country. That is tlie reason of the depression of prices in 
 New York State. 
 
 The Chairman. Then you think the hop-growers of Now York are suffering from 
 this competition on the Pacific coast alone rather than from foreign competition ? 
 
1030 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I am fully satisfied of that. 
 
 The Chairmak. Is there any difference in the hop grown on the Pacific coast and 
 the hop grown in the State of New York 1 
 
 Mr. LEJfBNS. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. I mean in the manufacture of heer. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir. Up to recently the New York State hops have heen con- 
 sidered the best, and it la even to-day, I think, in some places. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do they sell at the same price substantially in the market ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Last year, for instance, the Pacific coast hops sold at a higher price, 
 because your hops— they are spoken about— of 1888, in New York State, were weather- 
 beaten and were not in as good condition ; hut that diflerence is a matter of taste. 
 
 Mr. Mills. There is a difference in the flavor of the beer made from these two 
 kinds of hops. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The Washington hops, I think, rank next to the New York State 
 hops, do they not T 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir. They speak of both crops being equal. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Can we not bring hops from Germany and raise them in this country 
 and make as good hops ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. No, sir; that has heen tried. "VVe can not produce the same hops. 
 They do not seem to retain their flavor. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. There is something in the soil and climate over there that ia more 
 favorable to thera ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. It is the soil and climate. Some of them have the same effect on the 
 hop vine. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Where do you get most of your hops you use in the city of Chicago? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. We get some of it from the Pacific coast. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What proportion of hops do you use? 
 
 The Chairman. Foreign hops. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I understand. I should judge about 10 per cent, of the hops we use 
 are foreign hops. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you use them for any particular purpose 1 
 
 Mr. Lefens. We use them in particular kinds of beers in order to flavor them. 
 We use them in the Bavarian beers. They are the flavoring portion. 
 
 Mr. Payne. In point of fact, ia that beer in which you use the Bavarian hops any 
 better than the beer in which you use the American hops ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. It is a matter of taste entirely. 
 
 Mr. Payne. It is a matter of taste ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir ; it is a matter of taste. There is a difference 
 
 Mr. Payne. One word more 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Hops <lo not add to the strength of beer. 
 
 Mr. Payne. They do not add to the strength of beer ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. PaYNE. Then what does it add to ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. To the flavor and the keeping qualities and the fermentation. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How ia it with other brewers in Chicago? Do they import foreign 
 hops for use in the manufacture of beer ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Some of them do and sohie of them do not ; it depends upon what 
 they need. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How do foreign hops compare in point of cost with the American hops ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. They are always higher. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How much higher ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I should say from 10 to 15 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Then you would say that they cost from 10 to 15 cents a pound more 
 than American hops, would you? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Always, yes, sir. Of course they differ in the cost. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is that with the duty added ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir; that is with the duty added aud the freight. The present 
 difference I would say is about 10 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Now, do all the brewers in Chicago import hops for their use in the 
 manufacture of beer ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I would not say all of them do, but from .50 to 75 per cent, use foreign 
 hops. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do any of them use a larger percentage than 10 per cent, in the man- 
 ufacture of their beer of foreign hops? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I .im not prepared to speak statistically, but I should not think it is 
 more than 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What do you pay per pound for American hops t 
 
 Mr. Lefens. At the present time ? 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Yes, sir. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1031 
 
 Mr. Lbfbns. I would quote the market at from 15 to 20 cents per pound 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Per pound? 
 
 Mr. Lbfens. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Mills. That is in Chicago? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir. There is a difference in freight between Chicago and New 
 York. I think it is from 23 to 30 cents per hundred higher. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What do I understand you to say is the diifereuce between the cost 
 of American hops and foreign hops in the American market? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. At the present time about 10 cents. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiAN. About 10 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That is with the duty paid on the foreign hops ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir, with the duty paid ; and I would say the cost of transport- 
 ation is 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. And that is all the cost. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Now, wljat is the cost of transportation from San Francisco to Chicago ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Well, sir, it has been as low as 1 cent, and it has been as high as 2-i 
 cents. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Is that about a general average for the transportation of different 
 things by the pound from San Francisco to Chicago — through rates? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. It is higher than that virtually ; for instance, to Chicago 
 
 Mr. Gear. Higher for salt and flour ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I cannot tell you as to those articles. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the cost of transportation from the other side to Chicago ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. It varies. As a rule 2 cents is allowed for transportation, forwarding, 
 and so on. 
 
 The Chairman. What do you say it is from San Francisco to Chicago? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. That varies from 1 to 2J cents a pound. 
 
 The Chairman. There is very little difference, then ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Very little difference. 
 
 The Chairman, in the transportation ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How low have you known hops to be within the last five or ten years ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I have never noticed the lowest point, as hops do not go from one 
 season to another without deterioration. There are three kinds of hops. First-class 
 hops, which always means the last crop ; and then there are old hops and old old 
 hops. The latter means any age. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I mean the price of the last hops. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. The lowest price. The market started in and sold as low as (I speak 
 about a good average quality) 10 cents for New York State, and as low as 8 cents for 
 Pacific coast hops ; that is in the city of Chicago. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How high have they gone ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. At the present time they are selling from 1.5 to 20 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I do not mean this present year, but take it for the last five or ten 
 years. You mean old hops and I mean new hops. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. If you will allow me to go back eight or ten years, I think I can give 
 you that information. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Well, then, go back eight years ; say eight years ago. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I would say that the crop of 1882 and 1883 was sold as high as 25 
 cents per pound ; but that is the high-water mark. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How low have they sold for the last ten years ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I think we struck about the lowest mark last fall when they sold for 
 from 8 to 10 cents per pound. ' 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That was for the Pacific coast hops ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Eight cents for the Pacific coast and 10 cents for New York State 
 hops. 
 
 Mr. Flower. These hops that you import do not come into competition with the 
 hops of this country, do they ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Not at all. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Now, when they were 8 to 10 cents a pound in this country what was 
 the price of the foreign hops? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. The lowest price to my knowledge of the foreign hops was 20 cents 
 a pound. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How many hops do you use in a barrel of beer ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. It varies from 1 pound to 1| or If pounds to the barrel. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That is a barrel of 31 gallons ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir ; 31 gallons. 
 
 Mr. Gear. A pound and a half to 2 pounds ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. A pound and a qnarter to 2 pounds. 
 
 Mr. Gear. At the present price of hops what would those contained in a barrel of 
 beer cost you— from 15 to 20 cents in a barrel ? 
 
1032 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. At tbe. present price I think they cost from 20 to 30 cents a barrel. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What protection do you get on beer ? 
 
 Mr. Lkfkns, On beer itself? 
 
 Mr. Gear. On l)i-er imported into this country, what is the tariif ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Twenty cents a gallon. 
 
 The Chairman. Twenty cents in barrels and 35 cents in bottles? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Thirty-five cents in bottles. 
 
 The Chairman. How do you account for this fluctuation that you have spoken of 
 in the price of hops; what is the cause of it? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. This year it is generally understood that the crop was overestimated. 
 That is the only explanation that I have heard. I have inquired through such chan- 
 nels as I think ought to know, and I have been unable to inform myself whether there 
 have been any monopolies or anything of that kind. I can not hear of any. It was 
 generally understood that the crop as harvested this last fall was 
 
 The Chairman. Well, in a series of years, I ask you. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. In the past year. 
 
 Mr. Flower. A failure of the crop. 
 
 The Chairman. How do you account for the fluctuation in price that you have 
 named — by the failure of the crop? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. No, sir ; speculations as a rule, just like all other markets. 
 
 The Chairman. Not failure of the crop, then ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Oh, yes. In 1882, which was the highest hop prices ever known, hops 
 were exportdd very largely in the fall until the growers, dealers, and brewers of this 
 country awoke to the situation and found that they had exported too many. There 
 had been almost a total failure in some sections. 
 
 The Chairman. Yon were therefore short here ? 
 
 Mr. JjEfens. It turned out that we were short here, and we had to re-import hops. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Well, the rates of duty upon hops have been the same during all 
 these year,s of fluctuations, have they not ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That has not had the effect, then, you thiuk, to either increase or 
 reduce the price of hops ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I do not think that the duty 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. American hops. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Upon American hops. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It has depended upon the supply and demand for them ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir; I understand so, because there is no 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. No competition between the two continents. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. There is no prejudice in favor of the imported hop on the part of the 
 brewer of beer. They use the imported hops only to flavor certain beers. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. To satisfy a certain custom ? 
 
 Mr. Lepens. Yes, sir; to satisfy his trade. That is all. 
 
 The Chairman. What about importations having increased since 
 
 Mr. Lefens. If you will allow me I will read what I have here in regard to Quality 
 and value of hops imported into and exported from this country. 
 
 The Chairman. Read both. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. In 1882 the importations were 955,854 pounds. The oxportations of 
 American hops were 5,867,363 pounds. In 1883 — the year that was attected by the 
 failure of the crop 
 
 The Chairman. Is that the price there for 1882 that you have just read ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. That is the price. 
 
 Mr. Adams. The total price, I guess, is below there. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I will give the pounds now. In 1883 2,122,589 pounds were im- 
 ported, and 7,817,222 pounds were exported. It bears out what I said before, that 
 the scarcity here partly arose from that overexportation. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you the importations for that year? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir. The imports were 2,122,589 pounds, and the exports were 
 7,817,22rt pounds. 
 
 Mr. Adams. The import value. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. The value of imports was $1,579,003, and the value of exports was 
 $5,616,370 in 1883. In 1884 701,104 pounds were imported, and 13,516,642 pounds 
 were exported. The value of the imported hops for that year was $304,297, and the 
 value of exported hops was $3,265,211, or pretty nearly eleven times as much. In 
 
 1885 1,642,068 pounds were imported, and 7,055,289 pounds were exported. The value 
 of the imports was $433,700, and the value of the exports amounted to $1,391,854. In 
 
 1886 2,672,762 pounds were imported and 13,665,661 pounds were exported. The 
 value was $444,988 for the imported, and $1,714,488 for the exported. Now, in 1887, 
 when there was almost 75 per cent, failure in New York State ; 18,538,049 pounds 
 were imported, and 260,721 pounds were exported. The value of the imported hops 
 was $3,404,669, and the exported was $54,570. Now the year 1888, the last year from 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 1033 
 
 which we haveofificial Government returns, the hops imported were 5,585,033 pounds, 
 and exported 6,793,818 pounds. The value was $1,017,494 for imported hops, and 
 exported $1,203,060. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I want to add right there for 1889. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. And yet that is the crop which you say brought the lowest price. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. No; this is 1888. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. This is the 1888 crop ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir ; this is the 1888 crop. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I understand from your statement there were less importa- 
 tions at that time than were 
 
 Mr. Lefens. No. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. One million 
 
 Mr. Lefens. A partial failure in New York. The great failure was the crop of 
 1887. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What year have the importations been the lowe.st ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. The lowest importations were made in 1884. We imported then 
 $304,297 worth of hops. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What year was that? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. That was the year 1884. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. 1884? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Now, how were the prices of hops here at tljat time— for Amer- 
 ican hops — higher or lower? . 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What was the value of the imports forthat year? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. $304,297. Hops sold then at 42 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Four times what they are now ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. For imported hops. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Now, the American 
 
 Mr. Mills. Give us what the exports were now. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. For 1884 ? 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. There were 13,516,642 pounds exported, the value of which was 
 $3,265,211, which is about 21 or 22 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr, Carlisle. A little over twice what they are now. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. What it was last fall. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I see — last fall. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. And yet the high price here did not bring as many hops from abroad 
 as there had been before, had it? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Sir? 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. And yet the high price did not bring as many hops from abroad as 
 there had been before. What I am trying to ascertain is this : Of course when an 
 article is very high here it would be imported on account of our market; so that it 
 competes with our product. What I was trying to ascertain was whether the high 
 price of hops in this country during that year increased the importations of that 
 article. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. They did one year, because there were no hops here. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Because there were no hops here? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Not because they were high here, becaus the value of imported hops 
 per pound is almost twice as high as the domestic hops. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I am trying to ascertain whether they do not compete here with our 
 domestic hops. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Well, T can not 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Allow me to ask a question. Now, the exports and imports for 
 1889 are these : We imported 4,476, 158 pounds, the value of which was $1,155,472. Our 
 exports for that period were 12,589,262 pounds, the value of which was $2,823,832. 
 Now, I find by looking at the table of imports that the average price for the year (I 
 take it that is the best price to generalize on) was a little over 29 cents a pound in 
 tbe foreign market. Now, you add about 8 cents for duty ; that makes it 37 cents, 
 and then 2 cents for freight and forwarding, and that is 39 cents; so that the average 
 price of your imported bops in 1889 cost, as laid down here, about 39 cents. 
 
 Mr. Guar. Yon read 1-J cents too much for freight. 
 
 Mr. Brrckinridge. I only take the statement he gives mo. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. When I answered that question I was, if yon will allow rae, gentle- 
 men, speaking for Chicago. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Will you allow me to interrupt you just there for a moment? 
 I want to ask you a question or two in this connection, in order to bring out tbese 
 figures for your consideration. Now, our exports, which were over $12,000,000, aver- 
 age a little over 22 cents a pound, and we exported 
 
 Mr. Gear. Twelve million dollars? 
 
1034 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. No; I aiu talking about another matter now. We exported 
 to England over 11,000,000 pounds, so we really imported at a cost of something close 
 on to 40 cents, that is taking a year's average of export, which is a little over 22 
 cents a pound. These are the prices on the invoices last year ; so if we then had no 
 tariif at all on hops or took the duty off entirely that would bring them down to 32 
 cents as against the domestic hops, except, of course, what we import simply for 
 flavoring. 
 
 Mr. Lefbns. Only for flavoring. For no other reason. We import these hops for 
 that purpose. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. This shows that we are producing from year to year far beyond 
 our consumption. Is there really any competition at all between foreign and domestic 
 hops? 
 
 Mr. Lepens. Between foreign and domestic hops there is no competition whatever. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And our hop-growers would not get a cent less for our hops if 
 hops were on the free list ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. If hops were on the free list they would not get 1 cent less, and if 
 they were 50 cents a pound they would not get a cent more. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. We have better facilities for using the foreign hop as a flavor- 
 ing article owing to the larger production and consumption of beer in this country. 
 Instead of restricting the consumption of beer we would increase it by placing hops 
 on the free list. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. This beer in which these foreign hops are used is for a certain class of 
 customers. It caters to a class who want just that b%er, and some of them would not 
 drink any beer at all if they could not get. that. The native American drinks the 
 foreign beers for the reason that the flavor suits him. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you use the American hop and the foreign hop in conjunc- 
 tion ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Sometimes in conjunction and sometimes alone. It depends upon 
 what we want to produce. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. My idea is this : I want to know whether in using the foreign 
 hop it is used exclusively to produce a given beer — a given article of beer — or whether 
 to a very large extent you mix it with the American hop in order to give a flavor to 
 our beer? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. As a rule. It is mixed in exceptional cases; but it is used exclu- 
 sively for flavoring purposes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Therefore, if you had the foreign hop without duty it would 
 simply enable you to manufacture more of that character of beer and drive the foreign 
 beer out of the market ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. It would help to drive foreign beer out of the market, that is, it 
 would tend to keep it out of the market, although it sells at a great deal higher price 
 than our beer. That is what we have to import foreign ho])S ibr. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Suppose that a war should prevent the introduction of German hops 
 entirely. That would prevent you from making a certain kind of beer which you 
 make by mixing the German hops with our hops. Then if you do not have German 
 hops to mix with our hops you could not use the American hops to mix with the Ger- 
 man hops, could you f 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Not if you do not have the German hops. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Precisely. Therefore it would decrease the supply of the German hops 
 on the market, and therefore decrease the demand for American hops. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. We ought to be able to get along without them, but we can not do it. 
 
 Mr. Mills. I mean the American hops. It would increase the supply on the 
 market, which would lower the price of the American hops. Therefore, you improve 
 the American hops by bringing the German hops to make a market and sell in that 
 way. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Probably so. 
 
 The Chairman. In answer to a question from Mr. Breckinridge that without we 
 had free hops you would not import any more foreign hops, for you only import them 
 for the purpose of flavoring 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Now that being true, do you know 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Will you allow just one statement ? 
 
 The Chairman. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I believe you understand when there is an absolute scarcity as we 
 have to-day 
 
 The Chairman. When there is a failure you have to go abroad ? If your firststate- 
 ment be true how can you explain what your brethren in New York meant when at 
 their association held in March, 1889, they passed the following resolution: 
 
 " Resolved, That to further encourage the cultivation of hops in this State, we will 
 join the various Hop-Growers' Associations in a petition to Congress to so regulate 
 the duty an foreign hops as to insure protection to one of the principal agricultural 
 interests of this State." 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1035 
 
 Mr. Lepens. With your permission I will ask Mr. Scharmann, of New York, to 
 answer tliat question. 
 
 STATEMENT OF H. B. SCHARMANN, 
 
 Mr. H. B. Scharmann, of New York, next addressed the committee. He said: 
 
 I would like to answer that question in this way, Mr. Chairman : Some two or 
 three years ago it was proposed to have the duty taken off of hops by this commit- 
 tee, or a like committee to this. We joined the hop-growers at that time in protest- 
 ing, or rather praying for this honorable body not to reduce the tax, which was to 
 protect us as well as them. Now we, the consumers, thought it advisable that it 
 should be done. Now, recently there were twenty-seven brewers present in the city 
 of New York at the Brewers' and Hop-Growers' Association, and there they passed 
 this resolution, that we would help them in any manner which they thought would 
 be of interest before this honorable body. We did not mean by that that we would 
 come to this body- aud ask you to raise the tariff or duty on hops up to 20 cents, or 
 anything else; but we did expect inasmuch as the tendency here is to regulate 
 the duty, aud as we have now more money in our Treasury than we know what to do 
 with, that we thought you would probably want to reduce the duty or rates, and 
 therefore these twenty-seven gentlemen were present and voted that the hop-grow- 
 ers 
 
 The Chairman. Was that in 1889 ? 
 
 Mr. Scharmann. That was only here recently — one, two, or three months ago. 
 
 The Chairman. Was there any menace then to the reduction of duties on hops ? 
 
 Mr. Scharmann. Two years ago there was; and even now this year, so far as the 
 tendency of political parties is concerned, evan the Republican party, to which I had 
 the honor to belong for so many years, although I have not the honor at the present 
 time — even that party has a tendency to regulate at least the so-called duties upon 
 foreign importations; and there was even a belief that they might want to reduce 
 the duty on hops. 
 
 The Chairman. I desire to ask you one question. Two years ago I uuderstand 
 yon, when there was a disposition to reduce duties or make hops free 
 
 Mr. Scharmann. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. You gentlemen of the Brewers' Association of New York joined 
 the hop-growers in a protest against the action of this committee at that time. That 
 was two years ago. 
 
 Mr. Scharmann. Two years ago ; yes, sir. We prayed this committee not to re- 
 duce the tariff on hops. 
 
 The Chairman. Then you prayed this committee to allow the duties to remain as 
 they were ? 
 
 Mr. Scharmann. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Then in 1889, after the old committee that you leveled your peti- 
 tion at had gone out and the new committee had come in, representing, as you say, 
 your own view of this economic question, then you passed the resolution that I have 
 just read? 
 
 Mr. Scharmann. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. What do you mean by that? 
 
 Mr. Scharmann. To help them — to help the growers ; that this Congress should 
 not reduce the duties upon hops. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Does not that apply to any other article, in your judgment ? 
 
 Mr. Scharmann. I should like to remain on this now, sir. I do not want to be em- 
 barrassed. This committee is so well enlightened, if it can dispense with my services, 
 I will be very glad. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. Flower. The general impression was in New York State, Mr. Chairman 
 
 Mr. Scharmann. I will say, however, if this committee will reduce the prohibition 
 States in the United States to license States, why, we will agree to pay 20 cents a 
 pound on foreign bops. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. Why can you agree to do that? On what ground would you do 
 that? 
 
 Mr. Scharmann. Because it would not harm us one bit. It is only amatterof ilavor. 
 The American hops produced in the State of New York • 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. I know ; but you said 
 
 Mr. Scharmann. Is a far better hop. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. But you spoke of prohibition and license States. What do you 
 mean by that 'I 
 
 Mr. Scharmann. Well, I will tell yon, sir. I mean by that a prohibition State is 
 a State where there is some drinking and no license for it. [Laughter.] And now 
 we want 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. Let us see if tliat agrees with your argument just now. 
 
1036 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. ScHARMANN. It does not agree with my argument. Not at all. But the dis- 
 tinction ill tb;it 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. If prohibition States could be turned into license States then you 
 ■would have a large demand for your product. That is your argument? 
 
 Mr. ScHARMANX. That would be the logical conclusion It is a matter of fact 
 which I am sorry to say that the cereal is as much consumed in the prohibition States 
 as it is in the licensed States, the only difference being that in the prohibition States 
 they drinlv the cereal in a distilled form and in the licensed States they drink it in the 
 fermented form. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. In other words, you think it antagonistic to the demand for your 
 product. 
 
 Mr. SCHARMANN. And of course we are agitators for the fermented form, but we 
 
 are protestors against 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. But how does it happen that the distillers joined you in the same 
 movement if your reasoning is correct ? 
 
 Mr. SCHARMAJJN, The distillers did not join us in this same movement, but the 
 president of tlie Distillers' Association is antagonistic to us, and just so are the pro- 
 hibition people. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. But he is for license? 
 Mr. Payne. He is in favor of prohibition ? 
 Mr. ScHARMANN. No, sir. 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. You do not agree ? 
 
 Mr. ScHARMANN. I beg your pardon. We can not get the distiller to pay for legal 
 services in the prohibition States because he knows — experience tells him — that 
 there is a good deal more to pay than there is in the licensed States. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. On the other jjioint, the agreement made between the brewers and 
 producers of hops in New York, you. undertake to convey the impression that if the 
 hop-growers would join you in defeating the proposed restrictive legislation, namely, 
 in the direction of prohibition, that you would do what you could as to the duty on 
 hops ; that you would endeavor to retain it as it was or endeavor to increase it. 
 
 Mr. ScHARMANN. You are presuming something now, sir, that I do not presume. 
 We did not make an agreement with ttiose gentlemen. They were not going against 
 their trade by prohibiting them from growing any more than they would to keep ns 
 from brewing. That was 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. Why was that resolution passed at that critical period? 
 
 Mr. SciiAKMANN. For this reason : We were both interested in our product, and we 
 Came together to see what protection we could have. For instance, if in a certain 
 county there was a prohibition gentleman before the people and we could help to de- 
 feat that candidate we would surely do so and we agreed there 
 
 Mr. Payne. T,bat is what you are doing to-day. 
 
 Mr. SCHARMANN. That is one of the reasons that we came together. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How much did you pay for foreign hops last year? 
 
 Mr. ScHARMANN. I would like to state to the gentleman that I am a practical 
 brewer personally, and as far as hops are concerned American hops are as good as the 
 hops that grow in any part of the world. There is no better hop. I say that the only 
 reason why the brewers use the foreign hop is for its flavor. Personally I do not use 
 one solitary pounr^ of any other kind of hop except the American. Odd years I will 
 get a bale of foreign hops to see whether I can better the flavor of my beer according 
 to my judgment and the judgment of my customers. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Did yon buy any this year? 
 
 Mr. ScHARMANN. Not any this year. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How much did you pay for the foreign hop last year — 1889? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I would judge about 3.5 cents. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Thirty-five cents? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. On an average. 
 
 Mr. Payne. An average of 35 cents? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. And that is the market price ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I will state that is the average market price. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinridge. You mean laid down? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir; laid down. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Now, what did you pay for the American hops last year, 1889 — the aver- 
 age price '! 
 
 Mr. Lefens. The average price for our firm was from 20 to 21 cents. 
 
 Mr. Payne. That is ■ 
 
 Mr. Gear. You state that you use about 10 per cent, of foreign hops, do you not, 
 in the manufacture of your beer? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That is specifically as I understand for the manufacture of what is 
 called Bavarian beer? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1037 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You do not use it in a general way to mix in with your beers. You 
 simply use it for a special beer ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Only tor special beer. In answer to the chairman's question as to 
 what prompted the New York State Brewers' Association to pass the resolution 
 which I explained, I have no particular expl.Tiiatiou to oft'er, but I wrote to the sec- 
 retary of the United States Brewers' Association, of which I am president — it is not 
 a local association — and I received this letier from hiui : 
 
 "In compliance with your request I desire to inConii you that the members of the 
 following brewers' associations have unanimously sifj;ued tbe petition against an 
 increase of duty on imported hops: St. Louis, Mo.; Chicago, 111.; Milwaukee, Wis.; 
 Detroit, Mich.; Cincinnati, Ohio, and San Francisco, Cal." 
 
 He also says, besides these, many members residing iu cities not belonging to the 
 local association signed the pe'tition. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you know how many of these are controlled by syndicates? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I have no idea. 
 
 Mr. Payne. A large number? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I have no idea. There is always about 90 percent, of wind where 
 there is 10 per cent, of fact about a syndicate. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Perhaps they have been making propositions to you. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. They have made no propositions to me. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I would like to ask another question on another subject when 
 this is exhausted. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I offer that as an answer. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I want to ask you for information. How much barley malt is 
 used in a barrel of beer ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. From IJ bushels to 2jr bushels I would say would be pretty 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is rice used in the manufacture of beer ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How much rice is used in a barrel of beer ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. It is not used iu all beers. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Does it take the place of malt when it is used T 
 
 Mr. Lefens. It takes the place of malt when it is used. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How much of it is used when it is to make beer? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Twenty per cent. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is corn ever used in the manufacture of beer? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes ; that is sometimes used. 
 
 Mr. Payne. That takes the place of barley, when it is used ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. When it is used. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you know how extensively that is used iu comparison with barley 
 malt? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I could not tell. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Well, are large quantities of corn used in the place of barley malt iu 
 the manufacture of beer at the present day ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I would say for the United States that perhaps 10 per cent, is used. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Does it make as good beer ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Hops and rice, in the first place, if used, are much higher than bar- 
 ley and always higher than barley malt in what are called Bohemian beers, which is 
 a very light, bright beer. You can not make them of malt. They are not made from 
 malt. Corn is used as a rule to produce the cheaper grade of beers. 
 . The Chairman. What are they made of iu Bohemia ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Rice. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What is the difference in the product of beer from the Canadian bar- 
 ley malt and your New York State barley malt ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I think there is — you mean the quantity? 
 
 Mr. Payne. I mean the quality of the beer. Is there any difference ; if an what is 
 the difference ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I would say that for some years nearly every crop in our Northern 
 States — say, for instance, the section around Rochester, in New York State 
 
 Mr. Payne. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. And take Minnesota when the crop is a good one, if the weather has 
 favored it 
 
 Mr. Payne. It is not good if it is wet, for instance. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. It makes as good beer as any bailey grown in Canada. Some years 
 again the Canadian barley would be of better quality, and in some sections of the 
 country, especially East, the brewers have to have it in order to make a fine quality 
 of beer. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Do you mean to say, then, that there is no differeuce iu the quality of 
 New York State barley, the two-rowed barley — that there is no difference in the beer 
 manufactured, from that and the six-rowed barley in Canada ? 
 
1038 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 Mr. Lbfbns. "Well, that is my own personal opinion. The brewers do not all agree 
 witli me on that. 
 
 Mr. Payne That is your opinion from your experience ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. That is my experience. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Corn makes a heavy beer, does it not ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. The beer is always made of a particular strength. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do you say that corn makes a cheaper beer — in what respect ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yps, sir ; com makes a cheaper beer. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Because of the material ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. That is a matter of opinion. There are practical brewers, and a good 
 mauy ofthem, think that a certain quantity helps in the manufacture of beer. A 
 certain process has been found by which they can take out the fusel oil, and they use 
 a small percentage of good American corn, which helps the quality of the beer. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do the consumers think so ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. They seem to. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That would help the Iowa and the Kansas farmer though, if we had 
 a few of those brewers out there. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. The fusel oil is supposed to be taken out of the corn ; but it took a 
 long time to find the way to do it. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I notice you say, " suppo.sed to be." I do not think that is your 
 opinion that the fusel oil is all taken out of the corn. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I believe that it is. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. . What does rice compete with in the making of beer ? Does it 
 compete with barley ? • 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Eice stands alone. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does not it enter as an ingredient in the making of beer ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. No, sir. Brewers are like other men ; they take the cheapest way to 
 make their product. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It makes a different beer from barley and these articles that 
 you spoke of? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Yes, sir; but it is absolutely necessary to use it to get a certain qual- 
 ity and taste to the beer. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Now, the form in which you use rice is what is called paddy? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. No; broken rice. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Well, your rice has a duty of.20 per cent, on it, has it not ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I believe it has ; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Now, in regard to your trade in bops with Canada. I believe 
 Canadian hops are a good deal talked of. Do you consider that there is any compe- 
 tition between the Ameiican and Canadian hops that would make you favor any duty 
 on hops ? . 
 
 Mr. Lefens. There are very few hops raised in Canada. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Our imports from Canada were something over |400. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. That is according to the size of the crop. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And our exports were a little over $60,000 ; so that as a gen- 
 eral thing Canada buys our hops and we do not buy theirs. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Canada is not a hop-raising country. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you export any beer to Canada ? 
 
 Mr. Lefens. Not from our section. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there any from this country ? 
 
 Mr. Lbi'ens. I think I have drank it there. 
 
 Mr. Adams. I want to ask whether any Chicago brewers export at all. I heard 
 that was the case and I guess 
 
 Mr. Lefens. You ask about Chicago? 
 
 Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I do not think there is any beer exported at the present time, though 
 we have exported beer there. 
 
 Mr. Adams. I was told that we exported some beer to Australia. 
 
 Mr. Lefens. I know of my knowledge that beer has not been exportecl at all. The 
 great competition for that trade is in New Y^ork, St. Louis, and in Milwaakee. 
 
 The Chairman. Anything further, gentlemen ? 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would the brewers favor a reduction in the duty on rice ? 
 
 Mr. Lef'ens. Yes, sir; we would like to have it as cheaxi as we can get it. 
 
 Mr. SCHARMANN. The question has been asked by the gentleman opposite me in 
 refrrence to the price of hops this year. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Last year. 
 
 Mr. Scharmann. No ; this year. They are 10 cents a pound. If the unfortunate 
 hop-growers in the State of New York would get their prices for the hops that we 
 paid for them this year, why, you would not have had to have asked that question, 
 as f£vr as they are concerned. It was put out by the buyers that a big crop had been 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1038 
 
 made on the other side, and the consequence was we paid from 8 to 10 cents a pound 
 for them. When I returned from ahroad, which was about the 1st of December, I 
 had to start in and buy some at 12 cents. Now the same class of hops can not be pur- 
 chased for less than 20 cents a pound, and I have never seen as yet, as my friend stated, 
 that when bops are 8 and 10 cents a pound it was occasioned by the scarcity of hops. 
 The farmers are forced to go with their crop to market. This day hops are 20 cents 
 a pound. 
 Mr. Carlisle. They are bought up from the farmers by speculators, are they not ? 
 Mr. SCHARMANN. Yes, sir. I have to buy foreign hops at an increase of 15 or 20 
 cents and run the risk of their getting old. 
 Mr. Gear. They deteriorate in quality as they become old hops? 
 Mr. SCHARMANN. They do, but notwithstanding that the rowed hop is considered 
 ihe best for the grower in the State of New York. The farmers and producers, when 
 they are driven by being scared into selling their hops right out and out, are the 
 losers, and the gainers are the brewers. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the deterioration in the value commercially of hops ? 
 Mr. Scharmann. That depends upon what the prospects for the crops are. 
 Mr. Gear. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Scharmann. Nevertheless, for instance, if hops would sell for 15 cents you 
 will find them selling throughout the United States for 25 cents, in consequence of 
 the scarcity of the article. 
 Mr. Gear. Yes; but that hop is not as good — not by one-half. 
 Mr. Bayne. And will they not go down in value? 
 Mr. Scharmann. Well, that is rarely the case. 
 Mr. Bayne. But 1 think they do. 
 
 Mr. Scharmann. I can only recollect in 1887 and 1888 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I mean 
 
 Mr. Scharmann. They went up then to 60 and again up to 75 cents. 
 Mr. Bayne. I know, but one year they started in at 50 cents ana went right along 
 that entire year. 
 
 Mr. Scharmann. I would like to impress upon gentlemen of the committee, for in- 
 stance, this fact; Suppose theforeigu hop will cost $1 a pound and the New York State 
 hop will cost 20 cents a pound, or say 15 cents a pound, which is a good average price, 
 why, the farmer can make a living and something besides, so that the foreign hops 
 would be still used in consequence of their flavor. What we want to do is to keep out 
 of our market theimported beer. We have the best beer houses, the best plants, and 
 there is no foreign brewing house as far as the plant is concerned that can compete 
 with ours. Our ice-machines are the best known in the whole world. The American 
 
 ice-machine 
 
 The Chairman. I understand you to say that you favor the New York State hop 
 because you think it is the best and also the cheapest produded ? 
 Mr. Scharmann. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And you only import the foreign hop because of its flavor? 
 Mr. Scharmann. Yes, sir. We want to fight against the importation of beer. We 
 are now doing that. Your revenue book will show that we have stopped the tide of 
 importing beer — fermented beer, or what is called lager beer. We are getting to 
 this point where we have to put some flavor in our beers such as are used in Vienna 
 and Munich, and therefore that is one claim why these hops should be made free in 
 order that we can work against the importati6n of that foreign beer. Suppose you 
 wanted to place a larger duty upon hops. Pardon me for saying so, but your duty is 
 to levy a higher duty upon imported beer. One must go with the other, or at least 
 ought to go with the oher. 
 The Chairman. The present relation is entirely satisfactory to you ? 
 Mr. Scharmann. It is, sir. 
 
 Mr. Mills. How many pounds of hops can be raised on an acre of land in Pennsyl- 
 vania or New York State ? 
 
 Mr. Scharmann. Well, I do not know, sir. When I was a boy my father only had 
 a cow farm. I never had anything to do with hop-growing. I have not made a study 
 of it at all. 
 
 Mr. Flower. This Munich beer is not as good a beer as we make from American 
 hops. 
 
 Mr. Scharmann. According to my calculation it is not entirely satisfactory. I do 
 not believe there is any beer as good as our own ; only there are a lot of our Ameri- 
 can people who have a tendency for everything that comes from abroad. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I desire to ask you one question. In buying hops you prefer to buy the 
 crop of 1889? 
 Mr. Scharmann. Always, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You would not begin to buy the crop of J§88 stt the same price f 
 Mr. Scharmann, No, sir, not at any price, 
 
1040 KEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 STATEMENT OP HON BENJAMIN BUTTERWORTH. 
 
 Monday, March 10, 1890. 
 
 Hon. Benjamin Butterworth, a Representative from the State of Ohio, addressed 
 the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here representing my imme- 
 diate constituency, neighbors and friends, who are interested not only in the use, but 
 are importers as well as dealers in domestic hops, but also a great deal larger con- 
 stituency about whom I have a very much larger concern. One refers to ray imme- 
 diate constituency, and the other goes to the better service of the whole people. Tbe 
 proposition pending, as I understand, Mr. Chairman, is whether there shall be an in- 
 crease of duty npon imported hops; whether in the first place the interests of the 
 hop-raisers demands it, and next, whether what they demand is consistent with the 
 well-being of the whole country, with the revenues to be raised, and other branches 
 of industry which must take out of their pocket to put into this in case it is to be 
 granted. In the first place, 1 understand an increase of much less than is proposed 
 would be in effect a prohibitory tariff, and whether it is wise to undertake to do away 
 with a revenue of 1350,000 to $400,000 and to draw it from some other source, and 
 whether the compensation for making that change is adequate ; whether in other 
 words the country at large would derive an advantage from stopping that revenue 
 on imported hops, and taking it from other sources. 
 
 We have heretofore been exporting two bales of hops for every one we imported, 
 and now we export as many hops at least as we import. As I understand, the im- 
 ported hops are used because they impart to certain beers a flavor which is not im- 
 parted, as I understand it, by our domestic hops. My friends who consume beer will 
 be able to testify in this behalf. It imparts a flavor which our own hops do not im- 
 part, and hence the foreign hops are used. The hop country is not peculiar to the 
 neighborhood ot my brother De Lano. We raise a great many hops; some we raise 
 in Wisconsin, and some on the Pacific slope. The Pacific slope seems to be peculiarly 
 adapted to the production of hops. They raise bops there probably at 4 and 5 cents 
 a pound cheaper than you can raise them in New York State. The cost of producing 
 hops, as I nnderstand it, i^n California and along the coast is about 8 cents. I think in 
 New York it is 12 to 13 cents. That is the estimate at least of the hop-growers and 
 hop-consumers. It occurs, therefore, that the hop growers of this country, where the 
 soil and climate are peculiarly adapted to the production of this staple, are brought 
 on a par -s^ith the foreign producer. That gives the Bavarian in America, the Chinese 
 in America, the Hungarian in America, the Italian in America, and the Pole in Amer- 
 ica a chance, and helps them on that account to compete with the foreign producer of 
 imported hops. If we can not compete, probably the business had better be aban- 
 doned, and that is practically the way it presents itself in one section of the country. 
 At best, taking the price of hops, they get the highest protection that has ever been 
 asked npon any article produced in the country. At best the hop-grower would get 
 a protection of 50 jier cent., which would be a satisfactory margin. 
 
 The war tariff on hops was 5 cents, bnt since we have acquired a larger knowledge, 
 we have added 3 cents, over 50 per cent, additional. Now my brethren here are 
 friends for whom I have an exceedingly warm side ; but first, by reason of some dis- 
 aster coming among the vines and cliiuatio influences with which I am not familiar 
 enough to explain to you, we can not begin to come in competition with the Pacific 
 coast. In this country jirohably the supply is equal to the demand. We can not pro- 
 tect our brethren in Northern Ohio and Northern New York by increasing the duty 
 on hops as against the Pacific coast. It might be wise to do it, but I do not think 
 we can do it. We can not stop the importation of this article, and when we do it we 
 simply accord to this industry that which we do not accord to any other, and it will 
 not do to put it npon the plea that the farmers demand it. He will not be misled by 
 that. 
 
 All the meaning that a protective tariff" has — and all that goes beyond that will 
 not stand long enough to ask a man where the monument will lie — is to place the 
 American people njion an even footing of industrial effort with other competitors 
 evei-y where else. This the present tariff more than does, and whenever it gets beyond 
 that we simply take money out of every other pocket to pay a bonus to one particular 
 industry, and that neither a protectionist nor an ultra-protectionist can do. We can 
 not go beyond unless we propose to wreck ihe system in five years. Now, I have a 
 larger constituency beyond the immediate constituency who are specially interested 
 who would probably speak from selfish motives. I only want to state the position 
 of the production on the Pacific coast. You will observe, Mr. Chairman, there has . 
 been a constant growth there because of the adaptation of the soil and the climate 
 to the production of hops. In 1880 they raised hut 15,000 bales of 180 pounds each, 
 which is about the average of the bale they raise. In 1881 they raised 17,000 bales; 
 in 1882 they raised 26,000 bales; in 1883 they raised 42,000 bales; i« 1884 they raised 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. ' 1041 
 
 76,000 bales ; in 1885 they raised 57,000 bales ; in 1886 they raised 62,000 bales ; in 
 1887 they raised 66,000 bales. You will see from this that the supply adjusts itself to 
 the demand, one year with another, so that the product regulates itself. In 1888 
 they raised 90,000 bales; in 1889 they raised 87,000 bales. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. I did not hear you. What did you say was the weight of a bale ? 
 
 Mr. BuTTERWORTH. One hundred and eighty pounds is the information I have as 
 to the weight of a bale. Now, most of the hops imported, as I nadorstand, are 
 brought from Bavaria. The average production in New York — and my New York 
 brethren will have exact information — according to the statistics was about 120,000 
 bales, and the average production now on the Pacific coast is 90,000, the total being 
 210,000 bales, and that the consumption in the United States is 140,000 bales. This 
 gives us 70,000 bales as exported, while 1 understand we import certain light hops for 
 the purpose of improving the quality of beer that will make it much better. In be- 
 half of my constituency, I can not admit that there is anything better than Cincin- 
 nati beer, but it is said the foreign hops impart a flavor which can not be imparted 
 by the use of our domestic hops. 
 
 Mr. Gear. This is from personal experience. 
 
 Mr. BUTTBRWORTH. So far as experience goes, that is something which has no 
 pertinency here, and the question of saloons and all that kind of thing, would have 
 no proper place in this discussion. We are called upon to dispose of an economic 
 questica under a system to which the majority side of this table is rnderstood to be 
 committed. I will say I shall not object if your committee should put into the law 
 language which would prescribe all the ingredients which might properly be used in 
 the manufacture of beer and limit the alcohol to be put in it. There would be much 
 less diabetes and Bright's disease if that should be done. It has been done by other 
 countries, and I think it is perfectly within the jurisdiction of this committee. 
 
 I will say here, without any disparagement to our friends in the beer business, 
 that much of the beer that a man gets has a pretty good swig of alcohol and whisky 
 in it, and he gets a full share of fusil oil, and that that ought to be stopped. I speak 
 this as my judgment in this matter, not only in behalf of the importers, but in behalf 
 of a very much larger constituency of 60,000,000 of people. The raising of hops is as 
 the producing of every other vegetable. A man will find where a place is fitted, and 
 the soil and climate is best adapted to it, and if we attempt to make a locality not 
 suited compete with another locality in this country which is suited to that produc- 
 tion, a job which we can only accomplish by the assistance of Divine Providence, 
 we will not succeed. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, my friends and neighbors and some 
 exporters here may desire to submit some remarks. My friend, Mr. Fox, who is an 
 importer, is thoroughly equipped with statistics, and I think desires to address the 
 committee for a few moments. He is at home with the facts, but he does not know- 
 how to tangle them, as some of yon do. 
 
 Mr, Chairmau and gentlemen of the committee, I thank you for your courtesy. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. "W. L. KINSEY. 
 
 Hon. W. L. KiNSBY, a Representative from the State of Missiouri, next addressed 
 the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I do not wish to detain the com- 
 mittee but just one moment. I am here to-day upon the same mission that Mr. But- 
 terworth is. In my district there is located, I believe, the largest brewery in the 
 United States, a concern that does a very large business in exporting, and also a num- 
 ber of other breweries of a very considerable capacity, and they aje all very earnest 
 in opposing any increase of the duty upon hops, barley, rice, and corks. I do not 
 want to go over the ground that has been already gone over by Mr. Butterworth, as 
 that is unnecessary. They are not opposed to a duty upon all articles that are pro- 
 jected, but they insist the present rate of duty upon them is sufficient for the purpose 
 of protection, and any increase upon it would simply be adding to the cost of those 
 articles, such as are imported, without any due protection to the home producer. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You mean to say, Mr. Kinsey, that if we should increase the duty on 
 barley, the same amount of barley would be imported that there is now ? 
 
 Mr. KlNSEY. Well, I am not prepared to answer that question upon that. I think 
 upon barley the duty is 10 cents. I think it is that. 
 
 Ml'. Gear. Your remark seemed to leave that impression I think. 
 
 Mr. Kinsey. I would rather state the position of the brewers than my own. It is 
 probably correct that if the duty upon barley was increased there would be a larger 
 production in this country. It seems to me, though I do not remember, the duty on 
 barley — is it 10 or 15 cents ? 
 
 Mr. Gear. It is 10 cents now. 
 
 Mr. KiNSBY. Whether that is an adequate protection for barley or not I am not 
 prepared to state now. I am not familiar enough with the facts to state it. 
 
 485 66 
 
1042 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. CoGGSHALL. I would like also to state to the gentleman that the brewers for 
 whom he speaks are protected on their manufactures of beer already over 200 per 
 cent., while the growers are not protected 50 ijer cent. 
 
 Mr. KiNSKY. I want to say one word now in relation to corks, and I want to call 
 your attention to one fact. In exporting beer it is necessary, I am told, to use corks 
 hand-made, which are not made in this country, or rather, as I am told, they are 
 made here by machinery and unfitted for use in that respect. They say there is no 
 occasion for increasing the duty upon Imported corks. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What is that? 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY. I say, owing to the fact that they are compelled to use hand-made 
 corks in bottling beer for export and that all hand-made corks come from abroad — I 
 think come from Spain, and are not made in this country at all — there is no occasion 
 to put an increased duty upon corks. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. On corks? 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY'. On corks. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. But they get a rebate for those exported. 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY. While we export a good deal of beer, a good deal of beer is consumed 
 in this country — shipped to the Southwest. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Yes, but on that exported they get a rebate. 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY. That may be, Mr. Bayne. I only wanted to call attention to th» 
 matter. They say that there is but one concern in this country, wbich is located in 
 the city of New York ; that is a large manufacturer of corks. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. There is a large one in Allegheny County, Pa., and several others. 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY. I am only speaking from information I derived from the people I 
 represent. 
 
 Mr. CoGGSHALL. There are millions made in this country. 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY. Made by machinery ? 
 
 Mr. Coggshall. No; hand-made. 
 
 Mr. Clark. I was in a factory in New York where they are making them by the 
 million. 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY. Are they made by hand or by machinery? 
 
 Mr. Clakk. Made by hand. 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY. As I stated before, Mr. Chairmen, I state from information I have and 
 present the case as it is presented to me, but wlaile I do not think they are people 
 specially interested in maintaining the protective principle, because their interest 
 does not lie especially in that direction, they do not object to the present rate of duty 
 but they do protest— — 
 
 Mr. Gbak. They are now protected I think about |6 on beer. 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY. I think not. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. They have a very heavy protection on beer. 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY. That is the position which they take, gentlemen, and I am only 
 carrying out the duty which I owe to my constituents, and that duty I have fulfilled 
 in presenting their views in this matter to you. I believe that is all I wish to say. 
 
 STATEMENT OP HUGH F. FOX. 
 
 Mr. Hugh F. Fox, of New York, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, there is no use disputing for one 
 minute the fact that a great many farmers in New York State are in a bad state. 
 
 Mr. CoGGSHALL. They are in a good State, for they are in New York. 
 
 Mr. Fox. I am here, Mr. Chairman, to say that a good many of them will be in a 
 good deal worse condition if they continue in the hop business. I do not think a 
 prohibitory duty will help them. I do not think that if the duty absolutely shut off 
 all imports that it would help them one bit. I think there is one way to explain thp 
 entire trouble, and that is from overproduction. I think it can be demonstrated still 
 further that this very thing is forced upon them very largely by the growth and de- 
 velopment of the trade on the Pacific coast. I think the growers in New York State, 
 the hop dealers themselves, feel that the industry in New York State is a decaying 
 industry, and that in a few years the bulk of hops will be raised on the Pacific coast. 
 In order to demonstrate this assertion it will be necessary for me to briefly state a few 
 facts to you and to touch very briefly upon the history of the trade for the last few 
 years. 
 
 Mr. Butterworth has already given you the statistics of the production in New 
 York State and the Pacific coast, showing that we now have a surplus in an average 
 year of 3.^ per cent, of hops. It is also shown that the average cost of producing hops 
 in the United States is something like 13 cents a pound, and from 12 to 13 cents in 
 New York State. 
 
 Mr. Flower. And this surplus is put in the world's market, and that regulates the 
 prices, does it not? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1043 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, sir. You will therbforw see the aver.ige price of liops iu this conn- 
 try is about 10 cents a pound, with a duty of 8 cents a pound, and transportation 
 charges of two cents jnore 
 
 Mr. Gear. You mean to say it costs |40 a ton to bring hops from Germany here ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, sir; it costs about 2 cents a pound to bring hops from the interior 
 of Germany to New York, as the freight rates on hops are very high. It therefore 
 will be seen that hops are already protected about 100 per cent, on their first cost. 
 Mr. Butterworth touched briefly upon the climatic condition in New York, showing 
 it is a procarious crop and very frequently they have failures. So far they have had 
 no failure whatever in the crop on the Pacific coast, and there seems to be no reason 
 to fear such a failure in the future. When I state that hop-raisiug is a decaying indus- 
 try in New York, I mean a large proportion of the farmers there have no right to be 
 in the business. Their land is poor, not adapted to it, and the lands that were 
 adapted to it, for some reason or other, have not been properly cultivated, so they are 
 not able to raise the right quality. If every farmer in New York State had the 
 ability, the industry, the experience, and the capital of my friend Mr. Clark, for 
 instance, I do not think it would be necessary to make this plea. Mr. Clark, in 
 the face of the fact that hops have been declining in price in New York State, has, if 
 I am not mistaken, increased his acreajje there, and Mr. Clark has the reputation of 
 being the most successful and eminent tiop-grower iu New York State. In 18S0, ten 
 years ago, the Pacific coast raised 15,000 bales of hops. To-day they raise a crop of 
 90,000 bales; but the hop-grower on the Pacific coast is in the business on a whole- 
 sale scale. He has all the best facilities. He lias modern hop-drying houses and 
 modern hop-presses, and he has all the improved labor-saviu.cj machinery. 
 
 Mr. Clark. Is it not a fact that the California hops sell i^or less than New York 
 hops? 
 
 Mr. Fox. They certainly sell for a good deal less. But Washington Territory hops 
 and Oregon hops have held their own with New York hops. In reference to that 
 point I would like to say we have exported this year something like 25,000 to 30,000 
 bales, and out of that I do not think we exported more than 5,000 to 7,000 bales from 
 New York State, because the English brewers did not like the qiiality of New 
 York hops this year. My own firm on the other side were utterly unable to do any 
 business in New Y"ork hops with English brewers, but they did do a good deal of 
 business with Washington Territory and Oregon hops. 
 
 The Chairman. Where is your house located ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. My head house is iu Germany, and then we have a house in London, and 
 I am representing the house in New York. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What kind of hops do yon import? 
 
 Mr. Fox. We import Bavarian and English hops. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How many did your house import this year? 
 
 Mr. Fox. We imported this year some 1,100 to 1,200 bales and we exported some 
 500. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What per cent, of the Bavarian hops go into consumption in this 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. About from 7 to 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. They are used purely for flavoring purposes? 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, sir; and of the imports which come into the country some 10,000 
 bales, probably 1,500 to 2,000 would come iu bond to Canada. 
 
 Mr. Gear. They are not so subject in Bavaria to climatic changes as they are in 
 New York. 
 
 Mr. Fox. No, sir ; not to the same extent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It is a perilous crop to handle anyway. 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, sir, although on the Pacific coast so far they have gone along with- 
 out disaster. 
 
 Mr. Clark. But they have been affected by vermin there. 
 
 Mr. Fox. Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What do Bavarian and English hops sell for in this market ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. They are selling to-day at 25 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That is, duty paid ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, sir; duty paid. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What do American hops sell for ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. The American hops sell to-day iu New York for 18 cents and Pacific hops 
 15 to 16 cents. 
 
 Mr. COGGSHALL. Are not the Bavarian hops worth from 25 to 35 cents per pound? 
 What are they quoted at in the general market ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. The best, yes sir. 
 
 Mr. Clark. He is taking the best of theirs and the worst of ours. 
 
 Mr. Fox. No, sir. The best hops there are grown in a very small section indeed, 
 and they command fancy prices because of their appearance very largely, 
 
 Mr, COGGSBALL. They are not brought here to any extent 1 
 
1044 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Fox. No, sir, they are not brought here. Now, Mr. Chairman, when this- in- 
 dustry began to he developed, there was a great deal of prejudice in the minds of our 
 brewers against the Pacific coast hops, and this prejudice was fostered to a consider- 
 able extent by the salesmen of the New York dealers, and it was not until 1886 that 
 this prejudice was finally overcome. In 1886 we had a total failure in the New York 
 State crop, and the brewers were forced to use the Pacific coast hops, and we have 
 demoustrated to their satisfaction that the Pacific hops would serve just as good a 
 purpose as the New York hops, and since then, particularly in the West, they have 
 been used more largely than New York hops. 
 
 The CriAiRMAJsr. Would this duty increase the price of beer to the consumer ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. I believe not, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. I mean the proposed increase of duty ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. It would not increase the price of beer to the saloons. 
 
 The Chairman. It would not to the saloons? 
 
 Mr. Fox. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Would it increase it any to the consumer ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. It would not to the consumer. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much per barrel of beer would this increased duty make t 
 
 Mr. Fox. I did not get your question. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much increase would be added to a barrel of beer in case of this in- 
 creased duty on hops ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. It wonld cost the brewer about 50 to 60 cents a barrel. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much do they use now 
 
 Mr. Fox. They use about IJ pounds of hops. No, it would not make that differ- 
 ence. They use IJ pounds of hops to a barrel, and use perhaps 10 percent, of foreign 
 hops. Therefore, it would only make a difference of 15 or 20 cents a barrel. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are not these beers, what are called fancy beers, made to compete and 
 compare with Bavarian beers, for which some people have a taste? 
 
 Mr. Fox. They are to some extent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It is not the beer that goes into common consumption? 
 
 Mr. Fox. It is not a beer that goes into general consumption. 
 
 The Chairman. A New York brewer the other day said he did not use any foreign 
 hops. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I did not quite catch your answer to Governor Gear's interrogatory, 
 as to how much hops was used in a 34-gallon keg of beer. 
 
 Mr. Fox. I think generally they use about IJ pounds. Some use 1^ pounds ; some 
 IJ pounds, and some only 1 pound. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Well, now how much foreign hops wonld you mix with the American 
 hops to make that ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. About 10 per cent., except for some special beer, where they sometimes 
 put in 20 per cent. ; but 10 per cent, is the usual rule. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How much would this increase of duty add to the 34 gallons ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. I do not believe it would add more than 15 or 20 cents to a barrel ; 15 or 
 20 cents. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How would it be that ? It would only be one-tenth 
 
 Mr. Fox. I guess it is only 4 cents. Excuse me. I was a little out in my arith- 
 metic. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The duty on bottled-beer I think is 35 cents a gallon. 
 
 Mr. Clark. It is 300 per cent, protection on bottled beer. 
 
 Mr. Fox. Now, Mr. Chairman, in September, 1885, the WatervQle Times made this 
 statement. The Waterville Times is a special organ of the New York hop farmers : 
 
 " Fifth. It is a well-demonstrated fact New York must undersell the Pacific coast 
 growers if they would hold the trade, as the old belief that western hops are not de- 
 sired by consumers has been shown to be erroneous. 
 
 " Sixth. By selling freely New Yorkers can drive the western growers out of the 
 business. This we believe to be beyond question. 
 
 "Seventh. Either New York or the Pacific coast must retire from hop raising." 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I want to ask another question before you get away from the question 
 of foreign hops. What is a 34-gallon barrel of beer worth ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. The standard price I believe is $8. but in many cases they sell it for $6. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Then this foreign duty would be 3 cents on a $6 barrel of beer f 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. That will be the suffering to which you gentlemen would endure by 
 this duty f 
 
 Mr. Fox. The point the brewers make 
 
 Mr. Baynk. That would be the extent, would it f 
 
 Mr. Fox. Well, I would have to qualify that. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How would you qualify it? 
 
 Mr. Fox. Now, in the event of a failure of the New York crop, which we had in 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1045 
 
 1886, and which we might have again, the brewers would be absolutely at the mercy 
 of the dealera. 
 
 Mr. Geak. Suppose there was a failure in Bavaria? 
 
 Mr. Fox. There never has been a total failure in the foreign crop. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Well, it'is a perilous crop, ia it not ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. But not to the same extent it is in New York. 
 
 Mr. Flower. If the duty would be raised 20 cents a pound instead of 8 they would 
 have to pay the 12 cents to somebody else if there was an entire failure of the crop iu 
 this country ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Why not f 
 
 Mr. Fox. In 1886 the price went up from 20 to 40 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Flower. But you pay S cents duty now ? 
 
 M. Fox. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Suppose it was raised 20 cents, and there was a failure of the crop in 
 this country, then you would have to pay 12 cents a pound more to get the hops 
 here. , 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, sir. That is to say, foreign crops would not come in competition 
 with them, because if we make a crop at all, the 20 per cent, duty bears only a 2>ar- 
 tial relation to the price at which the hops sold. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. In all your arguments so far, you appear to assume it is only New 
 York hop-growers that seek this duty, the only ones to be benefited by it, and that 
 the Pacific coast is not to be benefited by it. Why do you make that difi'erence ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. As far as I am aware — and I have discussed the matter with the gentle- 
 men who built up the industry on the Pacific coast and are largely responsible for it — 
 the Pacific growers are apparently indifferent to this. They are able to grow hops 
 there, and transport them 3,000 miles to compete in New York, and they will trans- 
 port them to England and compete with hops there. It has been stated that they 
 can raise hops for 7 cents a pound, and if that is the case and they get 12 cents a 
 pound, they are making a big profit and they are protected. 
 
 Mr. Clark. What does it cost to pick on the Pacific coast ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. That I can not answer, Mr. Clark. 
 
 Mr. Clark. It costs a man 8 cents to pick there. 
 
 Mr. Fox. I have data here which will bear out the statement in reference to the 
 cost of raising. Mr. Meeker, who is considered to be a practical authority, and one 
 of the largest growers, puts the price at about 8 cents per pound. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Before getting into the question of the cost of production of 
 hops, I want to ask a question about the effect of this industry upon the brewing in- 
 dustry. With a bountiful American crop, as I understand you, it would increase the 
 cost of a barrel of beer something like 4 cents. 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That I understand to be your statement on that point ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. With a short American crop, in which case you would be de- 
 pendent entirely upon foreign hops, it would increase the cost of beer per barrel 
 about 12 cents — say 15 to 20 cents. 
 
 Mr. Fox. That would be only a matter of estimate. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If you have to import your hops altogether, I understand you 
 cover the point by that statement, that it would be 4 cents added to 12 or 15, some- 
 where between 15 and 20. Now, how would that affect your export trade ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. In this way, that the German hops which now come into this country 
 and compete with us here, would compete with us still more keenly in the London 
 market. I believe there is an economic maxim that where a surplus commodity has 
 an available price for the home trade, it is regulated by the price of the exports. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am talking about exports of beer now. 
 
 Mr. Fox. I misconstrued your question. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am trying to get at the extent of the injury which would 
 be placed on the brewing industry if we put this duty on hops. That is what I am 
 asking now, and I understand that in case of a full American crop it would increase 
 the cost of a barrel of beer not exceeding 4 cents, and with a short American crop it 
 would increase the cost of a barrel of beer from 15 to 20 cents. Now, we export that 
 beer quite largely, do we not ? 
 
 M. Fox. Yes, sir 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Would not, then, our brewers be placed at a disadvantage with 
 foreign brewers in keeping up their export trade in case we had a short American 
 crop ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. Certainly it would to some extent. We export our beer mainly, I think, 
 to South America and Mexico. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And to Australia ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, and to Australia. 
 
1046 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Gear. He would be just that luucli less able to compete -with the foreign 
 brewer ? 
 
 Jlr, Fox. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr, Gear. Is not that a special beer made for export exclusively, and which does 
 not jio into consaraption in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. Very little. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That does not change the fact. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you know anything of an agreement made between the brewers of 
 thi.s country and the hop-growers in New York and other States ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, sir, and I have something here which I think will explain that more 
 satisfactory than 
 
 Mr. Geae. There was such an agreement made. 
 
 Mr. Fox. There was an agreement entered into between the New York brewers and 
 the New York hop-growers last March. The agreement was that the brewers were to 
 advocate a reduction of the tare on tbe hops of from 7 to 5 pounds ; they further agreed 
 to confine purchases to the members o) the association, which I believe they did largely, 
 
 and they furt.her agreed to join the hop protest to Congress to so regulate 
 
 * Mr. Gear. Are you a member of that association ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You joined that? 
 
 Mr. Fox. I am a member of it as a hop-dealer. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And you joined in this memorial ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. No, sir; I very strenuously opposed it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. But tlae brewers did not do it ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, sir. This is an explanation I find given yesterday morning in the 
 Times which I believe was inspired by a member of the brewer's association. It 
 charges bad faith on both sides : 
 
 " Charges of bad faith have been made by both sides in the controversy nowfairly 
 launclied. It seems that at a meeting of the New York State Brewers' Association, 
 last March, a resolution was adopted pledging the association to join the various 
 hop-growers' associations in a petition to Congress 'to regulate the duty on foreign 
 hops ' so as to insure protection to the hop-growing industry. At this meeting only 
 twenty-seven out of one hundred and eight brewing members were present. The 
 resolution was considered harmless by the brewers, who supposed that it was in- 
 tended simply to check a suspected attem])t to lower the duty on hops. The brewers 
 construed the word ' regulate' in the sense that it has usually been employed since 
 both of the political jiarties recognized the injustice of the war tariff. As soon as it 
 appeared that tbe resolution simply cloaked a scheme to increase the duty, the United 
 States Brewers' Association appointed a special committee to learn the views of all 
 the local associations throughout the country. Aunanimous negative vote upon the 
 proposition to raise the duty resulted from this inquiry. Included in this expression 
 of dissent were the associations of New York, Brooklyn, Buffalo, and Rochester, whose 
 members constitute % per cent, of the hop-consuming members of the New York State 
 Brewers' Association." 
 
 Mr. Gear. Was that an editorial in the New York Times ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. No, sir ; it was in the news column. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. How many barrels of beer are produced * 
 
 Mr. Fox. Twenty-six million, I think; about that. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. And you say the cost would be increased about C cents. 
 
 Mr. Fox. I believe it would bo fair to say three-fourths of that. 
 
 Mr. McKenxa. Three-fourths of how many ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. Three-fourths of 26,000,000 barrels. 
 
 This is the article I wish to read on Washington Territory: 
 
 A LITTLE PRIVATE INFORMATION FOR NEW YORK HOP-GROWERS. 
 
 If we are spared from free trade for a few years the hop industry on the Pacific 
 coast will assume extensive proportions. The New York and other Eastern growers 
 fully realize that they can not successfully compete with the Pacific coast on hops, 
 and it is only a question of a very few years when the New Yorkers will go out of the 
 business altogether. There they can not raise over 1,000 pounds to the acre, while 
 here we raise more than double that amount. Here our poles of split cedar cost 2 or 
 3 cents each, and will last for ten years. There the poles cost from 18 to 20 cents each 
 and only last a few years. When the present supply of poles is exhausted, the grow- 
 ers of New York will not buy new ones, but will give up hop-growing and go into 
 other lines of business. The duty on foreign hops is 8 cents per pound, and this pro- 
 tection keeps foreign hops to a certain extent out of the Eastern market and enables 
 the growers of the Pacific coast to ship their product 3,000 miles at a profit. From 
 all parts of the world reports of an abundant crop are received, and this makes the 
 brewer quite independent. They are the fellows that are making the money that the 
 growers .should receive. They charge as much for beer when hops are only worth 19 
 cents as when they are worth 30 cents per pound. — [Seattle (Wash.) Intelligencer]. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1047 
 
 Mr. Gear. You mention in case of a failure of the crop the browing interest would 
 be absolutely at the mercy of the growers and the cost would be increasfxl largely. 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How was it in 1886? 
 
 Mr. Fox. Almost a total failure. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Did the price of hops advance that year ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. No ; it did not advance. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Did it not go down? 
 
 Mr. Fox. It did subsequently, but that was because the foreign hops acted as a, 
 safety-valve. After the prices got so high the duty of 8 cents a pound was compara- 
 tively insigniiicant, and then the foreign hops came into active competition and forced 
 the price down. But the point is whether it is fair 
 
 Mr. Gear. If that was the case in 1886, would not the same thing be true in 1892 
 or 1894? 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Then the duty does not seriously affect the brewer ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. If the duty was made prohibitive it would seriously affect the brewer in 
 such a case as that. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I do not think there is any disposition to make the duty prohibitive. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What duty would be prohibitive ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. I think in such an event as that a duty of 10 cents would be. I think 
 now anything over 8 cents would be virtually prohibitive except in so far as the ex- 
 ported beer is concerned, because the exporters get a rebate. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It is conveyed by your testimony to gentlemen who listened to it that 
 the cost of a barrel of beer would not be increased to exceed 2f to 3 cents. Then the 
 cost of heer would not be increased by this duty, it is less than 3 cents a barrel, and 
 why would the duty be prohibitive ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. Because we are raising a very large surplus, and the difference in price 
 between our hops and foreign hops would be so great that the brewers wDuld not use 
 foreign hops except for the purposes of export beer. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I understood you, in answer to a question of Mr. Breckinridge, 
 to say that an increase in duty on hops would place the brewers at a disadvantage in 
 their export trade. 
 
 Mr. Fox. I think it would, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Do not they have a rebate for the duty when they export ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. I believe they do, but I am not fully informed as to whether that duty 
 represents the entire 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It does not represent but 90 per cent. It is not in every case 
 that the rebate is obtained, and my impression from your reply is it would not be in 
 this case ; but in no event would it be over 90 per cent. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. But this would leave only 10 per cent., which would be very 
 trifling. 
 
 Mr. Fox. If that statement is correct, but I am not sufficiently informed in the 
 brewing question to be able to state that. * 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are you certain they get a drawback, Mr. Fox ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. No, sir ; I am not absolutely certain, but my impression is that they got 
 a. drawback upon all material imported which goes into the beer, that they get a draw- 
 back on the English and Bavarian hops. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And glass bottles and corks ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. I believe so ; that is my impression. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I doubt that very much, because they make no provision for 
 identifying these articles. We generally have a bonded system where such obtains. 
 
 Mr. Fox. That is a matter upon which I have not very accurate information. 
 
 Now I wish to read to you gentlemen one or two brief extracts. 
 
 fOil, Paint, and Drug Reporter, August 5, 1885.] 
 
 "A statement was made not long since by dealers in hops that brewers were using 
 substitutes, which accounted for the large stocks of hops on haud. This was most 
 emphatically denied by a well-known brewer, who stated that until recently New 
 York State produced the bulk of the hops raised in this country, and that the growers 
 had a regular monopoly and dictated prices, which we were compelled to conform to, 
 for, on account of theheavy tariff, we could not import hoji.s excepfforthe higher grades 
 of beer. But now immense crops are raised in California, Oregon, and Washington 
 Territory, which can be produced, owing to the great fertility of the soil throughout 
 that section, much cheaper than here at the East. This is the reason of the cheap- 
 ness of hops now, and not because of any diminution in their use." 
 f Samuel Eamaay, May 29, 1886, to the "Waterville Times.] 
 
 "The writer has just returned from an extended trip through Dakota, Minnesota, 
 and Wisconsin, and in most of the breweries did not liud a bjile of New York State 
 nops, neither could he sell a single bale at present current priucs in compelitiou with 
 
1048 
 
 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 WasbingtoD Territory hops at the low prices dealers are now asking. The 1884 yield 
 in Puyallup Valley was fully 2,000 pounds per acre." 
 
 That is a point gentlemen, I might lay stress upon, that the largest yield Ithiuk 
 in New England, I think the New York farmers claim, per acre, is only 1,000 pounds, 
 and I think the average is a great deal less. I believe the average is as low as 600, 
 whereas, on the Pacific coast, in Washington Territory, they raise 2,000 pounds to the 
 acre, and the average of the Pacific coast would be 1,600 pounds per acre. 
 
 Harper's Magazine, some years ago, published an article by Mr. Keese, who lives at 
 Cooperstown, and is a hop farmer, as follows; 
 
 "A year which gives to Germany, England, and the United States a season of aver- 
 age productiveness, would create an excess over consumption sufflcient to reduce 
 values far below cost of cultivation. Witness the low prices of 1869, 1871, and 1878, 
 when the entire crop was marketed at from 5 to 12 cents per pound. * * * It was 
 during an era of high prices, some years ago, that portions of Wisconsin unhappily 
 made the discovery that their region was suited to hop culture. Something like a 
 craze ensued, and land was bought at fabulous prices, farms were mortgaged, and all 
 devices used to raise money to put iuto hops and lead the farmer on the road to for- 
 tune. The collapse came soon after, when prices reacted to the lowest point, and 
 ruin and disaster followed. 
 
 Accoiding to the census report of 1870, Wisconsin raised between 4,000,000 and 
 5,000,000 pounds of hops. In 1879 they raised a little less than 2,000,000 pounds of 
 hops, and last year they raised something like 36,000 pounds, or something less than 
 150 per cent, of the production of 1879. I have not the data of the statement in 
 reference to Wisconsin to show positively how that decline in the production was 
 brought about, but my impression is, and it is a very strong one, that it was brought 
 about largely by the competition of the Pacific coast. 
 
 The duty was raised, as has been stated, m 1876, from 5 to 8 cents a pound. For 
 four years subsequent to that prices were, I think, lower than any two years previous. 
 I have a table here of data which can be examined ; 
 
 Statistics of production in New York State. ■ 
 
 [In bales of 180 pounds. 1 
 
 18T9 *120,741 
 
 1880 120,000 
 
 1885 150,000 
 
 1886 ... 5,000 
 
 1887 120,000 
 
 1888 100,000 
 
 1889 90,000 
 
 Statistics of production in Wisconsin. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1870 4,630,155 
 
 1879 (4,439 acres).. 1,966,827 
 
 1890 (estimated).. 36,000 
 
 Or less than one-fiftieth. 
 
 Emmet Wells, May 19, 1882: "With the California acreage yielding nearly 3 
 pounds to Wisconsin's 1 pound, it is no wonder that the acreage of California has 
 increased and Wisconsin's, fallen off one-half." 
 
 Cash prices current for hops in New York for the week ending Fehruary 13, 1885; also, for 
 the corresponding weeks for the 2>ast seventeen years. 
 
 
 New Yorlc. 
 
 Eastern. 
 
 "Western. 
 
 Yearlings. 
 
 Olds. 
 
 Foreiffu. 
 
 Pacific 
 coast. 
 
 1808 
 
 20 to 60 
 
 6 12 
 
 20 27 
 8 12 
 25 05 
 40 45 
 30 4(1 
 33 43 
 12 17 
 10 20 
 5 13 
 
 7 15 
 27 35 
 35 23 
 17 26 
 80 90 
 10 28 
 12 18 
 
 20 to 55 
 10 
 18 25 
 
 7 10 
 25 60 
 40 .50 
 20 36 
 30 40 
 10 15 
 13 18 
 
 6 8 
 
 8 12 
 27 33 
 16 22 
 16 22 
 80 85 
 10 25 
 12 10 
 
 20 to 05 
 6 9 
 
 15 23 
 5 9 
 
 25 60 
 40 60 
 30 40 
 30 40 
 10 15 
 10 15 
 5 8 
 8 12 
 27 33 
 10 22 
 
 16 22 
 80 85 
 10 25 
 12 10 
 
 15 to 40 
 2 5 
 6 10 
 2 4 
 
 10 30 
 
 10to25 
 
 1 3 
 
 2 4 
 1 3 
 8 16 
 8 15 
 8 15 
 8 15 
 4 
 4 6 
 
 1 2 
 
 2 3 
 4 10 
 4 10 
 6 10 
 
 35 to 75 
 
 
 1809 
 
 
 1870 
 
 
 
 1871 
 
 "' 08'""8o" 
 
 ■ 35 50 
 
 30 40 
 
 20 to 25 
 
 1872 , 
 
 70 75 
 
 1873 . 
 
 50 60 
 
 1874 
 
 20 25 
 15 25 
 8 10 
 8 12 
 2 3 
 4 
 
 7 18 
 12 18 
 12 20 
 70 75 
 20 26 
 
 8 10 
 
 35 48 
 
 1875 . 
 
 40 45 
 
 1870 
 
 
 17 20 
 
 1877 
 
 
 15 20 
 
 1878 
 
 
 12 14 
 
 1879 
 
 13 15 
 
 1880 
 
 45 00 
 30 35 
 35 40 
 85 130 
 63 00 
 30 35 
 
 30 35 
 
 1881 . 
 
 19 23 
 
 1882.. 
 
 23 26 
 
 1883 
 
 80 90 
 
 1884. 
 
 
 "0 28 
 
 1885 
 
 
 12 17 
 
 
 
 
 * 553 pounds per acre. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1049 
 
 Mr. LaFollbtte. Have you a table of prices for a series of years t 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LaPollette. You will leave that with the committee, if you please. 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. What was the effect of the increase of duty during these years ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. It was a very small production, and that accounted largely for the reason 
 that so many brewers went out of business. 
 
 The Chairman. And the price was diminished ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, sir ; aud in the table of average prices submitted to yon, and in a 
 petition sent by hop-growers of New York State, it shows that foi" the, I think, four- 
 teen years previous, while the duty was 5 cents per pound, the average price of hops 
 was something like 41 cents, and that for the eleven years since the average price lias 
 been 27 cents per pound. 
 
 The CHAiEMAlf. So you had cheaper hops since the increase of the duty in 1876 
 than you had before. 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, sir. 
 
 Hon. J. P. Stewart, hop-grower of Puyallup Valley, said to San Francisco Ledger, 
 September, 1887 : 
 
 "When the eastern hop-growers shall have gone out of the business, and this coast 
 raises a supply for the world that can be relied on from year to year, then there will 
 not bo the fluctration in prices that there has been in the past. « • * i liave 
 averaged 21 cents per pound for the past fifteen years, and 1,800 pounds per acre." 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What was the price of foreign hops at the period of which yon 
 speak, when the duty was 5 cents per pound ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. For the year 1872 it was 68 to 80 ; for the year 1873 it was 35 to 50 ; for 
 the year 1874 it was 30 to 40 ; from the year 1874 to 1880 they imported no foreign 
 hops. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Then foreign hops were higher than during the period of low 
 duty? 
 
 Mr. Fox. Yes, sir; fbreign hops wore high, and our hops were high in proportion, 
 New York hops selling at from 25 to 65 cents. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. The extravagant prices, if they were extravagant prices, of 
 that period were due to something else than the low duty ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. I do not think the duty had any special bearing upon it whatever. 
 
 Mr. Batne. What do you say for American hops as compared with the imported 
 hops, say New York .hops ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. New York hops sold at 20 cents, and Bavarian hops sold at 21 to 25 cents 
 per pound, duty paid. In 1882 we had a scarcity of hops, and hops went up from 40 
 cents to |1 a pound that year, engendered by gross speculation among the farmers, 
 particularly the New York farmers. I have some data ou that subject. 
 
 The Chairman. Unless you care you can band them to the stenographer and it 
 will go into your statement. 
 
 [New York Snn, Angnst 11, 1889.] 
 
 HOPS AND SPECULATION — FARMERS WHO HAD RATHER GAMBLE ON A POSSIBILITY 
 THAN TAKE A SURE THING. 
 
 COBLESKILL, Attgust 10, 1889. 
 
 To the person who has no idea to what extent the growing of hops affects the gen- 
 eral welfare of a large portion of the population of this State, the news that the hop 
 crop is good or bad carries but little significance. There are comparatively few peo- 
 ple outside of this part of the State who are not directly interested in the growth, 
 handling, or large use of hops, who know that the counties of Oneida, Otsego, Scho- 
 harie, aud Madison raise over 50 percent, of the hop crop of the United States, and 
 that they are the very heart of the industry in America. The importance of. this in- 
 dustry may be imagined when it is known that the four counties mentioned export, 
 in seasons of good crop, $3,000,000 worth of hops, so large does this product of New 
 York State enter into the manufacture of foreign ales and beers. Although in this 
 rich region cereals, grass, roots, and fruits have never failed to yield bountiful re- 
 turns to the husbandman, their growing was long ago subordinated to the culture 
 of the hop, and the acreage of the district every year has been gradually filched 
 from the possession of regular products of the ground and given over to the more 
 precarions and speculative growth of the hop. 
 
 The specnlative instinct governs the dealings and methods of nine out of every ten 
 of the New York State hop-growers. The weakness of human nature when tempted 
 by the possibility of gambling was never better illustrated than it is in this region 
 among all classes. Hop growing has grown to be a mania, and absolutely a gambling 
 mania. A prominent hop-grower describes it as being simply the spirit of Wall street 
 
1050 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 carried afield. "Tbe fascination that its speculative chai'acter gives it," says this 
 farmer, " has lured into hop growing not only the large land-owner, but the small 
 farmer, the mechanic, or tradesman who is able to lease a limited space of ground, 
 and even the laborer who may hold by squatter privilege some strip or patch of idle 
 ground. The grower of grain, or vegetables, or grass never looks forward to any phe- 
 nomenally large price for his products, nor does he apprehend that he may be compelled 
 to accept any ruinously low one. If there should be a rise or fall of 50 per cent, in values 
 between one season and the next one the fluctuation would be most unusual, and 
 would cause an unprecedented flatter among growers of regular farm products. But 
 if one season's market for his specialty is hundreds of per cent, higher than it was the 
 preceding season it brings no surprise to the hop-grower, and if the market should 
 show the same amazing fluctuation the other way, it would not strike him as being 
 a situation other than might naturally have been expected from the chances he takes. 
 Changes of 400 per cent, have been known to occur in the hop market during a 
 few months. Seasons when the price of hops was as low as 7 cents a pound have 
 been followed by others with the market at 50 cents. 
 
 " On the other hand, hop-growers have held their hops against an offer of 65 cents a 
 pound and sold them in a few weeks for 5 cents. Crops that could have been sold at 
 thousands of dollars profit have been held for a larger speculative rise, only to be 
 utilized later on as bedding for stock. The speculative spirit is so strong in many of 
 our hop-growers that the market never rules so high but that they are sure it must go 
 higher, and they act accordingly, nearly always to their loss, and frequently to their 
 ruin. This was particularly noticeable in tbe memorable season of 1882. Hops went 
 to the enormous price of l5il.25 a pound. The class of growers mentioned not only 
 refused that price, but purchased largely at the big figures and contracted for im- 
 mense quanities of the coming crop of 188,"!. They argued that the market could not 
 be prevented from going to $2 in a short 1 ime. On the contrary, the market began to 
 tumble, and in a few weeks went to 25 cents. In that year long-headed growers 
 made big fortunes in a day by selling when the market was up, and over |4,000,000 
 was added to the wealth of such during the season. There are hundreds of men in 
 the business to-day who have been iu it for more than a quarter of a century, grow- 
 ing largely and always on the go, who are no better off than they were when they 
 began, although they have made fortune after fortune, and lost them by holding hops 
 for sure prices that never came. 
 
 "This situation is all the more surprising from the indisputable fact that with care- 
 ful cultivation and dependence on the legitimate channels of trade for its remunera- 
 tion, there is no branch of farming so certain to return a large jjrofit to the farmer 
 as hop growing. While being always uncertain to a majority of the farmers, hop 
 growing is always certain to a conservative minority. The majority is made up of a 
 class I mentioned as making their product the plaything of chance. The minority is 
 composed of farmers who are content to go slow, and, basing their transactions on 
 the fact that a pound of hops may be prepared for market at a cost of 10 cents, never 
 fail to sell their crops at the first fair price that ofiTers. Many of these have long con- 
 tracts with dealers at a steady price that pays them handsomely year in and year 
 out. They know that hops at 50 cents are a bonanza if the crop is good. That price is 
 above the average of the market for New York hops during the past fifteen years at 
 least. These farmers dispose of their crops on the principle that it is better to keep 
 the golden mean between a possible flood of extraordinary high prices and a probable 
 low-water mark. The farmers who have thus been able to overbalaiioe the fascina- 
 tion of speculative growth with the weight of their conservatism, have frequently 
 been subjected to the aggravating thought, after selling their crop for perhaps 25 or 
 30 cents, that if they held on to it a few weeks longer they might have doubled their 
 money as their neighbors did ; but, unlike those same neighbors, they have never been 
 troubled by the retiectiou, after turning out their long-held hops as bedding for their 
 horses, that they might have sold them at a good profit if they had let tSem go at 
 the offer of a month before. There has never been a year in my recollection of hop 
 growing during some time of which hops could not have been sold for at least the cost 
 of their production. 
 
 "While nothing is more fallible in hop growing than the speculative instincts of 
 the grower, there are other factors present in the business which are more prone to 
 evil than good, and hence obstacles to a safe prediction as to what a year's crop will 
 be until it is picked, and factors in producing or inducing the extraordinary fluctua- 
 tions to which the hop market is subject. These are many and ever-present. The 
 vines may be retarded in their growth by a cold and slow early summer. There is a 
 deadly fly that may work destruction during July, and a wet, hot August is sure to 
 develop the dreaded and deadly mold. Parisitic enemies constantly threaten both 
 vine and berry. The farmer may find, on beginning operations in the spring, that his 
 vine yard roots have been wi nter-killed . Blights of various kinds may wither and kill. 
 After running the gauntlet of all these and combatting them successfully, the farmer 
 may see his hopes ruined by an unkindly frost, perhaps the very day before his sea- 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 1051 
 
 son's picking was to bogin. These, and many more, are legitimate dictators of tlie 
 hop market, and one of them has so persistently defied the efforts of the farmers this . 
 season that from all accounts the crop will at the best not be more than two- thirds 
 of the average. Blight is principally responsible for the injury to this year's vine- 
 yards, but the wet early summer and July had also a serious effect on the crop, espe- 
 cially on early hops. Hop-picking will commence about the 1st of September." 
 
 [New York "World, August 17, 1885.] 
 
 What wheat is to Dakota, the orange to Florida, and silver to Nevada, the hop is to 
 Otsego. Upon it is built the farmer's prosperity. With a soil well adapted to graz- 
 ing and the growth of cereals and hay, and where all hardy fruits grow abundantly, 
 and with the nearness to market that makes ready sale of farm products the matter 
 of less than a day, he neglects all of these, and relies mainly upon the hop for his 
 year's advantage. Indeed, there are many men who rent a few acres of land, plant 
 it with hops, and spend the whole year in labor upon them, making their revenues 
 the sole dependence of themselves and their Yamilies. Others, more sensibly, plant 
 but a few acres and grow them along with their other crops. However, a man who 
 is once bitten with hop madness usually pursues it to fortune or to ruin. 
 
 The attractiveness of hop raising depends much upon its delirious uncertainty. 
 There seems to be no limit through which the price of hops may not rise or fall. In 
 1882 the highest price ever known was realized. Hops sold for $1.25 per pound. The 
 average price was but little short of |1. Since that time they have si idden down 
 the scale until to-day I hear of good quality hops being sold for 6 cents per pound. 
 For a moment compare these figures and see what the difference means to the grower! 
 One who has grown them for many years kindly gives me the following figures, show- 
 ing his sales fot seven years. 
 
 1878. . 
 1879., 
 1880., 
 1881. 
 1882. 
 
 $0.18 
 
 .25 
 
 .19 
 
 .22 
 
 1.16 
 
 1883. 
 
 1884. 
 
 $0.25 
 .22 
 
 Average pricte . 
 
 Yet this man did not obtain the top price in any year. Had he so done his average 
 would have been little if any below 5U cents per pound. The average yield may be 
 anywhere between 400 and 2,000 pounds to the acre; and the cost of growing is less 
 than 10 cents a pound; 15 cents giving a liberal margin of profit. Think of averag- 
 ing from $200 to $1,000 yearly from an acre of land (itself worth less than $50) during 
 a period of seven years. Think of a poor farm laborer who by hook and crook had 
 managed to cultivate au acre or two of hops during the flush times of 1882 receiving 
 $2,500 as the reward of his labor. Such instances are not uncommon. 
 
 In 1882 times were indeed flush and money was plenty. The hop market had been 
 gradually strengthening during the summer as reports of crop failures in England 
 and elsewhere were received. August found it active at 50 cents, but there were no 
 sellers. All the old hops in the country were bought and held at fancy figures. One 
 lot which had crossed the Atlantic at least twice and had been considered but little 
 better than rubbish was purchased at a figure which the grower never dreamed of 
 asking when they were new and valuable. Others, damaged in a great fire, the bal- 
 ing burned ofl:', and the hops drenched with water, sold for more than they cost the 
 autumn previous. But none of these iiurchases were made for use. They were held 
 for the advance which all thought imminent. This still further tightened the mar- 
 ket. Higher and higher still rose the price as the crop was harvested, and the growers 
 exhibited none of their usual eagerness to sell. They , too, had caught the Infection, 
 and were bulling the market. In November the highest point was reached, and for 
 a few days $1.25 was paid. Then a little package of hops containing, say, 15 cubic 
 feet, called a bale, would bring $250. Many took advantage of this flood tide and 
 sold. Others thought there was no limit which might not be reached; $2 per pound 
 was freely predicted. " The brewers must have them," was their cry. But no higher 
 point was touched. 
 
 In a few days they had fallen to $1, and soon to 80 cents. At these figures many 
 more sold, still obtaining a figure never equaled before. The price fell off further, 
 and in July of 1883 less than 30 cents was offered. Still, at any price of that year 
 hops were a most profitable crop. Only those who held on obstinately, waiting for 
 the advance that never came, lost by the great hop boom of 1882. That is, few lost 
 directly by it, yet the resulting loss was very great. It seemed to many that the 
 good times would never end. The land increased in value in a startling ratio, and 
 common farm laborers asked and received extravagant wages. It is safe to say 
 that never, even during the inflation period following the war, did so much land 
 change owners in any year as during the winter and spring of 1883, nor at such high 
 prices. Of course this was mainly true of hop lands, a few acres upon a farm in- 
 creasing its selling price immensely ; but all property shared in the benefits of the 
 golden harvest. None feared to be encumbered with debt, for another crop would 
 
1052 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 pay all. So farms and village homes were bought, houses and barns were built, 
 and a thousand articles of use and luxury bought to be paid for from the additional 
 acres that all made haste to plant. 
 
 That was the flood tide ; the ebb was ere long to follow. For the past two years 
 prices have sagged steadily downward from 30 cents. Now all pray that the lowest 
 point may have been reached. The most hopeful hardly expect that the growing 
 crop will sell for more than 10 cents. This may pay the expenses of growing 
 them, but that vtiU be all. The surplus to apply to the payments on the debt-eucum- 
 bered farms, or for those things which they were allured into buying by the fair pros- 
 pects, will fail utterly. Yet the burden w'Ul not fall only upon them. The grocer, 
 the mechanic, the laborer, every one to whom the farmer is indebted, will suffer with 
 him. Failure must follow failure. Two banks have already succumbed to the press- 
 ure ; one, which bad loaned much money upon hops, will not pay above 25 per cent, to 
 its depositors. The other banks have learned caution, and will refuse this year to 
 advance money to gather the crops even with a first claim upon it as security. 
 
 This is a dark view of the situation,' but it is one which the facts will j ustify. 
 Happy is that man who has not discounted the future, but has been content to reap 
 a moderate immediate harvest. To him the future has no terrors, for the past has 
 made him secure. He can look out upon his broad acres, covered with its net-work of 
 vines whitening with blossoms or laden with the yellow hops, and see the full beauty 
 of it all, unoppressed by the dread of unprofitable prices. He will enjoy the mirth of 
 the hop-gathering, the rude playfulness of the busy pickers, and the frolicsome gath- 
 erings at night, when the tired workers forget the labors of the day, and 
 
 Chase the glowing houra with flying feet 
 
 and at least the grower, be he rich or poor, has one consolation, the cr6p never gave 
 promise of a more bounteous yield or one of better quality. Of course the few 
 weeks that yet remain before the harvest may defeat all this happy promise. 
 The louse may come and his myriad army bring ruin ; the houey-dew may strike the 
 leaf; the mold may destro'y the crop even when fully ripened ; but as yet there is 
 DO indication of any of these. Ral her the outlook is mo.st pleasing. Tlie only mis- 
 fortuDe as yet which the growiog crop has suffered is the high winds of last week, 
 which, in exposed situations, heaped poles and vines in picturesque confusion. The 
 grower, if be must content himself with low prices, may look at least for a most 
 abundant harvest. 
 
 Mr. Fox. It seems, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, that the only 
 advantage of this prohibitive tariff to thefarmer or any increased duty to the farmer, 
 would be in the event of a failure of crops, as has been mentioned, and it is a question 
 whether it would be either just or expedient, either just to the importer and brewer, 
 or expedient to the whole community to encourage the farming industry in a specu- 
 lative possibility. The iarmer now is speculating either upon the possibilty of the 
 failure of the English or the possibility of the failure of his neighbor's crops. I 
 further claim that the effect of the duty would be reactionary upon the growers, be- 
 cause it would over stimulate production, and in the course of a few years a great 
 many more would have to go out of the business. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You claim this dnty would largely interfere with the duty on export 
 beer ; if this duty was placed, it would enhance the cost of manufacturing beer for 
 export. 
 
 Mr. Fox. I do not think I made any such claim. 
 
 Mr. Flowee. He has stated that he is not a brewer. 
 
 Mr. Fox. I said that I could not undertake to talk to you positively on that sub- 
 ject, because I did not have sufiBcient information on the subject. 
 
 Mr. Geak. I will tell yon exactly how much, if you want to make an argument on 
 it. It will enhance the cost on 6,001 barrels just $96. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I think yon are wrong, Governor Gear. The proposition we 
 are discussing is the effect upon the export trade in malt liquors of an increase of 12 
 cents a pound duty on hops. We are taking a year of the short crop here. The in- 
 crease at li pounds of hops to a barrel of beer would be from 15 to 20 cents per bar- 
 re). Take it as 1.5 cents. We export over 170,000 gallons not in bottles and over 
 375,000 dozens in bottles. Take the latter as the lowest, which is pints, and it is 
 4,500,000, or over 56,000 gallons. The total then is over 226,000 gallons, or over 6,800 
 barrels of .33 gallons each ; 15 cents a barrel on this is over $1,000. 
 
 Mr. Fox. lean not dispute that statement; I am simply making a statement of 
 facts, as you will understand. 
 
 There is just one more statement I wish to make, Mr. Chairman, and that is that 
 the very people for whose benefit this bill has been drawn are not unanimously in 
 favor of it. I have already shown that the Pacific growers are indifferent. I have 
 a brief article here sent to the New York Daily Commercial Bulletin, in which the 
 writer says that there are a great number of farmers in the hop-growing counties of 
 New York who do not belong to the hop-growing association and are opposed to the 
 duty. 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 1053 
 
 Mr. Clark. By whom is it signed 1 
 Mr. Fox. It is signed H. S. G. 
 
 Mr. Clark. Wliere is it written from ; what is the paper ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. It is taken from a paper; it is a letter to the Commercial Bulletin, from 
 Utica, New York. 
 
 DUTY ON HOPS. 
 
 Utica, N. Y., March 1, 1890. 
 Editor of the Daily Commercial Bulletin: 
 
 Sir: The hop-growers of Madison, Otsego, Schoharie, Oneida, and Ontario Counties, 
 as a rule, are men of the best public-school education; industrious, generally men of 
 good judgment, and far above the laboring classes in our large cities. They subscribe 
 to local weekly papers and to one or more of the city weekly journals. The most of 
 them swear by the Commercial Bulletin, and read the hop market in its reports regu- 
 larly. 
 
 There are many of them who do not belong to the so-called Hop Growers' Associa- 
 tion, for they believe the most of these organizations are run by a few men who have 
 an ax to grind. They are all for protection ; but the most experienced, long-headed, 
 and successful average producers are opposed to a high tariff. They prefer to have 
 it remain as it is, 8 cents, or at cost of production, 8 to 13 cents, rather than to have 
 it raised to 20 cents or higher, for the simple reason if it should be raised to the latter 
 price it would undoubtedly overstimulate production, especially at these times, when 
 all other farmers' products are selling at extremely low prices. 
 
 The farmers are not easily "gulled;" they are aware that it is an old dodge for 
 politicians who want special favors of them, and commission merchants who want 
 their consignments, to talk high duty on all imported hops so as to get their good 
 will and accomplish the object which they are looking after. In the live counties 
 which I have mentioned, if all the land which is suitable for hop culture should be 
 put into cultivation, we would have hops enough to supply the home trade and an 
 immense surplus besides. Then, how would it be when we add to the list California, 
 Oregon, Washington, and portions of other States which are suitable for this industry ? 
 The trouble with hop growing in this country is that too many are engaged in the 
 business in ordinary productive seasons. If we wish to remedy this evil we certainly 
 should not still further over-stimulate this industry and make the surplus much 
 greater by an extremely high tariff, which would virtually in time ruin the producers 
 and put the speculators (not dealers) in a position to make a combine and buy the 
 hops in the country of the producers at a merely nominal value — as it is well known 
 that a great majority of the growers are in such circumstances that they will have to 
 realize on their hops soon after harvest, and many of them have to borrow money 
 to pay their pickers. Then, these not over and above scrupulous speculators would 
 advance the price and be able to squeeze the brewers, which is one of the great objects 
 in this high protective tariff now asked for. 
 
 The politician who is the true friend of the hop-grower, or even of the consumer 
 of beer, should use his influence for legislation which will prohibit the brewers from 
 using aloes, the poorest grades of glucose, and other substitutes for pure malt and 
 hops. 
 
 Yours, etc., 
 
 H. S. G. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. Whom do you represent ? 
 
 Mr. Fox. Certain importers of New York, and also one or two exporters. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. If this duty is increased the beer brewers will have to pay it. 
 
 Mr. Fox. Our contention is that if the duty is increased to that extent it will pro- 
 hibit the importation and drive us out of business. 
 
 Mr. McKenna, Hence your interest t 
 
 Mr. Fox. Hence my interest. 
 
 To the Wa,ys and Means Committee, Washington D. C: 
 
 It is announced that you will permit representatives of the County Hop Associa- 
 tion of New York State to appear before you on Monday, the 10th instant, to present 
 arguments on behalf of the De Lano bill. 
 
 The undersigned, importers of foreign hops, and dealers in and exporters of Ameri- 
 can hops, deem it only fair that they should have some voice in the matter under 
 discussion. They therefore request that Hugh F. Fox be recognized as their dele- 
 gate for that purpose. 
 
 Lilibnthai, Bros. S. Goldberger & Co. 
 
 Benjamin Schwarz & Sons. Schwartz & Wbddek. 
 
 E. & W. E. Hermann & Co. Max Schobnthal. 
 
 C. L. Ybrdachmer. F. W. Simonds & Son. 
 
 Carl Ullmann & Co. Hugo Rbisinger, 
 
 Philip Krug & Son. Martheh Rothbau & Co. 
 
 New York Citt, March 8, 1890. 
 
1054 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES F. CLARK. 
 
 Mr. Jambs F. Clark, of Cooperstown, N. Y., next addressed the committee. He 
 said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I shall not take up more than one- 
 foarth of the time which I should have taken in reply to Mr. Fox if he had not pre- 
 sented our case so clearly, showing the need of this duty better than we can do our- 
 selves; but there are a Jew iioints I would like to reply to. He says that the New 
 York growers have got to go out of business, that they can not compete with the Pa- 
 cific coast growers. In reply to this, I would state in the first place, their hops are 
 not of as good quality as ours, for all he may say. The hops grown in California, 
 after they are a year old, are hardly worth a cent a pound, and brewers will tell you so, 
 and dealers will tell you so everywhere. This is because they grow in a dry climate, 
 and they have not got the strength and keeping qualities, whereas hops grown in 
 the State of New York, I do say, are the best hops grown in the world. This gentle- 
 man made one mistake in the report about the cost of hops. The price of hops last 
 year was depressed by the fact that they reported all over the State of New York, 
 every brewer, grower, and dealer, that Germany had a tremendous surplus, which 
 could be put on the New York market for about 12 or 14 cents a pound. Therefore 
 the prices of our hops here were very much depressed. Now, prices started off at 10 
 and 11 cents a pound, and went down to about 6 and 8 cents a pound. 
 
 This man Fox himself came to my hop kiln, got samples, and told me he could get my 
 hops oft' at a good round price ; and he took the hops off to brewers, and never made 
 any report at all. At the same time he bought low-grade hops and paid 18 to 
 22 cents a pound. Now, the German hops imported here are not the best Ger- 
 man hops grown. The best you can not buy for less than 30 to 35 cents a pound. 
 Those brought to this market a7e low-grade, which can bo bought for from 4 to ,5 cents 
 a pound. They mix them and sell them in New York as straight hops ; and the brew- 
 ers in using these hops take about ahaadfulto put in the barrel. They put it inlast 
 and then bung it down. He would sell to these men, and they would give a higher 
 price for these hops, and would not give more than 11 cents a pound for ours, when 
 our hops were better than the imported hops. I shipped to England, right on the 
 open London market, and competed and got 4 cents a pound more than any German 
 hops in the London market. Those were hops grown in New York, instead of Ger- 
 many. I sold them there, and they netted 17f cents, and these American brewers 
 would not give but 11 cents, and Fox would not make an oifcr. That shows, gentle- 
 men, that my hops were right. Mr. Fox told me himself it was one of the finest lot of 
 hops shown in the city of New York or anywhere else, and told me he could get a big 
 price, and then at the same time joined these dealers to depress the industry- — - 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. But your statement is a singular one in this resi^eot. I am not 
 questioning it, or the accuracy of it at all, but according to your statement they paid 
 18 cents a pound for these inferior hops, when they would not pay you but 11. 
 
 Mr. Clark. That is true all the time. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Why? 
 
 Mr. Clark. To break the market. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. But it does not break the market to pay 18 cents? 
 
 Mr. Clark. These men are united as one man. There are six thousand brewers 
 united in an organization as solid as one man. When hops go up they would bny a 
 few bales of German hops and set back on the market. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Now, is not this a fact, you were offered 11 cents a pound for your 
 hops here ? 
 
 Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. And at the same time they paid 18 cents a pound for a very inferior 
 quality of German hops, and you sent those hops for which you could only get 11 
 cents a pound here to England and sold them for 6 cents a pound more. Now, is not 
 this a fact, they had to have them in England for the purpose of making a certain 
 kind of beer that they had to have the hop of this country for the purpose of mixing 
 with the German or English hop ? 
 
 Mr. Clark. There is nothing of that in England. They buy them because they 
 like tbcm better than English hops. Mr. Bass, of Englaud, has used my hops abroad 
 for years. They are the New York hops, and he has said that they are the best hops 
 he can buy anywhere, and they pay more money for them. If I had thought of it, I 
 should have brought the New York f|uotations with me showing the market quota- 
 tions in New York for German hops ; they are from 8 to 10 and 20 cents a pound better 
 than New York hops. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is not the reason of that that they have to have German hops to 
 make a particular kind of beer, which they could not make out of your hops ? 
 
 Mr. Clark. They take a handful of hops and put it in the barrel, in the bung after 
 the beer is made, and bung it down, and that handful of hops imparts a flavor to it. 
 
KEYISION OF THE TARIFF. 1065 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. And American hops will not do tliat ? 
 
 Mr. Clark. No, sir ; not that same flavor. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That is what I am trying to get at. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Will you explain how the consumers of hops here can break the 
 market by bringing in bops at 18 cents in competition with hope at 11 cents. 
 
 Mr. Claek. The point is that they can set right back on tbe American bops. The 
 growers have got to have money. They are poor and thoy have run in debt mostly 
 for work for growing a crop, and of course want to sell their hops as soon as they can 
 and then when they have to sell there is no market, because the dealers send around 
 men to all tbe breweries, and the men come back and report that the breweries do 
 not want any. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Still you exported your hops .ind got 17f cents for them. What did 
 other American producers do with theirs ? 
 
 Mr. Clark. They sold their hops for from (i to 8 cents. Nine-tenths of them sold 
 them at that. I have seen a thousand bales sold right in my place for 6, 7, and 8 
 cents a pound, and thoy were just as good hops as I had. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Was the price you got the average, or about the average market 
 price abroad ? 
 
 Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiisr. Wo are not great exporters of hops, but do we export considerable ? 
 Mr. Clark. Mr. Fox talks about surplus. We have not grown in the four years 
 since 1885 beyond the consumption. The only surplus we have had has been the 
 German hops. That has made the surplus. The result was that from the year 1882 
 to 1885 there had been so much increased acreage that we grew in 1885 a supply for 
 two years; 1886 wasthe only year we hadafailure. It happened to be a combination 
 of climatic and other reasons that brought about that failure, and that was the only 
 year we have ever had one anywhere. Still, we have had three good years following, 
 and we have not been able to grow enough to supply the demand, because we have 
 used up the old hops and had all new hops, and the stock we have imported from 
 Germany comes pretty near that exported. But in the four years we have imported 
 more than we exported really. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Do the brewers use your hops ? 
 
 Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. And must have them ? 
 
 Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. They prefer the New York hops, as I understand you. 
 
 Mr. Clark. There is no question about that. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. You have stated they use a small quantity of Bavarian hope to 
 bung it down. 
 
 Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. And yet you say that controls the price of hojjs, aiid keeps them 
 low. 
 
 Mr. Clark. Yes, sir ; and here is the reason, Mr. La Follette. A reprosentavive of 
 the Western Brewers' Association, speaking about that same thing, says: "The im- 
 portation of bops has proved a safety valve." That is where the trouble is. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I understood you to say brewers would go to Europe and buy 
 inferior hops. 
 
 Mr. Clakk. The.dealers buy these hops. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I observe in the table of imports, taking the consumption, the 
 average price to-day on the foreign market, which does not include freight or duty, 
 is a very little over 29 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Clark. There are hops in Germany which can Jje bought for 4 to 5 cents a 
 pound. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But this was the aver.age price. 
 
 Mr. Clark. The best hops are bought at 35 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If the average is over 29 cents a pound, <vhat per cent, is of 
 these very inferior hops that they buy at 4 and 5 cents ? 
 
 Mr. Clark. Over nine-tenths brought here. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If there is nine-tenths, tbe average would be below 29 cents. 
 
 Mr. Clark. In Germany 1 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. This is the official report of the price paid in Germany. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How do you estimate it ? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The Treasury Department estimates that. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I think that the brewers last week did claim that those hops came 
 in direct competition with our hops. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But the point I want to get Mr. Clark to reconcile is his 
 statement. He now says nine-tenths of these hops 
 
 Mr. Clark. I mean nine-tenths of those coming here, not nine-tenths of the whole 
 German crop. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I im talking about the average market price, for I have no 
 
1056 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 official statement of the whole German crop. He says nine-tenths of the hops we 
 import are bought by the dealers at 4 and 5 cents a pound. Now the c;istom-honse 
 report, as we have here in our table of consumption, is that the average of the im- 
 ported hops is a little over 29 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Clark. Is that last year ? 
 
 Mr. Bkecklnridge. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Clark. It is figured on the cost over there. 
 
 Mr. Payne. July, 1889 
 
 Mr. Clark. All this reduction has taken place since July, 1888. Up to July, 1889, 
 our whole hops here were worth 18 to 20 cents. 
 
 Mr. Breckinkldge. You will understand, of course, the report of the custom-house 
 is not a report of the average market, but a report of the average prices paid. 
 
 Mr. Clark. This was the past year, but 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Evenif it took place only last year, you do not think that they 
 can be 29 cents a pound on the average, some lower and some higher; but that la tie 
 average. 
 
 Mr. Clakk. If they combine and go and buy a few bales, they can pay 50 or 60 
 cents a pound for hops, and they can break the market up. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But if they only buy 50 or 60 bales and import a groat many 
 bales, that would not make the average 29 cents. 
 
 Mr. Clark. But the great bulk of the hops used here are American grown hops. 
 
 Mr. Breckinrid&e. That is not the question we are talking about. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. What was the price from July, 1888, to July, 1889 ? 
 
 Mr. Clark. The price from July, 1888, to July, 1889, was 25 to 30 cents for our hops, 
 and German hops were worth 40 to 42 cents. It ran down until about the latter part 
 of July, 1889, when the great cry was that Germany had a tremendous surplus. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. So that all that year the price of foreign hops was depressed f 
 
 Mr. Clark. Yes, sir ; ours started off well, and they broke down later en that ac- 
 count. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You have not the custom-house report since July, 1889? 
 
 Mr. Clark. I think Mr. Coggshall has. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What was the price of foreign hops in the direct market ? 
 
 Mr. Clark. This last year ? 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Clark. This last year they were selling about 28 to 29 cents. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. And they sold as low as 
 
 Mr. Clark. From 6 to 11 cents; 11 was the highest. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Why should hops selling at 28 cents a pound break the market for 
 those selling at 11 cents? 
 
 Mr. Clark. If a brewer wants to buy 4 or 5 bales of foreign hops and spin them 
 along for a month until the American grower is bound to sell his hops, he can do so, 
 as the growers have got to sell. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. But I understand the brewers only want a small quantity to bung 
 down with. 
 
 Mr. Clark. Here is Mr. Fox's statement 
 
 Mr. McKenna. I am not talking about that. I understood you to say that they 
 use the American hops and only use a handful of the foreign hops with which to 
 bung down, and for that they pay 28 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Clark. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. But they bought the bulk of the hops at from 8 to 10 and 11 cents 
 a pound, and yet you say that handful of hops for which they pay 28 cents a pound 
 would break the American market. 
 
 Mr. Clark. If they can setback and hold out of the market they can break any 
 market. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. As I understand you, the situation is just this: The American 
 grower has got to sell his crop within a few weeks, and he has got to find hlsmarket. 
 Now, if the brewers' organization is strong enough so as to act as one man they can 
 set back and refuse to buy until he offers it at a very low price. 
 
 Mr. Clark. Yes, sir ; until the hops go down. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. By buying hops at an alternative of 28 and 22 ! 
 
 Mr. Clark. They can make money by that in the end. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The brewers buy the hops from the dealers T 
 
 Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. It has been said that no one knew a hop-dealer to have 
 money enough to bury him when he died except one, Mr. Peare. There is no question, 
 gentlemen, about our being able to supply the country if you give us a show. There 
 is no question about that. We can grow the finest hops in the world, and as far as 
 quantity is concerned, there is ground in New York that will grow 2,000 pounds to 
 the acre. I myself grew last year 2,500 pounds to the acre. So we stand in no fear 
 of the Pacific coast. If you will simply give us protection, we will go on and com- 
 pete in any event, or go out of business. 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF, 1057 
 
 The Chairman. And you want this country ? 
 
 Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chaikman. Do you care auythiuR about foreign capital ? 
 
 Mr. Clark. Not much; ifyou keep out bops, I would not care a cent about the 
 German grower. 
 
 The Chairman. Does this affect the Pacific slope grower ? 
 
 Mr. Clark. In the same proportion. 
 
 The Chairman. In a degree it aifects him ? 
 
 Mr. Clark. Yos, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Kow many pounds are there to a bale ? 
 
 Mr. Clark. About 180 on an average. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How many do we grow iu this country on an average crop ? 
 
 Mr. Clark. About 180,000 to 200,000 b.-iles. The Pacific coast last year grew about 
 90,000 and wo grew from 75,000 to 80,000 for the last two years. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. One hundred and ninety thousand is the total production of 
 this country ? 
 
 Mr. Clark. I should say it was virtually 200,000, except iu 1885, wheu we grew a 
 tremendous crop, and at one time in Wisconsin we grew there 20,000 bales. But they 
 got vermin iu there, and so they do not hardly grow any now. The vermin are now 
 over on the Pacific coast, so we can not rely upon the Pacific coast either. As soou 
 as vermin gets into one country it never leaves unless that country is favorably 
 situated in regard to soil and climate. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How are your lands holding out ? 
 
 Mr. Clark. Most are beginning to show signs of wear. I, however, am near a vil- 
 lage where I can buy stable manure and commercial fertilizers. Those that buy fer- 
 tilizers keep up. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ED^VARD F. HASKELL. 
 
 Mr. Edward F. Haskell, of Oneida, N.Y., next addressed the committee. He said 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, as has been aslied several speakers 
 here to-day, it may not be improper forme to state at the outset what relation I bear 
 to the industry of hop-raising, upon which subject I am here to make a few remarks. 
 I am at present interested in the cultivation of hops ; in addition I am connected with 
 both the State organization of hop-growers as chairman of the executive committee, 
 and with our county association of Madison county as chairman of that executive 
 committee. There has been several propositions raised here before this committee, 
 which x)ropositions before entering into a general discussion of the matter, I will take 
 up. One is in regard to the Wisconsin hops. In 1867, wheu the hop industry was in 
 its most flourishing condition, the market was between 60 cents and 70 cents apound, 
 and that was the year of the first introduction of German hops into this country as a 
 competitor. In tliat year the German hops were brought here and placed upou this 
 market when contracts had been made with the brewers to the amount of $1,000,000 
 worth at 20 cents under the ruling market. And that caused the first serious break 
 in the Wisconsin hops. The German bops did not again appear as a competitor with 
 Americanhops for several years, and the real cause of the diminution of hop-growing 
 as an industry in Wisconsin was eflected by vermin and lice, making it impossible 
 there to grow a successful crop. 
 
 It has been stated here that hops have gone down since 1876 as an average, but 
 the duty was raised from 5 to 8 cents, but an investigation of the table of prices — and 
 the one which Mr. Fox left here is, 1 believe, correct— it will be seen that hops did 
 not go down as an average until after they had gone to the liighest price known in 
 this country in 1883, to .$ 1 a pound. Since then hops declined, there being a heavy 
 importation to get the high prices at that time. In 1886 we had an absolute failure, 
 at which time the Germans absolutely monopolized and controlled our market. I 
 may say that that is the turning point absolutely between the German hop as a 
 luxury and as a known competitor with our product, except on extraordinary occas- 
 sions, when the price was abnormally high, and since that time it has been a competi- 
 tor. Prior to that time the exportation of our hops to England was largely in excess 
 of the importations into this country. Since that time the contrary has been the fact, 
 and the importations of Germans have exceeded our exportation. I have prepared a 
 statement, which I will follow somewhat in the course of what I desire to say, trust- 
 ing that the committee will call upou me for further information than what I give. 
 The present duty on the present importation of foreign hops is a specific one of 8 cents 
 a pound, and I think that may explain the question which arises in regard to the 
 apparent valuation of the hops appearing in the custom-house report. It is im- 
 material what value is placed upon the hops which come into this country, because 
 the duty being a specific one of 8 cents a pound, it is not calculated upon the valuo 
 
 485 67 
 
1058 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 of the valuatiou made upon it. Whure the iiuport is specific, I understand it to be 
 no guide as to its real value, and that it may be placed fictitiously. 
 
 Now, without reference to any question as to whether a protective duty is wise or 
 unwise, there is no dispute as to why it is laid, and that is either to create or main- 
 tain an industry that could not exist without it. It seems to me the first question 
 we want to consider is the question as to whether the hop industry is an industry of 
 Buflioient consequence and iujportance that it warrants the laying of such a duty, a 
 duty to protect it and maintain it. There is now in the United States from 5."), 000 
 to 60,000 acres under hop cultivation, producing annually from 33,000,000 to 40,000,000 
 pounds of hops which, reduced to bales of 200 pounds each, give 180,000 to 200,000 
 bales. These figures are baaed on the census of 1880 and modified on account of the 
 increased acreage and production of the Pacific coast. I will say here, while speali- 
 ing of the Pacific coast, that the growth of hop culture there outside of California 
 in°th6 State of Oregon and Washington Territory, there the growth seemed to reach 
 its limit fonr or five years ago, and since that time, from the statistics wliich have 
 been given here, it appears to be standing still. Based upon a full crop (its full pro- 
 duction), where there is no falling ofi: anywhere, the Pacific coast grows about one- 
 third of our output or our crop, and the State of New York and other States which 
 grow small quantities, grow the other two-thirds. 
 
 The CHAiRMAi^. Will you tell us why you wish this additional protection. 
 
 Mr. Haskell. Yes, sir; the reason we want this additional protection is because 
 the 8 cents a pound is not sufficient to protect us from the imported German hops. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Eight there I have a statement in my hand which shows from 1882 to 
 1888, including both years, that the importation of hops was 32,217,000 pounds and 
 the exports were 54,9713,000 pounds. The value of the imported hops was ^{71, 486,000, 
 and the value of the exported hops was |14, 700,000; thus indicating double the value 
 of our exports over our imports dnriug that period of time covered by the years up to 
 1888 and including that year. 
 
 Mr. Haskell. That comprises just what I referred to a moment ago, that in the year 
 of our absolute failure, 1886, in the State of New Yorli, is the dividing line between just 
 where the importation of German hops did not seriously interfere with us and where 
 they were not a competitor; but since which time they have interfered with us and 
 been a competitor. I have reduced, for the better comprehension of figures rapidly 
 spoken, these amounts to bales upon the basis of 200 pounds to the bale, and in the 
 years 1887, 1888, and 188'J the total importation is 14-3,800 bales. The total exports 
 during that period of time were 59,300 bales, leaving an excess of importations dur- 
 ing that period of time of 83,500 bales. 
 
 Mr. Eayne. Do these bales weigh the same ? 
 
 Mr. Haskell. I have reduced them to the same, although the German bale whoa 
 it comes to this country weights 400 pounds, and with the American bales the stand- 
 ard is from 180 to 200 pounds, but in making this per cent. I have reduced it to bales 
 simply for convenience sake. Now, from the five years preceding 1889 the entire im- 
 portation was 40,050, which was an average of 8,000 bales a year, and during the lasli 
 three years the importation has been 142,000, or an average of 44,000 bales. 
 
 The Chairman. Does the German hops sell for a higher price here than the American 
 hops? 
 
 Mr. Haskell. It does under some circumstauces and does not under others. 
 
 The Chairman. You have to sell under the German prices? 
 
 Mr. Haskell. Yes, sir; generally. 
 
 The Cn.«RMAM. In order to get a buyer. 
 
 Mr. Haskell. Usually; yes, sir. There are certain seasons of the year when per- 
 haps they would not be, but during the entire time that the German hops have been 
 coming to our country steadily, which has been from about 1880, it occupied a special 
 place in the country down to 1887 as a superior grade of hops, as a fancy article, and 
 so sold on the market at 15 to 20 cents per pound above what the American hops were 
 selling. It was used, as was stated, for flavoring purposes. It is a special kind of 
 hops imported which is used for manufacturing special fancy beers that were given 
 German names and competed, such as the Budwciser, St. Louis, Bohemian beers, 
 beers which were bottled and which goes into the market and sells above the ordi- 
 nary beer, which sells at 5 cents a glass everywhere. These were the Bavarian hops, 
 and were very choice hops, and never came in competition with us, because the hop 
 which docs not sell within 15 cents of our production is not a competitor. Since that 
 time the German hops coming iu largo quantities, as I have stated, come in at avery 
 low price. This year, I am credibly informed, the average price to-day for German 
 hops that have come to this country — and some 25,000 bales have come already— is 
 from 3^ to 6 cents a pound. 
 
 The Chairman. And you would have to undersell them. 
 
 Mr. Haskell. And- they are the hops that compete with us. They pay from 'ii to 
 9 cents a pound, which would make an average of 6 ; the commissions and freight 
 amount to 2 cents more, which would make it 8 cents, and the specific duty at 8 cents 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1059 
 
 a pound makes tlie ho]i ware-housed in the city of New York cost 16 ceuts, and the 
 hops we raise upon our farms at the kiln cost 15 cents a pound, and the cost of it laid 
 down in New York — the railroad freight paid from little' stations where there is very 
 little competition — is 16 cents a pound; so on that f^rade of hops we are exactly 
 on a par. There is an additioual fact that the German hops is very much stronger 
 during the first six months of its life thau it is afterwards. It is really stronger aud 
 produces a greater effect in the brewing process than the American hops of that 
 equal quality for the first sis months, from the first of October to the first day of May. 
 So that during the very period or time when the hop is in the hands of tbe farmer, 
 and when he is obliged to sell, the Geruian hops have really the preference, because 
 it must be used within that time in order to got the full benefit of it. After the first 
 day of May the American hop becomes a superior hop, but at that time the price 
 paid for it to the dealer who has bought and holds it does not inure to the benefit of 
 the farmer who has been obliged to sell to pay his taxes in December. And the hop 
 has got to sell at at least 20 cents a pound in order to allow even a small margin to 
 the farmer, aud the dealer who handles it during the first six mouths to the market, 
 from October to May. So the German hops, which come into New York City at 16 
 cents a pound, and the American hops, cost in the same market 16 cents a pound, and 
 with the German hops four-fifths of a pound will prob.ably do what one pound will 
 do of American hops for the first six mouths, is a competitor at "24 cents against the 
 American hops at 20. So it is very easy to quote it down a trifie under 24 ceuts and 
 buy them for immediate consumption, and then the American at 20 and lay it away 
 for next summer's use. 
 
 If the committee will permit me, I desire to briefly call their attention to the num- 
 ber of persons in this country who are dopendeut, absolutely, upon the bop industry. 
 There are from twenty to twenty-five thousand individual farmers, and they employ 
 at least one male hand for the year. It will increase the number of men engaged in 
 this business, who are usually married aud heads of families, forty to fifty thousand. 
 In addition to that throughout all our country for fifty miles around it takes an army 
 of boys and girls, half-grown men and women to pick our hops, the season of which 
 lasts about three weeks. They earn from $20 to |40 apiece, and it helps poor families 
 in the cities who are absolutely dependent upon that for their winter's fuel and clott- 
 ing. The value of our industry 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do they not do that incidental work at that time because they can get 
 relatively much larger wages than their ordinary occupations at home ? 
 
 Mr. Haskell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And therefore distribute the money among them ? 
 
 Mr. Haskell. Yes, sir, and in addition to that it is the only opportunity they have 
 of getting a breath of fresh air and to get away from the cities. 
 
 The value of our hop yards, which is taking the land whichisadapted to the culture, 
 and the kilns can nut be placed at a less figure than $400 an acre, which amoirnts to from 
 .S;2C,000,000 to $30,000,000. Now, gentlemen, I will not spend a moment in showing 
 to you that our industry is depressed and we are needy and poor, as I can sum the 
 whole up in a word; that at least 2.5 per cent, of our hop farms are mortgaged for 
 more than they would bring on a well-advertised judicial sale, and I think I can say 
 without hesitation through the counties of Madison, Oneida, Otsego, Montgomery, 
 and Schoharie counties, that our county papers are not large enough if every over- 
 due mortgage was foreclosed to print the advertisements. Of course, other blanches 
 of agriculture are depressed, but none depressed to the extent which we are. During 
 the past three years the iirices to the farmers — and I will call the committee's atten- 
 tion to the fact that the prices which are quoted here from New York State the aver- 
 age for the year is not the average that is paid to the farmer, but it is the average 
 quotation for the dealer to the brewer for the entire year, and does not touch the 
 question which we are here agitating in auy manner. The average to the farmer for 
 1887 was 12 cents a pound, and for 1888, 16 cents a pound ; for 1889, 8i cents a pound. 
 The importation of foreign hops, I claim, is largely responsible for that, and I have 
 already gone into that branch of the case in answer to an interrogatory. 
 
 The figures which I have shown you of the imports for the last three years place 
 it beyond a possibility and beyond argument and shows that 8 cents a pound is nob 
 sufficient to keep them out. One hundred and forty-two thousand bales of hops, at 
 200 pounds each to the bale, amounting to one-third of the entire product of this 
 country for three years probably, must have played a heavy part in our prices and 
 in causing this depression. I now come to this question ; petitions following the 
 resolutions passed by the State organization last August circulated all through our 
 country and have been signed, that is ofQcially imlorsed, by our organization, aud 
 bigni/d by many hundreils of our hop-growers, is sufficient, it seems to nie, to deiuou- 
 strato that this great industry of this State stands as a unit aud asks this committee 
 to assist them in obtaining an increase of the tariff which they so badly need, aud I 
 doubt if it was worth while to lay before this committee an anonymous communica- 
 tion to a contrary intent, buti will pass that by. These petitions will be laid before 
 
1060 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 your committee, if yonr committee have not already received theru, and they recite 
 itbe dcipressiou ami ask that this committee give them a duty of 25 ceuts per pound, 
 aud it is my judgment that 25 a pound is what we need. The bill which has been 
 introduced by Mr. Do Lano is 20 cents; we are willing to stand here as a unit upon 
 that claim of 20 cents, although the farmers have petitioned and the organization of 
 which I am a member ask for 25. 
 
 Mr. DiN'GLEY. For one moment, for some information on that point. I understood 
 you to say that some hops abroad were worth 35 cents a pound and a large quantity 
 weio imported worth only 4, 5, or 6 ceuts a pound. That is invoice value and that 
 it is these low-priced hops that trouble you more especially? 
 
 Mr. Haskell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Diis^GLEY. I noticed the total iurports, which does not give the different varieties, 
 that the unit of value is 27 ceuts. I suppose that unit is obtained by averaging the 
 hops that are worth 5 aud 6 to those costing 35 ceuts, so that that unit of value does 
 not show exactly wliere the trouble is as it appears from the imports? 
 
 Mr. Haskell.' I think I answered that ([uestiou when I referred to that matter, 
 that the importatious of hops being on a basis of a specific duty the valuation at- 
 tached played no part, aud as I understand it it was of no consequence whether it is 
 tru(! or false ; if it costs a certain amount the placing of a high unit of valuation upon 
 it makes no dift'crence at all. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. The point I was endeavoring to bring out is : In our export of hops 
 it appears that the avragi- value of the export is 22 cents per pound, and in the im- 
 ports of hops it apiM'urs that the average value is 27 cents per pound. That would 
 look on the face fif it as if the value of the imported hops was greater than the value 
 of the exported hops perpouud. Aud I understand your explanation of it is that 
 this uuit of 27 ceuts here is really made up as an average of all, the 3, 4, aud 5 cents 
 per pound. 
 
 Mr. Haskell. And in addition to that it is not a fair guide to go by, because it was 
 not placed there for the purpose of fixing the duty. 
 
 The Chairjian". It would not be so high if the duty was ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. Haskell. If the duty was ad valorem instead of specific, instead of its being 
 29 I think you would find the duty about 15. 
 
 Mr. Br.ECKiNKiDGE. Have you any information on that subject, or is that your im- 
 pression ? 
 
 Mr. Haskell. I have information on that point, and that is that hops are brought 
 from abroad and sold at from 3J to 9 ceuts per pound. I have no information upon 
 the point, but it is simply my belief that this valuation, tbat this high unit of valu- 
 ation, has been placed there arbitrarily for the purpose of influencing the character 
 of the imports. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinridge. Have you ever seen invoices to any very great extent of foreign 
 hops ? 
 
 Mr. Haskell. No, sir; I simply reply upon statements made to me by importers, 
 aud because I find hops absolutely bciug sold at 16 and 17 cents in the market, and 
 they could not bo imported and sold for that on the average of, say, 27 to 29 cents. It 
 would be impossible. 
 
 Jlr. Breckinridge. Of course this is very strong aud very good if his information 
 is correct. I understand you to say that the importers, while you have not seen in- 
 voices, yet the importers tell you they do buy these hops at 4, 5, and 6 cents a pound, 
 yet that during this period while the Treasury statistics show that the average price 
 is 23 cents a pound and a little above, without freight and without duty, that they 
 were selling at 15 to 16 cents these imported hops in this country with duty paid. 
 
 Mr. Haskell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. On question right there ; you refer to prices of hops in 1889 ? 
 
 Mr. Haskell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payne. In 1888 the prices were much higher ? 
 
 Mr. Haskell. In 1668 the prices started virtually at 25 cents, and did not decline 
 until about November or December, when they ran to 20, and after that they ran 
 down to less than 10 cents a pound. 
 
 Tho Chairman. I want to ask as a matter of fact what these foreign hops were 
 selling at last year here. I wanted to ask this of Mr. Fox; I mean the same period. 
 
 Mr. Fox. They were selling at 24 to 30 cents, that is, with duty paid. 
 
 Mr. Haskell. In addition to that I will say the German hops were offered to me 
 aud others in 1887 at as low as one cent and a half and throe-quarters of a cent a 
 pound in bond, that is, with the freight paid but the duty not paid, subject simply 
 to duty and storage; but of course they were not hops of that crop. They were 
 yearlings. Now, it seems to me that the next thing the agriculturists 
 
 Mr. Butter\voi;tii. As I am interested in this, let me correct the question involved 
 in that statement. You do not mean to saiy that these were good hops that were 
 wortli such a price as that. 
 
 Mr. Haskell. I stated they were old Gorman hops brought here that were worth- 
 
REVISION -OP THE TARIFF. 1061 
 
 less. Of course, they would have to he sold on the mai'ket for 12 cents a pound after 
 yon paid the duty and storage, but they were not worth that. 
 
 The next question it seems to me is the question of who opposed the granting of 
 this tariff. First, there was a meeting of the New York trade of a number of importers, 
 twonty-one of which signed a memorial to this committee askiog that the duty on 
 hops be not raised. Now, I assume they did not try or care to convince the importer 
 that it is any benefit to him to raise the import duties and reduce the imports. We 
 are producers and desire our own home market. Again, of the twenty-one which I 
 have stated were importers, I am informed that (iO per cent, are aliens, men who have 
 come here 
 
 Mr. Fox. Twenty-five per cent. 
 
 Mr. Haskell. Very well. 
 
 Mr. Fox. And of the rest some are not citizens, as they have not been in the country 
 loDg enough 
 
 Mr. Haskell. I will take the gentleman's word that there are 25 per cent., and the 
 balance are men who have not declared their intentions and are not becoming 
 citiKeus. Aside from the fact it will interfere with their business, they eadeavor to 
 show that they really have at heart the interests of the hop-growers. Now, we beg 
 leave to pass upon this question ourselves. The hop trade of this State is not in favor 
 of maintaining as low a duty where it has but two-thirds of the hop trade. 
 
 The State of New York has joined with us in this plea, Mr. Coggshall having a petition 
 which he will present. There has been some opposition to us by the organization of 
 the brewers who petitioned Congress, and on March tUo Gth Mr. Lefeus, of Chicago, 
 and Mr. Scharmann, of Now 'V: ork City, came before your honoralde committee opposing 
 this increase. Now the brewers, I will state, are a class of men who, if they can 
 m.ake a case, are entitled to be considered. They are citizens closely identified with 
 us in business, they are the class of people to whom our hops are sold, who convert 
 them into beer, and make them salable, and we are closely allied, and I think they 
 have a right to come before this committee and be heard upon this question. But 
 we find right on the threshold of their petition to Congress, " We are in favor of 
 protecting the domestic agriculture production against the production of what is 
 usnally styled the pauper labor of Europe," so they come here planted squarely upon 
 the question of protecting the agriculturist, and by the gentleman who has appeared 
 in their behalf to-day it has been stated, and the very figures demonstrate it, that 
 the only injury that could be done them is less than 4 cents a barrel by giving us the 
 duty we ask. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is this petition of the hop-growers signed irrespective of party? 
 
 Mr. Haskell. Y'es, sir; I will state that our associations are irrespective of party. 
 The president of the State Hop-Growers' Association is a Republican. I appear here 
 ,as a Democrat, and my friend Mr. Coggshall and Mr. Clark appear here as Republi- 
 cans. There are no politics known in this movement among the hop-growers. It is 
 simply a demand growing ontofthe necessitiesof the case for help. I think thatthe 
 brewers might well make that statement from the bottom of their hearts, for thoy 
 arc! the most highly protected of any industry from importation of foreign beers, as 
 follows: "Ale, porter, and beer in bottles or jugs of glass, stone, or earthenware, S.'i 
 cents per gallon; otherwise than in bottles or jugs of glass, stone, or earthenware, 
 20 cents per gallon." Now, a barrel of beer of :32 gallons, the extreme outside cost of 
 it when in the cellar and ready for shipment to the retail dealer in the same condi- 
 tion as a similar barrel imported in the warehouse, is $1). This includes cost of ma- 
 terial, wages, salaries, and 10 per cent, on the value of the plant. This statement 
 was made and unchallenged at a meeting of the brewers and hop-growers in the city 
 of New York on Wednesday, March 5, 18U0, and has been most carefully verified. On 
 importations in wood, on the basis of 32 gallons to the barrel, the duty on which at 
 20 cents a gallon is .|6.40, or more than 200 per cent, greater than the cost to the 
 American brewer. On importations in bottles and jugs, the duty at 35 cents a gallon 
 affords the brewers over 300 per cent, protection. The fact is that there is no compe- 
 tition in this country between domestic and foreign beer; the imported article selling 
 at fancy prices and as a luxury only. This is as it should be ; but how can the brewer 
 be heard or heeded in the day of his prosperity, largely caused by his 200 per cent, 
 and .'iOO per cent, protection, in opposition to this application of his needy brother, 
 the hop-grower, to increase the 50 per cent, protection on his product, which does 
 not protect him to such a figure that he may also prosper. 
 
 But all brewers are not opposed to the increase of the duty on hops as requested. 
 Reference has been made to a resolution passed at a meeting of the State Brewers' 
 Association of our State in 1S89, which was a joint convention, composed of brewers 
 .and nuilters and hop dealers and representatives of sever.al hop-growers' associations 
 in our State. At that time, by a ])reamblo which recited " Whereas hop growing is 
 and has lieeu for sometime past depressed owing to various causes," the very fir.st 
 cause .assigned was "competition of Ibreign competitors," and the remedy following 
 that was a resoliiticm that they would join with us in a petition to Congress to so reg- 
 
1062 REVISION OP -THE TARIFF. 
 
 niate the duty on foreign hops as to insure protection to one of the principal agricult- 
 ural interests in this State. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Was that adopted 1 
 
 Mr. Haskell. Yes, sir; that was adopted. I hold a copy of that in my hand. It 
 ■was adopted section by section. This whole matter came up for general discussion. 
 Mr. Fox was there and Mr. Fox opposed it. Mr. Pox stated that if they p.assed the 
 resolution by which they pledged themselves to support it, that the importers might 
 just as well step out ef the association, and upon a roll-call at my request of the 
 'brewers only, in order to see how they absolutely felt upon this question, there being 
 thirty present from New York State, twenty-seven voted aye and are on record to-day, 
 and only three no, being from Broolilyn and Staten Island. 
 
 Mr. Fox. I will state I did so, but I understood when the resolution was passed 
 that the brewers joined the farmers in advocating a high tariff. I was informed af- 
 terwards by one of the officers of the Brewers' Association, that I had misconstrued 
 the resolution and that he did not construe it to mean an iucrea.se of duty, and there- 
 fore he did not see why I need resign, aud upon that representation 
 
 Mr. COGGSIIALL. The resolution is here and will speak for itself. 
 
 Mr. Haskell. The resolution and preamble, in answer to the gentleman that he 
 did not so understand, I will say not only did he take that position, but that was 
 the entire tone of the meeting, and that, whatever since may have been stated by 
 anybody as to what was meant by those resolutions, it wa,s stated in the discussion 
 they meant just what we claim aud that they meant nothing else. In addition to 
 that, I may' state that after the adoption of that series of resolutions, that preamble 
 was made and signed, they were all struck off on that form and distributed, because 
 it was fully the intention'at that time to bring every hop-grower and every brewer 
 and everybody interested in our State into a common organization for the purpose of 
 doing everything that was necessary to protect ouo another in their common business. 
 I have liere the names oi? the brewers who were at that meeting in their report, and 
 there are a good many whose names do not appear here, and some of these may 
 have gone out, for I have not the original sheet of that roll-call. 
 
 Zfcfwers.— Albany : Amsdell Bros., T. D. Coleman & Bro., A. F. Dobler, Granger & 
 Story, Hlnckel Brewing Comviany ; Brooklyn: Budweiser Brewing Company, Otto 
 Hnljer, George MalconI, William Ulmer; liuffalo : Gerhard Lang; Hudson: C. H. 
 Evans, Granger & Gregg Brewing Company ; Neni York City : A. Finck &, Sou, 1. & 
 M. Haffen, Jacob Hoffmann Brewing Company, A. Huepfel's Son, John Kress Brew- 
 ing Company, David Mayer, Fred. Oppermanu,jr., George Eiuglor & Co., F. & M. 
 Schaefcr Brewing Company, D. G. Yuengling, Jr., Brewing Company, Heury Zeltner ; 
 Rochester: EochesterBrewing Company ; Rondont: Phillip Hoft'man ; Staten Island : 
 Rubsom & Horrmauu ; Yonkers : Underbill, Jackson & Co. 
 
 Malsters. — Buffalo: John M. Wiegand ; Now York City: M. Rosenheim, Edward 
 Schweyer, Joseph Strouse & Son, Mathew White, P. G. & J. N. van Flict ; Oneida : 
 James A. Gregg ; Rochester : S. N. Oothout & Son. 
 
 Hop-dealers'^Alhanj : Chas. S. May & Co. ; New York City : S. Goldberger &. Co., 
 Lilienthal Bros., Rothbarth & Sons, Martin Rothbarth & Co., John R, Seott & Co., 
 Aug. Sfrassburg, S. & P. Uhllman ; Waterville : W. A. Lawrence. 
 
 Associates. — New York City: Meyer & Baldenecker, Gerealine Mfg. Company, 
 Levi Cook, Cook & Radley, J. C. de la Vergne, Francis J. Geis, German-American 
 Brewers' Journal, A. Scliwarz, Scott & Malleson, John M. Stroehel, U. S. Bung Mfg. 
 Company. 
 
 Hepresentaiivea of Hop-growers. — Madison County : D. E. Leland, E. H. Day, E. 
 Browne, E. P. Haskell, P. B. Gill, A. 0. Tolmson ; Oneida County : Ira L. Snell ; 
 Otsego County, Thomas Kiuch. James F. Clark. 
 
 Now there is one proposition which has been urged, which perhaps is worthy to be 
 answered. It is plausible upon its face. That is, if by increasing the duty we shut 
 out German importation that it will affect us injuriously upon the exportation of our 
 hops. Our hops have a reputation as yearlings, and they are irsed in England princi- 
 pally in that capacity as yearlings where the Germans do not come in competition, 
 aud we will hold our trade which we have with English brewers and others who use 
 the hops after they become yearlings very largely, aud our hops ai'e bought for that 
 purpose. 
 
 Now, in couolnsiou, I respectfully submit that as hop raising and brewing are kin- 
 dred and allied occupations and parts of a single system of business, the producer 
 should be accorded equal protection with the manufacturer, ,so that each may prosper 
 equally. And I may say, Mr. Chairujan, there is no manufactured production — and 
 beer itself is a manufactured production — that does not represent so liigh a proportion 
 of labor to its value as the hop does. Every stage of the hop, extending from the day 
 it peeps through the ground until it is finally dried in the kiln, must be carefully, 
 const.autly, and skillfully tended. It is certainly at least 90 per cent, labor, and 
 intelligent and skilled labor. It would d.)e much better for the growers, unless the 
 dul,y upon hops is raised to at least 2(1 cents and thoy be afforded that protection, that 
 the duty upon hops and beer sliould be both taken off'. 
 
EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 1063 
 
 The standard of foreign beer is so much higher in regard to the quantity of hops 
 in brewing, that the American brewer would, if brought in direct competition with 
 the imported beer, be obliged to correspondingly increase the amount of hops used 
 from about 1^ to 2 pounds to 3 or 4 pounds per barrel and thus the annual deojand 
 for hops would be largely and appreciably increased. As appears from the first re- 
 ports of the presentation of the brewer's side of this case to the Ways and Means 
 Committee ou March 5, Messrs. Lefeas and Scharrmarm asked for a corresponding in- 
 crease in the duty on beer if the duty on hops is advanced. To this the hop-grower 
 has already signified his assent at the late meeting m New York City, and again here 
 afarms it if such increase be neeessary to guaranty to the brewer the continuance 
 of his present prosperity. 
 
 Mr. Batne. You are a Democrat, in favor of protecting raw materials as well as 
 the finished products? 
 
 Mr. Haskell. I am taking my position here without reference to politics. I am 
 taking the position here upon the principle of equal protection to everybody. Too 
 much already has the idea gone forth that the agriculturist is not regarded by Con- 
 gress as among the favored citizens for whom the tariff laws were created and were 
 maintained, that none but manufacturers shall bask in the sunshine of protection. 
 By giving the hop-grower the protection that he asks it will be demonstrated that 
 the farmer in this case at least is not outside of the privileged classes. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I thank you for your kind atten- 
 tion. 
 
 STATEMENT OF H. J. COGGSHALL. 
 
 Mr. H. J. COGGSHALL, State senator of New York, next addressed the committee. 
 He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, some reference has been made to 
 the politics of the gentlemen who appeared before you to-day. I am Republican, not 
 that I desire to paraphrase a distinguished governor of New York, who says, "I am a 
 Democrat," but lam aEepublican, and in my humble way would attempt, if I thought 
 it were pertinent to this question, to discuss the" question at large of a protective 
 tariif, but doing the best I might I could give you gentlemen no light upon that 
 question. I am here representing a large agricultural interest of the Empire State, an 
 interest that is depressed, an interest thut is to-day upon the ragged edge of bank- 
 ruptcy and ruin, and I believe as much as I believe that I am here, that it is the result 
 and only the result of the lack of protection to whicli that interest is entitled ; that 
 it is caused by gentlemen like the distinguished would-be citizen of that State, Mr. 
 Fox 
 
 Mr. Fox. I am a citizen. 
 
 Mr. COGGSHALL. Oh, you are a citizen; I am happy to know it. You haven't 
 seemed to talk like one of the State of New York who had the interests of her in- 
 dnstries at stake. This depression is caused by the action largely in New York 
 of those gentlemen who carry their offices in their hats, these importers who are 
 ruining her, going up and down the State of New York, and they, I assert and 
 maintain, undoubtedly influenced the brewers to act as they have in reference to this 
 humble petition, to this just and equitable request which the hop-growers of the 
 State of New York lay at your feet. Why, sir, we have in the State of New York, as 
 has been stated, an association known as the Hop Growers' Association of the State 
 of New York. These associations are located in the counties of Madison, Oneida, 
 Otsego, Franklin, and Schoharie. They were formed in their earliest stages, in con- 
 junction with tho New York State Brewers and Malsters' Association, for the purpose 
 of promoting our mutual iuterest, and, as has been stated, at a meeting held they re- 
 solved, the brewers as well as the growers and the dealers, that they would join in 
 petitioning Congress for an increase of the tariff upon hops, and no other construction 
 can be placed upon it. Yet we find them here to-day remonstrating against an in- 
 crease of tho duty, because, why ? Forsooth, said my distinguished predecessor who 
 represented the other side of this question, Mr. Fox, " because it will be prohibitory." 
 Well, it is the most astounding proposition to which I ever listened, because in an- 
 swer to one gentlemen, Mr. Gear, and one by Mr. Bayne, Mr. Fox informed us that 
 the increase of duty as I have computed it would be one and six-tenths of a penny ou 
 every barrel of beer. Think you that is striking at the interest of the brewer ? How 
 is that prohibitory to the interest of the brewer who to day is capitalizing his in- 
 vestment at 400 per cent, and selling his brewing interest to British gold, and Britain 
 is represented by this gentleman who is named after one illustrious in history, Mr. 
 Fox, who comes here and claims to this committee that legislation, such as we ask, 
 is prohibitory, but he can not appeal as my friend, the eloquent Congressman, Mr. 
 Bntterworth, said, to having a warm heart; he can not appeal to bis warm hearted 
 ness, nor it seems to me to the deliberate and unbiased mind of any gentleman who 
 calmly and dispassionately considers this great question. 
 
1064 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Reference has been made, Mr. Chairman, to the petition that has been forwarded, 
 or that I haTe in my hand, signed by tlie representative dealers in the State of New 
 York. I have it here and, with jour permission, I will read it, as it is brief: 
 
 Tlie Congress of ilie United States of Ameriea : 
 
 We, the undersigned dealers in hops, all being residents of the State of New York 
 and citizens of the United States, join the hop-growers of New York State in respect- 
 fully petitioning your honorable body to advance the tariii' on foreign hops, as pro- 
 vided in schedule of bill introduced by Hon. Milton DeLano, member of Congress 
 from New York State. 
 
 We make this appeal in the interest of an industry (hop growing), firmly convinced 
 that unless the prayer of the "hop-growers" is granted, that thousands of our fellow 
 citizens residing in the counties of Otsego, Schoharie, Montgomery, Madison, Oneida, 
 Ontario, Lewis, and Franklin, of New York State, as well as the numerous hop-growers 
 of the " Pacific slope," will be impoverished and very many even rendered homeless. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 [Here follow numerous signatures.] 
 
 Now I would that I had time, hut I must not consume the time as the hour is late 
 and you have already listened for along time, but I would like to go into a descrip- 
 tion of the condition of the farms of the State of New York. Of course, as has been 
 said, the agricultural interests are depressed and they are clamoring at the doors of 
 this Capitol that their interests as well as the interests of the manufacturers shall be 
 protected. Why I expect to read by and by of the advocacy of the distinguished 
 gentleman who appeared here as he said for his neighbors and friends and the people 
 generally. I refer to the Hon. Mr. Butterworth. I expect to hear of his advocating 
 an increase of the tariff in reference to wool, and yet wool is protected '.'A percent. 
 I believe that gentleman would advocate an increase of the duty on iron, that all 
 the representative interests of this nation will be carefully guarded by you gentle- 
 men, but do not let your neighbors and your friends or your local interests influence 
 or control you so as to do injustice to the agriculturists at large. 
 
 Mr. BuTTEKWORTH. Right there, if it is proper, will you permit me to ask one ques- 
 tion on which I want information. I understand it costs to produce hops on the 
 Pacific slope, 8 cents. 
 
 Mr. CoGGSHAXL. It costs 8 cents to pick it, Mr. Butterworth. 
 
 Mr. Butterworth. I am only stating the relative cost would be the same; and in 
 New York, 13 cents. 
 
 Mr. COGGSHALL. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Butterworth. And shipped from the Pacific coast to the markets here would 
 cost, say, 2 cents a pound. Now how would your higher priced hops produced in 
 New York compete with hops produced on the Pacific coast even if the tariff were 
 increased ? I would like to hear you on that proposition. 
 
 Mr. CoGGSHAXL. If you will permit me. On the Pacific coast hops are gathered and 
 are lauded inNew York City and the cost of prodviction and the landing them, or deliver- 
 ing them at their destination, unless they are in the immediate vicinity of the Pacific 
 coast, does not vary perhaps the fraction of a penny, so their interests are identical. 
 They stand upon a par, and whatever advantage there is to the Pacific coast people 
 to-day, will very soon be overbalanced and overcome, so we will stand absolutely 
 equal, by the immigration that is going there and the supplanting of the Chinese 
 labor which is going on. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I understood from what one gentleman said that the Pacific co.ast hops 
 are a little different and do not bring what our hops do on their merits. 
 
 Mr. CoGGSHALL. They do not, and I will say that there is no continent and no 
 country that produces hops equal to the New York State, notwithstanding what the 
 gentleman from England, Mr. Fox, has said. 
 
 The Chairman. Will you have to go out of business on account of the competition 
 of the California growers? 
 
 Mr. COGGSHALL. No, sir; we are ready to give and take. 
 
 Mr. Butterworth. If, then, the quality of your hops in a large measure fixes the 
 market, it is not correct to assume that it is regulated by the taritt' altogether ? 
 
 Mr. CoGGSHALL. I did not say absolutely. 
 
 Mr. Butterworth. You stated that yours are superior to any others. 
 
 Mr. La Follbttb. He stated they were superior to the California hops. 
 
 Mr. CoGGSHALL. I grant that, but does it do away absolutely with the proposition 
 of nei'ding protection? When you protect hcijiH as you are protecting wool to-day 
 we will bo willing to stand by it on an equal basis, but until then wo do not. Yon. 
 are jiroteotiiig beer over .'lO per r.vnt., by your tariff rating, while hops are protected 
 only a little nvrr Hr-t per cent. These gentlfiiien, the browers, I believe entirely iiiis- 
 ai)prelieTid the position that they mfc in, Iiiy'.anse as has been said by my predecessor, 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 10(55 
 
 Mr. Haskell, our interests are to a certain extent identical, and what pvoinotc'S tbe 
 interests of tlie one promotes and protects the interests of the other, and I believe aa 
 I said in the outset if the brewers knew the siatus of affairs and had not been in- 
 fluenced — and I know whereof I speak when I say it — I say openly and without fear 
 of successful contradiction that they have been greatly misled by representations 
 that have been made to them, and if the language is not unparliamentary I would 
 say misrepresentation, as to the condition that they would be placed under by this in- 
 crease of the tariff. It is idle to attempt to answer Mr. Fox, for he has answered his 
 argument as he went along by demonstrating that his premises were false and there- 
 fore his conclusions were wrong. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, I have prepared a statement bearing upon this question hur- 
 riedly because I had no notice whatever of a hearing so far as I was concerned that I 
 was expected to attend here until Friday, and during Friday night and Saturday I 
 prepared a statement which I dictated, upon which there appears some statistics for 
 which I would ask your careful consideration. 
 
 The Chairman. If yon wish you can leave any statement you desire. 
 
 Mr. CoGGSHALL. I will do that, but I only desire briefly to call attention to the 
 question of imports and exports. Now this is a tabulated statement that has been 
 carefully prepared and wbich can not be successfully disputed. Tbe imports for the 
 year 18cl7, reduced to pounds, were 18,538,049 pounds. The exports were 260,721 
 ponnds. For 1888 the imports were .'3,.585,03:?. The exports were 6,793,818 pounds. 
 The imports up to March 1, 1890, were 5,468,650 pounds. The exports up to the 
 same date were 4,726,080 pounds; the aggregate imports during this interval being 
 29,.591,732 pounds, while the exports are but 11,780,519. Now it does not seem to me 
 that further remarks or further discussion of the question of imports and exports 
 should be gone into, for it is so plain that he who runs may read, who has investigated 
 it, that we had not to contend with serious results that have come to us by reasons 
 of combiu.ations between the importers and the brewers prior to the failure of the 
 crop of 1886. 
 
 No w. I have also here statistics with reference to the production of d ifferent countries 
 and the surplus of this country which I will not stop to read. I do not know but I 
 might briefly call your attention to the cost of a hop plant of 20 acres. Twenty acres 
 of land at |75 makes i|l, 500. That is the ijresent value of hop land. I am to a limited 
 extent a horny-handed son of toil. I have a farm, or rather I may say the farm has 
 me. I am, perhaps, somewhat in reference to a farm what the boy said to his father 
 when he was asked what church his father belonged to. He said, " Th.at he belonged 
 to the Methodist Church, but he didn't work in it much." I have that farm, aud I 
 go up there sometimes in the summer, and wlieu I think about the position they oc- 
 cupy and their distressful condition I feel lil^e the old deacon, who said, " That if it 
 was not wicked to swear he would swear like hell." This farm costs over |oOO an 
 acre, and owing to the depressed condition of agricultural interests, I could not go upon 
 the market to-day and get over $75 or $100 ; Congressman Stivers knows that. Now 
 in regard to the cost of a hop plant of 20 acres — the 20 acres of land, at |75 will be 
 $1,500; breaking the land, cost of roots, and setting will be $200 ; 30,000 hop poles, at 
 9 cents, will be $2,700; hop kiln complete will bo $1,300 ; ono team of horses, wagon, 
 tools, including hops, boxes, and sacks, $500 ; making an aggregate of $6,200, and tbe 
 cost I have stated here of producing a pound of hops in this State, provided the yield 
 is 1,000 pounds, which is in excess of what we had last year, is slightly over 15 cents 
 per pound, and the items of cost here submitted are a test of the truth and accuracy 
 of our entire argument and we are willing, if the figures bore given can be contro- 
 verted, to relinquish our claim on Congress for further protection. 
 
 Here follows a detailed statement of tbe cost of cultivating bops from the time tho 
 poles are set in the spring until they are harvested in tbe fall and the cost of a crop 
 of 20,000 pounds as I have computed' is 15.85 cents per pound. 
 
 I will not burden the committee with any statement of the ni.anner in which we be- 
 lieve we should live as to the manner in which the people who i)roduce hops abroad 
 live, but I do desire to call your attention to the cultivation of hops in Germany, with 
 whom we have to compete largely. The farmers live in hamlets there and their lands 
 surround each hamlet, dividing lines are shown by small stakes or stones. Twenty 
 acres is considered to be a largo estate, and the owner of 100 acres is a landed propri- 
 etor, not one-half the number of acres Mr. Clark himself cultivates. Therefore, the 
 farmer raising so prec;^rious a crop of bops is very careful to limit his risk. The aver- 
 age hop yard of Bavaria does not exceed half an acre. The plowing, setting poles, 
 aud cultivating is done by the farmer and his family. It is not an uncommon sight 
 to see a woman almost on the threshohl of maternity surrounded by boys and girls 
 below their teens plowing and hoeing in the field, carrying heavy loads at all hours 
 of the day. In thesummor time fourteen hours is considered a day's works for a man ; 
 eight hours field, and seven hours house work, is modest labor for a farmer's wife. 
 Thus you will observe that the crop of hops is produced without any cost for help. 
 
1066 REVISION OF tHE TARIFF. 
 
 Now, Mr! Butterwortli said he was so nnicli of a protectionist as to be -willing fliat 
 protection amply sliould be given. It has been demonstrated clearly, I think, Mr. 
 Chairman, and if not, it can be determined beyond peradventnre by an examiualion 
 of tile facts which concern this indnstry, that it has not adeqnate protection. Cer- 
 tainly we are strikini; at no interest; we are not injuring the brewers. We are not 
 cn^ac'ed in catering to foreigners, we are not here to [irotect the importers, but we 
 befieve in having Anijerica for Americans, and I say to you, as I stated in the outset, 
 that I believe it "is yonr bounden duty to protect tbe agricultural interests as well as 
 the mannfactnrers, and tbe laboring interests as well. 
 
 Now upon the question of raw material and labor, an investigation of this question 
 would show you gentlemen that 90 per cent, of that which goes iuto the culture and 
 growth and the placing of hops upon the market is labor, and upon that theory we 
 maintain that we are entitled to the relief we ask. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, there are many other things I might suggest 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You say NewYork hops are as fine as any hops iu the world? 
 
 Mr. COGGSHALL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKesxa. The gentleman who preceded you .stated that foreign hops were 
 stronger for six months ; is that so? 
 
 MrrCoGGSHALi.. There are some grades that are stronger at six months, but I 
 speak of the marketable value of hops as they are produced. The American hops go 
 into the London market and compete successfully with the products of other coun- 
 tries. 
 
 Mr. McKexna. Then American hops are fully as strong as foreign hops? 
 
 Mr. CoGGSHALL. They are to a certain extent, as far as 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Do you agree to the testimony whirh has been given to the effect 
 that the foreign hops is only used to a limited exteiit for tiavoriug purposes. 
 
 Mr. C'oggshall. lam not very well vei.sed in the manufacture of beer, and I do 
 not indulge in its consnmption. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I understand yon h.ave purchased a grapery in California to make it 
 pay expenses, is that true? 
 
 Mr. Coggsiiall. I have purchased a grapery but I have not paid for it from the 
 livofits on my hop farm. I may state, gentlemen, that I know something about the 
 price of hop.s last fall for I sold' them at 10-J- when they cost 15 cents. I was ,so busy 
 running for re-election lo the Senate that I havn't figured how much I made upon 
 my crop. Perhaps Mr. Vox can tell me that. 
 
 I thank you gentlemen for the atteution you have given to this subject and I hope 
 you will consider our claim, knowing that if you do it, upon the broad plain of jus- 
 tice, you will grant us our request. 
 
 The Chaikmax. Mr. Fox wishes to make a brief statement. 
 
 Mr. CoGGsiiALL. I do not object to Mr. Fox making a statement, but I thought that 
 as we had the affirmative side we would have the privilege of closing. 
 
 The Chairjian. Yon will havi; an opportunity to reply to anything Mr. Fox may 
 say. 
 
 Mr. Fox. Mr. Chairman, I have here a book entitled "Hop Culture," by Mr. Law- 
 iimee, who is an authority I think my opponents will recognize. 1 find this state- 
 ment iu it: "In the wiuleFof 1873 and 1879 the Waterville Grange appointed three 
 couiraittees to ascertain and report inUepcindently the annual cost of raising hops per 
 acri% at per pound. Mr. C. 11. Curtis, chairman of one of the committees, made the 
 following report: Actual cost of raising 1 acre of hops, 778 hills, 7 by 8 feet apart, 
 yicldiugl.OOO pounds, making the actual cost in growing It.'.iS to $1.77 per acre of 
 1,000 pounds, or a little more than V.i^ cents ]ier pound. Mr. A. Ct. Harmer, chairman 
 of another committee, on the basis of 8U0 pounds |ier acre, found the actual cost iu 
 his case to be 12i cents jier pound, without the items of insurance or packing. Mr. 
 O. N. LfM-ke, chairman of the third committee, in estimating his land at $80 per acre, 
 and with no charge for fertilizers, reports the actual cost of his hops at l'<ij cents per 
 pound. The committees were cotnposed of prominent representative growers, men of 
 sound juilgment, and their reports were placed entirely upon their experience during 
 thf last year or two." 
 
 Jlr. CoGGSiiALL. I wish to state that the cost of picking has increased since that 
 statement is made. I also desire to state I submitted to Mr. Lawrence, the gentle- 
 man Mr. Fox referred to, these figures and he coincided with my views, that I had 
 not overestimated the amount of expense incidental to the cultivation of hops. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 106? 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT BY MR. COGGSHALL. 
 
 Mauch 10, 1890. 
 The Committee on Wai/s and Means of the House of Representatives : 
 
 We represent the hop-growers of New York State, who, irrespective of party afSli- 
 atioQS, request favorable action on the part of your committee oh the bill pending be- 
 fore yon, introduced by the Hon. Milton De Lauo, of New Yorli, to raise the duty on 
 hops from 8 cents to 20 cents per pound. We believe that the hop-growers of the 
 Pacific coast would have joined us in this petition had they been communicated with, 
 as the same causes which depress our business interests, likewise aii'ect theirs iu the 
 s.ame manner. The reixsons we assert in favor of this bill are as follows : 
 
 (1) Since IHSO our business has been depressed ; we have raised crops with losses ; 
 our farms are heavily mortgaged, and unless we receive relief our farms will be sold 
 in many instances by the siierift' to pay creditors, and many of us rendered homeless. 
 
 (2) The brewers, who are the consumers of our product, admit these facts, and 
 themselves recognize the causes, in proof of which we present to your committee res- 
 olutions passed by the New York State Brewers' Association nearly one year ago. 
 
 (;!) The duty on hops at 8 cents per pound permits of the indiscriminate porta- 
 tion of the poor as well as the good grades of continental hops of Europe, and th.it 
 depresses prices, as the poor grades in Europe sell very cheaply, being only usable 
 for speculative purposes, even iu years of scarcity. 
 
 (4) The business of importing hops has gone into the hands of foreigners, who visit 
 ns once a year to sell their wares ; who own no property iu this country; owe no 
 allegience to its institutions, and supply the bresver with hops under the names of 
 Bavarians and Bohemians, which are made up of the growths of all parts of Europe ; 
 and the brewer is willing to purchase these goods, because thereby he cheapens our 
 product. 
 
 (5) Because the cost of production in this country exceeds the cost of production 
 on the continent by more than the amount of duty now imposed, owing to the facts 
 which will appear hereafter. 
 
 (G) Because the consumer of our products is protected with our consent, and by the 
 votes of our representatives, to a much larger degree than wo are. 
 
 In refirst. The failure of the New York State crop in 1886, when wo raised 10,000 
 hales of hops, instead of a normal crop of 1:30,000, was a severe blow to our interests. 
 We hoped to recover therefrom in the three succeeding years, l.>nt for the same causes, 
 each year has been a repetition of the former, so that we now iind ourselves in a very 
 deplorable state, unless the causes which produced this depression are removed, and 
 the only remedy that exists is to take away the competition we must meet under the 
 present tariff, to wit: the low-grade hops of Coutiuental Europe. 
 
 In re second. In March, 188y, when, at the request of the Ijrewers of New York 
 State, we org.anized the hop-growers' association, they said to us (as will appear by 
 their own resolutions we present to you), that the causes of the depression in our 
 bnsine.ss were : (a) Competition of foreign production, {b) Indiscriminate patron- 
 age extended by brewers, and they resolved ' ' to give prefe«euce to our liops over such 
 hops as were grown in foreign countries; to join the various hop-growers' associations 
 in a petition to Congress to so regulate the duty on foreign hops as to insure pro- 
 tection to one of the principal agricultural interests of this State." They have failed 
 to keep the pledges which these resolutions contain, l)Ut declare their intention to 
 abide by the resolutions if we will aid them in the common light against prohibition. 
 They now explain to ns that it is against our interest to raise tlie duty on foreign 
 hops, since it is certain that a higher duty would cause an increase of production, 
 and depreciate the value of onrhops, and they feel in duty bound, under that reso- 
 lution, "to protect us," which they interpret to mean, to keep the duty where it is, 
 and not cause us to lose eveu more by having us increase our acreage. We respect- 
 fully submit to yonr honorable committei', that this explanation is an insult to our 
 intelligence. We ask for the increased duty, and will abide the results, and do not 
 a.sk the brewers, aided by the foreign hop importers, to educate us as to what is best 
 for our business interests. We ask you to read tho entire preamble and resolutions 
 passed by the brewers' association, and judge for yoursnlves what their true meaning 
 and intent is. 
 
 In re third. The small amount of duty on hops makes it possible for the im]iiu"ti'r 
 to bring over any class of foreign hops, and in order to meet the prevailing yu'ices 
 here, the importer need only buy iu districts where hops are cheap, mix the hops 
 with hops of a better grade, and thereby bring his original cost price to a lignre to 
 meet the cost price of our own product, thereby inviting the competition of the 
 brewer, and the etfect has regularly been to depreciate our values. Although, as 
 yonr committee will remember, the brewers themselves admit that our j)roduct is 
 eqnal in quality to any hops rai.sed in the world. 
 
1068 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 We urge upon yonr committee, that tliis means of artificially reducing the value 
 ot our product should be stopped, as it is unfair, and always aifects ns unfavorably. 
 It is but necessary to illustrate the business done iu the crop of 1889, to wit: New 
 York State did not produce to exceed 70,000 bales of hops (or within 00,000 bales of 
 its average crop); the Pacific coast, 90,000 bales; the two sections combined, 
 a.bout the amount of pur consumption requirement. The average cost of the New 
 York State product this year, in 1889, was at least 17 cents per pound (owing to the 
 small yield per acre). 
 
 About harvest time, the foreign hop importers, in order to depress their own raar- 
 kets, circulated the report in this country that Germany and Austria would produce 
 a crop from .50 to 75 per cent, above normal. The brewers, who seem to be allied . 
 with these foreign hop importers, earnestly believed these reports and the result was, 
 tbat seven-eighths of the crop of this State sold at an average of 8J cents per pound 
 to the grower. The German markets declined in consequence of these false reports, 
 and remained depressed until the English brewer — who recognizes the superiority of 
 our product — bought largely of New York State and Pacific coast hops. This opera- 
 tion brought into this country the German product at an average price of not to ex- 
 ceed 9 cents f. o. b. steamer, German port ; but the eifect was, that by supplying us 
 (only slightly) in excess of the quantity we had exported, the German markets ad- 
 vanced nearly 75 per cent., and now that our hops are gone from our hands into the 
 hands of the brewer, and only now, do wo discover that the price has advanced fully 
 100 per cent. 
 
 We submit to your committee that the duty .should be so regulated as not to sub- 
 ji^ct us to the combinations and conspiracies of the consumer, aided by the foreign 
 hop importer. 
 
 In re fourth. Prior to 1886 we felt amply protected with the duty of 8 cents per 
 pound, because the business of importing hops was iu the hands of merchants who 
 dealt in our own product, who cultivated lauds alongside of ours, and who are citi- 
 zens of this country, and participated in its development. The failure of our crop in 
 that year brought to these shores a horde of German hop dealers who have no inter- 
 ests in coQimon with us, but who visit us annually ; sell their foreign product for no 
 other purpose than to depress our production, and return to their native country to 
 enjoy the profits made at our expense. We prove this by reference to the petition of 
 the brewers now in your possession, and will accept as true their own figures of im- 
 ports and exports. They say that the exports largely exceed the imports. But we 
 say: That that is true only up to and including 188C; but since the combinations be- 
 tween these foreign importers and the brewers, the result is the other way, and here 
 are the figures. All taken from their own memorial (except Septemljer 1, 1889, to 
 March 1, 1890), which has been furnished to us by the official report of the New York 
 custom-house. 
 
 
 Imports. 
 
 Exports. 
 
 18H7 ... . .. 
 
 Pounds. 
 18, 538. 049 
 5, 685, 033 
 5, 46S, 650 
 
 Founds. 
 260.721 
 
 18S8 
 
 6, 793, 818 
 
 
 4, 720, 080 
 
 
 
 
 29, 691, 732 
 
 11, 760, 519 
 
 Further remark on this point is unnecessary. With hops ruling at an average of 
 11 cents in New York State is 8 cents ample protection, when, by a combination of 
 shrewd business men, the imports exceed the cxport.s by over 000,000 pounds this 
 season, and the duty is 8 cents? It becomes important to ost.ahlish how it is jiossi- 
 Ide to furnish hops from aliroad to compete with our own productitui at these ruin- 
 ously low figures. This is the explanation: 
 
 In an average year, and that should be the guidance in a di.scussion like this. Great 
 Britain has a deficiency of about 100,000 bales. (The average weight of a bale is 
 calculated at IftO pouuds.) 
 
 Since 1885 the production and consumption of the various countries has been as 
 follows : 
 
 ViiUoi States— 
 
 Production : Bales. 
 
 JfewToik State 90,000 
 
 Paciflo coast 90,000 
 
 Total 180,000 
 
 roosnmption 180,000 
 
 No Hlll]llU.4. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1069 
 
 German Empire — 
 
 Production ; Cwts. 
 
 Biwaria 250,000 
 
 Wurtemberg 70, 000 
 
 Palatinate 40,000 
 
 Alsa*?* Lorraine 80, 000 
 
 Altmark 35,1100 
 
 Divers 2.0,000 
 
 Total 625,000 
 
 Consumption - - 350, 000 
 
 Snrplus 176,000 
 
 or about 100,000 bales. 
 
 Austrian Empire : 
 Production : 
 
 Saaz 40,000 
 
 Upper Austria 20,000 
 
 Styria : 20,000 
 
 Gallicia 15, 000 
 
 Divers 15, 000 
 
 Total 110.000 
 
 Consumption 130,000 
 
 Deficiency 20,000 
 
 or about 12,000 bales. 
 
 Uelginm : 
 
 Production 80,000 
 
 Consumption 20,000 
 
 Surplus 60, 000 
 
 or about 33, 000 bales. 
 
 France : 
 
 Production 40,000 
 
 Consumption there and in other continental states GO, 000 
 
 Deficiency 20,000 
 
 or about 12,000 bales. 
 
 Thus you observe that the surplus of Contineutal Europe about equals England's 
 deficiency, and under natural conditions, our own surplus, should any exist, or a cor- 
 responding quantity of continental hops, would have to be held as accumulated stock, 
 until a year of great deficiency somewhere absorbed them. 
 
 Our production, if equal to the best continental production, will always receive at 
 equal prices the preference in England, but as our duty is .so low, in comparison to 
 expense and cost of labor here, we invito the Europeans to ship to this country a mixt- 
 ure of their better grades, with Altmarks and Belgiums which selH'or almost nothing, 
 and depress the price of the great bulk of our hops thereby. We can regulate our 
 own production according to our own requirements, and are willing to meet the vile 
 trash that these importers now bring here, in the English market for whatever .sur- 
 plus we may have. It is a proverbial fact that the American grower is not expected 
 to compete in the London market with German hops. The English brewer knows 
 that he receives from this country hops in the original packages, while from the con- 
 tinent they receive, under the name of Bavarian or Bohemian hops, hops grown in 
 different pares of the continent. We ask you to protect us against competition of this 
 character. 
 In re fifth. The cost of a hop idaiit of 20 acres in New York State is as follows: 
 
 20 acres of Jand, at $75 $1,500 
 
 Bre.ikinj; land, coat of roots, and setting 200 
 
 30, 000 hop poles, at 9 oen ta 2, 700 
 
 Hop liiln coDiplete 1, 300 
 
 One team of horses, wagons, tools, including hops, boxes, and sacks 500 
 
 6,200 
 
 And the cost to produce a pound of hops in this State, provided the yield is 1,000 
 pounds per acre (which is 300 pounds in excess of the average) is slightly over lU 
 cents per pound, and the items of cost here are submitted by us as a test of the truth 
 
1070 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 and accuracy of our entire argument, and we are willing thnt if the figures here 
 given can be controverted to relinquish our claim on C<ingres8for further protection. 
 
 Setting poles and grubbing 
 
 Spring plowing and breaking 
 
 Coiner pecking 
 
 I'irst cnLi' rating with caUivator 
 
 First tying 
 
 Hi':m;j 
 
 Second tying 
 
 Second cultivating 
 
 Third tying 
 
 Third cultivating 
 
 Hoeing 
 
 PhosphateB and cost of application 
 
 Salt and lime, and cost ot application 
 
 Picking 1,600 boxes of bops, eqnal to 20,000 
 
 pounds 
 
 Pole-pullers, box-tenders, and overseer 
 
 $100 
 .^0 
 25 
 25 
 30 
 30 
 20 
 25 
 20 
 25 
 20 
 140 
 75 
 
 800 
 150 
 
 Railroad fares and getting pickers $150 
 
 Hop dryer 50 
 
 lirimslone, coal, and wood 30 
 
 Cleaning yard and Hharpening poles 20 
 
 Covering "yard with nianrire 250 
 
 Hop sticking, twine, and labor 75 
 
 Feeding and maintaining two horses live 
 
 months 150 
 
 Wear and tear 10 percent, on poles, horses, 
 
 and tools, value, $3,500 350 
 
 Add per cent, on cos t of plant, $6, 200 372 
 
 Taxes 40 
 
 Insurance 15 
 
 3,017 
 
 Cost of crop, 20,000 ijounds, 15.085 cents per pound. 
 
 We will not burden your comtuittee with a description of the mode of living which 
 we feel ourselves entitled to, in comparison with the mode of living of our Bavarian 
 hop-raisiug colleagues ; but .siuce you kuow the cost of our ]ii(idnct, wo deem it im- 
 portant to describe to you the method of cul(iv:i1in,g hops in Germany. 
 
 Farmers live in handets there (dorf), and their lands snrrouud each hamlet; di- 
 viding lines are shown by small stati's or stones. Twenty acres is considered to be a 
 large estate, the owner of 100 acres is a landed projirietor, therefore the farmer rais- 
 ing so precarious a crop as hops, is very careful to limit bis risk. The average hop 
 yard of Bavaria does not exceed one-half acre. The plowing, setting poles, and cul- 
 tivating is dune by the farmer and his family. It is not an uncommou sight to see a 
 woman almost on the threshold of maternity, surrounded by boys and girls below 
 their teens, plowing and hoeing in the fields, carrying heavy loads at all hours of the 
 day. In the summer time fourteen hours is cousidered a day's work for a man; 
 eight hours tield-work and seven hours house-work, is moderate labor for a farmer's 
 wile. 
 
 Thus yon will observe that the crop of hops is produced without any cost for help. 
 It may also be of interest to your committee to know, that when picking time comes, 
 the growers, their wives, sons, daughters, the parish priest and the school-master, 
 alljiiin forces under a system of communism, and piick free gratis, all the hops sur- 
 rounding a particular hamlet. The owner or renter of any farm is expected to fur- 
 nish free beer to his village coadjutors on the day his particular hop-garden (as it 
 is there termed) is picked. 
 
 With the opportunity given to the dealer to mix hops bought on the basis of so 
 small a cost of production, wo are strre the committee will come to the conclusion 
 that we have — that is, the cost of production in this couniry is 15 cents, hops on such 
 a system can be laid down at a sea-port iu Europe at 6 cents per pound, anil the 
 poorer grades certainly for a fraction less. 
 
 We now come to the concluding reasons why we should be more fully protected in 
 our industry. The brewer whose beer does not cost him to exceed |3 a barrel, manu- 
 factured in his cellar, is protected by our votes (and our Representatives) 20 cents a 
 gallon ibr beer in the wood and 35 cents a gallon for beer in bottles or jugs, which 
 cxf ceds 200 per cent, protection for beer in 1 he wood and 350 jier cent, tor beer in the 
 bottle, and yet he calls himself our fiiend, and writes in his memorial to Congress: 
 "The glaring injustice of the proposed iucreaiied duty on hops becomes still more 
 manifest when the likelihood of occasional failures of American hop crops is taken 
 into consideration." All the while well knowing that we are only protected slightly 
 over 50 per cent, on the cost of our production. 
 
 We now ask Congress with true Christian charity that if the brewer is not sufli- 
 cieutly protected, to raise the doty on imported beer from tin average of 275 per cent, 
 on its American cost, and at least 400 per cent, on its German cost. Raise it iu the 
 nauir, of common justice so that if in any year there should be a slight failure of the 
 American hop crop, and the poor browei' who now advertises dividends of 15 per 
 cent, on a capitalization of four times the cost of his plant, should ever have to pay 
 the inflated American hop grower 7 cruts per pound more ibr his hops than he paid 
 this past season (which he dare not deny was less than 12 cents per pound), that the 
 p)oor brewer can continue to pay that dividend and not disappoint his foreign stock- 
 holders, who paid him for a part of the stock with British gold ; who demand low 
 taritf on European material, but high tariff on the beerthey irroduee in this country. 
 
 If tho brewers will argue that we produce raw maierial, we respectfully submit 
 that we have shown that the price of kiln-drying hops (similar to the mode of con- 
 verting barley into malt), and fitting them for market involves more than half the 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1071 
 
 coat of our product, and the handling of the hops from tho time they are ready lo 
 pick until they are dried, requires the most skillful labor iu this particular branch. 
 
 Perhaps it is significant to note that in other coimtries, Germany lor example, and 
 ■which country these brewers seem so anxious to patronize, has a tariff on hops as well 
 as on beer, aud they may not consider the comparative duty we now ask so " glari:i^ly 
 unjust," when we inform your comuiitleo that tho duty ou hops into Germany is 'Ji 
 cents per pound (10 marks per hundred), aud the duty of bt er into Ger!uauy is less 
 than 6 cents a gallon. The proportion of values iu percentage is nearly equal. 
 
 If this illustration does not suffice, we beg to refer your eomujittec to France, where 
 the duty on hops is higher by 15 per cent, ou the value than it is on beer, while here, 
 the duty on beer is fromfour to five times higher than on hops to protect a class of man- 
 ufacturers who say to Congress that the protection of a poor agricultural interest "is 
 a glaring injustice." 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. BINGER HERMANN. 
 
 The Hon. Bisger Hermann, a Representative from the State of Oregon, next ail- 
 dressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I do not desire to detain the com- 
 mittee but a moment merely to give expression to the sentiments of our jieople oftbe 
 State of Oregon who are particularly engaged iu the cultun; aud productiou of the 
 hop. I was exceedingly surprised in the course of this debate to hear stated ou the 
 parts of gentlemen that the people of the Pacific coast were adverse to any increase 
 of the duty on hops, at least the producers of hops on the Pacific coast occupied 
 that position. I desire more particularly to sustain the people of the State which I 
 have the honor to represent who are engaged there extensively iu the cultivation of 
 the hop. The great Alamo Valley, which is 150 miles in extent from the mouth of 
 the river to the head of navigation, all that entire country, is used largely at iiresrnt 
 and a great many there are largely engaged in this production, and I have had sent 
 me petitions and also resolutions on tho part of conventions of hop growers of that 
 State appealing to Congress for an increase of tho duty upon the foreign hops, aud 
 reasons are set forth, etc., showing why this shcmld be done for the absolute exisL- 
 ence of this valuable production and industry of our couulry. 
 
 Now, it has also been asserted that the hops can be produced at about 8 cents a 
 pound on the Pacific shores. That may have been true, Mr. Chairman, some years 
 ago, but I should be very much obliged to the gentlemen if they will produce any 
 statistics showing that tho hops at the present time can be produced at that low 
 rate. A few years ago we had the Chinese, from lower California up to Alaska. At 
 the presenttime, and I mightsay within tho last twelve or eighteen months, a change 
 has occurred ; at least 50 per cent, of that labor is uow unfit tor the purposes for which 
 we formerly used it. When we had that labor it was at a mere nominal figure. A 
 large portion of this labor was Indian labor. They wpuld go to the reservations and 
 invite the Indians down on a particular day of the month aud they would come, male 
 and female ; there would be hundreds and hundreds of them upon the ditt'ereut hop 
 farms picking hops at a comjiaratively small amount of wages. But the Indians are 
 now largely placed on lands which are allotted to them in severalty, aud tbey are lie- 
 ginning to till their own soil, so that that labor is as difficult to obtain as the Chinese ; 
 so that is another reason why it is that this cheap labor can no longer be utilized. 
 
 Now, as to the quality of the hops. It is well known that as to our climate we are 
 troubled a great deal with moisture ; that the fogs which settle down around tho 
 coast, owing to the warm gulf stream which flows up the coast as far as the Alaskau 
 Islands, etc., washing the entire Pacific coast shores, produces a certain condensa- 
 tion, and we have rain when wo should have dry weather ; aud it is an absolutely 
 essential thing that the hop when it is ripe shall be picked within a very few days, 
 and consequently great losses occur by reason of the scarcit,y of labor. 1 also desire 
 to say, Mr. Chairman, that frequently the people of my State are compelled to allow 
 the hop crop to go to decay simply because they could not attbrd to pick tho hops at 
 the rate of labor iu view of tho prices then prevailing. I know this of my owu 
 knowledge, that a large portion of the hop fields in that State have been left iu this 
 manner. I can say that. In regard to the price of picking being 8 cents, I venture 
 to say that within the last lew years there is no instance in that State where hops 
 have been picked at a less cost than, from 10 to I'i cents, and when hops only bring 
 12 cents in the market we can not afford to touch the crop and it goes to decay. I 
 only desire to offer this in view of the petitions [>resented by the Hop-Growers' As- 
 sochation convention aud various assemblies hcbl in the various parts of the States. 
 
 I thank you, gentlemen, for your kind attention. 
 
 Mr. Bdttekwoetii. I would like to state this, I do not want to bo misconstrued : 
 Jt is a misapprehension that the office of protection is to make good every man's 
 
1072 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF, 
 
 losses to make every business ijrosper. I do not understand that. If a man's crop 
 is lost, I do understand the rest of the community is bound to make it good ; hut the 
 object of the tariff is to put every business on an equal footing as against all coiupo- 
 tition, which is to remain just and fair, aud when upon such footing any industry 
 stands fairly and equal in the uumner of advantage to some other industry precisely, 
 then the protection system has performed its proper ofiice, and can not go beyond 
 that. I agree with my brother Coggeshall that if it does not do that it ought be in- 
 creased, but if it does do that it has performed all its ofiice. 
 
 Mr. C'oGGESHAiL. We want as much protection on hops as Mr. Butterworth wants 
 on wool. 
 
 Mr. BuTTEiiwORTH. My friend is quite right about that. I want to add this: If 
 I have not misapprehended it it is afforded protection, and this is the theory upon 
 -which I am going, a protection which places it up(m ane(iuality with industries else- 
 where, aud beyond that I wish to call Brother Coggeshall's attention to the fact that 
 the trouble with our friends in New York, as It was in northern Ohio and other local- 
 ities, that situated bo far as climatic influences are concerned and better adapted by 
 reasons of soil to the production of hops, they gain that advantage, and hence it could 
 cot occur that with any kind of a tariff it would put upon equality northern Ohio or 
 northern New York with Califcunia and other localities. 
 
 Mr. CeiGGESHALL. The fact is, as the gentleman has demonstrated who preceded 
 Congressman Butterworth, we stand upon an exact footing ; that it costs the Pacific 
 coast people as much, when you figure the actual expenses thereof, to produce their 
 hops as it does in New Y'ork State ; and then I say, as I have stated before, that the 
 brewers are protected over 50 per cent., while the hop-growers are only protected 25 
 per cent. An investigation will show from the importation of hops from abroad 
 
 Mr. BuTTEEWOETH. But I would say. Senator, in that matter it is not a question 
 about breweries. They are doing well, beyond all doubt ; but if it tends to prohibit, 
 to take from the public treasury a revenue of $350,000 to |400,000 a year, and draw it 
 from some other source 
 
 Mr. Coggeshall. But we say it does not. 
 
 The Chairman. Yon want to make the conditions equal. 
 
 Mr. Coggeshall. That is all. 
 
 PETITION FROM PASSAIC COUNTY, N. J. 
 
 We, the undersigned brewers and malsters of the city of Paterson, county of Pas- 
 siiic and State of New Jersey, having heard that the member of Congress represent- 
 ing the twenty-fourth district of the State of New York is making an effort to greatly 
 increase the import duty on hops, protest most earnestly against any advance in the 
 duty, as it would be a great hardship to the large number of consumers in all parts 
 of this country, and would bo prohibitory in its effect, besides proving of no benefit 
 to the x)roducers. 
 
 The iiresent specific duty of 8 cents per pound is equal to an ad valorem duty of 60 
 per cent, at to-day's values, and fully represents the averagi' cost of production in the 
 United States. The hop-producing sections of this country are confined to a few 
 counties in the State of New York and also to a few counties in the States of Califor- 
 nia, Oregon, and Washington. The hop growers of these four States produce annu- 
 ally a large surplus, the only outlet for which is by export to England. The seeming 
 anomally of importing German hops to a country which already produces a surplus 
 is accounted for by the superior quality of the foreign article. These imports serve a 
 useful i)urpose in keeping up the qnalit;y of the domestic product. The growers on 
 the Pacific coast have expressed no wish for an increased duty, and the agitation is 
 confined exclusively to the farmers in New York State. 
 
 The duty, which for many years was 5 cents per pound, was a few years ago in- 
 creased to 8 cents per pound. This duty has been very o^ipressive, and is out of all 
 ]iroportion to the tariff' on other products. As any further increase would be dis.as- 
 trouB in its consequences, wo rcvspoctfuUy request you, as a meml)er of Congress from 
 this district, to use your influence and best efforts to prevent any increase in the duty 
 and to have it reduced to its former standard. 
 
 IIlACHLIFFE BrOTHEES. 
 
 Graham & Co. 
 Jas. a. Graham & Co. 
 C. Braun. 
 
 Sprappler & Mbnny. 
 Katz Bros. 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 1073 
 
 ORANGES. 
 
 THE CROP OF FLORIDA. 
 
 STATEMENT OF J. B. HARTRIDGE. 
 
 Wednesday, February 12, 1890. 
 Mr. J. E. Haetridge addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of thecommittee, I desire to state that this committee 
 is the result of a sentiment that has been growing in Florida for some time, which 
 received a tangible shape through a united meeting of the orange industry and farm- 
 ing interests in convention assembled in Florida recently. There they met for the 
 purpose of devising some means by which they could be protected in au indufitry which 
 had been established in the State by a number of years of industry and investment 
 of large sums of money. To show the importance of that movement, it might be 
 proper to state in the beginning that there are in the State of Florida 20,000 persons 
 engaged in growing oranges ; that these 20,000 persons represent a voting population 
 resident of 15,000 voters, being quite one-fourth of the entire vote of the State ; that 
 the other 5,000 of the 20,000 are non-residents who have purchased places and en- 
 gaged in this industry, with a view not only of having a resort in the winter, but 
 having an industry that will be remunerative. It might be said that (his industry 
 of 20,000 persons represents a population of 100,000 people; that they employ 20,000 
 laborers, who win their daily bread by work in these groves, and have a population de- 
 pendent upon them of at least 100,000 persons; that there is invested to-day in this 
 industry in the State $100,000,000. I mean by this to include the value of the lands, 
 of the groves and packing-houses, and interests which are necessary to the proper 
 housing and marketing of the crop. 
 
 I mention this, Mr. Chairman, that itmay be seen how important is this induNtry ,• 
 and I may say here in passing, that in order to bring an industry of this character in 
 that State to profitable fruitage, it requires a term of at least ten years after setting 
 of constant toil and watchfulness. Now the number of groves in the State of Flor- 
 ida in which this immense amount of money is invested are not to day in a bearing 
 condition, but they are gradually coming to that position, because when we get to the 
 state where they are all productive, we think we will be in a coudition where we will 
 not have to ask the aid of protection from the Government. Now, we ask this pro- 
 tection, Mr. Chairman, for protection's sake, and we ask protection that will pro- 
 tect. It is in that spirit and because of that sentiment that we come here. We claim 
 that because of the cost of labor and the price of it, which these orange-growers are 
 compelled to employ in the State, being at least $1 a day against labor which is at 
 least 40 to 50 percent, cheaper in the groves abroad, that there is an item of expense 
 to the Florida grower that he must meet and compete with. That aside from that, 
 it is our information that the foreign grower is able to obtain money at a percentage 
 a great deall ess than growers in Florida. It is not extravagant to say that no person 
 who is growing oranges in the State of Florida can get money advanced to him at less 
 than from 10 to 12 percent. That is another large expenditure and a large expense 
 that attaches to this industry there. Now we say, Mr. Chairman, that if we have an 
 opportunity of being properly protected until wo get in chat condition that we can 
 not run but stand, that we will not ask anything further from Congress, but will 
 take care of ourselves. We do not desire, I might say now, any protection ux)on lem- 
 ons, because we are very frank to say, as far as that industry is concerned, we do not 
 think it has reached a condition of sufficient importance in the State that would 
 warrant us in asking protection, but it Is only upon the orange crop. 
 
 The Chairman. Has it reached any such condition in California as to make it nec- 
 essary to be protected ? 
 Mr. Hartridgb. I am not prepared to state as to California. 
 Mr. Flower. Do you know the duty now imjjosed on lemons T 
 Mr. Hartridgb. I do not know exactly. 
 A Bystander. Thirty cents a box. 
 
 Mr. Hartridgb. We do not desire, I may say, to injure any industry in the United 
 States of that character, and if any industry needs that protection wo will be glad to 
 see them have it, but we are here only asking as far as oranges are concerned. 
 Now, there are in course of cultivation in the State of Florida 250,000 acres of land, 
 
 485 68 
 
1074 BEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 and Tve say bere tbat Tve are capable of prodncing in time oranges sufficient to supply 
 the entire country, because there is susceptible of tillage for orange purposes 10,000,000 
 acres of land in the State of Florida. So it is not our purpose bere to ask an exorbi- 
 tant price for oranges or get to a position -where oranges will be increased to the con- 
 sumer, because we say as matters now stand that the ibreign producer with the tariff 
 which we ask will be able to get fruit here, good fruit, upon a similar plane of cost 
 that is now put upon the Florida grower. I might say that it would serve our pur- 
 pose that that should be brought about, and that is one object (if asking this pro- 
 tection, that only good fruit should be imported to compete with good fruits here. 
 And 1 want to say right here, in passing, that any law which is enacted which provides 
 for damage claims we believe destroys itself, because we think this has been a pro- 
 lific source of imposition upon the custom-house and of the importation of fruits called 
 in the market ' ' trash." That is, Ave understand importers will deliberately buy what 
 is called in the foreign market "trash" with a small quota of good fruit and exhibit 
 the trash to the damage iuspector, obtain a rebate upon the whole cargo, and that 
 enables him to sell this at a profit. 
 
 Now, if we have a tariff' that will protect and that will keep away from this mar- 
 ket trash, and lets into the market only good fruit, then Florida will be brought into 
 competition with good foreign production, and will not be compelled to compete 
 with old trash that is brought here and put upon the market in this way for the 
 purpose of catching the damage iuspector and demoralizing and depressing the 
 market to a degree, knowing the greed of gain upon the part of persons will compel 
 them to purchase the poorer and cheaper article, while the good Florida and good 
 foreign fruit being in competition would not even sell except to the individual con- 
 sumer who would purchase good fruit and not an inferior article. So wo say here, 
 looking to the protection of this industry, it should be, we think, not only a dollar 
 for a standard box, but it should exclude the idea of any rebate for damaged fruit, 
 and that we say would enforce the introduction of good fruit into this country. 
 
 Now, it is a singular fact, Mr. Chairman, that these persons who are here asking 
 that this industry be protected are citizens of the United States with their lots cast 
 here, with all they have here ; that it is signihcaut in contrast to that, if you look at 
 those who import, that you will see by taking from the indices which I hold in my 
 hand of the foreign importers of the State of New York, out of one list of twenty- 
 seveu, twenty are foroiguers, and out of another list of thirteen, all are foreign but 
 three. So we say this is American industry upon American soil. 
 
 The Chairman. You mean by that that they are not cifcizeus of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Hartkid.gk. I am not jirepared to state that, but it is an inference of mine. 
 Perhaps they are not. Now, it is also a fact against which we are compelled to guard 
 that large areas of land abroad are being pvep:ired for the cultivation of oranges. At 
 least 20,000,000 of buds of the improved varieties of Florida have been taken from 
 this country within the last two years for the purpose of being grafted upon the for- 
 eign production, aud being near us, and being able to get their trees to a fruitage by 
 reason of a more luxuriant; soil and cheaper labor and climatic influences at an earlier 
 stage thau ten years, we have coufronting us now a condition that is approaching 
 th.at will put a great many more oranges upon this market from foreign production 
 than are now being produced. So it is not alone the present against which we ask 
 this protection, but it is against the future. Now, we say the experience of Florida 
 has demonstralSed, and we hope to show by that jiamphlct which we have prepared 
 and placed in the hands of the ]irinter to be placed before this committee, that unless 
 something is done to aid these people who have gone down into that State and in- 
 vested these millions of dollars, hoping to make tliis a profitable industry, they will 
 be absolutely driven out of the market, and the industry where these millions are 
 invested will be destroyed, and where thousands upon thousands of people are de- 
 pendent for a living, without the means of earning their bread. 
 
 The Chairman. -Will that be the condition of things if you are to bo coutinned 
 under the present rate of duty ? 
 
 Mr. Hartridgb. That is our notion about it. That is the notion of these people 
 who have familiarized themselves with it more than I. I will say frankly I am not 
 an orange-grower, but I am a native of tbat State, interestc^d in all its industries; and 
 some oi^ my friends here who are orange-growers, with all other growers in this con- 
 vention assembled, as ii result of this conviction state that they can not compete 
 with this imported fruit unlesn they were protected, and this result which I have 
 stated will come about unless wo have the means of keeping out this Ibreign fruit. I 
 will s:iy they do not raise their fruit at a dilleiciit period of the year from the time 
 at which wii produce here. The prcsiut statistics will show for the months of Jan- 
 uary and February that at least onc-roiirth of the foreign importation into tho city 
 of New York in the years 18HH mid 1H8'.) were brought here, and these are the months 
 when we have the largest shi[iirients from Florida. It is idle to say tliey grow them 
 and put them here at a jieriod of time when the F;(U-idas are not produced, because 
 they are now raising a character of fruit for the early market, and also raising a char- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1075 
 
 aoter of fruit for the late market, so as to ouablo tbom at that period of the year to 
 place this fruit before the people of the Uuited Stati-'H. So wo are thus met iu this 
 way, and it just comes down, stripping it of all extraneous qui'stious — and looking at 
 it iu its nakedness, it comes down to a certain question of fact. Here is an American 
 industry that needs protection for protection, an<l it comes here iu the only way 
 it can come, and asks the Government's fosteriu,!; care. 
 
 I say, Mr. Chairman, \vc have prepared here a presentation of our case, which we 
 liopod to have in type by this time. If the committee will indulge us thus far, Mr. 
 Wilson will rcail that ]u-esentation. 
 
 Mr. Bricckini:idge. You say you are not an orange-grower? 
 
 Mr. Hautridge. I am not, but I am a native of the State. 
 
 Mr. Breckinjudgb. You are familiar with the cultivation of the orange there? 
 
 Mr. Hartkidge. I am familiar with it with that familiarity which one has who is 
 cot directly an orange-grower, but who has liccn itccustomed to seeing orauge 
 groves. 
 
 Mr. BrecIvIXRIDGE. Do you consider yourself an authority ? My idea is whether 
 you feel pr(i)ared to answer practical questions about the industry. 
 
 Mr. Hartridge. I feel prepared in this way, that where questions are propounded 
 with which I aui not familiar that there are some of the largest growers of the State 
 present who are thoroughly informed by practice, observation, and study of the ques- 
 tion, who would be very glad to answer any questions propounded by yon. 
 
 A By-staniier. If yon reach the stage of presentation you want to ask questions, 
 wo will be very glad to have some one answer those questions. 
 
 Mr. Hartridge. I will answer questions as far as I am able, and when I am not, I 
 will request some of the other gentlemen to answer them who can. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You speak of frnit grown for the early and late ujarket. 1 will 
 be glad if you will amplify that a little bit, so as to show how thedilfercut processes 
 are employed. 
 
 Mr. Hartridge. This is iuformation that the orange-growers here have imparted 
 to me, that they are planting groves that will come into bearing, giving the ditler- 
 ent periods of truit at different periods of the year. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I want a little more information upon this question of early 
 and late frnit, aud I will wait until some of the growers come on. 
 
 Mr. Hartridge. With this presentation, Mr. Chairman, any additional questions 
 might be asked of my associates here. 
 
 • Mr. t'LOWER. I would like to ask you a question. Do you grow a siugle orange in 
 Florida that they grow in Sicily ? 
 
 Mr. Hartridge (turning to a by-stander). Do we grow in Florida any orauges 
 that are grown in Sicily 1 
 
 Mr. McKibben (the gentleuiau addressed). Y'es, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What varieties come to the Northern market ? 
 
 Mr. McKibben. Inhere is a variety called tbe Mediterranean Sweet. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I have never yi:t seen so ]ioor an orange come from Florida as those, 
 which come from any export port. I would like to know the quality, because I have 
 never seen oae of theirs that is comparable with yours. 
 
 Mr. Hartridge. That is one reason I suggested a few momeuts ago ; we are com- 
 pelled to compete with a market depressed with imported trash. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The point is that your fruit is not like theirs. It does not sell for 
 the same price as yours, does it 1 
 
 Mr. Hartridge. It does not. 
 
 Mr. Flower. There is not a single box of Mediterranean orauges which conqiares 
 in price with yonrs. 
 
 Mr. McKibben. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Which one ? 
 
 Mr. McKibben. It is nol, one ))articular one. And yon .see the elfect of foreign 
 frnit on our market is just this, they will send fruit to our markets— and they can 
 putthemhere at the rate of .^l.'iO a box and make a ]irotit. Now ^ast (piantitics are 
 coining into the market and can be sold at $1.2il a box, and con.seiiueutly that alfccts 
 the price of the Florida orange, no matter 
 
 Mr. Flower. How many are there in a box ? 
 
 Mr. McKibben. About (me hundred and seventy. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you know what the Government collects on oranges and haiions ? 
 
 Mr. McKibbicn. I have not the statistics in my mind. 
 
 Mr. Flower. It is about $2,000,000. When is the Ijest orauge picked from your 
 trees, before the buds come on aud the bhioms are on, or as soon as they Ix^gin to eoine 
 on? 
 
 Mr. McKibben. About Janmary our fruit is in its prime. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That is before the buds start ? 
 
 Mr. MoKibbbn. Y'es, sir ; they do not start until February or March. 
 Mr. Flower. How long will that orange keep ? 
 
1076 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. Do yau mean on the trees? 
 
 Mr. Flower. That is at its best in January, and you send them to the New York 
 market. How long will they keep? 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. That is a diflicult question to answer. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Are they not now going out of market in New York for the best Flor- 
 ida orauges? 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN". No, sir; the New York market is supplied with Florida oranges. 
 
 Mr. Flowkk. But they are coming in in small quantities at the present time? 
 
 Mr. McICiBBEN. There can not be a great scarcity, because they are not bringing 
 good prices. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What price do India River oranges bring ? 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. They are quoted now at $3 to $4, I think. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Barrel or box ? 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. Box. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What does the Mediterranean orange sell for? 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. Mr. Morris, can you give the latest quotations for Mediterranean 
 oranges ? 
 
 Mr. JIORRIS. I should .judge it was $1.75 to !r2.2r>. 
 
 Mr. Flower. And you are selling for $3.2.'>? 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. You are asking about India River fruit? 
 
 Mr. Flower. Take the St. John's. 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. Taking them on the average thf'y do not average more than $2.L'.''i 
 to 13. 
 
 Mr. Flower. If they soil their orange at iSl.25 and the same quantity in each 
 box 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. No ; there are difl'erent sizes of oranges and a different number in 
 the box; but the average is 170. 
 
 Jlr. Flower. If one sells at §1.2.') duty paid and the other at $3.25, there is no com- 
 pel ition between the two. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Lot mo interrupt yon right there for a moment. The average 
 box is one hundred .and seventy, the same as the foreign. 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. No, .sir ; the tnieign oranges come in different shapes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I was told a while agi> that the average number in a box of 
 Florida orangis was one hundred and seventy. 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. I was putting it at the average ; I was not speaking of foreign 
 oranges. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is the average number of foreign oranges in a box? 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. Thei]- box of oranges will contain on an average just about what 
 ours do ; but they ship a great many in cases holding four hundred and twenty. 
 
 Mr. BiiECKlNRiDGE. We are not speaking of cases. We are speaking of boxes. 
 What is the average number of foreign oranges in a box ? 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. I should say about two hundred. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How many cubic feet to the box, the Florida size? 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. Onr box of oranges is supposed to be 2 cubic feet. 
 
 Mr. P.iYNE. How many cubic feet are in a box of Mediterranean oranges. 
 
 Mr. KiBBEN. They are the same; two cubic feet. 
 
 Mr. Payne. There are the same number of cubic feet in a standard box. 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. Yes; in a standard box. 
 
 Ml-. Flowkr. If thr Florida oranges will sell for $4 to $5 a box, and the Mediter- 
 ranean orauge will sell for $2.50 a box after paying duty, do you think they come in 
 coiii|ietitiiui with each other? 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. Let mo answer you, Mr. Flower, just this way about that: We 
 are getting ]irices now at the end of the season. You take our season at its begin- 
 ning, and wr, have been unable to get really a fair price for our fruit. You give a 
 Avioug impressirm as to the cost of the production now. 
 
 Mr. Flowioi;. My jioint is right here. If your orange — .-ind I know it is — is so 
 much better than thoirs th.ut anybody who can afford it will buy it in New York at 
 $1 or .$5, evru .1;:ii a box, in iirefereuce to the Mediterranean orange at .$2.50, I want to 
 know where the real competition comes in. A ^jreat many iieople in New York — 
 then- arc 300,000 people in New York between Sixth avenue and Fourteenth street 
 that can not read the English language. They may behave learued to eat the Medi- 
 terranean orange. You certainly could not sell it in another section of the city where 
 they have tasted the I'lorida orange. The qnestiiui is, will you raise the price of 
 that orange to that people who know nothing about this on jinrposo to take (Mre of 
 tliis cro]!, and will it do your crop any good ? That is the question. 
 
 Mr. McKlIiDEN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I would like to have your explanation. 
 
 filr. McKiiDMO.N'. We maintain, by jirotection on our oranges, we are not going to 
 iucnase the cost to the consumer. Now, it is a fact to-day it makes very little dif- 
 ference whether our oranges sell 
 
EEVISIOK OF THE TARIFF. 1077 
 
 Mr. Flowbr. If it clieapeiis the article to the consumer, -what good does it do you* 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. It will give us our own market tor our owu production. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How about the men "who have cultivated a taste for these others? 
 
 Mr. McKiBBBN. They will have cultivated a taste for it after a while. 
 
 Mr. Flower. But if they waut this Mediterranean orange, and they do, because 
 there are thousands sold at a cent apiece in JSTew Yoik from wa<;ons — you have seen 
 them, and I have, sold to the poor people at 1 cent apiece. This is the poor man's 
 fruit, and yours is the rich man's fruit, because of its high price. Now you are goiug 
 to raise the duty on that orange to that poor mau, and you are going to make hiscost 
 more so as to make him buy yours. 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. If you will give us this duty we will make our crop increase 
 rapidly, and we will be able to supply the demand at the same price. 
 
 Mr. Flower. This is right from the New York market and probably some of you 
 gentlemen know the gentleman who wrote it. " The best Florida orange is almost 
 exhausted at this time." And mind you, this is the time of the year that after the 
 Florida orange is gone, and they can not get it, they will call for something else. 
 There is no hotel or restaurant but what starts breakfast with a Florida orange on 
 his table, and when they can not get that they get the nest thing to it. Now, when 
 your crop quits these others come right in. Now it says: " The best Florida orange 
 m New York sold last week for |6^ per box against Mediterranean oranges at $2| a 
 box. The lowest priced Florida orange was sold at |2.50 against Mediterranean 
 lowest price at |1." 
 
 These are the facts upon records of last week's market. There is the price list. 
 The point I want to make is this: Does it do you one particle of good to raise the 
 duty on oranges to |10 a box 1 Would it do you a particle of good, as far as Florida 
 is concerned, when they are an entirely different orange from Avliat you raise ? I grant 
 if you were raising the same kiud of orange, where you ujight get (he same price for 
 the time being, and if really it was cheapening it to the consumer and lessening the 
 price you get for it, I could see your object, but what good is it goiug to do you to 
 get the duty raised on that? lean see what harm it will do the poor people to do it, 
 but I can not see what good it will do you, unless they buy the oranges you raise. 
 
 Mr. Mills. How many orange trees grow to an acre of ground in Florida? 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. From seventy to one hundred. 
 
 Mr. Mills. How many oranges do you get on an average crop from a tree ? 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. For an acre? 
 
 Ml'. Mills. Well, for an acre. 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. One hundred and fifty boxes to the acre. 
 
 Mr. Mills. And how many to the box? 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. About one hundred and seventy. 
 
 Mr. Mills. What is that worth on your farm delivered on cars ready for shipment 
 to New York, say that acre of oranges. 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. Can you answer that question, Mr. Wilson? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. It sells from 75 ecu Is to 1 1.2,5. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Here is its answer — that in one grove of 18 acres not far from this 
 place they .sold 7,500 boxes of oranges. Oranges are now selling on the trees for.^1. 50 
 per box, and the grove in question realized more than this, because the fruit was 
 shipped and the risk of transportation incurred, aud the estimate of jirice obtained 
 for the oranges was |1.50 per box, and the crop was sold for 1^11,250. 
 
 The Chairman. What do you say to that statement ? 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. I say that statement is an exceptional ca.se. 
 
 Mr. Mills. T meant for you to take a fair average. 
 
 Mr. MoKlbben. I prefer to say if you get the facts in this case that everything is 
 50 per cent, above its real value. 
 
 Mr. Mills. What is a fair average for it, year by year, per acre of oranges ? 
 
 Mr. McKibben. When the trees tiro fifteen to twenty years old, an acre of oranges 
 averages, say, 150 boxes, and you get an average price of |2 per box 
 
 Mr. Mills'. That is $300 for that acre. 
 
 Mr. McKibbex. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Mills. What is the yield of a cotton plant to the acre in your country? 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. I do not know anything about cotton. 
 
 Mr. Mills. The cotton raised for export is 7,000,000 bales. Take the rich lands of 
 Mississippi Swamp, the rice belt and cotton. I am talking about the average. 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. It will average about 1 bale to 4 acres. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Say a quarter to a half a bale ; say about half a bale. It is worth how 
 much ? Twenty five dollars an acre ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. i think that would be a very high estimate at |25 an acre. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Wheat is how much per acre? 
 
 Mr. McKibben. I can not tell you. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Twenty-five bushels to the acre ? 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. Soirre of the Western peoijle could tell you about that. 
 
1078 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Twenty-five bushels to tbe acre I believe would be a fair estimate. A 
 dollar a bushel would $-25 for wheat; corn is worth $15 to po aii aero. All these 
 people are utterly unprotected. Do you think, geutlemeu, it is fair for you to come 
 hero and ask us— you who are gettiug iil.^U au aero for your oranges — to compel 
 people, who have to make money by raising corn for pork and beef, to bear that 
 burden ? 
 
 Mr. Hartridge. But what goes to make up that |150 ? 
 
 Mr. McKlBBEN. I say it is not fair to bring that up in respect to the orange. In 
 the first place it is a yearly crop. It is produced from the time the land is broken 
 up. It is made in a few months. Now, it takes twelve years to make an orange 
 grove. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Seven to twelve. 
 
 Mr. MoKiBBEN. It takes twelve years to get that exceptional crop. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Suppose you take a wild orange grove, how long would it take to get 
 that in a good condition? 
 
 Mr. McKiBBEN. After budding a wild orange grove would probably bear in five or 
 six years. 
 
 Mr. Mills. How long will the trees live ? 
 
 Mr. McKlBBEN. They will live for years. We do not know about the age. 
 
 Mr. Mills. It is not like cotton, where it has to bo planted every year. 
 
 Mr. McKibbin. You must remember the land in the first place has got to bo bought 
 and paid for, and the trees bought and planted. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you cultivate between the trees 1 
 
 Mr. McKiBBiN. No, sir ; "that is going out of use entirely. Very little is raised in 
 an orange grove. We think it is detrimental to the tree. There baa to be a yearly 
 expenditure of money, and it is an unsuccessful operation. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How much ; §500 an acre? 
 
 Mr. McKlBBlN. Take a grove that is twelve years old and it will not coat one dol- 
 lar less than Sl,.500. 
 
 Jlr. Flower. Do you kow that Mexico 
 
 Mr. Mills. I want to get at this before you go to that. How <lo you expend that 
 |1,.500 on that acre of ground? 
 
 Mr. McKiBBiN. In the cost of the land, in your clearing, and in your preparing for 
 planting. 
 
 Mr. Mills. We have to do that for planting cotton, wheat, and corn. 
 
 Mr. McKlBBiN. Yes, sir; but not as thoroughly as in this. We have got to get the 
 land thoroughly and scientifically worked. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Then, on the other hand, when you once get the oranges planted they 
 stand for a long time ; whereas, on the other hand, cotton has to be planted every 
 year. 
 
 A By-stander. We want to get our ground into that condition, and therefore we 
 have to spend this money. 
 
 Mr. McKlBBiN. We have to pay 10 to 15 per cent, fo;: money, too, in Florida. 
 
 Mr. Mills. We do that in Texas. 
 
 Mr. McKiBBiN. There is another thing you have not taken into consideration, 
 gentlemen, and that is this: that we are subject, once in every three or four years, to 
 (lamage by frosts, Avheu we will probably lose the crop. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Cotton is subject to the s.'uue thing every three or four years, and in 
 thre(! out of four years there is a short crop. You can not get a cotton crop, you 
 know, without rains. We have got all these thiugs to contend with. 
 
 Mr. McKiBBiN. Yes, and we can not get .'in orange crop without rains, and we have 
 all these things to contend with. 
 
 Mr. Mills. I simply want to show that your orange is not an exception in these 
 things. 
 
 STATEMENT OF M. H. MABRY. 
 
 M. H. Mabry next addressed the committee. He s.aid : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, this gentleman says why should we 
 be protected, why should this agricultural product in Florida be protected, when tbe 
 wheat, and corn, and oats, and other products of agriculture are not protected? My 
 di-ar sir, f think we should protect that 
 
 Mr. Mills. But you can not. 
 
 Mr. Mabhy. If you ran not devise any way of protecting it, it is not our fault. But I 
 wanttoKayaboutF]oii<l.ithiit tbe people are under many disail vantages, without trans- 
 portation, without money, without capital, and without labor, and have demonstrated 
 the fact thai tliey have got the soil cipalileof prortucing more oranges rlian tuia country 
 c:tn ))ossildy cf)nsunic, :ind tlicy luive. their [)laccs, tlu^y have their homes, they have 
 denionstniliil the fact I liat we have an American industry in orange-growing. All we 
 want, all we ask of you here, is this : while this industry is in its infancy, while ittakes 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1079 
 
 these orange trees to come into a bearing condition, that you do not allow it to be 
 crowded out by importedfruit in to this country. We have a good soil there, and wo know 
 "what goes on in the market. We have distributing agencies in Floridafor the imme- 
 diate distribution of this fruit according to the demand. We know through the 
 fruit exchange where the demand exists. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you know the editor of the Florida Agriculturist. la ho here ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. No, sir ; he is not here. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Did you ever see that paper ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is that what you would call a reliable paper ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Then I just want to put this in evidence about this crop. It says : 
 " We take the following piece of orange information from the Agriculturist for the 
 following week and is in answer to a California paper's assertion that Florida groves 
 do not pay the handsome profits yielded by the California groves: 
 
 " We know of one grove of 18 acres not far from this i)lace that yielded 7,500 boxes 
 of oranges. Oranges are now selling on the trees for .$1.50 per box. The owner of 
 the grove in question realized more than this as the fruit was .shipped and the risk of 
 transportation, etc., incurred. But estimating the price obtained for the oranges at 
 $1.50 per box the crop would yield in cash IS11,250." 
 
 Mr. Goodrich. That paper is published in my own town and I would state that it 
 18 an advertisement of Mrs. T. H. Shimer, who has a grove in the limits of the town, 
 and who is anxious to sell and wants to run it up to a high price. • 
 
 Mr. Flower. I have an interest in an orange grove right above there and I think 
 he is pretty near right, and I am a seller, too. 
 
 Mr. Payne. I want to know what l^'lorida oranges were worth in January last in 
 the New York market ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. I am unable to tell you. 
 
 Mr. PaYXE. About what? Can -you not give a general statement? What were 
 Florida oranges worth in the New York market in Januarv last? 
 
 Mr. Welsh. 11.33 to $-2.35. They rarely went beyond $2.35, and often sold at |1.38. 
 
 Mr. Payne. When did the Mediterranean I'ruit begin to come in there? 
 
 A By-stander. It began early in October. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What quantities came in October? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. October, 1887, 38,797 boxes ; October, 1888 
 
 Mr. Payne. Now, November ? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. In November of that year, 204 boxes. 
 
 Mr. Payne. December, how much ? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. 15,805 boxes. 
 
 Mr. Payni:. Januarv of that year? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. This is in 1887. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Well, now, January, 1888 T 
 
 Mr. Wilson. January, 1888, 58,365 boxes. 
 
 Mr. Payne. February ? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. 91.218. 
 
 Mr. Payne. March ? 
 
 Mr. Wilson. 108,724. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Go on with these months. 
 
 Mr. Wilson. We had better commence in 1887, at the beginning. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Yes, and go through the year. 
 
 The Chairmax. We will publish thatjiaper, and it will be printed in the Record. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Very well, then. 
 
 Mr. Mabry. I want to say the ijosition taken by Mr. Flower, by which he would 
 make the impression upon the members of the committee that because you iiut a 
 duty upon foreign oranges you increase the price on the American, is wrong. It is 
 not that, and wo claim it will not do that, because we have got the ability to put 
 oranges in this market to supply all tha people of this country. If we had an indus- 
 try in Florida that could only supply one-half or one-fourth the needs of this coun- 
 try, it would be wrong to ask it; but we have got laud in Florida enough to supply 
 the American people all they want, and if we can be given the opportunity to de- 
 velop that industry and furnish homes for American people to live in, we ask yon to 
 give us an opportunity to do this. We can raise the oranges and put tliem into the 
 market during the season, and we can with cold storage 
 
 Mr. Payne. During what months do you supply them ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. We commence in November, January, February, March, April, and 
 May, up to June. That is the Florida season. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is not there a scarcity of Florida oranges now ? And is it not so re- 
 ported ? 
 
 Mr. Mabky. There can not be a scarcity of oranges if you get the industry started 
 and the trees bearing. 
 
1080 KEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Flower. This i,s from a trade journal of New York, and gives just the infor- 
 mation you desire. 
 
 Mr. Payne. One moment right here. Is not there a scarcity now of Florida 
 oranges ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Ten years ago the industry was supposed to have been worthless 
 
 Mr. Payne. But is not there a scarcity of Florida oi.iuges now in the New York 
 marliet ? 
 
 Mr. Mabi'.y. I concede it, and I will state to you the reason why we want you to 
 give us protection, so that we can supply the American jieople with the cheapest 
 oranges in this country. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is not there a difuculty in keeping Florida oranges after the 1st of 
 April ? 
 
 Mr. Mabky. No, sir; I do not think so. They stand upon the trees luscious and 
 sweet in June. 
 
 Mr. Payne. But of course they are not as good as they are in April? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Just as good, and the varieties we are developing are not going to he 
 taken from the trees earlier than that. We are expecting to produce fruit that will 
 come into the market at different seasons. 
 
 Mr. Payne. But are you producing that fruit now ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Yes, sir ; we will produce it now. We have got the soil to produce it 
 there, if we had the muscle, brains, and capital, and had the labor to go there and 
 help us. That is what we ask you gentlemen, that you shall say by putting on this 
 tariflf duty that men can go down there and make their homes with us, and help us 
 go into this industry and develop it. 
 
 The Chairman. Is that the general sentiment? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Yes, sir ; it is the universal sentiment of the orange-growers of that 
 country. They want them to come there. We have got our money in it, too, and we 
 ask you now to help us, who have struggled and toiled and demonstrated the fact 
 that we have got this industry there. We are n6t here to put up the price of oranges, 
 and make the poor people of this country pay more than they are worth. Not that ; 
 but we hope to be able to put into the hands of the poorest people of the country 
 oranges which will be the best and the cheapest, and not ask us to go across the 
 water and compete with those men who are selling in other markets. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What per cent, of oranges consumed in this country are im- 
 ported now? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. I can not tell you that. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You do not know what per cent, you produce now? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. I can tell you what amount Florida produces. Her capacity is about 
 4,000,000 boxes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You mean her present capacity is about 4,000,000 boxes? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. And the last of the crop brings the highest price? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But it takes you twelve years to bring the fruit to a bearing 
 point. 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Yes, sir ; on an average. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. So the foreign oranges would be consumed for ten or twelve 
 years, so as to iucreaso the groves, so as to supply the domestic dem-and. 
 
 Mr. Mabry. No, sir; we have 250,000 acres of laud planted in Florida to-day, some 
 young trees not coming to a bearing point, and wo have 10,000,000 acres not planted. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckineidgb. That 10,000,000 not planted would take ten or twelve years to 
 come to a bearing point? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Yes, sir; on an average, to bring it into bearing. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That is the only point I am making just here. What you 
 have got now is only what you have been encouraged to under the present ■ 
 
 Mr. Mabry. No, sir; we do not find an outlet now 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Of course men do what they think best. Of course any in- 
 crease of duty would be au increase in the cost of the foreign orange as long as that 
 orange is imported, and it would be ten or twelve years after you plant these groves, 
 other than the small extent you have got started 
 
 Mr. Mabry. I am speaking very frankly, and I say, gentlemen, that I take this 
 proposition : If it took twelve years, and it increases to some extent the price of 
 oranges, I think we have a right to come here and claim that if we can in twelve 
 years bring up this industry and furnish homes and all that, and furnish cheap 
 oranges to the people, wo are entitled to do so. 
 
 Mr. Flowjir. Why not make the tariff take efi'ect ten years from now ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. That would be absolutely ruinous. You want to ruin us so we can 
 not do anything, aud then when we are dead and buried, yon want to sing psalms 
 over us. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How much has the price of oranges fallen off in the last ten or twelye 
 years ? 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1081 
 
 Mr. Mabry. The price for imported oranges 
 
 Mr. Payne. I mean for Florida oranges. How mucli has the price fallen oft' in the 
 last tweh e years ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. It has gradually declined. 
 Mr. Payne. How much has it declined ? 
 Mr. Mabry. Between 100 and 150 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How would oranges sell in New York twelve years ago, and how did 
 they sell ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. We had but very few groves twelve years ago, and then they were 
 grown in favored places. It was stated they could not grow anywhere there, but 
 now we can grow them ou the peninsula of Florida, and good ones, too. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You think this tariff ought to be on oranges high enough to protect it, 
 and for the sake of protection ? 
 Mr. Mabry. To keep oranges from coming into this country. 
 Mr. Payne. For the sake of protecting the industry? 
 Mr. Mabry. And to give us a chance. 
 Mr. Payne. Not for making a revenue ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. If you come to raise revenue, you ought to put a revenue tax on this, 
 because there is no better article to tax for raising a revenue than this article, and I 
 think every one will agree with that, whether he bo Democrat or Republican, as this 
 is a luxury ; so you could put your revenue there. If yoa want revenue, geutlemeu, 
 here is where you can put it ou, aud it certainly would not take bread and clothiug 
 from anybody, and it would not hurt anybody a bit. 
 
 The Chairman. I do not understand you are advocatiug a tariff revenue on 
 oranges. 
 
 Mr. Mabry. No, sir ; I am not. I am for protection ou oranges. I waut it distinctly 
 understood, we are for protection on oranges. We do not want to be misunderstood 
 here, but we want it distinctly understood that we want to develop) this industry iu 
 this country. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How are you going to protect that orange even by putting on a duty 
 of $5 a box, when you do not import or grow the same character of orange 1 
 
 Mr. Mabry. It is the same kind. We have imported buds from Sicily, the Medi- 
 terranean, and everywhere else, and p(it thera into our own trees. We h.ave got a 
 better climate and a better soil, and more capacity, aud more sense. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Flower does not seem to understand that a poor orange, may 
 displace a good one ; but they do. 
 Mr. Mabry. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The chairman does not seem to understand that there are three times 
 as many people — yes, ten times as many people in New York aud through the West — 
 poor people — who buy these oranges aud eat them, because of their cheapoess, aud 
 that not in twelve years could oranges be grown here for the purpose of competing 
 with them. 
 
 The Chairman. I understand you to say this increased duty proposed would not 
 increase the price of the oranges ? 
 ' Mr. Mabry. I do not believe it would. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How would it lessen the price if these oranges were not imported, and 
 you would not grow oranges for twelve years ? 
 Mr. Mabry. But they can grow them, and we are growing them now. 
 Mr. MoKbnna. What has caused the decline of 50 per cent, in tlie price of Florida 
 oranges ? 
 Mr. Flower. I deny that they have declined. 
 Mr. Mabry. We know, who sell them. 
 
 Mr. Flower. We know, who buy them. I see that last week you sold at auctiou 
 Florida fruit. I read this in a newspaper : 
 
 " Mr. E. L. Goodsell sold this week 1,200 boxes Florida oranges, at jiriees ranging 
 from $3.40 to $2 for seedlings, and |3.'J0 for Navels. Taugoriuos sold forijjii.su to 
 $2.85 per half box, and grape fruit at |1.2.j. 
 
 " Messrs. Sgobel&Day, agents of the Florida Fruit Exchange, have sold this week 
 2,000 boxes of Florida oranges at a higher range of prices thiin those previously rul- 
 ing. Forsome fancy Indian River fruit they, yesterday, obtained |5 and fl.O'J.^ per 
 box, and one line of choice, handsome Washington Navel oranges which were sold 
 the 4th instant, brought the high figure of $8,124 per box. Balance of the fruit sold 
 |3 — .|2.50 on all excepting the common grades or those with decay. Each week sees 
 lighter arrivals from Florida, and tho season is not far from its close. 
 
 "Tuesday. — Sale of bark Nuoro M, from Messina. It was a great disappoint- 
 ment, as it was expected that it would be a good cargo ou account of the short p.as- 
 sage, instead of which the oranges were in very poor condition and sold from $l.()2i 
 to $1, mostly $1.37| to $1.25. The lemons were fair to poor, had shriveled some and 
 were started; they sold from $2.25 to $1.75. 
 
 "Wednesday. — Sale of cargo of steamshi]! Leiimhro : Lemons, a few small Hues 
 
1082 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 of fancy pacted 300s and 360s sold at $4.62-} to $4 ; fancv SOOs, $3,50 to |3; choice, 
 $2.6-2i to p.50, and fair, |2. Fancy 3608, |2..50 ; choice, |2.'J5; fair, $2. Fancy or- 
 anges, $i2.37-J to |2 ; choice, ifl.S'/^ to ^1-75, and fair, $1.50." 
 
 In other words, Park & Tilford and Aclier, Merrill & Condit, that class of grocers 
 in Now York who sell oranges, sell these, and sell no others where they can get these. 
 Altei' this date when yonr orange.^ go out of the market, they sell the next best thing 
 to it, and that is one reason why I do not want the people of New Yorlc or of this 
 countiy estopped from purchasing the oranges that rank next to the Florida oranges 
 when the Florida orange is out of season, especially when this question liefore us is 
 to reduce the revenue $IJO,000,UOO. 1 do not believe iu raising more revenue by rais- 
 ing the duty on oranges. 
 
 Mr. Maert. I do hope the gentleman will not base his information upon these 
 facts. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I have the facts 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Because there is so much error iu that ; there is so much error in what 
 be says. Somebody has been advising him about this matter. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Excuse me ; it is nobody except the Philadelphia Fruit Exchange, 
 the Boston Fruit Exchange, and the New York Fruit Exchange. Nobody but tho.se 
 three. 
 
 Jlr. Mabry. The Boston Fruit Exchange send a message here as follows : 
 
 "Fruit and Produce Exchange indorse Florida memorial to McKiuley. We are 
 with you. 
 
 "Frank L. Ripley." 
 
 Mr. Flower. Before you get done you will find that Frank L. Ripley is only one 
 memljer of the Chamber of Commerce of Boston. 
 
 Mr. Mabilv, But he is speaking for the exchange. I say this, Mr. Flower — we 
 can produce the orange at the tiuje you say we can not, and we can put it into the 
 market at the time you say we can not. 
 
 Mr. FLOvra:R. In twelve years ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Wo can do it now. I want to say furthermore, we have got the ca- 
 pacity to put in a limited quantity on the market right now. This is a great and 
 vast, country of ours. There lire some sections where they can grow grain in compe- 
 tition, but we can not grow grain in Florida, and we are dependent upon somewhere 
 else foi' our grain. It is a beautiful place ; it is a suitable place to live in. We have 
 got some of the world's goods there, and we have got something to cultivate. We 
 can not go out and destroy this industry and take up something else. We can not 
 not raise wheat and oats or something else. Wo have got a peculiar climate, adapted 
 to this one thing particularly. 
 
 The Chairman. Is your labor higher than other countries ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. It is twice as high. We pay 11.25 for labor. That is our price. 
 
 Tire Chairman. What is the price against you on the other side ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Fifty cents. 
 
 Mr. Breckinuidge. Is it mostly white or colored labor? 
 
 Mr. JIabry. One man gets just as much as the other. A dollar and a quarter per 
 day is what they get. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You did not produce many oranges ten or fifteen years ago. 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Not many. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. This industry has grown up within the last ten or fifteen years? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. It has. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What do you consider the value of an acre of ground where 
 the trees are in good bearing — say fifteen to twenty years of age? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. That depends entirely upon the jiroximity to transportation and depot 
 fiicilities. It depends upon the quality of the soil and the condition of the trees and 
 development, and their ordinary bearing capacity. 
 
 Mr. I311ECKINRIDGB. Take a good illustration. Good soil and where you are near 
 a railroader steam lioat line, and where your grove has been intelligently selected and 
 im|)rove(l and iu good bearing. 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Are you taking an extreme case or a medium case. 
 
 Jlr. Breckinridge. You may state each, and then give all three of them. 
 
 Mr. Mabry. There are groves in Florida you can not buy for less than $4,000 per 
 acre, and there aic others which can be bought for $500 per acre; that is, bearing 
 groves. But I will say that a gnod Ijearing grove biought into a bearing condition 
 might lie regarded as haviug a market price of some .$2,000 to ,$2,500 an acre. Now, 
 gentlemen, I say wo are dependent laigely u]iou this industry. Wo are forced to this 
 piisilion. If yon destroy it, you absolutely destroy us. That is all there is about it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Yon are now i)roducing about 4,000,000 boxes a year. 
 
 Mr. Mabry. That is our eajiacity at the present time, I think, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Has the value of the giovcs enhanced in the last eight or ten 
 years ? 
 
EETISION OF THE TARIFF. Wii6 
 
 m 
 
 Mr. Mabry. You are going too far back. Talce Iho last four or five years, tlicy 
 have decreased in ■value. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That ia to say, you would have paid morefor the grove wliich 
 you can now get for |2,000 ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. You could hardly buy one. They were worth more, hut the value of 
 the ijroperty has decreased in Florida, and we have been tauglit to realize tliis tliiug, 
 to see this industry slipping from our hands. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. This is the value of the improved property ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The value, I presume, of uniuiproved property luis gone iip ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. No, sir ; it has not. It has decreased. Tim unimproved propeilyiu 
 Florida has decreased in value. Why ? Because of the danger of flooding the mar- 
 ket with oranges. People say that we are to be crushed out and the market to be 
 flooded, and that it will destroy everything. I tell you on the peninsula of Florida, 
 we are dependent upon this industry alone. If you give us a chance to develop it, 
 we will do so. We have got to buy your grain, your corn, and your clothing 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What was Florida doing with this land before the war? What 
 was its character ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. It was an unbroken wilderness. Very few people were there after the 
 war. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it swamp land ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. No, sir. These 10,000,000 acres are high and dry, with good places for 
 homes, and require no ditching. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is this rich land? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. It is not generally rich land. There they have another expense of 
 fertilizing the soil. 
 
 Mr. Payne. But some is rich? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Some is rich, but not generally. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Of this particular soil we are talking about there are some 
 
 ,000,000 acres adapted to this industry. 
 
 Mr. Mabry. That is not rich. It is not rich soil. This rich soil has been taken up 
 argely. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. This particular soil was not utilized until after the war ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. No, sir ; there was nobody to utilize it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Because nobody knew the way to utilize it f 
 
 Mr. Mabry. There was nobody to utilize it; there was nobody there. There was 
 no transportation, and no way of getting the thing out. 
 
 Mr. Flower. It was just worth a little sum to hold the world together? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Yes, sir ; but we made it a ]dcasant liome. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Yes, and some of our people of the North helped you to do it ? ^^ . 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Yes, and we buy a good many things of the North. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Yes, and we Ijought a good deal of land and raised groves there 
 I want to get out the fact before this oommitte<', because I am searching for light. 
 Understand, I would not do the Florida orange-grower one single particle of lianii ; 
 but I do say this ; that you should come in the same spirit and not do my constituents 
 harm; and I believe that these Mediterranean oranges come at a time when you can 
 not raise yours, and that they ought to come, and they would not alfect you at ail if 
 the duty was .^1, 000 a box. In October, December, and January, these Mediterranean 
 oranges are sour up to the middle if not to the end of March. When they come at 
 that time they are no more like Florida oranges than a match is like thunder and 
 lightning, or a farthing candle is like an electric light. I want you to correct nie if 
 I make a mistake in that. Mediterranean oranges are tart if not sour up) to the mid- 
 dle if not to the end of March. 
 
 Mr. Mabry. You are talking of foreign fruit. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Mediterranean oranges that come in here arc green fruit, and sour, 
 while the Florida oranges are sweet and in every respect superior to the best orange 
 in the world. Do you deny that ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. I think it is the Ijest orange in the world. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I agree with you on that, even surpassing the California Navel or- 
 anges. 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Let me tell you, right there, in Jamaica and Mexico and Trinidad, 
 and other places, they are taking millions of buds therefrom trees lieieand plant- 
 ing them, and they are places where they have no population to consume them, and 
 they must bo exjiorted directly. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Now, in regard to Mexico, they would eat them up in charges before 
 they got to the sea-board. 1 have seen them there carried on mule-back hundreds of 
 miles ill straw baskets strapped over a mule. Well, wo will get on with this and see 
 how ;sou deny it. And in consequence all dealers, retailers, consumers, and even the 
 corner stands on the streets will now only sell Florida oranges, still .abundant, on 
 account of the great popularity of said fruit, and it is limiting the consumption of 
 
1084 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mediterianean oranges to the poorest of our classes, amongst tlie tenements, where 
 the peddlers go selling the fruit, twenty oranges for 25 cents, or twenty-five oranges 
 for 25 cents, or are shipped to our most distant States where Floridas would rot soon. 
 The only defect in the Florida orange is its weak keeping quality. When Mediter- 
 ranean oranges will reach here sweet, the bulk of the Florida crop has already heen 
 marketed. 
 
 Mr. Mabrt. That is a mistake. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Does anybody know that ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Wo know that. 
 
 The Chairman. What are you reading from ? 
 
 Mr. Flower. This is from the president of the Italian Chamber of Commerce of 
 New York. 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Then let me ask a question. I want to ask this <(uestion : If you got 
 all this information from New York, is it not a fact that the New York brokers are 
 furnishing money to these Italian growers, and import that orange here 
 
 Mr. Flower. No, sir. The fact is, New York is raising to-day at least one-third of 
 the crop of oranges in Florida that you talk about. All my neighbors and friends — 
 or many of them — have orange groves down there, and it has been a favorite invest- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I do hope you will 
 seriously consider this matter, and I beg of you to seriously consider it. When he 
 makes the point here that wo are asking you to protect fruit that does not come in at 
 the same time with this foreign fruit, I say you must not believe it. I say that is a 
 mistake, for I tell you this fruit comes right in the moment with ours. 
 
 Mr. Flower. But right there I wish to have you contradicted by the facts. 
 
 Mr. Mabry. Have you got any facts '? 
 
 Mr. Flower. When Mediterraneans are reaching here sweet, the bulk of the Flor- 
 da crop is already upon the market and sold. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JOHN H. WELSH. 
 
 Mr. John H. Welsh nest addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen ot the Committee, let me say at this point, at the 
 last auction sale at Jacksonville, ten days ago, sixty odd thousand boxes during the 
 season were sold at public auction at'about $l.(j--i a box. Some brought $1.75, and 
 they went down as low as |l.;i8. We have been encouraging there the home market 
 and auction market, and the x>rices at which oranges will sell at Jacksonville at the 
 present time is a fair indication of the value of the average price, which would be 
 ff.62. That is for choice oranges. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I want to ask ."mother question ; that statement about the orange 
 grove. I think now $1..50 is an outside figure, because I am interested in an oraugo 
 grove, and I think §1 a box last year was a pretty fair price on the trees. 
 
 Mr. Welsh. The oranges sold on the trees last year at from 75 cents to $1.2.5. I 
 waut to correct an error that may enter in here. You seem to have an idea tliat 
 because the oranges in New York are the best oranges that they are all best. Many 
 people planted trees without any idea of fine oranges, and consequently have nurny 
 oi-anges that are not fine. When you speak of a tiiie variety of oranges, you speak 
 as if all were fine. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I have never been able to strike an orange from Florida that was not 
 better than any other. 
 
 Mr. Mabry. I wish to state in connection with this matter, we are very earnest 
 about it. We are representing our people in Florida in this matter, and they realize 
 the importance of it. It is a vast industry to sustain life down there, and it is capa- 
 ble of sustaininga great deal more. Wo come before you, represeuting the position 
 socially, morally, and financially of that State. We represent all classes of people. 
 We come before you as direct representatives of the people, asking this without any 
 reference whatever to shades of difference in relation to political opinion or religious 
 fipinion or in any other way. It is the united sentiment of our peo])le of both par- 
 ties and all classes of our State. 
 
 The Chairman. Are you lieutenant-governor of Florida? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. No, sir; I was lieutenant-governor of Florida. I held the position 
 until it w.as abolished. 
 
 Mr. Stonk. What duty do you advocate ? 
 
 Mr. Mabry. We state the duty should be |1 a box. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1085 
 
 STATEMENT OF F. S. GOODRICH. 
 
 Mr. F. S. Goodrich next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the commiitee, I am very much gratiiied to see 
 the brethren from Florida advocating this, because it is the most wonderful conver- 
 sion of the last few years. It follows in the line of Saul of Tarsus on his way to 
 Damascus, when a wonderful light broke in upon him. These brethren are all Dem- 
 ocrats 
 
 A Bystandek. No, sir ; not all Democrats. 
 
 Mr. Goodrich. Well, some, then, are Republicans. They have come here to ad- 
 vocate this duty 
 
 The Chairman. That is just what you want. 
 
 Mr. Goodrich. It is exactly what 1 want. And now I congratulate the IjrethL-en, 
 and let the prophets remember that paying '^l a box on oranges means a little some- 
 thing on wool, and a little something on manufactures, and a little something on 
 other things ; it is a mutual thing all around. 
 
 ARGUMENT OF ORANGE-GROWERS. 
 
 Washington, D. C, March 12, Iti'M. 
 Hon. WiLUAM McKiNLEY, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee: 
 
 Self-preservation has been aptly called the first law of nature. To-day the Statu of 
 Florida appears before yon in the person ol'a committee representiug esery class of our 
 material condition, social, financiai and industrial, praying that a duty of |1 i)cr 
 standard box (or its equivalent on larger packages) be i)laccd on the importation of 
 foreign oranges. 
 
 For years the belief has been gaining ground in the orange-growing districts of 
 Florida that the cheapness of the foreign production (meaninglabor and cultivation ) 
 must ultimately destroy the largest and most important industry in the semi-tropi- 
 cal regions of the United States ; but the people of Florida trusted that the suiiciior 
 quality of theirfruit, their nearness to the distributing markets of the United States, 
 would enable them to compete with foreign citrus-producing countries, bnt they have 
 been forced to realize the utter hopelessness of competing witli cheap labor, cheap 
 capital, and advantages of cheap development, together with cheap harvesting and 
 marketing. So on the 2.')th of February, 1890, the people of Florida met in Conven- 
 tion pursuant to the following call : 
 
 "mass-mbetikg of orange-growers. 
 
 "To select a committee to go immediately to Washington to apply to Congress to 
 put a higher duty on oranges. Tuesday afternoon, February 25, al; the Semi-Trop- 
 ical Exposition, Ocala, Fla. A most urgent appeal to you all. We must have pro- 
 tection or languish. The committee of representation will be composed as follows: 
 (1) Orange-growers at large; (2) Florida Fruit Exchange; (:3) Florida Horticul- 
 ture Society; (4) Farmers' Alliance; (5) Orange-Growers' Union; (6) Orange and 
 Vegetable Auction Exchange; (7) Industries dependent on orange-growing. One 
 cent a round trip." 
 
 No meeting in the history of Florida was ever so well attended by citizens repre- 
 senting the complete material interests of the State, as the following report, taken 
 from the daily Times-Union, of Jacksonville, will show : 
 
 FLORIDA FKUXT-GEOWBRS. 
 
 Proceedings of the convention at Ocala yesterclay — The orange industry in danger — The 
 sentiment unanimous for a duty of a dollar a box on foreign oranges — A committee to he 
 sent to Washington. 
 
 [Special to the Times- Union.} 
 
 Ocala, Fla., February 25. 
 Pursuant to the call of President George W. Wilson, of the Semi-Tropical Exposi- 
 tion, a mass-meeting of the fruit-growers of Florida assembled in the Exposition 
 Building at Ocala to-day at 2.30 o'clock p. m., for thepurposoof considering the sub- 
 ject of foreign competition in the marketing of oranges. 
 
1086 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 When tbe meeting' ^^'as exiled to (irder by Presifleut Wilson, the following gentle- 
 men were on the iiliitfoim with him : Hon. John F. Dunn, of Ocala ; J. C. McKib- 
 bin, president of the Oranne-tl i owei.s' Union, Pomona ; Hon. R. F. Rodgers, president 
 of thu Farmers' Alliance, Live Oak ; C. Ij. Collins, editor of the Free Press, Ocala ; 
 Col. A. L. Eii'bellicrf^er, Oeala ; Hon. W. H. Cook, Pomona; Hon. A. S. Mann, niau- 
 an-er of tlie OranL;e Auction ai id Fowarding Com|)a.ny, .Jacksonville ; Hon. J. A. Pooler, 
 uFanatee ; Ex-Governor il. H. Mabry, Leesburgh ; Hou. A. P. Baskin, Anthony ; JIiij. 
 Geoi"e i;. Fairbanks, pre.sirlent of the Florida Fruit Exchange; Hon. H. W. Long, 
 M.arion Connty ; J. N. iStrobhar, .J., T. & K. W. Railway ; A. L. Bittinger, Ocala Ban- 
 ner ; C. S. Young, Ocala; Captain Johnson, Dade City Democrat; A. H. Manville, 
 Jacksonville. 
 
 President Wilson welcomed the Farmers' Alliance in an eloquent address. He was 
 followed in response on bidialf of the Alli.'ince by its president, Hon. E. F. Rodgers, 
 who made a .stirring speech. 
 
 Jlr. Wilson then stated that he had taken advantage of Alliance day to call a mass 
 convention represent iug all orange-growers and orange-growers' associations to con- 
 sider the all-im)Jortiint and at present absorbing topic of foreign competition. 
 
 Jlr. Wilion was chosen chairman and A. H. Manville was elected secretary. The 
 following oonnnittco on resolutions was appointed: Maj. George E. Fairbanks, Hon. 
 H. P. Hi'aly, Hon. A. S. Mann, and General Davis Tillson. 
 
 While the committee wa.s out, Chairman Wilson addressed the convention on the 
 issue as follows : 
 
 " Not only is Florida i'eeling the direct and ruinous efiect of the importation of 
 Mediterranean fruit, 100,0fJ0 boxes of which have arrived in onr ports for each of the 
 last three weeks, breaking prices and losing Florida at least .frJOO,000, but .another 
 and ev -n greater danger has recently come to notice in Mexico, Central America, the 
 West Indies, and the coast of South America. Immense areas have been planted m 
 oranges during the ji.ast few years. When sugar failed in these countries the ques- 
 tion arose, ' What are we to do with our vacant land?' 'Plant orange-trees,' was 
 the answer. ' Where can capital be had?' 'From England and the mother conn-, 
 tries,' came the reply, and in any quantity, at 3 or 4 per cent. Gentlemen, so with 
 their cliiap money, cheap labor, rich lands, and cheap transportation, they can lay 
 their oranges down at our packing-hous<'. doors for less money than we can grow 
 them. American ship-builders are already con.structiug fleets to engage in this car- 
 rying trade. This is no chimera; it is hard fact. It is not distant; it is upon us. 
 ShalT wo let the fruits of onr painstaking labor be taken from us, our living that we 
 have established, liy a sit of men who have no symjiathy with our social hie, our 
 traditions, or our in'8tituti<ms ? We are confronti-d with dire disaster, and it behooves 
 us to stir ourselves speedily and make onr plight known, through an eftlcient com- 
 mittee, to the law-makers of the country." 
 
 Maj. G. P. Healy, of Jacksonville, following Mr. Wilson, said he could corroborate 
 every wokI Mr. Wilson had said, and, in addition, it had come under his personal 
 knowledge that large qantities of orange bmis had been .sent from Florida to tbe 
 near-by countries enumerated. He had eaten Florida navel oranges grown upon the 
 wild stocks of Jamaica, budded with Florida buds, as good in every way as Floridas. 
 Thousands uiKui thousands of buds have been sent out during the past eighteen 
 months, and to Mexico over a million buds ilariug the past year. " Gentlemen," he 
 said, ''if you don't take measures to shut out foreign-grown oranges you will see 
 th(^ time within three years when Florida-grown oranges will not bring /.""j cents in 
 N((\v York," 
 
 The following memorial was presented: 
 
 " The growers of citrus fruits in the State of Florida, represented in convention 
 by the Farmer.s' Alliance of the i-Jtate of Florida, the Farmers' Alliance Exchange, the 
 Orange Growers' Union, the Florida Fruit Exchange, the Horticultural Society o£ 
 Florida, the Florida Orange and Vegetabh! Auction Coiiiiiany, and other associations 
 composi'd of fruit-growers, and also of the railway a iid transportation companies and 
 their coiniectious, re.sjiccttiilly memijtializethe Ccmgrcss of the United States, and urge 
 upon its attention that the present duty on citrus fruits is insulBcieiit to give the 
 proli rtion necessary to eiicoarage the production of these fruits in the States of the 
 Union in which this industry exists; moreover, but a small a.niount of revouue is 
 produced, and we respectfully urge and ask that such duly should bo advanced to a 
 special rate of fill cents per culiic foot, or |1 per box of '2J culiie feet. Therefore, 
 
 " lU'Solrid, That a eomniittce of eighteen be aiipointed as re|iresentatives of this 
 liody, who sliall bo entrusted with the furtherance cd' the cdijects proposed in the iiie- 
 nioriai, wlio shall select a subcommittee from that number to go to Washington to 
 ]iresent this memorial to both House's of Congii'ss. 
 
 " Jicnolrcd, That the said coiiiinittee meet in Jacksonville on the 1st day of March 
 to begin their work ; that an additiomil committee of litteen ho appointed to at 
 once canv.'iss the State and generally promote the objects of this meeting, inaug- 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 1087 
 
 urating sucli measures as may be deomod most advantag(«ms to tlio cause liere 
 advocated." 
 
 This report was signed by the committee, as follows : K. F. i.uilgers, president State 
 Farmers' Alliance ; J. C. McKibbin, piosideiit Orange Growers' Union; G. R. Fair- 
 ban Ivs, president Florida Fruit Exchange ; A. S. Mann, pre -iilent Florida Orange and 
 Vegetable Auction Company and manager of tlie Alliance Exchange ; .J. N. Sfcrobhar, 
 J.,l\ and K. W. Raihvay ; A. Martin, E. T., V. and G. Kaihvay, and F. C. and P. Rail- 
 road and bv the committee for the Slate at large, (ieergi'. W. Wilson, J. E. Hartridge, 
 J. H. Welsh, J. A.Harris, Hamilton Disston, H. M. Flagler, E. A. C. Bielby, G. P. 
 Healy, John F. Dunn, M. H. Marby, J. A. Leslie. 
 
 In submitting the report of the committee, Major Fairbanks took occasion to call 
 attention to the peculiar adaptability of our climate to the citrus fruits. Up to a 
 recent date all the citrus fruits consnuied by the country were brought here from 
 foreign countries ; they sold high and were of jiour qual i ty. Since ehea|ier and more 
 speedy transportation, organization, etc., had enabled Florida to place her fruit on 
 the market of the country, it had been good, abundant, and cheap. "After all our 
 work, outlay, and patience," said JMajor Fairbanks ; "after extending our gi'oves until 
 we are able to supply the demand of the country, foreign competition comes in unex- 
 pectedly and uncourted and bears our markets, ami all lose, This condition ought 
 not to exist if we do our duty. It is no new thing we ask — simply an increase of 
 a tariff now existing but inadei plate ; atarilf iu<lc)rse<t by both parties, included in both 
 the Mills and the Senate bills." He called atleution to the lickdess condition the 
 growers would be in if the orange industry vras destroyed, as he said would hap])eu 
 if the present conditions continue, as the people of Florida have no other staple to fall 
 back upon. He believed, howevei', that tlie peoiiie wen- arnnseil to their danger, and 
 would put forth such an effort as would seenre ihercMiilt. 
 
 From the above published report you will see that the undersigned committee 
 represent the various interests within the State nf Fhuida. Therefore we respect- 
 fully beg leave to submit the following statement cf facts for tin- consideratiou of 
 your committee, and to earnestly ask that a duty (s|ieeilie) of|l per standard box (or 
 its equivalent on larger packages) be placed on the iniportation of foreign oranges 
 into the United States of America. 
 
 The committee would call your attention to llie fact that fifteen years ago orange- 
 growing in Florida was carried on to a very limited extent, and it was then doubted 
 that the production of the fruit in the State could be made to yield a profit to the 
 grower. The sparsely-settled condition nt tbi; jieuinsula — which is the orange-grow- 
 ing section — the want of labor, want of iufurmatinn for piopogatiou, and the ahmisl, 
 total absence of transportation facilities in this section, made the embarkation into this 
 industry still mote hazardous and u nee it a in. The cost of aJl things incident to living 
 (owing to the remoteness) and the impossibility to procure capital to d('velop the 
 industry without paying a high rate of intenst for it, a^ide from the diliiculties and 
 great expense attending the labor of the pioneer in the development of this industry, 
 the hardshijis that he eucouutereil, the obstaeles that he surmounted, can not be con- 
 veyed by words. The sturdy labor ami energy of those who foresaw the capabilities 
 of this portion of our Union, aided materially by the rapital from the North, ha.vi^ 
 at this time demonstrated that we have in the United State:-; a. gr-at industry in orange- 
 growing, the development of which is now iu itsincipiency. It recjuires time, money, 
 labor, privation, and constant watchfulness to grow oraugrs in Floiida. The average 
 time for bringing an orange grove into full and prolitable bearing in the State is 
 about ten years, and during all this time it reqiiiri's aeoustaut outlay of money, with 
 DO returns. There no longer remains a. doubt as to the fact that Florhla soil and cli- 
 mate are capable of prodming a line marketable orange, equal to any that can be put 
 into our markets. There remains no longcaa doubt that Florida soil and climate are 
 capable of supplying, completely and a(U'qnat(;ly, the demands of our home markets, 
 and it can truthfully be said that the capacity of Fhuida to produce oranges is far 
 beyond the wants and demands of the coiisuinption within our country. 
 
 This committee represents to you tliat at the present time nol less than |1(I0, 000,000 
 have been invested in the orange industry and its tlevelojuneiit in Florida, giving 
 employment to at least twenty thonsaiid laborers, at a cost of iiDin 9^1 to .ij I. ■3.') per 
 day. That there are now planted in oiange groves not less tliaii 2r)li,000 aioes, and 
 there arein the State not less than 10,000,0(ifl acres ada|>tc(t to growing oranges attho 
 rate of at least l&O boxes per acre. That the climate of Floriila is conducive to com- 
 fortable living, and there is a chance and an opjiortunity for thousands of American 
 citizens seeking a warmer clime for health alone, lo grow urauges, and make a com- 
 fortable living, provided this industry can be saved from destruction iu its infancy 
 from the importations of foreign oranges, under a system of allowing foreign fruit 
 into our markets, grown at a cost less than half what growers iu Fhirida pay Amer- 
 ican labor, and cheaper transportation (on account of water traflic), there is no in- 
 ducement for the people of the United States to put their money into the orange iu- 
 
1088 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 dustry and wait ten years on the investment to yield a profit to Ibe crushed by the 
 product of countries not in sympathy with our conditions or traditions. 
 
 We would confidently assert to your committee that if this industry could be pro- 
 tected until it has reached a stage of full maturity and development we could sup- 
 ply our home markets with better fruit (cheapened by inventions as applied to har- 
 vesting, packing, and storing), and at prices bringing to the producer a modest but 
 comfortable livelihood. There is no danger of the people of the United States 
 having to pay high prices for oranges if the Government will pursue the policy of 
 helping us get our industry fully established. Ours, gentlemen, is a contest between 
 well-paid labor, expensive operative capital, and the cheap capital aud still cheaper 
 labor of Europe, Mexico, Central America, West India Islands, and South America. 
 Florida can not (allow us to reiterate) compete on equal terms in the production of 
 oranges while we pay $1 to $1.25 per day for labor and 10 per cent, to l.'j per cent, in- 
 terest on our capital, while the same result is reached in the countries mentioned 
 with labor paid less than 50 cents per day, with operating capital at 3, 4, and 5 per 
 cent. 
 
 It is claimed from some sources that foreign oranges do not come in competition 
 with Florida oranges for the reason that the foreign fruit is put into our markets at 
 times when we have no Floridas. This is not true. Florida has developed and is de- 
 veloping an early and late variety of oranges. To-day we are putting into our 
 markets oranges the entire season. With jjroper inducements we can supply the de- 
 maud of all periods of the year, and the recent successful experiments in cold storage 
 will enable the grower to store his crop, to be distributed at the demands of the con- 
 sumption, should the supply become greater than the home consumption. Our 
 heaviest shipments commence in November, and last until June, during which time 
 nearly all of the foreign oranges are thrown upon our markets, coming directly in 
 competition with us. 
 
 We herewith submit an accurate statement of the receipts of foreign oranges (this 
 doi's not include numerous small-fruit producing countries as yet iu the transition 
 stage of development) during the years 1887, 1888, and 1889. 
 
 Meceipts of oranges in United States. 
 
 Boxes Mediterra- 
 nean. 
 
 New Tork. 
 
 Other 
 ports. 
 
 Cases Valenciaa. 
 
 New York. 
 
 Other 
 porta. 
 
 Now York. 
 
 BaiTels 
 Jamaica. 
 
 1887. 
 
 January 
 
 I'ebviuiry 
 
 Marili .'. 
 
 April 
 
 May 
 
 .Judo 
 
 July 
 
 A ujiuftt 
 
 St-ptrmber 
 
 October 
 
 November 
 
 December 
 
 1888, 
 
 .January 
 
 February 
 
 March 
 
 Ajti-il 
 
 May 
 
 June 
 
 July 
 
 AusuHt 
 
 September 
 
 October 
 
 November 
 
 December 
 
 100, 182 
 
 76, 948 
 
 130, 004 
 
 224, 490 
 
 235, 002 
 
 162, 732 
 
 84,362 
 
 48, 237 
 
 7,657 
 
 38, 797 
 
 214 
 
 15,805 
 
 64, 264 
 .■51, 046 
 90, 025 
 137, 923 
 1,57, 136 
 34, 799 
 13, 461 
 1, 224 
 
 13, 614 
 
 13, 094 
 
 10, 222 
 
 3,804 
 
 1,309 
 
 18, 204 
 9,100 
 
 11,416 
 
 19, 390 
 15, 688 
 
 474 
 
 23, 160 
 
 3,031 
 21, 679 
 
 563, 027 
 
 66, 653 
 
 68, 365 
 
 81, 218 
 
 108, 724 
 
 181,927 
 
 110, 276 
 
 45, 420 
 
 26, 601 
 
 8,380 
 
 95 
 
 404 
 
 7,681 
 
 31,689 
 
 35, 472 
 99, 137 
 64, 957 
 102, 350 
 69, 959 
 10, 822 
 1,486 
 
 23,491 
 27, 405 
 23, 603 
 30, 647 
 12, 002 
 2, 127 
 1,117 
 
 6,900 
 1,939 
 3, 166 
 3,747 
 3,900 
 423 
 831 
 
 83 
 2,389 
 29, 264 
 
 670, 680 
 
 396, 927 
 
 20, 91.' 
 
 10, 133 
 
 3,210 
 
 9,419 
 
 94 
 
 248 
 
 1,219 
 10,026 
 23, 747 
 22, 124 
 18,028 
 
 97, 257 
 
 6,932 
 
 12,529 
 
 14, 736 
 
 7,675 
 
 1,669 
 
 7,877 
 
 30, 463 
 
 6,161 
 
 3,367 
 
 91, 299 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 Beoeipis of oranges in United States — Continued. 
 
 1089 
 
 Boxes Mediteira- 
 nean. 
 
 Kew York. 
 
 Other 
 porta. 
 
 Caaeg.Valoncias. 
 
 New York. 
 
 Other 
 ports. 
 
 IJarrels 
 Jamaica. 
 
 New York. 
 
 1889 
 
 January 
 
 February 
 
 March 
 
 Aprit .- 
 
 May 
 
 Juue 
 
 July 
 
 August 
 
 September 
 
 October - 
 
 November 
 
 December 
 
 1890. 
 
 January 
 
 February 
 
 05, 597 
 
 41, 802 
 
 152, 137 
 
 103, 405 
 
 8J, 295 
 
 79, 689 
 
 49, 849 
 
 14, 389 
 
 78 
 
 29 
 
 47, 568 
 
 li:i, 069 
 
 144, 045 
 
 86, 636 
 
 41, 007 
 
 19, 576 
 
 4,164 
 
 1,696 
 
 4,580 
 10,734 
 38,610 
 30, 394 
 28, 779 
 13, 167 
 
 3.167 
 5,160 
 7,143 
 11, 852 
 9, 357 
 4,989 
 
 29, 383 
 
 625, 447 
 
 463, 128 
 
 154, 647 
 
 41,668 
 
 57, 341 
 79, 667 
 
 48, 279 
 76, 256 
 
 47,140 
 53, 529 
 
 19, 673 
 17, 800 
 
 7,877 
 30, 403 
 8, 028 
 3,367 
 
 49, 735 
 
 1,696 
 7, 131 
 
 EECAPITTJL ATION. 
 
 Boxes. 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 
 
 1890 (first two months) 
 
 1, 677, 363 
 
 1, 066, 607 
 
 1, 088, 575 
 
 ?6 1,543 
 
 141, 330 
 147,319 
 196,315 
 137, 042 
 
 97, 257 
 
 91, 299 
 
 49, 735 
 
 8,827 
 
 Over one-quarter of the whole probable yearly receipts from the Mediterrauean 
 have arrived in January and February — say 261, .543 boxes of oranges. 
 
 During the year 1889, not less than 20,000,000 of Florida buds (not including 
 what has been sent from California) from improved varieties, were exported to 
 Mexico, West India Islands, South America, some of the Pacific islands, and Europe, 
 to be grown on the vastly increased acreage of orange trees planted and being planted 
 in these countries. 
 
 It is not our purpose to increase the cost of the orange to the consumer, but looli- 
 ing to the near future, it is absolutely certain that the vast amount of foreign oranges 
 to be grown with cheap labor and cheap money will bo thrown upon our market aud 
 sap the life from our industry. 
 
 The propagation of orange for commerce in countries outside of Europe is not for 
 the home consumption of their respective countries (for this is limited on account of 
 small Dopulation), but aiming to find distribution and profit in the markets of the 
 United States. 
 
 The Increased tariff is asked that we may be protected from the demoralizing influ- 
 ence of large importations, that the rich soil and poorly paid labor of more tropical 
 countries makes possible, at a cost which defies competition on the part of the North 
 American grower and laborer. Nor is it amiss to state that the American grower 
 does not desire to avoid competition on equal terms with foreign fruit, but to compel 
 the importation of superior fruit through mediums that will place the respective 
 growers on the same plane as to the cost of putting the fruit in the market. 
 
 And in this connection we desire to place ourselves on record as earnestly protest- 
 ing against the enactment of any law that allows a rebate for (tamaged fruit. Such 
 a clause is a delusion and a snare; the prolific progenitor of fraud and a haven of 
 refuge for the dishonest importer. 
 
 Because of this damage clause it is made possible for the foreign buyer to deliber- 
 ately import, with a small quantity of good fruit, large quantities of what is denomi- 
 nated trash in the market, with which to delude the damage inspector and obtain a 
 rebate for damage from the customs. In this way superior homo fruit is compelled 
 to go upon a glutted market in competition with an inferior article that has escaped 
 the duly contemplated by the law, and which the greed of gain induces the caterer 
 for large u umbers to purchase instead of the better fruit. With this damage claim 
 
 485 69 
 
1090 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 eliminated only good fruit will be imported, and the home production will compete 
 witb a first-class article at a like cost for marketing freed from the depressing influ- 
 ence of innumerable cargoes of trash. Good Floridas will compete with good Sicilys, 
 and rubbish kept at home. 
 
 Give us a duty of $1 per box on foreign oranges (please distinctly understand we 
 are not asking anything on lemons) and wc can comjiete with those countries. Re- 
 fuse to place this duty on oranges and the long years of patient labor, now past in 
 wooing the productions of the soil, will be sacrificed and lost, and from the Pacific 
 to the Gulf and the Atlantic the sad story of thousands of impoverished homes will 
 be hurled across the waters to people growing rich on our ruin. 
 
 To yon, gentlemen of the North, gentlemen of the East, gentlemen of the West, a 
 sister State holds out her imploring hands for succor, and sends through us, from 
 the bosom of her blossom-laden orange groves, the prayer for protection on her 
 nursling industry. Protect us now and the future will enable Pomona to send her 
 fragrant greetings to every man, woman, and child in the United States, holding a 
 penny in their hands, and across the waters to the marts of the world, we can com- 
 pete with those that have prayed your honorable committee to grant petitions from 
 them that would mean ruin to thousands of your people. 
 
 With the most earnest prayer for your favorable consideration, we have the honor 
 to be 
 
 Your most obedient servants, 
 
 M. H. Mabry, 
 
 Jno. E. Harteidgb, 
 
 J. C. McKlBBIN, 
 
 e. f. rogkes, 
 Jno. H. Welsh, 
 Gborge W. Wilson, 
 
 Committee. 
 Note. — We will furnish the committee from time to time such data as will support 
 and strengthen the points covered in this argument. 
 
 THE CROP IN CALIFORNIA. 
 STATEMENT OF HON. W. VANDEVER. 
 
 Three thousand car loads, or 900,000 boxes, of oranges were the past season trans- 
 ported from southern California, by rail, to various parts of the United States. One 
 dollar and twenty-five cents to $1..'>0 per box for ordinary seedlings is a fair average 
 of the price delivered on board the cars at the citrus centers. This is as low a rate 
 as will possibly compensate the producer. It is with great apprehension that the 
 California producer of oranges regards the increasing importation of this fruit from 
 foreign countries to our markets. 
 
 It costs 57 cents per box (by car-load lots) to transport oranges from Florida to New 
 York City or to Boston. 
 
 The average yield of an acre of orange trees in good bearing is 200 boxes. 
 
 The transportation of a box of oranges from Italy to New York City or to Boston 
 is 25 cents; duty 25 cents. Total freight and tariff 50 cents. It costs? cents per box 
 more to land oranges in New York or Boston from Florida than it costs to bring them 
 from Italy. Upon the basis of 200 lioxes to the acre, then, Italy has the advantage 
 of Florida in supplying New York or Boston with oranges of .$14 per acre. 
 
 Common labor in the State of Florida is worth $1 per day and in Italy 20 cents per 
 day. 
 
 One man's labor is required to cultivate 10 acres of oranges ; three hundred days' 
 labor, which is about an average year's work, |300 in Florida ; $60 in Italy. 
 
 The Italian ijroducer, then, has the advantage of the Florida producer in supply- 
 ing the American market of $14 per acre in transportation and duty and of |24 per 
 acre in labor ; a total of $38 per acre on oranges. 
 
 The transportation-of a box of oranges from California to New York or Boston is 
 $1.25 per box (by car-load lots) ; to Chicago, 90 cents. Labor in California is $2 per 
 day. Therefore the Italian orange-grower has the advantage over the California 
 orange-grower in New York of about $70 per acre, and in the Chicago market of 
 about $58 per acre. 
 
 To place Florida and California in our American markets on an equality with Italy 
 the import duty on oranges and lemons should be at least $1 per box. 
 
 The orange is the chief source of citrus wealth in southern Califoj^nia. It provides 
 fruit the year round. Oranges may Ite picked from the trees at Riverside and at Pas- 
 adena the entire year; the old crop being left on certain trees for use, and lasting in 
 very good condition until a new crop begins to ripen, without apparently afiecting the 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1091 
 
 new growth. The California orange has great staying qualities. In this particular 
 it is far superior to the Italian orauge, and oven better than the Florida orange. The 
 Rverside orange is I'amous for its excellence. The seedless Navals brings large prices 
 in the market, aud the seedlings of southern California are generally in flavor and 
 lusciousness far superior to the best imported oranges from the Mediterranean. 
 
 The orange belt of California extends from San Diego to Santa Barbara, skirting 
 the Coast Range and the Sierras from 10 to 50 miles from the ocean. The base of the 
 Sierra Madre alfords the most f.ivorable localities for orange culture. Intense heat 
 does not injure the orauge. The southern California orange will also stand a temper- 
 ature four or five degrees below freezing. The orange is not a native of California; 
 it was brought as seeds from Spaiu, long years ago, by the padres and the explorers 
 who Urst settled the country. 
 
 The extent in value of the industry at the present time can be imagined from the 
 following figures: In Los Angeles County there are about 3.^0,000 bearing trees; 
 Santa Barbara, 30,000; San Diego County, 55,000 ; San Bernardino, 300,000 ; Ven- 
 tura, 5,000 ; in all, including scattered rauciiies, of which no account can be taken, 
 nearly 1,000,000 bearing trees. The significance to the country at large is important. 
 It means that California intends to demand a share of the patronage given to Medi- 
 terranean and Havana ranges, and that she can, if necessary, supply the entire de- 
 mand. 
 
 VIEWS OP H. K. SNOW. 
 
 Austin City, Cal., January 13, 1890. 
 
 Dbae Sir : I inclose you a iietition of a great many orange-growers in this county 
 to ask of Congress for more protection on our oranges. The present tariff is only 
 about 25 cents a bos, which is only about 8 per cent., whereas wine grapes are i)ro- 
 tected 50 cents a gallon, equal to 3 cents a pound for greeu grapes, and tliey sell here 
 for $10 per ton, or one-half cent a pound. Good oranges are worth from 12.50 to |5 
 per box iu the markets. 
 
 There ought to be a protection of at least %\ a box, which is only about 30 per 
 cent. There will be several petitions sent you, aud I trust you will do all you can to 
 further our wishes. Senator Stanford ought to help us, as it will be a great impetus 
 to orange growing, which will tax the railroads to their utmost to carry the frnit to 
 market in a very few years. I will not bother you with many remarks, as I know 
 that you are very busy. This work ought to be done before the Committee on Tarifl:'. 
 You will know of course. 
 Most truly, yours, 
 
 H. K. Snow. 
 
 Hon. William Vandbvek, Washington, D. C. 
 
 STATEMENT OF DR. J. S. ESHLEMAN. 
 
 Minnewawa Vineyard, 
 Fresno, Gal., January 14, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: My friend, Mr. EUwood Cooper, of Santa Barbara, writes me that you 
 are desirous of having some expression of the people of our State in relation to cer- 
 tain reductions in the tariif. 
 
 Our chief industry iu this section is that of the raisin producing. The fig bids fair 
 to become second in importance. The wiue industry is now xiaralyzed because the 
 present price of wiue does not pay to fortify with alcohol. As now protected the 
 raisin and the fig may pay. Thousands of our own countrymen, as well as a good 
 class of foreigners, have made great sacrifices to reach Calilornia, mostly with little 
 capital, and often in frail health, seeking at the same time hygienic advantages, as 
 well as support for their families. Here they find both as the present conditions ex- 
 ist with us. 
 
 Capitalists also have flocked to this coast for health and enterprise. They have 
 explored the State, studied its possibilities, tested its inducements and feasibilities, 
 procured lands, constructed expensive irrigation schemes, aud with great patience 
 and persistence published the information they acquired to the world, with the effect 
 of drawing an unprecedented tide of immigration to this coast. 
 
 All this has been accomplished by the aid of a protective tariff on the industries 
 they set about establishing. These indu.stries 'are in their infancy. The masses are 
 poor. The capitalists have placed them upon 10, 80, or more acres of land, often with- 
 out asking a dollar iu payment for the land. They can plant only slowly, but they 
 are sure to succeed and eventually pay by small installments for the laud. But this 
 will depend upon protection to the industry. 
 
 It would be doing great injustice to every class of our people after holding out in- 
 
1092 EEVISION OP THE TAEIFP. 
 
 ducements to them to invest their all and their future prospects in reaching and im- 
 proving this distant land of the Government to suddenly change the conditions, as a 
 reduction of the tariif would do. They should have at least time to mature the trees 
 and vines, and become able to compete with the cheap labor of other countries. In 
 regard to any sudden reduction of the tariff, it would be an ex jjost facto to a people 
 who have been induced to enter into a new industry involving great sacrifices. lu 
 fruit-<Towing we have to look several years into the future for any returns, and can 
 not, therefore, brook such instabilities. 
 
 Reduce the tariff now on raisins and figs and you will stop the planting of thou- 
 sands of acres now in the course of preparation and blight the prosperity of our 
 country. 
 
 These I submit respectfully as my candid, truthful iiupressions. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 J. S. ESHLEMAN, M. D. 
 
 General Vandever. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ROGER J. HOGAN. 
 
 New York, March 13, 1890. 
 
 Sir: Having noticed in the World of to-day an article on the hearing before your 
 committee as to the advisability of increasing the tariff on oranges to §1 per box, and 
 having been secretary and manager of the Foreign Fruit Exchange for three years 
 previous to October 15, 1>^S9, at which time I was replaced liy another person, as I 
 had advocated the protection idea as against the foreign- fruit interests, I feel that I 
 am competent to give an opinion from a disinterested stand-point. 
 
 You may know the receivers of the foreign fruit do not want their interests dis- 
 turbed or affected under any consideration in tlie first place, as then their calling 
 wonld be at an end ; and in this connection there are other matters to be considered, 
 viz, the time the shipping seasons of the California, Florida, and foreign interests 
 begin and end, which circumstance would have a little weight in determining what 
 should be done. 
 
 At a convention of orange and lemon growers, held at National City, Cal., some 
 time ago, it was decided that they petition Congress for protection to the extent of 
 |1 per box from November to June each year, and for the x>eriod between these 
 months the duty could be reduced to 50 cents per box. 
 
 The bulk of the foreign oranges arrive here in the spring and early summer, as it is 
 at this time they are consumed mostly. 
 
 My belief is the industries of this country ought to be fostered, encouraged, and 
 protected, and every patriotic citizen takes this view of the matter. 
 
 I would have the dollar per box levied on oranges for protection, and no duty on 
 lemons until such time as the protectinn of lemons increased to such an extent as 
 would become necessary that lemons should be protected as well. 
 
 As far as oranges or lemons for the rich or poor goes, this version of the matter 
 is ridiculous; the chances are if these products were allowed to increase under the 
 fostering care of a protective tariff all kinds of oranges and lemons would be supplied 
 cheaply for all the people collectively. 
 
 From a political stand-point I can understand a tariff would be assessed for revenue 
 only. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 Hon. William McKiNLEY, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 Roger J. Hogan. 
 
 NUTS, OLIVES, ETC. 
 
 State Board of Horticultdke, 
 
 Santa Barhara, Cal., January 10, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : Owing to the blockade of the mails by reason of the washouts, your 
 letter of the 19th ultimo only reached me the 7th. I go to town to-day and take this 
 answer. 
 
 I am engaged in the culture of almonds, English walnuts, and olives, green fruits, 
 and Japanese persimmons. The duty under the tariff' of 1883 is as follows : Almonds, 
 5 cents per pound ; pits, 7-| cents [as the pits are just half the weight and the price 
 about double, the duty should be 10 cents instead of 7^^]; English walnuts, 3 cents per 
 pound. Olive oil is not on the tariff list I have now lieforo me, but I think it is $1 
 per gallon duty. If nut it ought to be. Olives are fn"i>, but under the head of pickles 
 not provided for, 35 per cent, ad valorem. Olives could bo shipped from the Mediter- 
 
EEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 1093 
 
 ranean to this country in -water aud put up here, iu wliicli case they would be free 
 It should read, " Olives and olive pickles, -25 cents per gallon"; that is about 35 per 
 cent. ; but when you take into consideration that bottles, corks, and labor are so much 
 cheaper in Europe than here something should be added above the comparison of oil 
 value. Say, if you please, in casks, 25 cents per gallon ; in glass jars or bottles, 40 
 cents per gallon. Grease for soap is free. A great deal of olive oil comes to this 
 country under the head of grease. Olive-oil grease should be excepted, and a duty 
 fixed according to its value. 
 
 As to my opinion on the protection of fruits, I refer you to my opening address at 
 the Los Angeles Fruit-Growers' Convention, November, 1885 ; also at the Santa Bar- 
 bara convention, April, 1838. Olives I leave to the Los Angeles growers ; tigs and 
 raisins to the Fresno people ; prunes to San Jos6 and Santa Rosa. I have written to 
 the interested people of these districts to write you at once giving their opinions. 
 
 Duty on figs, 2 cents; prunes, 1 cent ; raisins, 2 cents. 
 
 There Is but one true financial principle involved in tariff duties. Tariff for 
 revenue only is unsafe, becauseyou must be constantly moving up and down according 
 to circumstances, disturbing manufactures, trade, and finances, If revenue is iu ex- 
 cess then put on the free list every thing that is not produced in this country or not 
 likely to be. Protect everything that will increase manufactures, increase trade 
 and make it possible for the American people to successfully compete in every branch 
 of business. This tinkering is always a serious disturbance. If revenue is too great, 
 distribute the surplus in improvements, to thesoldier8,to the purchase of bonds. There 
 are various ways that the money can be expended that will add to the greatness of 
 our country. 
 
 I am, very truly, 
 
 Elwood Cooper, 
 President, Commissioner for Los Angeles District. 
 
 Hon. William Vandevbr, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 
 P. S. — I would insist that no deductions from the present tariff be made on fruits. 
 I scarcely believe it would be wise to increase, except as to correcting the olive, and 
 I believe there ought to be 1 cent more on the prunes ; make them 2 cents. On the 
 oranges increase 25 cents per box, or .f 1 per one thousand. The freights and duties 
 on oranges from the Mediterranean is fuily 25 cents per box less than the freights 
 from California. We ought to be at least on the same footing in the New York 
 market. 
 
 The following is the extract of the writer's opening address before the Los Angeles 
 convention November 15, 1885, referred to : 
 
 PROTECTION TO THE FRUIT INDUSTRY. 
 
 I will state how it operates with regard to my business — making olive-oil, growing 
 almonds and English walnuts. We pay labor $1 a day and board. The boarding 
 costs us about .35 cents, say 2 francs ; labor 5 francs, equal to 7 francs. In the south 
 of France and Italy they pay labor 1 franc ; the boarding costs not over 1 franc, total 
 2 francs, or equal to .|1 per day on every laborer employed. 
 
 The freight from San Francisco to Now York on oil is $60 per ton ; from the Medi- 
 terranean |15, or one-fourth, so that without an import duty, other things being 
 equal, it would be better for mo to proceed at once to southern Europe to carry on 
 my business. With walnuts and almonds we make the same comparison, except that 
 the freight on these to New York is $40 per ton, and from south of Europe about half 
 as much. 
 
 While I wish to avoid any political discussion at this meeting not pertinent to our 
 actual demauds or necessities, I will in this place state that if we want laws to pro- 
 tect and encourage the greatest prosperity of our State, we must, as intelligent citi- 
 zens, look after framing of them. We can not plead indifference or pre-ocupation, 
 we can not ignore the community in which we live^our district, our county, our 
 State, or our common country. 
 
1094 
 
 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 Proposed rates of tariff on imported fruits. 
 
 
 Present 
 tariff. 
 
 Eouso bill, 
 
 Fiftieth 
 Congress. 
 
 Senate bill. 
 Fiftieth Congress. 
 
 Proposed rate." 
 
 Oranges: 
 
 13 cents 
 
 25 cents 
 
 55 cents . . 
 $1.60 per M 
 
 10 cents 
 
 2 cents 
 
 do 
 
 13 cents 
 
 25 cents . 
 
 55 cents 
 
 $1.60 per M . 
 
 Free , 
 
 2 cents 
 
 ... do 
 
 
 
 In boxes, IJ to 1^ cubic feet . 
 
 
 
 
 $1,00. 
 
 $5.00 per M. 
 
 lu bulk : 
 
 $1.50 per M 
 
 Lemons same as oranges. 
 
 Chocolate, per pound 
 
 Cocoa, nianufactnred, per pound. 
 
 2 cents 
 
 ...do 
 
 3 cenis. 
 
 20 per cent . . 
 
 1 cent 
 
 2 cents 
 
 do 
 
 20 percent.. 
 
 1 cent 
 
 Free 
 
 1 cent per pound.. 
 
 2 cents per ponnd. 
 2^ cents. 
 2it cents. 
 
 Plums and prunes, per pound 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 cents 
 
 1 cent 
 
 5 cents 
 
 7^ cents 
 
 3 cents 
 
 Free 
 
 5 cents 
 
 7 cents 
 
 
 5 cents. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 cents. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pease 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 30 cents per bushel. 
 IJ cents perpound. 
 25 cents per gallon 
 
 
 
 
 
 Olives and olive pickles 
 
 
 
 
 
 Free 
 
 
 
 in casks; about 
 35 per cent, ad 
 valoiem. Forty 
 cents per gallon 
 in jars or bottles. 
 Should be made 
 
 
 
 
 
 dutiable. 
 
 OSTRICH FARMme IN CALIFORNIA. 
 
 The raising of ostrich birds, or ostrich farming, in California was undertaken on 
 the strength of an import duty which ufl'ords a very moderate protection. It has en- 
 countered many vicissitudes, but the demonstration is clear that this will become a 
 profitable industry in this country if encouraged. The present rate of 25 per cent, 
 on crude and 50 per cent, on dressed feathers is inadequate. It does not protect as 
 it should. A specific duty is suggested of 5 shillings i^er pound on crude feathers, 
 invoiced at 10 shillings or under, and of 10 shillings per pound on feathers invoiced at 
 £1 sterling or under. 
 
 I submit herewith a communication from E. J. .Jolmson, manager of the American 
 Ostrich Company, Fallbrook, San Diego County, Cal. 
 
 Wm. Vandever. 
 
 Fallbe.ook, Jamiartj 29, 1890. 
 Dear Sir: Herewith please find cojiy of letter sent you last year. The numbers 
 have increased somewhat during the year, though losses at one of the Los Angeles 
 farms, and some atourown, have diminished the increase. Probal)ly four hundred 
 birds would be a total at this date. I am corresponding witli a party in Texas 
 who are going to establish an ostrich ranch there, and will buy their stocli; from 
 the California bud birds. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 E. J. Johnson, 
 Manager American Ostrich Company. 
 Hon. William Vandever, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 February 2, 1889. 
 Dear Sir: The new Senate tariff bill includes in its free list ostrich feathers, and 
 I wish to call your attention, first, to the ostrich-farming industry in Southern Cali- 
 fornia; second, to the effect of this measure upon ostricli breeders, or farmers ; third, 
 to the injustice of it; fourth, to the necessity of a higher rate and more efficient 
 measures for compelling its observance. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1095 
 
 First. There are five feather-producing ostrich farms in this State, viz: 
 
 (1) The California Ostrich Farming Company, at Anahiem, with eighteen imported 
 birds and one hundred and twelve natives; total, one hundred and thirty. Estab- 
 lished in 1883. 
 
 (2) The American Ostrich Company, at Fallbrook, San Diego County, with eleven 
 imported birds and fifty-nine natives: total, seventy. Established in 1884. 
 
 (3) Edwin Cawatou, Norwalk, about fifty, all told. Established in 1886. 
 
 (4) Kenilworth Ostrich Farm, Los Angeles. Number of birds unknown to me. 
 
 (5) J. C. Sketohly, near Red Blutf, Tehama County. Number of birdsunknown. 
 
 Besides the above there are some birds kept at Pasadena, Santa Ana, Santa Bar- 
 bara, and a few in Arizona, more for exhibition purposes than for feather production ; 
 the American Ostrich Compay also having a fine exhibit at Coronado Beach. A safe 
 estimate of the total number of birds in California would be three hundred and fifty. 
 
 Second. The raising of ostriches in California has thus far been attended with many 
 discouraging drawbacks unknown in their native country. Imported birds lose lor a 
 time their powers of reproduction — iu some cases it is never recovered. The expense 
 of caring for and feeding them is much greater than in Africa, owing to higher 
 priced labor and land, and the substitution of cereals for the velt grass of their native 
 soil. This enterprise was undertaken by private capital on the strength of the import 
 duty on ostrich feathers, 25 per cent, on crude and 50 per cent, on ilressed feathers ; 
 to annul it would be to rob us of the slight encouragement it afl'ordsus — slight because 
 experience has proved this protective duty to be chiefly theoretical. It does not pro- 
 tect the industry as it should iu order that those who have become engaged in it 
 through the indirect promises of the Government might successfully compete with 
 tbe African product, for, being an ad valorem duty, the low-priced feathers have 
 come in almost free ; and especially has this been the case since 1881, when all grades 
 declined 25 per cent., with further declines in 1883, 1884, 1885, and 1886, and from this 
 fall they have never recovered ; this would apply also to mixed lots, making the duty 
 on plumes of no appreciable account. 
 
 I would respectfully suggest that a specific duty of 5 shillings per pound on crude 
 feathers invoiced at 10 shillings or under, of 10 shillings per pound on feathers in- 
 voiced at £1 sterling or under, and so on, grading them with a provision that they 
 must be imported in separate packages numbered to correspond with the number of 
 their separate invoices, would furnish us a real protection. While with dressed 
 feathers a specific duty high enough to exclude importation would give increased 
 employment to home labor. 
 
 Having demonstrated at much expense and under many difficulties the fact that 
 ostriches can be successfully raised in California, we believe the Government should 
 permit us to make ifrffnanoially a success instead of withdrawing the support upon 
 which we built our hopes, small though it has proven to be. 
 
 Trusting that I have not too far intruded upon your time, and hoping to hear from 
 you in relation to this matter, 
 
 I am, yours, very respectfully, 
 
 E. J. Johnson, 
 Manager American Ostrich Company, FallbrooJc, San Diego County, Cat. 
 
 Hon. Wllliam "Vandevek, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 CURRANTS FROM GREECE. 
 
 Department of State, 
 
 Waahinglon, February 28, 1890. 
 Sir : I have the honor to transmit to you herewith for the consideration of your 
 committee a copy of a dispatch from our minister at Athens concerning the duty on 
 currants imported from Greece into this country. 
 
 I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 James G. Blaine. 
 Hon. William McKinlby, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 No. 24.] Legation of the United States, 
 
 Athens, January 28, 1890. 
 
 Sir : I have the honor to submit the following observations for your consideration 
 and such official action as you may deem proper to take. 
 
 As the present Congress has now under consideration, in conformity with the reo- 
 
1096 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 ommendations contained in the President's messages, a revision of onr import duties, 
 with special referencH to a reduction of the revenues derived therefrom, in so far as 
 "not to impair the just and reasonable protection of our home industries," I feel 
 justified in recommending that the present duty imposed upon currants be removed. 
 My reasons for this action are — 
 
 First. That these seedless grapes do not come directly into comj)etition with any 
 home product, and could only remotely compete with our grapes in the manufacture 
 of a very low grade of wine. The possibility of any competition from the importa- 
 tion of dried currants is so improbable that when the question of reducing or remov- 
 ing the duty therefrom was before a former Congress the best informed representa- 
 tive of the wine-growing sectiou of California, so I .am informed, ridiculed the idea 
 of competition from this source with the prolific vineyards of the Golden State. 
 
 Second. The removal of the present duty of 1 cent )ier pound, would induce a large 
 increase in the consumption of this delicious table fruit among the masses of our 
 people, which is most desirable. On this point I beg the privilege of quoting from 
 a communication addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury by the "Foreign Fruit 
 Exchange of New York," under date of January 15, 1886, in which, in referring to 
 currants among other imported fruits the following statement is made : "It appears 
 an undisputed fact that the great consumption of these articles (fruits) is by the 
 middling and poorer classes in all parts of this country (America) and it would seem 
 to be of the highest importance aud at the same time most desirable under existing 
 circumstances that they should be put within the reach of all consumers at the low- 
 est possible cost." 
 
 The chief advantage to be derived by the people of Greece from the removal of the 
 duty now imposed on currants imported into the United States will be in the in- 
 creased consumption resulting from the reduced cost to the consumer. 
 
 For, whilst I think the industrial history of the United States abundantly dis- 
 proves the theory advanced in some quarters that the cost of an article to the con- 
 sumer is increased ju'ecisely to the amount of the duty thereon, even when the duty 
 has been imposed to foster home productions, I am equally clear that the results na- 
 urally following the removal of a duty inaposed for revenue only, and which gave no 
 stimulant to home competition would be a reduction in the cost of the article to the 
 consumer equal to the amount of the duty removed. This, I am sure, will be the re- 
 sult in the case under consideration, for the reason that the paramount need of Greece 
 18 not to obtain an increased price, but an enlarged market for the product which 
 now forms nearly 60 per cent, of her entire exports, and which is capable of great 
 expansion. 
 
 Another argument, not one of dollars or cents, that may be urged in favor of the 
 repeal of the duty, resides in the fact that for nearly three-quarters of a century there 
 has existed between the Greek people and those of our great country the most cor- 
 dial and kindly feeling. The encouragement aud assistance extended by our Govern- 
 ment and people in the heroic struggle for Greek independence has left in the minds 
 and hearts of this people a cordial and grateful feeling for our own country and coun- 
 trymen that every American must recognize who visits this classical land. 
 
 Besides this, the political institutions of the two countries are less dissimilar in sub- 
 stance than in name. For whilst Greece is called a kingdom, it derives its vital force 
 from the people ; indeed, in many respects it is the most democratic government in 
 existence, having but one legislative chamber, elected with universal suffrage, 
 directly by the people. This chamber alone authorizes all public expenditures, and is 
 in fact the supreme power in the government. 
 
 Although the Greeks of to-day through energy, economy, and industry are advanc- 
 ing in education and in material prosperity, they are poor when contrasted with our 
 people. We can not, however, forget their ancient aud immortal contributions to 
 civilization, literature, and art, their wonderful history as a people, as well 'as their 
 many sacrifices in the protracted struggle for independence. These, in counection 
 with their present needy condition, alike ajjpeal to us, a favored free people, to render 
 to them such aid as we can, especially as in this instance it can be done without 
 injury and with possible advantages to our own people. The case may be briefly 
 summed up as follows : 
 
 As it is desirable to reduce the revenues derived from imposts where it can be done 
 without detriment to our working classes, and as the duty now imposed upon cur- 
 rants appears to serve no purpose except to increase the revenue, and as the abroga- 
 tion of the duty would lessen the cost and thereby increases the consumption of this 
 healthful fruit among the masses of our people and at the same time benefit a heroic 
 aud friendly nation, I most heartily recommend that currants be placed on the free 
 list. 
 
 I have the honor, etc., 
 
 A. IjOUDon Snowdbn. 
 
 Hon. .James G. Blaine, 
 
 Secretary of State, IFashingtov, D. C. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1097 
 
 CUREANTS AND RAISINS FROM TURKEY. 
 
 Department of State, 
 
 Washington, March 15, 1890. 
 Sir: I have the honor to transmit for the information of your committee a copy of 
 a note from the minister of Tarljey here, together witli a copy of the statement there- 
 with inclosed, asliing that Turkish currants and raisins be included in the " tree list" 
 for the reasons given. 
 
 I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 Jambs G. Blaine. 
 
 Hon. Wm. McKinlby, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 Turkish Legation, 
 Washington, March 13, l>i90. 
 Mr. Sbcrbtart : I have the honor to inclose herewith the coxjy of a translation of 
 a report I have just received from some Turkish merchants. 1 should be very much 
 obliged if you would kindly forward same to the Ways and Means Committee of the 
 House of Representatives. I consider the contents of said report as extremely inter- 
 esting and worthy of the always impartial consideration of the honorable members 
 of the House. 
 
 Accept, etc., 
 
 Mavroyeni. 
 Hon. James G. Blanb, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 copy of a report sent by TURKISH MERCHANTS. 
 
 If the late Republican bill's provision (Mr. Randall's) as regards Zante currants 
 (from Greece) are going to be maintained in Mr. McKinley's bill, that is to say, if 
 Zaute currants and others are going to bo put on the free list, we wish to remark that 
 it will naturally follow that the Turkish currants known as Sultani will be included 
 in the above clause for the following reason : Oar Turkish currants of "Sultani" 
 are, owing to their quality and kind, in less competition with any currants that may 
 grow on California soil than even the Zaute currants from Greece. 
 
 If, therefore, Mr. McKinley puts on the free list the Zante currants, the " Sultani " 
 currants will be included as a matter of course. 
 
 We think it also advisable to draw the attention of Mr. McKinley to the fact that 
 not only the above kind of "Sultani," but also all kinds of Turkish raisins are en- 
 tirely dissimilar from the kind known as Malaga raisins, which latter are considered 
 to be in competition with the California ones. Consequently our Turkish raisins, be- 
 ing in no competition whatever with any raisins grown, or to be grown iu California 
 (because the difference lies in the quality of our soil), an express provision ought to 
 be made in the coming tariff bill, not only as regards " Sultani" currants (which 
 have been already provided for by the Randall bill), but also concerning all kinds of 
 Turkish raisins, which we report have nothing to do with California Malaga raisins.. 
 Instead of putting, therefore, on the free list "Zante currants and otiiers," to avoid 
 all possible misrepresentation of this text the following one would be clearer : " Zaute 
 currants, Sultani, others of the same kind, and all Turkish raisins." 
 
 Our other Turkish fruits, like flgs, were also, we think, put on the free list by Mr. 
 Randall for the same reason, namely, that they were not in any competition what- 
 ever with any American fruit of the same kind. Such being still the case, we are 
 sure that Mr. McKinley will also put the above on the free list by an express pro- 
 vision. 
 
1098 EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 THE SUGAR BEET. 
 
 [For additional sugar see ante, page 624.J 
 STATEMENT OF GLAUS SPRECKELS. 
 
 Mr. Claus Spp.eckels, of Philadelphia, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear before you, gentlemen, to 
 state that I think the greatest industry, the greatest agriculture for tlie farmers, is 
 the industry of beet, and I have taken it up on that account. I guess you are all 
 aware that our farmers complain that their property is going down and that their 
 farms do not bring as much now as they did twenty years ago. There is a reason for 
 it, and they will continue to deteriorate more and more. In former years they got 
 more for their wheat, and their land was not worked out as much as it is now and it 
 is going down deeper in the mire all the time. There is one single thing for the 
 farmers to cultivate that will bring their farms up, and that is the beet cultnre ; noth- 
 ing else will do it. I say to you gentlemen that as sure as I stand before you the 
 time will come when the American people will raise their sugar in their own country 
 and export it, instead of importing it. I sunk a good deal of money in it, and three 
 years ago I went to Europe to study it and to order machinery. I formed a corpo- 
 ration with six gentlemen as associates — I am the seventh — and I said to them, " What 
 stock will you take?" Each of them took |10,000, makiug $60,000, and I said I would 
 take $440,000. I wanted it done that way so that if there was a loss I would stand 
 to lose nearly all ; so I kept that amount of stock and I have got it to-day. I went to 
 Germany to examine to see if we could do it. Of course the first difflculty is in the 
 labor. Our labor is $2 a day. Now, the beet culture requires a good deal more labor 
 than other farm products. Now, the people said that they could not cultivate this 
 beet because they had no labor. I said to them, " Let us see ; you have your young- 
 sters here, fifteen, sixteen years old 4 you can put them to work at this. When they 
 are doing nothing else they are off 'tishing or hunting. Put them at this and learn 
 them to be industrious." So »e have taken young people there and a young fellow 
 has come and said, " These are the clothes I bought for myself and I have |35 in a 
 savings bank." This industry helps to make them an industrious people, and in- 
 stead of running around, they will save money and make themselves good farmers. 
 
 Now, if you will listen, I will explain why our farmers will reap a benefit from this 
 and the land will be richer. First, the beet has to be plowed and cultivated much 
 better and they will find they have at least double the wheat to the acre. You will 
 say, "Now where is the fertilizers?" I will explain where the farmers get that. 
 First, the beet takes up the salt and it takes up the sugar. The sugar is put in by 
 the air and sun which does not cost anything, and the beet does not take as much in- 
 gredients out of the soil as wheat or barley. Now, the process of manufacturing is 
 this : That beet contains sugar and salt of potash. When the sugar is taken from 
 that, there 13 40 to 50 per cent, of sugar more or less; but the salt will not let this sugar 
 crystallize, and rhere you have a difficulty. This is taken and itgoes through aproc- 
 ess where it is put into a vat with powdered lime and there is cooled by cold water 
 at a temperature below 66. From there it goes to a press and after thatyou have the 
 whole mixture, lime and salt. Then we open a cook and a jelly fluid runs out and 
 that is the salt. Now we have got the sugar and lime together, call it sugar of lime. 
 Now as soon as this strikes a heat of 80 degrees the lime lets the sugar go. Put it 
 through another process and you have got the sugar of 98 degrees, the sugar and the 
 lime separated. Now, then, this potash we all know is the richest thing that we can 
 jmt upon land, so the farmers can enrich their land through that. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Where is your factory situated? 
 
 Mr. Spkeckels. At Watsonville, Cal. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What is its capacity? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. The capacity is 6,000 tons in four months. 
 
 Mr. Carmsle. Of beets ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. No, of sugar. 
 
 Mr. FioWBR. Do you get as high as 16 percent. ? 
 
 Mr. Speckels. No. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Fourteen per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. We get 12 and a fraction ; last year I did not get 12. 
 
EEVISlfON OF THE TARIFF. 1099 
 
 Mr. Flower. That does not produce as much sngar to the beet as Nebraska and 
 some other sections ? 
 
 Mr. Speeckels. I can nut speak from that, as I only speak from my own experi- 
 ence. That varies in certain years ; this year it will be probably 14 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How many tons of beets does it take to make 6,000 tons of sugar ? 
 
 Mr. Speeckels. I am speaking about the average. They are not all alike, and 
 secondly the farmers will not cultivate them all alike, and there is a great difference. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It would be about 7 tons of beet to make a ton of sugar. 
 Mr. Speeckels. You can say it would be about 8^ to 9. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. With the proper cultivation on the part of the farmers and such 
 process as you have in California now, about what percentage of sugar can be ob- 
 tained? 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. In some circumstances by certain farmers they take out an aver- 
 age of 14 per cent. ; I am speaking about the average. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. Take the average farmer as they cultivate it, not cultivated as it 
 ought to be cultivated, what percentage of sugar can you get? 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. I offered the premium of |250 for the best product of a 5-acre lot 
 which would produce the richest and best beets and make the most sugar out of it, 
 
 and for 10 acres I offer the premium of $500. Mr. —, of Watsonville, got that 
 
 |500 and he got very near to 3 tons of sugar to the acre. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is not the amount of saccharine or glucose matter in the beet contin- 
 gent to a certain extent on the season, the weather? 
 Mr. Spkeckles. Largely. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Can you develop the seed of the beet such as the horse and cattle and 
 make it yield better? 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. They are doing it. 
 
 Mr. Flower. In one instance they have got 22 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. I know it ; I had some 24 per cent., but that is not the average. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What will be the ordinary average yield per acre to the farmer in 
 money for its beet ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. There it differs again. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Take the average. 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. I am sorry I did not bring the whole thiug with me. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You cau tell generally ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. As I say, some farmers make as much as .$55 to $60. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. How many tons of beets to an acre? 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. The first year they have been getting as high as 25 to 26 tons ; that 
 was the highest. Some go down as low as 10. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What are they worth a ton ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. I pay $4 a ton up to 14 per cent. After 14 per cent. I give 50 cents 
 for each degree, and the average would be about $5.05 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How many crops of beets can be cultivated on land without some 
 other crops ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. The experience in Germany has been that after, perhaps, twenty 
 years they could not raise beets every year, and they have come to the conclusion that 
 it is best to raise them every third year. The next year they will plant barley, then 
 they will plant wheat, and then they go back to beets again. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. With that rotation, can we have beet cultivation indefinitely ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. Yes, sir. I know that in California, where they have new laud, 
 they can not come up to Germany in grain raising now. I know when I was a boy 
 there it was hard to get bread as it was so high. They raise wheat and hogs now. 
 Bismarck saiy8,"You shall raise those hogs here." I say here that it is the beet cul- 
 ture of Germany that has given them these advantages. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Now, if we introd uce the beet culture here, what becomes of us ! 
 
 Mr. Spkeckles. We consume it ; we do not export it now. Germany exports per- 
 haps this year 700,000 tons. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Is your factory running at a profit now f 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. We have made over 6 per cent, on the capital. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much beet-sugar have you made? 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. On the whole, I should say 3,200 tous. This last season was a bad 
 season. It was dry, and the farmers there did not produce over 10 tons to the acre. 
 We had a very unfavorable season on account of this dryness. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The beet requires a very moist climate t 
 
 Mr. Spebckles. Not exactly. The beet goes down rather deep, and if there is 
 moisture it gets it. For several years we have had very little rain, but this year we 
 certainly got enough. 
 
 Mr. Geae. The climate of Germany is rather moist ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You have stated to us how much product an acre of beet will 
 bring, can yon give us some idea of the cost of producing that? 
 
1100 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. I can only state from my own experience in the first year. I bad 
 a big loss on my ranch. 
 
 Mr. Bebckineidge. Of course we do not want the exceptions. Take a farm where 
 a fair experience has been obtained ; how ought the cultivation and marketing of an 
 acre of beet to compare, for instance, with the cultivation and marketing that is 
 putting it in the local market, of an acre of wheat ? 
 
 Mr. Sprecklbs. You mean what it costs for an acre in the cultivation ? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The whole cost of production. 
 
 Mr. Sprbckles. As I have stated, on some farms they make a good deal of money 
 per acre where others have lost ; so it is pretty hard for me to say. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am not speaking so much as to the process as to find out 
 what it costs to raise. You tell us what it brings, we know there are variations, but 
 I want a general idea, if you can give it to us, of what it costs now to get that. We 
 can figure on what it costs in a general way to cultivate, pick, and market an acre 
 of cotton, or to cultivate and market an acre of corn or wheat. 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. It is quite different in localities. Perhaps there it will be from 
 $3 50 to $4 a ton, may be fi'om !|3 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. To produce per ton of sugar or per ton of beet ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. Per ton of beet. 
 
 Mr. Bebckinridge. That includes what? 
 
 Mr. Sprbckles. The whole thing delivered to the factory. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And the interest on the rent of the land, etc. ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. That I could not say. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Or do you mean the mere cultivating and harvesting expenses ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. I mean, suppose a man has a farm, has a ranch and cultivates it. 
 He may have so many in his family and they do not keep certain account of it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You mean his actual expenditure to get that ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckles. It is pretty hard to give it exactly. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What parts of this country in your j udgment are suitable for the cul- 
 tivation of beets for sugar ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. I think the beet will mature better in a cold climate than it will 
 in a warm climate, the warmer the climate the less the beet will mature. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Can you indicate the parts of the country where it is best suitable 
 for its cultivation? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. Take all the Western country, there is no trouble about it. 
 
 Mi. Carlisle. You mean all west of the Mississippi River 1 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How about any part of the country east of the Mississippi River ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. That I can not of course answer, because I have not studied that 
 soil. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. But you said it can be done in the country west of the Mississippi 
 River. 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. There is no question about that. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You are satislied it can be done in California ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. Yes, sir, I am satisfied of that. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. How do the farmers take to the cultivation of the beet in the place 
 where your factory is ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. They like it very well. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Do you know anything about the Alvarado factory ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Is that run at a profit since last year ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. I suppose it did. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Have you not heard it did ; are they not contemplating extending 
 their worksthere? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Are you not contemplating extending your works ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. Yes, sir; I am going to have the machinery built to put it up. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Have you auy doubt from your experience about the successful 
 raising of beet sugar in this country at a profit ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. There is no question of that. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Now what would be the effect, if any, upon your pnrpose td enter 
 into this business if this committee should take the duty off sugar and give you a 
 bounty on the beet sugar produced ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. The trouble about the bounty is that my associates say that if a 
 bounty is given they are going to quit ; we are not going to put up additional factories. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You will not extend your business? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. We can not. As I stated to you I put $440,000 in the first factory. 
 You gentlemen know I could not put that amount in every factory ; the other one is 
 composed of other capital, but I am interested in that factory. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Where are you contemplating putting that factory ? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1101 
 
 Mr. SpkbCKKLS. We have several places in view, but we liave not come to a decis- 
 ion. We ,ire waiting to see what Congress will do. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. If Congress does not take the duty off sugar what will yon do ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckbls. Put it np. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. And you are satisfied you can make a success of it? 
 
 Mr. Spreckbls. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How many tons of beets is a fair yield to an acre in California ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckbls. We average from 10 to 25, according to the land. 
 
 Mr, Gear. I think you said you paid $4 a ton for beets which contained 12 per 
 cent, of sugar. 
 
 Mr. Spreckelr. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And you paid .'JO cents a ton for each degree over 14 ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckbls. About 14 by the polariscope. You know you do not always get it 
 as the polariscope says. 
 
 Mr. Gear. But you give 50 cents a degree for all that goes above that ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckbls. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the average in Germany ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckbls. I think in Germany they have about from 14 to 20. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you know the prices paid in Germany ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckbls. About the same, |4.50 to $5. Still, if you will allow me to say, in 
 Germany one-third of thu farmers h.T,ve thoir own plant. They club together in a dis- 
 trict and the farmer who may own 10 acres get so much stock, a.nd they go to the 
 liank and borrow the money and build a factory, and it is incorporated. That is 
 what I have advocated here. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. There is no reason why that should not be established here ? 
 
 Mr, Spreckbls. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The price paid in California and in Germany is about the same f 
 
 Mr. Spreckbls. Y'es, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Therefore it is more profitable in Germany to the grower, because of 
 the lower price of labor in that country. 
 
 Mr. Spreckbls. Yes, sir. There is another thing ; we have the pulp, and the pulp 
 in Germany is actually worth two-thirds of what the beet is worth. They use it to 
 feed the cattle, and they have dairies. Here the farmers say they do not want it, and 
 it is poured out in a heap. It lies there ; you can keep that a whole year. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How long can you grind the beets — how long does the season last ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckbls. In our climate we can grind up to January. 
 
 Mr. Gear. When does your harvest begin ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckbls. About the latter part of August ; three months is about enough. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It is a little longer than the cane season in Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. Spreckbls. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Can a beet refinery be run all the year ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckbls. No, sir ; you can not keep the beets too long. In Germany there 
 
 will be a freeze, and at a certain time they get the beets and bury them in the 
 
 • ground and put straw around them, and in the winter they bring them to the factory. 
 
 Mr, Breckinridge. They run their factories the whole year. 
 
 Mr, Spreckbls. No, sir ; about three mouths. They start a little later than we do. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. They run a corresponding period. 
 
 Mr, Spreckbls. In California they can run four months ; they start there about 
 the 1st of October. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. So when you begin the manufacture you immediately complete 
 the operation and give out the sugar for consumption ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckbls. Not for consumption. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You are not running a refinery, but what you call a factory ? 
 It has to be subsequently refined. 
 
 Mr. Spreckbls, Yes, sir. Here and at Alvarado I am glad to see they made it a 
 success. They went up tbe flume a couple of times, but now a gentleman named 
 Burr came to me and said : " Can I sell sugar to you ?" and I said certainly, and I 
 buy the sugar and refine it, 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What is the sugar worth per pound as it comes from the factory 
 
 what does it sell for now ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckbls, The price to-day is 51, testing 96, 
 
 Mr. Carlisle, How does it compare with the price of cane sugar with the same 
 amount of saccharine matter in it ? 
 
 Mr, Spreckbls, We pay a little less for the beet. We do not pay as much for the 
 beet sugar as for the other for this reason, that you have the salt to contend with 
 
 where the other is simply sirup where 
 
 Mr, McKenna, Are you talking of refined sugar ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckbls, Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I asked you for the price of sugar as it comes from the factory. 
 
 Mr. Spkbckels. That would be worth about a half a cent less per pound. 
 
1102 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That would be about 5 cents, and that is a little lower than cane 
 sugar with the same amouut of saccharine strength. 
 
 Mr. Sprbckels. It would be I'rora a half to three-eighths of a cent. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Depending upon the polariscope. 
 
 Mr. Brckinridge. In speaking of that part of the country which is adapted to 
 the growth of the sugar beet you said the country west of the Mississippi River. 
 How far north will that ran and how far south ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. I could not answer that exactly. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. East and west, of course, is not a very good description of a 
 scope of country, but I believe they are putting up a sugar factory in Nebraska ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. I believe so. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. So it looks as if it was going pretty far north. Do you believe 
 this business could be made profitable down as low as Louisiana and Texas? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. That I could not say. I do not know whether the beets would 
 keep on continually growing. I do not know whether you could get it in Louisiana 
 or Texas. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I understand you to say that from your present experience 
 and observation you have more faith of its being a success in more northern lati- 
 tudes. 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. There is no question. Where you have a great deal of moisture 
 and a warmer climate I do not think it matures well. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Still it is considered that a colder climate is more conducive by virtue 
 of the fact that it ripens, while in the warmer climate it keeps on growing and grow- 
 ing and the sugar does not concentrate. 
 
 Sir. Spreckels. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. Does it produce in southern California? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. Yes, sir ; that is the richest of all. We have gotten from there 18 
 to 24 per cent. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. They are contemplating erecting factories in southern California ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Do you know of Mr. Girde ? 
 
 Mr. SP'iECKELS. I am not acquainted with him. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You know of him by name? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels, Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. He is a capitalist of Southern California ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. I believe so. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You know he contemplates erecting a beet-sugar factory ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How long do you think, under favorable conditions, it will take to fairly 
 develop the beet industry of this country, not perhaps to supply our own wants, but 
 to fairly develop it ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. It is only a question of the capitalists being assured that the tariff 
 will be kept on. We have got to develop and to learn considerably to get up to the 
 standard of the old country. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Suppose you had no tariflE and had labor just as cheap as it is in Ger- 
 many, you could develop it just as well as vrith a tariff? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. If we had labor just as cheap and had our mechanics and capital 
 as cheap, I say the American people can beat any nation. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You say you do not pay any more in California than in Germany. 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. But other causes enter. In that factory there, I use about two- 
 hundred and fifty men, and I pay them |I2 where the men in Germany are paid 1 
 mark, which is about 25 cents. I have paid in California as high as f 17 a ton, and 
 they paid in Germany about $1.50 to $2 a ton ; you must consider freights. The first 
 year I paid the railroad $41,000 for freight. Yon must not forget that there are many 
 things that enter into it. You must not forget that the pulp in Germany is worth 
 two-thirds of what the sugar is, and here we throw it away, while there they feed it 
 to the stock. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do not your people use the pulp for feed ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. We have tried to get them to use it. I give the whole thing away. 
 
 Mr. Gear. If you will start a beet factory in my State we will assure you that we 
 will buy the pulp. 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. You have to get people educated up to it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. May I ask you a question a little outside of this special matter? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. Just a moment, before he leaves this subject. I do not know 
 whether it was stated by Mr. Spreckels or not. I understand you to say the cost per 
 ton to the farmer to raise the beets would be from $3 to $4 ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. It would be less than |4. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Per ton 1 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. Yes, sir.* 
 
 * See Mr. Spreckels's letter, which is appended to this hearing. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1103 
 
 Mr. Gear. You import sugar from the Sandwich Islands ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckkls. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And that comes in free ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckbls. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And you export refined sugar from this country t 
 
 Mr. Sprbckels. Here? 
 
 Mr. Gear. From California ? 
 
 Mr. Spreokels. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. To Honolulu? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And other points. You get a drawback from the Government on that 
 sugar? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. Yes, sir; but not on the Hawaiian sugar. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You get no drawbacli from that. 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. No, sir. I imported from the Philippine Islands 35,000 tons, and 
 perhaps 3,000 or 4,000 tons from South America. 
 
 Mr, Carlisle. On that you get a drawback if you export it. 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. In tlie way it is stated, I think it would appear that he receives a 
 drawback on the Hawaiian. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I was looking over a Government report on that question which brought 
 it to my mind. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there anything further you desire to say ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. I think I have kept you gentlemen long enough. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How does the consumption of sugar in this country compare with other 
 countries, that is, the per capita consumption? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. I believe in this country somewhere in the neighborhood of 51 
 pounds per capita, where in England it is 02 pounds, and Germany has 
 
 Mr. Gear. I beg your pardon ; I think the Englisli consumption is 77. 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. Well, that may be. Of course, I do not keep these figures in my 
 head. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How do prices compare in this country aud in England ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. It is a great deal cheaper in England than here. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The wholesale price of sugar in England is 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. It is a good deal less than it is here. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the current market price for granulated sugar ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. It is 6^- cents to-day. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That is pretty low. What is the price of white A ? 
 Mr. Spreckels. I can not say. I have not made white A. I make granulated en- 
 tirely. This, I will tell you, gentlemen, I look to see you raise in this country all the 
 sugar that is consumed here. It will come as sure as I stand before you. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How long a time will it be before it comes ? 
 
 Mr. Spreckels. If you assure us that there is not to beany change in the taritf, 
 and you had one hundred Glaus Spreckels, I think we would do it iu three or four 
 years. I have so many irons in the fire that I have to watch them pretty closely to 
 keep them from burning. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Your irons never will burn. We know all about yon. 
 
 Washington, D. C, February 21, 1890. 
 
 To Chairman Ways and Means Committee : 
 
 In my statement before your committee, on the 20th instant, I believe I stated that 
 while I did not know, I thought the cost of production of a ton of sugar t^eots to the 
 farmer was from S3 to $4. 
 
 Since which time, in looking over some statements in regard to this matter, I find 
 that it has been with us less than |2.50 when properly cultivated, and hence desire 
 to correct my statement in this respect. 
 
 Clacs Spreckels. 
 
1104 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 GERMANY'S BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY. 
 
 The following statement was prepared by Dr. William D. Warner, United States 
 consul at Cologne, and is taken from the Consular Reports: 
 
 In the hope that the sugar crisis of the campaign of 1885-86 would soon come to 
 an end, the area of beets planted in 1837 was not very much larger than that culti- 
 vated in the preceding year, which had been reduced as much as possible in order to 
 avoid an overproduction. The condition of the industry in the campaign of 1886-'87 
 did not turn out as it had been hoped it would, and so it was again thought neces- 
 sary to reduce the production in the following campaign. In 1887 the manufactur- 
 ers not only reduced their area, but also made smaller contracts with the farmers. 
 The farmers, therefore, who raise beets for sale — that is, those who are not manu- 
 facturers themselves — planted less because tbey were unable any longer to realize the 
 profits which they had hoped for. 
 
 The production of beets in the campaign 1884-'85 amounted in tons to 10,402,688; 
 campaign 1885-'86, to 7,070,316 ; campaign 1886-87, to 8,306,671 ; and campaign 
 18d7-'88, to 6,963,960. The prices paid for beets in the last campaign ranged from 
 L.'JO to 2.40 marks per 100 kilos. 
 
 The technical improvements in the campaign of 1887-88 in beet-sugar manufact- 
 ure consisted in evaporation contrivances and filtering processes. The improve- 
 ment in the first instance consisted in a greater saving in the use of the waste steam 
 by making the evaporation space larger, and the heating of the apparatus more than 
 formerly with indirect steam, whereby a material saving in heating fuel is accom- 
 plished. In the purifying of the beet juice sulphurous acid has been brought more 
 into use ; also the repeating treatment of the juice with lime and carbonic acid, with 
 the use of the filtering presses, has proved satisfactory. A new separation process, 
 with the addition of carbonate of magnesia, is reported to have worked with good re- 
 sults in the Rhineland. 
 
 In the Campaign of 1887-88 there were 167 factories that prepared sugar from 
 molas.ses, against 137 in the preceding campaign, of which 84 worked by the " Os- 
 mose " process. As long as the prices of sugar were low and the price of molasses 
 proportionately so this process went largely out of use on account of too small prof- 
 its, but it has been recommenced in the last year by a large number of factories be- 
 cause the corresponding prices of sugar and molas.ses have been more favorable. In 
 the campaign of 1886-'87, 55 factories worked with the "Osmose" process, 3 in 
 1885-'86, 79 in 1884-'85, 115 in 1883-'84, 124 in 1882-'83, and 135 in 1881-'82. In 
 1886-'87, 48 factories worked with the "elutiou" process, 9 with the "substitu- 
 tion," 3 with the "precipitation," 20 with the "separation," 3 with the "stron- 
 tium," and 1 with the "Mauoury.", 
 
 The following quantities of molasses were used for being converted into sugar by 
 the above factories in the campaign of 1886-'87 : 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Osmose process 68,954 
 
 Elution anil precipitation process 88,256 
 
 Snbstitutioa process 11, 754 
 
 Separation process 39, 889 
 
 Strontium process 6, 341 
 
 All other processes 701 
 
 Total 215,965 
 
 The prices of sugar in the last campaign were more favorable in consequence of the 
 prospect of a reduction in the production of beets, aud of smaller supply of sugar on 
 hand. In September and October there was a considerable sinking in the prices, but 
 from that time they began to rise, when in January their highest points were reached. 
 During the remaining period of the campaign, although the moveuieut in the prices 
 from February to May was downward, it took an upward course in June and July. 
 The average prices of sugar in the principal markets of Germany per 100 kilograms 
 during the last and preceding campaigns were as follows : 
 
 
 Eefined sugar. 
 
 Raw sugar. 
 
 Campaign. 
 
 Bmns- 
 wick. 
 
 Cologne. 
 
 Matlge- 
 burg. 
 
 Bruns- 
 wiclt. 
 
 Cologne. 
 
 Madge- 
 burg. 
 
 1887-'88 
 
 Marks. 
 58. 76 
 63. 36 
 
 Marks. 
 59. 43 
 64.43 
 
 Marks. 
 57. 70 
 52.64 
 
 Marks. 
 40.33 
 41.27 
 
 Marks. 
 48.67 
 43.53 
 
 Marks. 
 46.39 
 
 1886-'87 
 
 41.29 
 
 
 
EEVISION OF THE TAEIPF. 
 
 1105 
 
 The annexed table of the production of beet sugar in Germany during' the past 
 seventeen years shows what wonderful progress there has been made in this one in- 
 dustry in Germany. The number of factories iu operation rose from 311 in 1871-72 
 to 391 in lt:i87-'88, and the quantity of beets worked during the same period rose from 
 2,250,000 to near 7,000,000 tons. The largest quantity of beets worked during said 
 period was in 1884-'85, which amounted to 10,500,000 tons. [See Table A.] 
 
 The exports of raw beet sugar from the German Zollvereiu rose from 5,6ti6 tons in 
 1871-'72 to 553,793 tons in 1884-'e5 which fell off to 344,710 tons in 1887-'88. The ex- 
 port bounties amounted in 1871-'72 to about $922,468, and in 1887-88 to a little over 
 12,700,000. The total gross receipts of the taxes on sugar in 1871-72, including the im- 
 port duties, were $11,546,044, and in 1887-'88, $26,040,844. The net income, therefore, 
 to the Government, that is after deducting the bouuty, was only a little above 
 $1,000,000 in 1887-88, against $10,625,000 in 1871-72. The highest net income re- 
 ceived by the Government during the seveuteea years was in 1882-83, when it 
 amounted to about 18,000,000. 
 
 Beveimes from taxes on sugar ieet collected in the Zollvereiu of Germany. 
 
 Tears. 
 
 Gross re- 
 ceipts 
 from sugar 
 tax. 
 
 Gross re- 
 ceipts 
 
 from im- 
 port 
 
 duty on 
 sugar. 
 
 Total g:ros8 
 
 receipts 
 from all 
 
 taxes 
 aud duty. 
 
 Bounties 
 on exports. 
 
 Net receipts from taxes 
 and duties. 
 
 
 Total. 
 
 Per capita. 
 
 1880-81 
 
 $24, 077, 024 
 23, 883, 676 
 33, 309, 158 
 33, 960, 239 
 39, 613, 436 
 26, 923, 766 
 33,608,791 
 28, 176, 263 
 
 $352,470 
 361, 297 
 411,765 
 333, 314 
 328, 107 
 341,4.55 
 293, 161 
 442, 135 
 
 $24, 429, 494 
 24, 244, 873 
 
 33, 720, 923 
 
 34, 293, 553 
 39,911,513 
 
 27, 265, 221 
 33, 901, 952 
 
 28, 618, 388 
 
 $13,468,421 
 10, 332, 189 
 17, 700, 644 
 22,919,935 
 30, 571, 744 
 21, 436, 075 
 27, 175, 207 
 27, 040, 844 
 
 $10, 971, 073 
 
 13, 912, 684 
 
 16, 014, 279 
 
 11, 373, 618 
 
 9, 369, 799 
 
 5, 829, 146 
 
 6, 726, 745 
 1, 577, 644 
 
 cents. 
 
 28i 
 31 
 
 1881 '82 
 
 1882-'83 
 
 35J 
 26 
 
 1883 '84 
 
 1884-'85 
 
 lit 
 
 i4i 
 
 3i 
 
 1885-'86 
 
 1886 '87 
 
 1887-'88 
 
 
 Table A. — Production of heel-sugar in Germany from 1871-'72 to 1887-'88. 
 
 
 i 
 
 & 
 
 .g 
 s 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 Factories obtain- 
 ing Juice by— 
 
 O 
 
 0-73 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 .p 
 
 3.g 
 II 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 m to 
 
 « 2 
 
 -a'S 
 SS 
 
 o 
 
 1 ' 
 1 
 
 Quantities obtained. 
 
 Campaigns. 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 i 
 
 p, 
 
 M 
 
 £ 
 
 i 
 
 f 
 o 
 
 B, 
 
 a; 
 
 .CI 
 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 tJO 
 
 a 
 
 
 1871 '72 
 
 311 
 324 
 337 
 333 
 332 
 328 
 329 
 324 
 328 
 333 
 343 
 358 
 376 
 408 
 399 
 401 
 391 
 
 52 
 63 
 80 
 113 
 157 
 197 
 224 
 258 
 291 
 309 
 324 
 343 
 368 
 402 
 395 
 387 
 387 
 
 216 
 
 220 
 
 214 
 
 181 
 
 137 
 
 98 
 
 81 
 
 50 
 
 28 
 
 20 
 
 16 
 
 12 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 43 
 
 41 
 
 43 
 
 39 
 
 38 
 
 33 
 
 24 
 
 16 
 
 9 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Tons. 
 2, 250, 918 
 3, 181, 560 
 
 5, 628, 763 
 
 2, 756, 745 
 .4, 161, 284 
 
 3, 550, 036 
 
 4, 090, 963 
 4, 628, 747 
 4, 805, 261 
 0, 322, 203 
 6,271,947 
 8,747, 183 
 8,918, 130 
 
 10, 402, 688 
 7,070.316 
 8,306,671 
 
 6, 963, U60 
 
 Tons. 
 1,. 504, 351 
 2, 101, 301 
 1, 420, 908 
 1,908,094 
 
 1, 836, 305 
 
 2, 490, 153 
 
 1, 872, 775 
 3,114,029 
 
 2, 850, 586 
 
 3, 871, 678 
 
 3, 4:) 1 , 753 
 
 4, 448, 631 
 4, 205, 063 
 4, 936, 245 
 4, 199,047 
 4, 436, 083 
 3, 797, 651 
 
 Tons. 
 
 746, 567 
 1, 080, 249 
 1, 107, 855 
 
 848, 050 
 1, 324, 977 
 1, 059, 882 
 1,218,192 
 1, 514, 717 
 
 1. 954, 675 
 
 2, 455, 052 
 
 2, 840; 194 
 4, 298, 521 
 
 4, 713, 066 
 
 5, 406, 44i 
 2,871,269 
 
 3, 870, 587 
 3, 166, 308 
 
 Tons. 
 
 26-', 993 
 
 371, 617 
 
 412, 114 
 
 308, 044 
 
 50:', 818 
 
 405, 503 
 
 615, 695 
 
 676, 180 
 
 5o5, 409 
 
 739, 336 
 
 774,004 
 
 1, 093, 555 
 
 1, 216, 879 
 
 1,448,618 
 
 1, 02.5, 777 
 
 1, 24.5, 9R3 
 
 1, 123, 929 
 
 Tons. 
 
 180,441 
 262, 651 
 291,040 
 2.56, 4 i2 
 358, 048 
 289, 422 
 378, 009 
 426, 156 
 409,415 
 555, 915 
 .599, 722 
 8:! 1,995 
 910,109 
 1, 123, 030 
 80S, 104 
 985, 627 
 910, 698 
 
 Tons. 
 03, 891 
 
 1872-'73 - ... 
 
 91, .588 
 
 1873 '74 
 
 lOJ, 818 
 
 1874-'75 
 
 97, 602 
 
 1875-'76 
 
 133, 952 
 
 1876-'77 
 
 111, 101 
 
 1877 '78 
 
 122,812 
 
 1878-'79 
 
 133. 651 
 
 1879 '80 
 
 131,370 
 
 1880 '81 
 
 101,984 
 
 1881 '82 
 
 150. 812 
 
 1882 '83 
 
 196, 304 
 
 1883-'84 
 
 207, 978 
 
 1884-'85 
 
 259, 699 
 
 1885-'86 
 
 180, 177 
 
 1886-'87 
 
 1887 '88 
 
 216,887 
 183, 036 
 
 
 Average for the 
 seventeen years. 
 
 331 
 
 256 
 
 76 
 
 18 
 
 5, 644, 549 
 
 3,260,274 
 
 2, 384, 275 
 
 743, 374 
 
 565,462 
 
 150, 039 
 
 485- 
 
 -70, 
 
1106 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 At the present date the beet-sugar production amounts in meter tons, 
 at 1,000 kilograms, to — 
 
 Countries. 
 
 1876-'77. 
 
 1881-'82, 
 
 1882-'83, 
 
 1884-'85. 
 
 1885-'S 
 
 1886-'87, 
 
 1887-'88. 
 
 In Germany 
 
 In Austria-Hungary. -- 
 
 In France 
 
 In Russia and Poland. . 
 
 In Bel^iiuin 
 
 In Netherlaads 
 
 In other countriea 
 
 Total production. 
 
 Tons. 
 289, 422 
 341, 653 
 243, 182 
 250, 000 
 4.5, 628 
 16, 078 
 10, 000 
 
 Tons. 
 699, 722 
 411,015 
 393, 269 
 308, 779 
 73, 136 
 20,000 
 10, 000 
 
 Tons. 
 
 848, 124 
 
 472, 002 
 
 423, 194 
 
 284, 491 
 
 82, 723 
 
 2.5, 000 
 
 10,000 
 
 Tons. 
 
 925, 000 
 
 435,000 
 
 450, 000 
 
 300,000 
 
 90, 000 
 
 30, 000 
 
 10, 000 
 
 Tons. 
 1, 12.1, 030 
 450, 000 
 475, OliO 
 320, 000 
 92, OUO 
 35, 000 
 10, 000 
 
 Tons. 
 808, 100 
 475, OOO 
 460, 000 
 315, 000 
 90, 000 
 32, 000 
 10,000 
 
 Tons. 
 985, 000 
 460, 600 
 465, 000 
 320, 000 
 93, 000 
 35, OUO 
 10,000 
 
 Tons. 
 910, 689 
 400, 000 
 400, 000 
 430, 000 
 93, 000 
 00, 000 
 
 1, 195, 663 1, 815, 921 
 
 2, 145, 534 2, 240, 000 2, 606, 030 
 
 2, 190, 100 
 
 2, 369, 200 
 
 2, 298, 000 
 
 Table A1. — Imports and exports of sugar in the German Customs Union. 
 [Quantities given in 100 kilograms.] 
 
 
 Imports. 
 
 Exports. 
 
 Fiscal years. 
 
 Refined 
 and raw 
 
 sugar, 
 
 Dntch 
 standard. 
 
 No. 19 
 and up. 
 
 Tvards. 
 
 Raw 
 sugar 
 below 
 Ifo. 19. 
 
 Sirup 
 and du- 
 tiable 
 mo- 
 lasses. 
 
 M clas- 
 ses for 
 distil- 
 leries. 
 
 Raw 
 sugar, etc. 
 (against 
 draw- 
 back). 
 
 Candy 
 su^ar 
 (agamst 
 draw- 
 back). 
 
 Other 
 hard su- 
 gar, etc. 
 (against 
 draw- 
 back). 
 
 Sugar 
 without 
 draw- 
 back. 
 
 Molas- 
 ses and 
 simp. 
 
 1. 
 
 2. 
 
 3. 
 
 4. 
 
 5. 
 
 6. 
 
 l._ 
 
 8. 
 
 9. 
 
 10. 
 
 1871-'72 
 
 127, 305 
 124, 886 
 161,483 
 141,010 
 145, 273 
 77, 097 
 49, 153 
 39, 012 
 29, 831 
 22, 654 
 22, 016 
 21, 038 
 1.5, 577 
 12, 645 
 12,300 
 14, 618 
 
 315, 832 
 97, 562 
 84, 148 
 89, 133 
 24, 626 
 10, 172 
 U, 674 
 1.5, 304 
 16,764 
 12, 652 
 1.5, 049 
 23, 706 
 18, 763 
 20,66^ 
 26, 203 
 15,675 
 
 73, 298 
 89, 323 
 61,021 
 66, 587 
 48, 397 
 53,189 
 41, 023 
 38, 329 
 28, 996 
 33, 220 
 33, 139 
 35, 309 
 32,216 
 33,372 
 28, 942 
 27, 166 
 
 81, 341 
 
 23, 716 
 
 50, 422 
 
 60, 335 
 
 4,748 
 
 28, 600 
 
 7 054 
 
 31, 827 
 
 72, 369 
 
 48,510 
 
 4,688 
 
 3,611 
 
 1,095 
 
 2,816 
 
 1 
 
 66, 065 
 
 81, 777 
 
 118, 092 
 
 28, 838 
 
 458, 942 
 
 462, 189 
 
 712, 010 
 
 1.034,718 
 
 951,016 
 
 2,214,420 
 
 2,539,310 
 
 3, 907, 027 
 
 4,911,701 
 
 5.537,931 
 
 4,040,716 
 
 4,89i;,801 
 
 41, 763 
 
 61,331 
 
 41,120 
 
 39, 452 
 
 47, 125 
 
 73, 935 
 
 140, 013 
 
 19;i,661 
 
 262, 364 
 
 363, 787 
 
 399, 160 
 
 493,811 
 
 642, 469 
 
 760, 154 
 
 060, 1 no 
 
 1,303,789 
 
 16, 328 
 
 28, 472 
 
 26,310 
 
 15,359 
 
 2.5, 329 
 
 43, 423 
 
 83, 416 
 
 113, 906 
 
 97, 063 
 
 206, 814 
 
 144,130 
 
 242, 181 
 
 298, 679 
 
 318, 852 
 
 205, 689 
 
 238, 828 
 
 19,394 
 
 8,043 
 
 21, 182 
 
 16,531 
 
 19, 588 
 
 9,857 
 
 6,764 
 
 2,243 
 
 2,073 
 
 1,056 
 
 616 
 
 646 
 
 597 
 
 403 
 
 365 
 
 414 
 
 6,861 
 
 8,563 
 35, 559 
 79, 363 
 79,829 
 84, 688 
 122, 624 
 148,744 
 174, 607 
 171,676 
 160,782 
 211,183 
 141,473 
 256, 381 
 660,018 
 551, 206 
 245, 004 
 
 1872-'73 
 
 1873-'74 
 
 1874 '75 
 
 1875-'76 
 
 1876-77. . 
 
 18(7-'78 
 
 1878-'79 . 
 
 1879 '80 
 
 1880-'81 
 
 1881 '82 
 
 ]882-'83..r. 
 
 1883-'84 
 
 ]884-'85 
 
 ]8a6-'«6 
 
 1886-'87 
 
 
 Average in 16 years 
 
 63,494 
 
 49, 864 
 
 43, 350 
 
 25,727 
 
 1, 997, 051 
 
 343, 377 
 
 131, 552 
 
 195,094 
 
THE SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY OF BOHEMIA. 
 
 REPORT BY COMMERCIAL AGENT HAWES, OF REICHENBERG. 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 During the year ended June 30, 1888, the United States imported sugar 
 including molasses and confectionery, amounting to ^79,760,891. So little 
 sugar is grown in the United States, indeed, that it has been proposed to re- 
 move the duty on this article upon the ground that we have no sugar industry 
 to protect. 
 
 The Department of Agriculture has for years, with the aid of Congress, 
 been endeavoring to establish a substitute for sugar-cane by the cultivation of 
 sorghum. While the latter experiments seem to show that sorghum can be 
 successfully cultivated and manufactured into sugar in the United States, I 
 desire to call attention to a subject that has passed beyond the stage of ex- 
 perimentation in Europe, and which, indeed, meets the indorsement of so 
 practical and successful a manufacturer as the well-known Claus Spreckels. 
 According to this authority, sugar-beet culture can be successful and profit- 
 able just as much on the Atlantic slope as on the Pacific, in the Mississippi 
 valley as in California. 
 
 Why should we pay out g8o, 000,000 yearly for an article that we can 
 easily produce ourselves? 
 
 Clearly, our efforts should be directed to the development and protection 
 of such an industry until we may be able to save the enormous sum now paid 
 to foreign countries, if not eventually to supply those countries themselves 
 with sugar. 
 
 It has been my aim to make the following report so complete that the 
 practical farmer, as well as the theorist, may become interested in the subject 
 and find all the details necessary for his information. I have also described 
 briefly the process of manufacture. 
 
 •With this preface I will pass directly to my subject, and first call attention 
 to the 
 
 CtJLTIVATION OF THE SUGAR-BEET. 
 
 The sugar-beet {Beta vulgaris sacchariferd) is a variety of the class Beta 
 vulgaris linncei, and belongs to the family ChenopodiacecB. It has become 
 biennial by cultivation, and there are many varieties. 
 
 The conditions required of a good sugar-beet are — 
 
 (i) Regular shape (cone, pear, or olive shape). Many side roots or prongs 
 are disadvantageous, because they make cleaning more difficult and increase 
 the waste. The leaves should be thick and should be of the characteristic 
 shape and color, and those which lie flat are to be preferred as protecting 
 the beet against frost. 
 
 (2) A medium size, say, i to 2 pounds. Small beets make a small crop, 
 while large beets contain r.oraoaratively little sugar. The length should not 
 
 1107 
 
1108 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 be more than 35 centimeters. The crop should not be less than 30,000 kilo- 
 grams to the hectare (2-|- acres). 
 
 (3) Rich in sugar — from 9 to 16 per cent. 
 
 (4) A white, compact, brittle substance. Such beets are more resistant 
 to destruction by storage. A small head not protruding from the ground, 
 as this head must be cut off, containing, as it does, very little sugar. 
 
 It is very important to select the proper variety for a given district, be- 
 cause the different economical conditions of climate and soil require different 
 varieties, if the largest possible crop is to be harvested. It is, therefore, quite 
 necessary for every farmer to experiment with different varieties. 
 
 VARIETIES OF BEET. 
 
 The varieties which fulfill the above conditions are — 
 (i) The white beet of Silesia. — This beet was formerly the best sugar-beet ; 
 to-day it is only used where large quantities are required, as it does not con- 
 tain as much sugar as some other varieties. This beet requires an excellent 
 soil. 
 
 (2) The Quedlinburger. — This beet is distinguished as ripening fourteen 
 days earlier than most other beets, so that in localities where an early frost 
 is the rule this beet is to be preferred. 
 
 (3) The Imperial. — This beet is excellent for deep, good soils. It has 
 now three offsprings : 
 
 {a) The white Imperial, by Knauer. 
 
 (J>) The small Wanzlebner, which has a high percentage of sugar. 
 
 (ir) Brothers Dippe small Wanzlebner. 
 
 (4) Knaiier Electoral — This is good on soils otherwise unfit for beet cul- 
 tivation, as hilly lands and poor alluvial soils. 
 
 (5) Knauer Mangold. — This beet at present contains the highest percent- 
 age of sugar. 
 
 (6) Vilmorin.- — This beet is very valuable, as it produces a sufficient per- 
 centage of sugar on low lands rich in nitrogen and in soils where all other 
 kinds are valueless. 
 
 The offsprings of this variety are — 
 
 (a) Vilmorin blanche amelior6e. 
 
 {b^ Vilmorin rose partial. 
 
 (c) Vilmorin blanche collet rose. 
 
 {£) Vilmorin collet verte race braberut. 
 
 (tf) Brothers Dippe white 61ite — very rich in sugar. 
 
 (/) Besteborn's Imperator, which is not recommended, as it has the faults 
 of the Vilrnorin, /. <?., too many side rootlets and not sufficient sugar. 
 
 In order to give a better idea of the appearance of an ideal sugar-beet, I 
 append various cuts showing the form, etc., but, of course, not the size. The 
 length of the sugar-beet, as stated elsewhere, should be about 35 centimeters. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 1109 
 
1110 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 CLIMATE. 
 
 In Europe the sugar-beet is successfully planted between the forty-seventh 
 and fifty-fourth degrees of northern latitude ; in Germany, between the fifty- 
 first and fifty-fourth ; in France, between the forty-seventh and fiftieth ; in 
 Austria-Hungary, between the forty-eighth and fiftieth ; and in Russia, be- 
 tween the forty-eighth and fifty-third degrees. 
 
 Like all plants, the sugar-beet requires certain conditions of climate to ar- 
 rive at perfection. 
 
 According to the experimehts of Briem, director of the experimental sta- 
 tion in Grussbach, Moravia, concerning the distribution of warmth and rain- 
 fall during the period of vegetation of the sugar-beet in the first period, i. e., 
 in the first two months, the time of germinating, the daily temperature was 
 10.70° C. ; in the second period (the time of the development of the vege- 
 tative organs), 18.8° C. ; and in the third period (in which the storage of the 
 reserve substances takes place), 16.5° C. ; and during the whole vegetation, 
 15-3° C. 
 
 The total warmth in the first period was 650° C. ; in the second, 1,150° 
 C.J and in the third. 1,000° C. 
 
 The rain-fall was in the first period 97 millimeters; in the second, 114 
 millimeters; and in the third, 100 millimeters — together 311 millimeters. 
 
 The sugar-beet needs much warmth and light, sunny days,. and a certain 
 amount of moisture. 
 
 The best climate for sugar-beets is the so-called "wine climate," with a 
 temperature from 9° to 10° C. in April and May, 17° to 18° C. in June and 
 July, and 15° and 12° in August and September, respectively. 
 
 The sea-coast is not warm enough and has not enough sunny days in June 
 and July to be successful for sugar-beet raising. 
 
 For the first period of vegetation it is necessary that a certain amount of 
 winter moisture be in the ground, as the seeds need moisture to germinate. 
 In the second period warmth and moisture is required for the production of 
 roots and leaves; in the third period, in which the saccharification goes on, 
 dry warmth. If the days be sunny, the beets will become rich in sugar; but 
 if this period be wet, the crop will be great in quantity, but poor in quality. 
 If, after a dry summer, a warm and rainy fall follows, new leaves spring up at 
 the cost of the sugar. 
 
 SOIL. 
 
 The best soil for quality, as well as quantity of production, according to 
 the experiments of Orth, are those that consist of mild, moist loam about 50 
 centimeters deep, then loam or marl i to 2 meters, and under this sand. 
 Such soils, which are easy to cultivate, have a high degree of absorption, 
 can combine nourishments, and give the plant physically a good start. Such 
 soils are called "natural sugar-beet soils." 
 
 It is possible to raise beets on soils that do not have all these qualities, 
 but the crop will be the better the nearer this standard is approached. 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 1111 
 
 The conditions required for a good sugar-beet soil are^ 
 
 (i) Depth, because the roots mostly take their nourishment from a depth 
 of 30 centimeters, and the soil must therefore be loosened and contain nour- 
 ishment up to this depth. 
 
 (2) Porousness of the subsoil, because it is impossible to cultivate a damp, 
 cold soil at the right time. Such a soil will become cracked if very dry, and 
 the young plants suffer, while the beets will contain little sugar. In such a 
 case drainage must be employed. Clay soils can be improved by manuring, 
 by the use of lime, and drainage ; light soils by manuring and loamy marl. 
 
 Leplay found that the heaviest beets will be raised in descendent succession 
 from clay, lime, loam, and sand soils ; beets with the greatest percentage of 
 sugar in lime, clay, sand, and loam soils ; the most leaves in sand, clay, lime, 
 and loam soils. According to experiments of Marek, the more moisture in 
 the soil the greater will be the development of leaves. This influence is 
 stronger in sand soil than in oile of clay The normal development of the 
 root depends upon organic matter in the soil. The more moisture there is - 
 in the soil the looser the texture, the poorer the quality, and the less sugar 
 will be in the beet. 
 
 The following soils are adapted for the culture of the beet, if they have a 
 good subsoil: Loamy soils, mild, clayey, or sandy, and clay marl. Of clay 
 soils, the mild and loamy ones ; if the amount of clay is excessive, the soil 
 must be made suitable by manuring. Strong clay soils are useless for beets, 
 but clay marl soils are good. Sandy soils are least adapted to the cultiva- 
 tion of the sugar-beet, with the exception of loamy sand soil not deficient in 
 humidity and the subsoil possessing enough water-holding power. Lime 
 soils are, with the exception of loamy lime soil, not good for beets. ■ From 
 moist soils are raised good quantities, but poor qualities. 
 
 The best locations for sugar-beet planting are on level or only slightly 
 sloping lands, because work is done best on such lands, and it is impossible 
 for the beets to be swept away by heavy rains. 
 
 TRANSPORTATION, MARKET, AND LABOR. 
 
 Sugar-beets are, in relation to their weight, cheap, and therefore it is not 
 possible to transjDort them great distances. They should, therefore, be planted 
 not far from the factory or the railway. The calculations of Settegast (Ger- 
 many) show the influence of transportation upon beet raising. His results 
 show that if 50 kilograms (112.5 pounds) of beets cost 25 cents, transportation 
 on country roads costs 3^ cents, and by rail 0.625 cents, for i German 
 mile, or 4 English miles. Therefore, beets are worth nothing if they must 
 be carried 26.68 miles on a country road or 160 miles by rail. 
 
 It is very important to have laborers enough, as it is impossible to do all 
 of the work by machinery. The best way to provide laborers is to give them 
 work the whole year — -in winter in the factory, in summer in the field. 
 One man (German) can do in a day's work of ten hours and for a day's pay: 
 Sowing by hand after the marker, 0.15 to 0.075 acres; cultivating the young 
 
.1112 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 plants, 0.75 to o.io acres; hilling up by hand, 0.15 to 0.20 acres; thinning 
 out, 0.10 to 0.125 acres; harvesting and loading, 2,250 pounds. Contract 
 work one-third to one-fifth more. 
 
 MANURING. 
 
 The sugar-beet, of all the cultivated plants, needs the greatest amount of 
 nourishment in the soil. It is, therefore, very necessary to use such a 
 manure as will supply it with the best nourishment and in such a condition 
 that it can be taken up by the beet. Possibly some soils are rich enough to 
 do without manuring, but this seldom occurs. There are cases where beets 
 have been raised in the same fields for ten successive years without fertilizer, 
 and yet good crops have been obtained. 
 
 The ability of the sugar-beet to disclose and take up nourishment is not 
 very high, and therefore, if a large crop is desired, much manure must be 
 used. Manure must be used that will increase the percentage of sugar as well 
 as the quantity of the crop. 
 
 According to E. Wolff, in 1,000 kilograms of sugar-beets are — 
 
 Constituents. 
 
 Leaves. 
 
 Water 
 
 Nitrogen 
 
 Ashes 
 
 Potassium 
 
 Sodium 
 
 Lime „. 
 
 Magnesia 
 
 Pliosphoric acid 
 Sulphuric acid... 
 
 Silicic acid 
 
 Chlorine 
 
 If we calculate per hectare (2.5 acres) 30,000 kilograms of beets (67,500 
 pounds) and 7,000 kilograms (15,750 pounds) of leaves, there is removed 
 from the ground by beets — 
 
 Description. 
 
 Nitrogen . 
 
 Potassium. 
 
 Phosphates. 
 
 Roots 
 
 Kilograms. 
 
 48 
 
 21 
 
 Kilograms. 
 114 
 28 
 
 KUograms. 
 27 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 69 
 
 142 
 
 
 
 
 STABLE MANURE. 
 
 The direct application of stable manure to the beet is not good, because 
 the beet will then not ripen at the right time, and the quality will be poor. 
 Stable manure should not be put in the soil in the spring. It should be 
 plowed under in the fall. The manure of sheep is worthless, as it con- 
 tains too much nitrogen and potassium, and the amount of salts in the beets 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1113 
 
 is so increased that they are hardly fit for the factory. Manure of cattle 
 can be used if mixed with that of horses. This manure contains sufficient 
 nourishment, but the amount of nitrogen in proportion to phosphoric acid 
 is too high. This should be i to 2, but in this manure it is just the con- 
 trary. The amount of manure usually needed per hectare (2.5 acres), is be- 
 tween 20,000 and 40,000 kilograms. According to a table by 'Vyolff, there 
 is produced in the ground by applying 30,000 kilograms of manure, 150 kil- 
 ograms nitrogen, 78 kilograms phosphates, and 189 kilograms potassium. 
 From this nourishment the result of applying freshly decomposed manure is, 
 in the first year, 35 to 50 per cent.; in the second year, 40 to 35 per cent.; in 
 the third year, 25 to 15 per cent. An average crop of sugar-beets (30,000 
 kilograms) needs 69 kilograms nitrogen, 32 kilograms phosphates, and 142 
 kilograms potassium. Compost is a very good manure, but it is not good 
 to use any sugar-beet soil in its preparation, as it may contain nematodes. " 
 
 FERTILIZING. 
 
 In applying fertilizer, not only the crop, but the quality, of the beets will 
 be better if it be used alone or employed to modify stable manure. Gen- 
 erally nitrogen, salts, and phosphates are used; exceptionally, potassium. 
 According to P. Wagner, the following amount of phosphoric acid and ni- 
 trogen should be used : 
 
 Description. 
 
 Minimum 
 per hectare. 
 
 Mean Maximum 
 
 per hectare, per hectare. 
 
 Dissolved phosphates- 
 Nitrogen _ 
 
 Kilograms. 
 40 
 
 Kilograms. 
 60 
 
 Kilogratns. 
 80 
 60 
 
 If nitrogen, as Chili nitrate, is used, then there will be needed 150 kilo- 
 grams minimum, 250 kilograms mean, and 400 kilograms maximum. 
 
 TIME FOR MANURING. 
 
 Manuring should always be done as early as possible in the fall. The 
 longer the manure has been in the ground before the vegetation of the beet, 
 the greater will be the amount of nourishment and its distribution. Exper- 
 iments show that manuring in spring is wrong, and there are many reasons 
 why. For instance, if the season is dry the manure can not decompose, the 
 ground remains loose, and consequently the young plant suffers for water. 
 On the other hand, as soon as a heavy rain comes after a drought, the leaves 
 grow very fast, but the plant does not ripen well, and a large crop is raised, 
 but of a poor quality. If the manure is not decomposed, the work in the 
 field can not be done in good shape, and insects have a good refuge. On 
 heavy, loamy soils fresh manure is good for loosening it and allowing the 
 air to enter. 
 
 How deep to put the manure. — It is best first to put the manure in the 
 ground as shallowly as possible, because it decomposes better until the deep 
 
1114 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF 
 
 plowing is done. The more nitrogen the beet finds in the first period of 
 its vegetation the better. The less nitrogen found in the ground in the first 
 period the more will be taken up in the last period, and that means a loss for 
 saccharification. 
 
 The following table shows, by the experiments of Liebscher, that the crop 
 may be increased without losing in quality, if the manure be properly ap- 
 plied and the beets planted closely: 
 
 Manure per hectare. 
 
 Sap. 
 
 Sugar. 
 
 Quotient 
 in purity. 
 
 Crop per 
 
 hectare. 
 
 None 
 
 20,000 kilograms.. 
 30,000 kilograms.. 
 40,000 kilograms.. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 16.4 
 16.3 
 16.4 
 16. 3 
 
 Per cent. 
 89,1 
 87.4 
 83.8 
 89. J 
 
 Kilos. 
 31,065 
 
 34,785 
 35,435 
 42,100 
 
 The more nitrogen there is in the soil the less fertilizer will be required, 
 but the more phosphate. 
 
 The increase of the crop by fertilizing with nitrogen is, according to ex- 
 periments by Wagner: 100 kilograms Chili saltpeter with 15^ to 16 kilo- 
 grams of nitrogen increases the crop about 4,500 kilograms of beets and 900 
 kilograms of kaves. Fertilizing with nitrogen should take place only when 
 enough phosphate, lime, and potassium is in the soil, because large and good 
 crops can only be expected when these substances are present. Whether 
 enough phosphate is present can only be learned by experiment. Fertilizing 
 with nitrogen shoul(f only be done in the spring. Chili nitrate should al- 
 ways be preferred, and the following rules should be observed: 
 
 (i) A good variety must be planted. 
 
 (2) Seeds should be obtained from the best sources. 
 
 (3) In addition to Chili nitrate, phosphate must be added, or the crop 
 will mature too late. 
 
 (4) Fertilizing with Chili nitrate should be done before sowing, not after. 
 
 (5) Beets must be thickly planted, and cultivated four or five times. 
 According to the calculations of Stutzer, the use of more than 400 kilo- 
 grams to the hectare of Chili nitrate does not pay. 
 
 Professor Marker has experimented upon the influence of phosphates with 
 the following results : 
 
 Phosphates do not always produce an effect. If the soil is supersaturated 
 with it, it can cause loss. This has often been observed by practical farmers. 
 The cause is that '^^O^ quickens maturity or causes an early death of the 
 '.eaves, and that may lessen the crop, especially in a dry, rainless season. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Ten experiments have given the following results: 
 
 1115 
 
 Fertilizer. 
 
 Without phosphate (P2O3) 
 
 400 kilograms precipitate 
 
 Superphosphate (PaOg — 76 to 80 kilograms), 
 
 400 kilograms Thomas slag 
 
 1,000 kilograms Thomas slag 
 
 Crop per 
 
 hectare. 
 
 Kilograms. 
 32,063 
 34,456 
 35,346 
 33,589 
 34,756 
 
 Kilograms, , 
 
 2,393 
 3,283 
 1,526 
 2,693 
 
 There is not much difference in the effect of the various phosphate fer- 
 tilizers so far as sugar in the beet is concerned. If it be necessary to use 
 phosphate fertilizer in spring, superphosphate is always to be preferred. 
 
 SPREADING THE FERTILIZER. 
 
 Spreading broadcast has been found to be better than drilling, 
 done by the machine shown in Plate i. 
 
 This is 
 
 There are, however, drills which have an attachment for drilling fertilizer, 
 as is shown in Plate 2. 
 
 Platb 1. 
 
 It is very important to put the fertilizer in the right depth. Practical 
 experiments have shown that it should not be used after sowing. In using 
 Chili nitrate, a shallow harrowing is sufficient, because the next rain will carry 
 it deeper. Potassium and phosphate, which are absorbed immediately, must 
 be put deep enough so that they will not evaporate. This can be done with 
 a sharp harrow, or, better still, by shallow plowing. It is said that a depth 
 of 20 to 22 centimeters is the best. 
 
1116 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The following table shows the results of different depths in sandy loam 
 soil, per hectare: 
 
 
 Year, 
 
 Depth. 
 
 
 
 
 loto 12 cen- 
 timeters. 
 
 20 to 22 cen- 
 timeters. 
 
 Difference, 
 
 i88i 
 
 Kilog^rams . 
 
 32,674 
 36,217 
 65, 726 
 
 KUogi'ams. 
 38,543 
 39,030 
 69,596 
 
 Kilograius. 
 
 5,869 
 2,813 
 3,870 
 
 Per cent. 
 I7.g6 
 
 1-n 
 
 5.89 
 
 i88j 
 
 i88i 
 
 
 MIXED FERTILIZER (PHOSPHATE AND NITROGEN). 
 
 Of these are used: Peruvian guan'o (7 per cent, nitrogen to 10 per cent. 
 PjOg), ammonia superphosphate, blood manure with superphosphate. Bone- 
 dust is seldom used, as its effect is too slow ; if used, it must be applied in 
 the fall. 
 
 Although most soils have potassium enough, it may occur that lands where 
 beets are raised every year may need it. The direct application of potassium 
 salts to the beets is not good, because all these salts contain a chloride which 
 injures the plants. The best is to give potassium mixed with stable manure 
 two years before the beets are planted. When thus mixed, the ammonia is 
 kept from becoming volatile. 
 
 Lime. — Quicklime is a good fertilizer, especially on very heavy soils, 
 which it loosens. For i hectare 24 to 40 kilograms should be used. 
 
 For sandy soils marl is excellent, the best containing 30 to 50 per cent. 
 of lime. The amount of marl needed for i hectare, if containing 30 per 
 cent, of lime, is 220 kilograms; if containing 50 per cent., only 130 kilo- 
 grams. 
 
 PREPARATION OF THE LAND. 
 
 The sugar-beet needs well-cultivated land. First, a surface loose and fine, 
 which allows the air to enter and facilitates germinating and swelling; sec- 
 ond, deep, loose, uniform soil, because the beet should develop a slender 
 root without side rootlets. Both can be obtained only by good cultivation. 
 Cultivation differs according to the soil. 
 
 Plate 3. 
 
 The following suggestions are of value: Loosen the subsoil without bring- 
 ing it to the surface. If the subsoil be not good, this is doubly important. 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 1117 
 
 The depth should be from 30 to 40 centimeters, and a plow similar to that 
 shown in Plate 3 should be used. 
 
 To begin deep plowing, 30 centimeters will be deep enough. After 
 several years it may be made 40 centimeters, but should be deepened only 
 gradually, because, if too much dead soil comes up, the land is ruined for at 
 least one year. Deep plowing should always be done before winter, so that 
 the frost has time to work on the soil. 
 
 Steam plowing. — By the introduction of the steam-plow an implement was 
 put in the hands of the farmer, the work of which can not be equaled. The 
 reasons why the steam-plow works so well are — 
 
 (i) By the speed with which it operates the soil is well mixed and pul- 
 verized. 
 
 (2) The depth of all the furrows is the same. 
 
 (3) It plows to any depth, especially in heavy soils which would require 
 a large number of animals. Generally the soil is loosened to a depth of 35 
 to 40 centimeters, and the plants are enabled to take nourishment from a 
 larger quantity of soil. 
 
 (4) In dry seasons soils plowed by steam retain longer their humidity. 
 In wet seasons the water descends quicker to the subsoil. The steam-plow 
 increases the crop and renders it certain. 
 
 (5) The animals leave foot-prints (four oxen make about three hundred 
 and sixty thousand in plowing i hectare), and therefore cause a not unim- 
 portant loss. 
 
 (6) It is possible to work in spring and fall, when with animals it would 
 be impossible. 
 
 (7) A large number of animals can thus be used for other purposes. 
 
 If we consider that with a steam-plow 3 hectares can be plowed in a day, 
 while with a common plow one-third of a hectare can be gone over, then 
 nine common plows are needed to do the work of one steam-plow ; and, as 
 four oxen are needed for each plow, thirty-six oxen would be employed ; and, 
 as they should be used only half a day, seventy-two oxen would be required, 
 and their work is not equal to that of one steam-plow. 
 
 The excellent work of the steam-plow can increase the crop of beets from 
 4,000 to 5,000 kilograms per hectare. The cost of plowing by steam is be- 
 tween %\\ and $\6 per hectare for a depth of 32 to 40 centimeters. 
 
 Deep plowing can be done in such a way that two plows go one after the 
 other, the first cutting 15 to 20 centimeters deep and the second 10 to 18 
 centimeters. 
 
 Another way to loosen the deeper soil is as follows : The land is plowed 
 from 15 to 20 centimeters, and laborers then spade up the deeper soil from 
 20 to 24 centimeters, the under-soil being scattered over the surface. This 
 method is expensive, but produces very good results. 
 
 Still another way to procure most of the advantages of deep plowing, and 
 one which is generally used on very heavy soil or on lands exposed to inun- 
 dations, which consequently dry at a late period, is to form ridges. 
 
1118 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 This is done in the following manner : The land is plowed in the fall in 
 such a way as to form ridge. For this purpose a hill plow is used, or a ma- 
 chine invented by Doctor Bartel and called a "ridge former." 
 
 Plate 4. 
 
 In spring these ridges are split, and thus new ridges are formed. These 
 must be rolled to an even surface. 
 
 The advantages of preparing the land in this way are : The water gathers 
 in the furrows and runs off; the soil in the ridge is always in a good condi- 
 tion and the air can penetrate it. 
 
 If grain has been grown on land about to be planted in beets, the prepa- 
 ration goes on in the foUawing way: The stubble is plowed as soon as possi- 
 ble to a depth of 5 to 8 centimeters. For this work gang plows, as shown in 
 Plate 5, are used. 
 
 Plate 5. 
 
 As soon as weeds come up the land is harrowed and rolled. Before 
 winter the deep furrow is plowed, and, if stable manure is used, it should be 
 applied before the middle of November. In such cases only a moderately 
 deep furrow is needed, because, as before remarked, the manure thus decom- 
 poses better. 
 
 The land remains iij this state during the winter, and is therefore exposed 
 to the influence of frost, rain, etc. In spring it is ready for the beets. Then, 
 as soon as possible, it should be harrowed. The harrows used are, if the land 
 is crusted, "The Extirpator," or, if necessary, it must be plowed 15 centi- 
 meters deep. Then the "Acme " harrow is used. 
 
 If sugar-beets follow beets, potatoes, or corn, the land is simply plowed 
 before winter. 
 
 Before planting all land should be rolled. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TAEIFP.. 1119 
 
 PLANTING. 
 
 The time of planting influences the crop in a high degree. 
 
 It is shown that in a warm, dry season the crop of an early planting 
 is larger than in a cold, humid season. The time of plantirfg is the mid- 
 dle of spring, with a temperature of from 9° to 12° C. (48° to 54° F.). 
 Early planting begins with April and lasts until the end of that month ; late 
 planting is in May. In general, early planting is to be preferred, because 
 the danger from frost is not so great as that of drought. It should always be 
 remembered that the seeds should be put in a soil warm enough to germinate 
 in six or eight days, not twelve to sixteen days, as is the case in cold, humid 
 soil. 
 
 Distance apart. — This has a great influence on the crop and the quality 
 of the beet. The experiments of Valmorin show that the largest crop will 
 be grown if the beets be planted comparatively near together. If the dis- 
 tance increases, the proportion of leaves increases. The lighter and poorer 
 the soil the further must the beets be planted apart, and experiments show 
 that this influence is greater than that due to manuring, or even the choice of 
 the variety. Distances vary from 30 to 50 centimeters from row to row, and 
 from 10 to 25 centimeters in the row. 
 
 Depth for planting. — The seeds need only a very light covering — 2 to 3 
 centimeters is the right depth. If part of the seeds are not covered at all, it 
 does not cause so much damage as if they are covered too deeply. 
 
 CULTIVATION. 
 
 From the time of planting up to that of harvesting the following sugges- 
 tions should be observed : As soon as the sowing is done the roller must be 
 used, because in pressing the surface the humidity, which is very necessary 
 for the process of germinating, is draWn by capillary attraction out of the 
 deeper soil, and the surface is thus kept moist. The roller may be smooth 
 or have rings ; the latter is better, because it makes the surface of the land 
 rough, and therefore a heavy rain can not form a crust. If, after sowing, a 
 crust covers the field, the ring-roller is the best implement for breaking it, 
 and after this a light harrow is recommended. Thus is the soil loosened, the 
 air can enter, and germinating and growing are facilitated. When the plants 
 have grown so that the rows are visible, hoeing must be done, and the earlier 
 the better, not only because the weeds are destroyed, but also because the 
 plants need a loosened soil. The oftener the plants are hoed the better will 
 be the crop as regards quantity and quality. Indeed, quantity and a high 
 sugar percentage can only be obtained by hoeing. The first hoeing must be 
 only superficial, that all the weeds are thrown on the surface to dry, and care 
 must be taken that no soil covers the young plants. The hoeing should be 
 done even if the land be dry, as hoeing prevents the evaporation of the water 
 from the deeper soil. If laborers can be had, it is preferable to first hoe by 
 hand in such a way that only the soil about 50 centimeters distant from the 
 beet is hoed and the soil between the rows is untouched. This is then hoed 
 
1120 
 
 . EEVISIOiSF OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 with the cultivator. If lioeing must be done by horse-power, the cultivator 
 
 shown in Plate 6 is used. 
 
 pi 
 
 w+n^ 
 
 View from above of same machine. 
 
 After the hoeing comes thinning out. This must be done as early as 
 possible, and, generally, plants sowed by the Dippel machine must be thinned 
 out earlier than those planted by the drill, the reason being that the latter 
 have more light and air than the former. It is practical to thin out when 
 the plants have three or four leaves. The root is then as thick as a straw, 
 and the whole plant has a length of 8 to lo centimeters. 
 
 If planted with a drill, the work of cultivating can be done in two ways : 
 
 (i) The field is crossed with the cultivator at right angles to the rows, 
 and the knives are set so that they leave about 2.5 centimeters on each side 
 of the beet untouched. Of the plants which remain in this space the weakest 
 are removed by hand. 
 
 (2) The whole work is done by hand. By means of hoes the laborers 
 remove the superfluous plants, leaving spaces about 20 to 25 centimeters be- 
 tween. Children are employed heup for this work, as they can best get 
 down to it. 
 
 Cutting the leaves off is not sufficient, as the leaves grow again ; or, if 
 not, the plant becomes a harbor for insects. One person oan thin out one- 
 ninth to one-eighth of an acre a day. After thinning, hoeing by hand should 
 
EEVISIOK OF THE TAEIFP. 1121 
 
 follow immediately to loosen the soil around the plants ; then, between the 
 rows should be hoed, and the time this should be done depends upon the 
 weeds and the soil. As a rule, the intervals should not be more than a fort- 
 night. A fourth, and possibly a fifth, hoeing would increase the crop. Of 
 course, hoeing can not be done when the plants are large enough to be dam- 
 aged. 
 
 Hilling up now follows. This must be done because, by covering the 
 beets with soil, it prevents the heads from growing out, and therefore this 
 part of the root, which is of no value to the manufacturer, as it contains lit- 
 tle sugar, is lessened. Water can run off and evaporate better, and the soil 
 will not become incrusted. In heavy soils this is a very important point. 
 The time for hilling up is important, as if this is done too early the plants 
 are buried, and if too late the leaves are damaged. Hilling up can only be 
 done when the soil is in good condition, /. ^., neither too wet nor too dry. 
 For this can be used a plow with a single share, or that already shown in 
 Plate 5. On small farms it is usually done by hand. 
 
 ENEMlks OF THE SUGAR-BEET. 
 
 The insects which do the most damage to the root are — 
 (i) The larvffi of the May-bug. Remedies are to collect the bug and 
 leaves, and encourage protecting birds and moles. 
 
 (2) The larvae (wire-worm) of the Elater lineatus. Remedy is to gather 
 the leaves. 
 
 (3) Atomaria linearis. Remedy is not to plant successive crops of beets, 
 and to wash the seeds in a liquid composed of 100 parts water, 5 parts Epsom 
 salts, and i part of carbolic acid. In this fluid the seeds should remain twenty 
 minutes. 
 
 (4) Caterpillars of Agratis segetum (Noctua seq.'). Remedy is deep plow- 
 ing, and gathering the insect at night with a lantern. 
 
 (5) Julus gullulatut et terrestris. The remedy for this formidable sound- 
 ing insect seems to be like that in the preceding cases, /. e., the best thing 
 to do is. to catch the bug. 
 
 (6) Heterodera spachtie nematode. This insect caused the disease of the 
 soil which produced the so-called "fatigue of the beet." Remedy is to 
 sow plants in which to catch the insects. The best is the Rdpia brassica 
 rapaoleifera. 
 
 Insects which damage the leaves are^ 
 
 (i) Sifpha apaca. Remedy, distribution of dead animals in the soil, as 
 the larvae prefer flesh. 
 
 (2) Cassida nebulosa. As this insect is attracted by the weeds, the latter 
 should be carefully removed. 
 
 (3) Larvae of CUonus sulcirostris et puncti^ientris. Remedy is its collec- 
 tion and removal. 
 
 (4) Plusia gama. Remedy, collecting. 
 
 485 71 
 
1122 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 (5) Larvae of Anthomya conformis. Remedy is to hoe it on the surface, 
 where the birds can get it. Collect it with the leaves, if necessary, and burn 
 them. 
 
 (6) Hattica nemorum. Remedy is to plant early enough that the plant 
 can resist the attacks of the insect ; also, destroy them. 
 
 Parasites which injure the plant are — 
 
 (i) '^wsi,cz.v&&A\>^ Aeromices betce. Remedy, the leaves of the beets used 
 for raising seed, and which show attacks of the parasite, must be destroyed. 
 
 (2) Mildew of beets {Peronospora betce). Remedy, beets used for raising 
 seeds must bfe carefully selected, and, if mildew is observed, the beet must be 
 rejected. In spring, before planting, the same precautions must be again 
 taken. 
 
 (3) Beet rot, caused by Rhizcstonia violacea. Remedy, in storing, to sep- 
 arate the affected beets from the sound ones. 
 
 (4) Smut, caused by Helminthis parium rezoctonia. 
 
 (5) Leaf dryness, caused by Depazea betcecula. 
 
 (6) Rot of the heart, caused by Sporidium putrifaciewn. 
 
 (7) Rot of the beet. 
 
 It is possible that the sugar-beet may meet in the United States with a 
 still more formidable enemy, though bearing a less imposing name, viz, the 
 "sugar trust." No doubt, however, the remedy used in so many of the cases 
 above mentioned may also be used here. 
 
 HARVESTING. 
 
 This is done when the beets are ripe, i. e., when growing stops and all the 
 products of the leaves go to the root, where they are deposited. In Bohemia 
 beets ripen from the end of September to the middle of October. 
 
 Signs of ripeness.— "i\\& leaves become yellowish green, fall, and form a 
 kind of a wreath around the plant. The middle leaves, so-called "heart 
 leaves," also of a yellowish green, do not fall. 
 
 Harvesting should not be too early, as the loss occasioned thereby may 
 amount to as much as 2 per cent. Of course, harvesting must take place 
 before heavy frost, though the beet can stand frost from 3° to 4° C. (24° 
 to 27° F.). If early frosts should come, it is best to let the beets thaw in the 
 soil, as the loss will be thus lessened. 
 
 How harvesting is done.— iX) By hand. To each man is apportioned a 
 certain tract of land, which he works by contract. The soil around the plant 
 is loosened, and then tlie plant is drawn from the ground by hand. Work 
 with the fork would be easier, but might injure the beet. 
 
 (2) By team. A subsoil plow is used, which should be set for a depth of 
 35 centimeters. A still better implement is the beet-lifter, shown in Plate 7. 
 This machine can be worked by a boy, and also does not injure the plants, 
 which are left loosely standing upright in their places, where they are better 
 protected against sudden rain or frost than if lying upon the ground. As 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1123 
 
 work can be done much faster with the lifter than by hand, this machine 
 will no doubt be of much use in the United States. 
 
 Plate 7. 
 
 Cutting off the heads. — The green heads must now be cut off, as they are 
 of no use. This is done in the field, and here it is the work of women and 
 girls, who accomplish their work rapidly, using sharp knives. About i to 2 
 centimeters of the beet is removed. 
 
 Piling up the beets. — This is necessary, as it is impossible to immediately 
 transport an entire crop to the factory, and they must be protected from rot 
 and frost. Perhaps the best plan is that recommended by Knauer, especially 
 if the beets must remain a long time on the field. A ditch i foot deep and 
 6 feet wide is dug, and of the required length. Beets are then piled up 
 with roots toward the center for a height of i foot, and covered with 6 
 inches of soil. Then another layer of beets, covered also, is added, and 
 then another, until the pile, tapering, is of the shape of a prism. If the soil 
 is very dry, water should be applied. Beets so buried will keep six or seven 
 months with little loss. 
 
 It is best to grow only one crop in four or five years on a single field, as 
 otherwise the soil will be exhausted and insects and parasites increase, so that 
 great losses would occur. Beets should follow grain or barley, and after the 
 beet the best crop to plant is barley. 
 
 RAISING SEEDS. 
 
 If the beet industry were fully introduced into the United States, one of the 
 first subjects that our people would have to consider would be the raising of 
 seeds, as in Germany and Austria the supply is only able to meet the present 
 demand. The beets selected for raising seed should possess all the attributes 
 of a good beet as previously described. 
 
 For ascertaining the proportion of sugar in the beet, a piece is taken 
 from the middle and the specific gravity of its sap found. This is, how- 
 ever, inaccurate, and the best plan is to submit the sap to polarization. 
 
 For raising seeds stable manure is unsuitable, but phosphate is highly 
 •recommended. This can be applied in the spring by grubbing. The cul- 
 tivation of the beet then goes on in the manner already described. The 
 seeds are ripe when they look meal-like if cut. The main sprouts ripen 
 earlier, and therefore harvesting must begin with these. The plants are cut 
 o£f with sickles, bundled up, and put away for drying. Threshing is gen- 
 
1124 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 erally done by hand, either on the field or at home. If done on the field, a 
 cloth is spread, upon which the work is done. The seeds are then cleaned 
 and ready for storing. If stored properly, they should retain their generating 
 power from four to five years. The crop from i hectare should be from 15 
 to 35 meter centners (3,360 to 7,740 pounds). 
 
 It should be mentioned that the seed beets, after being carefully selected, 
 are buried in ditches. In the spring these are carefully set out and cultivated 
 with great care. Upon ripening the leaves are gathered and treated as above 
 described. 
 
 Prof. Anton Veith, director of the agricultural college here, whose assist- 
 ance has been invaluable to me in the preparation of this report, submits the 
 following suggestions for the American farmer. As Professor Veith is thor- 
 oughly familiar with the subject of beet culture, and furthermore spent two 
 years in America studying our farming methods from New York to Califor- 
 nia, his hints will be found practical. The professor also kindly expresses a 
 willingness to answer any inquiries made to him on the subject of beet 
 culture. 
 
 ' HINTS TO AMERICAN FARMERS. 
 (By Professor Veith.) 
 
 In traveling through the United States I was astonished to find that an industry so highly 
 developed in the old country was nearly unknown there. 
 
 The influence of such an industry as the fabrication of sugar from beets exerts such a great 
 influence upon a country that it deserves all the support of a great government. 
 
 In 1887 there was only one beet sugar factory in the United States, and that was in Alver- 
 ado, Alameda county, California. 
 
 Upon inquiring as to the cause of this, I heard that several factories had been started in 
 Illinois, but that after a few years had to be closed, as they did not pay. 
 
 I was told by the editor of a rural paper in Chicago that the soil was unfit for the purpose ; 
 by a professor in Kansas that beets would not grow containing a high enough percentage of 
 sugar ; by a chemist in Washington that the cultivation and manufacture had not been prop- 
 erly carried out. 
 
 The last opinion was undoubtedly the correct one. 
 
 The United States possesses soils of every kind, and in every State where wine and com 
 are grown it is surely possible to raise sugar-beets. 
 
 But in raising sugar-beets the American farmer, especially of the Western States, must get 
 rid of the idea of always trying to save labor. Sugar-beets need much work, but they pay 
 double or treble as much as any other crop. 
 
 Localities are to be preferred where there is a large population, plenty of transportation 
 facilities, providing always the climate and soil are suitable. 
 
 Raising sugar-beets on a large scale, as is the case with grain in America, is impossible, as 
 labor is dear and it is impossible to get suflicient help for a few weeks' work. I think the plan 
 adopted by Claus Spreckels, in California, is the best. Here small farmers who do their own 
 work with little help raise the beets and sell them to the factory. A better plan would be 
 for a number of such farmers to form an association and erect a factory themselves. We find 
 such associations in Germany, and they do very well. 
 
 In order to stimulate the farmer to raise beets of a high sugar quality, th« factory should 
 pay in accordance with the sugar percentage, i. e., to demand a certain percentage, say 9, and 
 pay extra for any increase over this figure. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 
 
 1125 
 
 Raising sugar-beets gives the farmer a chance not only to get more out of his land than 
 possible with other products, but also improves his land for other products. 
 
 If the farmer sells the beets to the factory and gets back the pulp for feeding and perhaps 
 the mud or lime, he loses very little of the mineral substance from his soil, as the sugar-pro- , 
 ducing substances are absorbed by the plants from the air. 
 
 Raising beets improves the land, because the thorough cultivation necessary brings it to a 
 perfection never to be attained with other crops. The land will also be clearer of-weeds. 
 
 In raising beets the whole agriculture of the country must be changed, i. e., brought from 
 an extensive culture to an intensive one. 
 
 In raising corn, grain, fodder, etc., the farmer uses only the upper part of his land, and not 
 the subsoil. If sugar-beets are planted, the deeper soil is also placed at the service of the 
 owner. 
 
 In connection with the improvement of the land, cattle raising is also improved, as the 
 waste furnishes excellent fodder for milk as well as for fattening. An increase of manure can 
 therefore be produced. 
 
 The first thing a fanner should do is to procure proper seeds, and these he should raise 
 himself. 
 
 As implements are expensive, those should be procvu-ed which can be used for various pur- 
 poses, as the universal plow of Sack. 
 
 For planting seeds it is recommended to try the corn-planter. 
 
 In closing I would only state that there exists a great future for beet culture in the United 
 States (and I would recommend that carSful experiments be made) and that the success which 
 has already greeted Claus Spreckels in California be followed in other quarters. 
 
 
 
 Sugar-b 
 
 'et crop in . 
 
 iustria- Hung a ry. 
 
 
 
 Provinces. 
 
 Crop. 
 
 Planted in sugar-beets. 
 
 Crop raised on i hectare. 
 
 1886. 
 
 1887. 
 
 1 883. 
 
 1887. 
 
 1888. 
 
 1887. 
 
 1888. 
 
 
 Met. cent* 
 
 Met. cent." 
 
 '383,760 
 
 15,301,600 
 
 7,639,650 
 
 788,630 
 
 444,500 
 
 Met. cent.* 
 
 730,690 
 
 27,400,460 
 
 10,523,930 
 
 887,820 
 
 551,450 
 
 Hectares.^ 
 2,578 
 91,830 
 51,142 
 4,024 
 4,445 
 
 Hectares.^ 
 2,578 
 120, 060 
 62,800 
 4,165 
 4,625 
 
 Met. cent.* 
 135 
 154 
 137 
 182 
 100 
 
 Met. cent.* 
 190 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 175 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 32,984,870 
 
 24,558,140 
 
 40,094,350 
 
 154,019 
 
 194,228 
 
 ti4i.6 
 
 tl6l.3 
 
 • I meter centner = 220 pounds. 
 
 1 1 hectare => 2,47 acres. 
 
 J Average. 
 
 MANUFACTURE OF SUGAR. 
 
 We have now traced the cultivation of the beet from the preparation of 
 the land ta the moment when the root, minus its useless head, is ready for 
 fabrication. In studying the subject of this report, then, I have to ask my 
 readers who have accompanied me through the great beet fields of Bohemia, 
 where we have seen the various stages of cultivation, to now leave the farm 
 and enter with me the greatest sugar factory in Bohemia. And here I may 
 remark that, while this paper is not intended to give more than a superficial 
 idea of the process of manufacture of sugar — and machinists and engineers 
 are referred to the books mentioned for detailed information — I have found 
 it necessary to go somewhat into technicalities and to employ plates to illus- 
 trate the various processes. Without this the general reader could not pos- 
 sibly get an intelligent idea of the subject. 
 
1126 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Standing in the court-yard of the great factory referred to, we see wagon 
 after wagon dumping its load, for each of which the farmer gets a receipt. 
 No price has yet been fixed, but the farmer must sell to the factory, as beets 
 can not stand transportation, on account of their weight, as already explained. 
 The price will be fixed later by the manufacturer, who is, indeed, the Great 
 Mogul of the neighborhood, and could exclaim with Napoleon: "L'etat, 
 c'est ??wi." 
 
 Through the middle of the court referred to runs a ditch lined with per- 
 fectly smooth tile, through which a rapid stream of water carries the beets to 
 the washing-machines, where all dirt and stones are removed. 
 
 It may be here remarked that while there are two ways of extracting the 
 sap from the beet, viz, by pressure and by diffusion, only the latter is em- 
 ployed in this neighborhood. The advantages of the process of diffusion 
 are : The cheaper plant required, less workmen and force, ease of keeping 
 apparatus in order, simple inspection of the work, its cleanliness, easy in- 
 crease of work without corresponding loss of sap, and the entire absence of 
 "press cloths." The only disadvantage is the great amount of water re- 
 quired, which limits such factories to those localities where sufficient water 
 can be had. 
 
 The beets having been thoroughly cleaned, an elevator carries them to 
 the top of the building and delivers them to the cutters, where ribbed knives 
 reduce the beet to little cuttings like vermicelli. A railway carries this ma- 
 terial and dumps it into the "diff"user." The diffuser is an iron cylindrical 
 tank, made to close tightly, and supplied with pipes above and below. Nine 
 are usually connected together, and constitute what is called the "diffusion 
 battery." This battery forms so important a part of the sugar factory that 
 I must now introduce two diagrams, marked Plate 8 and Plate 9, and to fre- 
 quently refer to them in order to explain the process of diffusion. 
 
 In Plate 8 are seen nine diffusers, indicated by circles; horizontal shading 
 means filled with water, diagonal lines filled with cuttings, and the balance 
 are empty. The arrow shows the water entering, and finally the sap leaving 
 the apparatus for the saturator. 
 
 In this connection also we must study Plate 9, which shows more plainly 
 the mechanical connectioi;is of the battery. 
 
 Here the diffusers are also numbered from I to IX, the water-valves W 
 to ze/g, the sap valves from S to jg, the overflow valves from u to u^, and the 
 calorisators from C to Cg. The tubes V to Vg connect each diffuser with 
 its calorisator. 
 
 In beginning work water is first warmed in the last vessel of the battery, 
 while the first is being filled with beet cuttings. 
 
 First stage. — The water comes from the reservoir through the tube W 
 and valve w^ into the diffuser VII from above; passes through V, to C,; 
 here ascends and passes by the closed valve s.j through «,, over w^, through 
 VIII, Vg, Cg, over .fg, through u^, over Wg, through IX, Vg, Cg ; travels 
 the short distance from s^ to s^ in the sap pipes, streams into Cj from atjpve, 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 1127 
 
 I n ni IV Y Yi Yii Yin ix 
 
 i.©IO o o o oii#-# 
 
 H,0 
 
 2-#-#IIO O O OI©-SH 
 
 s^o 
 
 ©lO o o 
 
 oo 
 
 Plate 9, 
 
1128 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 passes V, and ascends into diffuser I from below upward through the cuttings. 
 So soon as the fluid has reached the walls of the man-hole the cover of the 
 diffuser is closed and the water begins to run out of the air-cock, when this 
 is closed. 
 
 Second stage. — While the water is entering I, II is being filled with cut- 
 tings. When this is done, the water which enters Cg, as previously described, 
 passes over j-,, through u^, over W from above into the vessel I, and streams 
 through Vi, Cj, Jj, J-2, Cj, and Vj into the vessel II from below. 
 
 Third stage. — The same process is repeated, whereby another vessel is 
 employea. 
 
 With the fourth stage begins the departure of the sap. The fluid now 
 takes fromCg the following direction : Overjg, through z^j, over w, through 
 I, V, C, over s, through u, over Wj, through II, Vj, Cj, over ^2, through u^, 
 over Wj, through III, Vj, Cj, s^, j^, C4, V^, and ascends in IV through the 
 fresh beet substance. As soon as the cover is closed and all air is expelled 
 through an air-cock, the valves from Cg should be changed. The sap now 
 rising in Cg goes over s^, through u^, over w^, through IV, V^, C4, s^, and 
 leaves the battery at s to enter into the saturator. 
 
 The further stages, five, six, seven, and eight, are shown diagrammat- 
 ically in the table. 
 
 . With the ninth stage begins the regular work. From now on, of the 
 nine vessels, eight are always working while one is emptied and filled with 
 fresh cuttings. Each diffuser, before being emptied, is completely isolated, 
 by closing the valves, from the rest of the battery. The operation of the 
 valves must be in precisely the order indicated. Failure to do this will cause 
 disturbance. For instance, the closing of the valves u and s to the right is 
 of importance, as otherwise the water and sap will become mixed, whereby 
 leaching will take place and evaporation rendered more difficult. Further, 
 it should be taken as a general rule that the sap stream should enter every 
 operating vessel from above, except in case of the vessel just filled, when tlie 
 stream is reversed and ascends from below in order to prevent formation of 
 foam and to drive out all air from between the cuttings. 
 
 The temperature must be right in each diffuser, or the sap, as well as the 
 pulp, will be injured. As the sap cfrculation proceeds without interruption, 
 the principal steam-valve remains always open, and the regulation of the 
 temperature is controlled by the valves from the calorisator. 
 
 We will now suppose that the sap has been all extracted from the beet cut- 
 tings and has passed over to the saturator as a dirty-looking fluid with a dis- 
 agreeable taste and smell. In the diffusers remain the pulp, now of no more 
 use in the sugar process, but of much value in other respects. A trap in the 
 bottom of the diffuser opens and the pulp is thrown into a slide, where mod- 
 erate pressure removes the water as it passes downward to the cellar, to be 
 used subsequently for fodder, for which it is admirably adapted, especially 
 if mixed with substances containing fat and nitrogen, as oil-cake, ground 
 corn, etc. It is stored for use in ditches, after being mixed with chopped 
 
EETISION OF THE TARIFF. 1129 
 
 Straw, and is covered with straw and soil, being packed down as tight as pos- 
 sible. By being stored the pulp ferments and gains in digestive properties 
 and flavor. 
 
 We now return to the sap, which has reached the saturator, a vessel made 
 of block-tin, the use of which is the removal of foreign substances and the 
 saturation of the sap. The saturator is half-filled with sap. Lime-milk is 
 now introduced, as well as steam and carbonic dioxide. The steam must be 
 so controlled that the temperature of the sap slowly rises, until at the close of 
 the saturation it amounts to about 85° to 90° C. 
 
 The results of the treatment with lime and carbonic acid gas are as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 (i) The sap, previously dirty, dark, smelling of beets, more or less slimy, 
 and slightly acid, becomes clear, light yellow, thin in consistency, alkaline, 
 and emits an odor of ammonia. 
 
 (2) The sugar forms, with the lime, a saccharate, which, however, under 
 the influence of the COj is immediately resolved. 
 
 (3) The nitrogen-holding portion of the sap is resolved through the ac- 
 tion of the lime. 
 
 (4) The nitrogen-free organic acids, as ascetic and oxalic, are precipi- 
 tated as salts of lime. 
 
 (5) Coloring matters are partly thrown down and partly remain in the 
 solution. Dextrine combines loosely with the lime. 
 
 (6) Magnesia, oxide of iron, and phosphoric acid are precipitated, and 
 sulphuric acid is also separated, while all the other mineral substances re- 
 main in the solution. 
 
 By this process, of joo parts of foreign matter 40 to 50 will be removed. 
 The sap contains yet, however, many impurities, and the next step is to 
 carry it through the filter-press, which removes the dirt in the form of a cake. 
 This cake is used for manuring. 
 
 A still more important means of cleaning, and one which removes the 
 last of the impurities from the sap, is the filtration through animal charcoal 
 or spodium. This spodium is a charcoal made of bone, and is used in pieces 
 as small as a chestnut, or smaller. 
 
 The filter battery, composed of several- filters made of block-tin, from 18 
 to 30 feet high and from i^ to 3 feet in diameter, is shown in Plate 10. 
 
 These are filled with spodium and are packed to prevent cooling of the 
 sap as it passes through. Over the battery are reservoirs for water and sap. 
 The action of the spodium upon the sap is as follows : The sugar is taken 
 up by the charcoal, but is only loosely held, and can be easily removed with 
 water; saccharate of lime is rapidly seized upon and precipitated as hydrate 
 of lime and free sugar ; coloring matters are energetically absorbed, and 
 can not be washed out. 
 
 The remaining organic non-sugar substances are absorbed, but are not 
 combined with equal force. A part enter into a chemical combination, 
 while another part is only loosely retained by the spodium, and may be 
 again washed out. 
 
1130 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The salts act respectively in accordance with their chemical nature. 
 
 In spite of many experiments, no good substitute has yet been found for 
 spodium as a filter material. After being used it is washed out and then 
 thrown into a furnace and all impurities burned out, when it is again ready 
 for use. 
 
 Plate lo. 
 
 The sap must now be concentrated, and this is done by steaming and 
 boiling until the right consistency is reached to favor crystallization. As a 
 high temperature is objectionable, use is made of the well-known physical 
 law that boiling takes place at a lower temperature in a vacuum^and the 
 vacuum apparatus shown in Plate 1 1 is employed. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 1131 
 
 Flats it. 
 
1132 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The material is now let off into cooling-pans, where crystallization begins, 
 and from here the mass is poured into block-tin conical moulds, and finally 
 comes out as the familiar sugar-loaf. 
 
 A second quality of sap is conveyed to the centrifugal machines, which 
 revolve about a thousand times a minute, with the effect of causing the crys- 
 tallization of a great ring of white sugar, while the balance is drawn off as 
 molasses, no further crystallization being possible. These rings of sugar are 
 crushed and packed in sacks for market, constituting the so-called "pil6." 
 
 I may now mention the existing 
 
 TAXES AND DUTIES ON SUGAR IN AUSTRIA. 
 
 According to the law of June 20, 1888, there must be paid a consumption 
 tax on sugar, whether made out of raw material or the "reste" from sugar 
 manufacture. 
 
 Florins. 
 
 (1) Beet and all other sugars in every degree of purity, with the exception of sirup 
 unfit for human use per 100 kilograms, net... 11 
 
 (2) Sugar of any other kind : 
 
 As a solid 3 
 
 As a fluid i 
 
 iXPORT INDEMNITY. 
 
 From August i, 1888, an indemnity is granted on exports of sugar of the 
 first class — 
 
 Florins. 
 
 (a) For 100 kilograms, net, from 93° to 98° of polarization I-S" 
 
 [i) For 100 kilograms, net, with at least 99.5° of polarization 2.30 
 
 If this indemnity should amount in one year to more than 5,000,000 
 florins, the manufacturers are pledged to return the balance to the Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 DUTY ON IMPORTED SUGAR. 
 
 Florins. 
 
 (a) Raw sugar under Holland standard No. 19 per 100 kilograms... 15 
 
 (d) Raw sugar under Holland standard and higher than No. 19 20 
 
 Refined sugar 20 
 
 Sugar solutions, starch sugar, grape sugar (glucose) as a solid 15 
 
 Sirup (starch sugar, grape sugar, as a liquid) and molasses* 6 
 
 A ^_____^.^_____ 
 
 * This sirup must not contain any crystallized sugar, axd must Dot crystallize if heated. If boiled two 
 minutes it must reduce Soldaiai's solutiOD. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 1133 
 
 Statistics of the sugar-beet industry in Austria-Hungary. 
 
 i867-'63 .. 
 i868-'69 .. 
 1869-' 70.. 
 i87o-'7i ., 
 l87i-'72.. 
 l872-*73 .. 
 
 873-'74" 
 . 874-75 ■• 
 v»75-'76-. 
 oS76-'77.. 
 
 577-73.. 
 
 87s-' 79.. 
 
 879-'8o.. 
 
 88o-'8i .. 
 
 88i-'82 .. 
 
 882-'83 .. 
 
 883-'84.. 
 
 884-'85 .. 
 
 885-'86.. 
 
 886-' 87.. 
 
 Number 
 of factories 
 working. 
 
 "SI 
 162 
 181 
 215 
 251 
 256 
 244 
 226 
 231 
 227 
 229 
 226 
 226 
 227 
 230 
 232 
 230 
 229 
 212 
 217 
 207 
 
 Amount of beets. 
 
 Notified. 
 
 Met. cent. 
 12,165,753 
 9,409,232 
 14,107,376 
 18,538,173 
 16,114,062 
 20,418,912 
 16, 166, 107 
 II. 634.409 
 14.969.313 
 17,105,561 
 26, 310, 846 
 30,926,209 
 28,975.077 
 47. 308. 640 
 46, 280, 701 
 SI. 345. 805 
 44.856,566 
 46,087,950 
 
 28.453,837 
 45,589,629 
 35,226,999 
 
 Paid tax 
 for. 
 
 Met. cent. 
 10,854,380 
 7,934.382 
 12,291,160 
 
 15.931. 191 
 13,624,246 
 17.333.189 
 13.773.879 
 9.832.973 
 12,780,932 
 14.891,538 
 22,846,002 
 28,287,800 
 26,252,919 
 44,097,228 
 42,806,735 
 48,862,203 
 
 41.845.679 
 43,401,900 
 26,151,015 
 42,870,875 
 32,263,262 
 
 Export. 
 
 Refined su- 
 gar. 
 
 Met. cent. 
 
 5,258 
 149,438 
 369, 762 
 213,594 
 233.433 
 293,867 
 
 299.939 
 
 398.775 
 
 385.633 
 
 567,300 
 
 809,915 
 
 605,835 
 
 880,095 
 
 891,022 
 
 1,257,466 
 
 1,251,786 
 
 1,291,085 
 
 1,164,488 
 
 1,697,822 
 
 1,243,419 
 
 Raw sugar. 
 
 Total in raw 
 sugar. 
 
 Met. cent. 
 
 2,452 
 362,646 
 400,897 
 396, 840 
 455,262 
 495, 465 
 264,007 
 
 609,334 
 
 688,371 
 
 988,440 
 
 1,088,559 
 
 1,546,142 
 
 2,113.493 
 
 1,204,814 
 
 1,387,934 
 
 1,105,021 
 
 155,648 
 
 683,607 
 
 1,010,392 
 
 S02, 349 
 
 Met. cent. 
 
 8,762 
 541,972 
 844,651 
 
 653.153 
 735.382 
 848, 105 
 623,934 
 1,087,864 
 1,151,131 
 1,669,202 
 2,060,457 
 2,273.144 
 3, 169, 564 
 2,274,040 
 2,896,893 
 2.607,164 
 3. 704, 590 
 2,080,993 
 2,896,861 
 1,883,926 
 
 Years. 
 
 Receipts. 
 
 Tax on 
 
 beets. 
 
 Duty. 
 
 Total repaid 
 for evapo- 
 rated sugar. 
 
 Net amount 
 
 of tax over 
 
 duty. 
 
 Recovered 
 
 by after pay- 
 ments. 
 
 i867-'68 
 l868-'69 
 i869-'7o 
 i87o-'7i 
 l87i-'72 
 l872-'73 
 1873-74 
 l874-'75 
 iB7S-'76 
 i876-'77 
 1877-' 78 
 l878-'79 
 i879-'8o 
 i88o-'8i 
 l88i-'82 
 i882-'83 
 i883-'84 
 l884-'35 
 l885-'36 
 l886-'87 
 
 Florins. 
 
 7,352,266 
 
 5,802,017 
 
 8,987,911 
 
 11,649,684 
 
 9,962,730 
 
 12,674,894 
 
 10,072,149 
 
 7.190,361 
 
 9.330.081 
 
 10,870,823 
 
 16,677,581 
 
 20,050,094 
 
 19,164,634 
 
 35,277.783 
 
 34.375.531 
 
 39.090.563 
 
 33.476,543 
 
 34,721.521 
 
 20,920,812 
 
 34,296, 700 
 
 25,810,610 
 
 Florins. 
 16,010 
 267,600 
 23,886 
 10,056 
 14,482 
 23,032 
 23,400 
 10, 646 
 7.354 
 5.364 
 8.477 
 6,761 
 11,150 
 8,462 
 14,862 
 
 10,593 
 8,782 
 7,112 
 7,085 
 6,15s 
 5,947 
 
 FloriTts, 
 7,368,276 
 6,069,617 
 9,011,797 
 11,659.740 
 9,997,212 
 12,697,926 
 10,095,558 
 7,201,007 
 9.446,744 
 10,876,187 
 16,686,058 
 20,656,855 
 19,175.784 
 35.286,245 
 
 34,290,393 
 39,101,156 
 
 33.485.325 
 34.728.521 
 20,927,897 
 34,302,855 
 25,816,557 
 
 Florins. 
 1,805,117 
 77,528 
 4.742,147 
 7, 306, 653 
 5,817,097 
 6, 410, 106 
 
 7.152,491 
 5,458,683 
 
 9.472,991 
 10,479.973 
 15,335,217 
 18,960,724 
 20,843, 110 
 
 29.994,247 
 21,608,839 
 
 27.563.813 
 24.833.009 
 
 35.173.673 
 19,865,085 
 29,098,681 
 19.979.946 
 
 Florins. 
 
 5.563.159 
 5, 992, 089 
 4,269,650 
 4,353,087 
 4,160,115 
 6,287,820 
 2,943.067 
 1.742.324 
 — 26,247 
 396,214 
 1,350,841 
 1,696,131 
 1,667,326 
 5,291,998 
 12,781,554 
 11.537.343 
 8,652,111 
 —445.041 
 1,062,812 
 
 5,204,174 
 5,836,611 
 
 Florins. 
 
 4,303.869 
 8,167,326 
 4,708,002 
 
 1.810,546 
 12,045,041 
 10,937,188 
 
 6,963.389 
 
1134 
 
 REVISION OS' THE , TARIFF. 
 
 THE SUGAR FACTORY. 
 
 The manufacture of sugar can only be carried on on a large scale. It is 
 a great advantage for the manufacturer to own and conduct his own planta- 
 tion. Water is a prime requisite, and an important matter, also, is the dis- 
 posal of the water after it has been used, as it is then capable of destroying a 
 stream for all further uses, and this would cause endless suits and annoyances. 
 The water should be conveyed into ponds, where it may evaporate or sink 
 into the ground, or, better, distributed over the fields. The factory should 
 be so situated that coal can easily and cheaply be obtained and the goods 
 profitably shipped to market. It is, however, more important that it be in 
 the immediate neighborhood of the plantation. A middling-sized factory 
 requires about three hundred workmen. As the factory only works about 
 five months, it is necessary, in order to secure permanent help, to employ the 
 laborers in the field also. 
 
 THE BUILDING. 
 
 While it is not my purpose to go into the architectural features, I desire to 
 introduce here the accompanying admirable plan, not only as exhibiting 
 a model factory building, but as showing the relative location of the appa- 
 ratus as described in the foregoing pages. The building should be in the 
 form of a cross with a great central rotunda. 
 
 Summary of sugar factoriet in Austria- Hungary. 
 
 Description. 
 
 Bohemia. 
 
 Moravia. 
 
 Silesia. 
 
 Lower 
 Austria. 
 
 Galicia. 
 
 Hungary. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Sugar factories : 
 
 Working 
 
 138 
 7 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 . 14 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 Refineries : 
 
 4 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 IS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 15s 
 
 54 
 
 10 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 Sap extraction : 
 
 138 
 
 50 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 z 
 
 14 
 
 "S 
 
 
 Production : 
 
 IZO 
 
 20 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 33 
 17 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 2 
 
 
 4 
 8 
 
 163 
 
 »3 
 
 3 
 
 Rawsugar and white goods 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 United States Commercial Agency, 
 
 Reichenber^, November 8, i88g. 
 
 JOHN B. HAWES, 
 
 Commercial Agent. 
 
BEVISION OF THE TAKIFF. 1135 
 
 TRADE WITH CANADA. 
 
 STATEMENT OP HON. BENJAMIN BUTTBRWORTH. 
 
 The Hon. Benjamin Buttbrworth, Representative from the State of Ohio, ad- 
 dressed the committee on the subject of trade with Canada. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee : Under the circumstances, pressed 
 as you are for time, I feel that we can detain you but a few minutes. I desire, how- 
 ever, in addition to the statistics and figures I now submit, to hand yoa some other 
 figures in support of the bill "To provide for adjustment of all controversies and to 
 extend the trade and commerce of the United States, and to provide for full reciproc- 
 ity between the United States and the Dominion of Canada." 
 
 The bill which I introduced some time ago (H. R 678), and in advocacy of which 
 I now appear before you, has for its object the establishment of unrestricted recipro- 
 cal trade between the United States and the Dominion of Canada, and at the same 
 time to settle all disputes which have arisen between the two Governments growing 
 out of the fisheries question. I allude to the fisheries on the east coast, and not to 
 the troubles which have arisen in regard to the seal fisheries. It is proper to state 
 in the first place that Canada has as full power and authority to consummate this ar- 
 rangement as has the United States. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It being,a pure matter of legislation t 
 
 Mr. BuTTERWORTH. Yes, sir; a pure matter of legislation. The proposition ia dis- 
 tinctly set forth in the bill itself, which, if you will pardon me I will read : 
 
 A BILL to provide for adjnstment of all controvergies and to extend the trade and oorameree of the 
 TTnited Stated and to provide for fall reciprocity between the United States and the Dominion of 
 Canada. 
 
 Whereas certain controversies have arisen and are still pending between the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States and the Government of the Dominion of Canada, re- 
 specting commercial intercourse; and 
 
 Whereas by reason of the contiguity of the two countries and the similarity of 
 the interests and occupations of the people thereof, it is desired by the United States 
 to remove all existing controversies and all causes of controversy in the future, and 
 to promote and encourage business and commercial intercourse between the people 
 of both countries, and to promote harmony between the two Governments, and to 
 enable the citizens of each to trade with the citizens of the other without unneces- 
 sary restrictions : Therefore, 
 
 Be it enacted, etc., That whenever, and as soon as the Government of the Dominion 
 of Canada shall permit all articles of trade and commerce of whatever name or nature, 
 whether the product of the soil or of the waters of the United States, all manufact- 
 ured articles, live stock of all kinds, and its products, and all minerals, the produce 
 of the mines of the United States, to enter the ports of the Dominion of Canada free 
 of duty, then all articles manufactured in Canada, and all products of the soil and 
 waters, and all minerals the produce of the mines of Canada, and all other articles of 
 every name and description produced in said Dominion of Canada, shall be permitted to 
 enter the ports of the United States free of duty : Provided, however, That the pro- 
 visions of this act shall not apply to any product or article upon which an internal- 
 revenue tax is imposed by the laws of the United States. 
 
 Sec. 2. That when it shall be certified to the President of the United States by the 
 Government of the said Dominion of Canada, that by the authority of its Parliament 
 it has authorized the admission into the ports of said Dominion of all articles of 
 trade and commerce the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United States, free 
 of doty, the Presideiit shall make proclamation thereof, and shall likewise proclaim 
 that all articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of the said Dominion of Canada 
 shall be admitted into all the ports of the United States free of duty, and such arti- 
 cles shall be so admitted into the ports of the United States free of d uty so long as the 
 said Dominion of Canada shall admit the products of the United States, as herein 
 provided, into the ports of the Dominion free of duty. 
 
 Sec. 3. That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized, with the approval 
 of the President of the United States, and in conjunction with the proper offloials of 
 
1136 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 the Government of the Dominion of Canada, to make rules and regalations for the 
 purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this act, and to protect the said te- 
 spective Governments against the importation of foreign goods or articles through 
 either into the other without payment of duty ; and the Secretary of the Treasury of 
 the United States shall furnish to the customs ofBcers of the United States all such 
 rules and regulations for the purpose of guiding them in the discharge of their duties 
 in the premises. 
 
 Sec. 4. That before making the proclamations or either of them authorized by this 
 act the President shall be satisfied that all citizens and subjects of the United States 
 may have and enjoy the right of commercial intercourse in all the ports, harbors, and 
 places in Canada with the citizens and subjects of the Dominion, in as full and am- 
 ple a manner in all respects as may be had or enjoyed by the latter in the ports, har- 
 bors, and places of the United States, with the citizens and subjects thereof. 
 
 niPORTAKCE OF CLOSER KBLATI0N8 WITH CANADA. 
 
 Is what is proposed desirable ? Would it be well to enlarge the trade and commerce 
 of our country ? In this connection it is pertinent to call attention to the fact that 
 we witness to-day an exhibition (on the ^rt of our Government) of the expenditure 
 of large sums of money, and a display of national hospitality, which is indeed timely 
 and worthy of us, to establish a trade with a people 3,000 miles away; a trade that 
 is actually less than that we have with the Dominion of Canada. If it is desirable to 
 establish fuller and freer commercial relations with the several states of South 
 America, the West Indies, and Mexico, it is of far greater importance to establish 
 similartraderelationswith the Dominion of Canada. Itis urged by some who do not, 
 or at least affect not to, understand the proposition, and the influences that would 
 result from its. adoption, that to establish free trade relations with Canada, would 
 hamper and restrict the opportunities of our manufacturers and producers. The 
 statement is unwarranted. 
 
 Obviously, to establish the relation proposed by the bill,I have introduced, would 
 be to multiply over and over again our facilities, and can anything be more iUogical 
 or absurd than to assert that to render more ample the facilities for doing what is 
 desired is to abridge the opportunity for doing it. If this is so the rules of logic must 
 be inverted, and we know of no process of reasoning from known facts to correct 
 conclusions. It would seem more in accordance with common sense to say that the 
 multiplication of facilities enlarges the opportunity. Canada is a vast store-house 
 of supply, with natural wealth, boundless in quantity and almost infinite in variety, 
 and is at our doors, and more, is essential to a fuller and better condition of general 
 prosperity. It is at the same time a great market for the product of our mills, shops, 
 and factories, and not only that, it is a pari ot our home market. It is, in fact, our 
 home market, and is also one of the natural and obvious sources of supply. 
 
 TkADK WITH CANADA AND SOUTH AMERICA COMPARED. 
 
 It is quite proper in this connection, when speaking of Canada being our home 
 market, to compare our trade with the 5,000,000 of our kinsmen on the north of us 
 with the trade we have with the 51,000,000 of people south of the Rio Grande, and 
 with whom we are endeavoring to establish unrestricted recicrocal trade. I have the 
 figures here, if you please, carefully collected, and it is worthy of note that while we 
 are straining every nerve to secure the least desirable, we have heretofore, and are 
 still, refusing to make any effort to obtain the more desirable arrarigement with our 
 neighbors and kinsmen at home. But here is the showing: 
 
 In the year 1889 Canada purchased from the United States $55,879,192. 
 
 South American states purchased in the same year as follows : 
 
 Argentine Republic |6, 364, 545 
 
 Bolivia 1,304 
 
 Brazil 8,127,883 
 
 Chili 2,069,138 
 
 Ecuador 1,052,772 
 
 British Guiana 1,469,039 
 
 Dutch Guiana 239,634 
 
 French Guiana , 142,712 
 
 Pern 722,829 
 
 United States of Colombia 6,114,941 
 
 Uruguay 1,567,981 
 
 Venezuela 2,871,719 
 
 30,744,497 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1137 
 
 Mexico purchased from Uniied States in same year (1687) $7,959,557 
 
 Central American states 2,935,447 
 
 Britisli Honduras 354,932 
 
 11,249,936 
 
 In the same year we purchased from Mexico , 14,719,840 
 
 Amount free of duty 9,928,122 
 
 Dutiable 4,781,718 
 
 In 1887 the islands purchased as follows from the United States : 
 
 Cuba $10,546,411 
 
 Porto Kico 1,738,492 
 
 Hayti 3,230,128 
 
 San Domingo 1,032,865 
 
 British West Indies 6,647,204 
 
 Danish West Indies 613,626 
 
 Dutch West Indies 539,805 
 
 French West Indies 1,352,778 
 
 25,701,309 
 Recapitulation of purchases of foreign countries in 1887 : 
 
 South American states ■ $30,744,497 
 
 Mexico 7,959,557 
 
 Central American states . 2, 935,447 
 
 British Honduras ". 354,932 
 
 67, 695, 744 
 VALUE OF Canada's purchases from the united states. 
 
 In the years of 1883, 1884, and 1885, Canada purchased more from us than all the 
 other countries and islands on the western hemisphere, and during the existence of 
 the reciprocity treaty, from 1855 to 1866, she bought from us more than she sold to 
 us, the large sum of $59,136,256 ; and from the year 1850 to 1889, inclusive, a period of 
 forty years, there have been only seven years in which the balance of trade has been 
 against us with that country. In thirty-three years it has been in our favor. 
 
 Canada is the only country on the western hemisphere which buys more from us 
 than they sell to us, and in the aggregate, daring 1887, the balance against us in all 
 the above named countries and islands outside of Canada and including the Hawaiian 
 Islands, amounted to $112,684,635. 
 
 All the above countries and islands contain about 51, 000, 000 of inhabitants. Can- 
 ada has only 5, 000, 000, and yet she buys from us within about 25 per cent, of as much 
 as they all purchased. If we include only the South American and Central American 
 States and Mexico, she pu rchases from us 25 per cent, more than all of them. Yet, we 
 have appropriated thousands of dollars for the entertainment of the representatives of 
 all these independent States, whom we have invited here to enter into reciprocal 
 trade relations, when nearly everything except sugar, which we now purchase from 
 them, is admitted free. Not only is this true, but upon a very large portion of the 
 articles which we purchase from these countries, and admit free of duty, an export 
 duty is imposed by the country selling them to us, and we offer no retaliatory legisla- 
 tion against it. 
 
 Is there any conceivable reason why we should not offer as broad and liberal trade 
 measures to Canada, by concurrent legislation, as we are seeking to thrust upon all of 
 South and Central America and Mexico by a most hospitable diplomacy. 
 
 From the year 1850 to 1889 the South American States bought from us goods of 
 both our own and foreign production to the amount of $598,489,899. 
 
 During the same period the United States bought from South America goods to the 
 extent of $1,701,058,329, or an excess of our imports over exports to these countries of 
 $1,202,568,450. 
 
 If we add to the South American trade that of Mexico, Central America, and the 
 West Indies, the amount during this same period will show as follows : 
 Goods purchased from all these countries, from 1850 to 1889, inclusive. $3, 756, 458, 687 
 Goods sold to them duri ng the same period 1, 603, 468, 118 
 
 Or an excess of imports over exports of 2, 152,990,569 
 
 During this same period Canada purchased from us goods to the 
 
 amount of 1,405,752,215 
 
 While we purchased from them 1, 1.53,634,303 
 
 Or an excess of our exports to that country over our imports from lo of, 352, 117, 912 
 
 485 72 ^ 
 
1138 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 THE BALANCE OP TRADE. 
 
 Here are 51,000,000 of people to the south of us wilh whom, for the last forty years, 
 •we have a balance of trade against ns of $2,1.5^,990,569, aud yet we are seeking by 
 every device kiiowu to diplomacy, aided by the stroug arm of the Treasury, to fur- 
 ther extend our trade with them, regardless of auy revenues this trade may bring to 
 the Treasury. Here are 5,000,000 of jieople to the north of us who, for the last forty 
 years, have a balance in their favor of $252,117,912, and yet, instead of using national 
 effort to extend and increase our trade wilh them, we are sending out invsstigating 
 commiitees to see if some injury, real or imaginary, can not be hunted up or soaght 
 out, by virtue of which we shall be enabled to frame some bill of indictment against 
 them. Can any fair, broad-minded, reasonable man tell us why this is so? 
 
 The United States is a great nation ; Canada is a small nation so far as numhers 
 are concerned. Geography and destiny have decreed that the two people shall be 
 one. Nothing hut parsimonious statesmanship will enable them to continue as two 
 countries. 
 
 Let us show by our acts to these people that we are willing to deal fairly and lib- 
 erally with them ; at least, as fairly as we are striving to deal with all the people 
 between us and the south pole. Tliis will make them feel that it is desirable to live 
 not only on good terms with us, but to come in and be a part of us. Starving or coer- 
 cive measures will never accomplish this end. Such policy wholly ignores the oper- 
 ations of human nature. 
 
 Mr. Flowkr. Right here let me ask you a question. Do these South American 
 products, which come fiom these countries, compete with our American farmers in what 
 they grow? 
 
 Mr. BuTTERWORTH. Some do and some do not. I will get to the question of com- 
 petition in a moment. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Would not you get this? Our manufacturers send to Canada these 
 $51,000,000, and they send to these American States twenty odd millions of dollars. 
 In one instance you are getting the benefit of the manufactures at a point south, and 
 in another instance you are getting the benefit at a point north. How does that affect 
 the farmer ? 
 
 Mr. BuTTERWOKTH. It would have the same eflEeot upon the farmer as the admission 
 of Texas or Kansas into the Union. 
 
 Mr. Flower. In opening 3,000,000 square acres of land with only one to the square 
 mile put in competition with him. 
 
 Mr. BuTTEKWORTH. There is nothing in this bugbear of destructive competition on 
 this continent. I speak of the country north of the Rio Grande, as my bill relates 
 immediately to that. If there is anything iu it so destructive, as some gentlemen 
 seem to think, the system of economy which nature ordained, which is of divine 
 origin, is not worthy of respect. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Suppose you annex Canada. 
 
 Mr. BuTTERWOETH. Exactly. I am coming to that in a moment. In this state- 
 ment here I show the condition of trade with the 51,000,000 of people to the south of 
 us. Now, we all agree that it is desirable to extend our territory and multiply the 
 facilities of our people, to fight the battle of life successfully and have the oppor- 
 tunity to do it, and that is what this bill proposes. 
 
 CONDITIONS WHEN A PROTECTIVE TARIFF HAS NO OFFICE. 
 
 Now, what are the objections ? In the first place, it is well known to this committee 
 that I am an earnest Republican, that I am a protectionist with somewhat ultra tend- 
 encies, and as such I lay down the proposition on which I stand, and on which I 
 have stood since I have Ituown anything of political economy, that in the presence 
 of equal opportunity, equal conditions, a protective tarift' has no proper or honest 
 office to perform and never had, and the fathers of this Republic, and those who in 
 an early day advocated protection, never believed it had and never so said. 
 
 As between Canada and the United States there is not a gentleman present who 
 does not know that from every stand-point in the field of industrial competition we 
 hold the coign of vantage. Now, what would result from this competitive trade? 
 Across the border and near by you may obtain iron ore which you need in New 
 England, and also coal which you need. In fact, there are various supplies of raw 
 material just at hand, but across the line, that could be utilized in that great hive 
 of industry. New England. 
 
 What is the objection to permitting you to exchange that which you want to sell 
 for what they have and which you need? Why, it is said that Canada will come in 
 competition with us in every field of industrial effort. So say some of the manu- 
 facturers. So say Komo of the farmers. Why, gentlemen, that can be no valid objec- 
 tion. If it is the object of Government merely to restrict competition, will you tellme 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. ^ 1139 
 
 whore you will begin and where stop t What a strange idea has grown up among cer- 
 tain gentlemen touching the power and duty of the Government in the matter of re- 
 stricting competition, as if it was the office of legislation to limit or destroy compe- 
 tition, because, forsooth, it is found just across an imaginary line and without our 
 own territory. The free-trader insists that there shall be unrestricted and unlimited 
 competition without regard to its character or nature. The protectionist says : We 
 consent to unlimited competition so long as it has the condition and quality of fair- 
 ness. Those protectionists who maintain that it is the proper function of the pro- 
 tective policy to restrict, if not absolutely destroy, all that competition which we call 
 foreign, are, in my judgment at least, very far from a right apprehension of the true 
 spirit and philosophy of protection. 
 
 INJURIOUS BFFECTS OF A EESTEICTIVE POLICY. 
 
 If it is well, and in accordance with sound economic principles, to restrict or prohibit 
 competition, without regard to its character and condition, and ifsuch restriction re- 
 sults advantageously, probably some learned pundit will explain to me why we should 
 not hasten to divide the United States into, say, eight or ten divisions, and let each one 
 establish a protective tariff as against the others, and thus by narrowing competition 
 and developing the resources of each division under that restricted competition 
 grow rich. Nothing is further from the true spirit of the American policy than to 
 abridge opportunity by limiting facilities. The real office of that policy is to make 
 opportunity equal, and, as I have said before, make competition fair, just, and hu- 
 mane. 
 
 I do not mean by making opportunity equal that we should or could place all com- 
 petition on an equal footing with reference to raw material, source of supply, equal- 
 ity of skill, ability among workmen, and the like ; that would be impossible, and the 
 attempt unjust and unwise; but to remove such inequalities as can be reached by 
 legislation without founding or sustaining monopolies. 
 
 The influence of competition is the same, whether it be on one side of an imaginary 
 line or the other, whether it be in Ohio or Ontario ; but so long as the competitors 
 enjoy equal opportunities nothing is more healthful, and no condition could be more 
 in the interest of the mass of the people than that that competition should be unre- 
 strained, whether it be in the matter of production or in the matter of the sale of 
 that which is produced. Why, if I am wrong about this, it must follow logically 
 that the true interest of New York and Pennsylvania and Ohio would be, since they 
 possess abundant resources, coal, iron, and those materials needful for the uses and 
 purposes of this existence, to draw a line around their territory and erect a tariff wall 
 as against the other States of the Union and the rest of the world. Other sections 
 coald do the same with obvious advantage. If the wiping out of competition can 
 bring j)ro8perity to the people, and if this restrictive policy is sound, the admission 
 of Texas into the Union, the acquisition of Florida and the Territory of Louisiana 
 were grievous blunders on the part of our fathers. 
 
 BENEFITS THAT WOULD EESULT TO FARMERS. 
 
 It is suggested that the farmers of this country would find themselves in the voc- 
 ative if the agricultural products of Canada were admitted to the United States, It 
 is difficult to hear with patience such a statement. The farmers have for many years 
 been participating in wronging themselves. The idea is, I suppose, that it is the 
 duty of the Government to create a famine in order to supply a market; but aside 
 from all that the experience of our own country abundantly proves that in the mat- 
 ter of competition we find our most healthful prosperity, not only so far as agricult- 
 ure is concerned, but in every possible direction and department of industrial effort. 
 Any one who will study with care the statistics of the develoiiment and growth of 
 his country will see how absurd the suggestion of danger to the farmer is. 
 
 I have studied with care the objection that is now urged against unrestricted re- 
 ciprocal trade between Canada and the United States as viewed from the stand-point 
 of supposed dangers which would threaten agriculture and manufacturing interests. 
 The same objections might have been urged years ago in the interest of the wheat- 
 growers of the Genesee Valley. Their prosperity must have been destroyed when 
 the valley of the Miami and the great valley of the Wabash and the still greater 
 valley of the Mississippi sent their supplies of grain into tbe market. But is the 
 Genesee Valley less prosperous or is the Ohio Valley less prosperous than before 
 wheat was grown in the great valleys of the Wabash and the Mississippi ? Not at 
 all. The wheat-fields have moved farther west, and there has been an adaptation of 
 means to ends aud instrumentalities to the wants of the people. What is urged in 
 regar-1 to agriculture was seriously suggested as a fatal objection to unrestricted 
 trade with Canada by the manufacturers when I first began to discuss this question. 
 
1140 ' REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 INTLUENCE OF COMPETITION IN THE GROWTH OF MANUFACTURES. 
 
 I was at some pains to study the influence of the growth of competition between 
 the sections of the United States so far as manufacturers are concerned. I found 
 that Ohio and Illinois had scarcely entered the list as great manufacturing States 
 (competitors of the East, if you please) before the war ; but it may be said of those 
 two comparatively young States that they suddenly bounded into tlie arena, and Ohio 
 pushed to the front and soon became the third manufacturing State in the Union, and 
 Illinois was close by her side. What was — what is the result ? If there had been 
 anything destructive in this competition, which seems to be so much feared by our 
 manufacturing friends in Canada and the United States, New England would have 
 become a desert and New York and Pennsylvania would have been full of empty 
 shops and idle factories. Now, mark the fact. In 1880 those two States, Ohio and 
 Illinois, poured into the reservoir of manufacture supplies more in value and quan- 
 tity than were produced in 1850 by every State east of the Alleghenies and north of 
 the Potomac ; I mean all of New England, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 
 Delaware, and Maryland. 
 
 I looked then to ascertain what the influence of this vast addition to the store- 
 house of supply from Ohio and Illinois had been upon the industries of the East. 
 Was there any evidence of paralysis in New England, or in Pennsylvania or New 
 York ? Ware their industries suffering ? Not at all. I found the exact reverse to be 
 true, and that each one of the States of the East was enjoying a greater degree of 
 industrial prosperity than ever before. I am asked why is this so ? How can it be 
 so? I answer first, that the record discloses that it is so, and, second, that the de- 
 mand has multiplied over and over again and the supply has kept pace with it. I 
 do not deny that it is possible to overproduce, but it is true at the same time that 
 with an abundant supply we use vastly more of everything, even of bread and meat ; 
 and it is also trae that overproduction is vastly less dangerous and hurtful when it 
 is the result of the joint efforts of the many than when it results from the eflbrts of 
 the pampered few. 
 
 INCREASED FACILITIES WILL PROMOTE COMMERCE. 
 
 But touching overproduction and consumption, it will be observed that with 
 increased facilities and consequent increased supply we use not only that which is 
 necessary in life in larger measure, but we add to that those things which increase 
 our comfort; and, again, we supplement both by seeking that which is ornamental ; 
 and where-is in the presence of restricted opportunity aud limited supplies we seek 
 merely what is necessary, in the presence of multiplied facilities and larger oppor- 
 tunity we go beyond that and seek all those things which tend to add to our comfort aud 
 iucreaseour happiness, by obtaining the luxuries of life; I mean not those things which 
 are evidences of mere extravagance, but that which tends to cultivate the ideal, the 
 beautiful ; that which pleases the eye and ear and tends to cultivate, refine, and en- 
 noble mankind. Multiplied opportunities is what we desire in this life. I may repeat 
 again: If there was anything so disastrous in the mere matter of competition New 
 York would to-day stand as a witness of the fact, and a solemn warning of the dan- 
 gers that result from the influence of competition. But what do we see f Why the 
 industrial pursuits which were a source of immense revenue, which were at one time 
 in that State its main stay, found her grandest opportunity and unexampled pros- 
 perity in the very competition deprecated by so many persons. When we pass the 
 line of needed protection we enter the domain of odious subsidies, of bonuses, the in- 
 fluence of which would be partial and unjust, a forced tax on the many for the ad- 
 vantage of a few. This would be plunder, not protection. 
 
 Now, as my friend Mr. Carlisle has suggested, suppose Canada had been apart of the 
 Federal Union, and she came near it, for had it not been for a little clause in the 
 treaty of 1763 between England and France, by which certain religions privileges 
 were secured to the French citizens of Canada, the Dominion to-day would liave been 
 a part of this Federal Union. And suppose it had been, will anybody protend to say 
 that we would have suffered by reason thereof, or that we would not have been richer, 
 our opportunities larger by great odds, than we are to- day ? If not, on what pretense 
 did we acquire Louisana and Florida and Texas, at the cost of blood and treasure f 
 And what prompted the statesmen of our day to purchase Alaska J Certainly nobody 
 would claim that we were suffering from competition north of the line which divides 
 us from the Dominion if that northern section only formed a part of the Federal Union. 
 
 But it is said th^t Canada would derive advantages which Texas does not, bo- 
 cause Texas contributes to the support of our Government while Canada does not. 
 If that had anytbing to do with the question, which it has not, it would be sufficient 
 to say that the Federal Government pays out for the benefit of Texas $'2 for every 
 dime she raises from that State, aud the same may bo s!^id of rnany of the States an4 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1141 
 
 Territories. I am surprised to find that some persons are disturbed beause Canada 
 ■will derive some advantage from the proposed arrangement. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If the trade between the United States and Canada is beneficial to 
 the United States, why should we complain if it is also beneficial to Canada? 
 
 PARTISANSHIP VS. STATESMANSHIP. 
 
 Mr. BuTTERWORTH. We should not ; but the trouble is, Mr. Carlisle, that partisan 
 politics rather than statesmanship may guide in this matter. There are a few manu- 
 facturers, who would suppress all competition at home as well as abroad if they 
 could, who are potential in certain Congressional districts along the border. These, 
 joined with a handful of fishermen and farmers near the line, and holding in some 
 measure the balance of power, could control the economic policy of a nation, and are 
 potent to shape the destiny of sixty millions of people. We must cut loose from mere 
 partisan politics and local selfishness in dealing with questions of this character, and 
 appeal to broad statesmanship, which solves problems of state, not merely for the 
 approaching fall election, but for the century, and for the paramount and lasting 
 good of the whole people. 
 
 How little our people know of Canada and her exhaustless resources. There is not 
 a river in Canada, nor a lake along our border, nor a mountain range, nor any natural 
 highway of commerce that does not plead for unfettered commerce between the two 
 nations. United as we are indissolubly by race, language, traditions, similarity of 
 institutions ; separated only by an arbitrary imaginary boundary line, irregular in 
 its course ; with Canadian territory running down 500 miles into the heart of the 
 Kepublic, and the United States territory extending up on the east and west so as to 
 almost inclose the main part of Canada; with our great lines of transcontinental 
 commerce runuing through the Dominion, and in turn their lines of transcontinental 
 commerce running through the United States; with the natural products of each 
 country supplementing those of the other; with vast quantities of ores and 
 fuel just across the border, which the furnaces and mills of New England re- 
 quire, and per contra, a demand in Canada for what New England produces. I 
 assert without hesitation that the evidence at the command of the committee 
 and the House can leave no doubt that the present controversy about the fisheries 
 and hampering trade restrictions between the United States and the Dominion of 
 Canada are the result of the efl'orts of a few individuals in one locality and the 
 selfishness and avarice of a few individuals in another locality, all supplemented by 
 ignorance on the part of the multitude of the real interests at stake. It is interesting 
 to observe a Yankee commanding a fishing-smack manned almost exclusively by 
 Nova Scotiaus but carrying the American Flag, and crying out for the better protec- 
 tion of American (?) fishermen. And we are urged to "protect the fishing interest 
 because our fisheries are the nursery of American (?) seamen." No greater folly has 
 been commited against the rights of the American people than our persistent mainte- 
 nance of a controversy about the fisheries. Every cod-fish ball or piece of salt mack- 
 erel has been doubled in the matter of cost to the consumer in this country on the 
 plea that we were maintaining a nursery of American seamen ; that American fishing 
 interests would suffer in the presence of unrestricted reciprocal trade in that behalf 
 between ourselves and Canada ; and yet the fish we buy are caught in the main by 
 Canadians or Nova Scotians, which is the same thing, in the employ of American 
 capitalists. 
 
 PRODUCTS OP THE FOREST AND MINE. 
 
 The same ridiculous and absurd management has characterized our course in the 
 matter of levying a duty upon logs and lumber to protect an American industry. 
 Nothing can be more shocking to every just principle of protection than our course in 
 regard to the forests. The idea of protection is to multiply and develop the industries 
 protected, and yet every man must see that the more our forests are protected the 
 sooner they perish and disappear from the face of the earth. There is an idea also 
 that it is unijatriotic to buy coal which is dug from the bowels of the earth any- 
 where except within the United States, and all this pretense is said to be in the 
 intereit of American industry and American labor ; and yet, if you will go down into 
 the coal mines in some localities it will take a search warrant to find a man that can 
 talk the English language or has any knowledge of or conscious sympathy with our 
 constitutional Government. In one part of the country we will find Chinamen em- 
 jjloyed, in another part unnaturalized Poles and Huns and Sicilians, and all this on 
 the false pretense that we are protecting American labor. 
 
 The same thing may be said in regard to our copper mines. To-day, or certainly un- 
 til recently, our own citizens were compelled topay more for American copper than the 
 citizens of any other nation on the earth were asked to pay for copper taken from 
 American mines; and we have upheld and continue to uphold that grasping monop- 
 
1142 EEvisroiT op The tariff. 
 
 oly, on the false assumption that in some way it inured to the adyantage of the peo- 
 ple at large; and this we did, although a rich abundance of ore, belonging possibly to 
 the same lead, just across an imaginary line from the United States offered a supply 
 that would have prevented extortion. The same thing has been true of nickel, and 
 in a large measure true of sugar. The fact is that we overlook the larger interest at 
 Btake, which involves the rights and interests of sixty millions of people; for it must 
 not be forgotten that where one single dollar is needlessly taken in the shape of taxes, 
 no matter how or where, it becomes in a degree a drain, a constant drain, upon the 
 pocket of every man in the country. The consumer is the man who pays the taxes, 
 and John Smith, who gets $1.50 a day, consumes as much of certain articles as John 
 Brown, who may have an income of as many dollars an hour. 
 
 ABUSE OF THE PROTECTIVE SYSTEM. 
 
 I speak of these things, Mr. Chairman, because I believe that the restrictions that 
 are put upon trade in certain directions have not had, nor were they in every case 
 by those who advocated their imposition intended to have, in view the interests of 
 all the people, uuless by the people we mean the few favored individuals. He is an 
 enemy of the protective system who would use it merely to arbitrarily suppress com- 
 petition. Its aid was never invoked by the fathers for such a purpose, and such 
 abuse of the principle will insure its speedy overthrow. I am justified in adopting 
 this view and employing this language not only from facts that are obvious to all of 
 us, but for the reason that this was the view of those whom we are accustomed to 
 call the fathers, whose patriotism was not doubted, and whose political sagacity has 
 not been seriously called into question. What is here proposed by the bill I have 
 introduced found favor with such patriots as John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, 
 Eobert C. Winthrop, John J. Crittenden, Robert C. Schenck, Rufus Choate, and men 
 of their day and generation. In ls4ti a bill, in every respect on all fours with the one 
 I have introduced, passed the House of Representatives, of which Eobert C. Win- 
 throp was Speaker, without a dissenting vote, so obvious were the advantages that 
 would result from the adoption of the measure. That House was composed of 107 
 Democrats and 117 Whigs if my memory serves me correctly; however, the record 
 will disclose. The bill was briefly discussed in the Senate, and there a question arose 
 as to whether individual interests might not suffer if the multitude was blessed by 
 the adoption of the measure, and the concern of some seemed to be for the few as 
 against the many. However, before final action was taken in the Senate the session 
 reached its close. 
 
 Very soon thereafter an arrangement less advantageous to the United States was 
 made, and was known as the reciprocity measure of 1854, which continued in force 
 until 1S66. A great hue and cry has been raised against the operation of that treaty, 
 it being asserted that the United States was the loser. The outcry had less of patriot- 
 ism than selfishness in it. The record discloses how utterly unfounded it was. It 
 was raised in the interest of selfishness and continued in the same interest. So far 
 from the balance of trade being against us under that treaty, the balance-sheet shows 
 that it was in our favor about $60,000,000, and it would have been enlarged but for 
 the unfortunate occurrence of the war. I submit that the patriotism of General 
 Grant has not been called into question, and he proved himself not only a soldier, but 
 a statesman. Aided by his able Secretary, Mr. Fish, he negotiated a treaty with 
 the Dominion of Canada, the Hon. George Brown and Sir Edward Thornton acting 
 for the Dominion, which had for its object all that it proposed in the bill you have 
 under consideration. It evinced a spirit of true patriotism and broad statesmanship. 
 It provided for opening up certain channels and arteries of trade, so that our com- 
 merce might be not only unfettered so far as law is concerned, but might have its 
 natural highways, such as rivers, lakes, and canals improved in the interest of the peo- 
 ple on both sides of the line. This treaty, which was indeed worthy of the great 
 man who negotiated it, reached the Senate too late for action. But still it is proper 
 to say that that action was delayed by those who represented individual interests in 
 certain localities rather than the larger interests of the whole people. ' 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO KECIPEOCITT CONSIDERED. 
 
 It will be urged, of course, and is, that the arrangement could not be practically 
 carried out with Cai ada. That it in fact would open up a highway for English goods 
 to the markets of th( United States. This objection originates in ignorance, or else is 
 not offered in sincerity. Gentlemen that know anything about it must admit that 
 Canada must have lovenue. Her tariff schedule is now about on the same plane as 
 our own, and would certainly not be lowered. It is far more likely that ours will be 
 lowered than that she will scale her tariff. With access to our markets, Canada 
 would purchase of us what she now purchases in the main from the Old World; she 
 would have every reason which self-interest and honorable conduct would prompt to 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1143 
 
 protect her revenaes, and it would be a brave man wbo would run the gauntlet of the 
 Canadian custom-honses and then the gauntlet of the Ameri can custom-houses to get 
 any advantage that could be derived from the difference between the value of the 
 articles in Canada and the United States. The bill relates solely to articles grown, 
 manufactured, and produced in the United States aud Canada, as the case may be. 
 
 There is positively no danger on the score suggested. It might not be amiss to 
 call attention to the fact just here that the gentlemen who discovered such danger 
 where there is none are utterly unable to find themselves apprehensive as to a simi- 
 lar result in the case of unrestricted reciprocity of trade between the States of South 
 America, the West Indies, Mexico, and the United States. It is said, "If Canada 
 wants to share the advantages of our commerce and trade, let her come into the Fed- 
 eral Union." Very well, she would do well to come, but we need not refuse present 
 obvious advantages, because the Dominion is not so situated at this time as to avail 
 herself of a larger advantage which she would find in becoming a part of the Federal 
 Union. The idea of starving Canada, as some propose, into an assimilation with us 
 is not the suggestion of statesmanship nor in harmony with the civilization of the 
 age; nor is it calculated to induce the pleasant condition of things that the gentle- 
 men desire. 
 
 DANGERS THAT THREATEN PROTECTION. 
 
 When we shall become one commercially, by reason of unrestricted trade and com- 
 merce, and our Canadian kinsmen shall pitch their tents with us, and thousands of 
 our people, millions if it comes to that, shall find advantageous opportunities across 
 the border, we will be practically one people for all the proper purposes of this life. 
 And when the time shall come and an attempt be made to tear us asunder that attempt 
 will be futUe. I insist as a Republican and a protectionist, that if the narrow- 
 gauge policy suggested by some distinguished gentlemen is adhered to, the protect- 
 ive wall all around the United States will be thrown down, except for purposes of 
 revenue, and we will be brought to a realizing sense that the protective system is to 
 impart the quality of fairness and humanity to competition, and not to destroy it in 
 the interest of combined and aggregated wealth. Unfortunately, as the world goes. 
 Congress is not likely to take an affirmative action on any given proposition until the 
 wild clamor from the people in its favor fairly lifts members from their feet, and then 
 the sound must be absolutely certain and clear before they will consent to act. 
 
 Gentlemen will discover before our party is many years older that we are fast run- 
 ning upon the rocks by continuing to abuse a policy wise in itself, but which may be 
 BO persecuted as to be condemned by three-fourths of the people who thoroughly un- 
 derstand it. I insist and shall continue to insist that the policy which has sole ref- 
 erence to certain conditions, which impart to the competition where those conditions 
 exist the leaven of injustice, inequality, aud inhumanity shall not be applied where 
 those conditions are not found. Nor am I for one content to remain Oeaf and silent 
 in the midst of this conflict, awaiting for favorable winds to blow me to a harbor of 
 political rest, setting my sails after the current of the trade-winds has become ob- 
 vious and their course and force manifest. 
 
 NO REASONS FOR RKSTKICTING COMMERCE. 
 
 In conclusion, I submit that there is no reason known to soiind, economic principles 
 which should delay the passage of this bill or one similar to it in its provisions ; that 
 there is no sound, economic reason for abridging our trade with Canada, restricting 
 our facilities, and thus narrowing the opportunities of our people. Whether or not 
 in the presence of our ability to produce we have supplies beyond what is required 
 has nothing to do with the case except to suggest the necessity of more room and 
 broader opportunity as a result of multiplied facilities. 
 
 The United States has found its safety less in the devotion of its present population 
 to our institutions than in its broad acres and tbe resulting freedom from attri- 
 tion in the many conflicts of interest incident to this life. If unrestricted com- 
 merce is good for half the continent, it is good for all of it. I do not stop to 
 consider the question as it relates to Mexico, and the South American States; 
 those are questions apart. I may say, however, that Mexico could not enter into 
 such an arrangement, for it would absolutely destroy her revenues; and this is the 
 testimony of her representative men who are here to speak for her. Nor is that all, 
 there is a difl'erence of race, language, and institutions. However, wben those ques- 
 tions come up, I am quite ready in the spirit of fairness to consider them. I hope 
 this committee will report this bill before the House, with or without recommenda- 
 tion, as they may deem best. I have spoken with some plainness, becauNe I have 
 found nothing else will do. To stick in the bark of tbe question has no other result 
 than to kill time and offer opportunity for rhetorical exercise, aud I do not desire to 
 do the one nor participate in the other. 
 
1144 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 OflES AJ^T> METAI.S. 
 
 [For additional Ores and Metals, see ante page 1.] 
 
 LAKE SUPEEIOR ORES. 
 
 Philadelphia, December 28, 1889. 
 
 Dear Sir: Referring to the desire of some of your members for more exact facts 
 regarding costs of mining ores in the Lalie Superior district and their transportation 
 to Eastern works, we inclose herewith statement of facts from our records for past 
 seven years so far as same are complete. These figures make no allowance for the 
 capital invested in the mining plant or for operating, involving an average of over 
 $1,500,000. 
 
 You will please note that the difference between the cost of labor at mine per ton of 
 ore and the cost in cars is also largely labor in other forms but does not appear upon our 
 rolls. The same may also be said of the cost of transportation, so that the aggregate 
 cost delivered at furnaces, excepting the item of royalty and whatever returns there 
 may be upon the capital employed in moving the ores from the mines in Michigan to 
 the works in Pennsylvania, may be properly stated to be nearly all labor and justly 
 entitled to be protected against the 30 to 50 cents per day Spanish labor and miner 
 and the foreign transportation companies employed in delivering their product to 
 our shores. These figures of cost are applicable to our own workings only and the 
 differences in the annual mines costs are explained by changes in the rates paid labor, 
 by the mining difficulties of the year, and the quantity of preparatory work, such as 
 sinking shafts, drifting, etc. done, the benefit of which generally inures to following 
 years. 
 
 Mining in this district may be classed as extra hazardous, so far particularly as the 
 capital employed is concerned, and large sums must be constantly spent in exploring 
 work, a very small percentage of which are ever productive, and iu times of depres- 
 sion this kind of work languishes while the exhaustion of known mines is continually 
 going on, and if it were not for the protection afforded by present duty in recent 
 years of business depression this development would have entirely ceased, and our 
 Lake Superior mines would not have reached their present magnitude with their 
 large output, and the furnacemen to-day would have been unable to supply the 
 country with the metals required and would have been forced to compete against 
 each other for the available supply of ores in both native and foreign markets, with 
 resulting very large increase in costs of all iron and steel work to the detriment of 
 the country at large. 
 
 The imposition and continuance of protective duties on the product of our mines 
 and manufactures of all kinds should be first done with view of fully protecting our 
 American labor against the pauper labor of foreign countries, and of equal import- 
 ance, for the certain development of our natural resources, inviting home competition 
 and thus most certainly reducing the costs to the ultimate consumer, the people at 
 largo. We should on these grounds favor an increase where any changes are contem- 
 plated in present rates on any raw materials or manufactures that can be ultimately 
 produced within our boundaries in quantity to supply the requirements of the nation. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 Powell Stackhouse, 
 Vice-President Cambria Iron Company. 
 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Commiitee on Ways and Means. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 1145 
 
 
 
 Average 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average 
 
 
 
 
 
 earniDgs 
 
 Average 
 
 
 
 
 cost of 
 
 
 
 Year. 
 
 Aver- 
 age No, 
 
 of 
 hands 
 
 per day of 
 allem- 
 
 ploy6a,m- 
 oluding 
 
 No. of 
 days' 
 ■work re- 
 quired to 
 
 Cost of 
 direct la- 
 bor per 
 
 Average 
 costofore 
 pertonf. 
 0. b. cars, 
 mines. 
 
 Average 
 royalty 
 (or value 
 of ore in 
 ground). 
 
 transport- 
 ing ore 
 from 
 minea in 
 
 Total 
 average 
 cost deliv- 
 ered at 
 
 Per 
 
 cent, of 
 
 duty on 
 
 this 
 
 cost. 
 
 
 em- 
 ployed. 
 
 boys and 
 other than 
 
 produce 
 1 ton of 
 
 ton of ore. 
 
 Michigan 
 to works 
 
 smelting 
 point. 
 
 
 
 salaried 
 
 ore. 
 
 
 
 
 in Penn- 
 
 
 
 
 
 officers. 
 
 
 
 
 
 sylvania, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Per at. 
 
 1882 
 
 
 
 
 
 $3.10 
 2.40 
 
 $.49 
 .46 
 
 $6.23 
 4.42 
 
 $8.82 
 7.28 
 
 9 
 
 1883 
 
 866 
 
 $1.79 
 
 $1.11 
 
 $1.98 
 
 10 
 
 1884 
 
 606 
 693 
 811 
 913 
 831 
 
 1.74 
 1.65 
 1.86 
 1.85 
 1.75 
 
 1.00 
 .92 
 .89 
 .90 
 
 1.04 
 
 1.74 
 1.49 
 1.59 
 1.87 
 1.81 
 
 2.27 
 2.10 
 2.19 
 2.20 
 2.74 
 
 .48 
 .40 
 .33 
 .42 
 .40 
 
 3.91 
 3.32 
 3.88 
 4.29 
 3.40 
 
 0.66 
 
 5.82 
 6.45 
 6.91 
 5.64 
 
 11 
 
 1885 
 
 13 
 
 1886 
 
 12 
 
 1887 
 
 11 
 
 1888 
 
 12 
 
 Average .. 
 
 986 
 
 1.77 
 
 .98 
 
 1.71 
 
 2.43 
 
 .43 
 
 6.93 
 
 6.93 
 
 11 
 
 PRODUCTION OF PIG-IRON. 
 
 The following tables, ooUeoted by manufacturers for the American Iron and Steel 
 Association, show the production of pig-iron in the United States for the year 1889 : 
 
 States. 
 
 Maine 
 
 Massachusetts - 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 New York 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 Penn.sylvania - - 
 
 Mar_Yland 
 
 Virginia 
 
 North Carolina. 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Texas 
 
 West Virginia . , 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Ulinola 
 
 Michigan 
 
 "Wisconsin 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Oregon 
 
 iVashington 
 
 Total, 1889 . 
 Total, 1888 . 
 
 Elast furnances. 
 
 In 
 blast 
 June 
 30, 89. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 5 
 
 14 
 
 7 
 
 123 
 
 2 
 
 13 
 1 
 1. 
 
 29 
 1 
 3 
 4 
 
 12 
 
 40 
 
 287 
 290 
 
 December 31, 1889. 
 
 In. Out. Total. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 5 
 
 18 
 
 8 
 
 151 
 
 4 
 
 16 
 1 
 1 
 
 33 
 
 344 
 332 
 
 226 
 257 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 89 
 
 18 
 
 228 
 
 15 
 
 32 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 45 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 19 
 
 74 
 
 2 
 
 16 
 
 28 
 
 10 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 570 
 689 
 
 Production — tons of 2,000 lbs. 
 (Including spiegeleisen.) 
 
 First half 
 of 1889. 
 
 2,700 
 
 2,061 
 
 12, 108 
 
 144, 613 
 
 67, 749 
 
 2, 013, 804 
 
 10, 233 
 112, 328 
 
 922 
 
 11, 338 
 364, 346 
 
 1,411 
 72,775 
 23, 866 
 147, 401 
 595, 661 
 7,806 
 282, 153 
 100, 303 
 74, 065 
 42, 795 
 
 5,426 
 5,571 
 
 4, 101, 984 
 3, 382, 603 
 
 Second 
 
 half of 
 
 1889. 
 
 2,500 
 
 6,100 
 
 12, 035 
 
 162, 634 
 
 67,944 
 
 2, 167, 438 
 
 23, 014 
 
 139, 028 
 
 1,076 
 
 16, 221 
 
 427, 079 
 
 3,133 
 
 45, 125 
 
 18, 653 
 
 147, 254 
 
 020, Oil 
 
 2,033 
 
 319, 871 
 
 113, 993 
 
 84, 609 
 
 43, 395 
 
 2,678 
 
 4,000 
 
 4,800 
 
 4, 415, 084 
 3, 886, 004 
 
 Total 
 for 1889. 
 
 6,200 
 
 7,761 
 
 24, 143 
 
 297, 247 
 
 125, 693 
 
 4, 181, 242 
 
 33, 847 
 
 261, 356 
 
 2,898 
 
 27, 559 
 
 791, 425 
 
 4,544 
 
 117, 900 
 
 42, 618 
 
 294, 655 
 
 1, 215, 672 
 
 9,839 
 
 602, 024 
 
 214, 366 
 
 158, 634 
 
 86, 190 
 
 2,678 
 
 9,426 
 
 10, 371 
 
 8, 517, 008 
 7, 208, 607 
 
1146 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 PEODUCTION OP CHAECOAL PIG-IEON. 
 
 States. 
 
 In 
 blast 
 June 
 30, '89. 
 
 Blast furnaces. 
 
 December 31, 1889. 
 
 Out. 
 
 Total, 
 
 Production— tons of 2,000 lbs. 
 (Including apiegeleisen). 
 
 First half 
 of 1889. 
 
 Second 
 
 half of 
 
 1889. 
 
 Total for 
 
 Maine 
 
 Massachusetts . 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 New York 
 
 Pennsylvania . - 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Vir^nia 
 
 North Carolina. 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Texas 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Tennessee , 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Oregon 
 
 "Washington 
 
 Total, 1889. 
 Total, 1888.. 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 8 
 10 
 4 
 2 
 
 2,700 
 
 2,651 
 
 12, 108 
 
 11, 637 
 
 4,902 
 
 8, 153 
 2,323 
 
 922 
 
 400 
 
 49, 435 
 
 1,411 
 
 1,848 
 
 26, 972 
 
 9, 551 
 100, 363 
 
 44,025 
 10, 384 
 5,426 
 5,571 
 
 143 
 162 
 
 306, 780 
 278, 238 
 
 2,500 
 6, 100 
 
 12, 035 
 7,447 
 
 11,049 
 8,132 
 6,644 
 1,976 
 1,873 
 
 60, 992 
 3,133 
 4,040 
 
 23, 252 
 
 12,916 
 113, 993 
 
 36,442 
 
 16, 296 
 4,000 
 4,800 
 
 337, 520 
 320, 651 
 
 5,200 
 
 7,751 
 
 2i, 143 
 
 19,084 
 
 15, 961 
 
 16, 285 
 
 8,967 
 
 2,898 
 
 2,273 
 
 110, 427 
 
 4,S«4 
 
 6,786 
 
 50,224 
 
 22, 467 
 
 214, 366 
 
 80, 467 
 
 32, 680 
 
 9,426 
 
 10, 371 
 
 644, 300 
 698, 788 
 
 PEODUCTION OF BITUMINOUS COAL AND COKE PIG-IEON. 
 
 New York 
 
 Pennsylvania . 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Virginia 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Alabama 
 
 West Virginia . 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Total, 1889 . 
 Total, 1888 . 
 
 67 
 
 145 
 
 128 
 
 177 
 156 
 
 245 
 238 
 
 27, 933 
 
 ., 263, 083 
 
 2,080 
 
 110,005 
 
 10, 938 
 
 314, 911 
 
 72, 775 
 
 22, 019 
 
 120, 429 
 
 586, 010 
 
 7,806 
 
 282, 153 
 
 30, 040 
 26, 411 
 
 2, 876, 593 
 2, 148, 817 
 
 37, 728 
 1, 320, 049 
 
 15, 482 
 132, 384 
 
 14, 348 
 366, 087 
 
 45, 125 
 
 13,713 
 
 124, 002 
 
 607, (195 
 
 2,033 
 
 319, 871 
 
 48, 127 
 
 27, 099 
 
 2,678 
 
 3, 075, 821 
 2, 695, 172 
 
 65, 661 
 
 2, 683, 132 
 
 17, 662 
 
 242, 389 
 
 25,286 
 
 680, 998 
 
 117, 900 
 
 35, 732 
 
 244, 431 
 
 1, 193, 105 
 
 9,839 
 
 602, 024 
 
 78, 167 
 53, 510 
 2,678 
 
 5, 952, 414 
 4, 743, 989 
 
 PEODUCTION OF ANTHRACITE COAL AND ANTHEACITE AND COKE PIG.IEON. 
 
 New York 
 
 New Jersey . . . 
 Pennsylvania . 
 Maryland 
 
 Total, 1889 . 
 Total, 1888 . 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 25 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 18 
 
 61 
 
 84 
 
 51 
 
 135 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 79 
 
 104 
 
 78 
 
 182 
 
 92 
 
 105 
 
 84 
 
 189 
 
 105, 043 
 
 67, 749 
 
 74,^ 819 
 
 918,011 
 9.")5, 443 
 
 107, 469 
 
 57,944 
 
 836, 340 
 
 1, 001, 743 
 970, 281 
 
 212, 502 
 
 125, 693 
 
 1, 682, 159 
 
 1, 920, 354 
 1, 926, 729 
 
 The quantity of apiegeleisen and ferromanganese made in the first half #f 1889 was 34,760 net tons 
 in the second half 52,052 tons i total 86,812 tons. In 1888, 54,769 tons. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 1147 
 
 The annexed table shows the production of pig-iron for the years 1886, 1887, 1888, 
 and 1889 : 
 
 [Tons of 2,000 ponnds.) 
 
 Btatea. 
 
 1886. 
 
 1888. 
 
 1889. 
 
 Maine 
 
 Hassachuaetts. . 
 
 Connecticnt 
 
 New York 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 PenD83'lTaiua . . . 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Virginia 
 
 North Carolina . 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Texas 
 
 "West Virginia . . 
 
 Kentncky 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Michigan 
 
 "Wisconsin 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Oregon 
 
 California 
 
 Washington 
 
 6,060 
 
 8,124 
 
 19, 390 
 
 233, 618 
 
 157, 886 
 
 :,'293,289 
 
 30, 502 
 
 166, 230 
 
 2, 200 
 
 46, 490 
 
 283, 859 
 
 3,250 
 
 98, 618 
 
 64,844 
 
 199, 166 
 
 908, 094 
 
 16, 660 
 
 501, 795 
 
 190, 734 
 
 65, 933 
 
 74, 523 
 
 10, 451 
 
 1,750 
 2,842 
 
 4,397 
 11,114 
 21, 741 
 296, 672 
 172, 654 
 3, 684, 618 
 37, 427 
 175, 715 
 3,640 
 
 40, 947 
 292, 762 
 
 4,383 
 82,811 
 
 41, 907 
 250, 344 
 978, 539 
 
 13,211 
 565, 453 
 213, 543 
 133, 508 
 138, 643 
 
 25, 291 
 
 5,674 
 
 13, 248 
 
 21,644 
 
 257, 180 
 
 101, 882 
 
 3, 589, 186 
 
 17, 606 
 
 197, 396 
 
 2,400 
 
 39, 397 
 
 449, 492 
 
 6,587 
 
 95, 269 
 
 56, 790 
 
 267, 931 
 
 1, 103, 818 
 
 15, 260 
 
 579, 307 
 
 213, 251 
 
 116, 037 
 
 91,783 
 
 20, 877 
 
 2,509 
 
 4,093 
 
 5,200 
 
 7,761 
 
 24, 143 
 
 297, 247 
 
 126, 693 
 
 t, 181, 242 
 
 33,847 
 
 251, 356 
 
 2,898 
 
 27, 559 
 
 791, 425 
 
 4,644 
 
 117, 900 
 
 42, 618 
 
 294, 655 
 
 1,215, .572 
 
 9, 8.19 
 
 602, 024 
 
 214, 356 
 
 168, 634 
 
 86,190 
 
 2,678 
 
 9,426 
 
 10, 371 
 
 Total . 
 
 7, 187, 206 
 
 7, 268, 607 
 
 8,517,068 
 
 PEODUCTION IN 1889 ACCORDING TO FUEL USED. 
 
 
 Blast fnmacea. 
 
 Production. 
 
 
 FKel used. 
 
 fin 
 blast 
 June 
 30,'89. 
 
 December 31, 1889. 
 
 (Includes opiegeleiaen.l 
 
 
 First half 
 of 1889, 
 
 Second half 
 of 1889. 
 
 
 
 In 
 
 Ont. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Total for 
 1889. 
 
 
 79 
 63 
 145 
 
 104 
 63 
 
 177 
 
 78 
 80 
 68 
 
 182 
 143 
 245 
 
 918,611 
 
 306, 780 
 
 2, 876, 503 
 
 1, 001, 743 
 
 337, 520 
 
 3, 075, 821 
 
 1, 920, 354 
 
 
 
 6, 952, 414 
 
 
 Total 
 
 287 
 
 344 
 
 226 
 
 670 
 
 4, 101, 984 
 
 4, 415, 084 
 
 8, 517, 068 
 
 
 The following table shows the production of Bessemer pig-iron in the several States 
 named during the year 1889 : 
 
 New York 76,947 
 
 New Jersey 24,004 
 
 Pennsylvania 2,216,948 
 
 Maryland , 14,478 
 
 ■West Virginia 106,787 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Ohio 452,646 
 
 Illinois 644,965 
 
 Missouri 73,845 
 
 Wisconsin 17, 697 
 
 Colorado 1,267 
 
 Total , 3,62«,5«4 
 
1148 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 PRICES OF BESSEMER STEEL RAILS. 
 
 The annexed table, taken from the Bulletin of the American Iron and Steel Associ- 
 ation for February 26, shows the prices of Bessemer steel rails from 1867 to 1890. 
 With the exception of the last column this table has been compiled from the annual 
 statistical reports of the American Iron and Steel Association. The prices of British 
 steel rails given in the last column are taken from 1867 to 1878 inclusive from a state- 
 ment presented by Mr. H. V. Poor to the Committee on Ways and Means in February 
 1880 ; for 1879 the price is an average from Fossiok's chart, an English statistical pub- 
 lication of high standing ; and from 1880 to 1890 inclusive the prices have been aver- 
 aged from weekly English quotations in the Iron Age. Mr. Poor's figures also repre- 
 sent average quotations. 
 
 
 United States. 
 
 <4H 
 
 O 
 
 Price in 
 
 gold f. 0, b. 
 
 at British 
 
 ports. 
 
 Calendar years. 
 
 Production 
 
 in gross 
 
 tons. 
 
 Average 
 price in 
 curtenc.y. 
 
 Datry. 
 
 1867 
 
 2,277 
 
 6,451 
 
 8,616 
 
 30, 357 
 
 34, 152 
 
 83, 991 
 
 115, 192 
 
 129, 414 
 
 269, 699 
 
 368, 269 
 
 385, 805 
 
 491, 427 
 
 610, 082 
 
 862, 196 
 
 1, 187, 770 
 
 1, 284, 067 
 
 1, 148, 709 
 
 996, 983 
 
 959, 471 
 
 1,574,703 
 
 2, 101, 904 
 
 1,386,277 
 
 1, 468, 066 
 
 $166. 00 
 168. 50 
 132. 26 
 108. 75 
 102. 50 
 112.00 
 120. 60 
 94.25 
 68.75 
 • 59.25 
 45.60 
 42,26 
 48.26 
 67.60 
 61.13 
 48.60 
 37.75 
 30.76 
 28. 50 
 34.50 
 37.08 
 29.83 
 29.25 
 35.00 
 
 • 45 per cent, ad valorem. • 
 
 ■ $28 per ton from Jan- . 
 
 uary 1, 1871, to Au- 
 gust 1, 1872 ; $25,20 
 to March 3,1875;, $28 
 from that date to 
 July 1, 1883, 
 
 f 
 
 ■ $17 per ton from July • 
 
 1, 1883. 
 
 138 
 140 
 136 
 115 
 112 
 112 
 118 
 112 
 114 
 110 
 105 
 102 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 
 $65. 70 
 61.32 
 64.99 
 50,37 
 54.99 
 
 1868 
 
 1860 
 
 1870 . . . 
 
 1871 
 
 1872 
 
 1873 
 
 80 05 
 
 1874 
 
 68.75 
 44.28 
 
 1875 
 
 1876 
 
 1877 
 
 29 20 
 
 1878 
 
 25.55 
 26 88 
 
 1879 
 
 1880 
 
 34.42 
 30.41 
 26.27 
 22.72 
 23.19 
 23.11 
 18.70 
 19.70 
 18.15 
 24.57 
 35.00 
 
 1881 
 
 1882 
 
 1883 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 18(-9 
 
 1890 tprice in February) 
 
 
 
 American prices are given in currency, gold being at a premium down to Jan- 
 uary, 1879. 
 
 [Bulletin Iron and Steel Association, March 5.] 
 IRON AND STEEL PRICES AND DUTIES. 
 
 Because there has been a boom in the iron and steel industries of most European 
 countries during the past year, which has so advanced the prices of European iron 
 and steel products that in many instances they have approximated the prices ruling 
 in this country for like products, it has been assumed by some well-meaning protec- 
 tionists that we no longer need the present scale of iron and steel duties, and that 
 these duties, or at least some of them, may now be safely reduced. Free-trade news- 
 papers, of course, echo this sentiment, which, if given the form and force of law, 
 would bring the country nearer to free trade. When Congress begins the discussion 
 of the tarifl' question about a month hence we expect to see Mr. Mills and his follow- 
 ers repeating what the free-trade newspapers are now saying. The few protectionists 
 who have agreed with these newspapers will in the mean time have learned that 
 there could be no more misleading reason assigned for a rcductionof duties than that 
 which is based on a temporary advance in foreign prices. Only a little reflection 
 will be necessary to enable them to reach this conclusion. 
 
 Ifc is well known to every student of markets instead of maxims that the normal 
 range of priccw of mo.st mjinnfactured products is much lower iu Europe than in this 
 country, and for the reason that the normal wages of labor are very much lower 
 there than here— labor forming by far the principal element in the cost of production 
 in all the nuinufacturing countries. An examination of the prices of iron and steel 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1149 
 
 In Great Britain, for instance, for a long series of years will show that the present 
 prices of iron and steel in that country are far above the prices of recent years. Steel 
 rails, for exaihple, which have recently been sold in Great Britain for |H5 per ton, 
 were sold in 1886 and 1887 in large quantities by the same manufacturers, and of the 
 same quality, for exactly half the price recently charged, or for $17.50 per ton. The 
 exact price at which British steel rails were sold in these two years was 72 shillings 
 per ton. In April, 1888, the price of British steel rails was only £3 178. 6d. per ton, 
 or about $19, and in April, 1889, less than a year ago, after the boom commenced, the 
 price had advanced to only £4 7s. Gd., or about $21.25, per ton. 
 
 The boom is now breaking in Great Britain, and we will soon see much lower prices 
 for steel rails and for all kinds of iron and steel over there than have recently pre- 
 vailed. Continental markets will follow the British markets. Hence, if we would 
 continue to protect our iron aud steel industries against the competition of European 
 manufacturers in periods when their own iron and steel industries are depressed, we 
 must maintain duties which experience has proved to be necessary to accomplish this 
 object. Again using steel rails as an illustration, we find that with the present duty 
 of $17 per ton we imported 41,581 gross tons in 1886, 137,588 tons in 1887, and 63,016 
 tons in 1888. In 1889 the imports were only nominal because of high prices abroad, 
 and the whole duty of $17 per ton was not needed. And so with pig-iron. While the 
 present duty of .$6.72 per ton may have been higher than was needed in 1889, owing 
 to the boom on the other side, it was not high enough in 1886, when we imported 
 361,768 gross tons of pig-iron, nor in 1887, when we imported 467,522 tons. 
 
 All protective duties should be adjusted to the lowest, and not to the highest, for- 
 eign prices with which our people must compete in our own markets. That is the 
 leading purpose of the protective policy. In fixing duties in anew tariff bill it would 
 obviously be dangerous to pay any attention to abnormally high prices abroad either 
 for iron and steel or for any other products. 
 
 IRON PYRITES. 
 
 New York Citt, January 24, 1890. , 
 The Chairman and Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 Dbak Sirs: Referring to a letter from your clerk, Mr. John M. Carson, I beg to say 
 that the mines which I represent are located near Charlesmont, Mass., about 5 miles 
 from the railway. We have spent in cash on buildings and permanent improvements 
 several hundred thousand dollars, and have paid for labor and suppliosover $1,000,000 
 since 1881. About one thousand people directly and indirectly derive their support 
 from our industry. You will observe that our industry was established before the re- 
 vision of the tariff in 1883, and at a time when crude brimstone, so called, was sell- 
 ing at about $30 per ton. It is true that the sulphur in the copper pyrite ores comes 
 here free of duty ; the copper being the only d,utiable article under the rule as I un- 
 derstand by which the material having the most value is assessed as dutiable regard- 
 less of the other constituents. There is no reason why the sulphur in copper pyrites 
 should not pay the same duty as iron pyrites. 
 
 The injustice of allowing sulphur in copper pyrites to come in is more apparent 
 when the fact is considered that these ores are primarily used for the manufacture of 
 sulphuric acid and afterwards the cinder or residue is treated for the copper and sil- 
 ver which they contain, and are re-exported under the law, which allows this being 
 done on a retention by the Government of 10 per cent, of the original duty. As 
 these ores average about 5 per cent, and as the duty is 3 J cents jjer pound on the cop- 
 per contained, these ores pay but 35 cents per ton. 
 
 The recent discoveries in metallurgy have made it possible to extract profitably the 
 silver contained in copper mattes which was previously unprofitable when in small 
 quantities; this many times more than makes up the duty paid on each ton of copper 
 pyrites. 
 
 The foreign competition in iron pyrites comes mainly from Spain and Portugal, 
 from the enormous mines of RioTinto, Tharsiseo, aud San Domingo. These mines 
 have been worked since the foundation of the City of Rome, the copper having been 
 extracted therefrom by the Romans. 
 
 In recent years very large quantities of the copper pyrites of these mines have been 
 taken out and treated for the copper they contain, at the same time while mining 
 the copper ores it has been necessary to mine a large quantity of the sulphur ores 
 which are practically bare of copper, that is, not contaiuing sufScieut copper to be 
 profitably woiked for that metal. These sulphur ores low in copper are called by 
 the miners " uiundic," to distinguish them from the copper-bearing ores; they are 
 found lying alongside and closely intermixed in the same vein, it being practically 
 impossible tomine one without the other. 
 
 The sulphur ores of these mines until I860 were of no value, and up to the present 
 
1150 REVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 
 
 time the qnantity of mnndic ores mined has been largely in excess of the shipments, 
 consequently there are to-day hundreds of thousands of tons of this mundic ore lying 
 upon the surface at these mines, the costs of which have been borne entirely by tbe 
 richer copper mineral, which has been treated for its copper contents ; as a conse- 
 quence the mundic ores have no value or cost, therefore all that is left over after the 
 freight and transportation charges are paid is profit. The miners of the United 
 States are forced to compete with this high-grade pyrites which has practically cost 
 nothing, and the United States will become the dumping ground for these mandio 
 ores if allowed to come in duty free. 
 
 At times when freight is very low this material can be brought from Spain to the 
 United States at a rate of from |1.25 to $1.50 per ton of 2,240 pounds, and is often 
 brought as ballast in large vessels. These mines are situated about 60 miles from 
 tide-water, the large mining companies owning the railways and wharves at tide- 
 water. In view of the foregoing it is evident that the duty of 75 cents per ton is far 
 too little protection to the American miner. 
 
 The residue or cinder left after burning mundic ores low in copper called 
 " blue billy," is used as an ore for the manufacture of iron. If, therefore, these 
 Spanish ores are allowed to come in at the present duty, the residue, which is prac- 
 tically an iron ore, is duty free This is another reason why the duty on iron pyrites 
 should be increased to $1.50 peirton. 
 
 The price of crude brimstone for 1880 averaged about $30 per ton ; last year it 
 averaged about $19. I mention this to show that pyrites were first used in the United 
 States in 1879 as a raw material for the manufacture of sulphuric acid, since when it 
 has iucreased to about 80,000 tons per year, replaoiug the equivalent in brimstone, 
 and has also undoubtedly caused the decline in brimstone. 
 
 I therefore ask that the duty on iron pyrites be increased from 75 cents per ton to 
 $1.50 per ton, and that the sulphur in copper pyrites also pay a duty of the same rate 
 in addition to its present copper duty, and that a duty of at least $5 per ton be laid 
 on crude brimstone, and that crude brimstone be deliued as any article containing 
 over 60 per cent, of sulphur. 
 
 Yours, very truly. 
 ,., Note. — No signature was appended to the foregoing. 
 
 CHAKCOAL IKON. 
 
 MlLESBUKGH IRON WORKS, 
 
 MUeshurgh, Pa., January 21, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : We inferred that the personal hearings afi'ordod b^ your committee to 
 the manufacturing interests were to be more general, and refrained adding to your 
 cares by addressing you for the privilege of a special meeting, or attempt an expla- 
 nation by letter. Now, however, being closed, excuse us, please, if wepreeume upon 
 the acquaintance of the personal interviews had with you in former years your 
 cheerful assistance to the charcoal people at that time encourage us now to hope 
 that something can be done to correct the injustice then done, and which has since 
 put quite a number of establishments to the wall, and this week the sheriff closes out 
 our neighbors, the Messrs. Curtins & Co., established and in continual operation since 
 1810. 
 
 It is not necessary for me to bother you with statistics showing the much larger 
 proportion of labor employed by our charcoal interests than in any other grade of 
 iron, etc., as you are familiar with it, and refer to the labor only as the foundation 
 stone. 
 
 We inclose herewith a copy of the two metal sections of the present tariff that 
 affect the charcoal, for convenient comparison, and show at a glance how incon- 
 sistent. The Mills bill recognized this contradiction and injustice done by it and 
 struck out the entire clause with the exception of the following, " Iron or steel, flat, 
 with longitudinal ril)8forthe manufacturing of fencing, four-tenths of a cent per 
 pound," and that was simple common sense and justice, when you examine the very 
 next clause iu the present law, and consider that the screw wire stricken out is 
 afforded the modest protection of from 6 to 12 ceuts per jionnd, equal to from $135 to 
 $270 per ton, in addition to the protection afforded nearly all of the screw men by 
 their letters patent of tbe United States, and made almost entirely by machinery, 
 boys and girls ; rivets in about the same condition, and all have the additional pro- 
 tection of rust by salt-water air on importations ; a considerable number of the 
 screws madeare produced from a cheap Dutch rod, afforded the makers by this clause 
 No. 2 in copy inclosed, and who has heard of anything but an advance in screws 
 (since the larger ones combined and washed out the small concerns a year or two 
 since), the average standard size wholesale price to dealers, commission off, now 27^ 
 cents per pound, amounting to about $620 per ton ; rods, $60 or $70 ; Dutch stock, $45 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1151 
 
 or $55, difference $560 and $595, not) a bad profit for use of machinery, when the char- 
 coal manufacturer is content with %S or $10. 
 
 The Democrats are on record by their support of the Mills bill to correct the in- 
 congruity; they will and cau not be consistent in their loud pretence of assisting labor 
 and oppose it, certainly none of our friends will refuse this act of justice to so large 
 a class of skilled workmen and labor of their own household depending upon it, and 
 pretend to justify, or undertake the impossible effort to again explain away, on the 
 general protection record of the party, when the Democrats, making no professions, 
 freely accorded it to them. 
 
 We ask no increase of duties, and subject the party to no unpleasant position at 
 this time of reduced surplus agitation, but do ask our friends to correct the alleged 
 mistake that has already occasioned so much distress to home industry and lalSor 
 (tried in the balance and never found wanting) for the benefit of foreign Dutch work- 
 men, or admit the infamous and successful effort to deceive. 
 
 We would be pleased to have you explain the situation to your colleagues, many of 
 whom I know do not understand these questions, having had no occasion to examine 
 them or consider the injury sustained, and trusting that you may be able to relieve 
 us of this burden, and that the opportunity may be afforded us to serve you, as has 
 long been our desire and hope. 
 
 We remain, very truly, yours, 
 
 McCoy & Linn. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlby, Jr., 
 
 Chairman of Committee on Ways and Means . 
 
 Schedule C. — Metals. 
 
 No. 1. Bars, not less than 1 inch wide and three-eighths thick, eight- tenths of 1 cent 
 per pound ; rounds, not less than three-fourths inch in diameter, and squares, not less 
 than three-fourths inch square, 1 cent per pound ; flats, less than 1 inch wide, and 
 three-eighths thick; rounds, less than three-fourths inch thick and not less than 
 seven-sixteenths thick, and squares less than three-fourths inch square, 1.1 cents 
 per pound; slabs, blooms, loops, or otherformlessfinished than bars and more advanced 
 than pig, except castings to be rated as bars and not to pay a less duty than 35 per 
 cent, ad valorum, provided if charcoal be used as a fuel none of above to pay a less 
 duty than $22 per ton. 
 
 No. 2. Clause in Schedule C, metals, a few sections thereafter : Iron or steel rivets, 
 screw, nail, or fence wire rods, round in coils or loops, not lighter than No. 5 wire- 
 gauge yalued, at 3^ cents or less per pound, six-tenths of 1 cent per pound, or iron or 
 steel flats with longitudinal ribs for fencing, six-tenths of 1 cent per pound. 
 
 Note — what we complain of — the latter clause in bill admits the same quality of 
 charcoal iron, protected in first clause by duty of $22 per ton, at $12 per ton, although 
 more advanced in manufacture and costing more in labor and per cent, of loss to pro- 
 duce, ridiculous if by mistake as alleged, infamous if intentional. 
 
 Mr. Mills's bill of last session, however much we differ with him, was framed to do 
 justice in this respect, and mentioned only in that clause "fence wire," if you will 
 please refer to it. 
 
 WIRE RODS. 
 
 [See ante, page 103.] 
 VIEWS OF THE NEW HAVEN WIRE COMPANY. 
 
 New Haven, Conn., Fetruary 19, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen : On behalf of The New Haven Wire Company, and of about twenty- 
 five other wire mills similarly situated, I ask your attention to the duty upon wire 
 rods. 
 
 In August, 1888, I had the honor to appear before the Committee on Finance, 
 United States Senate, in favor of a reduction of this duty to four- tenths of a cent per 
 pound. At that time Mr. Oliver, representing the Pittsburgh and Western Rod Mills, 
 asked to have the law so changed that rods smaller than No. 5 should pay the spe- 
 cific duty of six-tenths then, as now, levied upon No. 5 and larger rods. This meant, 
 as values then were, an advance of about 25 per cent, in the duty on the bulk of the 
 importations, or, in other words, from 45 to aijout 55 per cent. I then stated that no 
 such advance was needed by the American rod mills, who had already wrested the 
 American market from the Eastern wire mills, and who were in a positionto sell 
 their wire rods and wire on the sea-board. My statement was based upon the well- 
 known labor-cost of rolling rods upon tbe Garrett train, and also upon the fact that 
 under the tarifi as it had stood s'nice 1883, the rod-rolling industry of this country 
 had more than quadrupled its capacity. 
 
1152 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The growth of that industry has been, indeed, phenomenal. lu 1883, when the 
 present tariff was framed, the annual production of wire rods in this country did not 
 exceed r 0,000 tons. When the Senate were considering this question five years later 
 this capacity had increased to 250,000 tons. In less than two years more (and I adopt 
 Mr. Oliver'sfigures on page 105 of his testimony before you) the capacity had grown 
 to 518,000 tons. All this is accompanied by a steady decrease in the imports. In 
 November, 1^89, the importation of wire rods was but little over one-third of that of 
 November, 1888, while the total for the calendar year of 1889 was barely two-thirds 
 of that for 18^8. An industry that is thus steadily driving out its foreign competi- 
 tors, and is doubling its production every two years, does not seem to me to need any 
 increase in duties for its protection. 
 
 It is worthy of note that this increase in the output of domestic rods continues 
 steadily whether the general steel industries of the world prosper or not. When Mr. 
 Oliver appeared before the Senate committee values of all iron and steel products 
 were declining the world over. To-day they are advancing. Wire rods which then 
 cost in Germany $25 per ton are now |40 per ton, and the American prices have also 
 advanced. Now, as then, the American rod-roller fixes his price just below the 
 foreign cost, and taxes the consumer all that the tariff will permit him to. And 
 while it is true that the proposed change which makes the duties on all sizes specific 
 instead of leaving the duty on rods smaller than No. 5 to be ad valorem, does not, 
 on the basis of present values, result in an advance, as it would have done when first 
 proposed two ye.irs ago, yet the time will undoubtedly come, and is not far away, 
 when the values of wire rods and other steel products will so fall that the specific 
 duty will reach a higher ad valorem than ever before. It has in daysgone by reached 
 GO per cent. ; it is now about 40 per cent. When it was fixed in 1883 it was about 35 
 per cent., and was determined on as a compromise. Congress then little dreaming that 
 by the mere fall in prices it would reach an ad valorem rate nearly double within four 
 years. 
 
 It should not be forgotten that as the tariff now stands, the provision allowing rods 
 smaller than No. 5 to come in at 45 per cent, ad valorem has served as a check to the 
 excessive advance in the ad valorem equivalent of the specific duty, as the bulk of 
 the importations have come in at such times of low cost in No. 6, the cost of which 
 is no greater than of No. 5. This duty of 45 per cent, has never been less than $10 
 per ton, and it was probably at this time that, according to Mr. Oliver (page 104), 
 the rod-rollers " had practically no protection." And yet, the increase in the capac- 
 ity and output of the rod mills was as regular and as steady and as groat during that 
 period of low prices as when values were higher. So that, whether times be good or 
 bad, and prices bo high or low, and the present tariff "practically protects " or not, 
 the rod-roller prosyters. Au industry of which this can be said seems to me to have 
 secured such complete mastery of the home market as to have no need for further 
 legislative favors, especially when such favors are at the expense of Eastern wire 
 mills who employ a greater number of men than all the rod mills in the country, and 
 have a capacity for drawing nearly half the wire used in the country. 
 
 The suggestion that rods smaller than No. 6 should be classified as wire means that 
 the duty on such rods is to be more than doubled. The smallest size of wire rod 
 which has been, to my knowledge, imported was No. 8, and the cost of this size was 
 only one-tenth of a cent per pound over No. 6. Such an added cost does not demand 
 a doubling of the duty, nor is a duty of 80 per cent., which is sure before long to 
 reach (by the fall of prices) over 100 per cent., to be justified. No argument in favor 
 of this discrimination appears in the testimony before your committee. It is doubt- 
 ful if any argument could be made. The mere statement of the case should show tne 
 unwisdom of any such proposition. To any one conversant with the trade, the differ- 
 ence between wire rods and wire is fully as great as that between the processes by 
 which they are made or the uses to which they are put. ' When the processes of man- 
 ufacture are different and the results are different, there is no reason why the duties 
 should be the same. 
 
 So far as the duties on wire are concerned, the wire mill for which I more particu- 
 larly speak, has only this to say : We are directly on the sea-board, where we are 
 subject to the full force of foreign coropetition. We are not protected in the slight- 
 est from such competition by any inland freight charges, but we have nothing to 
 fear from such competition, or from any competition that is not re-inforced by some 
 tariff provision. By so much as jou reduce the duty on our raw material — wire rods — 
 by a like jjroportiou can you reduce the duty on wire. Whenever you give us free 
 wire rods, yon can have free wire. Take your hands off, and allow us the full ad- 
 vantage of our sea-board location, and we shall ask no further legislative favors. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 Samuel A. Galpin, 
 Receiver of the New Haven Wire Company. 
 
 The Committee on Way.s and Means. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1153 
 
 :n^ickel. 
 
 STATEMENT OP S. J. RICHIE. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the Canadian Copper Company 
 and the Anglo-American Iron Company are two corporations organized under the 
 laws of Ohio and doing business in the Province of Ontario, Canada. By special act 
 of the Dominion parliament, these companies have been clothed with every right, 
 power, and privilege which they could have of enjoy if they were Canadian instead 
 of An^erican corporations. These companies have purchased and own large tracts of 
 lands in Canada. They have erected mining plants and put up and are rnnuing 
 smelting furnaces, in which they are reducing nickel and copper ores and shipping 
 the product to Great Britain and Germany. The ores which these companies are treat- 
 ing are nearly all in the form of pyrites, and contain nickel, copper, sulphur, and iron. 
 In smelting, the nickel and copper are saved in the form of mattes and the sulphur and 
 iron are wasted. 
 
 Within the last year, nickel has come to assume a very important place in metal- 
 lurgy as an alloy with steel. These results have been obtained in Great Britain, in 
 France, aud in Germany. In France the cartridge shells are made-of an alloy of eixual 
 parts of nickel and copper. In Great Britain large guns for the navy are being made 
 of an alloy of nickel and steel. This has also been done in an experimental way in 
 Germany, but heretofore and before the discovery of the nickel deposits ia Can;lda, 
 the supply of nickel was so small and the price so high, that it would have been im- 
 possible to have supplied any considerable want, even had its utility been known. 
 
 The Iron aud Steel Institute of Great Britain is composed of the most prominent 
 manufacturers of steel, both in Great Britain and upon the continent, and it has at its 
 meetings many American manufacturers. The discussions at its annual meetings rep- 
 resent the best talent and skill in everything pertaining to iron and steel that is to be 
 had in the world, and its conclusions are the highest authority to which we can appeal. 
 About one year ago this institute appointed one of their most competent members, the 
 manager of the Steel Company of Scotland, to make an extensive srries of experiments 
 with this alloy. This ho did, and reported the results of his efforts to the meeting of 
 the institute held in London on the 8th of May last. This report has attracted the 
 attention of steel manufacturers all over the world. No results approaching the high 
 elastic limit and breaking strain of those reported from this alloy had ever beiore 
 been seen. I myself saw a piece of this steel, made by the house of William Jes.so|is 
 & Sons, of Sheffield, which contained about 6 per cent, of nickel and which was 1 
 inch square, that sustained a weight of lOd tons and which also showed a high elastic 
 limit. These results were so wonderful that parties in Europe who manufacture guns 
 and armor-plates for the three principal governments have offered to contract for our 
 company's entire production for a period of ten years. ' 
 
 The proportions of copper and nickel in the ores belonging to our companies are 
 just about those used by the French Government in the nianufactur(! of cartridge 
 shells. The proportion of iron aud nickel are about what are used in nickel steel, 
 which it is proposed to use in the uumufacture of guns and armor-plates. As stated 
 above, we are now smelting large quantities of these ores in Canada and shipping 
 the product to Europe, anil it is there being used in the manufacture of heavy guns. 
 
 Our company, although an Ohio corporation, has for all purposes in Canada been 
 made by the Canadian parliament a Canadian company. The Domiuion Government 
 remits the duty on the American machinery which we send in to work these mines; 
 it also remits the duty on the coke which we use for fuel. It also offers quite a large 
 bonus per ton for the manufacture of iron and steel from this material ; but the natural 
 gas in the neighborhood of Findlay, Ohio, is so admirably adapted to the manufact- 
 ure and treatment of these ores, and especially of our mattes, that we are seriously 
 contemplating bringing all our ores to that place to bo smelti'd. But we can only do 
 this on condition that our own Government shall admit them all free of duty, every 
 part and constituent of them. Every stockholder in those companies is a citizen of 
 the State of Ohio. Every dollar invested in them is Ohio capital, and in ujaking this 
 request of your committee we only ask that you treat your own citizens and your 
 own capital as fairly and as liberally as the Canadian Government has treated for- 
 eigners, who are American citizens. 
 
 To transfer our smelting works to this side, say to Findlay, would require the erec- 
 tion of a very extensive plant, the expenditure of a large amount of capital, and the 
 
 485 73 
 
1154 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 emDloyment of a groat number of men, and, unless thsse ores are admitted free, all 
 this expenditure of capital and employment of men must be done in Canada, and the 
 product go to foreign governments. The Government of the United States would 
 undoubtedly bo a large jjurchaser ;i,nd consumer of this material if it were produced 
 iu this country ; if it is not produced in this country, it will only be consumed by for- 
 eign governments. 
 
 Besides the mines in Canada, there is only one other nickel mine of any importance 
 in the world, and that one is located upon the island of New Caledonia and belongs 
 to the Rothchilds. It probably has not one-fifth part of the producing capacity of 
 the Canadian mines. Last summer I made a tour of all the principal iron and steel 
 works of Great Britain and the continent, and at several very large establishments we 
 had the offer of convening their entire establishiiieuts into the manufacture of nickel 
 steel, if jve would enter into a contract to furnish them material. The Secretary of 
 the Navy had sent a man with me to examine into this whole subject, and we had 
 promised the Secretary that we should make no contracts with any foreign govern- 
 ment, until he should have time to e^xaraino into the value of this alloy for the use 
 of the Navy, and obtain the necessary authority from Congress to act. To keep this 
 promise we have refused the oifers above naraeil. We desire 1o deal with our own 
 Government, and to manufacture all this material in our own country and to sell it in 
 our own country, but we do not Vvant to bo heavily hued for bringing raw material 
 into the country of a kind that we have not got and can not produce. This Gov- 
 ernment is about toexiiendmany millions of dollars in the construction and the build- 
 ing up of a powerful navy, and it would seem not unreasonable to expect that it 
 would offer some special inducements to any company which could furnish it with 
 the best material in the world, and from the only source of supply in the world. 
 This our companies are ready and anxious to do, and they only ask that they shall 
 not be taxed for the privilege of doing it, or, in other wor.^s, that you shall treat us as 
 fairly as every foreigu government offers to do. 
 
 As I have said before, these ores contain copper, nickel, iron, and sulphur. We 
 ask of your committee that you admit all the.se free from Canada. You now derive 
 no revenue worth nioutioning from them, and in admitting them free you give the 
 broadest possible interpretation to the doctrine of protection. Yon protect labor by 
 making an additional demand for it ; you protect capital by giving employment for 
 it at home instead of driving it out of the country to seek permanent investments. 
 You reciprocate to Canada the goodwill and liberality she has shown to your citi- 
 zens and to your capital in advance. Nearly all the mines iu Canada, and 80 per 
 cent, of her lumber interests are owned l>y Americans, and their products are iu 
 every sense of the word the product of American capital and American labor. We 
 are paying more for labor, freights, machinery, and provisions of every kind, at our 
 mines in Canada than we could purchase the same for iu the State of Ohio. 
 
 Gentlemen, the action of this Congress will determine whether the companies 
 with which I am associated shall expend a very large amount of money in the erec- 
 tion of extensive manufacturing plants and employ a large number of men in our 
 own country or whether we shall do all this iu a foreign country. We ask of you to 
 be allowed to bring our raw material here, free of duty, so that we can do it all at 
 home. 
 
 I should have probably added that we have smelted a large amount of ores into 
 mattes at the mines in CauMda ; tboy are now being shipped to England and Ger- 
 many to be rohned. We ask that wo may reliue tlieui here. The mattes are composed 
 of the same materials of which tlie ores are com[ifflsed, viz, sulphur, copper, iron, and 
 nickel. I will within a few day.s, fiiruisli Iho conimittoo with the reports of the 
 British Institute upon this nickel .steel. But I might add that results have been ob- 
 tained since the publicat.ou of this report last May, even more important than those 
 made public up to that time. 
 
 The house of William Je3sops& Sons is one of the oldest and best steel manufacturers 
 in Great Britain. Its manager told me that if he had the nickel ho could make guns 
 and armor-plates far superior to anything of this kind now in existence, and I am 
 quite prepared to believe him, from the material and tests which be showed me at 
 their works in ShefBold. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Y'ou are eug.aged in smelting these ores in Canada at this time? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carli.slb. \\'hat quantity do you smelt? 
 
 Mr. EiTCUiE. We are just now ouly smelting about 250 tons a day, but within the 
 uext few months we will smelt within 1,000 and 1,500 a day. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. In what form do you leave it ? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. In the form of mattes. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Do the mattes contain all these ores ? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Tlicy are converted from five or six tons into one. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. And you send them to liiirope to be rohned? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Yes, sir; they are refiued at Swansea, Hamburg, Germany, and 
 Vienna, Austria. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1155 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. What would be the duty on that matte if sent in here t 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Fifteen cents a pound on the nickel ; 2i cents a pound for copper, 
 and 75 cents a ton for iron. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If it is sent here the custom-house officers will be compelled to an- 
 alyze it and impose a certain duty on the nickel and copper contents, and so on f 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Have you ever sent any into this country ? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Yes, sir ; thousands of tons, but we can not afford to pay such an 
 enormous duty. We send it to every other country. 
 , Mr. Flower. How much does it run in iron ? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. About 40 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Have you the data by which you can tell how much duty we colleet 
 from iron ore received from Canada t 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. I do not believe it is 25,000 tons. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Was it not 60,000 tons? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. We do not bring any such amount; 20,000 tons is as much as we 
 broil ght, 1 think. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Was it not up as high as 60,000 tons once 1 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Oh, no. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I am pretty familiar with these iron mines of Canada, all that have 
 yet been discovered. Where is this ; in the province of Ontario ? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Whereabouts? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Here is a map which will show you. There are the mines, and 
 there is a road which I put in there. Right here at this point, you see, are the copper 
 mines. 
 
 Mr. Flower. From Lake Ontario to where ? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. There is Toronto. Here ip where the copper and nickel mines are 
 located. What I want to do is to bring it dovVu to Finley. Here is Algoma. Now I 
 and a few friends built that road extending np there [illustrating on map]. We have 
 been offered a very large bonus by the Dominion Government to put up these works 
 in Canada. We could get a million and a half or two million dollars. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You mean refining works? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Yes, sir ; Toronto offered to put them all up for us. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Suppose you had placed in the tariff bill a provision admitting all 
 Canadian ores free ? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. You have either got to give us all the constituent elements of oreg 
 or they have all got to be shut out. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I am quite familiar with that, having lost some money in trying to 
 find some ore there, and the trouble is that their ore is not in competition with 
 ours. For instance, you have a good mine, and say it is a 6, 8, 30, or 40 foot vein ; 
 you may go down 20 feet and it will run 4 per cent, of sulphur, and it will run so that 
 you can not bring that ore to Ainerica. I have had the best experts from the West 
 and East looking over mines, and they would say, "It is a good mine," but when you 
 begin to get "down into the mine" you find your mistake. There are only two or 
 three great fields of iron ore along that coast, and they are on this side the Minne- 
 sota, the Geogebic range of Michigan, etc.,. and when you.go outside of these you do 
 not get good ore. If you had a general clause that would admit all ores from Canada 
 free — 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. There is no other way of dealing with this question? 
 
 Mr. Flower. I do not know that I can speak in regard to Nova Scotia, because I 
 do not know what is there; I do not know whether they have good mines there. 
 
 Mr. RlTHClE. Yes, air. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Iron mines? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Are they good? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. They are quite good. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Say the ore from Ontario was free, you would not get much, be- 
 cause I tell you I have been down in them, and the more you go down the more 
 they prove worthless, and you can not get American capital to work them. 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. The product ofthese nickel mines is exported all over Europe. There 
 is hardly a point in Europe to which this ore has not been sent. Four-flfths of the 
 nickel of this world is from that point. 
 
 The Chairman. How much is the product of the United States ? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. None at all. The only nickel refining that is done is done at Phila- 
 delphia, and the refiner, Mr. Wharton, has 500 or 600 tons on the docks now, which is 
 all from our mines. I was not aware that our company furnished the nickel for the 
 mint for the last two years until I fouud out the status of the case at Mr. Wharton's . 
 factory. 
 
 The Chairman. Bought of your company 1 
 
1156 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Yes, sir. The great outlet for nictel is in the manufacture of guns. 
 Here is tlie report of the British Iron and Steel Institute. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. In regard to that subject, Mr. Ritchie, of the manufacture of guns, 
 of course if the Government of the United States wanted to import these mattes 
 for the purpose of being used in the manufacture of guns and armor plate they 
 would be admitted free under the present law. 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Yes sir ; but we do not want to spend three orfour millions in a plant 
 over in Canada, because I should prefer to put it in our own country. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You want this question settled altogether before you go to work? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. We have an offer standing open, and we can not hold this matter open 
 very long. 
 
 Mr. Flotver. I do not know that we could make it legal to admit ores from On- 
 tario. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It would be a singular sort of provision. Suppose Canada should 
 pass a law to admit ore from one State in the United States. I suppose you might do 
 it, but it would be a aather siugiilar provision. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I do not know anything .ibont Nova Scotia, but in this province of 
 Ontario the people who have put money iu there have not got it out. 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Canada is not asking for this. She wants all this material manufact- 
 ured there. She wants all the companies to do their manufacturing there. Of course 
 I do not represent Canada, but I should think this would be seriously antagonized by 
 the Canadian people. 
 
 The Chaikmax. What do you think in regard to their being in favor of annexa- 
 tion ? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. You can find them in favor of almost any sentiment, if you fish for 
 it. I think if you take the proper course and not make the mistake of continually 
 antagonizing and annoying them, if you make them feel it is to tbeir interest to come 
 and be with us, that they would come. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How is the Butterworth bill in regard to reciprocity regarded? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. 1 can answer that question very easily. The opposition in the Cana- 
 dian Parliament, probably seventy men out of two hundred and eleven, have adopted 
 Mr. Butterwortb's bill as tbeir platform. Seventy votes will be cast to-morrow for 
 that. That constitutes the opposition. There is not a single one of the opposition 
 against Mr. Butterworth's bill, and every man who is iu favor of the annexation of 
 Canada will tell you that that is the proper way to bring it about. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you not believe this protection tariff we have here keeps them 
 poor over there? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. I think it would be better for both of us 
 
 Mr. Flower. I did not ask you that. Do you not believe it keeps them poor over 
 there ? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. I can hardly say that, because Canada has grown to be a nation from 
 the abrogation of the treaty of lfi54 ; but her great growth has been really within the 
 last nine years. Any one who is acquainted at all ^ith Canada knows there has been 
 a marked change within the last eight or nine years. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How long an acquaintance have you had with Canada? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. For the last eight years, and I think I know every public man almost 
 in Canada. 
 
 Mr, Carlisle. Have you ever resided there? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. No, sir. I am not connected by any relationship there and have 
 no connection otherwise than this commerce. I am quite well acquainted with Sir 
 John and most of the public men of Canada. 
 
 The Chairman. You are a resident of Ohio ? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Yes, sir ; and I expect to remain so. 
 
 Mr. Cablisle. What do you know, if anything, of the extent of the American 
 interests in Canada? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. If you say imports from that market, I shonld say the lumber in- 
 terest. The largest portion we do is lumber. I shonld say that 80 per cent, of the 
 lumber interest belongs to American lumbermen, and nearly the entire mineral in- 
 terests of Canada belong to Americans, and the whole management of the Canadian 
 Pacific Railroad is under the coutrol of Americans. Mr. Van Horn is an American, 
 and every one of his staff ofQcers are also Americans. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I know him very well. 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. His vice president is an American, his general freight agent is an 
 American, and the whole mauagemeut absolutely, directors and everything else, are 
 Americans. 
 
 Mr. Gear. He took his managers, etc., from this country? 
 
 Jlr. Carlisle. In speaking of the minerals of the state, what do you meant 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. I included iron ore. Mr. Flower is well aware of that, that the iron 
 ore belongs wholly to Americans. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. How about coal? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1161 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Tbe coal interest belongs principally in Boston. The anthracite 
 coal is furnished to California and the coast. We, of course, wonld not pay a duty 
 on that. There are extensive beds of anthracite in the Rocky Mountains. The fish- 
 ing interest is entirely their own, but the lumber, coal, and iron interests belong to 
 Americans. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Would the government give free coal if we give free iron ? 
 
 Mr. RiTcniK. Yes, sir ; Sir John told me he would. Still, I do not ask this, be- 
 cause in this matter here they want that manufacture in their own country and they 
 are exceeediugly jealous about it, and are antagonistic to any proposition to take it 
 out of their country; in other words, to spend .S'2 in Canada and $10 in the United 
 States. 
 
 Mr. Flower. And that is why they are willing to pay a bonus on this ? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. They are willing to give us |2, and I think at one time it was $3; 
 but whether they will give more than that, I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Bonus for what ? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. For manufacturing pig iron. 
 
 Mr. Dixgley. That is the reason they put an export duty on logs, to prevent their 
 coming here to be manufactured. 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. I am glad you spoke of that. They have, an export duty on logs; 
 but it was put on at the urgent and jiersistent request of the lumbermen themselves, 
 and was greatly opposed by the government, and the government was exceedingly re- 
 luctant to put it on. 
 
 Mr. Dixgley. You mean the Canadian lumbermen? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. I mean the Canadian lumbermen asked the government for this ex- 
 port duty in order that this industry might not be carried into the United States. 
 
 Mr. Dixgley. To prevent logs being manufactured in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Yes, sir ; and after it was done they saw their mistake, and now they 
 are asking the government to take it off; and you may rest assured the government- 
 will take it oS. 
 
 Mr. Dingley. The export duty has been increased to $3 f 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiE No, sir; the increase has been taken oflf. 
 
 Mr. Dingley. Temporarily, it is $2 now. 
 
 Mr. CaiJlisle. You say there is an export duty on logs? 
 
 Mr. Dixgley. Canada imposed a duty of jii ou logs to prevent their being taken 
 across the lakes and furnished for manufacture in tliis country. 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. All I have to say on this question is that I know that export duty 
 will be taken oft'. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is not the export duty, under power from parliament, discretionary 
 with the privy council of the government ? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. I understand that the privy council can remit the duty. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Can they not put it up ? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. No, sir. They can not put np the duty, but I think they can take 
 off everything. 
 
 Mr. Dix'Gley. Did they not increase the duty on logs ? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Because they had discretion from their parliament. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Getting the power from parliament, the amount is discretionary with 
 them. They might put it up to three or five if they choose. 
 
 Mr. Ritchie, I want to say that I speak of my own knowledge and not from hear- 
 say when I say that the duty imposed ou logs was at the urgent request of the lum- 
 bermen themselves. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Of course they must get authority from parliament for levying a duty? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The amount is left discretionary with the privy council. It is now $2 
 and the council can make it $4 if they think it is advisable. I want to know what 
 power they have. 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. The power is discretionary as with everything. 
 
 Mr. Dingley. I think the duty was first $3, then $3, and now it has come back to 
 $2 again. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I understand they run the government with asmaller committee than 
 we have here. 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. I will not say positively in regard to their putting a duty on any- 
 thing. I think I had better make a correction here. lam not positive that they 
 have not a discretionary limit, and I want to correct myself; for after thinking it 
 over, I think that $3 is now the limit they can go ; so I wish to correct my former 
 statement. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You are familiar with the building of railroads; has the privy coun- 
 cil power to say to you that they can give .V-!5,000 a mile bonus ? 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. Of course the English form of government is exactly the same as 
 that of Canada. If a proposition comes uj) and they have not the necessary votes to 
 carry it out, then they have to resign and go out of the door. If they failed in a 
 proposition they would have to resign. 
 
1158 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If you think of any further reflections on this subject, yre will be 
 pleased to have them from you in a written form. 
 
 Mr. Gear. And I will be glad to know how far this discretion extends. 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. I want to correct myself, for my recollection now is quite distinct 
 that $'■' is the limit that they can go. I wish to correct that. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. That is absolutely prohibitory. 
 
 Mr. Ritchie. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Dingley. Well, it is substantially so. They put this import duty on logs. 
 
 Mr. RiToniB. Yes ; they do not on lumber. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JOSEPH WHARTON, OF PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 Philadelphia, February 1, 1890. 
 To the Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 My attention has been called to the statements made by S. J. Ritchie, of Ohio, 
 concerning the production of nickel matte at an establishment in which be is in- 
 terested, situated at Sudbury, in Canada. The first point attracting my attention 
 is his statement that great improvements have been made within the last year in the 
 metallurgy of nickel in certain parts of Europe, sliowing that tlie addition of nickel 
 to steel prodnces great improvements in the quality of the steel. Tbis is not a new 
 observati'>!i, experiments having been made with sncli alloys from time to time dur- 
 ing a number of years, and in diffeient parts of the world, including the United 
 States. 
 
 The effect produced by the nickel upon steel, though apparently beneficial, and 
 likely to be ii)ii)urtaiitly so, has not yet licen sufBciently investigated to justify all 
 that has been claiuied for nickel as a component of metal for uses iu wliich something 
 superior to steel is desired. The Bethlehem Iron Company has lately produced articles 
 of pure steel showing tensile strength and elasticity closely appi ox i mating those found 
 by James Riley, to whom Mr. Ritchie alludes, in steel alloyed with nickel. It is 
 probable that some real advantage will be found to accrue from the addition of 
 nickel to steel for such purposes as guns aed armor plates, but the extent of that im- 
 provement is as yet an open question. 
 
 Next Mr. Eitchie says that besides the mines in Canada, there is only one other 
 nickel mine of any importance in the world, and that it is located upon the Island 
 of New Caledonia, and belongs to the Rothschilds, it having not one-fifth the pro- 
 ducing capacity of the Canadian mines. This statement shows that Mr. Ritchie is 
 not sufBciently informed upon the subject. In New Caledonia there is not merely 
 one mine, as Mr. Ritchie states, but an extensive range or group of mines, the extent 
 of which has never yet been fully developed but which is undoubtedly very great, 
 having hitherto produced vastly more nickel than the mines in which Mr. Ritchie is 
 interested: 
 
 That group of mines belongs not to the Rothschilds, alone, but to a company in 
 which some of the Rothschilds are stockholders. My own mine in Peunsylvania had, 
 until the discovery of the mines in New Caledonia, probably produced more nickel 
 than any other in the world, but is now quite eclip.sed in magnitude by those of New 
 Caledonia, and by these of Canada. It still, however, is regularly producing nickel, 
 and has, I believe up to this time, produced more than double the amount of nickel 
 that has been produced by the Can.idian mines in which Mr. Ritchie is interested. 
 
 There are numerous other nickel ib.'])osiTs in many iiartsof the world, the latest 
 reported discovery being in the Ural ^louutains, and proi)ahly of very great magni- 
 tude. In this country mines of nickel are rejiorti'd to exist in Nevada, Oregon, Cali- 
 fornia, i\ew Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina, and many other jilaees, none of which 
 have hitherto become productive, except jierhaps one iu Nevada. It is probable that 
 deposits of great importance may ye't be discovered in this rountry, and it is not, in 
 ™,y j"'l.i;"ient, good policy to di.scourage the search for and development of such 
 mines. 
 
 Mr. Ritchie says that his company has sent thousands of terns (presumably meaning 
 matte) into this country, but he says "we can not afford to pay such an' enormous 
 duty." The entire quantity of nickel matte hitherto sent into this country by Mr. 
 Ritchie's company is 300 tons, which was purchased by mo and the duty upon which 
 was paid not by Mr, Ritchie, but by me. His company also sent a considerable quan- 
 tity of raw ore to this country several years ago, upon the nickel in which I am in- 
 formed no duty was paid, tbey having been able to convince the customs department 
 that the ore was copper ore containing no' other dutialde substance than copper. 
 
 Mr. Ritchie says in answer to a question by the chairman: how much is the prod- 
 uct (of nickel) of the United States? "None at all. The only nickel refining that 
 is done in tiiis country is done at Philadel|ihia, and the refiner,' Mr. Joseph Wharton, 
 has 500 or 600 tons on the docks now which is all fi'om our mine. 1 was not aware 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIPF. 11 f 9 
 
 that our company famished tho nickel for the mint for the last two years until I 
 found out the status of the case at Mr. Wharton's factory." 
 
 Mr. Ritchie's statement is not true except that the only nickel refining in Ihe 
 United States is done by me — not .it Philadeli)hia, however, but at Caraden, N. J. 
 The nickel there produced bas been altogetlicr from my own mine in Pennsylvania, 
 except perhaps 1 per cent., which was made from matte derived from the Canadian 
 mines. Very little, if any, of the nickel famished to the mint came Irom the Ca- 
 nadian mines, since the material derived from there was mingled with a much greater 
 quantity of the matte from my own mines in Pennsylvania. The 500 or 600 tous on 
 the docks •which Mr. Ritchie speaks of are .''lOO tons of matte w h.ich was lately lying 
 at Sudburj', bought by me Irom hi.s company, but of which 100 tous, being a part of 
 the 300 tons above menlioued, has since been brought to my refining worlds at Cam- 
 den, N. J. 
 
 Mr. Ritchie says that the great outlet for nicl;el is in the manufacture of guns. It 
 may become so in the future, but up to the present time no nickel has been used in 
 the manufacture of guns except by way of experiment, and the same remark applies 
 to armor plates. 
 
 Mr. Ritchie speaks of spending three or four millions of dollars upon a plant, pre- 
 sumably for nickel retining, over in Canada — a very absurd statement since no such 
 sum of money could be required by any one understanding the problem of retjuiug 
 nickel. It is singular, seeing the very low esteem in which Mr. Ritchie allects to 
 hold me and my establishment, that his company should have been endeavoring, as 
 they lately have been, to induce the manager of my nickel works to go to them. 
 
 Mr. Ritchie says that his company belongs altogether to this country, since the 
 stockholders are citizens of the United States. It has never been held that when a 
 citizen of the United States embarks in an enterprise in a foreign country he should 
 therefore be entitled to claim exctptioual privileges tioni the Government of this 
 country in the way of having the products of that country favored beyond similar 
 products of other countries in the matter of import duty. It is not improbable that 
 I may purchase mines of nickel in Canada and thus beroiiie a producer in Canada 
 of nickel ore or nickel matte, but I do not imagine that I should be entitled to bring 
 into this country free of duty the nickel ore or nickel matte so produced. 
 
 The general policy of this country being so estatdished as to give advantage in 
 the way of protective import duty to all articles manufactured in the United States, 
 that general policy should in m^jndgment -apply to nickel in any form produced in 
 Canada, or elsewhere out of this country. The correct policy, in my judgment, to 
 encourage the refining of nickel in the United States is not to allow the materials to 
 enter this country free of duty, but to impose moderate duties upon nickel in ore as 
 in matte, and then to allow a reliate of the entire amount of duty upon nickel pro- 
 duced from such foreign material when that nickel comes to be exported. 
 
 My views upon the tariff duties that should be imposed upon nickel in all forms 
 having been lately expressed in a letter to the Sii-retarv of the Treasury, Mr. Win- 
 dom (of which letter a copy has been furnished the Committee on Ways and Means), 
 I refer to that letter rather than repeat its contents here, but will say in brief that I 
 think the duty upon refined nickel should remain at 15 cents per pound, and the duty 
 on nickel in matte should be red need from the present absurd rate of 15 cents per pound 
 to 5 cents a pound, and the duty on nickel in ore should be reduced from the still 
 more absurd rate of 15 cents a pound to 2 cents a. pound. I refer to that letter also 
 for well considered views concerning the rates of duty upon col)alt oxide and upon 
 German silver scrap ; to all of which I respectfully ask the attention of the Com- 
 mittee on Ways and Means. 
 
 I should wish that letter to be appended to this statement, so as to be considered a 
 part of it, in order that in any printed correction of statements concerning import 
 duties all that I have submitted concerning nickel may appear together. 
 
 IRON ORB. 
 
 In relation to Canadian iron ore, two of the largest steel-making establishments 
 in the United States, in both of which I am a stockholder, have expended great care 
 and large sums of money in endeavors to find and develop good mines of iron ore in 
 Canada, but without success. I am of opinion that no irou ore deposits of Canada 
 as yet examined compare in magnitude and value to those of oar own country, nor 
 do I see any good reason why tne iron ores of Canada should be treated differently in 
 regard to import duty from the iron ores of any other foreign country. 
 
 Also, I find in the truculent behavior of Canada to tlais couutr.y, irom which she 
 obtains gratis inestimable advantages to her railroads and business, no inducement 
 to grant to her or to her products any exceptional privileges. 
 
1160 REVISION OF THE TARIFF: 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF S. J. RITCHIE. 
 
 Washington, D. C, March 7, 1890. 
 Gentlemen : I have to-day for the first time seen or heard of the communication 
 uf Joseph Wharton addressed to yon under date of February 1, in which he under- 
 takes to deal Tvitli a statement made by myself some days previous with regard to 
 tlie admission from Canada of certain ores free of duty. 
 
 Mr. Wharton first talies issue with me in the statements I made before the com- 
 njittee that definite ascertained results had been obtained l)y the alloy of nicke] with 
 steel. Mr. Wharton's naked statemeut to this effect against the ptiblished reports of 
 the Iron and Steel lustitnte of Great Britain, acknowledged by every one having 
 knowledge of metals— except Mr. Wharton, who, of course, knows no authority as 
 high as himself — to be the highest authority in the world, will ]irob:ibly rcceivefrom 
 the committee the consideration and weight to which it is entitled. I did say that 
 there was only one other mine of any magnitude known to exist in the world beside 
 those in which I was interested. We have only been in operation one year producing 
 mattes, and yet in that time we have produced more nickel than Mr. Wharton has 
 produced in the thirty-ndd years in which he has been engaged in the business. If 
 we are to believe Mr. Wharton's statement, nickel mines are very generally scat- 
 tered all over the country. An offer was made to him last spring, when this same 
 subject was before the Senate Finance Committee, of $10,000 to locate any large de- 
 posit of nickel ore any place in the United States. That offer is good to-day. That 
 offer was not confined to a single deposit, but will be paid for as many separate de- 
 j>osits as he is able to show. Here is a chance for Mr. Wharton to make his state- 
 ment good and to profit by doing so. If Mr. Wharton knows of one pound of nickel 
 that has been produced from any new find in the Ural Mountains he is the only man 
 who does know it. 
 
 Mr. Wharton seeks to confuse the committee by perverting my statement about 
 the shi|iment of ores to be understood as the shipment of mattes. This he does de- 
 liberately, and he allows his malice to come to the surface by saying that no duty was 
 paid upon the nickel, we having been able to convince the customs officers that the 
 ore contained coi)iier and no other dutiable substance. Our company had no knowl- 
 edge that the ores contained nickel. We didnot sell them for nickel ores. Mr. Whar- 
 ton did know it, and profited by his knowledge. He gave me a statement of how much 
 nickel there was in them after he had extracted it and sold it. but I have yet to learn 
 that he ever offered to pay the Government any duty upon this material. We paid 
 the Government nothing, for we knew nothing of its existence and got nothing for it. 
 However, it would have been a small matter at any rate, and only shows the animus 
 of the man in his desperate efforts to misleail the committee. 
 
 Last summer I several times met the officers of the New Caledonia Company in 
 Paris, and they gave me the statement accompanying their exhibit at the exhibition, 
 a translation of which I hereto append. I trust it will be sufficient answer to Mr. 
 Wharton's statements about that company. It is true that our company has sent very 
 little matte into this country and that Mr. Wharton has bought principally what 
 has been sent. Mr. Wharton wanted to make a contract for a number of years with 
 our company and to have exclusive control of the American markets. I need not 
 state here the objectionable terms of this proposition. SufQce it to say they were of 
 a nature which we could not accept. 
 
 Mr. Wharton has again and again proposed to us that if we would furnish- him 
 material at his own prices he would come before your committee and those of the 
 Senate and ask that our material should be put upon the free list, and has told us 
 that if we would not come to this agreement he would ask Congress to raise the 
 duty, and declared over and over that he had the ability to accomplish this result. 
 His |iresent effort shows how well he is attempting to carry out that threat. Mr. 
 Wharton again seeks to deceive the committee liy speaking of the 500 tons of matte 
 " lately" lying at Sudbury, us if it had been removed. It still lies there, as he told 
 us, to await the action of Con,L.ress, so that it might come in free of duty. Mr. 
 Wharton characterizes my statement that an expenditure of $3,000,000 or $3^000,000 
 for a plant sufficient to treat the product of our mines as absurd. In reply I would 
 say that he asked us $300,000 for his old plant, which, according to his own state- 
 ment, has a capacity of only about IT.") tons annually. As we will be producing more 
 than ten times th.at amount, it does not require a very extensive knowledge of arith- 
 metic to figure out how much ten times three hundred thousand would be. 
 
 With regard to the statement that I have tried to hire his manager away from him, 
 I can only say that neither directly nor indirectly have I ever spoken to'him on the 
 subject ; and we do not want to hire him. We know Mr. Wharton's mode of separa- 
 tion and could write it all down here if it wcreunportant ; hut it isuot adapted to our 
 wants. 
 Mr. Wharton declares that Canadian ores should not he admitted free of duty. It 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1161 
 
 may seem straii<;i> to the committee that in adilition tn tbc propositions made to iis :i» 
 above stated he should himself boast of being the pioneer champion of iiiirestriett'il 
 free trade with Canada, and has given me pamphlets "written by himself wbich I will 
 do him the justice of saying were about the ablest presentation of the case I have 
 ever seen. He has also written letters to Major Butterworth and sent them by me 
 to him strongly indorsing his bill for unrestricted trade with Canada. Mr. Whar- 
 ton's conclusions and convictions seem to have an elasticity which marvelously 
 adapt them to a harmony with his personal interests. It can hardly be said that his 
 present position compared to his former one is a case of Pbilip drunk to Philip sober, 
 but if the order of Philip's conditions were reversed the similarity would be quite 
 apparent. 
 
 Now, geutlemeu, Mr. Wharton has been engaged in the nickel business in a small 
 way for probably more th^^n ihirty years. Uiiiing all that time all the legislation in 
 Congress on this subject has been for his sole and personal benefit. Out of this small 
 affair he has made a fortune, selling his material at times as high as .$3. .50 per pound. 
 He now finds his mine exhausted and au old plant upon his hands ancl he wants 
 somebody to buy it, and I leave you gentlemen to pass upon tlio merits of bis eflbrt 
 to bring you to his aid in his endeavor to coerce our company to make terms with 
 him on the basis and for the consideration of his influence with you. 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 S. J. Ritchie. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 UNIVERSAL EXHIBITION OF 1889, GEOUP V, CLASS 41. 
 Ze Nickel Limit ed Company. Capital 12,720,000 francs. Offices: 13 rue Lafai/ette, Paris. 
 
 Exhibits. — The society "Le Nickel "exhibits in the Champ de Mars and on the Esplan- 
 ade des luvalides (Pavilion Colonial) the products — 
 
 First, from its uiiucs: Nickel ore, cobalt ore. 
 
 Second, from its works : Crude nickel, ni-kel matte, oxides of nickel, refined nickel, 
 cobalt matte, oxides of cobalt. 
 
 Ch-igin of the coiiipunii.. — " Le Nickel" is a French company with its headquarters at 
 Paris. It was formed in lb80 by a fusion of three groups : 
 
 (1) The owners of a considerable number of mines situated in New Caledonia. 
 
 (2) The Noumea Foundry Company. 
 
 (3) A French refining company. 
 
 Production and consumption. — At the start all the ores taken from the mines of the 
 new company were sent by sea to Noumea, where they were made into crude nickel, 
 and this was sent by sea either to Septemes (near Marseilles), to be refined, or to 
 London for sale. Tlie consumption of nickel was at that period little developed in 
 Europe, estimated at 400 tons per year. Tbis was furnisbecl by a very small number 
 of English and German refiners from almost exclusively Swedish, Norwegian, and 
 Hungarian ores. 
 
 The poverty of these ores (2 to 4 per cent.) and the expensive processes of refining 
 (wet way) wbich their nature obliged (arsenical, antimony, sulphnrical) held the 
 refined nickel at the high price of from 12 to 15 francs the kilogramme. 
 
 Arnerica obtained from its mines in Penusylvania the fifty or sixty tons it required 
 yearly. The formation of "LeNickel" Con^pany has completely altered this situation. 
 
 The ores of New Caledonia are silicates which contain neither sulphur, nor arsenic, 
 nor antimony, nor copper, nor cobalt. They contain H, 10, ]2 per cent, and even 
 more. They are easily transformed by the dry way into crude nickel in blast fur- 
 naces, or into matte in the cupola, according to the demands of commerce. The 
 crude and the mattes contain from ,50 to 60 per cent, of nickel. 
 
 The extent and richness of the ore-beds of New Caledonia, the facility of working 
 them, the simplicity of the refining processes, have permitted "Le Nickel" Company 
 to gradually lower the price and to encourage by its cheapness the employment of 
 nickel in a large number of industries. 
 
 Price of nickel. — From 12 francs the kilogramme the price of refined nickel has 
 come down to 10, 9, 8, 0, and finally 5.50— the current price. All the eftbrts of the 
 company tend to lower still further the jirice to encourage the development of the 
 uses of nickel. 
 
 Use of nickel. — Switzerland, Belgium, Servia, Germany, the United States of 
 America, and Brazil have issued moneys made of nickel and copper :illoys. 
 
 France, followed by other European states, makes the cases used for small caliber 
 bullets of a metal composed equally of nickel and copper. 
 
 Finally, the remarkable results obtained lately in France, England, and Germany, 
 
1162 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 by alloyiBg nickel with steel, assure to nickel an extremely important place in 
 metallurgy. 
 
 Actual operations of " Le KiclieJ." — "While loTyeriug the price of nickel, the com- 
 pany "Lo Nickel" have at the same time developed its production. The personnel 
 employed by the company consists in New Caledonia of 1000 workmen and foremen ; 
 in Europe, 350 workmen and foremen. The tramways finished and building, which 
 connect the mines and carry the ores to the seaside reach the length of 50 kilo- 
 meters. The cable-ways which carry the oi-es down the mountains reach 12 kilo- 
 meters. A steamer belonging to the company puts the working centers in commu- 
 nication with the capital of the colony. 
 
 During the year 18-'8 the company exported from New Caledonia to Europe 10,000 
 tons of uickel'aud cobalt ores. It will export 20,000 tons in 1889, and arrangements 
 have been made so that in 1890 the exportation will reach 30,000 tons. The company 
 " Le Xickel " is tn-day owner of sis worts occupied exclusively in the production of _ 
 crude metal and mattes, retrning nickel, and making oxides of cobalt. Two works ' 
 are in New Caledonia; four works are in Europe. The nickel retining works at 
 Havre are the most important in the world. The engines of these works together 
 represent 300 horse-power. 
 
 The monthly production can be 500 tons of crudes and mattes, 200 tons of refined 
 nickel. 
 
 The nickel industry is to-day French. — The European and American mines can not be 
 worked iu the same economical conditions as those of New Caledouia. They have 
 nearly stopped working. The nickel used in the whole world— in Europe, America, 
 India, China, Japan — comes to-day from the mines of the French colony, New Cal- 
 edonia, and is refined by far the greater part in the works of the French company 
 "Le Nickel." 
 
 Prizes aicarded. — The prizes awarded to the founders of the company for their opera- 
 tioD.s, transferred to the company, and to the company since its formation, are the 
 following: Two gold medals, Paris Exposition, 1878; one diploma of honor. Industrial 
 Exhibition, Marseilles, 1879; one diploma of honor. Scientific and Industrial Exhibi- 
 tion, Paris, 1879; one diploma of honor, collective exhibit, same exhibition. Oat of 
 competition exhibition, Central Union, Paris, 1880; first prize, Melbourne Exhibition, 
 1880-'81 ; one gold medal, Amsterdam Exhibition, 1883 ; one diploma of honor, Antwerp 
 ExhibitioUj 1885. 
 
Revision op the tariff. 1163 
 
 COPPEK. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. THOMPSON. 
 
 Mr. Robert M. Thompson, president of the Orford Copper Company, Constable 
 Hook, N. J., on New York Harbor, appeared before the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, our works are engaged in refin- 
 ing ores and mattes of copper, drawing its supplies in part from small mines from 
 nearly every State in the United States and in part from large mines in Montana and 
 Arizona. The large mines are now erecting refining works for the purpose of treat- 
 ing their own products, and when said works are completed the product received 
 from the small mines will not be sufficient in themselves to enable us to maintain the ' 
 output of copper from our works, at the present rate of about 20,000,000 pounds 
 per annum, and in consequence the cost of treating the ores from the small mines must 
 be largely increased unless we be enabled to draw supplies of ore from foreign sources, 
 say Australia, Canada, Venezuela, and the Canadian Northwest. In all the places 
 named there are large deposits of copper, the ores from which would be shipped to 
 our works to treat, and we could treat them, taking them iu competition with the 
 English smelters, if we were not prevented from so doing by the necessity of paying 
 duties on the ore, thus employing a large amount of capital while carrying the copper 
 to the refined stage, and then upon re-exportation of the copper receiving a drawback 
 which in practice amounts to only 85 per cent, of the duties paid. This tax of 15 per 
 cent, on the duties paid amounts in the case of mattes to about |10 per ton of fine cop- 
 per, which is more than the profit that would be expected by us from treating ores. 
 
 Under the present conditions we can compete with the English smelter by work- 
 ing at cost. If this hindrance is removed we can continue to fill our works with 
 ores drawn from these sources that will not iu any way compete with American pro- 
 ducers, and at the same time will be enabled to treat ores from the smaller American 
 mines at the low cost necessary to enable them to live in competition with the great 
 mines of Montana and Michigan. 
 
 We therefore ask that a bill as follows be introduced and passed : 
 
 "Be it enacted, etc., That copper in ores, mattes, regulus, cements, and bars may be 
 imported for refining free of duty upon the execution of a bond to export within six 
 months an amount of unmanufactured refined copper equal to that in said ores, 
 mattes," etc. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How many men do yon employ ? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. We employ three hundred men. The New Jersey works employ 
 one hundred and fifty more. Our men are experts. We pay about $180,000 a year in 
 wages. 
 
 Mr. Payne. What is the average wages? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. Something over $2 a day. 
 
 Mr. McMillan. I understand you to say that if you had free ore you could com- 
 pete successfully with England and destroy her in the markets of the world. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. I would not undertake to destroy her, but I will take my chances 
 with her. 
 
 Mr. McMillan. And pay American wages 1 
 
 Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMillan. The only thing that stands in your way is the duty on ores ? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. Under no conditions could any part of the copper im- 
 ported into this country be retained here. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell. Would you consume any part of the product when you refined this 
 ore ? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. No part of it. At present America is the greatest exporter of cop- 
 per in the world. She exports 40 per cent, of her product. At present the foreign 
 consumer pays more for copper than the American consumer, as there has been an 
 enormous demand for wire for electrical conductivity. 
 
 Mr. McMillan. If I understand you correctly, the ores of Canada are shipped 
 through this country because of the tax ? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. We stop all we can. 
 
 Mr. McMillan. Was your concern connected with the trust to control the market? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. We were not associated with it until the last forty-eight hours be- 
 fore it went to pieces, when we made a contract with it. 
 
 Mr. Flowkr. Where do you get ores from t 
 
1164 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Jlr. Thompson. We get a very large part from Moutana and Arizona. We get ore 
 from the province of Quebec, from the States of Maine, Vermont, Now Hampshire, 
 Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Kentucky, Virginia, Florida, 
 and from all the territories. I believe we get it from every State in the Union except 
 two. 
 
 Jlr. Flower. Do you know anything about the product of the Calumet andHecla 
 mines T 
 
 Mr. Thompson. The ore from the Calumet and Hecla is found scattered through a 
 soft rock. It contains about 5 per cent, of copper, but by a cheap process it is con- 
 centrated to about 75 to 80 copper and this product is refined by tire, producing the 
 standard copper of the world. 
 
 Mr. Flower. They told me in Butte, Mont., that they produced one half of the 
 copper of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. That is a little high. 
 
 In the cities of Newark, Bayonne, and Elizabeth, all in the State of New Jersey, 
 about 1,200 men are emjiloyed in smelting and reiining copper and lead, and about 
 §7."iO,000 per annum is paid out as wages, and an equal or somewhat larger sum for 
 coal, coke, fire-brick, and general supplies. This considerable industry has been sup- 
 ' ported in the past by supplies coming in part from small mines scattered all over the 
 country, the copper, in fact, coming at least in small quantities from every State in 
 the Union except Louisiana and Florida, and in part from large niiues situated in 
 Monlana, and Arizona. The owners of the mines in Montana are at invsent building 
 works for the treatment of their products. Part of these works will be situated in 
 Montana, and part of them will be erected iu England for the treatment of so much 
 of (heir copper as is to be exported. In consequence the eastern works will be short 
 of supplies and the cost of treatment of the supplies received from the smaller mines 
 must iu consequence be largely increased unless the works can obtain supplies from 
 oilier .sources. Such sources exist in Canada, in the Canailiau Northwest, Venezuela, 
 Newfoundland, and Mexico, and I submit that it must bo a desirable thing to admit 
 such ores to be treated in this country not only because of the direct einployuieut of 
 the labor at the works named, but also the indirect advantage derived by the owners 
 and laborers of the small mines whose interests should certainly be as carefully 
 guarded as those of the great mines of Moutana. 
 
 As suggested in my oral statement, it is in the power of Congress to admit the im- 
 portation of these ores under such regulations as will prevent their competing in the 
 American market with American ores, and yet give us the advantage of their being 
 treated iu this country. 
 
 Under the existing drawback laws exceptional ores can be and are now brought 
 in for treatment. For instance, large quantities of ores where sulphur is associated 
 with the copper are brought into the country for the manufacture of sulphuric acid, 
 and the copper after being refined here is exported. But in ihe business of import- 
 ing copper ores or copper products, the amount of capital tied up in the Treasury 
 becomes so excessive as to be in fact prohibitory. For instance, there is at Sudbury, 
 in the province of Ontario, a large mine carrying copper and nickel, the product of 
 which could be largely brought into the United States tor refining, but under exist- 
 ing laws it would be nece-ssary to deposit at least $250,000 in the Treasury in order to 
 cover the importations necessary to keep works owned by the company which I 
 re[)re.sent running, and the annual loss on the amount of duty retained by the 
 Government, including loss of interest on the capital tied up, would be about ;5150, 000 
 a year. This would clearly be a heavy, in fact prohibitory, tax laid upon a useful 
 industry. It would not benefit other American producers in the slightest degree, 
 and I beg that your committee will give this matter serious attention and in some 
 way give effect to the prayer of your petitioner for permission to import ores for re- 
 fining free of duty, such safeguards being taken as are necessary to secure the ex- 
 portation of the copper, etc., in a refined but unmanufactured state. 
 
 STATEMENT OF GEORGE M. PHELPS. 
 
 Mr. George M. Phelps, of 150 Broadway, New York, next addressed the committee. 
 He, said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of (ho committee, I am hero to present a petition in 
 behalf of the National Electric Light Association for the abolition of the duty on 
 copper in its several forms. I do not propose to take up much of your time in the 
 matter. The question seems to us a rather simple one, and we have expressed in 
 manuscript our opinion of the matter. I will now read what I have prepared : 
 
 The lionorahU Committee on Ways and Means, Home of Eepreseniatives : 
 
 The subscribers were apiiointed a committee toiietitiou your honorable body forthe 
 abolition of duty on copper ingot, plate, bars, rod, and wire. We represent the Na- 
 tional Electric Light Association a body composed of representatives of electric light- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1165 
 
 ing companies tliroughout the United States, and also of manufacturers of and dealers 
 in electric lighting apparatus and supplies. 
 
 The resolution appointing this committee -vriis passed without a dissenting voice. 
 We, therefore, have the honor to present this petition, earno^Jy requesting th:it the 
 action asked be taken as a measure which will be approved by the great body of users 
 and manufacturers of copper. 
 
 Charles A. Beown. 
 
 George M. Phelps. 
 
 J. F. Morrison. 
 
 New York, January 14, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : I herewith hand you an extract from the official record of the proceed- 
 ings of this association during its last couvention, held atNiagara Fulls, N. Y., August 
 e, 7, audti, 1889. 
 The resolution therein named was adopted Wednesday forenoon, August 7, 1889. 
 Very respectfully, yours, , 
 
 Allan V. Garratt, 
 Secretary and Treasurer of the Xational Eleotrio Light Association. 
 
 George M. Phelps, Esq., 
 
 150 Broadway, New Yorlc City. 
 
 \ 
 Extract from the official record of tlie prooeediDga of ^he National Electric Light Association, at it3 
 tenth convention, held at Niagara FaUs, N. Y. , August 6, 7, and 8, 1889]. 
 
 Wednesday Forenoon, August 7. 
 
 Mr. Charles A. Brown, of Chicago, 111. May I offer the following resolution: 
 That a committee of three be appointed by the president and instructed to prepare 
 and present to the proper committee of Congress a petition on behalf of the National 
 Electric Light Association for the abolition of customs duty on copper ingot, wire, 
 plates, sheets, bars and rods. 
 
 Mr. George M. Phelps, of New York. I second Mr. Brown's resolution and move 
 its adoption. 
 
 The president put the question and declared it adopted, and appointed on the com- 
 mittee Mr. Charles A. Brown, of Chicago, Mr. George M. Phelps, of New York, and 
 Mr. J. F. Morrison, of Baltimore. 
 Attest to the correctness of the above quotation, 
 
 Allan V. Garratt, 
 Secretary and Treasurer of The National Electric Light Association. 
 Witness : 
 
 Frank C. Wessells. 
 
 memorandum accompanying petition of the national electric light asso- 
 ciation TO the committee on wais and means, house of represent atives, 
 for the abolition of the customs duty on copper ixgot, plate, bars, rod, 
 
 AND WIRE. 
 
 The National Electric Light Association consists of corporations, firms, and indi- 
 viduals owning and operating stations and plants for the distribution of light and 
 power by electricity. 
 
 At the time of the last convention of the association, August 6, 18k9, the capital 
 then invested in the industries above named was estimated, IVom statistics collected 
 by the secretary of the association, to be no less than $'^7ri,000,000. That sum repre- 
 sented mainly electrical apparatus and electric conductors for the supply of 2:>-',ll00 
 arc lamps and 2,700,000 incandescent lamps, in all which apparatus and conductors 
 copper is an iudispeu8.able and chief material. In the totiil cost of electric plant lor 
 light and power distribution it is estimated by competent experts that from one- 
 fourth to one-third is expended for copper. 
 
 The foregoing figures and statements sufficiently indicate the magnitude of the 
 interest of electric light and power companies in the price of copper. 
 
 In the opinion of the petitioners the proposed abolition of the copper tariff does not 
 touch the question of protection to American industry. The duty on copper appears 
 
1166 EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 to be wholly superfluous as a protection to Americon producers of that metal. The 
 United States not only produces more copper than it consumes, and consequently 
 exports that metal, but it possesses the richest and most easily worked copper mines 
 in the world, and its mining ccynpanies produce the metal and put it in the market 
 at a lower cost than is possible to the Spani.sh or Chilian miners. Obviously the 
 American producers of copper require no duty to protect their domestic market ; and 
 their exports of copper furnish sufficient evidence of their ability to meet competi- 
 tion in foreign markets. 
 
 The existing duty is of no appreciable value to the National Treasury, because 
 copper is not importe.d in any considerable quantity. As a source of national reve- 
 nue the copper tariff is practically useless, and the returns from it could not be 
 increased materially, under the conditions of production throughout the world, by 
 any modification of the rate of duty, if the Government needed increased revenue, 
 which it confessedly does not. 
 
 It would appear, therefore, that the duty on copper can only be efficient in en- 
 abling the mining companies and dealers in copper to establish and maintein excess- 
 ive prices through combination for that purpose. It is believed that the United 
 States duty of 4 cents per pouyd was a considerable factor in the operations of the 
 syndicate established in Franco in the autumn of 1887, and which syndicate, aided 
 by its agreements and contracts with copper mining companies in this country, suc- 
 ceeded in controlling the copper production and markets of the world for more than 
 a year, doubling for a considerable period in London and New York the price exist- 
 ing just previous to the beginning of its operations. This was effected, moreover, in 
 the face of au abundant supply of the metal. For some mouths after the breakdown 
 of the French speculation, the American companies maintained the price in this 
 country considerably in excess of that of European, markets. 
 
 Touching the relation of the duty on copper to combinations for maintaining ex- 
 cessive priceSj the following quotation is subjoined : 
 
 [Eitracts from editorial in New York Tribune, May 15, 1889.] 
 
 " The mine owners have publicly stated that they are able to produce more than 
 all the copper this country consumes, and a large part of it at a cost not exceeding 6 
 cents per pound, and that they propose to the French bankers who bold an enor- 
 mous unsold stock, to fix the selling price at about 13 cents per pound — more than 
 double the cost. Nothing need be said about the right of the producer to get a profit 
 of more than 100 per cent, on his copper, provided he is not a beneficiary of a na- 
 tional policy intended to protect and encourage American production. But the mine 
 owners are beneficiaries of that policy, and owe to the public a certain consideration 
 and service in return. If they enter into a combination for the benefit of foreign 
 speculators and bankers against the interests of American producers, the duty on cop- 
 per may not last long. 
 
 " There will in all probability be a revision of the tariff next winter. The party 
 iu power being anxious to defend all industries that need and merit defeuse, will for 
 that very reason be more strongly pressed to cut oif dnties where no defense appears 
 to be needed, or where it seems to be not deserved. Combinations of speculators to 
 corner the markets of the world are not highly popular, and will not appear to mem- 
 bers of Congress to merit particularly favorable consideration. Under snch circum- 
 stances, the demand for a removal of all duties on copper ore, pig and bars, will be 
 dilBeult to resist. It is safe to say that, had the Mills bill proposed no change more 
 unpopular or unobjectionable than that its public support would have been incom- 
 paraljly greater." 
 
 Iu short, and to recapitulate, in the opinion of the National Electric Light Associa- 
 tion the duty on copper, being useless for revenue and unuecessary for protection, 
 should not be suffered to remain on the statute books of the United States, since its 
 only remaining function is to serve as an ally to the promoters of combinations for 
 putting up prices, a process to which the Government should not lend its assistance. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 1167 
 
 VIE-WS OF THE ARMINIUS COPPER COMPANY. 
 
 New York, February 13, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen : As owners of the Arminius Copper Mines — miners and shippers of ores 
 called pyrites, which are sold for the sulphur contents alone — we have been located 
 in Louisa County, Va., on the line of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, 56 miles 
 from Richmond, Va., since the early part of the year 1883. 
 
 Deeply interested as we are in any legislation "which aims at our welfare, we re- 
 spectfully represent to your honorable committee the following facts : 
 
 We have expended about $750,000 in the development of our mines, in the perma- 
 nent improvements thereon, and in labSr since our occupancy of the property. We 
 have nearly or quite six hundred people directly dependent upon the success of our 
 cnherprise for their support, and we are gradually adding to our investment and to 
 the labor forces employed, establishing a settled and prosperous community of land 
 owners, where formerly there was a waste of mineral lands. During the time stated 
 we have paid out to the various railway lines, and to vessels, as freights on our mine 
 ores at least $^50,000 ; our annual shipments at tbe present time are above 40,000 
 tons, and our freight account exceeds |100,000 yearly. 
 
 Our mine products are marketed in the principal cities along the Atlantic coast and 
 inland, reached by rail, which trade we have built' up as'an entirely new industry 
 since 1883, supplying to our customers products of the soil in place of the article 
 called brimstone, which is generally imported from Sicily, in the Mediterranean Sea. 
 
 The imports of this foreign brimstone will be seen by the following table : 
 
 Imports of brimstone into the United States. 
 
 Average 
 value. 
 
 1883 
 1884 
 1885 
 1886 
 1887 
 1888 
 1889 
 
 96, 629 
 94, 929 
 99, 378 
 98, 590 
 89, 419 
 128, 2ti5 
 117, 000 
 
 $26. 00 
 24.00 
 23.50 
 20.60 
 19.00 
 19,00 
 19.50 
 
 We respectfully represent that the values here given, as average selling prices 
 along the Atlantic sea-board, have been gradually reduced Ijy the eftbrts of tlie three 
 pyrites mines of the country, the products of which have been introduced at great 
 expense to the owners, while the community has been benefited to the extent of mill- 
 ions of dollars in their purchases of raw products which go to make up fertilizers, 
 refined oil, crude chemicals, etc. 
 
 This is plainly shown by the statement that/ we have been selling the same amount 
 of sulphur whica is contained in a ton of brimstone for about half the prices quoted 
 above, which concessions we have made to induce manufacturers to change their 
 plants to use ores, and also for the purpose of more quickly developing our mines up 
 to a point where tliey would be stable, remunerative investments. We have as yet 
 had no profits whatever from our enterprise, as the initial years of development render 
 that impossible, although we have struggled along with a gradually increasing trade, 
 relying upon the protection which was accorded to us in the action of your com- 
 mittee in the year 1883, which so fairly discriminated in our favor as mine owners as 
 against foreign low-grade copper products and ores then attempted to be introduced. 
 
 We understand that the same parties are now demanding the abolition of all duties 
 on ores classed as pyrites, and that certain of the chemical manufacturers repre- 
 sented by Mr. Thomas McDougal, of Cincinnati, Ohio, have added their petitions to 
 those of the representatives of foreign mines. 
 
 We have been, and are now, supplying all the clients of Mr. McDougal with pyrites 
 ores to the extent of about 100 tons daily, and we protest that such action must have 
 been taken after offers from foreign mines for their ores containing copper, iron, gold, 
 and silver, at prices which would destroy our business, and yet enable the foriegn 
 mines to make large profits. 
 
 We protest that as Americans enjoying the exceeding low values in ores mined in 
 this country, the clients of Mr. McDougal have no rigbt to favor the introduction 
 into this land of ores containing copper, iron, gold, and silver — in which metals they 
 probably would have no interest but for the small profit they would be able to 
 make by purchase of the sulphur which those ores contain. We now sell the sul- 
 
1168 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 pliur in our ores to tliose parties, deliTered at their works, for the price of ?ilO per 100 
 units of sulphur, as compared to $21 per 100 units of sulphur in brimstone. We pro- 
 test that no American manufacturers have a right to assist foreiga owners of mines 
 in securing the repeal of the duties on these pyritesoreswith their copper, iron, gold, 
 and silver, to save the small difference in prices of the sulphur — ^a difference which 
 will bankrupt all the small mines in this country. 
 
 There are millions of tons of waste, low-grade ores, lying at the mines in Spain and 
 Portugal, repeatedly offered at the price of 10 to 50 cents per ton where they lie, there- 
 fore considered of no value as compared to the enormous tonnage of ores which are 
 mined by them in regular business for copper, etc. 
 
 We respectfully call your attention to the latter clause in this very strong article, 
 and we elaborate' it with further data, which the seven years of experience has given, 
 as follows : * _ . 
 
 By analysis the average ores from Spain contain : 
 
 Sulphur 46 per cent., value ■> §4.60 
 
 Iron, after extraction of sulphur, 1,500 pounds, value 3. 00 
 
 Copper, 3 per cent., value 5.00 
 
 Gold and silver 1.00 
 
 Total values in a ton of Spanish ore 13. 60 
 
 If no duties are paid on this ton of ore the actual cost of same delivered at any 
 port on the Atlantic coast, would be, maximum 3. 60 
 
 Giving actual net value of one ton Spanish ore 10. 00 
 
 We earnestly protest against the admission of these ores duty free, there being no 
 reason why they can not assist inpaying their portion of our revenues out of the large 
 values they possess, and which our own ores do not possess, and according to the clear 
 argnment presented by Mr. Douglas the benefits to any industry in this country will 
 be so infinitessimal that no real valid argument can be used for legislation which will 
 bankrupt all American pyrites mines. 
 
 Inasmuch as these foreign ores are so valuable for the copper, iron, aud sulphur 
 contents, and without the sale of the latter (and the removal of duties) it would not 
 be profitable to bring these ores into our country, we respectfully recommend that 
 in your revised schedule such ores be taxed at the rate of lS5 per ton for the sulphur 
 contents. 
 
 The residues of these foreign ores, after the extraction of the copper, sulphur, gold, 
 and silver, consists of iron in the best possible state for treatment, being 57 to 62 per 
 cent, iron, and this product is uow selling in New York for §4.50 to §6 per ton of 2,240 
 pounds, according to situation of works. It is, therefore, i)lain to see that the iron or 
 the sulphur is of sutBcient value to warrant the bringing in of millions of tons of 
 Spanish and other foreign ores. There is at present an importation of about 100,000 
 tons of these ores, as against ouly 75,000 tons mined by the three American companies. 
 
 We have been informed that Schedule C, as compiled by your committee, docs not 
 cover the points which we deem absolutely essential to save us from destruction if 
 the floods of foreign ores are allowed to come in duty free, and in our judgment the 
 amendment which has been proposed to your committee will meet the necessities of 
 the case. We reproduce it here and personally request that it be added to the sched- 
 ule: 
 
 " Iron ore, including manganiferons iron ore, also the dross or residuum from burnt 
 pyrites, 75 cents per ton. Sulphur ore, as pyrites or sulphuret of iron in its natural 
 state, $1.50 per ton, provided, that ores containing more than 1 per centum of copper 
 shall i)ay in addition thereto IJ cents per pound for the copper contained therein." 
 
 Praying for your earnest And favorable consideration of the vital matters, to us, 
 herein stated. 
 
 We are, very respectfully, 
 
 Jos. Hester. 
 Alex. Ginterman. 
 W. H. Adams. 
 
 The Committee on Wats and Means. 
 
KEVISION OF THE TAlUFf. 1169 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OP ROBERT M. THOMPSON. 
 
 Febrdaky is, 1890. ■ 
 Mr. EoliertM. Thompson, of the Orford Copper Company, of New York, Mr. G. W. 
 Cooley, of the New Jrrsry Extraction Works, and Mr. Ed. Balbach, of Ed. Balbach 
 & Son, appeared before the coniuiittee in regard to coj)per and lead ores. 
 
 Egbert M. Thompson, of thf- Orford Copper Company, of New York, nest addressed 
 the committee, lie said ; 
 
 Mr. Chairman and ^entleiin'n of the committee, I trespassed upon your time a few 
 days ago urgiuj;' you to, consider a proposition for jiermitting ores and metal in crude 
 form to be brought into the com i try in bond to be refined and re-exported. Afterwards 
 the proposition as it was snlnuitted to your committee was exposed to the criticism 
 of officials in the Treasure Department, and various objections were raised to the 
 projiosition ; some of tKem having force and proper to be considered and some proba- 
 bly not having so much force. The question to us who were engaged in this manu- 
 facture being one of great imporiauce, we took council together, .and, as far as in us 
 lay, we met every objection that had been raised, and we tried to devise a proposition 
 which we conld submit to your committee wliich, if iucorporated in the tariff law, 
 will permit our doing what we wish to do, that is, to bring in metal in crude form 
 and USB it in connection with our home ores aiul mattes, re-exporting the metal under 
 such safe-guards ami conditions as will prevent any possibility of any foreign metal 
 being introduced and used in this country. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Why do yon not take the American metal and use it? 
 
 Mr. Tho.mpson. Because the producers of the American material, whose mines, 
 nearly all situated in the Eocky Mountain district north and south, are at preseut 
 engaged in ereutiug works for the treatiJient of their own material, so tliat an indus- 
 try that has grown up about the waters of New York Harbor, and which at present 
 employs fifteen hundred people directly and probably three thousand indirectly, is 
 going to be wiped out of existence. 
 
 Mr. Mills. What metal do you treats- 
 Mr. Thompson. In my woiks we treat copper. There are other gentlemen here 
 representing works that treat copper and lead. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Will this not affect the price of American cojiper and lead ? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. No, except to this extent; a certain pro|ioitiou of the co[iper we 
 treat comes from small mines in Maine, Vermont, North Cart)lina, and Texas, and all 
 over the country. Now we are treating ores very cheaply Uccunse we arc treating 
 a large volume of material. We receive copper from the great mines of Montana, 
 and we put out 2r>, 000,000 pounds of copper per annum, and by working in that 
 large w.ay we aro enabled to treat the ores very cheaply. When this snpi)ly of ore 
 from the Montana miues is witlidrawu from us and we are reduced to the treatment 
 of 4,000,000 or .5,000,000 pounds a year, which is all we conltl hope to get from tbe 
 smaller mines, we must necessarily very largely increase the cost of treatment with 
 the possible eft'ect of closing up these small mines. Now we say that if you permit 
 us to bring in ore from South America, Cuba, Canada, Newofundland, and Spaiu, 
 we can go ahead and treat this ore and export the copper fi-oin ^Y^w York to all parts 
 of the world and also continue to treat the ore from the small njines in America. 
 
 To show you that we represent an important industry, that we are not coming here 
 to trouble you about little things, although we believe it is understood that this com- 
 mittee proposes to treat every American industry alike, whether they are small or 
 large, but to show you that we represent an important industry, I estimate after care- 
 ful comparison with my friends that this grouji of works which cluster around New 
 York Harbor have an annual output equal in value to Sil5,000,0(i(i, and of that amount 
 not over $1,000,000 can be taken as representing profit or royalty to anybody, so that 
 .$14,000,000 represents crystallized labor. Taking the fignii-, of )[i."iOO as the average 
 wages of labor — aud that is a high average, because the census figures give it at $340 — 
 but taking the average of $500, that supports on the average :i group of five, which 
 makes 140,000 citizens of the United States in a sense dependent upon the output of 
 these works. Of course the mining, transportation, etc., will continue whether our 
 works run or not, but the closing of these works would sLut off from eniploymeut 
 1,.500 men directly employed in the works and 1,500 more employed in the jiroduction 
 of coal, coke, and brick, and things of that kind, mid thus about 15,000 [leople would 
 lose their present means of support. At Portland, Me., where the works are supplied 
 from Maine uiiu(is, they have almost stop])ed for' lack of sufficient supply, but they 
 will continue to run if they get (ucs from Canada and Newloundland. 
 
 Mr. DlXGLEY. W hat kind of ore do they treat at Portland ? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. Copper ore and also lead. They are making white lead there at 
 present. They have a process by which they expect to treat lead aud zinc. In fact 
 they have brought ores all the way from Leadville for treatment there. Thoy have 
 
 485 74: 
 
1170 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 very large deposits of ores across the lino iu Canada, and with their railroad facilities 
 Tvill assuredly brinn their workb to a liealth.v coiiditioii, and make it a. great industry 
 if they are given tlie facilities we ask for. I do not wish to oconiiy mnch of yonr time, 
 and so I will not dwell particularly on this point, but I will meet the principal diffi- 
 culties that were interpxised in regard to the original jiropositiou. The tirst propo- 
 sition as made to you was that we should be allowed to introduce ore upon giviog a 
 bond that within a reasonable time we should smelt and rehue the ore and re-export 
 the metal. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Why do you not put it on the market here ? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. I am arguing now to a committee I believe to be committed to the 
 doctrine of protection. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Decidedly ; but you are asking for free trade for your work and pro- 
 tection for other work — you want ore free. 
 
 Mr. Thojipsox. I do not projiose to touch the protective doctrine. I do not pro- 
 pose to come in competition with the men producing copper here. I want to have 
 my works for the time being put in the same position in which Congress has already 
 put certain classes of manufactures designed for the production of articles in which 
 alcohols enter, in effect to make them bunded warehouses and to treat foreign ores 
 therein. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Now, as a matter of fact, if you desire to get copper ore free -would you 
 not have to abandon the American mines? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. I can not obtain ore from the American mines. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Why f 
 
 Mr. Thompson. Because the American mines are putting up their own works to 
 refine the ores. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Can not you get the copper metal to export? 
 
 Mr. Tho:mpson. No, sir; that copper is treated at tljeir own works ; their product 
 ■will be ingot copper, and my work ceases when I make copper ingot. My production 
 and the production of the gentlemen I represent here comes now almost exclusively 
 from mines west of the Missouri River. Now there is a great line of works e.Ktend- 
 ing all along the line of the Missouri River, and they stop the supply of lead and 
 copper coming to the East, and there are large works in course of erection at the 
 Falls of the Missouri River in Montana, which, in the course of the nest twelve 
 months, will treat the Montana ores. So that on the sea coast we have got to be lim- 
 ited to the small supplies from the Eastern States, which represent, as far as we are 
 concerned, a small fraction of what we can produce, and we will have to go out of 
 business unless we get relief in this form. 
 
 Mr. Mills. From what you say this business is a monopoly as far as the American 
 production is concerned. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. .Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Mills. If you are permitted to bring your ores and work them up here and 
 throw the product upon the American market, will it go to some extent to reduce 
 that monopoly and control it? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Do you think it would be a good thing to leave the owner free to treat 
 it and put it on the market and let the peojde have the benefit of it? I want to get 
 a statement of the fact. I waut to help you, bat I want to help the other people too. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. So far as the questicni of iuTcrferiug with the sale of American cop- 
 per is concerned of course, if we briug in foreign copper and sell it, it would take the 
 place of ihe American product. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. He just proceeds on the assumption of the Mills bill, which kept 
 ores on the dutiable list instead of on the free list. 
 
 Mr. Mills. The Mills bill was made for some of the weak people, who believe they 
 could not get along without this. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Bcjfore you leave that point I want to ask this: If it is not the 
 tendency to transfer to the interior that class of works for treat ing raw material now 
 existing along the coast? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And without you can get either this relief or a relief that comes 
 from free ores yon will inevitably go out of business. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. We will. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. If you continue business in the manner you suggest, will not the 
 effect be that yon put your copper Ijaek im the nmrkets of the world outside of the 
 United States at a lower rate tliau copper is sold at bv the works of the United 
 States ? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. That would depend upon tlKMluctuation of the market; to-day we 
 would not. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. But as a general pro]Misition that would be so? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. No, sir ; three years a,gi> that would bo true, but for the last three 
 years the foreigner has been paying more for copper than the American, 
 
REV-ISION OF THE TARIFF. 1171 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. That is the reason of the organization. 
 
 Mr. THOMPSOrf. The last organization was made for the purpose of mailing the 
 American producers pay less and the foreigner pay more. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Ts it not a fact, also, that the general tendency of manufacture on the 
 coast and in the Eastern States is towards the West, where the fuel is cheaper, where 
 they have natural gas to he used, and where they have a market for their large pro- 
 duction 80 as to save the transportation both ways? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. That is true as far as the market of the United States is concerned. 
 Of course, that is not trno as far as the market of the world is concerned. 
 JUr. Geau. I am speaking of the Eastoru market. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. As far as the cousumption of copper is concerned, five years ago 90 
 percent, of the copper consumed by the United States was consumed east of the Hud- 
 son River. To-day 60 per cent, of the copper is consumed east of the Hudson River. 
 Mr. Gear. That is true of the general manufactures, not of a special thing, such as 
 copper. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. That tendency is so, bat, of course, we have a large plant, and are 
 so situated that we have a large number of operatives with families dependent upon 
 the continuation of manufactures like our own. Now, to meet these objections that 
 
 have been urged 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. I suppose also the reason why these ores are treated at an estab- 
 lishment in the far West rather than sent to the East is because it is more econom- 
 ical and saves transportation, therefore it is the result, not of legislation, but the 
 
 result of 
 
 Mr. Thompson. It is the result of natural trade causes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. In other words, they concentrate 6 or 7 tons of ore and 1 ton of base bull- 
 lion. 
 
 Mr. TnOMPSuN. It is a fact that this is done to save transportation, but the prac- 
 tical question as far as we are concerned is that this destroys us unless Congress per- 
 mits us to work foreign ores. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLBT. Does that interfere with domestic economy. You propose to coutinne 
 the industry in this manner by means of drawbacks, so you add that foreign trade to 
 the country. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. Yes; and our industry will consume 60,000 tons of coal and coke 
 per annum. This is only one instance of what these manufacturers will continue to 
 use in their works, if permitted to use foreign ores. 
 
 Mr Gear. I was not in here when you commenced. What ores do you expect to 
 work? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. Weare treating copper and argentiferous lead ores. I have drawn 
 my statement in the form of a bill, conforming as nearly as possible to existing laws, 
 but in some oases if I had written the law anew I might have changed it to make 
 some points more clear. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiK. Before you go rightly into that, this would require the establish- 
 ment of Government warehouses and Government storing houses. 
 Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. That would be placed in the custody of Government olBcials. 
 Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McJIiLLiN. Would they he paid out of the Treasury of the United States ? 
 Mr. Thompson. No, sir; they would be paid by the manufacturers. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You do not mean to say that the Government shall build the 
 warehouses ? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. No. The proposed bill is as follows : The works of manufacturers 
 at any port of entry engaged in smelting or refining metals may be designated as 
 bonded warchouses.'under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may pre- 
 scribe, providing that such manufacturers shall first give satisfactory bonds to theool- 
 lector of the port. 
 
 Metals in any crude form requiring smelting or refining to make them readily 
 available in the arts, imported into the United States to be smelted orrefined, and in- 
 tended to be exported in a refined but unmanufactured state, shall, under such rules 
 • as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe", and under direction of the proper 
 officer, be removed in original packages, or in bulk, from the ship or other vehicle on 
 which it has be n imported or from the bonded warehouse in which the same may he, 
 into the bonded warehouse in which such smelting and refiniug may be carried on, for 
 the purpose of being smelted and refined without paymeutofdutiesthereon, and may 
 the. e be smelted and refined together with other metals of home or foreign production : 
 Provided, That each day a quantity of refined metal equal to the amount of imported 
 metal refined that day shall be set aside, and such metal so set aside shall not be taken 
 from said works except for exportation, under the direction of the proper officer hav- 
 ing charge thereof, as aforesaid, whose certificate, describing the articles by their 
 marks, or otherwise, the quantity, the date of importation, and name of vessel or 
 other vehicle by which it was imported, with such additional particulars as may from 
 
1172 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 time to time be required, shall be received by the collector of customs as sufBcieut 
 .evidence of the exportation of the metal, or it may be removed under such regulations 
 'as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe to any other bonded -warehouse, or 
 upon entry for and payment of duties, for domestic consumption. All labor per- 
 formed anil services rendered under such regulations shall be under the supervision of 
 an officer of the customs, and at the expense of the manufacturer. 
 
 Mr. Gear. In other -words, by your proposition you make your mill a bonded ware- 
 house. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. Yes, and the only novelty of our proposition, the only difEerence 
 between the execution of this plan and the case of the manufacturers of articles coh- 
 taining- alcohol, is that we permit the mixing of foreign and home ores, which we have 
 got to do to get a flux. The important provision is that at the end of each day a 
 quantity of refined metal equal to the amount of imported metals refined that day 
 shall be set aside. The metals are momentarily mixed in the furnace and they are 
 separated at once when produced. We have stated it thus specifically because wo 
 got together as practical business men and tried in what part of the bill we could find 
 a fault. We examined every way in which there could be a fraud, worked and pro- 
 vided against it; but I do not say that more astute men than ourselves might not find 
 faults in it. 
 
 Mr. Gbak. What is the capacity of your mills ? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. About 25,000,000 pounds of copper per annum and a large quantity 
 of gold and silver. 
 
 Mr. Gear: How much a day? , 
 
 Mr. Thompson. About 80,000 pounds. Of course copper is a small item as com- 
 pared with iron, but the values run large. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLET. The principle which j'ou propose here is one that has been es- 
 tablished and carried out by the Government for a great many years on a great many 
 articles, materials for manufactures which are imported with a rebate of duty. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. We are at present manufacturing under the drawback law, but 
 there are two great difficulties in applying the drawback principle. For instance, in 
 order to carry on the class of work I am contemplating at my works, if I import 
 enough ore from the Sudbury mines of Canada t" run our works I -would have to de- 
 posit S"^50,000 -with the Treasurer of the United Slates in jiaymi-nt of duties, and the 
 losses from the drawback of 10 per cent., which would be deducted, with additional 
 interest on my capita], custom-house expenses, etc., -would aggregate at least $150,- 
 000 per annum. Of course that is absolutely prohibitory, as we do not expect to make 
 $150,000, or half of it, out of the whole business. That business just at our frontier is 
 being driven to Germany, when the owners of that mine are all Americans and are 
 willing to put the industry in our hands. We were the first people to use their ore 
 when they began their -work, and we did their experimenting for them, and if we 
 could get that industry in New York it -would enable us to emiiloy a great many 
 more men than we now do. 
 
 Mr. Gear. If that copper is used here, then you pay the duty ? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. Yes, but as a matter of fact we now export 40 per cent, of the 
 copper produced in this country, and there is no possibility of using foreign copper 
 on which a duty has been paid. A large amount of home copper is, for trade reasons, 
 exported in an unrefined state because the owners of one or two large mines have 
 certain trade connections here and they refuge to allow their mattes to be refined here, 
 even at the same cost, but send them abroad for trade reasons. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLBT. Here is a calculation iu regard to drawbacks on exported merchan- 
 dise : 
 
 "Sec. 50. That on all articles exported, manufactitred from materials upon -which 
 duty has been paid, and entitled to drawbacks under any provision of law, there 
 shall be allowed a drawback equal to the duty paid on such materials "without re- 
 tention of any part thereof; but such dra-wback shall be paid only to the manufact- 
 urer or actual owner of such merchandise, and in cases only where the identity of 
 the article exported, with the imported materials upon which the drawback is claimed, 
 shall be established under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury." 
 
 Mr. Thompson. There are two principal distinctions between us there. First, we 
 would have to deposit with the tjnited States Treasurer $250,000, which would be 
 dead capital. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. That is the regulation of the Secretary of the Treasury. Suppose 
 you have a provision that you should have to give bond? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. That was the original proposition, and we were met there by the 
 statement of the Treasury Department that the United States has often in the past 
 found bonds rather an uncertain security ; tliey can not always be collected. The 
 attempt of the Department is to gi't something al)Solute, either payment of money 
 or a supervision Ijy their <)fflcials, to meet that. We said we will make our works 
 a Ijonded -warehouse. The second ditfereuce is that the last paragrajih there re- 
 
EEVJSION OF THE TAEIFK. 1173 
 
 quires yon shall export identically the samo metal you import, and doeR not permit 
 usto mix it; wo have got to treat that material alone. Now, almost all the ccjpper 
 ores of the United States that come to us are sulphides and have a preliminary treat- 
 ment in the West. They are separated from the earthy matter and come to us in the 
 form of mattes which may carry 30 to 50 per cent, of copper, and we have to treat 
 that. In Australia and in New Qnelirada, Venezuela, there are large deposits of car- 
 honate and oxide ores free of sulphur, and it is so siluated that it can be brought 
 hero with phenomenal cheapness. AVc cau bring ore from Australia as ballast for 
 wool ships at f'-'.50 a ton. These ores, mixed with the sulphide ores, effect a great 
 cheapening in the cost. Now, I think the question was asked by one of the gentle- 
 men here, why we did not use American ores. Very frcquimtly the railroad compa- 
 nies will make the freight rate from the far West to Liverpool as cheap as to us, and 
 I have known many instances where the freight was less to Liverpool than to our 
 works. The consequence was that our rival at Liverpool had a distinct advantage in 
 price on the American production. 
 ' Mr. Gear Does the interstate commerce law help in that case? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. No, sir; because it is a question of ocean transijortation. At pres- 
 ent their trade does not run that way. Now, when ores are brought from Newfound- 
 land a steamer taking these ores must go to Newfoundland emjity, and if she returns 
 to England the ore must pay the entire freight both ways, which would probably re- 
 quire a freight of 12 shillings. That same steamer can bring ore here, discharge her 
 cargo of ore, and load with wheat and go back to England and can afford to bring 
 it at a dollar a ton. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The difference is, you want to export the value of the metal, not the 
 metal itself. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. We want to export the equivalent of the metal. To my original 
 proposition the Treasury Department objected that "we.would bring here 25,00(3,000 
 to 40,000,000 pounds of copper and cover this by exporting copper that would be ex- 
 ported anyway, the effect being to bring in the ores free of duty. That is a perfectly 
 fair and just criticism ; to meet it we provide that we ninst export the product of the 
 smelting works that treat the ore, and that product is taken out from day to day as 
 refined and set aside, so that to all intents and purposes it is the samo metal. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You could not buy the product of anybody else and meet your bend? 
 
 Mr. Tho.mpsox. No, sir. When they raised the question they said, "Yon might 
 bring in here ore which had some peculiar quality which had a great reputation for 
 its copper, and you might put that ou the market and thereby work hardship to those 
 who produce the same quality here," but to this we answer we will mix with the 
 American ores and so make a uniform product. 
 
 Mr. Beeckixeidge. The tax on your material is a specific tax. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. The tax is a specific tax. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge Therefore it is not necessary to determine the value. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. No, sir. If we bring in so many pounds of copper we have to ex- 
 port so many pounds of copper, and one cancels the other. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. This ore would have to be assayed, I suppose, or rather it is 
 assayed. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. It is assayed at present. We are bringing it in under the drawback 
 law to-day, so yon see wo are coming to you with a practical business proposition. It 
 is not a thing that may be, but it is a thing that will be. We are bringing ore to-day 
 and staggering under the load that is put upon us, and we are doiug it simply to keep 
 hold of the foreign ores and to continue our business. We bring the ore in and the 
 Government sends a sampler and we have to pay on the value as determined by him. 
 At times that exposes us to great danger, for the Government never uJ^erassays.but 
 frequently overassays. The New Jersey Extraction Works in the course of the last 
 year lost some $7,000 by the Government forcing them to pay for copper which never 
 existed. 
 
 Mr. Geae. Is it sampled by the Government as in silver ore, where you take a sam- 
 ple, they take a sample, and a third party is chosen? 
 
 Mr. Thompson. The Government samples itself. It allows nobody else to have 
 anything to do with it. It draws its samide and has it assayed by its own chemist. 
 
 Mr. Dingley. Your plan seems to be carried out practically in building materials 
 for ships. Under section 2510 of the Revised Statutes, for eighteen years the material 
 for the construction of ships has been imported free in bonds; that is, those who con- 
 struct the vessels give bonds for payment of duty. They do not pay the money, but 
 they simply give a bond for it and the ship-yard is made in fact a bonded warehouse. 
 
 Mr. Thompson. I know that is the ease. 
 
 Mr. Dingley. They have tried that for eighteen years and there has been no fraud. 
 
 Mr. Tho.mpson. In looking for the existence of fraud it seems to me we should 
 always look at the object Avhich wonld induce men to commit the fraud. In such a 
 case as ours there would be no inducement for any person to put himself in the jiosi- 
 tion of a criminal. I am selling to-day right along fully one-third of our product 
 from home ores forforeign consumption, and I do that because it pays, 
 
1174 EE VISION OF THE TAEIFJ*. 
 
 MICA. 
 
 STATEMENT OP JAMES M. GERE. 
 
 Mr. James M. Gekk, of Syracuse, N. Y., addressed the committee. He said: 
 
 Ml. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear before the committee by 
 request in regard to tlie matter of mica, stove mica. Mica, as you are aware, is upon 
 the free list at the present time, and I think there Las never been any duty. There 
 is none at pre.sent, at any rate. For the past twenty years it appears that mica has 
 been mostly produced in this country from North Carolina and New Hampshire. I 
 assume, really, that perhaps three fourths of the amount usi^d in the United States 
 has been produced in North Carolina. 
 
 Mr. McIvEXXA. You say you appear by request ; will you state at whose request 1 
 
 Mr. Gere. I appear at the request of Mr. H. G. Ewart, of North Carolina. 
 
 Mr. Geak. Are you interested in mica mining yourself? 
 
 Mr. Geke. I have been interested, and I have mined mica in the State of North 
 Carolina, although I am myself from Syracuse, N. Y. The situation in North Caro- 
 lina is a little peculiar. Some large mines are working theie ; but it is found scattered 
 all over the country it is a common thing, and a lirge number of people are 
 interested in the production of mica in the western part of North Carolina. I assume 
 that the average product for Uf teen years in North Carolina (until within the past 
 four or five years) has been i;100,000 a year. In It-W2, lS-)3, and 1884 I judge the 
 counties of Mitchell and Y''aucey alone produced about $200,000 worth. About 
 this time (b'^82) mica began to be imported from India. In )882 I learn the amount 
 was a iittle over $900 in value ; in 1883 it was 89,000 and something, and up to 1887 it 
 had risen to |63,000 in value. In 1H89 it was $91,000 in value. I take this from the 
 reports. The product in the United States has gone off. In 1882 it was $'2.50,000 in 
 value, the total production of the United States. In 188:i it w.as $285,000 in value. 
 In 1884 it was SIiJ8,000 in value. In 1885 it was 6161,000 in value. The importation 
 from India had become large at that time, and it jumped right down. In 1886 it was 
 870,000; liut in 1887 it had'risen to $142,000. I have not the statistics for 1888 and 
 18r9, but I assume, from a personal knowledge of the situation and the bnsiness there, 
 that the.se two counties of Mitchell and Y^ancy, which in 188:! and 1884 produced 
 $200,000, in 1^88 I venture to say the production was inside of $20,000, and in 18851 
 doubt whether it was $10,000. 
 
 As mica is wliolly a production of labor this bears very disastrously upon the peo- 
 ple in this mica-producing region. Of course they have to compete with this India 
 labor that costs from !> to 15 cents aday, and in regard to transportation being made 
 by returning vcssrds from Calcutta, and mica having so large a value to the ton, the 
 freight i.s hardly an appreciable value ; and in fact, I think it would be sale to say 
 mica can lie delivered by ship from Calcutta to New York for less money actually 
 than from these mines in North Carolina, notwithstanding the difference in distance. 
 You will see by the figures that the business of producingmicain North Carolina has 
 been depressed during that time, and the prices of mica at which it was sold on 
 the markets to the consumers has lieen reduced fully 40 per cent. The effect of 
 that upon a large number of people is of more importance to them than the mere 
 money value of the product would seem to indicate. Coincident with the time be- 
 twoea the large iucrea.se of importations and the lessening of production, the prices 
 in North Carolina have attracted :\ good deal of attention on account of the apparent 
 dependence of one upon the other. It i.s a sentiment that is growing very strongly 
 with t'ic people there that they slioiild be protected again.^t the mica production by 
 such very cheap lalior. Of course North Carolina and Now Hampshire labor can 
 hardly compete with the labor at 5 and 15 cents a day. They ask for a specific duty 
 upon mica. Tluy ask for a moderate duty ; they ask for a duty of 50 cents a pound 
 on all inica an<l mica waste, aud they are especially asking that it shall be .specific 
 for the reason that mica conies in such condition that it is almost impossible to value 
 it at tbe point of importation, and for that reason an ad valorem duty would be a 
 source of very great trouble even in the hands of an expert. 
 
 Jlr. BiiECKiNRiDGB. Do you buy mica in North Carolina? 
 
 Mr. Geue. I mine mica and buy the products of the mines. 
 
 Mr. BiiECiciNRiDGE. What do you pay for mica from there T 
 
 Mr. Gere. You ask me a question of the widest range of anything I can imagine. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 1175 
 
 Mr. Brbckinridge. What is the lo%vest you pay for merchantable mica and what 
 is the highest you jiay, for you say yon pay varying prices ? 
 
 Mr. Gere. If you will allow me I vrill explain it a little. Now, mica under these 
 circumstances would be liable to be imported in its rough slate, in the condition in 
 which it is brought from the mines. Now, I will say right here a ton of mica in that 
 condition is liable to be worth $10, and it is liable to be worth $2,000, and nobody 
 but an expert can judge within a thousand per cent, of its value. Further than that, 
 even an expert, if it is in that condition (unless it is split and he examines the texture 
 of the mica clear through) can not tell what it is within a thousand per cent. This 
 is mica in its rough state. It will take a good deal of time to explain just how it is. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you buy it altogether in this rough state? 
 
 Mr. Gere. No, sir ; we also buy it in its prepared state and we pay all the way from 
 15 cents to .fo a pound for it, which is determined by the size of the sheets. The same 
 is true in regard to selling it in the markets, and the saiiK; is true in regard to the 
 stove manufacturers. We buy it as so many square imhes in the aggregate. If it 
 is smaller sheets it will sell for a smaller price than where I he sheets are large. For 
 instance, mica is selling now at from 25 to 70 cents a pound up to iJ4 and $5 a pound, 
 according to the size of the sheets. There is no other dift'erence except the size of 
 the sheets. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is the price per pound for the greater part of the mica? 
 There are a few sheets that sell for as much as §13 or $4 a pound. 
 
 Mr. Gere. A great deal sells for |i3 a pound. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Take the bulk of mica used in the industries, stoves, and all 
 that. What is the price for the greater part of that per pound ? 
 
 Mr. Gere. When we start out, say, with 2 by 2 inches 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am speaking of that size which is most commonly used, not 
 of the exceptional ones ; but take the general run. I want some average idea. 
 
 Mr. Gere. The size 2 by 2 inches is a very common size used in stoves. It runs 
 from that up to about 4 by 6, and all the way between, A pound of mica in a piece 
 2 by 2 square would sell in the market to-day for about 30 cents a jiound. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is that in a condition for use? 
 
 Mr. Gere. Yes, sir; in a condition ready for the stove. A package of 4 by 6 would 
 sell for about $3.50. All the way between, 3 by 4, for instance, will sell for about 
 11.33. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN (holding up a piece of mica). That is about 3 by 4? 
 
 Mr. Gere. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What would that sell at ? 
 
 Mr. Gere. About $1.33 a pound. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What do you pay, or what is your average price, with a view of get- 
 ting at what per cent, the duty would be — the duty you propose is $1 a ton? 
 
 Mr. Gere. Yes sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What do you pay a ton for that commodity ? 
 
 Mr. Gere. I have paid about .§2,000 a ton for it in this condition. It was split so 
 as to show the texture and to show what the quality is relatively, and the value can 
 be determined by an expert ; but it is not trimmed to ship. It was roughly trimmed, 
 and I would state that when we come to cut that, it would cut about 50 percent, of 
 its weight. In that condition we pay just about $2,000 a ton (exhibiting sample). 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You put them into two grades? In the rough condition just as 
 it comes from the miues ; in the condition in which it is imported what do you pay? 
 
 Mr. Gere. I do not mean to be understood that it is imported in that condition. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I understood you to say that is the form in which it is imported. 
 
 Mr. Gere. I meant to say that under an ad valorem duty it would be very likely 
 to be imported in that way, because it would be to their advantage. If I was an im- 
 porter I would import it that way. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And if it is in an uncut and unfinished state what you do pay for 
 it in Notrh Carolina? 
 
 Mr. Gere. I could not answer you any more definitely than the figures I gave you. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You spoke of one especial lot and you have given that 
 price. Now, I want to know what the average price is for the uncut and unprepared 
 mica just as it is mined and taken out. 
 
 Mr. Gere. I will explain that to you by giving a f.ict or two. I have been running 
 mines myself and I have had mica that was very deceiving as to its quality; and 
 when that mica was cut I did not get .§G out of it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. So you have said; but I do not care about a single instance. 
 That is a portion which you state to he worthless and the other you stated was a supe- 
 rior lot. Now, I want to know what is the average price you pay in North Carolina, 
 taking the risk and taking it as you find it. You have got sojuethiug like an expres- 
 sion in regard to the cost of it. 
 
 Mr. Gere. We do not have an expression in regard to the cost until it is split. 
 
 Mr. Breckinkidgb. Have you before it is split f 
 
1176 REVISION OF THE TARU-i''. 
 
 Mr. Gere. No, .sir. I m.ake it a point that I would liot risi'; anytliitit; in regaril to 
 it before it i.s.si)lit. 
 
 Mr. ISitixiKiSKiiMii;. What do yoii give on an average for it in the coutlitiou in 
 "which you do bny il ? 
 
 Mr. Gere. Oh, perhnjis $1,000 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Bkeokinkidge. You think that is about the average price you give for it? 
 
 Mr. Geke. I would not give my iudgineut aa to any average prici', as it is so abso- 
 lutely nucertain. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You state you did not buy it until that uncertainty was re- 
 moved by being si>lit? 
 
 Mr. Gere. Certainly, 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Well, in this condition of uncertainty, what do you pay then? 
 
 Mr. Gere. I will say that uo one but an e.^pert can come within a thousand times 
 of its A-alne. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you thiuji $1,000 would be an average price at which you 
 would buy it ; if not give us an average. Do you pay as much as $1,000 on the aver- 
 age ? 
 
 Mr. Gere. At the present time I think it is about .f ^,000 ; but that is a mere mat- 
 ter of judgment. I am not trying to evade any questions, but there is no way iu 
 which I can answer that question. 
 
 Mr. Breckixridge. What amount is put in one of these ordinary latrobe sieves; 
 vrhat is the size aud weight of it ? 
 
 Mr. Gere. Right here, if you \sill allow me, I will slate, mica prepared for and 
 just caleula.ted to fit the stove known as .Jewett's fancy base-burner No. 61 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is the weight? 
 
 Mr. (lEitE. y. (115 of an ounce, that pared. 
 
 Mr. Ge.m;. What is the value of tljat? 
 
 Mr. Gi;re. It is worth 9J cents, that parcel. That is the price at which I would 
 sell to Mr. Jewett to-day. 
 
 Mr. Bricckinridge. I did not hear the price. 
 
 Mr. Gei;h. I say the parcel is adapted for .lewett's fancy base-luirner No. 61, and is 
 worth 9} cents for that parcel. 
 
 Mr. Brkckinridge. How much a pound ? 
 
 Mr. Gej.e. Eighty to 90 cents. Yon oliseive the different sizes. 
 
 Mr. McJliLLiN. Then the rate of duty you propose on this would be about 60 per 
 cent, of its value. 
 
 Mr. Gere. It would be a little upwards of .")0 per ceufc. Of course this is a little 
 heavier thau when it is put iu the stove. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. What size do you use in stoves? 
 
 Mr. Geke. We use everything from the snnillest to the largest. There is nothing 
 large here. Of recent years the stove makers have got in the habit of using smaller 
 sizes of mica than years ago. Years agn they took .'. by 5 up to -1 by 0, aud in that 
 case instead of it being \\()rtli IH cents it \\onlil lie \\'orth 50 or 60 (.-cuts. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is it not the trouljle iu this country you can not get clean sheets of large 
 size ? , . , 
 
 . Mr. Gere. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Are our mines equal to producing large, clean sheets of mica? 
 
 Mr. Gere. Y'es, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Is the supply abundant? 
 
 Mr. Gere. Yes, sir. It is found all over the country. It is often found in the 
 West. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I know it is found in a great many places, but the question is whether 
 the sheets arc equal to those found in foreign countries? 
 
 Mr. Gere. My impression is they are superior. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The gentlemen who represent the other side of this mica ques- 
 tion, the stove founders and the electric compauies, want to have to-day week iixed 
 so that they can gather their people from IVIiehigan and elsewhere, when they cau 
 appear before the committee. 
 
 The Chairman. Cau not they be heard this week ? 
 
 Mr. Brkckinridge. It would t:iko ^onle time to get their forces together. 
 
 The CiiAIiiMAN. It has been the s.-ane thing. We have been aslced to postpone 
 hearings, liut by reiistni of stating that they wouhl have to bo here at a certain time 
 we have been abli:. to lu'iug them here. 
 
 Mr. Bi;]',(;k'inkidge. 1 only reiircsent what Mr. Mnnsell, of New York, said to lue. 
 He told nje he had to l(!a\e for New York, and' that they would not like to undertake 
 to get their ))i'ople here, as some live in Detroit, and places at that distance. 
 
 Mr. La Foluctte. It is only .a nnitter of a telegiain to them, and in twenty-four 
 hours they could get here; and it seems to me, Mr. ClniiruKin, this matter cau be pro- 
 tracted by these nnans through tln^ entire session. 
 
 Mr. Bricckinridge. I just submit to the committee the facts. 
 
Revision op the tariff. 1177 
 
 Mr. Baynk. I move they be heard Thursday, and if they arc not ready to lii> hoard 
 then they can send in a written communication. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Allow me to hand you this conimnnicatiou which belongs to 
 you, with the request that it be inserted in the testimony. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. H. G. EWART. 
 
 lion. H. G. EwART, a Representative from the Ninth North Carolina district, next 
 addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, for a long time it was popularly 
 supposed that the staple productions of North Carolina was tar and turpentine. It 
 is no longer the case. Not only are we ra)iidly becoming a great mauufMCturing 
 State, but we are developing our mineral interests to a wonderful extent. Perhaps 
 outside of <mr coal, gold, and iron deposits, the next most valuable mineral is mica. 
 This mineral is found in paying quantities only in three counties iu the State, Mitch- 
 ell, Yancy, and Macon, all of which are in my Congressional district. Until within 
 a tew years past 75 per cent, of the marketable mica used in this country was mined 
 from quarries or mines iu North Carolina and New Hami)shire. These mines afforded 
 remunerative wages to hnudreds of laboring men, and the product was sold at fair 
 and reasonable prices. But these mines are no longer worked. Importers of India 
 mica have a comi)lete monopoly and have almost entirely displaced our i)roduct. In 
 1873 the importations of mica amounted to only IfiiJKi. It is estimnted that for th« 
 year ending 1890 the importations will exceed .fi-^OO, OUO. At the North Carolina mines 
 when they were operated wages from $1 to $1.25 per day were paid laliorers. At the 
 mica mines at Behar in India the wages consist of 80 pouiuls of rice ami a |iiecc of 
 cloth, the whole valued at 50 cents per month. Is it any wonder that the foreign 
 article has disidaced our product* It may be said that the matter of traTisportation 
 should be considered. But that is a matter of small consequence, as 1 venture the 
 assertion that freight rates from Calcutta, India, to New York, are less than froui 
 Bakersvillc, N. C, to New York. Mica carried as ballast makes the freight rate a 
 very low one. 
 
 Mica is now on the free list, and as a natural consequence American mines are 
 closed down, and a foreign ami inferior product used in our iiiiirkets. To a very 
 great extent mica is a luxury, used as it is principally for insulation in electric ma- 
 chines and illuminating purposes for stove doors. It exists in .the United States 
 in sufficient quantities to furnish an abundant supply of superior quality, and there 
 is no reason why it should not be protected as other industries are. An ad valorem 
 duty as fixed by the Senate bill of tbe Fiftieth Congress affords no proleetion to the 
 mica miner. We ask for a specific duty. That and that alone will place mica miners 
 iu North Carolina and New Hampshire upon equal footing with the India miners 
 who profiting by the labor of their half naked and starved Bheels now control the 
 mica markets of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How much duty do you ask for ? 
 
 Mr. EwART. I have introduced a bill asking for a specific duty of 50 cents a pound. 
 Since the introduction of that blil I have conferred with perhaps one of tb<! largest 
 mica miners in western North Carolina, and he is also engaged extensively in mica 
 mining in New Hampshire; and I question whether that is a sufficient amount of 
 duty to protect them. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Some of this mica is very valuable per pound, and other is not so val- 
 uable. 
 
 Mr. Ewart. There is quite a difference in the price. That matter I suppose has 
 been explained to the committee by Colonel Gere and others. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What wages do you pay in North Carolina? 
 
 Mr. Ewart. One d(dlar and twenty-five cents per day. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. For the miners? 
 
 Mr. Ewart. Yes, sir; and the laborers in the mines. • 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Is the mining done by expert miners ? 
 
 Mr. Ewart. No, sir ; the labor is taken entirely from the agricultural class of the 
 country. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. The labor which is classed as ordinary labor is the labor yon use 
 in j'our mines ? 
 
 Mr. Ewart. Yes, sir; that is the simple mining dep.artment. Of course it requires 
 some skilled labor in trimming and cutting the mica, and packing it, etc. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What wagi's do skilled workmen get for that? 
 
 Mr. Ewart. I suppose about $1 .50 per day. 
 
 Mr. GEitE. In the mines we run the labor was 11.25 a day, and it is now about 
 75 cents. 
 
 Mr. Randall. I should say iu New Hampshire we pay about $1.50 or |2 a day. 
 
1178 REVISION OF THE TARIFi*. 
 
 Mr. Gere. It takes a skillecl hand for the final handling, and that labor is worth 
 
 $1 to $l.-ir>. I am paying at present |1 to |1.25 for that. 
 Mr. EwART. I think at the mica mines in Yancey County they pay |1.50 a day. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF JAMES M. GERE. 
 
 I referred to the fact that while mica was in its rough state it was impossible to fix 
 a value on it, and I want to demonstrate how this is. The large block i if mica is split 
 up into pieces like this, and that is an iulinite part of that block [illustrating with a 
 block of mica]. Right on this edge here the actual surf:ico of the block of mica is 
 where it is separated from the rock which contains it. Tbat surface extends all over 
 it. Further than that, the piece of mica is valued at what is sound in it. You will 
 observe there is a little mark right there. When it is split like that 90 you can see 
 through it, you look for these cracks in order to determine its sounduess. If I cut 
 that acioss there that piece of mica would fall apart. It is just like that surface, and 
 it would fall apart as far as that crack extends into the mica. In the Idock of mica 
 before this surface is removed you can not see the texture like that, and it may be 
 liable not to have any cracks, in which case it would be so much more valuable. I 
 should cut this this way, and all this portion here would be waste [illustrating"]. 
 
 There is a very excellent piece of Uiica, only it has that one crack in it. Right there 
 is another piece, but you will observe that there is a good deal more of the same thing 
 in it. You only get a piece like that [marking it off with his linger] because there is 
 a larger number of cracks, and mica is always liable to hiive them. I have seen some- 
 , times a block of mica which looked lirst class, but when it came to be split into pieces 
 like that it was worthless on account of the cracks. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Yon do not mean the pieces are liable to have cracks like that? 
 
 Mr. Gere. I mean when it is in the block you do not know anything about it. 
 There is no one, not even an expert, who can judge at all in regard to it or what 
 sized pieces it will make. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You can make no allowance for wastage. 
 
 Mr. Gere. My statement was it is impossible to determine the value of the block 
 as it comes from the mine. Not even an expert can judge of it in this condition 
 because these cracks are liable to run through it. I simply state this as a reason for 
 my statement that I could not determine the value of mica until it was split. 
 
 For the last twenty years mica has been produced in this country mainly from 
 North Carolina and New Hampshire, of which I estimate three-fourths has been pro- 
 duced in North Carolina. 
 
 For ten years, extending down to and including 1834, I estimate the average annual 
 production of North Carolina at $200,000 in value, mainly from the counties of Mitch- 
 ell, Yancey, and Macon, with lesser amounts from other counties in the same section 
 of the State. 
 
 Some hirge mines have been worked, but mica is also found scattered all through 
 the country, so that it is a common thing for the country people to go out and pros- 
 pect and dig for mica as being the most general and ready way to get something that 
 they can sell for money. 
 
 In this way it has become a matter of general interest to the people of that section. 
 In the years 1883 and 1884 I estimate that the counties of Mitchell and Yancey alone 
 produced fully $200,000 worth of mica in each year. 
 
 About this time mica began to be imported from India. For 1882 a little over $700 
 in valui'. For the year ending June 30, 1883, the amount was $9,884 in value, for 
 18-7 it was SC3,480, "for 18m'J it was $91,826. 
 
 The production for the United States is given at, 1882, $2.50,000 in value; 1883, 
 $285,000; 1884, $36^000; 1385, $l(;i, 000; 1886, $70,000; 1387, $142,250. I have not 
 the statistics for 1888 and 1889 for the whole country, Ijut I estimate the amount for 
 Mitchell and Yancey for 1888 at not to exceed $20,000, and for 1889 at not to exceed 
 $10,000. Same counties gave $200,000 in 1883 and 1334 each year. 
 
 As mica for market is wholly the product of labor and as mica from India is pro- 
 duced by labor that can be had at from 5 to 15 cents per day, it competes disastrously 
 with Uiii'a produced by North Carolina and New Hampshire labor. It being brought 
 from Calcutta to New York in returning ships and having so large a value for a ton 
 of weight the cost for freight is hardly an appreciable percentage of its value, and I 
 question whether mica from Calcutta can not be laid down ni New York fully as 
 cheaply as regards cost for freight as can mica from the mines in North Carolina. 
 
 In cons(.(iuence of this state of things the mica market tor the past five years has 
 been very much depressed and constantly growing worse. During that time mica 
 has lessened in value fully 40 jior cent, and has been of slow sale. 
 
 This state of things is working a gn^at hardship to the people of the mioa-prodac- 
 ing district, especially of North Carolina. 
 
REVISION OP TitE TARIFF. Hid 
 
 Mica being a cash product and within the reach of so large a portion of the people, 
 it was doing much to give them ready money with which to develop that section, 
 and in this way had become of more importance to them than the mere amount of 
 the money value would seem to indicate. 
 
 The coincidence in point of time of the large increase of importation of mica from 
 India with the large lessening of production and of price in this country, and the ap- 
 parent dependence of the one upon the other as of cause and effect has attracted a 
 good deal of attention, and a strong feeling has grown up among them that they 
 should be protected from the present disastrous competition with the cheap labor of 
 India and Canada. 
 
 They ask for a specific duty instead of ad valorem for the reason that mica would 
 be likely to be brought in its rough state as it is taken from the mines, in which con- 
 dition it is practically impossible to determine its value. It can be determined only 
 by and expert and then only approximately and with an amount of labor that will 
 essentially change its condition. To do it at all it must needs be split thoroughly so 
 as to show its grain and condition clear through, must be sorted caiefully and can 
 then be judged of only approximately. No definite rules can be laid down by which 
 to value it and the valuation in that condition being solely and only a matter of 
 judgment would be subject to the grossest abuses. Wi4.h anyirhing less than a prep- 
 aration and examination like this given it and with the best of inteutions, even an 
 expert would bo liable to be in error 1,000 per cent, as to its value. A ton of mica in 
 the condition in which it comes from the mine is liable to be worthless than $10, and 
 it may be worth $2,000, and even an expert could not tell even approximately until it 
 was split and sorted. When prepared for market a ton may be worth $6,000, or even 
 more, butits value could not be known while in the rough state. 
 
 It is proposed that upon all mica of not to exceed 12 square iuches in a single piece 
 there shall be a specific duty of 50 cents per pound and for all mica larger than 12 
 square inches in a single piece a duty of |1 per pound. This would give to importers 
 the opportunity to bring it in a condition prepared for market, aud would be certain, 
 simple, safe, and moderate, and would give producers a protection against excessively 
 cheap mica that is now so disastrous. 
 
 In regard to whether this would enhance the cost of material for stoves to a bur- 
 densome degree, I show a sample of mica ready prepared to put in a stove, which we 
 will examine and discuss a little. 
 
 An ounce of mica when ready to put into a stove presents a surface of from 160 to 
 240 inches, more or less, according to the care with which it is split. 
 
 The parcel shown presents 364 square inches and weighs 2.15 ounces. It can easily 
 be split 80 as to weigh 1^ ounces and still present the same surface. This parcel shown 
 is designed for a particular stove and is just a full set of mica for Jewett's Fancy 
 Base Burner No. 61, of Buffalo, fitted aud ready to put in the stove. It is split a very 
 little thicker than would be likely to be put into a stove for the reason that if thin- 
 ner it would be more liable to be broken by being handled in an unprotected condi- 
 ti<m as it is. As to the cost of mica for a stove we will refer to particular stoves. For 
 the ordinary best parlor stoves, made by the Michigan Stove Company, of Detroit, or 
 the Detroit Stove Works, of the same place, or Sherman S. Jewett & Co., of Buffalo, 
 all first-class manufacturers, each stove will take from 1 to 2^ ounces of mica. For 
 instance, Jewett's Fancy Base Burner No. 41, will take 266 square iui'hes of mica, or a 
 little more than an ounce ; his No. 51, which sells for $40, will take about 316 inches of 
 mica, or from IJ ounces to 1| ounces ; his No. 61, the largest size, will take :'fi4 square 
 inches, or about 2 ounces ; his Mikado, largest and his most expensive parlor stove, 
 will take 394 square inches. The Michigan Stove Company makes one stove that 
 will take a little more mica, but averaging a smaller size for each piece, the cost of 
 the mica for the stove, in the aggregate, will be less. 
 
 At the rate of duty proposed the mica for the stoves heretofore mentioned would 
 all, or nearly all, come under the schedule at 50 cents per pound, and the duty upon 
 the mica for a stove that sells for $40 would be from 4 to 5 cents. 
 
 The above sum would be the enhanced cost of the mica for a stove, provided the 
 price of the mica was increased by an amount equal to the duty, which is not true as 
 to mica any more than as to the average of other protected articles produced in this 
 country. As a matter of fact the smaller sizes of mica, as shown in the accompany- 
 ing parcel, would still be sold for not to exceed .50 cents per pound, notwithstanding 
 the duty, and produced in our own country. With iron and manufactured stoves 
 protected this amount of duty upon foreign mica can hardly be burdensome, while it 
 would he an immense relief to the miner for his finished product. 
 
1180 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 16, 1890. 
 
 William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 In ro;j;:inl to prices that are paid for mica fiom (lie mines of Nortli Carolina, I de- 
 sii« to say that a ton of good merchantable mica, of average sizes and proportions, 
 cut and ready for market at the mines, would bring from |i4,U00 to §4,500, according 
 to the proportions of the several sizes; that the same qnaiity of mica in the condi- 
 tion hnown as " cut and trimmed" a ton would bring $-i,000 or $1 per pound ; that 
 (o preiiare it for market it is first cut to the form and sizes required. This proceas 
 will T'lliice it in weight one-half, which will briug the cost per jiound np to |2. To 
 this must be added 15 cents \ier ponud for cutting and 5 cents for transportation, 
 malihi;4 an aggregate of ¥'i.'2f> per pound or $1,400 per ton. 
 
 .Mica in its rough state and belbre it is split is of indelerminate value. For this 
 reason a specific duty of 50 cents per pound for slove sizes, which would be less than 
 'J5 per cent, for mica prepared for market, would be prefeni-d to an ad valorem duty 
 of :'i5 [ler cent, "with the chance of its being applied to mica in its rough state and of 
 indeterminate value. 
 
 KcspectfuUy, James M. Gere. 
 
 STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. RANDALL. 
 
 Mr. Charles L. Randall, of Boston, .addressed the committee. lie s,aid : 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent the mica interests of the United States. 
 I liave a petition to the committee which I will read. [Reading:] 
 
 The Senate and House of Representatives of the United States : 
 
 Gentlemen: The undersigned, your petitioners, represent and say, that they are 
 a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Xew Hampshire ; that 
 their principal business is the mining of mica and selling the same in the markets of 
 the world. Tiny further aver, that np to two years since the plant and industry 
 they represent (embracing some 600 acres of mica lands, together witli mining nia- 
 chnnery, buildings, tools, etc., and situated in the town and county of Grafton, N. H.) 
 had been worked by the undersigned and their immediate predecessors (some of 
 which latter are now stockholders in said corporation) for a period of sixty consec- 
 utive years or more. Your petitioners further say, that in consequence of the open- 
 ing up of mica mine,s in Asia, Canada, and other foreign countries, and the large im- 
 portations into this country free of duty for the last few years of mica, (the amount 
 of which imijortations are estimated to Ije 75 per cent, of the merchantable mica 
 used in the United States), and that by reason of the aforesaid, the business of your 
 petitioners has become unprofitalde, inasmuch as your petitioners can not successfully 
 compete with foreign mica, admitted free of duty, and imported principally from 
 Asia, where the laborers receive from 50 cents to fl per month for their labor, and 
 your petitioners pay from |1.25 to .f2 per day for their help. And your petitioners 
 further say, that they have sustained great hardship, loss of money, and injury to 
 their previously established business, and by the lying idle of their large plant inci- 
 dent therett), all of which they stand ready to prove to yonr honorable body ; and in 
 justice to the undersigned and to all parties interested in the protection of home in- 
 dustries, your petitioners pr ,y you to establish a specific duty of |l per pound on all 
 mica imported into the United States, and for such otiier remedial legislation and re- 
 lief as may be necessary in the premises. 
 
 And, as in duly Itouud, your petitiouers will ever pray. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 The RUGGLES AND RANDALL MiCA COMPANY, 
 
 By Charles L. Randall, 
 
 President. 
 
 Grafton, N. H., Decrmher 24, 1889. 
 We, the undersigned, having an interest in the mica business in the United States, 
 herewith join in the foregoing petition, praying that a duty may be placed on im- 
 ported mica. 
 
 H. Randall, 
 Hoston, Mass. (Mines, Grafton, N. R.) 
 Chas. C. Foster, 
 Boston. {Mines in Jackson County, N. C.) 
 Robt. Webb, 
 Boston. (Wehb Mica Mine, Wahcortlt, N. H.) 
 Samuel IT. Randall, 
 Mines in Springjitld and draflon, N. H. 
 Geo. H. Randall, 
 
 Grafton, N, H, 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 1181 
 
 Mr. Randall (coutinuing). The largest mica mine, situated iu Grotoii, 20 luiles 
 from ours, is called the Palermo Mine. It has been worked for some years. Mr. 
 Breed hands me the following letter to presentforhimto the committee. [Reading:] 
 
 Nbw Yokk, January 9, 1890. 
 De.\r Sir : It is a well known fact, with which you are perfectly familia.r, that the 
 mining of mica in the United States has nearly ceased, on account of the inability of 
 American miners to compete successfully with the foreign article produced by cheap 
 labor abroad. 
 
 It is absolutely necessary that a high protective tariff shall be placed upon foreign 
 mica, in order to allow the mica-mining industries of this country to be revived and 
 profitably carried on. 
 
 We advocate such a tariff, and hope you will be successful in promoting a result so 
 desirable. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Palermo Mica Company. 
 Geo. p. Breed, 
 
 President. 
 Mr. Charles L. Randall, 
 
 President Buggies Sf Randall Mica Company, Washingtoyi, D. C. 
 
 Mr. Randall (continuing). Seventy-five years ago, gentlemen, the Indians used 
 to throw wood onto a ledge and set it on fire, and when the rock was heated, throw 
 on water, thereb.y causing contraction and expansion, and they produced mica iu that 
 primitive way and with those primitive methods. Tlien followed an industry which 
 was built upiu our family for the last sixty or seventy years, during which time we 
 have added, year after year, to our plant and to our territory as stated in this pel i- 
 tion. Mica had been imported in an irregular way from Canada and from Asia before, 
 but not to the colossal extent that has characterized the importations for the last two 
 years. As stated in the petition, 75 per cent, of the mica used in this country is 
 brought in from foreign countries where labor is cheap. 
 
 Now, with reference to the question of supplying the wants of this couutry. That 
 matter must come up, for I understand that there is a petition from the stove manu- 
 facturers against a duty on mica, and so the ability of this country to produce mica 
 must come into the discussion. Mr. F. W. Clark, connected with the Department of 
 the Interior, says on page 907 of the report of the U. S. Geological Survey, published 
 at the Government Printing Olfice in 1835 : 
 
 " In New Hampshire, along a belt ofcountrysouthwestward of the White Mountains, 
 mica mining is quite an old and well established industry. The ' mica belt' first be- 
 comes conspicuous in the town of Humney ; and actual workings have been carried 
 on in Orange, Groton, Grafton, Springfield, Alexandria, New Hampton, Wilmot, 
 Marlborough, Acworth, and Alstead. Throughout this region the granite veins are 
 most conspicuous objects, and often they may be seen from miles away cropping out 
 along the barren hill-sides. The most imortant mines are iu Groton, Grafton, and Al- 
 stead, and large quantities of mica are annually taken out and sent to market. In 
 Alstead, work has been carried on interruptedly for more than forty years, and the 
 locality has yielded sheets of mica nearly 4 feet across." 
 
 That helps to corroborate my statement in regard to the time that this mine has 
 been worked through three generations. Up to two years ago they inundated 
 America with the foreign mica, and I am here to ask this committee that, in its wis- 
 dom, and in all justice, it will aid us by a protective tarifiT. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. What rate of duty do you ask on mica ? 
 
 Mr. Randall. One dollar a pound. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What does mica sell for? 
 
 Mr. Randall. It runs from 20 to 234 cents, depending upon size. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. How much does labor enter into the cost of mica ? 
 
 Mr. Randall. Seventy-five per cent, of the expense is incurred for manual labor. 
 
 Mr. Flower. And you want. til a pound? 
 
 Mr. Randall. Yes ; I want tlic duty prohibitory if I could get it. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What size do you usually get the mica? 
 
 Mr. Randall. We get it of all sizes. It conies in conglomerate masses all the way 
 from 6 inches to -! feet thick. The American mica is just as good as the foreign mica. 
 Some say that it does not split so well as the foreign mica. Now, here is a piec(^ 
 [producing it], and I will show you that it does split, and that the cleavage is as 
 good as the cleavage of the foreign mica. 
 
 [Mr. Randall split witli a pen-knife a piece of American mica, and, having done 
 the same with a piece of foreign mica, asked thecommittee if there was any difference 
 in the s^litting.J 
 
1182 REVISION OF THE TARIFF 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is that [pointing to a specimen] the average tMckness ? 
 
 Mr. Randall. It is generally subdivided, because it is used principally by stove- 
 dealers. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What superficial area of mica would weigh a pound? 
 
 Mr. Randall. This piece [exhibiting a small leaf] is 3 by .S inches, and probably 
 from seventy to one huudred pieces of this kind would make a pound. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is there any combination among mica men in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Randall. No, sir ; noiio whatever. Here [exhibiting specimen] is mica from 
 India, and here [exhibiting another specimen] is mica from New Hampshire. Each 
 of these specimens is transparent. In India a man's wages would be 50 cents a month, 
 while here it would be $2 a day. Here [exhibiting specimen] is mica that was in the 
 great fire in Bo.ston in 1872. Mica is impervious to the action of heat and cold. There 
 is no better mica in the world than is produced in New Hampshire and North Carolina, 
 but we can not compete with Indian labor 
 
 STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. RANDALL. 
 
 George H. Randall, of Grafton, N. H., next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have been engaged in the min- 
 ing of mica directly at the mines for nineteen years. In the place where I have 
 given the most attention to mining, there have been probably in the last six or seven 
 years twenty places opened surrounding us. There is one place at work which is 
 to-day the largest producer of mica in the country. The proprietor of this told me 
 within a week that he will be obliged to suspend liis works. 
 
 The Chairman. Where is this f 
 
 Mr. Randall. This is at Groton, the Palmer Manufacturing Company. They 
 employ fifty men and twelve girls. The girls are employed in cleaning the mica. I 
 think there are about eighty all told. At our place they have entirely suspended, 
 and they have been for the last three years, hoping, as we hope, that the mica indus- 
 try would become better, but instead of that the prices have gone down until we 
 can not aiford, with the price of labor, to work. A gentleman who represents a large 
 concern, and is a personal friend of mine, told me that if we were protected by a duty 
 he could increase his works to five hundred men ; but the market now has declined 
 on account of the importation of foreign mica. In this small package [showing 
 package], which I weighed on the Government scales in this building, there are 
 thirty sheets which cover 240 square inches. We can not sell this to-day for 40 cents 
 a pound — that is, 2^ cents for thirty sheets. I have had the pleasure of doing some 
 business with the gentleman who last spoke, and I never heard until the question 
 came up here in regard to the cleavage of American mica before. This piece I hold 
 in my hand was taken out in New Hampshire. This mica is perfect and susceptible 
 of being cleaned, and Professor Hitchcock, who examined the sheets, said that they 
 make 30,000 lamina to 1 inch thick. This has been done, and he asserts that under 
 the microscope these lamina are perfectly defined. The trouble is, we have been all 
 the time reducing the price and new mines have been opened. 
 
 Within a short timel have had presented for my inspection mica from Siberia, which 
 if it is allowed to come in free of duty will be taken out of the mines there by polit- 
 ical prisoners. They have opened these mines in Siberia and the Ural Mountains, and 
 if it is allowed to come iu here free, then good-by to the industry I have been en- 
 gaged in; good-by to all my toil and labor in building these tunnels, running them 
 under the mountain with 128 feet of rock over my head at one end and 85 feet at the 
 other. I have put |60,000 in there, and to-day I can not produce that mica and make 
 a single jienny even if I sell it at the commercial value, because these stove men, this 
 National Stove Association, have reduced the sizes so as to take up the smaller sizes, 
 and the electric people get the most of their mica from abroad. Now, they are pro- 
 tected upon all their mauufactured articles. The stove man is protected. We ask as 
 miners to be iirotected. Around my little home there areabout two hundred men that 
 should be employed to-day, and not one is employed. We have school-houses there. 
 The |)eople live in one-story houses, as they are poor people. The same thing is true 
 at Groton ; and I lielieve that we should have a duty and Ije protected from labor 
 abroad as well as in Canada. Now I have been informed that the Thompson-Hous- 
 ton Company have lately bought a mine in Canada. Whether it is true or not I do 
 not know. A gentleman is here who can answer for them. I understand that they 
 made some arrangement or bought a mine there. 
 
 Mr. PjUrrows. What duty do you ask? 
 
 Mr. Randall. We ask that you fix a duty of |1 a pound. Below 3 by 4 we make 
 it -jO crnts, and above that fl a pound. Gas-stoves and oil-stoves consume a large 
 amount of mica. Yon can readily see, gentlemen, how many pieces these would make 
 
RETISION OF THE TARIFF. 1183 
 
 here, say there are 30 pieces to 1 ounce. Sixteen times 30 would be 480, and when 
 it is out again it would make 980 pieces, and on that we have been offered the liberal 
 price of 20 cents a pouud. The electric people use a piece that is long and narrow. 
 Now, say there are from 130 pieces to 260 in a pound of the sizes they use. I will 
 state this, that I understand from talliiiug with a geutleuian connected with the Geo- 
 logical Survey, who has visited these mica mines there aud in Canada., that they could 
 all be at worJi iu thirty days producing mica if we knew we would be sustained in 
 our advocacy and had a promise of a duty ; that we could go to work aud employ 
 five aundred meu iu tliese works iu New Hampshire in producing this mica. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. Is there a (inference iu regard to cleavage ? 
 . Mr. Randall. I never heard of it until I heard it here, aud I have been in the busi- 
 ness for twenty-seven years. Just as we get machinery iu which cost $10,000 the 
 market declined so we could not compete. We can not mine mica at 20 cents a pound 
 and sell it. Mica is sold by the pouud, not by the ton. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Is the supply sufficient for the home market ? 
 
 Mr. Randall. I know there is in the places I have visited and I have been in- 
 formed by Colonel Gere there is a supply South. Colonel Gere has been engaged in 
 mining in the South, and he is here representing the North Carolina interests. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. O. C. MOORE. 
 
 House of Representatives, 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 29, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: I desire to call your attention, and that of your committee, to the con- 
 sideration of the mica industry in New Hampshire. This industry has been organ- 
 ized since 1800, and has had a moderate degree of prosperity until a year and a half 
 ago. Mica is now imported in large quantities from India, where it is produced at 
 lees than one-tenth of the cost of labor in this country. None is mined in New Hamp- 
 shire now, and a whole community is thrown out of employment. It is the same iu 
 other parts of the country. A reasonable duty is desired. Some duty is absolutely 
 essential to a renewal of this industry. 
 
 Permit me also to direct attention to the condition of the manufacture of wood 
 writing desks and fancy wood boxes. This is a considerable industry iu New Hamp- 
 shire. At the present time it is seriously affected by German importations, notwith- 
 standing the duty of 35 per cent. A reasonable increase would avert a disaster to 
 this industry. 
 
 I beg also to direct your attention to the disability under which the natural min- 
 eral water industry of this country is carried on. Canada exacts a duty of 20 per 
 cent., while we admit these waters free. A duty of 20 per cent, would seem to be 
 simplejustice. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 O. C. Moore. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlbt, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 STATEMENT OF FRANK H. CLARK. 
 
 Mr. Frank H. Clark, of Washington, representing the Thompson-Houston Elec- 
 tric Company, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I represent the Thompson-Hous- 
 ton Electric Company of Massachusetts. We are the largest users of mica in this 
 country, and they ask you not to impose a tax on mica, as it will result in imposing 
 a tax on one of the greatest industries in this country. The domestic mica is unsuit- 
 able for our purpose on account of its hardness, which aifects its being split to the 
 necessary fineness. The necessities of our use cover mica of about .05 of au inch in 
 thickness. We are at present using about $2,000 a week. We shall undoubtedly 
 use this year in the neighborhood of $100,000 per annum. If the committee desires to 
 ask any technical questions Mr. Webster is here, who is our purchasing agent. He 
 is thoroughly familiar with the details of the importation of mica and its various 
 qualities. 
 
1184 EE VISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 STATEMENT OF H. T. RICHARDSON. 
 
 Mr. H. T. Richardson, of 234 Wall street, New York, next addressed the commit- 
 tee. Ho said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I represent a majority of the large 
 stove manufacturers of the country, and here is their petition relative to putting a 
 tax on mica: 
 
 To the Senate and House of Representatives : 
 
 We respectfully petition yonr honorable bodies to retain the article mica on the 
 free list, where it has been for the last six years, on the ground that the imposition 
 of a duty would be a burden upon the manufacturing interests using this article. 
 
 [Here follow numerous signatures.] 
 
 The Chairman. Just leave that with the stenographer. 
 
 Mr. Richardson. It is a small industry, but at the same time it enters largely into 
 the manufacture of stoves. 
 
 The Chairman. Might I ask you if the headings of these petitions are all the 
 same ? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Then I suppose one heading will do, and the names be simply at- 
 tached. 
 
 Mr. Richardson. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. I simply state that, so that we will not encui^iber the record. 
 
 Jlr. Richardson. The stove manufacturers are all using small mica. There are 
 about hve or six njica mines in this country, four in North Carolina and two in New 
 Hampshire. About four years ago the manufacturers were using large size of mica, 
 and there was a great scaicity of it, and the price was very high. They were com- 
 pelled, on account of the price, to alter a majority of the patterns and use very small 
 mica, since which time there has been no trouble in getting all the mica we wanted 
 of domestic product, which is only the first quality of clear mica. This new demand 
 which has existed within the last two or three years has been especially for the elec- 
 tric lights, and it has been difficult to mine mica of sufficient size to answer that pur- 
 pose. The total jiroduct of mica in the United States of America iu the mines of 
 North Carolina and New Hampshire is only about $150,000 per annum. This demand 
 of the electrical department last year amounted to about $110,000, and it has to be 
 imported. It is not a question of quality, but it is just a mere matter of getting the 
 mineral mica of the needed sizes, say IJ by 7 and 14 by 10. The American mines do 
 not produce that size mica. 
 
 The Ch.airman. Do you mean they can not produce it? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. They can not, and so it does not cut any figure at all. As far as 
 the stove tiade is concerned, they feel that if there is an import duty put on mica 
 it only enhances a business of $150,000 a year done by these seven or eight mines. 
 It will enhance the value of their iuterest without benefiting anybody else. 
 
 The Chairman. How large is the importation now ? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. Only $100,000 last year. 
 
 The Chairman. Is it increasing annually ? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. It is increasing, although they are using a poor quality of mica, 
 but as long as it is a good non-conductor that is all they want. If that could only be 
 produced in the American mines, of course it would be well to have protection. lam 
 a slraigbt protectionist and Rcpublieau, but this juica question is an exception to the 
 rule. The only benefit that would accrue to anybody would be to these few mine- 
 owners in North Carolina and New Hampshire. If people understood how mica ran 
 in a mine ; where the mica runs it is a pocket to-day three feet deep, iiud lo-morrow 
 the Lord knows where it is gone. There is no such thing as a vein, and the result is 
 large mica has been very scarce for the last five or six years, and the manufacturers 
 have been forced to send abroad or use small sizes. All this product ($100,000) which 
 these American mines can not produce has got to be imported. 
 
 Jlr. Gear. It is traced by the pocket 1 
 
 Mr. Richardson. Yes, sir ; but it is very small. 
 
 Mr. Ge.vr. When they trace it and they find a pocket, then they follow that? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. No, sir; there is no such thing as following it, as I understand. 
 
 Mr. Gear. They say there is. 
 
 Mr. EiCHARiisoN. That is all I have to say in regard to it, except to protest against 
 the increase of duty. An increase of duty will only enhance it to the manufacturer 
 without benefiting any one except these four or five men who own mines. There are 
 about four hundred manufacturers in the country who hire at least one hundred meii 
 to a foundry and some two hundred to a foundry, 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1185 
 
 Mr. Flower. Mr. Chairman, I have the following telegram which I would like to 
 be pnt upon the record : 
 
 New York, January 15, 1890. 
 R. P. Flowbr, Washington : 
 
 We would respectfully ask that mica be kept on the free list where it has been for 
 the past seven years. Any duty would be a detriment to stove manufacturers. 
 
 J. L, MOTT Iron Works. 
 Union Stove Works, 
 Abendroth Bros., Manhattan Stove Works. 
 
 Mr. Richardson. Gentlemen, I forgot to say I have some samples of mica which I 
 would be pleased to show you. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you get mica from Canada ? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. We call that imported mica. There is not over $50,000 worth 
 imported from Canada. Here is a very large piece of American mica [holding up 
 same]. This is the only kind stove men use. It is clear and white. There is about 
 $."10,000 worth a year imported from Canada. This probably is equally as good. This 
 mica is all small sizes, uufurtunately, because the sizes the electric men use we can not 
 produce in this country. This [holding up another piece] is Canadian mica of a cheap 
 quality, and this is India mica. That sheet can not produce a length of 9 or 10 inches 
 and is absolutely good for nothing for this electrical business. This [holding up an- 
 other piece] is 8, 9, and 10 inches in length, American mica, but it is hardly worth 
 much, as there is a crack in here which detracts from its value. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. Do you use the American mica ? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. We can nob use anything else. You gentlemen would not buy 
 our stoves if we had mica that was not clear. 
 
 The Chairman. If there is nobody else to be heard we will take a recess until half 
 past 1. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. There are some gentlemen who will be here at that time, as I have 
 a telegram saying they would be here. [To Mr. Richardson.] What per cent, would 
 a duty of $1,000 a ton be on mica ? 
 
 Mr. Richardson. The average price of mica for stoves would perhaps be |1.50 per 
 pound. The arerage price that the electrical men pay for these strips is about $1.25 
 to .$ 1.50 per pound. 
 
 STATEMENT OF F. W. -WEBSTER. 
 
 Mr. F. W. Webster, of Lynn, Mass., next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I only wish to say that we come 
 here representing one of the largest consumers of mica in the United States. We 
 used the domestic mica when we first commenced using the material, and the mica 
 was very high in price, and we commenced to look for other micas. We ascertained 
 in looking up other micas that they were far more suitable for our requirements, at a 
 great many times the cost of using the domestic mica, because it is better cleavage, 
 and we can get it in extremely thin sheets, which is very desirable in our business. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you split these sheets yourself? 
 
 Mr. Webster. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Then one of your claims is that the cleavage of the domestic mica, such 
 as produced in North Carolina and New Hampshire, is not as perfect ? 
 
 Mr. Webster. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It is not as good cleavage t 
 
 Mr. Webster. No, sir ; I should say it is not. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the trouble with it ? 
 
 Mr. Webster. This they make is very suitalile for stove purposes. It is the best 
 mica that can be obtained for that purpose, and it is worth a great deal more to 
 stove men than foreign mica. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What do you use your mica for T 
 
 Mr. Webster. For insulation, electric purposes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you import any mica from Canada f 
 
 Mr. Webster. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you import any other mica 1 
 
 Mr. Webster. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Nothing but the pure white T 
 
 Mr. Webstkr. We import the brown mica. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is not it opaque when you hold it to the light T 
 
 Mr. Webster. No, sir; it is a brownish white. 
 
 Mr. Gear. American mica is well adapted for stove purposes? 
 
 Mr. Webster. Yes, sir. A representative of one of the largest mining companies 
 
 485 75 
 
1186 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 in the United States told me lie could sell all the mica he could get out of the mine ; 
 that a duty was not essential to his business ; that he could sell all he could produce. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is there any difficulty in obtaining mica in large sheets — how large do 
 you use them ? 
 
 Mr. Webstbe. The largest we use now is 6 by 6. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is there any diificulty in obtaining American mica of that size f 
 
 Mr. Webster. I have had no difficulty in obtaining it of that size. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It is not as good as the other for electrical purposes ? 
 
 Mr. Webster. We require a soft mica, which is more apt to be fused by heat than 
 the domestic mica. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it because the American mica is more brittle? 
 
 Mr. Webster. Yes, sir ; it breaks oii' in the cleaving. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Can you get American mica soft enough for your purposes f 
 
 Mr. Webster. We never have found it. It is difficult to obtain a supply even for 
 present purposes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. If you could use an American mica would you get it ? 
 
 Mr. Webster. Certainly ; we have no objection to using the American mica ; only 
 now it is difficult to obtain a supply of mica to keep our hands employed. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you import all your mica ? 
 
 Mr. Webster. No, sir ; we buy considerable domestic mica of small sizes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You are importers as well as manufacturers ? 
 
 Mr. Webster. Yes, sir. 
 
 VIEWS OP -W. H. CLOUGH. 
 
 New York, January 17, 1890. 
 Dear Sir: In to-day's newspapers I notice that a petition has been presented to 
 your honorable body, asking that mica be retained on the free list, and that a duty 
 would be a burden to manufacturing interests. 
 
 I protest against such a petition as there is plenty of mica in the United States 
 that can be worked at a profit if the foreign article could be kept away. 
 
 There is a combination in this city who are endeavoring to control the whole busi- 
 ness. Trusting that a duty will be placed on mica, 
 I am, yours truly, 
 
 W. H. Cloitgh. 
 
 Hon. William McKinxet, Jr., 
 
 Chairman of the Wayt,and Means Cammitte*. 
 
REVISION OF THE TAKITF. 
 
 1187 
 
 TII^ OKE AND TIN^-PLATES. 
 
 [See ante, page 92.] 
 STATEMENT OF SAMUEL UNTERMYER. 
 
 February 3, 1890. 
 Mr. Samuel Untermyer, of New York, appeared tefore the committee and made 
 tho following statement : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear here for the purpose of 
 urging the imposition of a iirotective duty upon black tin, or cassiterite, which is the 
 l)]aok oxide of tin, and on metallic or bar tin. I am here in the interest of the great 
 and growing tin industry of South Dakota, though I more especially represent one of 
 the various companies that has commenced and is now actively prosecuting the 
 development of that industry on a large and broad scale. I understand, however, 
 that other companies and individuals owning property in that region, and still others 
 owning tin properties in North Carolina, join in the application now presented, and 
 that written arguments will bo submitted independently on their behalf. 
 
 The application is made solely on the ground that this is an infant industry of great 
 commercial value and importance to our country, which, in its develojiment, will 
 involve the employment of a vast amount of labor, and will, when developed, enable 
 our people to secure an article that enters into the manufacture of a necessity of life 
 at a price cheaper than that for which it will be obtainable in the future if our 
 industry remains undeveloped, besides making it possible for us to retain at home 
 the many millions of money annually paid to foreign countries for the vast quantities 
 of tin consumed here. 
 
 It is necessary to a proper understanding of this subject to have before us a state- 
 ment of the sources of the tin supply of the world. They are as follows : 
 
 Tin production of the werld. 
 [Stated in tea ft.] 
 
 18«5. 
 
 IgM. 
 
 Cornwall . 
 
 Straita 
 
 Aaatralia . 
 
 Banca 
 
 BUliton... 
 Bolivia ... 
 
 9,000 
 17, 320 
 8,496 
 4,200 
 3, 7S0 
 
 *,eoo 
 
 19, 674 
 7,506 
 4,379 
 4,128 
 
 9,000 
 2S, 977 
 7,026 
 4,384 
 4,978 
 
 Total. 
 
 42,776 
 
 44,687 
 
 49, 364 
 
 9,300 
 28, 366 
 6, 126 
 4,377 
 4,700 
 1,500 
 
 54,367 
 
 Of this total supply of the world, in each of the years named, abont 60 per cent, was 
 produced by Chinese and Malay labor, as follows: 
 
 Produced iy Chinese and Malay labor. 
 
 [Ik tans.] 
 
 1885 »5,M» I 1887. 
 
 1886 2«,1«1 I 1889. 
 
 33, 339 
 37, 339 
 
 While the production of the English mines has fairly hold its own and that of 
 Australia has diminished, the production of the Straits tin fields, worked by Chinese 
 and Malays, has steadily augmented each year, the increase for the above live years 
 having bet-n over GO per cent., while the total increase of the world's productions was 
 only 7f per cent. 
 
 The amount of bar tin annually imported into the United States is about 14,000 
 
1188 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 tons, of whicli 11,951 tons was received at the port of New York alone. This was 
 chiefly Straits tiu. The Straits tin is the kind chiefly used in coating tin plates, 
 because of its superior quality. 
 
 The population of the Straits settlement, where the Straits tin is produced, in 1889, 
 was 387,234, nearly all of whom were engaged in tin mining, etc. This population 
 is composed of — 
 
 Europeans 3,497 
 
 Malays 170,163 
 
 Chinese 173,279 
 
 Natives of India 40,295 
 
 Total population 387,234 
 
 So that less than 4,000 Europeans direct this army of nearly 400,000 coolies and 
 others, the cheapest laborers in the world, whose product enters the United States 
 free of duty; so that, while the immigration of Chinese laborers info the United 
 States has been prohibited, American labor will, in the absence of the duty now asked 
 for, be compelled to compete with a class of labor little better than slaves, and in 
 the face of disadvantages arising from the severe climate of Dakota, which requires 
 large outlay lor living as compared with the cheap and primitive way in-which the 
 inhabitants of the Straits settlement are enabled to live. 
 
 The Parliamentary Blue-Book on mines and minerals, published in 1888 (.at page 
 294), gives the number of persons employed in English tin mines, as follows: 
 
 Employed underground 6,120 
 
 Above ground 5, 507 
 
 Total 11,627 
 
 Griffith's Guide, published in The Iron and Steel Journal of London for January 
 25, lfc90 (at page lo5), states the names of the registered tin-plate mills in the United 
 Kingdom on January 1, 1890, showing : 
 
 The number of mills to be , 480 
 
 The number of persons directly and indirectly employed in the tin-plate in- 
 dustry in England is estimated at 500, 000 
 
 The annual product in tons for the English tin-plate industry is estimated at. 500, 000 
 
 It is confidently expected that the development of the tin industry in this country 
 will, if properly fostered and proti'cteil in its infancy, in time enable us to manu- 
 facture tin-plate out of our own product, so as to supply our country ■ 
 
 If the 336,692 tons of tin-plate annually imported into the United States were 
 made here, employment would be given to at lea^t 300,000 hands who would be needed 
 to produce that amount, and coat it witb the 10,000 tons of pig-tin required for the 
 purpose. Moreover, as 97 per cent, of these tin-plates is iron or steel, our domestic 
 iron would be used for its manufacture, instead of foreign iron. 
 
 The number of tons of tin-plate imported into the United States for the past three 
 years and the value thereof are stated in the report of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, 
 president of the board of trade of London, to the House of Commons, which report 
 is dated December, 1869, and the statement will be found at page 84, as follows : 
 
 
 1887. 
 
 1888. 
 
 1889. 
 
 Tons — 
 
 268, 353 
 3, 502, 97J 
 
 292, 626 
 4, 091, 147 
 
 330 692 
 
 
 4,074,455 
 
 
 
 equivalent to an average of about $23,000,000. 
 
 Basing our application for a protective duty on the ground that the industry for 
 which we .seek protection is in its infancy, and that we have the natur.al resonrces 
 for its rapid development if it can begiveu just encouragement, weasktbeimjiositioii 
 of a duty only from and after the 1 day of May, IbOl, when our works will be in 
 operation, and when we shall be able to supply the entire country with tin from the 
 Black Hills. 
 
 We contend that the mines in these hills are of such phenoraeual richness, and the 
 conditions for their working so favorable, that at the end of ten or fifteen years we 
 shall be able to supply our country with tin quite as cheaply as it can be imported 
 from the present sources of sui)|)ly; and, proceeding upon that theory, we can 
 only ask protection for our product for a fixed period of time — say for a period of ten 
 years 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1189 
 
 I ahall endeavor to demonstrate, as I consider it neceas.-iry that we should demon- 
 strate before we can justly ask tlio imposition of this duty — 
 
 First. That we have in this country, in the process of development, tin mines so 
 vast in extent that within a short time we shall he able to produce tin in commercial 
 quantities and to supply the entire country with it. 
 
 Second. That our mines are quite as rich as any that have ever yet been discov- 
 ered, and that the duties which we ask imposed are only such as will partly equalize 
 the difference between the cost to ue of our labor and the cost of Chinese and Malay 
 labor which is used in the production of the great bulk of the tin with which we are 
 now supplied. 
 
 Third. That with the aid of the inventive genius of the American people in de- 
 vising improved methods of machinery, and the superior sk-ill and intelligence of our 
 workmen, we have every reason to anticipate that by encouragement in the Infancy 
 of our industry we shall be able, within a brief period of time, to supply on a com- 
 petitive basis with the rest of the world, and that the effect of the protection we 
 now ask will be eventually to cheapen the cost of a necessity of life, besides adding 
 to the material wealth of the country by keeping at home the many millions of dol- 
 lars annually contributed to foreign countries to pay for this product. 
 
 NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE TIN MINES IN THE BLACK HILLS. 
 
 We herewith submit a copy of the consular report made for the year 1887 by the 
 British consul at Chicago to his Government, from which the following is an extract 
 and will be fouud on page 11 of the printed report : 
 
 "The discovery of tin in the Black Hills must be regarded as of the highest im- 
 portance, and there is now little doubt that the mines are of enormous extent and 
 value. The district known as the Black Hills is an isolated group of mountains ly- 
 ing principally in Dakota and partly in Wyoming, between the two main forks of 
 the Cheyenne Elver. The group is of nearly an oval form, about 90 by 69 miles, ris- 
 ing from an arid plain. It is thickly wooded and covered with verdure, and hns 
 rich, deep soil in well-watered valleys. Of the two known tin districts, the .south- 
 ern section, 4 miles wide, lies around the north and west sides of, and probably runs 
 all around, the central mass of granite called Harney's Peak ; and the other, or north- 
 ern section, is about 20 miles west of Deadwood. 
 
 "Tin was first discovered here in 1883, but the miners were only in search of the 
 precious metal and little attention was paid to it. 
 
 " Some of the mines are now commencing regular operations, sinking shafts and 
 erecting machinery, and before long there will probably be a regular supply of metal. 
 
 "The quantit.y of ore appears to be unlimited, and as it lies near and crops out from 
 the surface and on lofty wooded hills the cost of working and transport will not be 
 great. Little has, however, yet been done, except the production of specimen bars 
 and the examination of localities which appear to be most likely to yield paying 
 quantities of ore, though there are considerable quantities extracted ready for con- 
 centration. 
 
 "Chicago, as well as other cities West, is a large consumer of tin, which has hitherto 
 been wholly imported, and great interest is taken in the development of the discovery 
 of this metal." 
 
 We herewith submit also a leading editorial from The London Mining Journal, of 
 February 15, 1890, headed "The tin-plate outlook and restricted production," and call 
 attention especially to the following statement in that article: 
 
 " Within the last thirty years, the English exports of tin-plates have risen from 
 rather under 1,000,000 hundred-weight to nearly 9,000,000 hundred-weight. The 
 exact figure of shipments for 1889 was 8,612,460 hundred-weight, of which total sum 
 75 per cent, was purchased by the United States. The attempts which have lately 
 come to a head in America to utilize the tin, iron, and steel resources of that country 
 in the manufacture of its own tin-plates would receive an enormous impulse, and 
 there would be considerable danger of the 20,000 to 30,000 tons bought monthly by 
 that market declining to a very small total." 
 
 Ever since the report of the British consul at Chicago to his Government of the 
 extent and richness of the tin mines in the Black Hills, the English tin miners have beou 
 alive to the danger to their industry that will result from a development of these 
 mines, and the subject has received constant and prominent al ti'ntiou in the English 
 press. Such leading journals as The London Miuing .Journal, The Statist, The Money 
 Market Review, The Economist, and The Sunday News have devoted pages of their 
 paper to the discussion of these mines, and have undertaken to demonstrate to the 
 British public that America will shortly be able to supply its own needs in this direc- 
 tion from the tin mines in the Black Hills. 
 
 I beg leave to submit on this argument some of the articles that have appeared in 
 the English press upon this subject. 
 
 It would not be demonBtration of the commercial value of these properties to say 
 
1190 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 that we have raised capital for the purpose of working ; but that is au important cir- 
 cumstance tending to show that we have demonstrated to the people who have put 
 money into the enterprise that we have the ability to produce tin in paying quan- 
 tities. We have recently put into our treaHnry $1,500,000 for development. Prior 
 to (hat time we had spent in the erection of mills, hoisting and drilling; apparatus, 
 dwellings for employes, boarding-houses for uieu, stables, etc., about $200,000, be- 
 sides which, this company has acquired and controls certainly upwards of live hun- 
 dred mining claims, upon which it has done and is doing the assessment work required 
 by law, and the following is a brief statement of the development work done upon 
 some of the mines : 
 
 8HAPTS, TUNNELS, LEVELS, ETC., IN THE BLACK HILL MINB8. 
 
 Mta. — Three large open cuts. Two shafts of 117 and 85 feet deep each. Tunnel at 
 104 feet below surface now 382 fiet long. Winze from center of tunnel, 40 feet deep. 
 Three cross-cuts, severally 41, 51, and 6'J foot long. 
 
 Sarah.— 0\ie,a cut 40 feet wide, 170 feet high. Tunnel at 275 feet below summit ad- 
 vanced to 121 feet. 
 
 Coats.' — Shaft now down 142 feet. Soutlieast 60-foot level advanced to 153 feet. 
 Nortliwest 00- foot level advanced to ivri feet. Two levels begun southeast and uoith- 
 west at 120 feet. 
 
 Cowboy. — Shaft now down VSG feet. Seventy-two foot southeast level advanced 230 
 feet. Winze connecting levels from snrfaic, 60 feet deep. Seventy-two foot northwest 
 level advanced to V.'yi feet. Two new levels Ijegun at 132 feet from surface. 
 
 ExeeUior. — Shaft now down 102 feet. Two levels started at 60 feet. ' Tunnels ad- 
 vanced 46 feet. 
 
 Campair/n group. — Shaft now down 50 feet. Tunnel or adit on vein 313 feet ; cross- 
 cuts, 16 feet. 
 
 Ohio. —Shaft now down 50 feet. Tunnel advanced to 141 feet. 
 
 Oeriie. — Shaft down 97 feet. Two tunnels advanced to 137 and 120 feet; winze 
 down 93 feet. 
 
 Colossal r/roiip. — Tunnel advanced 560 feet. 
 
 Telegraph f/roiip. —Tunnol advanced 282 feet. 
 
 Mohawk. — Tunnel advanced 140 feet. Sundry open and crosscuts. 
 
 February No. 1. — Tunnel, 217 feet ; drift, 67 feet ; shaft down .55 feet. 
 
 February No. 2. — Tunnel, 249 feet. Large chamber. Shaft started. 
 
 February No. 3. — Shaft down 58 feet. 
 
 February No. 4. — Shaft down 55 feet. 
 
 February No. 9. — Shaft down 47-J feet. 
 
 February No. 11. — Three shafts now down to 39, 44, and 58 feet each. 
 
 February No. 16. — Shaft down 48 feet. 
 
 Addie. — Two shafts down each 106 and 72 feet tunnel advanced ; 260-feet levels 
 started. 
 
 MeieonUoc. — Tunnel advanced 188 feet 
 
 Ciisler. — Tunnel advanced 145 feet. 
 
 Great Eastern. — Shaft down 18 feet ; tunnel, 163 feet. 
 
 Czar firoup. — Two tunnels advanced severally to 200 feet and 367 feet. 
 
 Diamond group. — Shafts down 40 feet. Largo development work. 
 
 California group. — Shafts down 25 feet. Large development work. 
 
 Same.lias group. — Large development work. 
 
 Evergreen group. — Shaft, 15 feet; open-cut, 50 feet. Large development work. 
 
 Hob Emmet group. — Considerable development work. 
 
 Martha Washington. — Shafts, 50 feet <leep. Considerable development work. 
 
 Memington. — Considerable development work. 
 
 Fawn. — Considerable development work. 
 
 Canfield. — Shaft, 50 feet deep. Considerable development work. 
 
 Blanche Laureate. — Considerable development work. 
 
 Dandy group. — Shaft, 20 feet. Considerable development work. 
 
 Elephant. — Considerable development work. 
 
 Neie York group. — Considerable development work. 
 
 Foster group. — Shafts, .50 feet. Consider.-ible development work. 
 
 Truax group. — Considerable development work. 
 
 Walker group. — Considerable developnuiit work. 
 
 Annie group. — Considerable developuieni work. 
 
 Sunday Culch group. — Considerable development work. 
 
 Independence group. — Considerable de\'elo])ment work. 
 
 Angus group. — Considerable development work. 
 
 Manitoba group.— Shafts, 40 feet. Considrr.ible development work. 
 
 I'lyrllaud group. — Considerable development work. 
 
 Last Chance group. — Open-cut 20 feet. Considerable development work. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1191 
 
 Polo group. — Considerable developmeut work. 
 
 Moro group. — Conaiderable development, work. 
 
 Stockdale group. — Considerable development work. 
 
 Tonro group. — Open cat and tunnel, 12r) feet. Considerable development work. 
 
 Pansy group. — Considerable development work. 
 
 Black Diamond. — Considerable development work. 
 
 rriZcoo;.— Considerable development work. 
 
 Secapitulation. 
 
 Shafts and winzes sank on February 1. ..feet.. 1, 864 
 
 Tnnnels, levels, adits, drifts, etc., run February 1 do... 5,225 
 
 Expended in erection of mill, hoisting and drilling apparatus, dwellings 
 for employes, boarding-houses for miners, stables etc., about |200, 000 
 
 Wo have spent vast sums of money in purchasing claims. We went to England to 
 ssciire additional money with which to continue the developmeut of these mines, and 
 there we met with the opposition of the vast interests of the Cornwall mines. We 
 met, also, and are still contending against the opposition of those who handle the 
 foreign tin in this country, and we were encountered by a fierce attack from a Loudon 
 financial paper as to the commercial value of our properties. It required over two 
 years of active labor and demonstration to overcome the suspicions thus created, and 
 to convince the people from whom we desired to borrow money to aid us in our enter- 
 prise that these were the greatest tin mines yet discovered on the face of the earth, 
 and we have succeeded in that demonstration. The newspaper which made the at- 
 tack was compelled to withdraw it. The history of that transaction is very fairly 
 set forth in the Jlouey Market Review of December S, 18S8, and we beg leave here- 
 with to submit that article. 
 
 The certificates of the men selected to take charge uf the mill-crushing of the ore 
 from the hills, which took place in London, demonstrated effectually the great 
 wealth of these mines and their commercial value to this country. Never has a prop- 
 erty been submitted to so crucial a test as that to which these properties were sub- 
 jected for the purpose of overcoming the attacks upon it. 
 
 Since those criticisms were answered in the couclusive way sliowu upon the results 
 of the mill-crushing of the ore, we have increased our holilings of propeities, many 
 other locations have been discovered in the Black Hills owned by other persons and 
 corporations, and we have now five hundred men at work upon the properties, which 
 is a very small proportion of the number of men whom we shall employ when the 
 mines are fairly opened and the work of crushing the ores is begun. 
 
 Our pay-rolls for the past six months have amounted to |120,000, and during that 
 time we have done assessment work upon about six hundred and ninety mining claims, 
 besides development work. Although the great bulk of the tin used in this country 
 comes, as has heretofore been stated, from Straits, andisthe product of Chinese and 
 Malay labor, still we do ^et a part of our supply from the Cornwall mines, and the com- 
 parative statement of the wages which we pay our laborers and those paid in the 
 Cornwall mines may be instructive as showing the present need for the protection of 
 this industry. We pay $3 to |3.50 per day for labor, and we pay men for light work 
 above groond |2.50 a day, and to firemen $4 per day. 
 
 In Cornwall they pay 20s., or |5 per week or 83 cents per day as against our $3 to 
 $3.50 per day. The men in Cornwall who do light work above ground are paid from 
 2s. (50 cents) to 2s. Gd. (62^ cents). The girls who do the selecting of the ores are 
 paid from Is. (25 cents) to Is. 6d. (37| cents), and the women for dressing and the 
 lighter work are paid 28. (50 cents) per day. 
 
 AS TO THE RICHNESS OF THE PRODUCT. 
 
 Messrs. Johnson, Matthey & Co. and Mr. Frederick Claudet are the assayers to 
 the Bank of England. The mill-crushing for the great quantities of ore taken from 
 the mines by the special commissions sent out from England was done under their 
 direction. The shipment of this ore was made under the direction and control of a 
 special commission sent from England to examine the mines and to ascertain the re- 
 liability of the statement that had been made with regard to the property. We sub- 
 mit herewith the certificates of these renowned assayers showing that there were in 
 all fourteen lots, and that the ore consisted, m many instances, of solid blocks 
 weighing from 100 pounds up to 3,000 pounds. The mill-crushing resulted in demon- 
 strating that the ore contained 83.7 pounds to the ton of pure tin oxide, being 78.67 
 per cent, of metallic tin. Combining the two series of tests made, the ore appeared 
 to be worth between 80 pounds and 90 pounds of black tin to the ton, which is a 
 phenomenal showing of richness, far exceeding the averages obtained in the Corn- 
 wall mine. 
 
1192 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Then again, the ore is more friable, and therefore more readily treated than is the 
 case with tin produced from other sources, and being found quite near to tlie surface, 
 its handling is less expensive; all of which facts demonstrate the great commercial 
 value of the industry. 
 
 THE EVENTUAL BENEFITS WHICH THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY WILL SECURE BY 
 THE CREATION OF THIS INDUSTRY AS COMPARED WITH THE TEMPOKARY BURDENS 
 THEY ARE ASKED TO ASSUME. 
 
 The amount of duty which we ask to be imposed is 3 cents per pound on cassiterites, 
 which is black tin or the black oxide of tin, aud 5 cents per pound on the metallic or 
 bar tin. This is equivalent to an ad vaiorem duty of from 15 to 25 per cent, on the 
 average price of tin. At the present prices it is equivalent only to an ad valorem 
 duty of about 15 per cent. But the sources of tin supply have heretofore been so few, 
 the price of tin has undergone violent ilnctuations, supposed to be due to the combi- 
 nation of the few interests controlling the supply. 
 
 The uses of tin are far more numerous than are usually understood. It enters into 
 the composition of nearly all maaufactured met.ala, and if we were able to produce it, 
 it would stimulate manufactures of metals iu many directions, for which we are now 
 compelled to rely upon foreign Bupi)ly. 
 
 The demand for the imposition of this duty is snpporfed by the various interests 
 engaged in building up tin-plate manufacturing iu this country. I submit herewith 
 a letter received by me a. few days ago from Mr. O. W. Potter, the president of the 
 Illinois Steel Company, which is well known as one of the pioneer companies in the 
 building up of the tin-plate industry of this country, and I quote from that letter the 
 following : 
 
 "In regard to the situation as to the supply of tin ores and the ability to manu- 
 fauturo metallic tins from these ores, and tin-plate by the use of the iron-ores and 
 metallic tin to be found in this country, I would say, that I think our people have in- 
 terested themselves considerably in this i|uestion the last year, audit is our judgment 
 and belief that there is au almost unlimited supply of tin ore in the Black Hills dis- 
 trict, aud practically the same kind of ores that we tind in great quantities in North 
 Carolina, and in our opinion there seems to be nothing iu the way of reducing these 
 ores and producing enough metallic tin to meet all the requirements of this country, 
 as well as all the world, if need be. 
 
 "I can only reiterate that it is my belief if the Government will interest itself in 
 permitting tlie manufacture of the metallic tin oi- tin ores in the North, as well as iu 
 theSouth, andthemanufactureof tinplatrs tbiongh theuiediuuj of tin ores produced 
 in connection with steel and iron industries, that the development of this industry 
 in both the North and South would be such that within a verj' few years its wisdom 
 would not only be made plain to the Government, but to the people employed in the 
 works so established." 
 
 I also herewith submit a statement by Mr. .John H. Fnrman, who is largely inter- 
 ested in valuable tin-mining properties in his State, concerning the development of 
 the tin industry there, to which letter I ask the careful attention of this committee. 
 
 The fact that the interests of the tin-plate industry believe that the imposition of 
 this duty on bar tin will, in thi- end, be a benefit to them, and will eventually cheapen 
 for them the cost of the raw material which they require in the manufacture of tin- 
 plate, is a strong argument in favor of the protection now sought. It will protect 
 them from the combinations that have in past years made tin so expensive whenever 
 the few interests that have controlled the industry have seen tit to combine to corner 
 the market. 
 
 It is a well known fact that of all the minerals tin is the only one in which the 
 supply has not, for years, been materially iu advance of the demand. The opening 
 of these new sources of supply will tend to cheapen the iirice. The duty a.sked to 
 be imposed is slight. The United States, as has already beim said, consumes so large 
 .a proportion of the product of the world that the price of tin in the foreign markets 
 will be greatly cheapened if we shall be able to supply our own markets, by reason 
 of the decreasing demand in those markets; and it is quite logical to argue that it 
 would be impossible for the many interests connected with tin mining to combine to 
 exact from our home market excessive profits on the product, for if snch a suicidal 
 course were attempted to be pursued the cheapness of the product abroad, caused 
 by the exclusion from our market, would enable foreign producers to pay the small 
 duty, and still sell in our home market quite as cheaply, if not more cheaply, than 
 we have heretofore been able to purchase. 
 
 In asking for a protection that amounts to an ad valorem duty of only 15 to 2,i per 
 cent, we have relied largely upon the richness and vastness of our proY)erties when 
 developed to offset, to some extent, the ditferences in the cost of labor. The duty 
 asked to be imposed does not more than half compensate for the difference iu cost of 
 labor, when allowing for the expense of transportation. 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1193 
 
 In order that some fair conception of the enormity of the project in hantl may 1)6 
 gathered, I herewith submit a copy of a few reports that have been made uiioii the 
 properties of this company. It will be reojembered that the mines of this company 
 embrace only one of the tin districts in the Hills, and that new discoveries of mines 
 in that region are being constantly made. There is no possible danger of any one or 
 of any dozen companies ever being able to control these deposits in the Black Hills, 
 for they cover an area hundreds of miles in extent, and will involve tens of millions 
 of dollars in development. The contemplation of any such result is, however, readily 
 set at rest by the discoveries of ore of the same general quality and appearance in the 
 State of North Carolina, and other discoveries have been brought to our notice in the 
 States of Virginia and West Virginia. It is impossible that any of these great natural 
 resources shall be available if at the outset we are to he met with free competition 
 from Chinese labor or from the beggarly wages paid in the Cornwall mines. No body 
 of capitalists could be found who would go on producing tin in the earlier stages of 
 this iudustry at great loss for years to come, even with the prospect of eventually 
 placing the industry upon such abasis that it can compete with the product of Chinese 
 and Malay labor. Instead of stimulating the industry, it can never be brought into 
 existence, unless it be enabled to live whilst it is reaching its natural growth. 
 
 It is quite unnecessary to repeat the well-worn arguments in favor of the protec- 
 tion here asked for. No capital will be found so fool-liardy as to attempt to build 
 up m this country an industry of this character, which will require the outlay of 
 many millions of dollars before any return can be expected, in the face of competi- 
 tion such as that which this industry would be compelled to face. It would well 
 repay the few foreign tin-mine proprietors to send their products into this their 
 greatest market of the world, and the one which takes 7.5 per cent, of their entire 
 product, at cost for years to come, for the purpose of throttling this industry, they 
 being thereby enabled to continue to hold a market upon which their very existence 
 depends. Are not the benefits which this country would derive from this new in- 
 dustry sufficient to entitle us to protection against a condition so reasonably to be 
 predicted ? We have bad some experience in the early stages of this particular cor- 
 poration as to the time, money, energy, and ability which those interests are ready 
 to devote to our destruction. Two years of the life of this company has been spent 
 in refuting the slanders which those interests have boldly circulated against the tin 
 interests of the Black Hills. Those slanders were hurled at us by the money in 
 England, the money market of the world, where we were endeavoring to secure the 
 aid of capital with which to develop our property ; and the contest which was there 
 waged is one which will be memorable in the financial interests of that country. 
 The clippings from the London Press herewith submitted will convey some iaiut 
 idea of the history of that controversy. 
 
 Some of the members of this committee seem to be of the impression that this com- 
 pany is dominated by English interests, and it is but fair to the gentlemen consti- 
 tuting its board of directors that this impression should be corrected. This company 
 has a share capital of 815,000,000, and less than one-fifth of its shares are owned 
 abroad, the balance being all owned in this country by citizens of the United States, 
 and over two-thirds of the shares being owned by its present board of trustees, all 
 of whom are residents of the city of New York. 
 
 We believe the time will soon come when we, with our improved machinery, our 
 superior class of labor, and our inventive tendencies, will be able not only to supply 
 our own country with this product, for which millions are now annually paid abroad, 
 but will be able to sell our product in foreign markets, notwithstanding the great dis- 
 paragement in the cost of labor. But, in order to do that, we must be enabled to 
 grow strong, which we cannot do without protection in the infancy of our industry. 
 
 I repeat, that we ask the imposition of this duty to take effect only in May, IHltl, 
 when we shall be able to supply the needs of this country ; that the duty be made i 
 cents per pound on cassiterites or black oxide of thin, and 5 cents per pound on me- 
 tallic or bar tin ; and that we only a.sk for the continuance of this duty for a period 
 often years. By that time our superior natural facilities will have enabled us to 
 compete with the world for at least the trade of our own country. 
 
 The special attention of the committee is called to a series of articles irritten by 
 the Hon. Amos J. Cummings upon tin in the Black Hills, which are herewith sub- 
 mitted. 
 
 In confirmation of the statement above made aS to the total visible supply of the 
 world, the following are the statistics on the subject : 
 
 Total visible supply, in tons. 
 
 1887 16,700 
 
 1888 - - 1^1,700 
 
 1889 13,500 
 
 showing that there is only about three months' supply in existence, and that whilst 
 the consumption is increasing, the supply is gradually increasing. 
 
1194 
 
 REVISIOK OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 American conamnption per year, in tons. 
 
 18^7 12,700 
 
 1888 14,100 
 
 1889 13,900 
 
 This shows only the bar or metallic tin imported into this country, and is exclusive 
 of the tin-plate importations. 
 
 The following arc the statistics of the proportion of this bar tin imported at the 
 port of New York. 
 
 Bar tin received at p<yrt of ]^eiv York, in tons. 
 
 1887 11,622 
 
 1888 14,646. 
 
 [Fred Claudet, assayer to the Bank of England.] 
 
 Assay Office, 6 and 7 Coleman Street, 
 
 London, E. C, November a7, 1888. 
 The Harney Peak Tin Company, Lothhury, E. C: 
 
 Dear Sirs : In accordance with your instructions we went to 84 and 88 Great East- 
 ern street, on November 14 and 15, to witness the removal of over 10 tons of mineral 
 from the Harney Peak Tin Mines to Messrs. Johnson, Matthey & Co., Hatton-garden, 
 wliere we afterwards attended at the sampling of the crushed ore. 
 
 There were in all fourteen lots bearing the respective marks of the undermentioned 
 groups of mines, being a portion of the shipment of 40 tons examined and reported 
 upon by us last March. 
 
 The ore consisted in many instances of solid blocks, weighing from 100 up to 3,300 
 pounds, showing in places amorphous patches of black oxide ot tin (cassiterite), and 
 we identified these fourteen lots as the same from which we had previously taken 
 samples, the results of which appear in detail in Prof. M. C. Vincent's report. 
 
 An average sample drawn from the bulk after crushing and mixing (10 tons 3 cwts. 
 2 qrs. 17 lbs.) was carefully analysed by us and found to contain metallic tin 2.94 per 
 cent., or 65-85 pounds metal per ton of 2,240 pounds of ore, equal to 83.7 jjound.s pure 
 tin oxide, containing 78.67 per cent, of metal. 
 
 The fourteen lots referred to above were marked "Addie, Campaign, Coates, Cow- 
 boy, Custer, Czar, Darwin, Etta, Excelsior, Gertie, Mewonitoc, Mohawk, Sarah, and 
 Tin Reef groups of mines." 
 
 Yours, faithfully, Arthur C. Claudet, 
 
 P. pro F. Claudet. 
 
 Note. — Several experiments were made by cencentrating the black tin, the yield 
 being equal to 2.60 per cent, of metal against 2.94 per cent, as found by analysis. 
 
 Johnson, Matthey & Co., 
 
 222 N. Fo. 61, L 30. 17. 
 
 [Diiplicat«.J 
 
 cbrtificate. 
 
 Melting and Assay Offices, 
 Hatton-garden, London, E. C, November 26, ,1886. 
 The Harney Peak Tin Mining and Milling Company (Limited) : 
 
 We have crashed, mixed, and carefully assayed the parcels of Harney Peak tin ore 
 specified hereunder, and find the following to be the result: Weight, 10 tons, 3 cwts., 
 2 qrs., 17 lbs., net, part of shipment of 40 tons per Erin. 
 
 Mark of Group. 
 
 No. of 
 Mines. 
 
 Net 
 Weight. 
 
 
 3 
 
 » 
 8 
 3 
 1 
 6 
 3 
 2 
 8 
 8 
 6 
 9 
 
 14 
 7 
 
 10 
 
 Pounds. 
 600 
 
 1,830 
 
 2,000 
 
 l,5iO 
 
 900 
 
 870 
 
 1,370 
 
 800 
 
 3,453 
 
 1,040 
 
 1,480 
 
 2,850 
 
 900 
 
 630 
 
 2,686 
 
 
 
 
 Cnster 
 
 Czar . 
 
 Darwin 
 
 Etta... 
 
 Do 
 
 
 Mewonitoc 
 
 
 Rariih 
 
 Tin Reef . ... 
 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1195 
 
 Analytical contents of pure metallic tin, 2.80 per cent., or 63.72 pounds per ton of ore. 
 
 Produce of pure metallic tin reduced from the black tin obtained from hand- wash- 
 ing, 2.51 per cent., equivalent to 71.46 pounds clean black tin (pure peroxide) per ton 
 of 2,240 pounds of ore. 
 
 The above parcels were taken in our presence from the original cases. A consider- 
 able portion of the rock was in large blocks, weighing in some cases several hundred 
 pounds each, and in one instance, a single piece, marked " Excelsior," weighed 3,453 
 pounds. 
 
 Johnson, Matthey & Co. 
 
 [Fxoim tke London Mining Journal, Railway and Commercial Gazette, Febmary 15, 1890.] 
 THE TtX-PLATE OUTLOOK AND RESTRICTED PRODUCTION. 
 
 There is no metallurgical manufacture more subject to chronic adversity than the 
 tin-i)late industry. Whatever the fluctuations of prices, upwards or downwards, may 
 he, they are always a little below the level which is needful to secure to these pro- 
 ducers a fair return upon the cost of manufacture. This is an anomalou'' state of 
 things in an industry which practically possesses a monopoly. The process of tin- 
 plate fabrication, if it is not actually confined to South Wales and some neighboring 
 English districts, has yet never been carried out upon any considerable scale else- 
 where. Moreover, the world's consumption of tin-plates is rapidly developing. 
 Within the last thirty years the English exports of tin-plates have risen from rather 
 under 1,000,000 hundred- weights to nearly 9,000,000 hundred-weights. The exact 
 figure of the shipments for 1889 was 8,612,460 hundred-weights, of which total some 
 75 per cent, was purchased by the United States. That export shows an increase of 
 800,000 hundred-weights over that of 1888, or nearly 10 per cent., by no means an 
 unsatisfactory advance even compared with the general development of our metal- 
 lurgical exports in 1889. Such an increase in consumption ought to indicate that the 
 industry aft'ected by it is in a condition of unmixed prosperity However, the tin- 
 plate makers complain of the unremunerative character of prices, and complain with 
 unquestionable reason. At the beginning of 1889 the price of ordinary coke plates 
 was about 13 shillings per box at Swansea. 
 
 At present, notwithstanding all the important advances in fuel, in labor, and iu 
 steel which have taken place since then, the quotation for such (lualities is only 
 about 16s. per box. Such a price bears only the faintest relation to the state of the 
 metal market in which Bessemer sorts of tiu-plate bars cost £7 15s. per ton. In 
 1880-'81, when there was an iufiatiou of the metal trades akiu to that now proceeding, 
 cokes ranged up to 308. 9d. So serious is the discrepancy between the increased cost 
 of production and the smallness of the rise in selling prices that several mills in South 
 Wales have lately ceased working, and others will be stopped when the orders at 
 present on the books have been executed. There is, of course, only one explanation 
 why the tin-plate trade is afflicted with this evil condition of things. It suffers from 
 overproduction. An annual output of some 10,000,000 to 11,000,000 boxes is greater 
 than is needed to meet even the enormous requirements of the United States and of 
 other foreign markets, and the output increases in greater ratio than even the ex- 
 pansion of those requirements, large as the statistics show that to be. 
 
 While, therefore, it is possible that tin-plate prices will rise somewhat from their 
 present level as some of the existing low-priced coutracts are completed, it is cer- 
 tain that the normal level of quotations must continue to be not even barely re- 
 munerative. There are only two ways of remedying the evil — one by allowing reck- 
 less competition at profitless quotations to do its ordinary work of weeding out the 
 firms least fitted to survive ; the other by organizing an agreement among the mem- 
 bers of the trade for the periodical stoppage of production. The latter alternative 
 has just been proposed to the proprietors of the four hundred and eighty mills pro- 
 ducing tin-plates in South Wales. It has been suggested that all the works in the 
 Tin-Plato Makers' Union should stop work during the first fortnight in March, and 
 that if this arrangement should prove satisfactory similar stoppages should take 
 place subsequently at periodical intervals. 
 
 Upon the face of it this proposal would seem to have excellent prospects of suc- 
 cess. Probably the active control of the ninety tin-plate works in Wales is vested 
 in scarcely more than fifty individuals, and the whole of the makers would have 
 equal interest in producing some mitigation of the existing .system of ruinous over- 
 production. The moderate restriction of output contemplated could produce no 
 snch effects as have beeu justifiably particularized as the evils of other organized 
 attempts at the reduction of metal supplies. If prices were forced up to a point 
 higher than was consistent with the interests of consumers demand would probably 
 fall off. The attempts which have lately come to a head in America to utilize the 
 tin aud iron and steel resources of that country in the manufacture of its own tin- 
 plates would receive an enormous impulse, aud there would be considerable danger 
 
1196 KEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 of the 20,000 to 30,000 tons bought monthly by that market declining to a very small 
 total. Moreover, the realization of exorbitant prices by producers would imme- 
 diately lead to the infusion of fresh capital into the business, and competition would 
 assume perhaps more than its old keenness. The combination therefore could only 
 be powerful in fortifying producers against the acceptance of the ruinous prices 
 which have followed upon the reckless increase of nianufactiiTing capacity. 
 
 The only obstacle to the adoption of the simple means proposed to this end lies un- 
 fortunately in the tin-plate makers themselves. On many previous occasions they 
 have proved themselves incapable of acting with the discretion and self-restraint re- 
 quired for the success of the scheme. Iff hey have closed their works for a week 
 they have increased their output in anticipation of the restriction, and thus nullified 
 their own policy. Within the past few years we have recorded many attempts to in- 
 troduce some such measure as that now proposed, and in every case they have failed 
 to achieve their object. The tin-plate makers have been the victims of every dimi- 
 nution in demand and of the tin syndicate, as they are now the victims of the gen- 
 eral rise in metals. In the jiresent expansion of demand for their products they oc- 
 cupy an excellent position for obtaining a more adequate return upon their outlay 
 in the future. Both in their own interests and in that of the tin-mining industry it 
 is to be hoped that they will avail themselves of some well-considered means of 
 checking the augmentation of output. It would not be wise for them to count upon 
 any early diminution in the cost of production. Though there is a temporary fall in 
 the values of the metal products most atfected by speculators, there can be no real 
 doubt that there will be continued progress in the metal markets for a considerable 
 time to come. 
 
 STATEMENT OP HON. G. C. MOODY. 
 
 The Hon. G. C. Moody, a Senator from the State of South Dakota, next addressed 
 the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I do not care to occupy your val- 
 uable time but a few moments. I would like, however, to say a word or two npon 
 this snbject under consideration. The tin industry is one of great importance to the 
 people of my State. I live in that portion known as »he Black Hills, and have lived 
 therefor eleven years. I have witnessed the growth of the mining of tin ores, and 
 in a general way know something of it. I do not undertake, of course, to under- 
 staod the details of the business. In the northern part of the Black Hills, in what, 
 is known as the Nigger Hill country, there exists a group of tin mines, that have 
 from year to year, for several years past, been in process of development. The area 
 covered by these tin mines, so far as yet discovered, I understand to be about 1,200 
 acres — ^that is, the claim covering about 1,200 acres seem to possess sufficient rich- 
 ne,s8 to justify their development. There are other tin claims in that vicinity, 
 but I am not familiar with their condition. In the central portion of the Hills, there 
 is an extensive region of tin-bearing rock. It is in this central portion where the 
 company represented by Mr. Untermyer, who just addressed you, has its properties. 
 The country containing this tin-bearing rock and tin ores is there very extensive. 
 
 Of course, the whole face of the country, as you who are familiar with such matters 
 understand, does not contain mines. There are veins of ore here and there over this 
 extensive country in the Harney Peak region. Further south still another region of 
 country exists containing tin ores. The northern, or Nigger Hill mines, as I under- 
 stand, are owned principally by New York, Chicago, Iowa, and Ohio parties ; the 
 Harney Peak mines are owned principally by Mr. Untermyer's company ; and, I am 
 told, the southern tin mines are owned j)rincipally by Chicago parties. In addition 
 to these there are tin claims owned by individuals and scattered through all these 
 regions — men who have not sold but who hold these claims witli a view of either 
 future development or sale. The capacity of these regions of the Black Hills coun- 
 try for the production of tin is understood to be very great. I am unable to say to 
 the committee what the precise percentage of any of the ores from either of these 
 mines will bo. I have had conversations with v.arious experts who have examined 
 the properties, among them Professor Vincent, of whom Mr. Untermyer spoke, men 
 of character and reputation, and who would not, in my judgment, make a statement 
 regarding such a subject that they did not conscientiously believe, and who, of 
 course, know that large sums of money have been invested in these properties. 
 Thousands of dollars have been paid to the prospectors, running up sometimes to 
 twenty -five or thirty thousand dollars for a single claim. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That amount is invested on the reports of these expert men? 
 
 Senator Moody. It is invested on their examination and report. I place the ut- 
 most confidence regarding such a subject in a man whose reputation has been estab- 
 lished by many years of honest investigation. We are compelled to rely upon persons 
 as experts in these mining Tnatter.-i. I am satisfied from my general knowledge and 
 information, and from statements of these exiiorts, that the producing capacity of 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1197 
 
 that country is sufficient to supply the entire United States with tin. That great in- 
 dustry can not be developed in one year ; it will take a series of years to develop it. 
 Yon can not drive a tunnel into a mountain of rock with any labor you can employ, 
 except very slowly. It costs in our gold mines to run a working tunnel from $8 to 
 S25 per foot, depending, of course, upon the character of the rook and the size of the 
 tunnel desired. 
 
 That liu industry must be proi^ected, or else it can not be developed. There is but 
 one of two things about it — either the enterprises which have been progressing, and 
 which are to the people of the State I in part represent, so very important, must 
 eventually be shut (lown and discontinued, or else Congress must protect that in- 
 dustry by putting some duty upon the import of tin from abroad. Necessarily, in 
 my judgment, you must either permit the Eugli.sh owners of tin property to supply 
 this country, aud thus allow our people to be deprived of that important element in 
 furnishing employment for labor, or you must furnish those laijorersprotection. My 
 only object in desiring this industry protected is this — in the Black Hills of South 
 Dakota tlie miners are paid for undorgrouud work $SJjO iier day, surface iiieu aud 
 shovelers $'i per day, aud comruon laborers $2.50 ))er day, and in proportion is the pay 
 of all laborers. Some of our mechanics in the business of gold-mining and milling 
 are x>aid as high as $8 a day. 
 
 Mr. Flowku. They are sometimes paid more than some of the men who own the 
 gold mines ? 
 
 Senator Moody. Probably they are. At least in a number of cases mechanics are 
 paid $8 a day. We are desirous of maiutaiuing this profitable rate of wages; we 
 want, if it is possible, that the tin industry shall be so conducted as to maintain the 
 present prices of labor. By tliese wages, a better class of men are obtained ; men who 
 are more competent as skilled laborers and who make better citizens. Where high 
 wages are paid, schools and churches receive better support aud the laborers have 
 pleasant and agreeable homes. We %vant our laborers paid so their wives and cbil- 
 dren will be comfortably housed and dressed, and they be in every way good citizens. 
 The effectof paying high wages upon allclas-ses, is good, even if the laborer is obliged 
 to pay more for his supporl:. It is illustrated among our own people. Take the Ital- 
 ians for instance, who come to America and get work in our mines at good wages — it 
 is but a short time until they become very useful citizens, and, as a rule, most excel- 
 lent men. In their own country, as I understand, they receive but from 30 to 40 cents 
 a day, while in the Black Hills they get $3 or $3.50 a day. 
 
 I have no interest in building up a profitable business for the owners of the prop- 
 erties except as it conduces to the maintenance of the high rate of wages in that 
 country. I want to see those rates of wages maintained. To do this, the production 
 of tin must be so protected that it will not come in competition with the production 
 in countries where wages are ;i,t mere pauper rates. The parties who are engaged in 
 working gold mines in that country are paying good wages; they have been invited 
 to reduce the rate, but have declined, believing that so long as their mines will pay 
 it is more profitable to them to ))ay good wages and obtain a good class of skilled 
 labor. Sometimes we have more men there than can be furnished employment, but the 
 wages are not reduced by the competition. The better class of those laborers usually 
 get the employment. I understand Iroui the parties engaged in this tin industry, 
 that it is capable of .-lud will supply labor for from five to seven thousand people. 
 You will perceive this is a malter of iiiQ|)ortanee to us of South Dakota, because one 
 laboring man usually means five inhabitants. 
 
 I will not occupy your time upon this subject further, except to say that I am de- 
 cidedly impressed with the present and future importance of this industry in our 
 country. It means not only the production of tin, but the manufacture of tin-plate 
 in the United States. The statistics of tin and tin-plate imported indicates the im- 
 portance of the subject. If South Dakota can furnish, as proposed by these opera- 
 tors in that country, all the tin which is used, not only in the nature of block tin, 
 but for manufacturing tin-plate, it means the expenditure of millions of dollars per 
 annum for labor and the laborers' support in ourstate, and it means the development 
 of a most extraordinarily important industry in the United States in the jiroduction 
 of the tin-plate which is consumed here. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. How nmch tin ore is in sight and how much on the dumps T 
 
 Senator Moody. I can not answer that question except from hearsay. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. There are a great many thousands of tons I suppose t 
 
 Senator Moody. Oh, yes. That in sight in mining parlance is what has been de- 
 veloped or surrounded by workings so it can be measured. 
 
 Mk. Gear. That in sight is what is ready to stope V 
 
 Senator Moody. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is on the dump is that which has been brought to the surface f 
 
 Senator Moody. It is that which is already mined. I have visited many of those 
 mines. I have seen tons of ore npmi the dumps, but I could not estimate the amount. 
 Prom convcrsntions with superiutendent,-; and others I know that there are thousands 
 
1198 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 of tons already upon tbo dumps of those mines. I can not state with particularity 
 what the supcriuieudent said to me ui)on the subject of the amount, but the amount 
 ran up into thousands of tous. 
 
 VIEWS OP O. W. POTTER. 
 
 Chicago, March 13, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : In regard to the situation as to the supply of tin ores and the ability 
 to manufacture metallic tin from these ores, and tin plate by use of the iron 
 ores and metallic tin to be found in this country, I would say that I think our people 
 have interested themselves considerably in this question the last year, and it is our 
 judgment and belief that there is an almost unlimited supply of tin ore in the 
 Black Hills district, and practically the same kind of ores are to bo found in great 
 quantities in North Carolina, and in our opinion there seems to be nothing in the 
 way of reducing these ores and producing enough metallic tin to meet all the re- 
 quirements of this country, as well as all the world if need be. So far as the manu- 
 facture of tin-plate is concerned, for all jMirposes, this country requires nothing but 
 a protective duty at the hands of Congress until maufacturers can get their industry 
 established anil infuir workingcondition, afterwhich itis my belief that they will be 
 able to take care of themselves ; and the people need not suffer by reason of what 
 they may call taxation through tariff, the fallacy of which, it seems to me, has been 
 amply demonstrated this year i]i the price of Bessemer rails, which have sold at 
 Chicago for about the same i)rice they have been held at the different ports of shii)- 
 ment in England, 1he manufacturers in this country neither desiring nor caring to 
 avail themselves of the duties, having reached that i)Oiut in manufacture where the 
 prices were sufficiently remunerative without resorting to the protection offered by 
 the Government. This, however, is no argument against protective duties, for the 
 reason that with an abnormal condition of trade in Europe, prices can be reduced 
 to such a point as to be impracticable to meet the competition on this side of the 
 water without a tariff, and it would seem the wisdom of the position on the part of 
 our Government could not be made more plain th:in it has been in this question of 
 steel rails, for if the iieople of this country had been compelled to have gone abroad 
 for their raijs it is a question if they could have been procured at all, and if so, 
 purchasers would have been entirely in the hands of foreign makers. 
 
 I can only reiteiate that it is my belief, if the Government will interest itself in 
 permitting the manufacture of the metallic tin from tin ores in the North as well as 
 the South, and the manufacture of tin plates through the medium of tin ores so 
 produced in connection with the steel and iron industries, that tbe development of 
 this industry in both the North and South would be such that, within a very few 
 years, its wisdom would not only be made plain to the Government, but to the people 
 who would be employed in works so established. I would use special stress so far as 
 this subject is concerned, upon the Southern people, who have every facility now in 
 both the tin ores and iron ores, for the establishment of tin-plate manufacture, and 
 with every element of success at their hands, if the Government will but interest 
 itself until they can become thoroughly established. 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 O. W. Potter, 
 
 Chairman, 
 
 S. Untkrmybr, Esq., 
 
 46 Wall Street, New Tork. 
 
 VIEW^S OP HENRY C. VSTILKER. 
 
 Paxmbr House, Chicago, III., February 12, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : I have just returned from a three months' absence in Europe. While 
 in London 1 made a contract with the Harney Peak Tin Mining Milling and Manu- 
 facturing Company to go to the Black HiUs and take charge of all of that company's 
 mining and other interests, with headquarters at Hill City, S. Dak., and shall leave 
 here on the 20th to enter upon my duties. 
 
 As you are aware, no metallic tin as yet has been produced in this country, but 
 from reports of the progress made in opening up the properties belonging to this 
 company, I am strong in the belief that I shall tiud on reaching th(! Hills "that suf- 
 ficient development work has already been done to warrant the immediate erection 
 of mills for crushing rock and extracting tin ore, and I hope by the middle of the 
 snmmer to be producing black oxide of tin, or cassisitrite, in considi-rable quantities. 
 
 As you probably are aware, our people, headed by Mr. Samuel Untermyer, of 46 
 Wall street, New York (one of our directors), are bel\)re the tarilf committee, asking 
 that a duty be placed upon metallic tin and ores, the same to take effect Ist of May, 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1199 
 
 1891, and coutinue teu years. We are simply asking that tbis infant industry shall 
 be :ift<)rded the same protection, relatively, as afforded by present tarifif upon copper 
 and lead. 
 
 It seems to me that what the company asks is reasonable and fair from any stand- 
 point, and I have to ask as a personal favor that you will use your influence with the 
 committee to have our request granted. I may add that favorable action of the tar- 
 iff committee on our request is a matter of considerable interest to me pecuniarily, 
 and if you can assist mo iu this matter, I shall feel under obligations to you. 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Henry C. Wilkek. 
 Hon. George AcAMg, 
 
 Bouse of Sepreaentatives. 
 
 TIN IN NORTH CAROLINA. 
 
 New York, March 13, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : Representing to a large extent that tin-bearing region of North Carolina 
 in the counties of Cleveland and Gaston, and most of the work done there carried on 
 under my direction or by myself, I feel justified in calling your attention to the fol- 
 lowing facts : 
 
 The explorations by A. R. Le Donx, of New York, and myself since February, 1888, 
 have demonstrated conclusively the occurrence of tin ore in North Carolina in such 
 quantities that under favorable conditions there can be no doubt of its commercial 
 value to the people of the United States. 
 
 These tiu ores are found to occur in a formation varying from 1 to 8 miles in width 
 and extending 28 or more miles in length. One hundred veins are now known, found 
 to course in different directions and parallel groups. These veins vary in thickness 
 from a foot up to ledges more than CO feet, and some of the larger size have beeu 
 traced for miles in length. As a rule the tin-mining operations of the world show 
 that the average amount of tin obtained from each ton of vein material mined and 
 treated is very small, probably not exceeding l-J per cent. 
 
 In England they work ores in some of the Cornwall mines (see Chambers' Ency- 
 clopedia) yielding not more than 10 pounds of cassiterite (oxyde of tin, and the only 
 ore of commercial importance) per ton, which at present can not be successfully 
 attempted anywhere in America. The reason of their success becomes apparent 
 when it is known that the Tin Mining Companies of Great Britain own their mines, 
 mills, furnaces, the railroads which transport their freight, the stores where their 
 miners trade, and then, with low wages and a contract system which this country has 
 not yet reached, they are enabled by a vast and powerful combination to produce 
 remarkable results. 
 
 Therefore, with a capital representing the accumulations of more than a century, 
 and in a country where the interest on money is much lower than in the United States, 
 an infant industry here is called upon to face a power which in view of rivalry has 
 the means to bring about temporarily, to say the least, disastrous results. 
 
 The result of my observations in North Carolina have led me to conclude that the 
 quantity of tin ore there giving au average yield of 1 per cent, metallic tin pracsi- 
 tically inexhaustible, and better results njay be expected. 
 
 Arrangements are now progressing both in this country and Europe for working 
 these mines. The formation, besides various shafts ranging from thirty to seventy 
 feet in depth, has been proven by boring to be continuous at a depth of about :?0b 
 feet below the surface. The tin region of North Carolina and that of the Black Hills, 
 South Dakota, I know from personal observation to be identical in character, and 
 the actual tin-bearing formation very nearly if not fully equal in extent, and there 
 is not a mineral expert capable of distinguishing the ores. In requesting Congress 
 therefore to establish a judicious duty on cassiterite, metallic tin, and tin-plate for a 
 term often or iifteen years, I do not think that my position is against the interests 
 of the people of the United States, for with au established production of tin in this 
 country the supply of the world will be increased, and a benefit to the consumer 
 beyond that which be now experiences will inevitably follow. Besides, no duty on or 
 taking the duty off of an article of commerce is no guaranty of cheaper goods or lower 
 prices. Temporarily, in order to destroy an incipient industry, prices may be lowered, 
 but Europeans have many times shown Americans that their power and ability to form 
 combinations lor gain has no superior, and to expect commercial generosity from them 
 is a visionary dream. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 John H. Purman, 
 Kings Mountain, N. C, 
 The Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. 
 
1200 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 TIN PLATES. 
 
 [See ante, page 92,] 
 STATEMENT OF HON. H. STUMP, OF MARYLAND. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiJsr. Mr. Stump, of Maryland, presents an article in opposition to the 
 increase of tne duty on tin-plate which he wishes incorporated in the record. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are these canned jjoods a vegetable product? 
 
 Mr. Stump. Yes, sir. This piiper I will tile contains statistics from the reports 
 published by the State of Maryland. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. Yours is an extensive canning region ? 
 
 Mr. Stump. It is, and it has been a growing industry for years. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it paclied for home or foreign markets ? 
 
 Mr. Stump. It is mostly going to the West. There are very few factories for making 
 cans in my county. The canning industry is confined mostly to the farmers. They 
 sell to brokers and commission merchants. 
 
 Mr. Gear. There are some people who pack for home consumption and others who 
 pack for foreign consumption ? 
 
 Mr. Stump. This is for American consurajjtion. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLi.v. From your direct observatioa and experience, do the people en- 
 gaged in this work believe that an increase of duty, such as is proposed here, would 
 injure the business? 
 
 Mr. Stump. It would injure the business very materially. It is a business in which 
 the farmer is very largely engaged. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much would the tax on tin at present amount to in the case of a 
 2-i)0und can ? 
 
 Jlr. Stump. That I could not say. 
 
 Mr. Flovfbr. The duty is 1 cent a pound. 
 
 Mr. Gear. It amounts to over 8 cents for a 3-ponnd can. 
 
 Jlr. Bayxe. I sujipose if our people should produce this tin they would supply the 
 jieople ? 
 
 Mr. Stump. Most assuredly; but we do not see thait there is any visible supply in 
 this country. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Your argument is to take the tax off. 
 
 Mr. Stump. Yes, sir; we want it cheaper. Our working people want it cheaper, 
 and every man needs it cheaper. It not only goes into the canning industrj', but 
 into every household. We want it not only for ourselves, but for all the people. 
 
 Mr. Gbak. You think it would be policy to produce it if we could ? 
 
 Mr. Stump. Most assuredly. Our interest is to get it as cheaply as possible. 
 
 Hon. WILLIA3I McKlNLET, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee : 
 In behalf of the canning industry I respectfully ask to have submitted the follow- 
 ing statistics compiled in 1882 by the canning interests in Harford County, State of 
 Maryland, and setting forth some reasons why the taritf on tin-plate should not be 
 increased, and I request that the same be printed amongst the proceedings of yoirr 
 honorable committee. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Herman Stump. 
 
 statistics of the canning industry in MARYLAND. 
 
 It is a matter of interest, in connection with the i)ropo8ed increase of taritt' on tiu- 
 pl.ate, that Harford County, Md., during the seas(m of 1882, packed over l,(iOO,000 
 cases, or 38,400,000 cans, of hermeticaUy sealed goods. The pack was distributed as 
 follows: Tomatoes, 1,000,000 cases, or 24,000,000' cans; sugar-corn, .^)00,000 cases, or 
 12,000,000 cans; miscellaneous articles, as peaches, pears, apples, peas, beans, and 
 pumpkins, about 100,000 cases, or 2,400,000 cans. 
 
 This was the output of 300 factories, giving employment to about 16,000 persons. 
 ConUningour attention to the tomato and corn pack alone, the raw material to pro- 
 duce the 1,500,000 cases, or 36,000,000 cans, required the product of 10,000 acres of to- 
 ru;itoes and 5,000 acres of sugar-corn, involving an outlay for agricultural labor of 
 $200,000. In making the 36,000,000 cans there were consumed 130,000 boxes of tin, 
 requiring an outlay of |l:i5,0i)0 lor labor in this branch of the industry, while the labor 
 of jjreparing the vegetMliles, filling thecans, processing, boxing, and shipping necessi- 
 tated a further outlay of |900,000; 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1201 
 
 Such, liiiefly, is a statement of the canning industry of a little corucr in the .State 
 •of Maryland, and does not touch upon the indnstry in other parts uflhe State. Vet 
 from these figures an idea- may he formed of the importance of this {;rt',al and flour- 
 ishing industry, not only in Maryland, but throughout the whole extent of the coun- 
 try, the success, nay, the very ex.istence of which depends absolutely upon the cheap- 
 ness of tin-plate. 
 
 Tin-plate is the only material yet discovered that is adapted to the purpose of pre- 
 serving food hermetically sealed for an indefinite period. 
 
 The properties that tit it for this purpose are its lightness, its cleanliness, its non- 
 corrosiveuess, the tacility with which it may be transported without breakage, and 
 its cheapness. These qualities not only adapt it to the canning business, but make 
 it an indispensible material in the manufacture of household articles of general util- 
 ity and necessity. When it is considered that tin-plate is an article that can never 
 be manufactured to any great extent in this conntry, and that it is an iudisYienaable 
 raw material in so many industries of the greatest iruportauce, the proposed increase 
 in the tariff on that article seems not to be protective, but prevemive ; not to foster 
 liome industry, but to suppress it. 
 
 Turning again to Harford County and her canning industry, we can see the effect of 
 taritt' npon her business. As we have said before, to manufacture the cans used in 
 the pack of 1882 there were consumed 130,000 boxes of tin, upon which there was 
 paid to the General Government a tariff of fl.23 per box, or, in round numbers, 
 lldO.OOO. If the proposed increase is adopted, this sum will be raised to |-260,000, 
 making the cost of every dozen No. 3 cans, the most common size, 4| cents more than 
 at present. 
 
 The present county levy for all her internal expenses is only $80,000. The proposed 
 tariff will require an outlay of more than three times this amount. Can-makers esti- 
 mate that in every box of tin of 112 pounds there are 23 pounds of waste, which is of 
 no use whatever and often involves expense in its removal. Harford County now 
 pays a duty on this waste of $32,000. If the tariff be increased as proposed it will be 
 $59,000. 
 
 When a consumer buys a can of tomatoes or corn the greatest item of expense to 
 him is the can, which, when he has once removed the contents, is to all intents and 
 purposes an absolute waste. It is merely an envelope for the goods, and when it has 
 fulfilled that purpose it is not only no lo-ngerof use, but becomes almost a nuisance. 
 Now, therefore, when the Government pdaces a tariff on tin used in the manufacture 
 of cans, it places a taiiff on food and assumes a position which no advocate of pro- 
 tection will defend. 
 
 It is a fact well known that the greiat market for canned goods is the center of 
 those mining and manufacturing interests that it ever has been and ever should be 
 the object of the Government to protect. Furthermore, their compactness and the 
 convenience with which they can be transported make canned goods the only avail- 
 able article of food in the Far West, where the presence of provisions in this shape 
 makes many a desert habitable. 
 
 To increase the tariff on these articles (and the revenue does not demand it) is to 
 increase the cost of living to the employfeof mines, factories, furnaces, and railroads, 
 and an increase of living necessitates an increase of wages, a consequent increase of 
 the cost of production of every article that requires the employment of labor, and 
 more particularly of those articles that need Government protection. 
 
 We therefore protest against the proposed incirease of the tariff to 2 cen ts per pound 
 for the following reasons : 
 
 (1) It does not afford a protection to industry, and is indefensible upon that 
 ground. 
 
 (2) It is really an obnoxious duty on raw material. To increase it is to perpetuate 
 a rank injustice. 
 
 (3) If persisted in it will contract the canning industry to nearly half its present 
 proportions. 
 
 And, further, we would re.spectfully request that the taritf on tin-plate be reduced 
 'to a specific duty of one-half of 1 per cent, per pound, lor reasons which we shall en- 
 deavor to set forth : 
 
 Briefly stated, the history of the tariff on tin-plate is as follows : Previous to 1842 
 tin-plate was admitted free of duty. In that year a duty of 24 per cent, ad valorem 
 was imposed. In 1846 the duty was increased to 15 per cent. In 1857 it was reduced 
 to 8 per cent. By the act of March 2, 18{)1, a duty of 10 per cent, ad valorem was 
 imposed. In the next year, the expenses of the war necessitating an increase of rev- 
 enue, by the act of July 14, 1862, the duty was " tempor.irily " increased to 25 pel 
 cent, ad valorem. Although this increase was confessedly a temporary measure, 
 there was no relief had until the act of June 6, 1872, when the tariff on tin-plate was 
 reduced to an ad valorem duty of 15 per cent. 
 
 For the convenience of levying the duty, and without any LdeA of increasing t^^ 
 
 486 7e 
 
1202 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 tariff, by the act of February 8, 1875, tbe ad valorem duty of 15 per cent, was changed 
 to what was, at the jirice of tin then, an equivalent of 1.1 cents per pound. 
 
 Since that time the improvement in mauui'acture and competition in the trade have 
 caused a steady decline in the price of lin-plate, until it is now some .$3 a box less 
 than it was then, and the percentage of duty has, of course, increased in a corre- 
 sponding degree, until it is now equivalent to about 33 per cent, ad valorem ; an ex- 
 cess of more th.an lUQ per cent, over the duty contemplated by the act of 1875. 
 
 It is found that the average price of tin per box for the six years since 1875 is about 
 $4. Reckoning a duty of 15 per cent, ad valorem on this average, we have what is 
 equivalent to a specific duty of about one-half of 1 cent per poujid. Since this was the 
 duty contemplated by the act of 1875, we deem it not unreasonable to request that 
 it be restored. 
 
 We have endeavored to show that tin is a raw material in important industries, 
 and should be as free as possible from duty on that account. 
 
 In so doing we do not wish to be understood as saying that it is not desirable to en- 
 courage the manufacture of tin in this country, if it is possible. If there are parties 
 who desire to make this article in the United States we do not stand in their way. 
 But if they find that it can not be done profitably at present prices, and they come to 
 you and ask for an increase of the tariff in order that they may make a profit, we say 
 no ; do not increase the tariff on the whole quantity of tin consumed in this country 
 for the sake of what little may be made here, but rather pay a premium to these 
 manufacturers for what they produce, and let the great body of consumers, who are 
 of a vast deal more importance, have their canned food and their kitchen utensils as 
 cheap as possible. 
 
 Before concluding this subject, permit us to call attention to the influence of the 
 canning industry upon farming in the East and South; and we shall again refer to 
 Harford County as the example with which we are best acquainted. 
 
 This industry was commenced here about ten years ago, and has advanced, with- 
 out a check, to its present splendid proportions. During that time farm land in those 
 parts of the county where canning is carried on most extensively has nearly doubled 
 in value ; the acreage of tillable land has increased; more fertilizer is used ; more 
 labor is bestowed upon crops, and there is a resulting increase in yield; labor is bet- 
 ter paid and is in such demand that the cities are largely drawn upon in the busy 
 season to supply the deficiency ; in short, what used to be a dull " root hog or die" 
 existence has become a pleasant and profitable occupation.' 
 
 Land that ten years ago was out of cultivation because our farmers conld not com- 
 pete with the great West in the raising of wheat and corn, now produces, in profit- 
 able abundance, crops of a kind better adaj)ted to thickly settled conniiunities. And 
 what we say here of Harford County applies, in a degree, to the whole State of Mary- 
 land, and will, at no distant day, apply equally to the whole South, for it is in the 
 South that this industrj' w^jn gyentuallj' find its abiding place. The temperate cli- 
 mate, the long season, and the fertility of tbe soil, combined with the abundance and 
 cheapness of labor, will eventually attract capital in that direction. 
 
 This canning industry is a boon to the Atlantic States that can not easily be calcu- 
 lated. While the West is producing wheat and corn so abundantly and cheaply, as 
 at present, there is nothing left for the Eastern farmer to do but to turn his atten- 
 tion to those crops that yield ajirofit, but in which the West can not or does not care 
 to compete, on account of the great amount of hand labor in vol veil. 
 
 The raising of crops of fruits and vegetables, is peculiarly of this character, but 
 this could not be carried on to any great extent except in the immediate vicinity of 
 cities and towns, were it not for the canning industry, which steps in, prepares these 
 articles for immediate use, and envelopes them in an air-tight wrapper of tin, by 
 means of which they can be transported to the most distant markets and kept indef- 
 initely ; thus preserving the most perishable products of the summer for winter con- 
 sumption. This not only applies to fruits and vegetables but fish, poultry, meat, 
 etc., and aids the producers of these articles in like manner. In this industry the 
 United States has a virtual monopoly. 
 
 France is the only competitor that this country now has in the production of 
 canned goods ; but she is so far behind that she can hardly bo termed a rival. With 
 exceiition of pease, sardines, and condensed milk, none of the products of French 
 packers are imported into this country, and in most foreign countries, with exception 
 of the articles named, American canned goods hold their supremacy. 
 
 We have run hurriedly over the ground covered by the canning business, in order 
 that it may be seen what far-reaching interests are involved in this matter of the 
 taritt'on tin-plate. We hope that the wisdom of Congress will not take a too con- 
 tracted view of this question, but will give every interest involved its due consid- 
 eration in making its decision. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1203 
 
 STATEMENT OF GEORGE FRIES & CO. 
 
 Philax>elphia, January 2, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sirs : We desire to call your attentiou to the incorrect statements made by 
 W. C. Cronemyer in bis hearing before the Ways and Means Committee, December 
 '27, 1889, in regard to tin-plates. We note the statement that in 1872, when his firm 
 commenced to make tin-plates, the price was |12, and when in 1886 it had fallen to $4 
 tbey ceased making same. This is not a fair or just comparison. He talses a price in 
 1872 for ordinary tin-plates, which may have been quoted, and there may have been some 
 small lots sold, but not in any great quantity. In this year prices were very much 
 inflated on the other side as well as in this country, owing to the impetus given to 
 the iron trade about tbe time of the Franco-Prussian war. 
 
 In the year 1886 it is well known that all iron and steel were at the lowest prices 
 ever known in the iron trade, and in this year all kinds of iron industries were more 
 or less stopped and paralyzed, and the duty had nothing to do with the matter in this 
 case. 
 
 We note that he claims that it cost $5.50 to make a box of tin-plate, while in Eng- 
 land it could be produced at $2.25 per box less, the difference, he says, being attribu- 
 table to difference of cost of labor. He makes this assertion of there being this dif- 
 ference but shows no facts to prove that this is the difference in cost (that is taking 
 his asserted English cost and the cost he states it will cost to produce same here.) 
 He further says nothing whatever about the present duty, freight, etc., which are 
 other incidental expenses, which amount to $1.40 per box, and this is certainly repre- 
 sented in this difference, and must be taken account of somewhere, therefore labor 
 here is protected to that extent, and wages are correspondingly higher to that extent. 
 The difference he claims of $2.25 is not correct. The ordinary tin-plates can not be 
 produced at the price he names from the fact that the English tin-plate workmen are 
 getting tirst-class wages, equal to any given here for the same class of equal work. 
 Mr, Cronemyer's comparison should be made, and the difference, if any, should be be- 
 tween the cost to-day to make a box of plates in England and the cost here, and not 
 to take an English cost at a time when things there are at their lowest ebb, and a 
 price here when everything is active and higher. 
 
 Mr. Cronemyer has undoubtedly taken the lowest prices that plates were ever sold 
 at in England. The ordinary grades, such as are used by fruit packers, etc., can not 
 be had to-day at less than $:{.75 to $4 per box in England, to which should be added 
 the duty, freight, insurance, etc., equal to $1.40 pev box; hence at $5.50 cost here, 
 you will note that f he pri ce would be about the same, owing to the protection already 
 existing. At the i)resent rate of duty there is no reason why tin-plates, if parties 
 want to Dialie tbeui, should not be made, and the circular, issued by the Pittsburgh 
 parties who exhibited at the exposition held in October in Pittsburgh, prayed for a 
 higher duty, but at the close of same they stated that tin-plates could be made at a 
 profif, even at the pre.seut duty. They further stated that the tin-plate industry 
 would supiKPi t a number of people nearly equal to the population of New York City. 
 This is simply luilierous, and needs no further comment. In this connection we 
 would state that the number of men employed in the manufacture of tin-plate in 
 England and Wales is not quite 00,000, and 15ngland supplies the whole world, hence 
 as we have above stated, yon will note the absurdity of Mr. Cronemyer's claim that 
 the tin-plate industrv would sujiport a population of nearly as large as New York 
 City. 
 
 He neglects, howevci-, to state the number of men now employed in the various in- 
 dustries in which tin-plate is manipulated in this country, which number is over a 
 million; how fully one-half of this number would find that their employment would 
 be gone if the dut.y was increased to sucb an enormous extent, as so many of these 
 industries would be annihilated, and tin-plates could not be used. Every one is 
 aware of how tin plates are used by the packing interests in the putting up of 
 canned goods, these goods being necessary in certain sections of our country. He 
 neglects to state how the growing export trade of our canned goods, fruit, meats, etc., 
 would be curtailed, if not destroyed, and how a great deal of the farm produce now 
 packed would have to go to waste, and instead of millions of money coming in to 
 enrich this country, other countries would reap this advantage. It is simply the aim 
 of a few to get rich at the expense of the many. Why are not tin-plates made at the 
 present- duty, which they say can be done, and the fact demonstrated that they can 
 be made, and that it is possible for the creation of tin-plate work before it is asked 
 for such an onerous and burdensome tax of 2^ cents per pound to be put on tin-plates. 
 
 No demand is made except by a few who want a monopoly. Tin plate is a raw 
 material, and the duty should be made less rather than increased. We may add here, 
 to give some idea ot the amount of tin used in the cauuing of vegetables and fruit, 
 that in the city «f Baltimore alone there are over 600,000,000 cans made in a year. 
 
1204 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Hn further states that in 1886 his firm had bfOM. oliliged to give up making tin- 
 plates on account of the low prices, and that after their competition had been with- 
 drawn prices had gone up. He does not state the ivn.l reason why they ceased makiug 
 tliis, which was no doubt owing to the low prices of all kinds of iron, not only in this 
 country but all over the world at that time. To show that prices did not advance be- 
 cause they withdrew, we annex the following prices in England from ISTcl tolbHQ, 
 inclusive.' This covers a period of eight years previous to the time be states they 
 ceased making and three years afterwards. We also give the cost of what plates 
 would be hero withtheduty paid, freight, insurance, etc. Please note prices did not 
 advance on and after 18813, as per his statement. 
 
 
 Cost in 
 England. 
 
 Cost here 
 
 (duty, 
 
 freight, etc., 
 
 added). 
 
 
 Cost in 
 England. 
 
 Cost here 
 
 (duty, 
 
 freight, etc., 
 
 added). 
 
 
 $3.80 
 6.25 
 5.50 
 4.00 
 4.18 
 4.00 
 
 $5.20 
 6.65 
 6.90 
 5.40 
 5.58 
 5.40 
 
 1884 
 
 • $3. 63 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 3.60 
 3.75 
 
 $5.02 
 
 1879 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 4.03 
 
 
 4.80 
 
 
 1887 
 
 4.90 
 
 1882 
 
 1888 
 
 5 00 
 
 
 1889 
 
 5.15 
 
 
 
 
 Add on the enormous duty as proposed and the cost of all foods, preserved or packed 
 in tin-plates, tin roofs, cooiking utensils, workiugmen's dinner kettles, and all other 
 articles in which tin-plates are used is increased in price, and hence the purchasing 
 power or capacity in money of the workingraau and ail others is reduced, and thus 
 proportionately is reduced the wages of the peopli', including those who would find 
 employment in the industries in wiiich tin-plate is at present used. ,Sneh an advance 
 as the one proposed, viz, of 150 per cent., would make the duty, freight, etc., on ordi- 
 nary tin-plate $3.02 per box, instead of |1.40 pr-r box, while on other plates it would 
 show a still larger amount, and would be tripled, cjuadrupled, quintupled, etc. 
 
 Mr. Cronemyer says nothing whatever on one point, and it is a matter of parauionnt 
 importance and should be considered, and that is what is to become of tiie probable 
 influx of foreign Welsh labor provided the enormous duty of 2| cents per pound is 
 put on tin-plates. This result is sure to follow, tor no law, labor or contract law, can 
 j)revent or hinder it. The contract labor law will only theoretically prevent Ameri- 
 can manufacturers from importing Welshmen, and American laborers would be left out 
 and entirel.y neglected. This has been the history of the pa.st in similar cases, and 
 will not differ in this case. 
 
 The number of men employed, as per our statement, via, 30,000, is obtained from 
 data furnished to-day, and represents the number of men of all kinds engaged in the 
 manipulation of tin-plates from iron and steel b.ars. 
 
 We state that Mr. W. C. Cronemyer, in a circular issued Sejdember 26, 1889, asserts 
 that tin-plates can be made at the present rate of duty and sold with profit .-it the 
 present selling prices. This circular is in our pusses.sion and we tan produce same 
 if necessary. 
 
 We hope that this matter will be carefully considered, and that no increase what- 
 ever will be made in the present duty on tin-plate. 
 Yonrs, truly.. 
 
 George Fries & Co. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 STATEMENT OF T. L. BUNLING. 
 
 Gentlemen: The New York State Canned Goods Packers' Afsociation, at a meet 
 ing held in .Syracuse, N. Y., December 10, by a unanimous vote autlunized its presi- 
 dent to draught a memorial to your honortilile committee asking lor the i'c|;eal of Iho 
 present duty on tin-plates. 
 
 Politically, three-iburlbs of our association are in accord with the present ]iarty 
 in power, while our membership .generally stands commilted to the ]irineiples of pro- 
 tection as applieil to the needs of infant industries, or the encouragement of prom- 
 ising adventures. 
 
 We are of one voice, however, in deprecating the application of tiiat theory totbe 
 case of tin-plates, an industry at present unborn, and one which judged by the ex- 
 periments of the past, promises too great an outlay of bounty for the possible 
 benefiU. 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 1205 
 
 There are upwards of seventy large packing concerns in this State, located for the 
 most part in rural precincts, and the outgrowth principally of a combination between 
 farmers, merchants, and public spirited citizens. These classes respectively see in 
 the successful conduct of a cannery a most jiowerfal factor in local development. 
 
 The farmer is furnished a home market for his products, the merchant is benefited 
 through the employment of labor and the protitablo market furnished his farmer 
 patrons, while community reaps the reward of an active, money-dispensing home in- 
 dustry. 
 
 It is not strange that au industry which counts among its beneficiaries, every ele- 
 ment needful in making a community prosperous, should breed an unbealthful con- 
 tagion in stimulating competition, and hence it is, that every hamlet is bidding for 
 a canning factory, with the inevitable result of overstocking the market with canned 
 products forcing failure and collapse, and regulating the most economic concerns to 
 a meager profit. 
 
 Failures and disu.sters will continue until cousumption overtakes production. Con- 
 sumption will increase in direct ratio as cost of production diminishes. 
 
 This being the Ktatus of the canned goods industry in this State our people are 
 amazed at the attempted enforcement of a policy with reference to tin-plates, that 
 would not only prevent a diminution of cost in canned products, but seeks to increase 
 their cost. 
 
 The New York packers are a unit in calling for the repeal of the present duty on 
 plates and in opposing any additions thereto for the following reasons : 
 
 First. We are opposed to the enforcement of any economy that tends to advance the 
 price of a food product of domentic manufacture. 
 
 We hold that any policy that cheapens the cost of living to the laborer is at xiar 
 with a policy which seeks to raise the wages of labor. 
 
 Second. Believing that the maximum price for canned products has been reached, 
 and that the expectation and demaod of the trade is for a lower range of price, any 
 additions to the cost of tin-plates necessitating naturally higher price for products 
 would so control consumption as to seriously cripple the industry. 
 
 Third. Tin-plate aa it applies to the uses of the canner is a raw material, and re- 
 quires a large outlay of domestic manipulation to prepare it for use. We believe 
 that under the popular theory of free raw material we should be allowed tin-plates 
 free. 
 
 Fourth. Cans represent fully one-third the cost of canned products as placed upon 
 the markets, owing to the fact that they can not be used a second time, the percent- 
 age of tariff charged against canned goods is greater than that levied against any 
 other industry lor its use of tin-plates. This disproportion of tariff assessment is 
 still further augmented through the fact tl-at the duty being specific it falls as heavy 
 per pound on the cheap grades of plate, used by canners, as on the better grades, 
 which is a most unjust discrimination. 
 
 Fifth. The increased capital used in the canning business incident to the tariff is 
 aburden to the packer. While the duty which amounts to 6 or 7 cents jier dozen is 
 charged against the goods and is paid ultimately by the consumer, it has to be ad- 
 vanced by the packer when ho buys his stock of plates or cans. The packers of the 
 State of New York alone have used in their business the last season $300,000 more 
 capital than would have been needed under a free tin-plate regime. 
 
 Sixth. There is no promise on the part of the advocates of more protection on 
 plates that the cheaper grades such as are nsed by canners could be manufactured in 
 this country under the wildest protection, their computation being made invariably 
 on the costly grades. 
 
 . Summarizing, permit us to say the advocates of an increase of duty on plates as- 
 sert that prices have continually advanced on that commodity since the failure of our 
 domestic attempt in 1886. The reverse is true: Penlan grades have fallen from $5.C5 
 per box (average price) for 1879 to $4.35 per box average price for 1889. The average 
 price on the same grades during 1884 and 1885, during the pendency of the American 
 attempt at manufacturing plates, was|4.!'>0; the average price for 1889 was $4.35. 
 
 D. A. Wells in his last book entitled "Recent EconoiMC Changes" establishes the 
 same fact, and he further proves that the German attempt to foster the tin-plate iu- 
 dnstry through almost restrictive protection has signally failed. 
 
 Exports of tin-plates having decreased and imports increased, as shown by the 
 following statistics : 
 
 Year. 
 
 Produc- 
 tion. 
 
 Imports. 
 
 Exports, 
 
 1878 . 
 1886 •. 
 
 Tons. 
 8,582 
 4,892 
 
 Tons. 
 
 R, :)07 
 
 5,798 
 
 Tons. 
 1, «nij 
 180 
 
1206 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Wells also sbo ws that while South Wales enjoys a practical monopoly of the tin- 
 plate business, it has brought nothing of prosperity to their industry, the period 
 from iy74 to IsSy beiugone continuous decline, and mauy failures was the result. 
 
 We submit also, that as the labor costs in a box of B. V. cokes is less than 50 cents, 
 and as the amount of tin nsed is ouly 4 pounds iier bos and that both labor and 
 tin would have to be imported in order to any promise of immediate success; that 
 it is no less than an economic abortion, and that it does not convey on its face 
 the full intent of the monopoly manipulated back of it. The consumers of York 
 State canned products have paid |l,bOO,000 since 1883 to foster an infant that as yet 
 is only begotten in the speculative brain of syndicate holders of fancy mining stocks 
 or millionaire mill owners, who fancy their x^roflts on steel-plates jeopardized. 
 
 We insist that the two thousand canneries in this country scattered through the 
 productive fields ot every State, consuming over $30,000,000 of farm products yearly, 
 and giving indirect employment to over 2,000,000 unskilled Labor, and furnishing a 
 most wholesome article of food to the great consuming public, should not be handi- 
 capped in their development by an annual tax against their products of over $1,000,000. 
 
 We believe that our case is so unanswerable in point of equity that yonr honor- 
 able body can not refuse to either give us free plates, or give canners the rebate ad- 
 vantages now allowed on export canned products. "^ 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 T. L. BUNLING, 
 
 President New York State Canned Goods Packers' Assooiation. 
 The Committee ok Ways and Means. 
 
 MEMORIAL OF VIRGINIA FRUIT PACKERS. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means of the Souse of Representatives: 
 
 Gentlemen: The undersigned, a special commitiee duly appointed by the Vir- 
 ginia Fruit and Vegetable Packers' Association, hereby presents for your considera- 
 tion certain facts connected with the tariff on imported tin-plates, with the hope that 
 in view of the reasons urged, not only will the proposed increase of duty be aban- 
 doned, but, on the contrary, that this article will be placed on the free list. 
 
 Mainly by reason of the low prices of tin-plates which have prevailed during the 
 past few years, the business of canning foods has grown to immense proportions, and 
 as a consequence much capital is employed therein. To increase the cost of the raw 
 material (the various tin cans used may thus be termed) by the imposition of a higher 
 duty on tin-plates would necessarily restrict the output of wholesome articles of food, 
 throw out of employment many thousands of families dependent on this industry for 
 their means of living, and more than all, increase the cost of canned foods to the 
 laboring classes who are the principal consumers and are least able to meet the extra 
 tax. It is respectfully submitted that it would be unwise legislation to create an ar- 
 tificial price on an article for which the consumer has no use, on the plea that by so 
 doing there would spring into existence an industry which has been unsuccessfully 
 attempted in the past and under circumstances more favorable then than now. 
 
 Probably the majority of canned goods packers believe in protection as a genera 
 principle, but they are not so blind in their belief as to calmly contemplate the crip- 
 pling of a vast business already firmly established and steadily growing, for the sake 
 of building up another which can only exist by means of a subsidy and whose success 
 is extremely donbtful. Would it not be necessary also, in order to establish tin- 
 plate works in this country, to import the skilled labor from Wales, the only place 
 in the world where the manufacture has been satisfactorily prosecuted. And would 
 not this be in direct conflict with " the alien contract labor law?" If this law is 
 modified in favor of our class of manufacturers it would be a dangerous precedent, 
 the evils of which it is not difficult to imagine. 
 
 Three per cent, of the papulation of this country, it. is estimated, are employed in 
 the various branches connected with the canned goods industry, viz, box-makers, 
 can-makers, label-printers, fruit and veget.ible growers, fishermen, etc. The tendency 
 of permitting tin-plates to enter this country free of allduty wonld be to still further 
 increase the percentage employed, besides enabling exporters to find a foreign mar- 
 ket for their canned products, a matter which under the present systSm of drawbacks, 
 is too unprofitable an undertaking. 
 
 Several other reasons might be advanced in favor of the repeal of the present duty 
 but the foregoing are deemed amply suflSoient to men of unbiased minds. 
 Yonr obedient servant, 
 
 Arthur Gray, 
 8ptti»l Committtt ef the Virginia Fruit and Vegetable Packers' Association. 
 
REVISION Of THE TARIFF. 1'20? 
 
 MEMORIAL OF OHIO MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of the State of Ohio, engaged in the manufacture of 
 tin-ware and other industries in which tin is used, respectfully protest against any 
 increase of the tarilf on tin-plate, and ivish to present the following objections to any 
 such action : 
 
 Tin-plate obtains its value from the expense of its production, but so far as its 
 use applies to manufactuies in this country it is a raw material. Previous to the 
 war between the North and the South there was not a box of tin-plate manufactnred 
 in the United States. During the war, when the price was high, a factory was estab- 
 lished near Pittsburgh where tin-plate was made ; but after the close of the war and 
 the consequent decline in prices it was abandoned. In 188^ a company endeavored to 
 start afresh the mill near Pittsburgh, and since that time Congress has been repeat- 
 edly urged to increase the tariff to 2i cents per pound. It was under the low prices 
 of the last fifteen years that the tin manufacturing industries of the conntry received 
 their wonderful impetus, and the fact was demon.strated that tinned x'lates as to this 
 country were and are raw materials to every intent and purpose, and as such should 
 not be taxed. On the amo\int imported in 1888 (some 655,000,000 i^ouuds, worth 
 about; f 19,000,000) was paid a duty of over $6,500,000 at the present rate of duty. If 
 it shall be advanced to 2^ cents, then the amount of duty we shall be required to pay 
 will be over 114,000,000. 
 
 Tin is the article from which milk pails and pans, dinner-pails, bread-pans, cook- 
 pans, pie-pans, wash-basins, colanders, strainers, skimmers, graters, teapots, coffee- 
 pots, vegetable cans, fruit cans, fish cans, meat cans, and a multitude of other indis- 
 pensable articles of general use, are made. No known substitute exists which could 
 be made to take its place in over nine-tenths of the uses to which it is put. 
 
 For roofing purposes, tin is by far the best material known. If tin plates were ad- 
 mitted duty free, they would be so much cheapened that they would soon supersede 
 shingles. Even with thepresentdutyof over 33 per cent, immense quantities are used 
 for roofing purposes. Because of its present and long existing cheapness, industries 
 of great magnitude never known before have sprung into existence, giving employ- 
 ment to armies of men and women and millions of capital, conferring the blessings of 
 cheap and wholesome food in spicy variety upon the people of all classes, as well as 
 shelter for their homes. 
 
 To increase the tax is a direct assault upon the tinware manufactures, canuing 
 goods industries, and tin rooting industries of the United States. In the stamping and 
 japanning works of the country, $12,000,000 are invested, and over 25,000 hands are 
 employed. In the canning industries — the salmon works of Oregon, llie fruit preserv- 
 ers of California, Delaware, Michigan, and Illinois, the veget;ablo canning works of 
 the North, every township north of Mason's and Dixon's line, the oyster canning works 
 of Baltimore, the lobster packers of Maine, and the canners of dairy products in New 
 York — over $50,000,000 is invested and over 40,000 hands are employed. In these in- 
 dustries alone over $10,000,000 worth of tin-plate was consumed last year. 
 
 In the canning of oil f*r export, $3,500,000 worth of tin-plate was used. We have 
 not the data of the amount of caj)ital invested, or the number of hands employed in 
 the two other indnstries, tin roofing and decorated boxes for drug sundries. 
 
 As the tarilf duty now stands it is a tax upon the consumers of all of the articles 
 we have heretofore mentioned which are made out of tin-plate. If the duty shall 
 be increased we manufacturers of these articles must add the additional tax to the 
 lirice of the goods we sell and thus recover it from the people, or we ujust close up our 
 business. In some instances we shall be compelled to add more to the price of an ar- 
 ticle than the increased tariff itself, because of the wastage there necessarily is in the 
 m.-inufactnre of tin goods, the tax being upon that which is lost as well as that upon 
 which is converted into useful articles. To increase the tax at this time is to unsettle 
 the conditions of our business for a period of years, until it shall be demonstrated 
 whether, even with the increased duty, tin-plate can be manufactured in this country. 
 Adding to the present duty l-J cents per pound will raise the price of 14 by 20 plate 
 from $1.25 to $1.40 per box. To manufacture tin-plate in this country the capitalists 
 who proposed to do so before imported some Welsh plate-makers — no duty on them, 
 either. They may have to do the same thing again. 
 
 In the tin roofing business many mechanics and poor people, laborers, etc., are ena- 
 bled to build small cheap houses and roof them chiefly with terne plates at from $4. .50 
 to .$5 per square. The cost would be almost double If not qirito. 
 
 We claim that it is unfair for Congress to legislate in the interest of a few capital- 
 ists who desire to re-establish a business which has heretofore failed, andatthe same 
 time cripple a great number of factories already established, to endanger the em- 
 ployment of thousands of tinners, roofers, and other workers in tin. The piioes of 
 
1208 
 
 JSEVISIOU OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 tin have fallen since 1874 to 50 per cent, of what they were tteti. The amount used 
 in the UnitL-d States has increased ftom a little over 1,800,000 cwt. in 1874 to a little 
 over 5,800,000 owt. in 1888, prices being a little higher now on account of the in- 
 creased price in iron. 
 
 Besides the injmious eflects upon the tin manufacturing industries of the country, 
 increasing the tax upon tin-plate must have a bad effect upon the dairy interests of 
 the country and upon the canning interests of the country. 
 
 We respectfully submit that it would be far better for the established industries of 
 this country euj^aged in tliis business, and for the people of the country who use and 
 consume tin-wan-," that the duty should be taken otf entirely than that there should 
 be any increase.in it. 
 
 [Here follow numerous signatures.] 
 
 VIEWS OF J. M. MBLLOY & SON. 
 
 Philadblphia, Pa., January 6, 1890, 
 
 Gentlemen : We note that there is an effort now being made to increase the duty 
 on tin plates, which effort is beiug made by parties who, to gain their ends, make 
 statements wliieli can not be borne out by facts. If there is to be any alteration in 
 the duty it should be made less than the present duty of 1 cent per pound. .Tin- 
 plate enters into so many varied industries in this country that to increase this duty 
 would be to annihilate many of them. The number of men given employment by 
 the varied uses to which tin-plate is put in this country would exceed by hundreds 
 of thousands the men who could be employed in the making of tin-plate in this 
 country, provided that all the tin consumed in this country could be made here. 
 
 We do not know whether the report in the Philadelphia Ledger is correct or not. 
 If Mr. Cronemeyer said before your committee what he is reported to have said in 
 that paper, he is so wrong we thought ii should be coutradicted ; otherwise some one 
 might be misled. If the gain to the counti'y and its citizens was not so much in favor 
 of not making tin-plate in this country, we would not trespass upon your valuable 
 time, but the wild statements made should be refuted. 
 
 Mr. Cronemeyer states that his firm had successfully manufactured tin-plate for 
 three years. Had he named the amount manufactured you would have instantly 
 seen that the quantity was so insignificant that you could not call it starting an in- 
 dustry. Manufacturing tin-plate is a very simple matter. There is hardly any limit 
 to the number of plates a well regulated works can turn out, as it is simply dipping 
 either iron or steel in melted tin, or mixture of tin and lead ; consequently the neces- 
 sary machinery is not very expensive. All the labor required on tin and terue plates 
 is put on them after they are in the shape of tin and terue plates. 
 
 We give you below a table showing the average price the merchants of New York 
 sold at during the following years. This is far better than the misleading prices laid 
 before you : 
 
 January .. 
 February . 
 
 March 
 
 April 
 
 May 
 
 June 
 
 July 
 
 August. - .. 
 September 
 October . - 
 November 
 December. 
 
 1884. 
 
 1885. 
 
 1886. 
 
 1887. 
 
 • 
 
 1888. 
 
 $4.75 
 
 $4.44 
 
 4.43 
 
 $4.24 
 
 $4.75 
 
 4.66 
 
 4.41 
 
 4.36 
 
 4. 25 
 
 4.79 
 
 4.66 
 
 4.39 
 
 4.38 
 
 4.24 
 
 4.74 
 
 4. 77* 
 
 4 36 
 
 4.43i 
 
 4.30 
 
 4.69J 
 
 4.7H* 
 
 4. 30 
 
 4.38 
 
 4 28 
 
 4.53 
 
 4. 7lii 
 
 4. -jg 
 
 4.33} 
 
 4.29 
 
 4.46 
 
 4.86 
 
 4.50 
 
 4. :«) 
 
 4.37 
 
 4.51 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.51 
 
 4.30 
 
 4.504 
 
 4.58 
 
 4.80 
 
 4. .51 
 
 4. & 
 
 4.46 
 
 4. O-.' 
 
 4,69 
 
 4.56 
 
 4. 26J 
 
 4.40i 
 
 4.47 
 
 4.60 
 
 4 52 
 
 4. 19J 
 
 4.. 55 J 
 
 4.29i 
 
 4.50 
 
 4.51 
 
 4.17 
 
 4.79 
 
 4.24 
 
 $4.2H 
 4.20i 
 4 22 
 4.28 
 4.27i 
 4.2.'i 
 4.25 
 4. --'SJ 
 4 32 
 4. 51i 
 4.73 
 
 The principal size of tin-plate is IC 14 by 20, 112 sheets to the box, and weighing 
 108 pounds net, and this size of cuke plate.s would we think amount to five-eighths 
 of all the plates imported. These are now being sold i'or ^JJ.tiO jier box at thirty 
 days ; duty amounts to .jil.08, freight 17 cents, insurance 2 cents, interest on account 
 of taking so long before the goods reach the market, consular certificate, custom- 
 house fees and charges hand cartage to warehouse, equal say 6 cents, amounting in 
 all to $1.33, which deducting from the $4.60, makes the goods net the Welsh maker 
 at present $3.27 j)er box. This is without allowing the merchant any profit, nor 
 allowing the one-half per cent, interest tor the thirty days' time given, nnd the price 
 of plates to-day is considerably higher than the average price for six years, as you 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 1209 
 
 can see Ijy lookiug at the table of prices. This leaves a protective duty of 40.7 per 
 cent. Of course when the price is lower, as it has been for such a longtime, the per- 
 centage of protection is higher. 
 
 A circular was issued September 26, 1889, dated Pittsburgh and signed by W. C. 
 Cronenieycr, secretary (we inclose herewith a copy for your perusal.) You will 
 notice they ask all patriotic people of both sexes to join them in requesting the duty 
 to be increased to 2^ cents per pound, and also make the remarkable statement that 
 the present duty is ample if they were not afraid of some organized importers giving 
 the goods to the consumers cheaper thau the trust they are endeavoring to form 
 would wish to soil at. This is a liberal request to make of the consumers, and the 
 organized importers exist only in their imaginative brains. Your honorable com- 
 mittee are good judges of the party wbo is spending the most time and money visit- 
 ing Washington for selfish ends by referring to the parties who appeared before you. 
 You know how well the tin-plate trust was represented before you, and we believe 
 yo.u have not henrd any one from the side of the many who are depending for their 
 support on tho cheapness of tin and terne plates; and we would not have raised oiir 
 humble protest if they had been satisfied with stating facts, as the consumers through- 
 out the laud had entire confidence in your not doing anything to so seriously annihi- 
 late such an immense industry; but by not contradicting the trust's wrong state- 
 ments we were afraid you might be misled, and as the consumers have no organiza- 
 tion at ijresent to look after their interests, we concluded to lay this letter before 
 you, and you can then get the facts from parties who are better posted than our- 
 selves. It does not admit of a doubt that it is not safe to leave the welfare of, say, 
 one million people to the mercies of a tin-plate trust. It seems queer that the repre- 
 sentatives of th(! proposed United States tin-plate trust should be so anxious to spend 
 their time ,aud money in visiting Washington to benefit other people. 
 
 The- cost of the machinery to make tin-plate is very inexpensive, and there seems to 
 be no reason why 40.7 per cent, should not be ample. Thefluctuatious in price in this 
 business are precisely like all others ; it depends upon the condition of the country, 
 strikes, scarcity of tonnage, etc., and was not regulated in any way by the small 
 amount of plates made by any Pittsburgh maker. From the best information we can 
 get, there are not over 28,000 people employed in Wales manufacturing tin and tome 
 plates from finished bars. This is far from making a city the size of New York, and 
 this number of people make all the tin-iilate consumed in the world, so it could not 
 take anything like that number to manufacture the amount of this raw material 
 worked up in tho United States. There are certain portions of the world where they 
 bend their whole energy to preparing certain raw materials. They could get labor 
 cheaper in Belgium and Germany, yet they have never successfully made tin-plate. 
 Germany makes nearly all the wire rods used in the world and England is one other 
 largest customers. This shows there are certain localities where they prepare certain 
 raw materials, and that other countries find it not profitalile to interfere with these 
 established customs, as the iieople of the s^iecial localities bend their entire energies 
 to it and soem to prefer making their different specialties to making more money at 
 other labor. 
 
 We give below the figures quoted November 31, 1886, in a speech by Mr. D. White- 
 house, of South Wales, showing tho wages paid tin and terne plate makers, and they 
 have advanced considerably since then. 
 
 Eight-liour shifts. — Rollermen, |11.84 per week, 30 cents per working hour ; doublers, 
 $9.60 per week, 24 cents per working hour ; furnaceman, §8.69 per week, 22 cents per 
 working hour; behinders (boys), $4.59 per week, 12 cents per working hour. 
 
 Ttvelve-hour shifts. — Shearers, $15.92 jier week, 38 cents per working hour; tinmen, 
 114.10 per week, 26 cents per working hour; washmen, $14.10 per week, 26 cents per 
 working hour ; drawers (boys), $4.79 per week, 9 cents per working hour. 
 
 At the time the tariff was reduced from 1.1 cent to 1 cen per pound, there was an 
 endeavor made to find out how many men were employed in actual labor on tin and 
 terne plates in the United States. This was a most difficult thing to arrive at, but 
 letters were sent to all the parties who work in tin-plate whose names were reg- 
 istered in any of the commercial books, inclosing a postal-card, asking them how 
 many hands they employed. Ou receipt of these postal-cards it was found that at that 
 time 380,000 hands wereemployed in the United States. A great many did not answer, 
 and of course the list was very incomplete, and we have no doubt there were at least 
 150,000 working in small shops that were not written to, and since that reduction of 
 duty the number of hands working in tin-plate hasincreased wonderfully. This only 
 represented the hands actually working iu tin and terne plates, and did not include 
 the others depending upon these which would more than double tho number. The ex- 
 porting of goods in tin-plate is now the most important trade this country has, and the 
 goods thus exported amounted in 1888, according to the statistics received from Wash- 
 ington, to |72,699,.553.60, and at the year ending June, 1888, there was $18,979,337 worth 
 of tin and terne plates imported into the United States, on which there was a duty 
 paid the Government of $6,349,466 ; making the value of tin-plate imported by the 
 
1210 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 United States less the duty $12,629,891, and not $35,000,000, as stated in the Pittsburgh 
 circular. 
 
 The great portion of the goods that are canned would otherwise go to waste, as it in 
 the only way that small growers have of realizing on the crops when they are un- 
 usually large ; thus you see canning goods is the most direct benefit to the largest 
 number of people in poor and moderate circumstances in the UnitedStates, as itsaves 
 goods that would otherwise go to waste ; and to increase the present duty seems to be 
 the most unnecessary hardship that can be inflicted on a country by its representa- 
 tives. 
 
 The above remarks are only in the interest of the workers in tin and terne plates, 
 but the consumers in canned goods and tin- ware should be considered. There are parts 
 of our country where the people depend almost entirely on canned goods for their liv- 
 ing, and you are asked to increase the duty on these people 1.50 per cent.; not to bene- 
 fit the people or to protect any established industry, but simply to tax these people 
 to create and enrich a trust. Kindly bear in mind that the poorest people are the 
 ones who use tin-ware for dinner-pails, tin-cups, etc. In the mining and lumber 
 districts hardly anything else is used. 
 
 There is no reason why the United States should have the monopoly in canned 
 goods that it now enjoys, as any of the European countries, such as France, Ger- 
 many, Italy, Austria, Holland, Australia, and India could raise fruit, and they would 
 not withdraw from the market when we had found out we had made a mistake in 
 driving such a lucrative trade away, simply for the sake of giving a few employment 
 at a little better wages than they are now receiving, and enriching the trust to 
 whatever they choose to exact from the people, and for every hand the trust would 
 employ it would throw out of employment thousands, and the Welshmen would 
 soon see that it was to their advantage to come to this country to seek employment, 
 and where would even the few hands now here who would find employment be bene- 
 fited ? By increasing the duty to any considerable extent would make the wrapper 
 cost more than some of the ingredients, such as tomatoes, which are so largely ex- 
 ported. 
 
 It seems suicidal to all the business interests of this country to increase the present 
 duty. Kindly take into consideration the greatly-increased cost to our own con- 
 sumers. 
 
 We now have a balance of $60,000,000 in our favor between the amount of money 
 we pay England and the amount of goods we export in tin cans, or, in other words, 
 $6 to $1, and we are not satisfied. Would any business house even consider such an 
 unwise step t If we refuse to take our small proportion of tin-plate from England 
 she is too careful of her people's interest not to seek another outlet for her tin-plate, 
 and would soon get some country to be willing to take one for six, and we would 
 then have a competitor for canned goods that would annoy us even if tin-plate was 
 made free. We once thought we had a monopoly on wheat, but now we have com- 
 petitors in southern Russia and India, whom we can not drive out. The only re- 
 maining good export trade we have is in goods that we export in cans ; consequently 
 we pray you will not allow that to be killed or trifled with. 
 We remain, yours, very truly, 
 
 J. M. Mblloy & Son. 
 
 The COMMITTKK ON WAYS AND MBANS. 
 
 [W. L. Lewis, president. W. C. Cronemeyer, secretary. B. F. Jenains, treasurer.! 
 
 [Tinned plate manufacturing annex to West Pennsylvania Exposition building.] 
 
 Pittsburgh, Pa., September 26, 1889. 
 Dear Sir: The plant erected at the west end of this building for the manufacture 
 of tin-plate (sheet iron and sheet steel coated with tin) is now in full operation. You 
 are cordially invited to call and examine the same. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 W. C. Cronbmeyer, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 This exhibit to which we call your attention is made for the ptirpose of demon- 
 strating to the citizens of the United States how one of the most universally used 
 liousehold articles is made. 
 
 The (so called) tinware which you use in your kitchen, the tin can in which you 
 y)nt up your fruit, the dinner bucket in which the workman carries his meal with 
 hini to bis place of work, are made from sheets of iron or steel. The sheets of iron or 
 steel are covered with a thin coat of tin (about 5 ponnds of tin to 100 pounds of iron) 
 to prevent oxidation. 
 
 Of this commodity there is consumed in this country about 350,000 tons annually, 
 
REVISION OF TriE TARIFF. 1211 
 
 at a value of $35,000,000, and if it were made in tliis country, several hundred thou 
 sand residents of the United States would gain a livelihood thereby. But while we 
 have all the facilities to make the same at home, the country has been prevented 
 from making this industry one of its own resources by an erroneous Treasury Depart- 
 ment decision twenty-five years ago when Mr. Fesaenden was Secretary of the United 
 States Treasury Department. 
 
 Id 1864 the government of our people adopted the policy of protection to home in- 
 dustries, and tin-plate (so called) was intended to be amongst the protected articles. 
 The clause relating to the same read, " Tin-plate and iron galvanized or coated with 
 any other metal (shall pay duty) at Hi cents per pound. " Whoever framed this sen- 
 tence knew exactly what was required and covered the requirements fully (as you 
 will readily see when you coite to observe the process of manufacture at our plant) ; 
 but Mr. Fessenden thought himself wiser than the Committee of Ways and Means of 
 Congress and decided that the above cited clause was wrong in punctuatiou and 
 blamed the engrossing clerk for making a mistake by putting a comma afterthe word 
 tin-plate, when he should have put it after the word iron, and in explanation added 
 that tin-plates as well as iron must be galvanized or coated (a second time) in order 
 to come under this provision, and that tinned and iron plates must be classed with 
 tin in sheets (pure tin) at 15 per cent, ad valorem. The component of chief value in 
 tin-plate, viz, iron or steel, being protected against foreign importation by a duty of 
 about 50 per cent, ad valorem, and the standard of wages in our iron and steel mills 
 being fixed according to such protective duty, the manufacturer of tinned iron and 
 steel plates was practically prohibited, and the whole trade drifted into the hands of 
 a few importing houses, who have had a monopoly of this trade ever since, and the 
 annual consumption of from $'20,000,000 to $35,000,000 worth of tinned plate has 
 passed through the hands of comparatively few persons who have got very rich 
 in this trade and who now use their accumulated wealth to prevent legislation in 
 favor of the home manufacture of this commodity. 
 
 To counteract and off-set the selfish greed of these importers is the aim of the 
 American Tinned Plate Association, and for that purpose it ha^ erected this plant to 
 awaken the interest of the public and to demonstrate that tin-i)lates can be made 
 here as well as anywhere in the world. And it is a fact, and we can prove it by figures, 
 that they can be made here and sold with profit at present selling prices; but if any 
 one worUd attempt the manufacture now he would share the same fate as those who, 
 tempted by the enormous prices which have at times been charged to the consumers 
 by the importers' monopoly, built works and at first made money, but soon found 
 that they could not withstand the pressure of the monopolists who had temporarily, 
 but long enough, reduced the price so lew that compeiitiou meant ruin. 
 
 This is the situation at present. It should be altered, and an adequate protective 
 duty, one that is in unison with the general protective policy of the country, must 
 be placed on tinned sheets of iron and steel, as well as untinned sheets of iron and 
 steel. 
 
 And now (if this little circular should fall in the hands of a patriotic American lady 
 or gentleman) we ask that you kindly give this question some study ; it is a patriotic 
 feeling and nothing else that instigates the members of this association. Will you 
 assist them ? If you desire any further facts and figures, address The American 
 Tinned Plate Ajisociation. 
 
 W. C. Ckonbmeykr, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 COMMBNTS ON CLRCULAB. 
 
 Yon will notice how inaccurately this circular is drawn, and how rose-colored it is 
 painted. They state 350,000 tons were imported for the year ending June, 1888, 
 which was very much the largest year, according to the Government statistics, which 
 we presume are as near correct as Mr. Cronenieyer ; there was imported to that date 
 28;!, 458 tons instead of 350,000 tons, and the value of the tin-plate Imported was 
 $12,629,891 instead of $35,000,000. They certainly should be able to tell the truth 
 nearer than one-third. They state that several hundred thousand inhabitants of the 
 United States would gain a livelihood thereby. Suppose we analyze this. We will 
 say that several hundred thousand people is 200,000, and, for the sake of argument, 
 we will say that one-half of the $12,629,891 would be the cost of material and the re- 
 maining half would be paid as wages ; this may be high or low, it is merely to show 
 what a good living the 200,000 would receive. This would give the laborer, whom 
 they are so anxious to have good wages, $31.58 per year; so you see while it looks 
 well in print it is rather hard on the laborers. 
 
 You will note that they state that the trade is drifting into a few importers' houses. 
 To satisfy yourselves what a misstatement this is, kindly write to every large city in 
 the United States, and find how many importers there are in each city. This extends 
 from Maine to Texas. The comparatively few persons whom they erroneously say 
 from $20,000,000 to $35,000,000 worth of tin-plate has passed through their hands is 
 
1212 EE VISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 possibly one hundred times greiiter tliau the number of firms who desire to make tin- 
 plate, as nearly all the larf;er iron lirms state they do not wish or can not conven- 
 iently make iron as thin as it is necessary to be made to be coated with tiu or tin and 
 lead, to be known as tiu and terue yilates. It would also be well if they would )iar- 
 ticularize who tlio firms are who have become rich, as it is a known fact that tin-plate 
 is sold on a smaller margin of profit than any other article in the United States, either 
 manufactured abroad or at home. 
 
 Would it uot bo well to ask Mr. Cronenicyer when there was any attempt made by 
 imjiorters or consumers of tin-plate to spend money to secure favorable legislation, 
 and then ask him how ranch the few firms who i)ropose to form the trust have beeu 
 assessed to enable them to tax the people at their options, said tax to be the law of 
 the land. It might be well to ask them why they call it the American Tin-Plate As- 
 sociation instead of trust ; we snjjpnsB the tin-plate trust will benefit the consumers 
 to the same degree that the sugar and other trusts have already done. It hardly 
 seems possible that any set of men thiuk it necessary to show that tin-plate can be 
 made in this couutry, as we believe all ]iersons who have arrived at the age of dis- 
 cretion know that all they have to do to make tin-plateis to lieat the metal to a boil- 
 ing heat and dip iron into it after first being run through palm oil. Tliis of course is 
 the old way ; they now run it through by rolls because it is quicker, but any old cook- 
 pot over a fire will demonstrate that tin-plate can lie made in any part of the world 
 where they have a sheet of iron or steel, a fire, a pot, some oil and tin. It is a pity 
 the circular did not go farther and state the large amount of money that was invested 
 in the building of works. It is plain to be seen when there was a specially high 
 price made by somejjarty who manipulated the market for a very short time that tbe 
 trust were then anxious to fleece their fellow-conutrymen, but the instant the price 
 dropped back, which it did in a very short time, to its average price, they then pre- 
 ferred making something else which they could monopolize, than compete with an 
 article that they say the duty is sufficient to enable them to manufacture. 
 
 Kindly note that the American Tin-Plate Association, otherwis<' Trust, claim that 
 it is a patriotic feeling and nothing else that insligates the members ot the associa- 
 tion or trust to ask for a higher duty. If you are ciuivinced that this is a fact, there 
 will be no use in our gainsaying any other part of their circnhu , and we only wish you 
 to act upon everything that they say exactly as you believe this last sentence. 
 
 PROTEST FROM BALTIMORE. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means of the Sonf^e of Bepresentatives : 
 
 Gentlemen: The undersigned, a committee ajipointed by the Canned Goods Ex- 
 change of Baltimore City, respectfully protest against any increase of the tarifi' upim 
 tin-plates, bitt on the contrary urge that they l)e placeil upon the free list, for the 
 following reasons: 
 
 There are now in existence in every State of the Union extensive manufacturing, 
 agricultural, and fishing interests in 'Phioh many millions of money and many hun- 
 dreds of thousands of people are actively employed, for whose i)urposes tin-plates are 
 practically a raw material. These interests would be protected and encouraged by 
 placing this material upon the free list, whilst they would be seriously injured by the 
 largely increased cost which a higher duty would necessarily impose. We refer es- 
 pecially to what is known as the canned goods industry, which consumes about one- 
 half of the coke tin-plates imported into the United States, in the manufacture of the 
 difi'erent kinds of cans for the preservation of fruits, vegetables, fish, meats, milk, 
 etc. So rapid has been the growth of this business within the past few years (to 
 which growth the low prices of tin-plates have largely contributed) and so numerous 
 have been the new enterprises in this line which have sjirnng up in all sections, that 
 it is impossible at present to furnish any absolutely accurate statistics as to the 
 magnitude of the industry. We are safely within bounds, however, when we slate 
 that the number of packers of canned goods is at least eighteen hundred, and that 
 the business, in its various branches of cultivating, gathering, and preparing the 
 articles to be canned, the making of cans, boxes, labels, etc., provides the chief means 
 of obtaining a living to nearly two millions of people. 
 
 To reduce the consumption of the products of this Industry (which will be the in- 
 evitable result of increased cost) is to inflict a serioits and unnecessary injury up(m 
 those interested in the manufacture and sale of these products. An increase of this 
 tarift' also means higher cost of liviug to the laboring classes, who are by far the 
 largest consumers of canned goods. 
 
 On the other hand, the advantages which it is claimed will result from a. still 
 higher duty are, we respcctlnlly submit, problematical at best. There are at present 
 no tin plates manufactured in this country, and a high tariff upon this article would 
 not properly be in the line of protection, but would rather be in the nature of a 
 
REVISION OF THE TAKIFP. 1213 
 
 bounty offered to experimentera to repeat eiperiments in which they have previoiis'y 
 failed, under circumstances equally aa favorable as those it is now proposed to 
 briuj; about. 
 
 It is well kuown that there are no skilled tin-plate operatives in this country. Will 
 it not be necessary, therefore, for a proper prosecution of this new enterprise, tliat 
 these operatives be broiTght from Wales, the only country in the world where this iti- 
 dustry thrives, and would not this mean a repeal or a modifioation at least of our 
 alien contract labor law ? Modified in the interest of one class of manufacturers, 
 others would demand like privileges, and it might not be long before the only meas- 
 ure of protection which our mechanics enjoy against the competition of low priced 
 foreign labor would be swept away. ' 
 
 Many of those engaged in the canning industry (perhaps a majority of them) are 
 firm believers in the principle of protection, but tlicy do not think it either just or 
 wise to seek to apply that principle for the beuefit of an as yet unborn industry, to 
 the certain injury of vast manufacturing interests already established and destined 
 largely to increase, if protected by the removal of unnecessary and uujust restriction*. 
 ' R. Tynes Smith, 
 
 A. K. Shriver, 
 Gio. N. Ndmskn, 
 
 Committee. 
 
 PROTEST FROM VIRGINIA PACKERS. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Bepresenlatives : 
 
 Gentlemen: The undersigned, a special committee duly appointed by the Vir- 
 ginia Fruit and Vegetable Packers' Association, hei'eby presents for your considera- 
 tion certain facts connected with the tariff on imported tin-plates, with the hope 
 that, in view of the reasons urged, not only will tlie proposed increase in duty be 
 abandoned, but, ou the contrary, that this article will be placed on the free list. 
 
 Mainly by reason of the low prices of ti[i-|)lates which have prevailed during the 
 past few years, the business of canning goods has grown to immeuse .proportions, 
 aud, as a consequence, much capital is employed therein. To increase the cost of the 
 raw material (the various tin cans used may thus be termed) by the imposition of a 
 higher duty on tin-plates would necessarily restrict the output of wholesome articles 
 of food, throw out of employment many thousands of families dependent on this in- 
 dustry for their means of living, and, more than all, increase the cost of canned 
 foods to the labiring classes, who are the principal consumers and are least able 
 to meet the extra tax. It is respectfully submitted that it would be unwise legisla- 
 tion to create an artificial price on an article for which the consumer has no use, on 
 the plea that by so doing there would spring into existence an industry which has 
 been UDSuccessfully attempted in the past and under circumstances more favorable 
 then than now. 
 
 Probably the majority of canned-goods packers believe in protection as a general 
 principle, but they are not so blind in their belief as to calmly contemplate the crip- 
 pling of a vast business, already firmly established and steadily growing, for the sake 
 of building up another which can only exist by means of a subsidy, and whose success 
 is extremely doubtful. Would it not be necessary, also, iu order to establish tin- 
 plate works in this country, to import the skilled labor from Wales, the only place in 
 the world where the manufacture has been satisfactorily prosecuted t And would not 
 this bo iu direct conflict with "the alien contract-labor law! If this law is modi- 
 fieil in favor of one class of manufacturers, it would be a dangerous precedent, the 
 evils of which it is not difBcult to imagine. 
 
 Three per cent, of the population of this country, it is estimated, are employed iu 
 the various branches couni'ctod with the canned-goods industry, viz, box-makers, 
 can-makers, label-printers, fruit and vegetable growers, fishermen, etc.; the tendency 
 of permitting tin-plates to enter this country free of all duty would be tostill further 
 increase the percentage fuj ployed, besides enabling exporters to find a foreign market 
 for their canned products, a matter which, uuder the present system of drawbacks, 
 is too unprofitable an undertaking. 
 
 Several other reasons might be advanced in favorof the repeal of the present duty, 
 but the foregoing are deemed amply sufficient to men of unbiassed minds. 
 Your obediotit servant, 
 
 Arthur Gray, 
 Speeial Committee of the Virginia Fruit and Vegetable Packers' Association. 
 
1214 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 PROTEST FROM DEALERS IN CANNED LOBSTERS. 
 
 FROM CHICAGO DEALERS. 
 
 The Senate and House of Eepresentatives in Congress assemMed: 
 
 The remoDstrance of tliu uudeisigued, dealers in canned lobster, residing in Illinois, 
 respectfully sbowetli that the imposition of a duty on canned lobster, or cans contain- 
 ing lobster, imported into the United States, would be unjust to all business interests, 
 for the foUowiuff reasons: 
 
 First. It would make the cost to the consumer so great that canned lobster would 
 cease to be an article of economical food. 
 
 Second. Such a duty would be an unjust discrimination as against the duty even 
 now imposed upon tin-plate imported into the United States for the manufacture of 
 the same kind of cans. A duty of 18 cents per dozen on 1-pound cans, this being the 
 size ordinarily used for lobster, would be in excess of 100 per cent, of the value, the 
 first cost of said cans manufactured in the Provinces being less than 18 cents per 
 dozen, while the duty on a dozen cans ot the same size manufactured in the United 
 States from tiu-]ilatc imported even under the present duty on tin-plate would be less 
 than 3 cents per dozen, and under the proposed duty a little less than 6 cents per 
 dozen. 
 
 Third. So far as this large duty is concerned, as a means of protection to any in- 
 dustry now carried on in this countty, it protects none. The only lobster packed in 
 the United States is put up in Maine, and then only at intervals, according to the 
 caprice of the legislature. 
 
 Wherefore your remonstrants humbly pray that there may be no change in the tariff 
 on canned lobster to take effect during the year 1890, and should any change be made 
 to take effect after that date, that it shall not be in excess of the duty levied upon 
 tin-plate imported directly into the United States. 
 
 Maech 3, 1890. 
 
 [Here follow numerous signatures.] 
 
 PHILADELPHIA DEALERS. 
 
 The Senate and House of Sepreaentatives in Congress asaemhled : 
 
 The remonstrance of the undersigned, dealers iu canned lobster, residing in Phila- 
 deljihia, respectfully showeth that the imposition of a duty on canned lobster im- 
 ported into the United States would be adjust to all business interests forthe follow- 
 ing reasons : 
 
 First. It would increase the cost to the consumer on an article of economical food 
 without benefit to any American industry. 
 
 Second. So far as such duty is eoucerned as a means of protection to any industry 
 now carried on in this country it protects none. The only lobster packed iu the 
 United States is put up in Maine, and then only at intervals, according to the cap- 
 rice of the legislature, the entire pack of Maine being less than one-sixth of the quan- 
 tity consumed in tin- United States. 
 
 Third. Any duly imposed upon lobster packed iu the provinces, to take effect dur- 
 ing the ]oresent season, would seriously affect contracts already made, causing great 
 loss to the dealers \vh<i have already made arrangements for the purchase and sale of 
 lobster for the present season. 
 
 Wherefore, your remonstrants humbly pray that there may be no tariff on canned 
 lobster. 
 
 Philadelphia, March 8, 1890. 
 
 [Here foUo-w numerous signatures.] 
 
 COST OF CANS FOR LOBSTERS. 
 
 Portland, Me., March ,7 1890. 
 Dear Sir : Replying to your question as to the cost of lobster cans manufactured 
 in the Provinces, we will say, our cost the past season figured a fraction under 15 cents 
 per dozen tins. At the present price of tin-plate they would cost 1.5 ceuts per dozen. 
 Yours truly, 
 
 H. F. Webb & Co, 
 General C. P. Mattocks, 
 
 Washington, D. 0. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1215 
 
 PORTLAKD, Me., March 9, 1890. 
 Deak Sir : The higheBt nnmber of lobster faotoriea in this State at one time we 
 make twenty-two. The highest nnmber daring the last fonr years we make out 
 twelve. 
 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 BUBNHAM & Morrill. 
 General C. P. Mattocks, 
 
 Wathingten. 
 
 Portland, Mb., March 7, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : Referring to the cost of 1-ponnd cans, the size that lobster is usually 
 packed in, will say that the present cost of same, including material and labor, is 
 15 cents per dozen. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Portland Packing Co. 
 General C. P. Mattocks, 
 
 CCare Barr'mgton Bros.) 1509 H Street Wathington. 
 
 Boston, March 6, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : The present price of 1-pound lobster cans in Nova Scotia is 14 cents per 
 dozen. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 Pottkr »fe Wrightington. 
 General J. P. Mattocks, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Portland, Mb., March 8, 1890. 
 Dbar Sir: Your letter of the 6th instant at hand, and notice remarks in connec- 
 tion with the manufacturing of tin cans for lobster packing in Nova Scotia. 
 
 Size of tin plates used, 14 by 20 inches ; weight per box, 108 pounds ; price per box 
 at present in Nova Scotia, |l3..'j0. Four hundred and fifty l-iiounds cans, number made 
 from box, 14 by 20 tin ; weight of same before making up, 90 ijounds. Cost of 
 1-ponnd cans per dozen before filling, 13.16 cents ; weight contained in can, 1 
 pound; measure, 1 pint. Three hundred and fifty-three nominal 2-pound cans 
 to box, 14 by 20, tin plates ; cost of cans per dozen, 17 cents ; weight contained in 
 can, 24 ounces; measure contained in can, 1^ pints. Waste per box, 14 by 20, tin 
 plates in manufacturing: 1-pound cans, IS pounds; 2 jiounds nominal, 20 pounds. 
 Cost of 1-pound cans per dozen, sealed for shipment: tin plates, .0933 ; solder, mak- 
 ing can, .0133; labor, making can, -025: solder, sealing can, .0091; labor, sealing 
 can, .005; total cost, .1457 cents. Cost of cases containing 4 dozen cans each 11 cents. 
 or 2i cents per dozen cans. 
 Yours truly, 
 
 Portland Packing Co. 
 BuRNHAM & Morrill. 
 H. F. Webb & Co. 
 General C. P. Mattocks, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Boston, March 6, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : In response to your inquiry as to what 1-ponnd lobster cans cost us to 
 make in Cape Breton, where our factories are located, would say that they cost us 14^ 
 cents per dozen. We figure on what the average cost of tin was for last year. Our 
 cans might cost us a little more than other packers, on account of the lack of facili- 
 ties for shipping merchandise from Halifax to ^here our factories are located. 
 Yours truly, 
 
 L. Pickert & Co, 
 General Mattocks, 
 Wihinfton, D. C. 
 
1216 
 
 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Boston, Mass., jVaroJi 6, 1890. 
 Dbak Sir: Your letter inquiring cost of l-pound lobster eMus is roeeived, and will 
 say at present high price of tin plate, 1-pound cans cost us iu Novia Scotia 14 cents 
 per dozen. 
 The average cost for past five years would be about 13|- cents. 
 Yours truly, 
 
 W. K. Lewis & Brothers. 
 General Chas. P. Mattocks, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Boston, Mass., March 7, 1890, 
 Dear Sir: Id answer to your inquiry, we will state present cost price tousof dififer- 
 ent sizes of Grafton grand coke tin plates at the following places, viz : Boston, Mass., 
 duty paid, T. C, 14 by 20, $4.50 per box; I. C, 14 by 22, $4.95 a box; Halifax, Nova 
 Scotia, no duty (free), I. C, 14 by 20, at $:!.50 a box; I. C, 14 by 22, $3.85 a box; 
 Liverpool, England, 1. C, 14 by 20, $3.30 ; I. C, 14 by 22, 3.63 a box. 
 Awaiting your further favors, we are, yours truly, 
 
 Holder & Hkrrick. 
 General C. P. Mattocks, 
 
 Washington, X>. C. 
 
 Treasury Department, Bureau op Statistics, 
 Washington, D. C, MarehS, 1890. 
 Dear Sir : In reply to your inquiry of to-day, I have to state that according to the 
 returns of imports rendered to this Bureau by the collectors of customs, the imports 
 of " Sheets or plates of taggers iron coated with tin or lead, or with a mixture of 
 which these metals are a component part, by tlie dipping or any other process, and 
 commercially known as tin-plates, terne-plates, and taggers tin of iron or steel," 
 dutiable from 1880 to 1883 at 1.1 cents per pound, and since then at 1 cent per pound, 
 entered for consumption in the United States, and the duties collected thereon have 
 been as follows : 
 
 Tear ending .Tune 30— 
 
 Qnantity. 
 
 V«lne. 
 
 Daty. 
 
 1880 ^ 
 
 Pounds. 
 369, 435, 844 
 377, 072, 728 
 439, 740, 895 
 453, 724, 126 
 537, 881, 321 
 505, 569, 076 
 574, 098, 403 
 670, 643, 389 
 632, 224, 296 
 727, 945, 975 
 
 $16, 524, 690 
 14,641,058 
 16, 550, 835 
 16,688,277 
 18,931,073 
 16, 610, 105 
 17,719,957 
 16, 883, 814 
 19. 034, 821 
 21, 002, 209 
 
 $4,063,794 
 4, 147, 800 
 4,837,216 
 
 4, 990, 965 
 
 5, 278, 813 
 
 6, 055, 591 
 
 5, 740, 984 
 6,706,434 
 
 6, 322, 243 
 7 279 460 
 
 1881 
 
 1882 
 
 1883 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 
 
 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 General C P. Mattocks, 
 < Waehington, D. C. 
 
 
 S. G. Broc 
 Chief of 
 
 Bureau. 
 
 MANUFACTURE OF TIN IN WALES. 
 
 York, Pa., March 21, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: Your letter of March 17, inquiring about the cultivation of wheat in 
 the Argentine Republic, and in regard to the manufacture of tin-plate in Wales, is be- 
 fore me. 
 
 You could hardly have entered in upon a subject of more importance, and it will 
 be a pleasure as well as a duty to give you such information as a ))ractioal business 
 experience enables me to offer; and you are at liberty to make what use you please 
 of my name or anything that I write you. 
 
 First, in regard to the manufacture of tin-plate. Few people have an idea of how 
 small a number are actually engaged in this industry. It is true a large capital is 
 invested, but it is variously estimated that not more than 25,000, or at moat 30,000, 
 people, men, women, and children, are required to make all th« tin-plate oonaamed 
 
KEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 1217 
 
 in this world — tliat is, starting from the naked bars. Many children are employed, 
 and a number of girls between the ages of eleven and fourteen years. These poor little 
 waifs carry full boxes of tin weighing 108 pounds. They rest them on their hips 
 wlien their arms are not strong enough to hold them. The laborers, for the most part, 
 receive fair wages. See following table : 
 
 Eight-hour shifts: 
 
 Kollermen 
 
 Doubkrs 
 
 Furuacemen . - - 
 
 Behinders (boya) 
 Twelve-hour shifts ; 
 
 Shearers 
 
 Tinmen . 
 
 "Washmen 
 
 Drawers (boys) . 
 
 Per hour. 
 
 $0.30 
 .24 
 .22 
 .12 
 
 .26 
 
 .26 
 .09 
 
 From the number of failures in the tin-plate industry during the past fifteen years, 
 more than in any other business now in existence, the employes must receive most of 
 the profits of the business. 
 
 A portion of the worls; is very unhealthy. In the pickling rooms the employes all 
 lose their teeth, and are otherwise so scarified as scarcely to appear human. The rest 
 of the work is not specially unhealthy, but, owing to the rank odor of tlie oil used, is 
 very unpleasant and filthy. 
 
 Tin-plate, as you know, is principally made in "Wales, and has been manufactured 
 there for so many generations that even the children seem to acquire the art by in- 
 stinct. These people love their native heath, and could not be induced to emigrate. 
 
 ]^ow, while the number engaged in making the tin-plate used in the whole world 
 does not exceed 30,000, there are 750,000 people in the United States alone directly or 
 Indirectly engaged in working tin-plate, and all of us are consumers. And when I 
 reflect that our national legislature is seriously considering a proposition to injure all 
 these people, still further cripple our already suft'ering agricultural interests, and to 
 ruin our export trade, simply to benefit some three or four second-rate establishments, 
 who wish to form themselves in a syndicate to make tin-plate here, I have not the 
 words to express my amazement and indignation. 
 
 Canned goods are about the last hope of many of our agriculturists for profit and 
 export trade. We export five or six times the value of canned goods in tin that we 
 import in value of tin-plate from Great Britain. All the work is done in this country. 
 And when this trade is once crippled it will never come back to us, since Europe, 
 particularly France, can raise fruits as well as we. I have been over the ground, 
 and know whereof I speak.' We happen to hold the trade now, but the tax Con- 
 gress proposes to put upon tin-plate would destroy it — another most severe blow to 
 the farming community. 
 
 I have hardly left myself time to write of wheat cultivation in the South Ameri- 
 can republics, particularly Buenos Ayres. But suffice it to say that I am ship- 
 ping tens of thousands of plows to be used in turning their sheep pastures into wheat 
 fields, because we will not take their wool. In other words, for the sake of taxing 
 our people upon their clothing, carjiets, etc., we are raising up dangerous competi- 
 tors in the markets of the world for the purchase of our wheat. A few years ago 
 these republics imported wheat from this country. Now they are large exporter^ 
 and increasing in a faster ratio than ever before, notwithstanding the prevailing 
 monetary crisis. 
 
 Will send you further particulars as I have time. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 A. B. Farquhae. 
 
 Hon. J. G. Carlisle, 
 
 Souse of Bejpresentatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 485 77 
 
1218 REVISION OF THE TAKIFF. 
 
 CUTLERY. 
 
 (For additional Cutlery, see ante page 65-) 
 
 RAZOKS. 
 
 Mr. J. E. TOEEBY, of Massachusetts, addressed tlie committee in favor of an in- 
 creased duty on razors. He said : ' 
 
 I come here in the interest of the razor business. I come here asking for a change 
 of the rates of duty in the Senate bill of last Congress. The case "was gone into be- 
 fore the Senate last session, and a hasty decision was arrived at on our part. Since 
 that time we find that on the higher grade of razors there is not enough protection 
 allowed in the Senate bill — not enough to allow for the difl'erence in the cost of labor 
 between the German workman and the American workman. The Senate bill makes 
 the following provision: 
 
 " Razors and razor-blades, finished or unfinished, valued at not more than |4 per 
 dozen, $1 per dozen ; valued at more than $4 per dozen, |1.25 per dozen ; and in ad- 
 dition thereto on all the above razors and razor-blades, 'M per centum ad valorem." 
 
 AV'e respectfully ask to-day that that clause be made to read as follows: 
 
 "Razors and razor- blades, finished or unfinished, valued at less than .$4 per dozen, 
 $1 per dozen ; valued at $4 per dozen or more, |il.75 per dozen ; and in addition 
 thereto on all the above razors and razor-blades, 30 per centum ad valorem." 
 
 The change asked amounts to really asking SO cents per dozen on razors valued 
 above iSi4 a dozen, and on the lower class of razors !6il.50. We recognize no razor 
 cosfiug in the English nuirket less than |1.50 a dozen. We feel that we are called 
 upon to ask this change on account of the razors coming in from Germany. Here- 
 tofore our competition has been with England, but within the last few years Ger- 
 many has taken to making razors, and is nuikiug line-looking razors. I hold in 
 my hand a razor with the German maker's jirice upon it. Tliat razor, when complete, 
 would cost |r).:;!5 a dozen in Germany ; laid down in New York to-day (without freight 
 charges but simply with duty paid"! the price would be §7.87. 
 
 A year ago you could not find that razor selling at less than |l9.50 or |10 a dozen. 
 To-day you will find it sold as low as |8..50. We can not make, that razor for $8.50 
 a dozen. We pay our workman so much more than the German workman is paid 
 that wo can not afford to sell it at that price. For that reason we come here asking 
 for a little more protection on this higher grade of work. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is this foreign razor made of a good piece of steel? 
 
 Mr. TORKBY. I do not think it is quite as good steel as wo would make it of. 
 
 Mr. Fjlowek. Would a man ever bny one of these razors in comparison with 
 yours ? 
 
 Mr. ToRREY. A good many of these razors are sold. It is a very troublesome oc- 
 currence with us. The worth of the razor lies almost entirely in the blade, so that 
 it requires a very competent expert to decide the value of a razor. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What does this razor of yours [indicating] sell for? 
 
 Mr. ToRRMY. Here [presenting a razor] is the nearest razor we make to the Gorman 
 one. We are obliged to sell that razor to the small trade. We ask for this protec- 
 tion so that we can sometimes sell some razors to the larger trade, to the wholesale 
 trade. They tell us now that they do not want us to make razors in this country; 
 but we do not see why the people of this country should not want them made here. 
 Tliero is no earthly reason why tlie razors used in this country should not be pro- 
 duced here. 
 
 Mi-. Breckinridge. How many establishments are tliere in this country for the 
 manufacture of razore 'I 
 
 Mr. Torrey. There are three other concerns besides ours, bat we make twice as 
 many as ;ill of them. We were organized in 1880. We are employing about seventy 
 Ijands and are turning out in the vicinity of 40 dozen razors a day. I have heard it 
 estimated that that is perhaps (jne-eighth of the whole number consumed in this 
 countiy, but I can not vouch for tliat. We have a fine reputation for making good 
 razors. I think we can c(uitinue that reputation ; but we desire to ask this protec- 
 tion in order that we may make more razors and sell them to the large dealers. 
 
 Mr, McKenna. Where do yon get tlie steel ? 
 
 Mr. ToRRicY. The steel comes from Sheffield, and on that there is a duty. We do 
 
KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1219 
 
 not object to that, because we hope to live long enough to see the steel for razors 
 made in this country. 
 Mr. Bayne. Have yon tried any of our steel ? 
 
 Mr. ToKREY. We have at various times. The beet steel that we have ever tried 
 was made by a yonng man who was formerly at our technical school in Worcester. 
 He produced the steel and we made a few razors for him. 
 Mr. Bayne. Where did he produce the steel ? 
 Mr. ToREEY. I think he sent it to us from somewhere in Indiana. 
 Mr. Flower. Excepting cutlery, we manufacture a good deal of hardware in this 
 country, do we not? 
 Mr. TORREY. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Why is that branch of the business so far behind other branches ? 
 Mr. ToRREY. I do not think it is. 
 
 Mr. Flowkr. The knife men, as well as the razor men, have been here demanding 
 an increase of duty, while no other branch of the hardware nien have been here. 
 
 Mr. Torrey. We think that the reason steel for hardware is not produced here is 
 because no razor-maker is able to use the quantity of steel which would justify a 
 steel-maker putting in new plant. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How does your steel compare with the best quality of steel for 
 penknives? 
 
 Mr. ToRRY. Razor steel is made especially for razors. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Some gentlemen have stated here that the American steel for 
 cutlery is as good as the steol abroad. 
 
 Mr. Torrey. I have seen a very good steel, but I would not try to ruu it for razors 
 every day. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you buy this steel by the iiound? 
 Mr. Torrey. Yes. ^ 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much does it cost you? 
 
 Mr. Torrey'. About 24 cents a pound — the kind that is made specially for us. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is the duty on this steel ? 
 
 Mr. Torrey. I can not tell you. We buy it from a Sheffield house that has its 
 agent in New York, and we receive the steel from him. 
 
 Mr. Bueckinridgb. I understand yon to say tliat we do not make the quality of 
 steel in this country that is designed for razors ? 
 Mr. Torrey. I think not. . 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. So far as your manufacture is concerned, you import the steel 
 altogether? 
 Mr. Torrey. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. About how much steel do you employ in making a razor? 
 Would it be as much as a i)onnd? 
 
 Mr. Torrey. This steel is made up into bars in sizes for us. We give the order for' 
 the right sized bar and then we forge it out. I suppose that the labor on a razor is 
 nine-tenths of the value of the razor. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What I asked you was the amount of material that would be 
 consumed in making this razor. 
 
 Mr. Torrey. I can not answer that question as well as Mr. Turner, the president 
 of the company. 
 
 Mr. Turner said : That razor would take in the vicinity of a pound and a quarter 
 or a pound and a half per dozen razors. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Would a pound and a half of steel make a dozen razors? 
 Mr. Turner. Yes, it would make more than a dozen of this kind. It varies accord- 
 ing to the waste. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I ehould suppose that a dozen of these blades would weigh more 
 than a pound and a half, but your statement of course is correct, for you know. You 
 say (addressing Mr. Torrey) that with one class of these razors you have to go to the 
 retail trade in order to sell at a profit? 
 
 Mr. .Torrey. Wo do with all of them. We have sometimes made out to sell a few 
 razors to large dealers, but the next time we went to them we found that foreign man- 
 ufacturers were supplying them. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The competition, then, in the other grade of razors is about the 
 same as in the grade that you make ? 
 
 Mr. Torrey. The competition is more on the lower grade of razors that we do not 
 make. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The sharper competition is on the lower grade ? 
 Mr. Torrey. It is a sharp competition all the way through. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I asked you if the competition was equal all the way through, 
 and you said not. I wish to know on which grade the competition is the sharpest. 
 
 Mr. Torrey. I should say it is the sharpest on the low grades; but, in fact, we 
 can not make these low grades. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What grade do you call the razor you have produced T 
 
1220 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 Mr. ToRREY. I produced that as an illustration to show you how things have been 
 changed within a year. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I asked you what grade of razor you call it ? 
 
 Mr. ToRREY. I call it a very high grade of razor. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How many manufactories of razors are there in this country? 
 
 Mr. Turkey. I think there are three besidesour own. The other three do not make, 
 I think, to exceed 20 dozen a day, and we make about 40 dozen a day. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And you four are the only manufacturers of razors in this 
 country 'I 
 
 Mr. Torkky. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you use the same steel in all your razors ? 
 
 Mr. Turkey. We do. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Therefore, the finish of the razor adds largely to the price. 
 
 Mr. Torrey. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What percentage of the razors consumed in this country is im- 
 ported ? 
 
 Mr. Toreey. All are imported except those which we four manufacturers make. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does the importation amount to one-half or three-fourths of 
 the quantity used here ? 
 
 Mr. Toreey'. We think we are making about one-eighth of the razors consumed in 
 this country. But, at the same time we have arrived at one point. I thought my- 
 self, a few years ago, that razors could not be made in this country. I frequently 
 heard them say that the air was not right, that the water was not right, and I know 
 that one manufacturer actually fetched the water from ShefBeld ; but he did not 
 succeed even then. There have been a good many attempts to manufacture razors in 
 this country, and we feel that we were the first company that have succeeded. We 
 can get along by going to the small trade for our sales, but we want to grow ; we 
 want to do more business, and we want the people of the country to be supplied with 
 razors made here. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Did you give a comparison of what this increase of duty would add 
 to the present rate of duty ? 
 
 Mr. Torrey. Taking it all through, the present rate of duty is 50 per cent. Under 
 the proposed rate it would be all around about 75 per cent. It is higher on the lowest 
 grade. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Then, it would be a greater increase on the lower grade of razors 
 than on the higher grade ? 
 
 Mr. Torrey. Yes ; but we do not think that this increase of duty would ever cause 
 a man to pay more for the razor he uses, for this reason, that there is 100 per cent, 
 between the importer's price to-day and the price that the consumer pays. I do not 
 think you can buy a razor that has any respectable maker's name on it at Jess than 
 50 cents ; and that razor does not cost the maker 25 cents. That leaves a profit be- 
 tween the importer, the manufacturer, and the consumer of 100 percent. We do not 
 ask the increase of duty with the idea of raising the price of razors, but in order to 
 have more business to do. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. You already make a good percentage of profit in having to sell to 
 retail dealers instead of to wholesale dealers ? 
 
 Mr. Torrey. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Would yon have any objection to stating what your dividends are 
 under the present system ? 
 
 Mr. Torrey. We have been in existence ten years and we have not made a divi- 
 dend. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Would this additional duty which you propose make the razor cost 
 any more to the consumer ? 
 
 Mr. Torrey. I do not think it would cost 1 cent more ; but I think that, within 
 three years, the consumer would buy his razor at a less price than now. Mr. Turner, 
 the president of our company, will tell you that when he first began to make razors 
 in this country the price was $17 a dozen for good razors, but not so good as this 
 razor [indicating]. Not long ago that razor was sold to retail dealers at |15 per 
 dozen ; but we would be glad to sell it to-day to retail dealers at $12 a dozen. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You think that the increased duty would not raise the price of razors 
 to the consumer ? 
 
 Mr. Torrey. I am confident it would not. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What good, then, would the increase do you ? 
 
 Mr. Torrey. We would sell our razors at less expense to us. It costs us a good 
 deal to take our razors to the retail stores all over the country. We are not asking 
 you for protection equal to the difference in the price of labor. The workman who 
 ground this foreign razor, I know what he is paid a week for grinding it, and I 
 know that we pay twice as much for grinding that razor in our shop than is paid in 
 Germany. 
 
 Mr. Bkeckinkidge. Do you pay by the task ? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1221 
 
 Mr. Tur>T!;r (president of the compauy). We do. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What does it amount to per week? 
 
 Mr. Turner. Thirty dollars a weeli for such a workman. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And on the other side what would it be ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. Ten dollars a week. Very few men cau grind that razor. I think 
 there is but one man in this country who can grind that razor to-day ; and we have 
 that man in our shop. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you pay your men by the day or week or by the task ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. We pay them according to oircumstanoes. Some men we hire by the 
 day. Where it is expedient we hire them by the piece. The man who is %vorkiugby 
 the day we expect to do so much work. As a natural consequence it does not make 
 a cent of diiference whether we work them by the piece or by the day. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JOSEPH TURNER. 
 
 Mr. .Joseph Turner, president of the company represented by the last witness, 
 said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we are here not to increase the price of razors to the 
 consumer; our main object is to increase the bulk of our trade. We do not expect 
 that we shall get all that we ask for every time we ask it. We asked before, but we 
 did not get what we asked for before the Senate committee. We asked for an entire 
 change on the tariff on razors. We asked that the duty be entirely specitic. But 
 the committee thought that would be a little difficult on account of the difficulty of 
 classifying razors, and so the committee agreed to put in the bill a specific duty and 
 an ad valorem duty. Kow we are asking (after a year's experience) a change of duty 
 on the higher grade of goods. We thought that we only needed it on the lower grade. 
 When we started business we started with the purpose of making the best class of 
 goods that could be produced; not to see how many razors we could make for sale. 
 We had so much backbone to us that we determined to produce the very best class of 
 goods that could be produced. I stand here to-day and claim that you can not pro- 
 duce a razor, no matter where it is made, equal in quality to the razor we have put 
 upon the market. I claim that we have put goods on the market in this country such 
 as were never in the country until we produced them. I am a razor mechanic. I 
 learned my business with a house in the old country — Sheffield, England. I am per- 
 fectly acquainted with the whole of the Sheffield trade as a mechanic and as some- 
 what of a manufacturer. Two of ray uncles were manufacturers, and I had some ex- 
 perience with them. There are one or two things that I would like to state here. 
 
 When I worked at journey-work I was a good mechanic and I could get work wher- 
 ever there was work to be had in Sheffield. My wages did not aver.age then (speak- 
 ing from year end to year end) more than 5 shillings or|1.26 a day; and I have no 
 reason to believe that a mechanic of my Standing could get any more there to-day. 
 Of course I want you to understand that I belong to a special part of this razor trade. 
 There are four distinct mechanical trades in this razor business. When I came to 
 this country I came with thepurposeof beluga manufacturer here, because [knew that 
 razors were sold at $17 a dozen to the retail trade. So I came with the purpose of starting 
 the manufacture of razors in this country the very first chance I got. As I said, razors 
 were then jold at $17 a dozen, and so I thought there was a good thing in razors and 
 I went iBto the business eventually. A person paid my expenses to New Jersey and 
 we Started manufacturing there. After two years and a half he gave up the business 
 as a failure. He had lost a lot of money'; and I eventually went into it on my own 
 account. I am merely giving you some idea of the difficulties that the razor trade 
 had to encounter. The duty was then only 35 percent. I got a partner to go in with 
 me and we put in together our little savings. We went ^ong, worked hard, and 
 stuck to our business, but we eventually found that our money was going and that 
 we were going too if we did not do something ; eventually my partner went out and Mr. 
 Torrey took the notion of going into the razor business, and we formed our company 
 in Worcester. I was getting $1.25 a day as a good mechanic in England, and the first 
 wages I got in this country was $3 a day. I had been a strong, thorough hide-bound 
 free trader. Nobody could be a stronger one. I believed in free trade just as much as 
 I believed in anything ; but when I got $3 a day here and began to consider how 
 things were, I found out that it was morally impossible that a manufacturer could 
 pay me $3 a day unless he had protection. I soon found that the protection of 35 per 
 cent, was not equal to paying me $3 a day. I may say here that my $3 a day has not 
 dwindled down as other wages have dwindled down. I am worth to-day, as a me- 
 chanic, fully |3 a day. We pay $3 a day and over for the same work which I did 
 when I was in England. So that, I say, we are not coming here with any expecta- 
 tion of inflating onrselves or diminishing anybody's profits, but are simply asking 'that 
 we have a chance to sell a larger quantity of goods to the trade. 
 
1222 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 We have liere, for instance, a razor [exhibiting it J made by Wade & Butcher. We 
 could not produce that razor for less than $2.50 a dozen. That is the cheapest razor 
 that Wade & Butcher produce. Out of twelve hundred styles of razors that they 
 produce there are only two or three styles of this grade. It will do the business of 
 a razor. The price is 6 shillings a dozen in English money. Now, I say we can not 
 produce such a razor and pay our help the rate that we are paying them at less than 
 §2.50 a dozen. We have sold some razors, I admit, as low as $2.50 a dozen, but we have 
 done it as a case of necessity to help our sales and keep ourselves in existence. The 
 business calls for the very highest quality of skilled help. We can not employ men 
 oif the street. For instance, we have young men in the shop to-day whom we have 
 had in the factory now for four years, and they are not up to the standard of a first- 
 class man yet, although we have pushed them all we could. I have paid special at- 
 tention to teaching good American men in certain branches, but it is a very slow pro- 
 cess. It is a work that requires sKill and judgment at the same time, and that has a 
 tendency to keep wages away up. We never want, however, to try to keep the wages 
 down, and we do not want to have to come to that point. 
 
 Mr. Flowek. What is this iiner razor worth [indicating] ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. We sell it to the retail trade at $15 a dozen. 
 
 Mr. Flower. And this Wade & Butcher razor ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. It is made in Sheffield, England, and is sold there at a little less than 
 $1.25 a dozen. This razor [indicating] has been our salvation. No other country has 
 been able to produce it yet. The Wostenholms, of Sheffield, England, have actually 
 gone to work and imitated this razor in quality, and have imitated it in case, and 
 have actually put the same number on the razor. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is the jirice of a razor like this [indicating] ? 
 
 Mr. Turner. That razor is retailed at $2.50 a dozen. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You have razors here equivalent to those that Wade & Butcher 
 produce 1 
 
 Mr. Turner. Yes; here are some [producing them]. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What do you pay a man for grinding a razor like that? 
 
 Mr. Turner. That work is done mostly by day-work. We pay from $5 to $6 a 
 dozen for the grinding. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How much does a man get a dozen for grinding a razor of that 
 character in England? 
 
 Mr. Turner. All the way from 8 shillings to 10 shillings, or $2 to $2.50. They are 
 paid there by the dozen. We have this work done by day-work because we know 
 that we can get a finer grade of work done by keeping a close look on it. 
 
 Worcester, Mass., January 13, 1890. 
 Dear Sir: Herewith we hand you a copy of our request made to the committee- 
 We desire to call your attention especially to the words "razor-blades, finished or 
 unfinished." It would ruin the bill if the words razor-blades unfinished should by 
 any cause be stricken out. Unfinished blades are sometimes known as razor-blanks. 
 They are partly ground and brought in to be finished or concaved. The work that 
 has been put on them is done by low-grade workinen, receiving the smallest pay. 
 Against such low-grade workmen we desire protection. Making these razor blanks 
 and selling them to outside concavers to finish up is a large item in our business. 
 Also notice we make the division at "less than $4," instead of " more than $4." 
 Extract from tariff bill of Fifty-first Congress, page 127, lino 757, relative to razors: 
 "Razors and razor blades, finished or unfinished, valued at not more than $4 per 
 dozen, $1 per dozen, valued at more than |4 per dozen, $1.25 per dozen; and in addi- 
 tion thereto on all the^bove razors and razor-blades, 30 per cent, ad valorem.'' 
 We respectfully ask that the above clause be made to read as follows : 
 " Razors and razor-blades, finished or unfinished, valued at less than $4 per dozen, 
 $1 per dozen, valued at |4 per dozen or more, $1.75 per dozen ; and in addition thereto 
 on all the above razors and razor-blades, 30 per cent, ad valorem." 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 J. R. Torrey Razor Company. 
 
 Hon. J. H. Walker, M. C, 
 
 WasMiit/ton, D. C. 
 
Revision of the tariff. 1223 
 
 SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS. 
 STATEMENT OF CHARLES HEBER CLARK. 
 
 Mr. Charles Heber Clark, of Philadelphia, next addressed the committee. He 
 said: 
 
 Mr. Chairm.an and gentlemen of the committee, I represent the J. Ellwood Lee 
 Company, who are mannfacturers of snrgical instrumentsof alargevariety. Amoug 
 other things, we manufactnre articles known as catheters and bongies. They were 
 imported into this country to the extent of half a million dollars this year. A cathe- 
 ter is made of a textile web, from cotton, silk, or wool, and covered with a resinous, 
 flexible coat, the manufacture of which is a setiret. "We have imported them to soLiie 
 extent as well as manufactured them, and we have eudeavored to obtain from the 
 Treasury Department a ruling in regard to the duty which we sliould pay, and the 
 Treasury Department has decided that they are dutiable according to the textile ma- 
 terial they contain. That is to say, if they are made of cotton they shall pay -id per 
 cent. ; if linen, they shall pay 35 per cent., and if silk, .50 per cent. This ruling of the 
 Treasury Department does not prevail in New York City, and they were imported 
 within the last few years with a duty of 25 per cent. It is almost impossible tor the 
 appraiser to tell the difl'erence between a, cotton, linen, or silk catheter. 
 
 The proposition I wish to make here is that catheters shall be s|)ecifically enumer- 
 ated in this new tariff law, under the head of chemical products. Schedule A. I have 
 written it out as follows : 
 
 We ask that catheters and bougies, which are not now named in the taritf law, 
 shall be specifically enumer.ated in Schedule A, "chemical products," as follows: 
 
 "Catheters, bougies, and similar articles h.iviug a web of fibrous matori.al coated 
 with a flexible gum or resinous compound, or composed wholly or iu part of india- 
 rubber." 
 
 We ask that an ad valorem duty of 40 per cent, shall be imposed upon those arti- 
 cles. They are now held by the Treasury Department to be dutiable at ;!0, 40, and 
 50 per cent., according as the web is made of cotton, linen, or silk. As a fact, silk 
 and linen catheters .ire constantly imported at the cotton duty. We believe that the 
 single duty, 40 per cent., would be just to consumers, to importers, and to domestic 
 manufacturers, and would put an end to fraud. 
 
 That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman, and I am very much obliged for your at- 
 tention. We have these .articles here if .any gentlem.an' cares to see them. 
 
 The Chairman. It would make no dift'erenee if it came under .'iny other head than 
 the one named? 
 
 Mr. Clark. No, sir ; but I think it should be placed in Section A, under the head of 
 " chemical products. 
 
 PEN AND POCKET KNIVES. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. BRADLEY. 
 
 New York Knife Company, 
 , Waldm, N. I'., January 20, 1890. . 
 
 Dear Sir : During the evening of December 2C, 1H8;), as one of ;i, committee repre- 
 senting American manufacturers of pen and pocket knives, I had the priviliigeof 
 addressing the Ways and Meaus Committee iu snpport of a tariff' provision presented 
 at that time. Afterward my attention was called to a statement of the "Whole- 
 sale American Hardware Association" (so called), signed A. H. Saxton, }iresident. 
 Said statement protests against any change of duty from 50 per cent, ad valorem, and 
 seeks to impeach the honor and veracity of the eiimiiiittee re])r<'seuting Amerir.-ui 
 manufacturers. In sujjport thereof are used statements signed by leading American 
 hardware jobbers of Chicago, St. Louie, and other cities, m;iny of which statements 
 are dated lyasi, and so presented as to seemingly iudieato that said American Hard- 
 ware jobbers are members of tbe so-called " Wholesale American Hardware Associa- 
 tion," and in full sympathy with its assertive statejucnt. 
 
 In pursuance with your permission to reply, I have the honor to state tluit the 
 American hardware jobbers, whose names are used, have not been, and are not 
 now members of the "Wholesale American Hardware Association," so called. The 
 names were secui-ed in 18*^ by certain importers, to a jirotcst against the Senate 
 bill provision of " 50 cents jier dozen blades"<m pocket cutlery, which in ad valorem 
 amounted to upward of ii.'iO per cent, on certain cheap grades (lik(^ '• yonr choice for 
 SJ5 cents") and was proved to be so olijectionable to I he Anieiican hardware joblicrs 
 
1224 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 that the Senate Finance Committee abandoned it, and hurriedly substitnted tha_ 
 compound-duty provision that afterward passed the Senate. Said compound pro- 
 vision was framed on a basis of " costing not more than 50 cents per dozen, 12 cents 
 per dozen ; " suggested by Senator Allison of the Senate Finance Committee. The 
 committee representing American manufacturers have simply asked the Ways and 
 Means Committee to retain the basis of the Allison provision, and make three follow- 
 ing classes, that shall average in division and be proportionate in duty with the first 
 class (or Allison basis), up to |6 per dozen of foreign value (rapidly reducing on all 
 above §6). 
 
 In protesting against this reasonable provision, the " Wholesale American Hardware 
 Associaiion," so called, are both greedy and unreasonable, as the '200 to 250 per cent, 
 margin of profit between import value, duty paid, and the price to the American con- 
 sumer, as presented to your committee, will clearly show. The " American Wholesale 
 Hardware Association," so called, has no warrant or authority for using in their pro- 
 test of 1889 the names of American hardware jobbers used in 1888, and then obtained 
 for use in a dift'erent connection, and for a difterent condition. The manner in which 
 said names are used, is a forcible reminder of the manner in which the members of 
 the "Wholesale American Hardware Association," so called, import German goods 
 stamped with brands bearing close and fraudulent imitiatious of reputable and popu- 
 lar American names, which the consumer is eventually beguiled into buying as Ameri- 
 can-made wares. The "Wholesale American Hardware Association" statement is 
 evidence of the fact that American workingraen and manxifacturers need protection, 
 not only against the low wages of foreign artisans; not only against the barefaced 
 theft of honorable and reputable American imprints ; not only against the abominable 
 schemes of undervalures, but also against the cunning and audacity of importers' 
 statements. 
 
 The " Wholesale American Hardware Association," so-called, is composed chiefly 
 of cutlery and gun importers. The word " hardware " conveys a meaning foreign to 
 the specific object of the association, which was formed for tariff purposes only. It 
 is un-American in spirit, as it is un-American in interest, and assumed the name or 
 title of "Wholesale American Hardware Association" as a quite "good enough 
 Morgan " until after the tariff revision. The statement submitted by this association 
 does not give a list of its membership ; did it contain a full list of such, it possibly 
 would not be difficult to designate some who in recent years have been cognizant of 
 undervaluation methods. Careful inquiry establishes the opinion that American 
 jobbers of hardware and cutlery do not antagonize the modified provision asked for 
 by the American manufacturers of pen and pocket knives ; to the contrary, the pro- 
 vision meets with unexpected approval, as does also the legislation suggested for the 
 interdiction of foreign goods fraudulently bearing American names. 
 
 In a short time, as soon as additional facts and exhibits are secured, a statement 
 will be forwarded to your committee, replying in detail and disarming every point 
 wherein this association seeks to question the correctness of certain labor, cost, and 
 other statistics offered by the committee of American pocket-knife manufacturers. 
 I have the honor to present the annexed letter from A. C. Bartlett, esq., secretary 
 and managing head of the great wholesale hardware and cutlery house of Hibbard, 
 Spencer, Bartlett & Co., Chicago. In conclusion I respectfully request that this en- 
 tire communication be accepted by the Ways and Means Committee as an additional 
 brief in the case of American pocket-cutlery manufacturers, and that the same be 
 printed. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 Thomas W. Bradley, 
 For tlie New York Knife Company. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlky, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 HiBBARD, Spencer, Bartlett & Co., 
 
 Chicago, January 18, 1890. 
 
 Dear .Sir : Your favor of the 13th instant is at hand. We wish to disabuse your 
 mind of the idea that we are opposed to any just legislation which has for its object 
 the protection of American manufacturers. We did not, however, believe that the 
 pocket-knife which required S.'SO per cent, protection should be made in this country; 
 neither did we think it quite just to the farmer boys and amateur hunters to liave a 
 $10 or |;12 "protcctiv(^ tarilf" pla-ceil upon a gun which we are profitably selling at 
 |1(;..'>0 e:ich, after it has paid a 35 per cent, duty ; hence our protest in 1888. 
 
 We were never members of "The American Hardware Association" (whatever 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1225 
 
 ttat may Ije) and never heard of that organization, except in oouneotion with the 
 question of taritt'. 
 
 From what we know of the cost of manufacturing cutlery in this country and ot 
 the tiuancial condition of those who have long engaged in its manufacture, we do not 
 hesitate to indorse your proposed schedule, viz : 
 
 Pen and pocket knives of all kinds and parts thereof, costing not more than 50 
 cents per dozen, 12 cents per dozen. At more than 50 cents per dozen, and not more 
 than $1.50 per dozen, 50 cents per dozen. At more than $1.50 per dozen, and not 
 more than |3 per dozen, $1 per dozen. At more than $:i per dozen, $2 ijer dozen. In 
 addition thereto 50 per cent, ad valorem on all of the above. 
 
 We can only 'wish that the duty could iu every instance be speciiic, thus avoiding 
 any possibility of frauds through undervaluation. 
 
 With regard to imitating American trade marks, there is no question as to its ruin- 
 ous effect upon goods of American manufacture. The consumers of this country are 
 liegniled into buying foreign trash which is stamped with well known American 
 V)rands, or close imitations of such Itrands. This should be stopped at once. 
 
 We wish you all success in your endeavor to secure a rational protective tariff, and 
 the interdiction of foreign goods under American cover. If we can be of service, 
 command us. 
 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 A. C. Baktlbtt, 
 
 Secretary, 
 
 Thomas W. Bradley, 
 
 President Neio York Knife Company, JValden, N. Y. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THOMAS "W. BRADLEY. 
 
 New York Knife Company, 
 
 Walden, N. Y., February 1, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : In support of the fact that American jobbers of hardware aud cutlery are 
 in favor of the pocket-knife provision submitted to your committee by the American 
 cutlery manufacturers, and to emphasize my statement that American houses have 
 no connection or sympathy with a recent protest from the so-called '' Wholesale Amer- 
 ican Hardware Association," A. H. Saxton, president, and to sustain the charge that 
 said protest is, in great measure, " a burning of old powder " (used in its latest con- 
 nection without authority, and intended to mislead), I recently submitted a letter 
 from Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co., of Chicago, as in my experience fairly repre- 
 senting Western sentiment. 
 
 I have now the honor to submit letters from the Biddle Hardware Company, a 
 large and representative house of Philadelphia, as being a fair illustration of East- 
 ern feeling regarding the matter of a compound pocket-cutlery duty, as asked for by 
 manufacturers. I quote from the letters, which are annexed: 
 
 " Have no recollection of having signed anything against an increase of the tariff 
 on pocket-cutlery. Do not intend to sign any such petition now." 
 
 "Go on and get the tariff' fixed to suit American manufacturers of your goods. 
 You will have no trouble from this source." 
 
 " Should like to see the time when Americans can hold sway." 
 
 Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co.. of Chicago, and Biddle Hardware Company, 
 of Philadelphia, are leading American houses, and iu view of these recent letters 
 from them it seems fair to express an opinion that the importers' " Wholesale Amer- 
 ican Hardware Association," so called, had no authority for using the names of influ- 
 ential American jobbing houses as part of their protest recently submitted to your 
 committee. The committee of American manufacturers will soon submit a full reply, 
 showing the Importers' tables of costs aud selling prices to be quite as unfair aud 
 misleading as is the unauthorized u.se of reputable American firm names. All ot which 
 is submitted, with a request that the same be printed. 
 Respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 Thomas W. Bradley. 
 
 Hon. WiLIJAM McKlNLEY, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
1226 EEViSioiJ OF The taeifJ*. 
 
 VIEWS OF POCKET CUTLERY MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 Meriden, Conn., February 8, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: The little group of represeutative agents of Gerruan cutlery manufact- 
 urers by appropriating the name "Wholesale Hardware Association," without engag- 
 ing in the w holesale hardware business, acted in harmony with their methods of stamp- 
 ing American names on their German made goods. 
 
 In their statement to your honorable committee December 26, 1889, they declare 
 the American pocket cutlery manufacturers "to be lamentably ignorant or deliberate 
 falsifiers, and that they fraudulently misrepresent facts." 
 
 To give an appearance of truth to this assertion they construct a table of German 
 knives of better quality and finish, and higher priced, than comprise the great bulk 
 of importations, and which readily conform to the very general description of size 
 furnished by the American cutlery manufacturers in their illustrative table of " rela- 
 tive cost." 
 
 Then by securing the unquestionable affidavits of the most thrifty cutlery buyers 
 of the country, who have the capital to purchase the manufactured goods of the too 
 frequently failing American manufacturer, or to seduce an occasional American 
 maker (by quoting the low price of German kuivcs) to take orders for very staple 
 patterns at prices much below cost (with an indefinite promise of using some of his 
 more profitable goods later), these foreign manufacturers' agents are enabled to com- 
 plete their table to their .apparent satisfaction. 
 
 The ijrotests of reputable hardware bouses in 1888 against any changes of duty on 
 cutlery and guns "were made in a general way against supposed provisions in the 
 Senate bill. 
 
 As tbey contain no facts in regard to pocket cutlery, it is evident they are now 
 used by the foreign manufacturers to give the false imxiression that the signers are 
 members of the " Wholesale Hardware Association." 
 
 Our knowledge of "relative costs" of German, English, and American pocket 
 cutlery, was made up largely from caieful com,parisons of prices paid for the different 
 operations of piece work, which make up the cost of a knife. These comparisons were 
 made at different times, with both English and German manufacturers, on a great 
 number of knives, until sufficient data was gathered to warrant the statement, 
 "that labor in Germany is not more than one-fourth the American i>rices, and En- 
 glish wages not over one-half the amount paid here." 
 
 We prepared a table of the "relative costs" of a few knives, as illustrative of the 
 wages paid in the several countries. That table was submitted to your honorable 
 committee December 26, with our statement. 
 
 Although the costs of foreign knives was based on our knowledge of wages paid 
 still we were careful to verify the figures, by ascertaining the selling prices of the 
 finished product in the markets where manufactured. We are prepared at any time 
 to satisfy your committee, by an exhibitifm of samples and prices, that we have 
 been most conservative in our estimates. We have no doubt we could convince you 
 that foreign cutlery costs even less than w<! have stated. 
 
 As to the costs given of American pocket cutlery, we are re.idy to verify them by 
 an exhibition of our cost books, showing the cost of material, and every operation 
 through to the finished product. 
 
 While we do not questiou the truth of the affidavits made by the large buyers of 
 cutlery, "that they have bought, as job lots, or otherwise, the few knives described, 
 at the prices stated, we mal^o the assertion, and are prejiared to prove it by cost 
 books, that those knives can not bo iiroduced by .any pocket cutlery manufacturer in 
 the United States at less than an average advance of 33^ per cent, on those prices. 
 
 In our statement of December 26, we placed the average value of material and sup- 
 plies at 20 per cent., and the labor at 80 per cent., in the cost of pocket cutlery. We 
 gave the average price of wages paid to cutlery workers at $2 per (Uiy in this country. 
 
 To substantiate the above statements, wo refer you to pages 44 and 56 of the Con- 
 necticut Bureau of Labor Statistics published in 1889, which are considered as accu- 
 rate as any ever published in this country. 
 
 We gave the average price of German labor at 50 cents per day (which is too high) 
 and of Ijnglish .at $1 -per day, which extracts, already furnished you from English 
 trade journals, show to bo far higher than the average, and also demonstrates by com- 
 parison, that German labor is below 50 cents per day. 
 
 As we have established by unquestioned authority the relative proportions of ma- 
 terial and labor in the cost of; pocket cutlery, it beco'mes a simple mathematical iiues- 
 tion to deduct the duty from tlie cost of the sfeel, and 75 |)ercent. from theAmericau 
 labor account to ascertain the full approxim.ate value of riermaii cutlery. 
 
 We respectfully call your ca.refnl attention to our statement of December 26. It 
 gives full and accurate inforuiation of the pocket cutlery business. It contains ex- 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 1227 
 
 tracts from Englisli trade joXirnals whicli fully confirm our position. It states the 
 minimum, specific, and ad valorem rates of duty whicli we should have to maintain 
 even a fair showins; against the very peculiar competition of German manufacturers. 
 
 England takes pride in her cutlery interests, because the product of her best estab- 
 lishments reflects credit upon her intelligent skill iu all parts of the world. 
 
 To show English opinion of the methods of the fatherland contingent of the "Whole- 
 sale Hardware Association," and to demonstrate most forcibly that the action of the 
 British Government already taken and proposed suggests prompt and vigorous action 
 by Congress, if they would stay the course of German cntlery, which, excluded from 
 all other markets under English names, would flood this country under American 
 names, we submit an extract from the Loudon Ironmonger of January 18, 1890. 
 
 THE MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT. 
 
 A meeting was held at ShefBeld on Monday of representatives of the Cutlers' Com- 
 pany, the Corporation, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Federated Trades' Coun- 
 cil, to consider the advisability of urging the government to further efl'ort to sup- 
 press all false indicatious of origin abroad. It is found that, although it is no longer 
 possible for goods to come into this country having false marks of origin, they are so 
 made on the continent and sent to distant markets. The uames of well-known En- 
 glish firms are stamped on goods and sent away without their coming into this coun- 
 try. Resolutions were passed urging the government to further action, and a depu- 
 tation, consisting of the representatives present, was appointed to wait on Lord 
 Salisbury to lay their views before him. 
 
 If we have omitted any facts necessary to prove the measure of protection needed 
 by the pocket cutlery business (if it is desirable that it should longer exist and de- 
 velop iu this country), we will cheerfully furnish them. 
 
 William F. Rockwell, Meriden, Conn., 
 Thomas W. Bradley, Walden, N. Y., 
 W. B. RtiDD, Lakeville, Conn., 
 W. P. lIusTiN, Turners Falls, Mass., 
 Committee Bepresenting American Pocket Cutlery Manufacturers. 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways aiid Means. 
 
 STATEMENT OF A. SAXTON. 
 
 Mr. A. H. Saxton, of New York, president of the Wholesale Hardware Association, 
 addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we do not propose to take up your 
 time with any statements except those easily succeptible of a roasouable demonstra- 
 tion. I have here a protest from two hundred and eighty-three merchants and 
 jobbers throughout the couutry representing a combined capital of $35,000,000 which 
 we wi.sh to suiimit. 
 
 The Chairman. You protest against what ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Against any advance of the rates of duty from the present rates. 
 
 The Chairman. What are you spealiing of? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Cutlery and guns. If the committee ple.ase we will take up the sub- 
 ject of table cutlery first. We wish to make a few remarks on some statements that 
 have been made by gentleman on the other side in relereuce to table cutlery. 
 
 Mr. Landers, of the committee of table cutlery manufacturers, states (pa^e 77) that 
 the foreign competition is wholly a question of labor; that the materials are obtain- 
 able as low here as they are in England or Germany. He further states, " he must 
 have a protection for this labor, or go out of the business. " In another place he 
 says, " we have got to have this protection or be driven out." Gentlemen, it is very 
 difficult to know how to properly characterize such statements as these. 
 
 If it was practicable to bring the entire h.arilw.ire trade of the United States be- 
 fore this committee, the result of their testimony wpuld be that over nineteen-twen- 
 tienths of all the table cutlery sold in this country for the last twenty years has been 
 made in America, and that only a very small portion of the finer grades, like Joseph 
 Rodgers & Sons, and like qualities, are imported and are mainly sold on their repu- 
 tation. 
 
 Mr. Landers alludes to a concern at Bridgeport that was sold out at auction and 
 paid its creditors 20 cents on the dollar, and sacrificing about l|450,()00. Well, there 
 never was so much rejoicing among any set of men as there was in this very Table 
 Cutlery Association over the failure of this very Bridgeport concern. This concern 
 had for years been wretchedly mismanaged, and sold goods without any regard to 
 
1228 
 
 REVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 
 
 cost, and liad so -worried the other table cutlery manufacturers that immediately on 
 the failure tbey formed a, syndicate, put up the money, and purchased the machinery, 
 and put it where it could do them no further damage. Yet thoy endeavor to give 
 your committee the impression that the failure was owing to insufficient tariff pro- 
 tection. I venture to say that the Bridgeport company never made a gross of table 
 knives that in any shape or way came in competition with foreign-made goods. 
 
 After the Table Cutlery Association had secured the plant of the failed Bridge- 
 port concern they immediately rented the works of a concern in Beaver Falls, which 
 had been run by the Economites under mismanagement, and paid a rent of 112,000 
 per annum to close it up, when if they would operate it, the rent would have been 
 much less. They then put up their prices on an average 25 per cent. This was 
 about three years ago, and these prices and this combination have been in force ever 
 since. 
 
 These table cutlery people have tried to create the impression in their statement 
 that table knives come here from Germany. I will say that in my thirty-iive years 
 experience in the importing trade I never knew a gross of table knives to come from 
 Germany. 
 
 Now, as I understand it, and I have figured it out very carefully, these American 
 table cutlery manufacturers ask this committee to advance the duty on table cutlery 
 from 35 per cent, to an average of 60 per cent., the cheaper goods going as high as 90 
 per cent. ; and from 35 per cent, to an average of 67 per cent, on carvers, the cheapest 
 going as high as 99 per cent.; and on butcher knives from 35 per cent, to an average 
 of 57 per cent., the cheaper grades going as high as 80 per cent. The real average, 
 according to importation, being 68 per cent. 
 
 Now, 1 will demonstrate in a moment that if the present duty of 35 per cent, was 
 discontinued, and table cutlery put on the free list, there could not a dollar of the 
 nineteen-twentieths that are now made here come in competition with the foreign 
 article that comes in. But before doing this I wish to analyze the importations of 
 cntlery that comes in under 35 per cent. duty. The average amount imported during 
 the last seven years (1883 to 1889) is $557,000 per annum. This embraces butcher 
 knives, butcher steels, table cutlery, carvers, scissors, farriers' knives, hunting 
 knives, etc. 
 
 The statistics do not separate the values of the different articles, but from our 
 knowledge of what is being imported we are able to make a close estimate as follows: 
 
 Butcher knives and steels $75, 000 
 
 Table cutlery and carvers 125, 000 
 
 scissors, farriers' knives, etc 357, 000 
 
 557, 000 
 
 Of the butcher knives and steels, about $60,000 is of the well-known make of John 
 Wilson, Shcfifleld, whose goods were popular in this market before my time, and 
 which are sold on reputation alone. Of the table cutlery, about $100,000 are of the 
 well-known make of Joseph Rodgers & Sons, Sheffield, and other like brands, and 
 which also sell on their reputation. 
 
 So that these people are making all these misleading '•epresentations for about 
 $40,000 to $50,000 'worth of butcher knives and carvers. That, gentlemen, is the 
 whole story. 
 
 TABLE CUTLKEY. 
 
 Amorican samples. 
 
 Corresponding Sheffield samples. 
 
 Kumber. 
 
 Cost to 
 produce 
 per grosH. 
 
 Sold for 
 per groas. 
 
 Kumtier. 
 
 Selling 
 price in 
 Sbeflicld. 
 
 Cost in 
 :Nrew York, 
 duty paid. 
 
 11,820 
 
 $8.16 
 7.94 
 8.72 
 8.40 
 9.76 
 
 $8.97 
 8.82 
 9.59 
 9.24 
 
 10.73 
 
 74,260 
 
 74,236 
 
 74,263 :. 
 
 74 265 
 
 $9.00 
 7.78 
 9.73 
 9.85 
 
 10.46 
 
 $13. 32 
 11 52 
 
 
 11,835 
 
 1,820 
 
 14.40 
 14.58 
 
 11,970 
 
 74, 266 
 
 16.48 
 
 
 
 
 
 42. 98 
 
 47.35 
 
 46.82 
 
 69.30 
 
 In 1888 Alfred Field iV Co. had a contract with an American manufacturer, who 
 ■was outside the American table cutlery combination, and who agreed to sell them 
 their table cutlery at their cost of produi-ti on, with 10 per cent, added for their profit, 
 and the ligures put down in second column in what they reckoned their goods to cost 
 
EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 1229 
 
 them after adding iu all items that could be seen, and in addition 40 per cent, to 
 cover " incidentals." 
 
 The figures in third column are the prices paid by Alfred Field & Co. for the goods. 
 
 The fifth column gives the cost in Sheffield of corresponding knives, and the sixth 
 column shows the cost of the same knives laid down iu New York duty paid. 
 
 Calcuiations showing present duty, Senate substitute, and Senate amendment. 
 [Presiiut duty, 35 per cent.] 
 
 Foreign 
 
 COBt 
 
 per crroBS. 
 
 Senate substitute. 
 
 Senate 
 aniend- 
 meut. 
 
 Senate amendment as passed 
 January 19, 1889. 
 
 $3.00 
 4.00 
 
 Per ct. 
 110 
 90 
 78 
 70 
 64 
 60 
 64 
 50 
 76 
 63 
 55 
 50 
 60 
 54 
 4S 
 43 
 46 
 42 
 40 
 38 
 
 20 cents per dozen and 30 ppr cent 
 
 do 
 
 Per cent. 
 00 
 75 
 66 
 60 
 50 
 53 
 48 
 45 
 76 
 63 
 55 
 50 
 60 
 64 
 46 
 43 
 46 
 42 
 40 
 38 
 
 15 cents per dozen and 30 per cent. 
 
 5.00 
 
 do 
 
 
 6.00 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 7.00 
 
 do 
 
 Do 
 
 8.00 
 
 do 
 
 Do 
 
 10.00 
 
 do 
 
 Do 
 
 11.60 
 
 do 
 
 Do 
 
 13.00 
 18.00 
 
 50 cents per dozen and 30 per cent 
 
 do 
 
 50 cents perdozen and 30 per cent. 
 Do 
 
 24 00 
 
 do 
 
 Do 
 
 30.00 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 40.00 
 
 
 $1 per dozen and 30 per cent. 
 Do. 
 
 50.00 
 
 
 75.00 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 96.00 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 *1.50.00 
 "200.00 
 
 $2 per dozen and 30 per cent 
 
 do 
 
 $2 per dozen and 30 per cent. 
 Do 
 
 •230. 00 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 *300. OO 
 
 do 
 
 Do 
 
 
 
 
 *No sale of account. 
 Carving Icnives andJorJcs. 
 [Present duty, 35 per cent.] 
 
 Fore.gn cost 
 
 Senate 
 
 Senate 
 
 Proposed 
 
 
 per dozen 
 
 substi- 
 
 amend- 
 
 duty 
 
 Proposed rates (page 79). 
 
 pieces. 
 
 tute. 
 
 ment. 
 
 (page 79). 
 
 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 
 $1.46 
 
 65 
 
 65 
 
 99 
 
 
 2.19 
 
 63 
 
 53 
 
 76 
 
 $1 dozen, or 30 per cent. • 
 
 . 2.92 
 
 47 
 
 47 
 
 64 
 
 
 3.65 
 
 67 
 
 57 
 
 58 
 
 
 4.38 
 
 53 
 
 53 
 
 73 
 
 
 5.11 
 
 50 
 
 50 
 
 69 
 
 
 5.84 
 
 47 
 
 47 
 
 64 
 
 .$2 dozen, or 30 per cent. 
 
 6.82 
 
 45 
 
 45 
 
 59 
 
 
 7.79 
 
 43 
 
 43 
 
 56 
 
 
 8.76 
 
 53 
 
 53 
 
 64 
 
 
 9.73 
 
 50 
 
 50 
 
 61 
 
 
 11.00 
 
 48 
 
 48 
 
 57 
 
 $3 dozen, or 30 per cent. 
 
 12.00 
 
 46 
 
 40 
 
 55 
 
 
 13.00 
 
 45 
 
 45 
 
 68 
 
 
 14. 00 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 
 65 
 
 $5 dozen, or 30 per cent. 
 
 15,00 
 Average 
 
 43 
 
 43 
 
 63 
 
 
 
 
 
 rate 
 
 49 
 
 49 
 
 67 
 
 
 The above average is reckoned for same quantity of each price. The larger pro- 
 portions are always of the cheaper knives, which would increase the average rate. 
 
 I have an object lesson of a practical illustration of what I have been saying. I 
 have selected of these knives live samples which represent the leading grades of 
 table knives that are marketed iu this country. I have also selected samples of cor- 
 responding knives made in Sheffield, and 1 wish to make a comparison. These are 
 two knives, one Araerioau and one Sheffield. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Neither have a mark on them. 
 
1230 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. I do not think there is, because it is a sample. One is a Sheffield 
 knife and the other is from the Williamsburg Manufacturing Company. That Amer- 
 ican knife, which is this one, if anything is a little the best knife ; we all agree to 
 that. But tbey are a fair match and the gentlemen can see that. The American 
 kuife cost to produce |8. 16 per gross. They sell by contract at .118.97 per gross which 
 is 10 per cent, added. That corresponding knife from ShefBeld costs in Sheffield $9, 
 It costs to lay doTvn hete, duty paid of 35 per cent., $13.32. 
 Mr. Flower. Eight dollars and sixteen cents is the cost of production here. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Then you add 10 per cent, and it sold for $8.97 ? 
 Mr. Saxton. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That cost 113.32 in Sheffield, and the other cost to produce here $8.16. 
 
 Mr. Mills (picking up a knife). What do you pay for this knife ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. I have it in a table which I will leave with you. Here it is ; the white 
 handle are priced the same as the ebony. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The white handle is the American kuife. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Yes, sir; the white handle knife is tlie American knife and I priced 
 it for ebony and it is the same. The American cost to produce is $7.94, and the Shef- 
 field selling price is |7.78 ; and it cost to lay down here with 35 per cent, duty added, 
 $11.52. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Therefore the Sheffield knife can not come here now, and that is the 
 reason why everybody in the hardware trade have been entirely broken up who de- 
 pended upon any imports. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. They have all been pretty badly squeezed and a great many squeezed 
 out. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I know of a man who had $100,000 worth of imported goods on his 
 shelves wlio died a pauper ; they froze him out. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. They are constantly being S(|ueezed out ; we people who have kept 
 our heads above water have done it by shifting about; by buying American knives 
 aud working about. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The men have been very lucky who have been able to keep above 
 water. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Yes, sir. Here is another match : The American knife cost to pro- 
 duce $8.72, and the Sheffield knife cost $9.73, aud it cost to lay down here, duty ot 
 35 per cent, added, $14. 40. 
 
 The Chairman. You say ShefBeld price ; what do you mean by that ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. I mean that is the price at which we can buy those goods in Sheffield. 
 
 Mr. Mills. I would lilte if you can for you to give us tlio probable cost of trans- 
 portation ; what would be the probable cost of transportation per gross of these 
 knives? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. I mean now the price that we can buy from the manufacturers in 
 Sheffield. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You are not speaking of the cost of production? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. No, sir ; the price that we can buy in Sheffield. 
 
 The Chairman. But in taking the American prices you take the coat? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Yes, sir; because we happen to have that. We pay ten per cent, 
 added to the cost. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Now give us the transportation if you can. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. It varies a little, but 1 should think it is about 10 per cent, beyond 
 the duty. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The fact is this, neither of these Sheffield knives yon have in com- 
 parison here can be made here in competition with our knives even if we had them 
 duty free. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Yes. sir. I have got five knives if you would like to see them all. 
 
 The Chairman. You mean to say that none of these come in ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. No, sir; not these knives. Nineteen- twentieths of the table knives 
 sold in this country do not come from abroad. 
 
 The Chairman. None of the knives that you sjieak of are imported ; do you mean 
 to say that ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Yes, sir, I do; I say that with a good deal of emphasis if that will 
 help the matter. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That is why the importers of hardware are nearly all bursted. We 
 can l)cat the world on these knives. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Here are two knives : the American knife cost of production is |8. 40, 
 it is sold for i^'J. 24 ; the selling price in Sheflicld is $9. 85, and it costs laid down here, 
 duty paid, $14. 5H. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you give the nurabors by which they can be identified ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton, Yes, sir; they are all made up here in this table. Here is an Amer- 
 ican knife which cost to produce .$9.76 ; is sold for $10.73. The selling price iu Shef- , 
 field is $10.40, aud it costs in Now York, duty paid, $15.48. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1231 
 
 I 
 
 Mr. Flower. That ought to be pretty good steel. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What do you sell them at '! 
 
 Mr. Saxton. We do not sell Sheffield knives at all. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You have a price-list of them ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. No, sir ; we have not. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What are you doing with them if you do not sell them ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. I simply got these samples to show them. A poor, benighted manager 
 in Sheffield brought these samples along thinliing, possibly, there might be some pos- 
 sibility of placing them here. That is the way I got them. In this table I have, 
 which I will leave with the gentlemen, I give the cost of producing five patterns of 
 knives making a total of $42.98. They are sold, with the 10 per cent, added, at $47.35. 
 The total selling price of the corresponding knives in Sheffield is $46.82, and with the 
 duty added the cost in New York is |69.30. 
 
 It will be seen that in giving the American manufacturer 10 per cent, profit it 
 brings his goods to substantially the same figures as corresponding goods are being 
 sold for in Sheffield, and that the present duty of 35 per cent. — allowing the importer 
 10 per cent, profit to market the goods — shows a margin between the American manu- 
 facturer's cost and the foreign article of 77 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Flower. In favor of the American Imife. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Iu all fairness right here, there is a kind of cutlery that is not pro- 
 duced here, a very cheap German knife, which it is claimed can be made cheaper 
 there than it can be here. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. A table knife ? 
 
 Mr. Flower. A pocket-knife. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. We will some to that in a few minutes. Here is a knife I brought 
 along. We used to get out thirty years ago a few cast iron knives, an awfully ugly 
 thing and only intended for the negroes of the South, costing from $3.50 to|4 a gross. 
 These have ijeen made here in America and sold for $3.25 a gross. I think they were 
 sold at less than cost at that price, but we bought them at |4 a gross. That is a 
 steel knife and a steel fork [exhibiting same]. 
 
 The Chairman. Your paper will all be printed. 
 
 In Mr. Landers' statement (page 77) he states as follows: " By one of the errors 
 which creep into a bill at the last moment, table cutlery iu the Mills bill is put at 
 35 per cent., while jiocket cutlery is put at 50 per cent., and this dilfereuce between 
 35 and 50 per cent, in the last year has been a great drawback." 
 
 It is intended by this statement to create the impression that prior to the Mills 
 bill, table cutlery stood .it 50 per cent., while the fact is table cutlery has never been 
 over 35 per cent, since 1861, and prior to that for some years was 24 per cent. 
 
 The Mills bill simply left table and pocket cutlery where it stood. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Probably he was under the impression that that bill had passed and had 
 become a law. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. We have been rather fortunate, gentlemen, in obtaining a statement 
 of the last j'ear's business of one of the table cutlery manufacturers of this country, 
 which does not show that a great state of alarm is to be apprehended Here is a state- 
 ment of the Lamson & Goodiiow Manufacturing Company. They show from January 
 1, 1889, after paying bonds of $17,000, $3,279 of interest, making' $20,000, they show a 
 surplus for the year of $15,000 on a capital of $160,000. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much business did they do ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. That is not stated here. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you not compute that on the amount of business done 1 
 
 Mr. Saxton. We always reckoned it on the capital. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You are the only business man I ever heard that ever did that. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I never heard of their reckoning in any other way. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. I never heard of it. This would seem to figure out about 25 percent. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You say you buy these knives of a manufacturer outside the combina- 
 tion. Do you mean to say there is a combination of cutlery? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. I have just said that. 
 
 Mr. Flower. There is a combination outside of those men of whom you purchase 
 and a few others that fix these prices, and so the higher they fix the tarifl' duty, of 
 course, the higher the prices they can fix by their combination. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Certainly they can. I say that these pricescouldbeputup very much 
 higher, and still they would not have any competition from the other side. That is 
 a fact, except in the very finest grades. The amount of table cutlery and carvers 
 from my estimate here is only $125,000, and that is the very best grades. 
 
 Mr. Carllsle. And these are the ordinary grades. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. We can not touch those grades. American people are making a great 
 many of what are called steel-handle knives which sell from $1 to $1.50. They have 
 very largely taken the place of a better quality of knives they used to make. I 
 wonld like right here, if Mr. Flower has no further questions to ask, or any other 
 
1232 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 gentlemen on table cutlery, to have Mr. Sears corroborate wliat I have stated in re- 
 gard to it. 
 
 Tlie Chaij:man. Yoh had l)ettor conclude your statement on table cutlery. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. I have concluded my statement on cutlery, but I vrould like for Mr. 
 Sears to corroborate it. Mr. Sears is one of the oldest and largest dealers and job- 
 bei'sin cutlery in this country, and I want him to say whether my statement in refer- 
 ence to this is corrector not. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Have you samples of these finer grades of cutlery ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. I have not, but that is mostly of ivory and pearl handles. 
 
 STATEMENT OF E. B. SEARS. 
 
 Mr. E. B. Sears, of Chicago, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I would simply confirm the state- 
 ment of Mr. Saxton. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is your firm? 
 
 Mr. Sears. The firm is the Henry Sears Company. We have been engaged in the 
 jobbing cutlery trade for twenty-five years in Chicago and the West, and part of that 
 time in the manufactnre of cutlery, and at no time during that period have we been 
 ^ble to import or buy of any importers any table cutlery, not a gross. All we have 
 bought has been from American manufacturers, and to my knowledge all table cut- 
 lery that has been brought from abroad has been confined to certain goods ; to well 
 known brands like Rodgers ; and brought here to supply a demand from the first-class 
 trade who are willing to pay for a brand and for ivory-handle and pearl-handle goods. 
 
 Abroad they excel the American manufacturer on carvers. Their process of man- 
 ufacturing is different in carvers. The American carvers are simply rolled steel 
 while abroad the carver is forged out of a bar of steel which makes a better cutting 
 carver. It is probable in the experience that all you gentlemen have had that you 
 have seldom been able to find a good cutting knife, and in that case yon have been 
 handling an American carver. Our preference has always been for American goods, 
 and we have not been so far capable of importing or buying any table cutlery from 
 abroad in gross lots. 
 
 Mr. GeaK. Is the American cutlery of as good a quality? 
 
 Mr. Sears. The American knives and forks are of good quality, but the finer goods 
 are not so good as the Sheffield goods. 
 
 Mr. Gear. They satisfy the average trade of this country. 
 
 Mr. Sears. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. They give satisfaction in a general way. 
 
 Mr. Sears. They do on the lower grades. The samples of goods shown here are 
 strictly as good as far as I know as the foreign goods, but the exceptions are in the 
 finer class of goods. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Such as wealthy people buy. 
 
 Mr. Sears. Such as Rodgers' goods and Wilson's butcher knives. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Such as wealthy people use. I do not think you sell these fine knives 
 and forks to farm people as a general thing. 
 
 Mr. Sears. The people who can afford to pay 50 cents a dozen for knives can not 
 aftbrd to pay $10. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you agree with the statement of Mr. Saxton that if the duty was 
 taken off this ordinary cutlery, still we could not import it ? 
 
 Mr. Sears. So far 'as I know, I think it would be practically impossible to import 
 table cutlery such as this in the gross. 
 
 Mr. Flower. If that is the case how will it injure it if this tariff is increased forty 
 times from what is now ; it is simply prohibitory as it is. 
 
 Mr. Sears. That is the question. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Except to keep this combination up. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Now it was said by a gentleman a while ago, Mr. Saxton, that this cut- 
 lery trade, except, perhaps, a few persons, are in combination. If you keep out im- 
 portation you strike that combination. 
 
 Mr. Sears. That is not the object of the combination at all. The only competition 
 they have is among themselves, and not against imported goods. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Suppose they fix the combination price higher, and say the duty con- 
 tinues at 35 per cent., the imports would come in and cut them down, and compel 
 them to stand at the tariff figure ? 
 
 Mr. Sears. I do not think an increase of 25 or 30 per cent, would admit an impor- 
 tation in table knives and forks; that is gross goods. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you sell any goods in Canada? 
 
 Mr. Sears. Very lew. 
 
 Mr. BjtECKiNRiDGB. Do you know anything of the Canadian demand for table- 
 ware ? 
 
KE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 1233 
 
 Mr. Sears. I can not answer that question very intelligently. 
 Mr. Breokinridue. Have you any trade with Mexico? 
 
 Mr. Sears. No; we have a trade as far south as the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific 
 coast. 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am speating of trade beyond our borders. 
 Mr. Sears. We have none beyond our borders. 
 
 STATEMENT OF P. A. BOKER. 
 
 Mr. F. A. Boker, of New York, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 The Chairman. What is your business ? 
 
 Mr. Boker. I am an importer and general merchant. We sell a great many Ameri- 
 can goods, and we are part owners of an American factory. Mr. Saxton alluded a 
 few minutes ago to the question of butcher knives and said only a very small quan- 
 tity of butcher knives were imported. These so-called Wilson goods are preferred to 
 any American butcher knife which I can show by the prices. These knives are 
 Imitated in this country and sold about 50 per cent, under the present tariff lower 
 than the English goods. Here is Exhibit A, which is English goods, and here is the 
 corresponding kuife which is made in this country. The American knife looks to be 
 a better knife than the English kuife, but the English knife is only sold on its qual- 
 ity. Under the present tariff this English knife is sold at |1.87, and the American 
 knife can be bought in small quantities, as per bill which I have in my hand, at 
 11.59. 
 
 The Chairman. One dollar and fifty-nine cents is 
 
 Mr. Boker. As against $1.87 at which the English is sold in New York. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. After paying the duty ? 
 
 Mr. Boker. Yes, sir. The American knife can be bought for $1.59 in small quanti- 
 ties. Now in largo quantities that knife can be bought for considerably less. The 
 Lamson and Goodno w Manufacturing Company sell another knife which is very nearly 
 equal to this knife at $1.20 less 25 per cent., which is equal to 95 cents, and still 
 they want the duty raised, I understand, to an average of 68 per cent, as against 33 
 per cent, at the present time. The duties are only 35 per cent, on the naked value of 
 the goods and as there is no duty paid on the charges, the duty really comes to 35 
 per cent, at the present time. Now I have made a table showing the average rate of 
 duty under this full tariff that is from 48 to 80 per cent. The leading kuife is the 6- 
 inch knife, as out of 2,700 imported, 1,200 were the 6-inch knife and the duty would 
 be raised to 80 per cent, on this knife, and if the new duty should go into effect this 
 knife could not be sold, allowing 10 per cent, for profit, at less than $2.32, and ypa 
 can buy the American knife at $1.30 less 25 per cent, and 2 per cent., equal to 95 cents. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How are the quality of these two knives ? 
 
 Mr.- Boker. I suppose the English is much better, 
 
 Mr. Gear. How much better? 
 
 Mr. Boker. That is hard to say. John Wilson existed in 1759, and they always 
 upheld the quality of their knives, and that is the way they got a world-wide repu- 
 tation on their butcher knives; and every butcher prefers that knife, and of course if 
 the duty is raised men will buy that knife and just pay so much more for it. They 
 will have to do that for some time to come. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Those are sold on their reputation. 
 
 Mr. Boker. Solely. 
 
 Mr. Gear. By some time to come what do you mean ? 
 
 Mr. Boker. Perhaps in ten years the Americans can work it in. I can not tell as. 
 I do not know. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you know why we can not make as good a knife. 
 
 Mr. Boker. I do not know but they have not done it. Now a great many butcher 
 knives are exported to-day, in competition directly with Sheffield, to Brazil. The 
 American knives are cheaper than the Sheffield knives, and there have been quite a 
 lot exported to Brazid. We were agents of Lamson & Goodnow Manufacturing Com- 
 pany for a long time and our house exported these goods. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You say we do export to Brazil ? 
 
 Mr. Boker. We do not at present. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. We have been doing so? 
 
 Mr. Boker. We have been exporting large quantities to Brazil. We were the 
 agents of Lamson & Goodnow Manufacturing Company, and we exporled in direct 
 competition with Sheffield. I believe it is still done to-day. Now I have made an 
 affidavit and I have signed a petition against raising any duty, signed by our firm, I 
 have the affidavit attached to these papers. 
 
 The Chairman. Can you leave those papers, 
 
 Mr. Boker. Yes, sir. 
 
 485 78 
 
1234 REVISION, OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The Chairman. Tliey will be printed. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. We are still large importers of cutlery. Cutlery was irapoitetl to 
 tbo amount of .$3,000,000 worth last year. 
 
 JIv. IJoKisK. They were all kinds of table knives, but there are very few butcher 
 knives, razors, scissors, pocket-knives, etc. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. There seems to be some kind of cutlery that can be made cheaper 
 abroad and then pay this duty of 45 per cent, and still undersell the American goods. 
 What kind are they ? ' 
 
 Mr. BoKER. A great many pocket-knives are imported which are made cheaper 
 abroad than they can be made in America. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it the habit of some German manufacturers to stamp their goods 
 with American names! 
 
 Mr. BoKER. They may stamp them with some American firm's names because 
 some American houses want their own mark on their own goods. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it the custom among Germans to stamp the name of some American 
 firm and send them to this country ? 
 
 Mr. BoKER. We do not sell them as American goods. We have very little to 
 to do with that because we stamp our goods mostly with our own name. 
 
 Mr. Flower. And many goods made in this country are stamped with English 
 names. 
 
 Mr. Bokbr. That is because it finds a market. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. In regard to the imports of cutlery is it not true that pocket 
 cutlery is sold very largely upon the reputation of the maker almost regardless of 
 price? 
 
 Mr. BoKER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. So it does not follow therefore if there be large imports of 
 pocket cutlery that it is made cheaper abroad, but that the buyer prefers it even at 
 a higher price? 
 
 Mr. BoKER. Certainly. Mr. Saston will make that argument in a few minutes. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you anything further ? 
 
 Mr. BoKER. That is all I have to say and I will leave these papers. 
 
 New York, Feiruary 18, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen: We respectfully protest against any advance in duty on butcher 
 knives, as the present duty of 35 per cent, on the naked value of the goods, equal to 
 32 per cent, on the value of the goods packed ready for shipment, more than protects 
 the American manufacturers. 
 
 It is a well-known fact that the entire annual importation of butcher knives does 
 not exceed $75,000, and in this amount is included about |60,000 worth of so-called 
 Wilson butcher knives, and these goods are only sold because they have a world-wide 
 reputation for excellency, although they cost more than similar American goods. 
 
 If the duty is advanced, as proposed, to an average of 68 per cent., the consumer, 
 i. e. the workingman, will have to pay about 30 per cent, more for the goods. 
 
 We herewith respectfully submit a table showing the present doty, the foreign 
 value, duty as proposed, an exact assortment of the goods as imported by us ; also 
 sample knife marked A of the foreign goods. This knife can not be sold with 35 per 
 cent, duty, 10 per cent, for expenses and 10 per cent, for profit, for less than $1.87 
 per dozen, while an exact imitation made by tlae Lamson & Goodnow Manufacturing 
 Company as per sample marked B is sold in small quantities at $1.59. 
 
 We know that American goods can be bought at considerably lower in large quan- 
 tities, and if the American manufacturers complain that they do not make any money 
 \t is their own fault and due to competition among themselves and not to the foreign 
 ^oods. If they would raise their x)rices to the prices at whidh foreign are being sold, 
 under the present tariff of 35 per cent, they would make a very handsome profit. 
 
 The above remarks about foreign values and assortment of goods can easily ba 
 verified by our invoices now on file at the custom-house. 
 
 We also attach an affidavit by our Mr. F. A. Boker, substantiating all these facts, 
 all of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 Hermann Boker & Co. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 Our knife will have to be sold at $2.32, and against this we can buy a butcher 
 knife, made by the Larason & Goodnow Manufacturing Company, stamped " Greave's 
 Cast Steel," at $1.30 less 25 per cent, and 2 per cent., equal to 95 cents; and another 
 knife made by the same manufacturing company. No. 85, at $1.65 less 4 per cent., 
 equal to $1.59 net. 
 
 This knife comes in direct competition with our goods, being an imitation of the 
 so-called Wilson butcher knife, which has been sold in America long before any 
 American butcher knife was made. 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 1235 
 
 The price of $1.59 for 6-inch knife as per original bill herewith submitted, is a great 
 ileal higher than the knife can be bought at in large quantities, and it is a fact that 
 large quantities of butcher knives are sold for export. This statement shows that 
 the American manufacturers are able to compete on a duty of 20 per cent. , as we have 
 to add another 10 per cent, expenses and 10 per cent, profit. 
 
 The present duty on butcher knives is 35 per cent, on the net value of the goods, or 
 equal to 32 per cent, on the goods packed ready for shipment. The follovring taljla 
 will show how much the duty will be in per cent, if the Senate bill of 1889 is adopted: 
 
 Inch. 
 
 5. 
 5i 
 6 
 
 6i 
 7. 
 8- 
 9. 
 
 10. 
 
 11. 
 
 13. 
 
 13. 
 
 14. 
 
 Foreign 
 value. 
 
 $0.81 
 0.89 
 1.06 
 1.22 
 1.38 
 1.63 
 2.10 
 2.60 
 3.25 
 3.90 
 4.70 
 5.30 
 
 30 per 
 cent. 
 
 $0. 2430 
 0. 2570 
 0.3180 
 0. 3660 
 0. 4140 
 0. 4890 
 0.63 
 0.78 
 0. 9750 
 1.17 
 1.45 
 1.59 
 2. 0580 
 
 In addi- 
 tion per 
 dozen. 
 
 $0.15 
 0.16 
 0.60 
 0.60 
 0.60 
 0.60 
 0..50 
 0.50 
 1.00 
 1.00 
 1.00 
 1.00 
 1.00 
 
 Total 
 duty. 
 
 $0. 3930 
 0.4170 
 0.8180 
 0. 8660 
 0. 9140 
 0. 9890 
 1.13 
 1.28 
 1. 9760 
 2.17 
 2.41 
 2.59 
 3. 0580 
 
 Duty. 
 
 Actual as- 
 sortment 
 
 as imported 
 by Herm. 
 
 Bo'ker&Co. 
 
 Per ct. 
 48 
 46 
 77 
 80 
 66 
 61 
 54 
 60 
 61 
 56 
 51 
 48 
 45 
 
 Dot. 
 
 5 
 
 100 
 
 160 
 
 1,200 
 
 200 
 
 300 
 
 300 
 
 ' 300 
 
 200 
 
 40 
 
 100 
 
 2 
 
 30 
 
 2,727 
 
 Average 68 per cent, against 32 per cent, at present, but the principal tnife, 6-inch, will have to 
 pay 80 per cent. duty. 
 
 This knife costs in Europe $1. 22 
 
 Duty 0.8660 
 
 Ten per cent, expense 0. 1220 
 
 2. 1080 
 Profit, 10 per cent 0.2120 
 
 2. 3200 
 
 New York, February 17, 1890. 
 City, Codnty, and State of NeW York: 
 
 F. A. Boker, being duly sworn, states that he is a born American citizen and a 
 partner of Hermann Boker & Co. ; he further states that the facts submitted in a 
 letter dated February 18, to the honorable Committee of Ways and Means, signed by 
 him, by the firm name of Hermann Boker & Co., are true, to his best knowledge and 
 belief. 
 
 F. A. Boker. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of February, A. D. 1890. 
 [SEAL.l John J. Ward, 
 
 Notary Pablic, Kings County, New York; 
 certificate filed in New York County. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. SAXTON. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You remember when you were here the other day I asked the ques- 
 tion why we were so tar behind Europe in regard to pocket cutlery when almost every- 
 thing in the hardware we could beat them. We can beat them on table cutlery, and 
 now I would like to hear from you in regard to pocket cutlery. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. Permit me to ask one question right here. There was half a million 
 dollars worth of table cutlery imported into this country. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. You are mistaken. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. I give that from the Bureau of Statistics. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. No, sir; thedistinotion we make i8|75,000 of butcher knives and steel, 
 and $25,000 worth of table cutlery and carvers, and $357,000 of scissors, razors, knives, 
 etc., making $557,000. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. You say some are butcher knives ? 
 
1236 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Seventy-five thousand dollars are butcher knives, and $25,000 are 
 table cutlery. 
 
 Mr. Geak. Where do you get that ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. It is the very best estimate we can get. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You could not get that direct? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. No, sir ; -we tried that but they did uot separate them. We tried both 
 here and in Sheffield. 
 
 POCKET KNIVES. 
 
 Mr. Rockwell states on page 65 that the average rate under their proposed duty, 
 as per calculation on page 66, is 73 per cent. 
 
 This statement is simply deceptive, and, in our judgment, was so intended. In 
 their calculation their average is arrived at by reckoning that there are as many 
 knives imported costing an average of $10.66 x'er dozen, as in fourth class, as there 
 are of knives costing an average of 32 cents and |1.12, as in first and second class. 
 
 Of the knives imported ontside such well known makers as Eodgers, Wosteuholni, 
 Needham, Crook, etc., which sell on their reputation, and the average foreign cost of 
 which does not exceed $4 per dozen, the proportion is just about as follows, viz : 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 First classification 17J 
 
 Second classification 50 
 
 Third classification 30 
 
 Fourth classification 2i 
 
 which figures out an average duty of a little over 90 per cent. 
 
 I have taken a number of orders amounting to 6,627 dozen and the average actually 
 figured out 92J per cent., and if the duties on coverings are restored it would figure 
 nearly 100 per cent. This is a very different result from 73 per cent., as claimed by 
 American cutlery manufacturers. They state that their table of relative costs (page 
 71) "shows the cost of the American product of lower-priced knives 250 percent, 
 greater than the German, and to average over 200 per cent, above their [our] whole 
 Ime." 
 
 This is an incorrect statement. In their table the German cost foots up $35.78, 
 and the American cost foots up $108.80, or a little less than 200 per cent, on the lower- 
 priced knives, leaving "their [our] whole lino," according to their own iigures, 
 about 150 per cent, greater. This difference of 50 per cent, in their calculation in 
 itself, on their own basis, would leave the duty considerably lower than it is now, 
 seeing they only claim an average of 73 per cent. But, in reality they claim nearer 
 100 jier cent, average. 
 
 Now, their tablehas twenty-one descriptions. In our corresponding table (on page 
 81) we give nineteen descriptions the same as theirs, and the cost or selling price 
 abroad, backed up by affidavits, which can not be successfully chaltenged is $27.42, 
 and the American selling price, also backed up by affidavits of well-known American 
 buyers, foots up $46.30. Deduct 10 per cent, for profit to make cost of production, 
 and we have |41.67. So that the actual American cost over the German cost on the 
 descriptions they have submitted, and on which they ask you to advance the duty 
 from 50 per cent, to 100 per cent. — is as near as possible 50 per cent. — the present 
 duty, aud in addition to the duty of 50 per cent, it costs about 10 per cent, for ex- 
 penses to land them here. 
 
 Now, Mr. Bradley said something in regard to the cost of labor in this country and 
 abroad. I think he mentioned the labor here was about $2 a day, and puts it at 25 
 cents a day in Sollinger, Germany. If any gentleman wants that contradicted, we 
 can have that contradicted here. 
 
 Mr. BuECKiNEiDGE. I think then you should do so. 
 
 The Chairman. I think he had better conclude his statement first, and then he 
 can call the gentlemen he wishes. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Do I understand you to say that the cost of transportation will 
 amount to about 10 per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Then there will be 10 per cent, protection to our people on account 
 of transportation ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Mills. That yon would accept as a general average in regard to all goods ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I understand you to mean to say this is 10 per cent, outside of 
 these packing expenses that are incidental to selling here as well as there. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Freight, insurance, etc.? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. BiiECKiNRiDGE. I Wanted to understand whether it includes the boxing, or 
 whether it was net increase of 10 per cent. 
 
REtMON="OF'THE~TARlFP. 123? 
 
 Mr. 8axton. It is the net increase. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the rate of insurance on their side in here ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. It is five-eighths to three-fourths of 1 jjer cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You stated the profits of Lamson & Goodnow Manufacturing Company, 
 but you did not reply in regard to the volume of business done. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. No ; I said I did not know. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You say they made a profit, paid off bonds, etc., yet you could not say 
 what volume of business would be required to do that. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. We sometimes do a million dollars worth of business yet make a very 
 small profit. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I understand that. It takes a volume of business to make the per- 
 centage. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Not always, I beg your pardon. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Then you could sell $100,000 worth of goods and make as much as selling 
 $800,000 worth of goods? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Very likely, and that is what we are endeavoring to do; it is so much 
 better business for you to do on atcount of the risk, which is so much less. 
 
 Now, these people labor very hard to try and convince your committee that there 
 is a margin of profit on imported cutlery of 200 per cent., and that if you raise the 
 duty from 50 per cent, to 100 per cent, the consumer will pay no more for bis goods, 
 but the loss will be borne by the importer, jobber, and retailer. 
 
 This seems to me a very lame attempt to bolster up a bad cause, and is on a par 
 with the statement that has been going around — that the duty is paid by the importer, 
 or foreign manufacturer. 
 
 Mr. Bradley when pressed to explain how it is that he is selling a knife at $1 per 
 dozen which costs to import 60 cents per dozen, takes ref nge in the patriotism of the 
 American people, and claims they ought to pay 33^ per cent, extra for a knife made 
 in America. 
 
 The plain and sensible fact is the middle men get all the profit competition will 
 allow them, and the retailer on such goods as knives goes for a certain percentage of 
 profit — each one for himself, and always bases his selling price on his cost — no mat- 
 ter what his cost is. 
 
 The aim of this argument seems to be to show that the importer and jobber make 
 enormous profits on their imported goods, and that if the duty is increased 50 per 
 cent, they will have to be content to make that much less profit. Whereas the fact 
 is that both the importer and the jobber do not average 50 per cent, profit together. 
 
 Now, I state what I know to be the fact when 1 iay that the average gross profit 
 to the importer on pocket cutlery does not exceed 10 to 12 per cent., and if Mr. Brad- 
 ley or any other member of the American Cutlery Association want to guarantee me 
 a net profit of per cent, to cover interest on capital employed and labor of partners, 
 he or they are welcome to all there is left, or in other words, they will " get left." 
 
 According to this calculation the importer and jobber getting 50 per cent, on origi- 
 nal cost, would leave the retailer to get 100 per cent, ou his cost, to make up the 200 
 per cent, profit claimed on original cost. Whether the retailer gets this much or not 
 I do not know. What I do know is that he bases his price on his cost and not on 
 anything else, and it does not appear that the retailer, because he is compelled to pay 
 50 per cent, more for his goods, would be satisfied to sell for that much less. That, 
 in my judgment, is very far fetched and perfectly absurd. 
 
 They say that American pocket cutlery has not been a success un.supported by aux- 
 iliary business. The fact is, that in most all the cases successful manufacturers in 
 other lines of hardware have added pocket cutlery m an auxiliary. See the John 
 Eussell Cutlery Company, with a capital of $750,000, who for nearly forty years have 
 manufactured "table cutlery, and who did it successfully under a tariff of 24 per cent. 
 
 They make a point about the large numbers of failures, and say of twenty-five 
 concerns, eleven have either failed or reorganized. Reorganization in business is a 
 very common thing, and may imply success or nou-success, or something else. I know 
 it very often implies bad management. These people only clai m less than 50 per cent, 
 of both failures and reorganizations. Whereas it is well known that at least 80 per 
 cent of all business houses fail some time or other. 
 
 Let us dissect their table on pages 72 and 73. 
 
 Take the Canton Cutlery Company, which they put down as failed and reorganized. 
 This concern was simply a swindle, and cheated everybody they could. Tliey owe 
 me $1,600, and I never could get the first cent of it. 
 
 The Canastota Knife Company put down as failed. I was agent for this company 
 when they first started, and for some time thereafter, and have never heard of their 
 failure, and can not find through the commercial agencies that they ever failed. 
 
 The Frary Cutlery Company, later Bridgeport Cutlery Company. T have already 
 alluded 1o this company in ray remarks on table cutlery. 
 
 C. F. Wolfertz & Co., put down as failed. This is untrue. I would sell him any 
 time since 1880, as quick as any man in their association. 
 
12S8 
 
 REVISION OP THE TASIPF. 
 
 Waltlen Knife Company put tlie value of tlieir product in 1887 at $50,000. 1 happen 
 to know they sold one house in that year |48,000, value of their product in 1882 and 
 1887, as put down by them. Eighteen hundred and eighty-two was one of the so- 
 called boom years, but after what we shall further show you I do not think much 
 credit can be given to the value of product put down by them for either year, and, 
 besides, there are a number of other manufacturers of pocket cutlery not down on 
 their table, and they are increasing all the time. (Booth, Black, Bokers, Bridgeport.) 
 
 So that it is clear the table called Exhibit A is an entirely misleading table. 
 
 One-blade pocket-knives. 
 [Present duty, 50 per cent.] 
 
 Foreign cost, 
 per dozen. 
 
 Senate 
 substitute. 
 
 Senate 
 amendment 
 
 Proposed 
 duty. 
 
 Proposed rates. 
 
 $0.18 
 0.24 
 0.37 
 0.48 
 0.61 
 0.73 
 0.85 
 1.00 
 
 Average rates. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 302 
 
 233 
 
 164 
 
 127 
 
 106 
 
 93 
 
 84 
 
 75 
 
 Per cent 
 117 
 100 
 82 
 75 
 109 
 99 
 92 
 86 
 
 Per cent. 
 117 
 100 
 82 
 75 
 132 
 118 
 109 
 100 
 
 12 cents per dozen and 50 per cent. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 50 cents per dozen and 50 per cent. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 148 
 
 95 
 
 103 
 
 These averages are made up for like quantities of each price. The proportion sold 
 is always of the cheaper grades, which would bring the actual average much higher 
 th in above given. 
 
 Two-Hade pocket-knives. 
 [Present duty 50 per cent.] 
 
 Foreign cost, 
 per dozen. 
 
 Senate 
 substitute. 
 
 Senate 
 amend- 
 ment. 
 
 Proposed 
 uuiy. 
 
 Proposed rates. 
 
 $0.37 
 0.48 
 0.61 
 0.73 
 0.85 
 0.97 
 1.10 
 1.28 
 1.34 
 1.46 
 1.68 
 1.70 
 1.82 
 1.95 
 
 Average rate - 
 
 Per cent. 
 294 
 228 
 188 
 161 
 142 
 128 
 116 
 106 
 100 
 93 
 88 
 84 
 80 
 76 
 
 Per cent. 
 80 
 75 
 109 
 99 
 92 
 97 
 83 
 80 
 77 
 75 
 73 
 71 
 69 
 68 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 82 
 
 75 
 
 132 
 
 118 
 
 109 
 
 101 
 
 95 
 
 91 
 
 87 
 
 84 
 
 113 
 
 109 
 
 105 
 
 101 
 
 12 centa per dozen and 50 per cent. 
 
 Do. 
 50 cents per dozen and 50 per cent. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 $1 per dozen and 50 per cent. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 135 
 
 82 
 
 100 
 
 These averages are made up for like quantities of each price. The proportion sold 
 is always of the cheaper grades, which would bring the actual average much higher 
 than above given. 
 
Revision of the tariff. 
 
 Three-hUidi pocket-knives. 
 [Present duty, 50 per cent.] 
 
 1239 
 
 Foreiffn cost, 
 per dozen. 
 
 Senate 
 substitute. 
 
 Senate 
 amendment 
 
 Proposed 
 duty. 
 
 Proposed rates. 
 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 
 $0.48 
 
 330 
 
 75 
 
 75 
 
 12 cents per dozen and .50 pi-.r cent. 
 
 0.61 
 
 270 
 
 109 
 
 132 
 
 50 cents per dozen and 50 per cent. 
 
 0.73 
 
 230 
 
 99 
 
 118 
 
 Do. 
 
 0.85 
 
 201 
 
 92 
 
 109 
 
 Bo. 
 
 0.97 
 
 180 
 
 87 
 
 101 
 
 Uo. 
 
 1.10 
 
 • 162 
 
 83 
 
 95 
 
 Do. 
 
 1.22 
 
 161 
 
 80 
 
 91 
 
 Do. 
 
 1.34 
 
 137 
 
 77 
 
 87 
 
 Do. 
 
 1.46 
 
 127 
 
 75 
 
 84 
 
 Do. 
 
 1.70 
 
 113 
 
 71 
 
 109 
 
 $1 per dozen and 50 per cent. 
 
 1.82 
 
 107 
 
 69 
 
 105 
 
 Do. 
 
 1.95 
 
 103 
 
 68 
 
 101 
 
 Do. 
 
 2.07 
 
 98 
 
 80 
 
 98 
 
 Do. 
 
 2.19 
 
 94 
 
 77 
 
 96 
 
 Do. 
 
 2.31 
 
 90 
 
 76 
 
 93 
 
 Do. 
 
 2.43 
 
 87 
 
 75 
 
 91 
 
 Do. 
 
 2.56 
 
 84 
 
 73 
 
 89 
 
 Do. 
 
 2.68 
 
 81 
 
 73 
 
 87 
 
 Do. 
 
 3.00 
 
 75 
 
 70 
 
 117 
 
 $2 per dozen and 50 per cent. 
 
 ,3.50 
 
 68 
 
 67 
 
 107 
 
 Do. 
 
 4.00 
 
 62 
 
 65 
 
 100 
 
 Do. 
 
 4.50 
 
 58 
 
 63 
 
 95 
 
 Do. 
 
 5.00 
 
 55 
 
 62 
 
 90 
 
 Do. 
 
 6.00 
 Average rate . 
 
 50 
 
 60 
 
 83 
 
 Do. 
 
 125 
 
 76 
 
 98 
 
 These averages are made up for like quantities of eaoli price. The proportion sold 
 is always of the cheaper grades, whicli would bring the actual average much higher 
 than above given. 
 
 Four-blade pocket-knives. 
 
 [Present duty, 50 per cent.] 
 
 Foreifrn cost, 
 per dozen. 
 
 Senate sub- 
 .stitute. 
 
 Senate 
 amendment 
 
 Proposed 
 duty. 
 
 Proposed rates. 
 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 
 
 $1.22 
 
 181 
 
 80 
 
 91 
 
 50 cents per dozen and 50 perc 
 
 ni t. 
 
 1.34 
 
 175 
 
 77 
 
 87 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 1.46 
 
 162 
 
 75 
 
 81 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 1.58 
 
 157 
 
 73 
 
 113 
 
 $1 per dozen and 50 per cent. 
 
 
 1.70 
 
 ,143 
 
 71 
 
 109 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 1.82 
 
 136 
 
 70 
 
 105 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 1.95 
 
 128 
 
 69 
 
 101 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 2.19 
 
 117 
 
 77 
 
 96 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 2.43 
 
 107 
 
 76 
 
 91 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 2.68 
 
 100 
 
 73 
 
 87 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 2.92 
 
 94 
 
 70 
 
 84 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 3.16 
 
 88 
 
 69 
 
 113 
 
 $2 per dozen and 60 per cent. 
 
 
 3.41 
 
 84 
 
 68 
 
 109 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 3.65 
 
 80 
 
 67 
 
 105 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 3.89 
 
 76 
 
 66 
 
 102 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 4.14 
 
 73 
 
 66 
 
 98 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 4.38 
 
 70 
 
 64 
 
 06 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 4.62 
 
 68 
 
 63 
 
 93 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 4.87 
 
 66 
 
 62 
 
 90 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 5.11 
 
 64 
 
 62 
 
 89 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 5,35 
 
 62 
 
 61 
 
 87 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 5.60 
 
 60 
 
 61 
 
 86 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 5.83 
 
 59 
 
 60 
 
 84 
 
 Do. ■ 
 
 
 6.07 
 
 58 
 
 60 
 
 83 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 6.70 
 
 55 
 
 69 
 
 79 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 7.30 
 Average rate . 
 
 52 
 
 58 
 
 77 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 97 
 
 67J 
 
 94 
 
 Thestf averages are made up for like quantities of each price. The proportion sold 
 is always of the cheaper grades, which would briug the actual average much higliel 
 than above given. 
 
1240 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARlFP. 
 
 Bazars. 
 [Present duty, 50 per cent.] 
 
 
 Senate 
 
 
 
 
 Fori'ifJD 
 
 Kubstituce, 
 
 Senate 
 
 
 
 cowt, pi;r 
 
 jOcentsper 
 
 amend- 
 
 Senate amendment. 
 
 
 dozen. 
 
 dozen nnd 
 25 per cent. 
 
 ment. 
 
 
 
 
 Fey cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 
 
 $0.72 
 
 95 
 
 190 
 
 
 
 0.96 
 
 78 
 
 154 
 
 
 
 l.'JO 
 
 68 
 
 133 
 
 Valne, $4 p. duz. and under, $1 p. doz. and 50 p. 
 
 ct. 
 
 1..14 
 
 60 
 
 I'JO 
 
 
 
 1.68 
 
 55 
 
 110 
 
 Value, over $4 p. doz., $1.25 p. doz. and 50 p. ct 
 
 
 1.92 
 
 53 
 
 102 
 
 
 
 2.16 
 
 48 
 
 96 
 
 
 
 2.40 
 
 46 
 
 92 
 
 
 
 2.04 
 
 44 
 
 88 
 
 
 
 2.88 
 
 42 
 
 85 
 
 * 
 
 
 :i.l2 
 
 41 
 
 88 
 
 
 
 .^.36 
 
 40 
 
 80 
 
 
 
 3.60 
 
 39 
 
 78 
 
 
 
 3.84 
 
 38 
 
 70 
 
 
 
 4.08 
 
 37 
 
 80 
 
 
 
 4.32 
 
 36 
 
 79 
 
 
 
 4.56 
 
 36 
 
 77 
 
 
 
 4.78 
 
 35J 
 
 76 
 
 
 
 5.00 
 
 35 
 
 76 
 
 
 
 5.50 
 
 34 
 
 73 
 
 
 
 6.00 
 
 33i 
 
 70 
 
 
 
 6.50 
 
 32 
 
 69 
 
 
 
 7.00 
 
 32 
 
 68 
 
 
 
 8.00 
 
 31 
 
 66 
 
 
 
 9.00 
 
 30 
 
 64 
 
 
 
 10.00 
 
 30 
 
 62i 
 
 
 
 12.00 
 
 29 
 
 60 
 
 
 
 Now, I would like for a moment to sliow some samples. The average importation 
 of pocket cutlery into tbis country for tbe last seven years, exclusive of razors, was 
 11,195,486. Ill order to bring the matter down to the competition of American goods, 
 you have got to throw out the goods mn,de by George Wolstenholm & Sous, Joseph 
 Eodgers &, Sons, Wilson Brothers, etc., that are sold entirely on their reputation, and 
 which do not come in competition with knives made in Germany or an.ywhere else. 
 A*fter deducting these there are in round numbers $600,000 of pocket-knives that come 
 in. Here is a Wolstenholm knife. Here is an iron-handle knife, and that knife costs 
 $1.90 to lay down hero. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You mean duty paid ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Yes, sir ; we could make that knife here and sell it at $±.25, but we 
 can not sell it against that knife from Sheffield: it sells on its reputation. That is an 
 JXL knife. 
 
 Mr. Flower (taking up a knife). What is that ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. That is a novelty knife. That was made here and does not come in 
 competition. Hero is a two-bladed jack knife costing |2 
 
 Mr. Flower. What is that ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. It is an IXL Wolstenholm knife. Here is the same grade of Eodgers. 
 These grades of knives do not come in competition or cut any figure at all in the 
 argument or statements that either one of us make. In making a statement you 
 have got to deduct that. 
 
 The Chairman. There are a number of men who wish to lie heard here this morn- 
 ing, and although I do not wish to hurry you, we should give them a chance to be 
 heard. If you have a written statement you can have it printed. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Now, gentlemen, we have $600,000 of foreign goods where we come 
 in competition. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Is machinery used to any extent in the manufacture of these knives 
 both here and in Europe ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. I think so ; yes, sir. It has been claimed we get a great lot of these 
 knives [exhibiting sample], but of these knives there are a great lot of, dozens of, little 
 boys' knives ; there is one of the old Barlow knives. We sold, I think, about ^5,000 
 dozen of those knives for boys. 
 
 Mr. Mills. I recollect the Barlow knife used to be very good metal. * 
 
 The Chairman. Have you concluded your statement ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. I was trying to illn.strat'o that the groat body, the groat number of 
 
■REVISION OP THE TAElFE. 1241 
 
 dozens and grosses are largely made np of little boys' knives tLat come in tlionennds 
 of grosses and that makes no point at all. They occasionally go to work imd make a 
 great lot of those and then a great many of them will he handled because 
 
 The Chairman. I would remind Mr. Saxton that we have a great number of gen- 
 tlemen here who wish to speak to-day. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I do not think the gentlemen should be hurried as he is speak- 
 ing by the consent of all the gentlemen present. We did not hiirry those who spoke 
 on the other side, and there is plenty of time yet. 
 
 The Chairman. You understood that these hearings were closed long ago. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Yes ; but these gentlemen have been granted a hearing to-day, 
 and I tiiink the gentleman should be permitted to proceed. 
 
 The Chairman. They had an opportauity to be heard before. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But they got an invitation from the committee, Mr. Chairman, 
 and had a special hearing set for to-day. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. You have a sample here of this knife which I sent from New York, 
 but this is substantially the same thing. Now the American association people make 
 the statement that that knife cost in Germany 56 cents a dozen for a one-bladed knife. 
 I swear that cost $1.10 in Germany. That is the diii'erence in the two statements. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Will you describe that knife ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. It is a one-bladed, 4-inch, wooden-handled knife. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. Where manufactured ? How would you describe it f Let us be 
 certain how it is described. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. This is sample number 253, C ; it is a 4-inch, iron-lined, wood-handle 
 jack-knife. They state that that cost 56 cents a dozen in Germany, and we swear 
 that the lowest price we can buy it is $1.10. They say it cost $1.90 for the American 
 manufacturer, and we have got affidavits of well-known buyers that they can buy 
 them for $1.50. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. Does it make any difference in regard to the number of blades ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Yes, sir. Here is a two-bladed knife which they state cost in Ger- 
 many 80 cents ; we swear it cost $1.52. They say that knife cost$2.70 to manufacture 
 in America, and we say it sells at $2.60, per affidavits of well-known buyers in this 
 country. Here is sample 209. They state that that cost 58 cents in Germany, and we 
 swear it costs 86 cents in Germany. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Give us the number by which it can be identified. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. This is a 3^ inch, two-bladed, iron-lined; this is an American knife. 
 Their statement that that knife cost 58 cents in Germany, and our affidavit is that it 
 costs 86 cents. Their statement is that it cost them $2.07 to produce it, and we have 
 aiBdavits of well-known buyers that they can buy this in America for $1.40. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What page are you looking at? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Page 82. Here is a 3i-inch, two-bladed, iron-lined knife. No. 14051. 
 They say that that knife cost In Germany 63 cents per dozen, and we swear it cost in 
 Germany $1.02. They say it costs $2.16 to produce in America, and wehave affidavits 
 of well-known buyers who said that they can buy the American knife at $1.65. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You are going right over the printed evidence. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. I want you gentlemen to see what they are. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. He is refuting the statements that have been made by the other 
 parties. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. He is simply going over former statements put in by them [reading] 
 "selling at $1.65, per affidavit well-known buyers." 
 
 Mr. Saxton. We are simply refuting their statement. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. But you are simply reading your own argument. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Here is their statement, "cost $1.90 per American manufactures." 
 Here is our statement, " selling $1.50 per affidavit of well-known buyers." 
 
 Mr. Bayne. But this has all been put in before. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Yes, in a written form. 
 
 The Chairman. You have already submitted this whole thing in writing. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. -Yes, sir; but I am endeavoring to show you gentlemen how this 
 thing is. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You have stated all these facts before, and you are now dilating on 
 them . 
 
 Mr. La Follette. He is expanding and explaining his statement. 
 
 Mr. Flower. These samples of knives are very instructive to you gentlemen. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Our statements are all backed up by affidavits, and we do not ask you 
 gentlemen to take these unless they are so backed up. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Are the affidavits in print? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Yes, sir ; they are all in print. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You have invited these gentlemen here, and if this is distasteful to 
 you yon ought to hear it ; this is an object lesson you haven't had. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there anything now which you wish to say which is not printed 7 
 
 Mr. Saxton. The average duty is stated to be 77 per cent. I take the average from 
 
124^ EEVISiON OP THE TAEIPJ*. 
 
 a table, which I will leave with the committee, and it figures out at 100 per cent. We 
 do not liuow what was done on razors ; we have not seen any statement ; but that Sen- 
 ate amendment brings up the average on razors to an average of 100 per cent. I 
 have got a few samples of razors if you would like to see them. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I leave you to examine these things closely. I examined them the 
 other day. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. We want to say that this duty proposed by the Senate amendment 
 would simply shut out lower grades of razors and deprive the men who want to buy 
 that sort of razor. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I would like you to explain how you figure at more than 50 
 per cent, the Senate amendment to the existing law. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Under the Senate amendment it figures out a tremendous high per- 
 centage for the cheapest razor- 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. It is done by the fact that the Senate amendment increases in a 
 larger degree or a larger per cent, the less costly grades of goods than the very fine 
 grades of goods. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. It increases it all the way through. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Does it not increase the cheaper grade more than the finer grade f 
 
 Mr. Saxton. I do not think it does ; it seems to double them all straight along. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Have you American-made razors ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. No, I have not. I am talking now of ad valorem duties. There is a 
 great lot of these razors selling at $1.40 and $1.12 ; that is wholesale. 
 
 Mr. Mills. What is the beet wholesale price yet for razors? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. There is one of the best razors we make. It is a full hollow Hamburg- 
 ground razor. 
 
 Mr. Mills. What do they cost? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Twenty-one shillings; a little over $5adozen. They cost laid down 
 here about $8.50 a dozen. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The razor manufacturers wanted a higher price on the higher grade. 
 They say they did not care about the cheaper grades; the tariff duty was high 
 enough. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. The present duty of 50 per cent ? 
 
 Mr. Flower. They thought on the lower grades that was satisfactory. 
 
 Mr. Mills. That keeps the cheap razors out. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Yes, sir. If you follow that idea it will simply make the $1.50 razor 
 cost $3, that is all. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Have you the figures giving the cost of producing razors? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. No, I have not. There is really only one man who makes razors in 
 this country ; that is Mr. Torrey. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Does he make good razors ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. I think he does. 
 
 The Chairman. Can you leave that with us T 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Is that all ? 
 
 Mr. Flower. No, not until I ask him this question. In comparison with our im- 
 portations, how do they compare with the raaBufacture of cutlery in this country? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. According to their own statement it does not agree at all, as I have 
 shown already. They put the production at $815,000 for 1887, which was a bad year. 
 I have shown that importation of knives with which they had no competition at all 
 was $600,000. 
 
 The Chairman. I do not remember that you stated your business. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. I am an exporter and importer of hardware, and general merchant. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you belong to the American Wholesale Hardware Association ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. To the Wholesale Hardware Association, yes, sir. There are so 
 many American associations we did not want to get mixed up with them. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How many firms are in there ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. There are about twenty ; it is simply a, local organization in New 
 York. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. All in New York? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. All in New York. The organization is simply for the purpose of stat- 
 ing our status in reference to the taritf. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. For no other purpose ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. For no other purpose whatever. We have these original affidavits in 
 this book. If Mr. Gales will now take the stand on the gun question we will trouble 
 you very little more. 
 
tlEVlSlON or' TH13 TARIFF. 1243 
 
 STATEMENT OP C. H. HATATKINS. 
 
 Mr. 0. H. Hawkins, of New York, next addressed the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Cliairman and gentlemen of the committee, with regard to Mr. Bradley's 
 statement that the price of labor is 25 cents a day in Germany, I beg to differ with 
 him. I have been familiar with the cutlery trade of Soiinger for many years. I 
 have been there from four to nine weeks yearly for the last eleven years. I know 
 positively that the average wages are 3 marks per day, or 75 cents, and the grinders, 
 many of them, earn as high as 8 or 9 marks per day,' which is equal to $2, and the 
 average grinder will earn 7 marks per day. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Are they paid by the piece or by the day ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. They are paid by the piece. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How do the German grinders compare with the American 
 grinders by the piece and the day? Can you give a comparative statement of the 
 manner in which they work and the manner in which they are paid ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. I am not familiar with the scale of wages paid in the cities to do 
 that. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you know the prices paid for any given character of workf 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. The work is so divided up ; there are fifteen to twenty of them, the 
 polishers, grinders, filers,' which all go to make up the whole statement. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Can you give any information of the product of the labor over 
 there ; whether the work is as ef&cient there as it is here ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. They work there about eleven hours a day. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do they work as good machinery there as here ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. No, sir ; it is mostly hand-work. I am speaking of cutlery ex- 
 clusively. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do our people who are working by the piece use more ma- 
 chinery here than there ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir, I think they do; especially in the cheap grades of pocket- 
 knives, or jack-knives, as they are called ; I think we use more machinery. 
 
 Mr. Gear. But you do not know? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. I know here they strike out most of the blades which are called 
 stamped blades, while on the other side most are hand-forged, especially on the bet- 
 ter class of goods. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. How many men earn $2 a day ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. There are some grinders of razors that have an apprentice to help, 
 and those grinders are paid as high as 13 marks a day. I have seen that because we 
 act as the agents. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you belong to the hardware association ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. No, sir ; I am not a member of that, personally. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Who are the agents here 1 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Hermann Boker & Co. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Does not this firm belong to the hardware association ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Then you represent this producer over here. 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. I am the cutlery expert and go abroad every year on this business. 
 
 Mr. Flower. And you know the wages are from 75 cents to |2 a day in this very 
 place where it was stated that they were 25 cents a day ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. In that case where a grinder is paid 13 marks per dozen for 
 grinding razors, how much would that grinder get for a dozen of the same kind of 
 razors in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. I could not answer that question intelligently. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You could only give us the day statement ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. I know this grinder with the assistance of the apprentice boy pro- 
 duced over a dozen razors a day. I know two men, brothers, who produced 12 dozen 
 razors a week. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are you a member of the firm ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. I am an employ^ of that firm. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That concern you represent as stated here ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. These two brothers ground 12 dozen razors in a week. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. That firm is simply interested iu the factory on the other side ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. No, sir ; they act as its agents. 
 
 Mr. Breckinrdige. Do they take all the productions ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. All that comes to this country. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Whit proportion of the product comes to this country? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Two-thirds, I should judge. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You speak about the earnings being about $2 a day there. How many 
 workmen get $2 a day ? ' 
 
1244 ItE VISION OF THE TAElPf. 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Tbe grinders. _ 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What proportion of tlie men are grmders ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. I should judge tlie grinders are about one-half. 
 
 Mr'. Baynb. Do all the grinders get that ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What proportion of them get that r _ 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. About two-thirds, I think, the grinders of razors and scissors. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. They make as much as $2 per day ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Many of them. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Do they pay the boy out of that $2 1 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How much will that be ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. About 30 cents a day or 35 cents a day. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. That will leave them about $1.65. 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Something like that. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLBY. Is it not a fact that grinders, on account of the deleterious character 
 of the employment, receive wages two or three times as high as the other workmen ! 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. No, I do not think two or three times. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. Are they not very much higher because the grinder does not live 
 very long in consequence of the deleterious character of the work? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir ; but t do not think it is two or three times as high. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. What is the next grade of employment in this establishment ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. The cutlers. 
 
 Mr. Baynb How much do they get T 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. They get from 75 cents to |1 a day. In ShefSeld they earn a good 
 deal more. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Where ia that establishment located ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. It is located in Solinger, Germany. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Right where Mr. Bradley testified they got 25 cents a day, and you 
 say they get from 75 cents to $1 a day. 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayijb. Dp any of them get less than that? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir ; some of the apprentice boys. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. How much do the apprentice boys get ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. They are paid 40 cents a day up. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Then it would be fair to eay that they get from 40 cents a day up. 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. No, sir ; because they are small boys and not mechanics. They are 
 the same as apprentice boys here and they get little or nothing. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. What do the forgers get ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. The.v earn about 90 cents a day, up to |1 if they are good forgers. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. What class of men get 75 cents to ijl a day ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. They are the men who do the filing, for instance, and the whetting, 
 that part of the work. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. What do the forgers get ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. They get a little better wages, probably 90 cents a day. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Now you said probably ; do you know what they get ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. It varies. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Do you know how it varies? ^ 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir ; it varies from 75 cents to Jll a day ; it is piece work and 
 some men are able to do more work than others, and consequently they earn more 
 money. 
 
 Mr. Bayne ? Most of the men are paid by the piece ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Most all of them except the men who do the whetting and filing. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. And you say they work as much as 11 hours a day ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Ordinarily. That is a day's work. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do they work any longer than that ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are they hand-filed, or is it done by an emory wheel ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. It is hand-filed. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You speak of a grinder getting 13 marks a day, that would 
 amount to how much in American money ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. To about .S3. 15. 
 
 Mr. Breckinhidge. And then pretty soon afterwards you speak of a grinder get- 
 ting $2 a day and paying an apprentice out of that. 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. I say the best grinders, the men who do the fine work. I spoke of 
 two brothers who got 13 marks per dozen razors, and they ground a dozen razors a day. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You recollect that one gentleman stated here that they x'aid their men 
 $10 a day. 
 
 Mr, Breckinridge. I remember the case but not the sum. I think it was |5 a day 
 
REVISION OP THE TAKIPF. 1245 
 
 to the best grinders. However that is not the point; when we finish this we can 
 lay the two statements against each other. 
 
 The man who gets 13 marks a day gives his apprentice about 30 cents, which would 
 give him about |2.85 net, aud less efficient grinders would get down as low as $3 and 
 under $3. 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Brbckinkidgb. That covers the general ground, as I understand you stated 
 before ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Then the men who get the higher-priced wages are the men employed 
 on the higher-class goods f 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. (To Mr. Saxton.) Here is a Sheffield knife made in thi.s country; 
 where are these sold ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. By the thousand gross in the United States. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Are they not sent abroad ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Some go abroad. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Haven't you a Connecticut knife, with an English trade-mark, that 
 goes abroad ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. They do, to a moderate extent. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Why do they put that trade-mark on it ? 
 
 Mr. Saxton. Because it sells better in the market. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. How much per dozen do they pay for grinding razors ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. For the finer grades some are paid 13 marks per dozen. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. That would be $3.35. 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. I should say $3.10 or $3.13. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Now I see that Mr. Trainer testified that they paid $5 to |6 a dozen 
 for grinding in this country. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is not that Mr. Torry? 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I see here that Mr. Breckinridge asked the question, "What do you 
 pay for grinding razors like that ? " Mr. Trainer said, "that work is mostly day-work 
 and we pay from $5 to $6 a dozen for grinding." So you will see we pay just about 
 100 per cent, more wages than you pay in Germany. 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. We have had many dozens of razors ground in New York and we 
 never pay over $4 per dozen to have them ground. We have had hundreds of dozens 
 ground in New York. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. How many razors are ground a year in New York 3 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. I can not answer that question. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does every grinder have to employ a helper ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. I think they do. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do they pay them out of their wages? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. I could not answer that question. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What class of razors are manufactured in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. We get out what are commonly called blanks, razors with flat sides, 
 and they are hollow-ground here. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How are they in regard to quality ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. There are better grades of goods manufactured abroad by Wolsten- 
 holm, etc. ; they are the best goods made. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. You stated tliat two-thirds of your product is sent to the American 
 market. 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I suppose your wages in consequence of that fact sympathizes with 
 American wages and you can pay better wages; 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. I did not understand your question. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. I say that you sell two-thirds of your products to the American mar- 
 kets ; I suppose that you can come approximately near paying the price of American 
 wages to your employes. 
 
 Mr. Hawkins, I do not know what the American wages are. I have understood 
 that the cutlers earn $1.35 to $1.50 a day. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I understood you to say that a great many of your very best 
 razors are made of imported blanks and they are then hollowed out. 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir ; but I would state that the majority of men, barbers for 
 instance, want the foreign razors. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Why do you have them ground here instead of importing them 
 already ground ? 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. For the reasons that these men who supply the barbers trade are 
 grinders themselves and prefer to grind their own razors and warrant them. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then the reason is because of the reputation of the men and 
 not of its being ground more cheaply here than in Germany, 
 
 Mr. Hawk«<s. yes, aif, 
 
1246 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. BuECKijSTRiDGE. Now, I understand you to say, that ia having these very best 
 razors fjround you pay from $3 to $4 a dozen. 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And you are not prepared to say whether the man who gets 
 that much per dozen has to pay the labor out of it or not. 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. In this country I could not answer that. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. At all events that is all he gets. 
 
 Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir ; we paid $4 a dozen, but you can get them still cheaper — 
 as low as $2.75 a dozen. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. I would like now for Mr. Sears to be heard for a moment ; he will 
 only take about five minutes. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF E. B. SEARS. 
 
 ■ Mr. E. B. Sears, of Chicago, next addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have a few samples here show- 
 ing what can be done in this country. You will bear in mind that we buy from 
 American manvifacturers and importers. I can state what these goods cost here and 
 what we would have to pay for them if we imported them. Here is a knife which 
 cost the importer $1.95, which is as low as that is able to be bought at. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Per dozen ? 
 
 Mr. Sears. Per dozen. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. What does it sell for retail ? 
 
 Mr. Sears. The retail price depends entirely upon the market. We job the goods. 
 I will give the jobbing price as we do not retail that. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. Do not you know the retail price ? 
 
 Mr. Sears. I can make the retail price for this town or that town, depending upon 
 the locality. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Then what is the retail price for this town. 
 
 Mr. Sears. I should think about 35 cents would be a fair price for this town for 
 that kuife. That knife cost as low as we can buy it $1.95. It cost there $1.65. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You said you could make a retail price for this town or some other town. 
 Have you any arrangement by which you bind the retailers to sell at a certain price ? 
 
 Mr. Sears. No, sir; you do Eot understand me. I said I could make a retail price 
 for this knife 
 
 Mr. Gear. That is not my question I ask if this association had any arrangement 
 when they sold knives by which they could compel retailors to sell at a certain price. 
 
 Mr. Seaks. I do not know what association you have reference to. I belong to 
 none. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I mean in regard to the trade. 
 
 Mr. Sears. Not at all. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You spoke of making a price and you have conveyed the idea 
 that you have a compulsory power to make the retailers' prices. 
 
 Mr. Sears. The fact is one dealer will not sell at 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. But you have conveyed the impression yon had some compnl- 
 sory power to fix the retail dealers' prices. That is the impression you have made. 
 
 Mr. McMlLLlN. I got somewhat of that idea myself. 
 
 The Chairman. It looks as if you had power to compulsorily fix his price and 
 that is not what you intend to convey. 
 
 Mr. Sears. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You say the retail dealers do not themselves sell that knife at the 
 same price. 
 
 Mr. Sears. No, sir ; and any cutler, any retail dealer varies according to the close- 
 ness of the market and the volume of the trade. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. And do not sell in the same town at the same price ? 
 
 Mr. Sears. Not always ; they vary. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Then you cau't fix the price 
 
 Mr. Sears. I beg your pardon, I have not stated that I fixed the price for retail. 
 
 Now here is a knife which cost $41.28 to import as low as we can buy it. It costs 
 $1.(J5 in this country. Hero is a knife which we import, which will cost $3.60 in this 
 country. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Will you always indicate the quantity? I presume you mean a 
 dozen. 
 
 Mr. Sears. All these knives are per dozen. This knife cost $3.60 to import and 
 $3.25 in this country. 
 
 Mr. Gear. On these knives is that all net? 
 
 Mr. Sears. That is net. This knife cost to import $2.70 and costs in this country 
 $2.60. This knife cost to import $10.70, and costs in this country |9.10. 
 
 Mi. Baynu. What is that kuife worth? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1247 
 
 Mr. Sears. That is a Wostenholm kuife, and I will refer that to a Wostenholm 
 man. 
 
 A Bystander. I am riot a Wostenholm man, hut the sterling price of that knife 
 would be 45 shillings, I should think. I should say 45 shillings per dozen sterling 
 would be 
 
 Chicago, March 14, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : I was honored by your request to be present when a committee of the 
 Wholesale Hardwai'e Association was before the Congressional committee relative to 
 certain proposed increase of tariif oq cutlery. 
 
 On that occasion I submitted certain samples with their cost from American pro- 
 ducers, and of the corresponding article imported. This comparison was found prej- 
 ndicial to any increase of tariff, and so much in favor of the American manufacturer 
 that a motion to adjourn was made and carried. 
 
 Upon your suggestion I, hy this means, conclude the subject I then desired to pre- 
 seut'to the committee. 
 
 The manufacture of cutlery in this country is in its infancy, and has been confined 
 to limited branches. On the line of endeavor, and so far as equipment permite, the 
 result has been success in controlling the market against foreign goods. 
 
 This success is with the medium grades of good quality. The two extremes, the 
 very low grades, bought by the poorer classes, and the finest goods, are not yet made 
 here. We shall, however, when the effort is made, succeed with these without an 
 increase of tariff. 
 
 The only cutlery imported is exclusively such as is not made here, and which we 
 .ire not prepared to make. It is on these goods that American manufacturers now 
 ask a prohibitive tariff. 
 
 POCKET CUTLERY. 
 
 On a basis of the present tariff, the manufacture of the good quality jackknives, 
 middle-class knives, and medium fine knives, embracing all of the pocket-knives made 
 in this country, is about 10 per cent, in our favor over the foreign goods. The lowest 
 grades as imported we have as yet not endeavored to make. It is, however, within 
 our ability, and until we will make such goods, the many who can afford 10 or 15, or 
 20, or 25 cents for a knife must not be compelled to pay unnecessarily from their 
 hard earnings, and why impose an increased cost on those who demand a fine knife, 
 until, at least, we can and will undertake the mauufacture of the goods? An increase 
 of the tariff would not make it more possible than at present. 
 
 TABLE CUTLERY. 
 
 The committee are entitled to much consideration when we reflect that their con- 
 clusions should be, to a considerable degree, determined by the statements made to 
 them, and it is to be regretted that personal motives may have influenced certain 
 representations. 
 
 If I am correctly informed, a manufacturer, finding the urgency so great, stated 
 that unless the tariff ou table cutlery is increased 50 per cent, the doors of their fac- 
 tory must be closed. If this is the statement, then the religious training of the an- 
 thor has been neglected, or the salaries paid by that compauy, indirectly coming 
 from the pockets of the consumer, are a wrong to the economies of the American 
 people. 
 
 Excepting the small items of carving-knives, Wilson's butcher-knives, and a few 
 Rogers's ivory and pearl handled knives, which have the preference owing to ther su- 
 perior quality and the reputation of the makers, the American manufacturers have, 
 for more than twenty years, had an open field. A combination exists among them, 
 but it is a protection against each other. It is an open secret that the manufacture 
 of table cutlery in this country is an exceptionally profitable business. 
 
 I know that at recent meetings of the association some of the members have ob- 
 jected to proposed advance for the reason, plainly stated, that they were doing well 
 enough. 
 
 Notwithstanding repeated advance of prices made by the association, there has 
 been no time during an interval of more than twenty years when foreign table cut- 
 lery could be imported without loss. 
 
 But little has been undertaken in this country. The industry is comparatively a 
 new one. Yet for the class of work done here the goods can now be turned out at a 
 less cost) than by import. The foreign goods afford fi class of grinding not obtainable 
 
1248 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 here, which, however, is not in any way governed by duty. The razor industry v, ould 
 not suffer if the tariij were lessened. 
 
 Comparatively none are made in this country, and as is the case with the finest class 
 of pocket-knives, no efifort has been made. Only two concerns make a small line of 
 laid scissors, i. e., steel and iron welded together. These are fair cutting goods, but 
 coarse and common, and will not at all meet the demand of the average consumer. 
 The requirements are for all steel and nicely polished scissors. Why should a fur- 
 ther protection be put upon a line of goods not yet made in this country ? Why not 
 lower the present duty 1 
 
 SEEABS. 
 
 We are to-day exporting and none can be imported. An advance is asked for, 
 while, if the present duty of 35 percent, be removed, we would then have an advan- 
 tage over the foreign shears of about 5 per cent. 
 
 Briefly stated, the manufacture of each branch of the cutlery industry, where rea- 
 sonable etfort has been made, has proved profitable, and the undeveloped branches 
 can be prosecuted with equal success under a tariff somewhat lower than the pres- 
 ent one. 
 
 The foregoing statements are made after an experience of ten years in the manu- 
 facture of pocket cutlery, and of twenty-five years In the wholesale of the different 
 lines of cutlery as specialties. 
 
 A successful but undeveloped industry urges to impose upon the dependent con- 
 sumer an exorbitant cost without benefit to that industry. We are asked to offer a 
 premium to certain branches of American cutlery, the manufacture of which employ 
 the methods of fifty years ago. 
 
 While it may be wise to further environ some of our industries, yet, with the line 
 of cutlery under consideration, the necessity does not exist, and I know that I ex- 
 press the sentiment of every wholesale and retail dealer in the great Northwest when 
 I protest against an increase of tariff on cutlery. 
 
 If my statements are correct, the increased cost, consequent upon a higher (so- 
 called protective) tariff, seriously injures the consumer without benefit to the manu- 
 facturer. 
 
 I believe in protection in the fullest sense of the word, but it must be universal, 
 guarding our manufacturers and other industries alike. 
 
 I am one of the great army who, with sublime confidence in the Republican party, 
 have always voted that ticket, but when, like many others, I recognize a determi- 
 nation among our chosen law-givers to re-imburse the capital employed in the last 
 election by indiscriminate and unnecessary increase of tariff, it seems a signal of the 
 time when we must abandon iiarty and embrace the theories of a better and growing 
 intelligence. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 Edmund B. Seaks. 
 
 A. H. Saxton, Esq., 
 
 New York City. 
 
 VIE'WS OP E. E. FILLMORE & CO. 
 
 Zanbsvilli;, Ohio, February 25, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : The result of my experience and observation during a period of over 
 fifty years in the hardware business has been about as follows : 
 
 Table cutlery. — For along time it was all imported, but under the tariff laws they 
 have almost the entire control of the home market. Our sales are fully 90 to 95 per 
 cent. American. Only a few fine carvers, and rubbers, and Qelluloid tables seem to 
 be imported. 
 
 Buloher knives. — The bulk of the sales of these to the general public are American, 
 but during all my business life the butchers have shown a very decided preference 
 for the "John Wilson" knife of Shefiield, England. I think they would cling to 
 them let the cost be what it might. An increase of the tariff would only increase the 
 cost to them, instead of driving them to use the American. I think it is the only 
 butcher knife that is haramer-temperod. 
 
 Razors. — This is one of the articles that the American manufacturers have made 
 very little progress in, if they care to make them. It seems as though they ought to 
 make hetfer headway under a tariif of 50 per cent. The Wade & Butcher and 
 Wostenholiu razors are very popular, both for barbers and for private shaving. 
 
 Pocket Knives. — The Amerioii,u8 seem to have the market very largely on two-blade, 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1249 
 
 especially; they undersell, all the others. In one, three, andfonrhlade they have not 
 succeeded so well. ' 
 
 Scissors. — There is something quite remarkable in regard to this article. While the 
 Americans have almost the entire control of the market for shears (so much like 
 scissors) they have made scarcely any progress with scissors. The Germans, at 
 present, lead the world in scissors, in style, quality, and finish : they have driven the 
 English almost entirely out of market. I doubt if an increase of duty would en- 
 able the Americans to get the market. The Germans seem to have a genius for scis- 
 sors. For ourselves, we find it to our advantage not to keep in stock imported shears 
 nor American scissors. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 E. E. FiLLMOKB. 
 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 WasMngton, D. G. 
 
 PROTEST AGAINST INCREASE OP DUTY. 
 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman of Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Dear Sir : Understanding that there is a movement on foot to influence Congress 
 to increase the duties on pocket and table cutlery, razors, butcher knives, scissors, 
 guns, etc., we beg to respectfully enter our protest against any increase in the rates 
 on these goods, as we consider the present high rates as ample for revenue purposes, 
 or for the protection of home industries. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 [The foregoing is signed by 325 individuals and firms representing nearly all the 
 States of the Union.] 
 
 FIRE-ARMS. 
 
 [ For additional Fire-arms, see ante page 65. ] 
 VIEWS OP FOREHAND & WADSW^ORTH. 
 
 Worcester, Mass., January 24, 1890. 
 
 Sir: Having learned that you have closed all public hearings before your commit- 
 tee, and that hereafter whatever ia said must be reduced to writing — 
 
 We are manufacturers of fire-arms, and like many other industries, suffer greatly in 
 consequence of cheap importations. 
 
 Representatives of most of the arms manufacturers in this country appeared before 
 the Senate committee in the last Congress and succeeded in getting the duties in- 
 creased in the Senate bill, to the satisfaction of most of them, and we think to-day 
 they would be content if you would embrace in your bill substantially the increase, 
 as proposed in the Senate bill, on guns and revolvers, as set forth in paragraph 181, 
 page la8, of the printed Senate bill. But we wish to call your particular attention to 
 the fact that forged shotgun barrels are not made here in this country ; not one, and 
 there is a present duty of 10 per cent, ad valorem, and 35 to 45 per cent, when they 
 are brazed or soldered together. But very few manufacturers laere in this country 
 possess the knowledge of making this class of barrels, and to establish a plant and 
 manufacture them we would need a duty of 200 to 300 per cent. 
 
 Now we do not see the wisdom or justice of placing any duty whatever on these 
 barrels, whether in single tubes or brazed or soldered together, if not finished, but 
 left rough bored. 
 
 All the manufacturers here in this country who make single or double barreled shot- 
 guns, have to import their barrels. And why should we be forced to pay a duty when 
 if placed on the free list it would interfere with no single manufacture here in this 
 country ? 
 
 If you will turn to Schedule C, metals, of the Senate bill, paragraph 135, you will 
 see that a duty of 10 per cent, is proposed. 
 
 That is the "present duty. And all forged shotgun barrels, whether in single tubes 
 or brazed or soldered together, in an unfinished state, should be put on the free list, 
 and we respectfully ask that you so place them in your proposed bill. 
 
 Our political opponents are demanding that more articles of importation shall be 
 placed on the free list. No one can object to putting the above articles on the free 
 list if the manufacturers so desire, unless it be some importer of finished shotguns, 
 who would wish to see the American-made guns cost as much as possible. 
 
 485 79 
 
1250 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Now what we have said we think that we voice the sentiment of the other manufact- 
 urers of fire-arms in this country who have occasion to use imported gun barrels. 
 Respectfully, yours, , 
 
 Forehand & Wadswoeth. 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee oil Ways and Means. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JOSEPH GALES 
 
 Mr. Joseph Gales, of New York, next addressed the committee. 
 
 The Chairman. Will you give your full name and residence ? 
 
 Mr. Gales. Joseph Gales. L used to he well known in Washington some years 
 ago. I am a general dealer in fire-arms, and I am also a director in the Marlin Fire- 
 arms Company, of New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I approach the matter without 
 any prejudice. I have always favored a reasonable tariff, and I shall always be in 
 favor of it until I find I am mistaken in the id«a of reasonableness. I do not regard 
 the Senate schedule in reference to fire-arms as a reasonable or necessary tariff. The 
 statement which I will refer to and file a little later shows the tariff, as proposed on 
 shotguns in that schedule, will run from 70 to 100 per cent., which certainly is not 
 reasonable nor necessary. The strongest argument which I can make in regard to 
 this is, that during the present tariff of 35 per cent, there have been at least twenty 
 firms, manufacturing concerns, corporations, and individual concerns, and all of these 
 with the exception of two or three, have befen organized under this 35 per cent, 
 tariff", by which, therefore, we may reason it was a yjrotective tariff' on fire-arms. 
 
 I think of twenty odd, fifteen are engaged in whole and part iu mauufacturing 
 sporting shotguns, which is the matter of most interest under this schedule. Not- 
 withstanding the facts stated, two additional concerns have been organized within 
 the last year, small concerns, which, like the others, will gradually grow and de- 
 velop. They are prosperous, varying iu the degree of prosperity according to the 
 management. We all know all concerns do not prosper equally well under the same 
 conditions because they vary in management, but these concerns are all prosperous; 
 all growing according to the amount of business they are doing. Notwithstanding 
 this present tariff of 35 per cent., the manufacture of fire-arms are estimated in this 
 country to be over $3,000,000, certainly over .$2,500,000, while the imports of fire-arms 
 I think were not 11,500,000. Now take the schedule of rifles, where the tariff' is 25 
 per cent. Representing a rifle manufacturing concern, I ask no increase of that 
 amount; we do not require it. American rifles are the best in the world and are 
 now exported. In regard to revolvers the present daty is 35 per cent., and there are 
 very few revolvers imported, only comparatively few. The comijetition which the 
 American manufacturers meet with is entirely of their own making. They compete 
 pretty sharply, but taking the whole figure on the whole it is remunerative. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Is it not a fact that there are very large exports of revolvers? 
 
 Mr. Gales. It is true we export both rifles and revolvers. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What increase is proposed by the Senate bill — from 35 per cent, to 
 what? 
 
 Mr. Gales. The Senate bill on revolvers proposes to advance it from 35 per cent, 
 to amounts running from 65 to 100 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you mean revolvers? 
 
 Mr. Gales. Yes, sir ; American revolvers and rifles. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Do you make shotguns? 
 
 Mr. GAi>,!S. No, sir. We import them and sell them. We are general dealers, and 
 we sell both imported and domestic goods. 
 
 Mr. GEAit. Nobody can compete with the La Fevre and Remington. 
 
 Mr Gales. 1 would go slow in reference to the shotgun question. The breech- 
 loading shotgun question is the most important item on the schedule. Muzzle-load- 
 ing guns are dying out and they are virtually a thing of the past. Sporting breech- 
 loading guns are made almost entirely in this country. They retail averaging from 
 $9 up, which cost to make from |5.50 up, leaving a good deal of margin for profit. 
 The only single breech-loading gun is what is known as a transformed musket gun 
 which is made of a foreign military gun. I understand these are held by one con- 
 corn and when these are finished up that will be an end of them. On that the pro- 
 posed duty makes them 127 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do we export any single breech-loading guns ? 
 
 Mr. Gales. We do to a limited extent, the foreign demand is uot large for them. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Where we meet foreign guns in open competition ? 
 
 Mr. Gales. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. There is no gun made in Europe made as good as the Parker and 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1251 
 
 Mr. Gales. Not for the price. In tlie breecli-loadiug guns, I would say in the high- 
 est priced guns, the Americans have the market almost entirely. I would estimate 
 that of the guns averaging over $30, 90 per cent are made in this country. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Are you speaking of rifles? 
 
 Mr. Gales. I am speaking entirely of breech-loading shotguns, double-barreled, and 
 I say that 90 per cent, are made in this country of those averaging over |30. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Do you import the barrels'? 
 
 Mr. Gear. The barrels are imported almost entirely in the raw, and on these the 
 duty, as you know, is 10 per cent., so ths^t the American manufacturer has almost free 
 barrels. These American breech loaders are all bought by men who can afibrd to buy 
 a first-class gun. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you import the barrels of the cheaper guns ? 
 
 Mr. Gales. Do you mean the single-barrel guns ? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gales. They are largely made abroad also. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. When you export those guns, do you get a drawback ? 
 
 Mr. Gales. In such a case as this it is uot of sufficient amount to'get a drawback; 
 the barrels only cost about a dollar. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you get a drawback on that dollar ? 
 
 Mr. Gales. No, sir ; that is not sufficient to make it an object. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Why do you import those barrels ? Why not make them here ? 
 
 Mr. Gales. I am not a manufacturer of this class of guns. I sell these barrels to 
 the manufacturers, and also sell the manufactured goods; but they can not make 
 barrels as cheaply as they can import them. 
 
 Mr. Flower. I understand they are made from points of nails, etc. 
 
 Mr. Gales. These single guns are principally made of what is known as blued 
 steel barrels, plain blued steel barrels, and not of the class of scrap iron,' as Mr. 
 Flower states. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Let me ask you a question which is probably not exactly in this line. 
 Are these barrels proven before they are brought to this country ? 
 
 Mr. Gales. The barrels used by American manufacturers as a rule, I think, are not 
 proven. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are they proven in this country 1 
 
 Mr. Gales. I do not think they are. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are the English guns proven ? 
 
 Mr. Gales. I would not like to make any false statement ; what I mean to say is 
 they are not proven by any Government proof. They may be proved by the manu- 
 facturers individually. The foreign markets have insisted that all barrels for home 
 manufacture shall be proven before put in the guns and also proven after they are 
 put in the guns. I think a penalty is imposed by the Governments of Belgium and 
 England. I think the penalty imposed by Belgium is 300 francs for the first of- 
 fense and 600 for the second and in England it is £20 for the first offense which is 
 equivalent to |100 per barrel, so the statement which has been made more or less 
 before this committee that the cheaper guns which are imported are unsafe is entirely 
 erroneous. These are some samples of cheap guns which I wish to show you. 
 This class of guns is imported and sold to farmers' boys who can uot afford to buy 
 a high-j)riced gun, such as merchants, lawyers, and doctors can afford to buy. These 
 cheap guns are perfectly safe. These are the cheapest guns made and they are such 
 as we can not make in this country. We will uot make it even if the proposed tar- 
 iff law should go into effect, they would not be made here^ 
 
 Mr. Gear. Why will it not be made? 
 
 Mr. Gales. Because it is of such a character that our manufacturers would never 
 attempt them. They would make goods that would pay them a better profit. The 
 cheapest American gun is one which costs |15.58. These guns are sold to general job- 
 bers at ,f 19.24. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What kind of a gun is that? 
 
 Mr. Gear. It is a double breech-loading shotgun, known as the Syracuse gun, 
 made at Octavia. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What would such a gun retail at 1 
 
 Mr. Gales. The nominal price of such a gun would probably be $30 and I suppose 
 it would retail from $25 to |30, according to the closeness of the market. The Le- 
 Fevre* gun is a very excellent gun and a man who can afford to pay ,$100 or |200 
 for a gun, cau get an American gun I think that would beat anything else. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Are the best American guns equal to the English? 
 
 Mr. Gales. I think so unless it is an exceptionally fine English gun made piece by 
 piece by hand, but for practical purposes for a gun over $30 I should prefer an Amer- 
 ican gun, and the trades evidently do prefer them because 90 per cent, of the 
 guns above that price are American-made guns. Now these samples which I shall 
 take a moment to show you are the cheapest used or imported and are scattered over 
 
1252 EEVIBION OF THE TAKIPF. 
 
 tlie country and sold to our farmer boys and men who can not afford a higher priced 
 guu. This is the cheapest guu sold, known as the " Zulu" gun. This is a perfectly 
 sale gun and under the proposed Senate schedule, it would make this gun 127 per 
 cent. Thut is sold to farm hands who can not afford to pay more than four or five 
 dollars for a gun. 
 
 Mr. Flower. None of these guns are loaded ? 
 
 Mr. Gales. No sir. I do not want to lay particular stress upon that, but these low 
 grade gnus are sold to farmers' boys. It seems to me that if the farmer boys get the 
 idea that their shotguns are costing from two to four and six dollars more on account 
 of this tariff, is that not a reason that they will be inclined to vote against it. 
 
 Mr. Mills. What kind of a gun is that ? 
 
 Mr. Gales. That is a gun which costs on the other side ^6.17 ; the present duty is 
 |-2.16 ; the jiroposed duty is 56-16, being exactly 100 per cent, making an additional 
 price of at least $4. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What does this gun cost ? 
 
 Mr. Gales. The foreign cost of that is 156.17. This is a substantial looking gun ; 
 they are the cheapest breech-loading double guns imported. That cost |3..57, the pres- 
 ent'duty is |l.'ir> and the proposed duty is S3. 25, adding $2 to the American consumer, 
 making the duty 91 per cent. We call that the Lefouchaux gun. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Where is it made ? 
 
 ;Mr. Gales. It is made in Belgium. These cheap guns are made, almost entirely in 
 Belgium. That gun retails m this country for |8. Now I understood the chairman 
 to say yye did not corue in here before the committee had made up their minds what 
 to do. 
 
 The Chairman". I did not state that or give the slightest intimation of that. 
 
 Mr. Gales. I got the impression of it that way. 
 
 The Chairman. No, I did not state that. I simply said that you had an opportun- 
 ity to be heard before. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. Your statements are calculated to change the minds of the com- 
 mittee even after they are made up. 
 
 Mr. Gales. I am glad I am mistaken, but it seems to me it would be exceedingly 
 unwise to make a change in the tariff as proposed in view of the fact that I have 
 shown these iifteen niauufacturing concerns, twenty odd concerns manufacturing 
 fire-arms including the Iifteen, are in a prosperous condition with a growing business, 
 and that the only effect that this duty ujiou sporting shotguns would be to increase 
 the price to the consumer, other than the effect it might have upon the revenue. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 
 
 Mr. Gales. I have nothing further. 
 
 The CHAiEM.iN. Can you leave the papers ? 
 
 Mr. Gales. I can not leave the statement as it is nothing but fragmentary notes. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. The general proposition of the Senate bill would not increase the 
 higher priced guns very much ? 
 
 Mr. Gales. The increase in the high-priced guns would b'e small. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. And it would be from 80 to 125 per cent, on the low-priced guns. 
 
 Mr. Gales. It would be from ()5 to 100 per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMillin. And on that one there it would be 127 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Gales. Yes, on the single-barrel guns ; but on the double guns it would be from 
 65 to 100. 
 
 Mr. Saxton. If you will allow me geutlemon, I would like for Mr. Hawkins to 
 give some information in regard to the prices jiaid in Solinger, Germany, as compared 
 w^ith those in this country.* It slipped my mind before. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 1253 
 
 New York, Feljrwanj 18, 1830. 
 
 Statement allowing the average rate of duty in per cent, if the Senate hill of 1889 is 
 
 adopted. 
 
 [Thia statement is based on an actual assortment of breech-loading pmis as imported from Liege.] 
 
 Quantity of 
 gana'. 
 
 Foreign price. 
 
 Total value. 
 
 Proposed duty. 
 
 
 Francs. 
 
 
 
 
 2,000 
 
 18.50 
 
 $3.57 
 
 $7, 140. 00 
 
 35 per cent, and $2 per gun. 
 
 400 
 
 16.00 
 
 3.67 
 
 1, 468. 00 
 
 Do. 
 
 260 
 
 22.60 
 
 4.34 
 
 1, 085. 00 
 
 Do. 
 
 300 
 
 23.50 
 
 4.53 
 
 1,359.00 
 
 Do. 
 
 250 
 
 24.50 
 
 4.73 
 
 1,182.50 
 
 Do. 
 
 400 
 
 26.00 
 
 5.02 
 
 2, 008. 00 
 
 Do. 
 
 300 
 
 26.75 
 
 5.16 
 
 ;, 548. 00 
 
 Do. 
 
 100 
 
 27. CO 
 
 5.21 
 
 521. 00 
 
 Do. 
 
 700 
 
 27. 20 
 
 5.25 
 
 3, 675. 00 
 
 Do. 
 
 850 
 
 29. 00 
 
 5.60 
 
 4, 760. 00 
 
 Do. 
 
 350 
 
 29.50 
 
 5.70 
 
 1, 995. 00 
 
 Do. 
 
 550 
 
 31. .50 
 
 6.08 
 
 3, 344, 00 
 
 35 per cent, and $4 per gun. 
 
 560 
 
 38.50 
 
 7.43 
 
 4, 086. 50 
 
 Do. 
 
 500 
 
 33.00 
 
 6.37 
 
 3, 185. 00 
 
 Do. 
 
 100 
 
 36.50 
 
 7.04 
 
 704. CO 
 
 Do. 
 
 80 
 
 39.00 
 
 7.53 
 
 603.40 
 
 Do. 
 
 100 
 
 60.00 
 
 11.58 
 
 1, 158. 00 
 
 Do. 
 
 25 
 
 65.00 
 
 12. 55 
 
 313.75 
 40.135.15 
 
 35 per cent, and $6 per gun. 
 
 7, 805 
 
 576. 95 
 
 111.36 
 
 Duty, .$40,135.15. at 35 percent $14,047.30 
 
 Duty, 5,900 guns, at $2 11,800.00 
 
 Duty, 1,880 guns, ;rt $4 7,520.00 
 
 Duty, 26 guns, at $6 160. 00 
 
 33, 517. 30 
 
 Average rate, 83^ per cent., against 35 per cent., as at present. 
 
 EEEECH-LOADING G-TJNS, DOUBLE. 
 
 [Present duty 35 per cent, on net value.] t 
 
 Statement showing the duty in per cent, if the proposed Senate Mil is adopted 
 
 
 
 Thirty - 
 
 
 Total 
 duty. 
 
 
 Foreign price. 
 
 five per 
 cent. 
 
 Per gun. 
 
 Duty. 
 
 Francs. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 18.50 
 
 $3,67 
 
 1.25 
 
 $2.00 
 
 $3. 25 
 
 91 
 
 20.00 
 
 3.80 
 
 1.35 
 
 2.00 
 
 3. 35 
 
 87 
 
 22. 00 
 
 4.25 
 
 1.49 
 
 2.00 
 
 3.49 
 
 82 
 
 24.00 
 
 4.63 
 
 1.62 
 
 2.00 
 
 3,03 
 
 78 
 
 26.00 
 
 5.02 
 
 1.-76 
 
 2,00 
 
 .3.76 
 
 75 
 
 28.00 
 
 5.40 
 
 1.89 
 
 2,00 
 
 3.89 
 
 72 
 
 30.00 
 
 5.79 
 
 2.03 
 
 2.00 
 
 4,03 
 
 70 
 
 32.00 
 
 0.17 
 
 2.16 
 
 4.00 
 
 6,16 
 
 100 
 
 34.00 
 
 6,50 
 
 2.30 
 
 4.00 
 
 6.30 
 
 96 
 
 3li.00 
 
 6.94 
 
 5.43 
 
 4.00 
 
 0.43 
 
 93 
 
 38.00 
 
 7.33 
 
 2. 67 
 
 4.00 
 
 6.57 
 
 90 
 
 40.00 
 
 7.72 
 
 2.71 
 
 4.00 
 
 6.71 
 
 87 
 
 4.5. 00 
 
 8.69 
 
 3.04 
 
 4.00 
 
 7.04 
 
 81 
 
 50.00 
 
 9.05 
 
 3.38 
 
 4.00 
 
 7.38 
 
 76 
 
 55 00 
 
 10.61 
 
 3.72 
 
 4.00 
 
 7.72 
 
 73 
 
 60.00 
 
 11.58 
 
 4.05 
 
 4.00 
 
 8.05 
 
 70 
 
 66.00 
 
 12.54 
 
 4.31) 
 
 6.00 
 
 10.39 
 
 83 
 
 70.00 
 
 13.61 
 
 4.73 
 
 6.00 
 
 10.73 
 
 79 
 
 80.00 
 
 15.44 
 
 6.41 
 
 6.00 
 
 11.41 
 
 74 
 
 90.00 
 
 17,37 
 
 0.08 
 
 6.00 
 
 12.08 
 
 70 
 
 loe. 00 
 
 19.30 
 
 6.76 
 
 6.00 
 
 12.70 
 
 66 
 
 ' I 
 
 EIPCH-I 
 
 ^OADING 
 
 SINGLE 
 
 GUNS. 
 
 
 6.64 
 
 1.09 
 
 .38 
 
 1.00 
 
 1.38 
 
 1.27 
 
1254 
 
 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 EEVOLVEES. 
 Senate till. 
 
 ForeigD price. 
 
 Thirty- 
 five per 
 cent. 
 
 Per 
 pistol. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Buty., 
 
 Francs. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 3.50 
 
 $0. 675 
 
 .236 
 
 $0.40 
 
 $0. 636 
 
 94 
 
 4.00 
 
 0.772 
 
 .27 
 
 0.40 
 
 0.67 
 
 87 
 
 4.50 
 
 0.868 
 
 .304 
 
 0.40 
 
 0.704 
 
 81 
 
 5.00 
 
 0.965 
 
 .337 
 
 0.40 
 
 0.737 
 
 76 
 
 6.00 
 
 1.158 
 
 .405 
 
 0.40 
 
 0.805 
 
 69 
 
 0.60 
 
 1. 255 
 
 .44 
 
 0.40 
 
 0.84 
 
 66 
 
 7.00 
 
 1.35 
 
 .472 
 
 0.40 
 
 0.872 
 
 65 
 
 8.00 
 
 1.B5 
 
 .543 
 
 1.00 
 
 1.543 
 
 100 
 
 9.00 
 
 1.74 
 
 .609 
 
 1.00 
 
 1.609 
 
 92 
 
 10.00 
 
 1.93 
 
 .676 
 
 1.00 
 
 1.676 
 
 87 
 
 11.00 
 
 2.12 
 
 .742 
 
 1.00 
 
 1.742 
 
 82 
 
 12.00 
 
 2.32 
 
 .812 
 
 1.00 
 
 1.812 
 
 78- 
 
 VIEW^S OF HERMANN BOKER & CO. 
 
 New York, Febrnary 19, 1890. 
 . To the Ways and Means Committee : 
 
 We respectfully protest against any advance in the tariff rates on guns, rifles, or 
 revolvers, but more especially on breech-loading shotguns, which would be aflected 
 most seriously by the proposed duty as specified in the Senate amendment last year 
 to the Mills tariff bill of 1888. 
 
 We urge that the present duty of 35 per cent, affords ample protection to the Amer- 
 ican makers, and, in fact, that on the great bulk of foreign guns now imported, if the 
 duty were taken off' entirely, it would not lessen the American production, nor harm 
 the industry in any way. Our American manufacturers have nothing to /ear from 
 the competition of these low-priced foreign guns, as this grade of goods is not made 
 nor attempted to be made in this country, the makers finding full and more profitable 
 employment for their plant in the manufacture of better goods, and foreign guns of 
 higher grades have already been almost entirely driven irom our market by better 
 and more popular American makes. 
 
 The guns seriously affected by the proposed change in the tariff (viz, those costing 
 $12 or less) do not come into competition with American guns. They are bought and 
 used by farmers, mechanics, clerks, and others who can not afford to pay such high 
 figures as even the cheapest domestic-made guns retail at (say $25 each and upwards), 
 and, to our minds, the simple effect of advancing the tariff, as proposed, would be to 
 restrict the sale of the poor men's guns, seriously hampering our business and that 
 of hundreds of other merchants throughout the country who deal in these goods, 
 without helping the American maker in the least or adding to the cost of such guns 
 as are bought by those who can afford to own more expensive guns, such as are made 
 in this country. In other words, the importation of cheap foreign guns would not 
 cease, but less of them would be sold, owing to the enhanced prices, and there would 
 be no corresponding increase in the demand for American guns, as thousands of men 
 ■who could pay as now (say $9 and upwards for a gun that is practically as safe and 
 serviceable as those costing double or treble) could not afford to buy an American 
 gun costing (say) $25 or upwards, and would either be compelled to go without a gun 
 or to pay a considerably higher figure for the only sort that their limited means would 
 admit of purchasing. 
 
 The proposed change in duties would raise the present rate of 35 per cent, to the 
 minimum of 71 per cent., and on cheaper grades to 92 per cent., and as the Senate 
 amended bill reads, the highest percentum of advance would be upon the cheapest 
 and most popular of imported guns, so that the greatest advance would be upon the 
 cheaper guns, and consequently the greatest hardship in this respect would fall upon 
 that class of purchasers whose means are the most limited ; in other words, the poor- 
 est men . 
 
 The specific duty which it is proposed to add to the present ad valorem duty, while 
 only amounting in the importers' cost, to an increase of |2, |4, or |6 per gun, as pro- 
 vided for in the bill, would, by the addition of the importers', jobbers', and retailers 
 percentage of jirotits (which naturally would be added to this increased cost) result 
 in an advance to the party who finally bought the gun for use, of fully 50 per cent, 
 additional. Thus a gun which would only cost the importer $2 more than at present, 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1255 
 
 ■would cost the final purchaser not less than |3 more, and a gun which -would cost $0 
 more, would probably cost the final purchaser flO more, and all this without helping 
 in the least the gun industry of the United States. 
 
 We have not alluded specially to rifles, as the American makers have practically 
 no competition abroad, and so far as we are aware, have not asked for any increase 
 in the existing rate of 25 per cent., but as concerns revolvers, it would seem to us that 
 the present rate of 35 per cent, should satisfy the most grasping of our home makers, 
 as it is patent to any unbiased person who has knowledge of the fact, that the low- 
 selling price of common American makes is unquestionably due to over production, 
 and excessive, unreasonable competition among themselves, and is not due to foreign 
 competition while the better American makes, such as "Smith & Wesson," and 
 "Colts," are exported very extensively to all parts of the world. 
 
 As before stated, we think that the proposed change in duty on breech-loading shot- 
 guns would be most detrimental, and we trust that Congress will consider the inter- 
 ests of the hundreds of merchants who deal in guns, and the thousands of farmers, 
 mechanics, etc., of America, who buy these cheap guns, as being paramount to the 
 unreasonable demand of a small minority of the gun manufacturers of the United 
 States. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 Hermann Bokek & Co. 
 
 PETITION OF MANUFACTURERS. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means, United States House of Bepresentatives : 
 
 The undersigned, manufacturers of fire-arms, representing extensive investments 
 of capital, and employing large numbers of skilled mechanics, respectfully represent, 
 that in view of the extreme low cost of labor in the foreign countries, competing 
 against us for the markets of our own country, we believe the present tariff on fire- 
 arms to be entirely inadequate to properly protect the industry represented by us, 
 and we most respectfully and earnestly request that the schedule of duties on certain 
 lines of fire-arms, approved and adopted by the United States Senate at the last pre- 
 ceding session, as follows: "Muskets and sporting rifles, 25 per centum ad valorem ; 
 all double-barrelled sporting, breech-loading shotguns valued at not more than $6 
 each, |2 each ; valued at more than $6 and not more than $12 each, $4 dollars each ; 
 valued at more than $12 each, $6 each ; and in addition thereto on all the above, 35 
 per centum ad valorem. Single-barrel breach-loading shotguns f 1 each, and 35 per 
 centum ad valorem. 
 
 "Revolving pistols valued at not more than |1.50 each, 40 cents each ; valued at 
 more than $1. 50 each, $1 each ; and in addition thereto on all the above pistols, 35 
 per centum ad valorem," may be incorporated and made a part of the tariff schedule 
 of duties on imports now being considered and prepared by your honorable com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Harrington & Richardson Arms Company, Worcester, Mass. 
 
 John P. Lovell Arms Company, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Ivbr Johnson & Company, Worcester, Mass. 
 1 Hopkins & Allen Mandpacturing Company, Norwich, Conn. 
 
 Colt's Patent Firb-Akms Manufacturing Company, } „ 4.^ in 
 
 John H. Hall, General Manager. ^ Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Fonhand & Wadsworth, Worcester, Mass. 
 
 M^RWIN, Hulbert & Company, New York City. 
 
 Parker Bros., Meriden, Conn. 
 
 HAND-SEWING NEEDLES. 
 VIEWS OF THE LONDON NEEDLE COMPANY. 
 
 New York, January 31, 1889. 
 
 Sir: In submitting the following request and proposition to your committee for 
 consideration, we desire to direct particular attention to the importance and justice 
 of the simple question involved and the beneficial results sought, as it interests all 
 classes of people in this country and is peculiarly one which appeals to tho protector 
 of the rights of the poor and working class, in whose behalf the following application 
 and appeal is especially made. 
 
 In view of the large surplus now in the United States Treasury and the sound and 
 well-known cardinal principles that taxation is imposed only to suiiport our Govern- 
 laent, and to protect American industry and labor against the industry and labor of 
 
1256 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 the world, we rcspcotfully submit, that when we earnestly petition tlio total removal 
 of all duties on haud-sevrino; needles, and support that reasonable petition with what 
 appears to us to be sound, just, ami equitable reasoning, it can not be fairly claimed 
 that the i^ranting of such a request will operate as a menace or an injury to the pro- 
 tection principles which constitute the foundation and reasons for such taxation. 
 
 The necessity of said duties, from the stand-point of being needed to help meet and 
 defray the current expenses of our Government, requires no consideration, in view of 
 the present rate of taxation being more than sulBcient to cover such demands. The 
 main question at issue is, will the total deduction of such duties on hand-sewing 
 needles in any way damage (by virtue of competition or otherwise) the trade or busi- 
 ness of any of our home industries, controlling or interested in that style of workman- 
 ship? We answer rmphatically, no. 
 
 It is an utter impossibility to injure our manufactures or home industry, because 
 we have no manufactures of hand-sewing needles in this country; the complex pro- 
 cess, labor and skill requisite, has sensibly deterred the people of our country from 
 attempting that branch of work, for, as conducted at the present day, it is a pursuit 
 in which remarkable manual dexterity is combined with very perfect instruments 
 and appliances, and tbose who are employed in its various departments, though 
 poorly paid, have been educated from childhood iu the many stages which the simple 
 needle passes through before the wire of which it is fabricated is turned out for use; 
 in our country it would be unprofitable, and would necessitate the iaiportation of 
 skilled laborers to superintend and instruct in the mode of manufacturing the hand- 
 sewing needle, and if attempted, our home labor would be injured by such unques- 
 tionable invasion. 
 
 No branch of business in this country could be injured by the total removal of the 
 duties on hand-sewing needles ; it would be no hardship or damage to any home man- 
 ufacturer ; no American industry would be tampered or interfered with ; nor would 
 it create any competition between said articles and auy style of trade peculiarly 
 belonging to our country ; and our labor would, in no way be tampered, curtailed, or 
 diminished. Under no conceivable circumstances can it be claimed that protection is 
 necessary in this case ; there is nothing to protect unless it be the poor and starve- 
 ling-jjaid working woman, such as the dreso-maker, seamstresses, shirt-makers, and 
 numerous other classes of men and women, with whom the needle is a necessity, and 
 who most need our pity, aid, sui^port, and protection ; but by virtue of this unjust, 
 inequitable, and unnecessary duty they are compelled to pay for that required ar- 
 ticle an extra sum to cover this duty, which if removed would injure none, and ben- 
 efit many. 
 
 The broad statement is hero made that, in view of the peculiar skill necessary, the 
 facilities of foreigners to manufacture, and the history of the trade iu this country, 
 we will never see the day when these articles are manufactured here. It has been 
 attempted and failed, and the law-making power can do nothing to encourage its 
 commencemeat, growth, or progress, for if that were possible, we would have seen 
 its success, either small or great, before this day ; and this being positively so, why 
 not strike oS this duty and give the poor people, iu fact give the people of every 
 station in life, the benefit of the sum the Governmentnow realizes therefrom. If the 
 day should come when, for the benefit and protection of home industry, it is neces- 
 sary to impose a duty and tax on these articles, then it will be the proper time to put 
 it on, but uutil that necessity presents itself, let the absence of that unjust duty be 
 enjoyed by those who now inequitably bear that unnecessary burden. 
 
 We trust and hope that your committee will give this petition due consideration, 
 and recommend the removal of such duty ; and if you honor us with the opportunity 
 of being personally heard on this subject, on notification one of our oiBcers will will- 
 ingly go onto Washington, appear before your honorable body, and explain more 
 fully the just grounds of this application. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 London Needle Compant, 
 535-541 East lieth Street, New TorJc City. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlby, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 1257 
 
 TINSEL THREADS. 
 
 ARGUMENT OF EDWARD SIEGMAN, OF NEW YORK. 
 
 Referring to tbe possibility of yonr doiBg anything in the way of changing the 
 present tariff on tinsel, tinsel threads, or tinsel products, I take the liberty to express 
 my opinion, because I am a very large importer of tinsel, tinsel threads, and tinsel 
 goods, and also mamifaciure here to quite an extent. 
 
 Any chauge, unless by the advice of experts, in this line (and which would be a 
 very complicated matter) would in my opiuion benefit only one, possibly two, and 
 perhaps live manufacturers, taking the limit highest, and it will do a positive harm 
 to the immense industry existing since a few years — mannfactnring upholstery goods 
 and upholstery trimmings, chenille curtains, fancy scarfs, trimming manufacture of 
 every description in which tinsel is used to a great extent, embroidery manufaetnr- 
 ing with the Bounaz, and other machines, hand embroidery, etc. 
 
 It will be a hard blow to theatrical costumers, who at present suffer ou account of the 
 unjust personal-effect importation of ready-made costumes by American and European 
 actors and actresses. Tinsel trimmings are used extensively by such costumers, and 
 also by masquerade costumers, and any raise of tariff in tinsel products will be a 
 further inducement for actors and actresses to spend their summer and their money 
 earned in this country during the winter in Europe, and getting at the same time 
 expensive outfits, which will cost them less than half that such can be made here. 
 Furthermore, military trimmings, which can never be made here unless the tariff 
 would be increased to 20 per cent., because not enough of one kind is used, would 
 become very expensive ; also society costumes, regalias, badges of all kinds would be 
 affected. 
 
 Unless you would stretch the meaning regarding raw material, and would include 
 cotton or silk threads spun over with flax, tinsel, or metal threads, the braid and 
 cord manufacturers would have to pay the advance, and only two houses who manu- 
 facture with patented automatic machines these cottou or silk-threads spuu over 
 with flat or wire tinsel would reap the benefit and would get a monopoly to a certain 
 extent. 
 
 Tinsel — flat tinsel, wire tinsel, is not a raw material, because it is made by alloy- 
 ing copper with other metals, drawing such into wire, and thereby making wire tin- 
 sel. This wire tinsel is flattened by running such through rollers ; thereby the flat 
 tinsel is made. 
 
 This flat tinsel is spun in different ways over cotton threads or silk threads; 
 thereby tinsel round threads and tinsel brilliant threads are made. 
 
 This product is used mostly in this country, as well iu fabrics, trimmings, braids, 
 and cords, as in many other items too numerous to enumerate. 
 
 It would be an immense advantage to spinners if yon would make a lower tariff ou 
 flax and wire tinsel and a higher one on tinsel threads and tinsel brilliant. 
 
 Either way you raise tinsel products you will hurt military, theatrical, society, 
 badges, masquerade, regalias, church-vestment manufacturing, unless you exclude 
 goods used for these lines. 
 
 The only reason why complaints about these goods have been made to you is be- 
 cause, since a year, fashion has introduced a few tinsel goods for ladies' dress materi- 
 als, and also for trimming for ladies' dresses, and importers have brought in, under 
 the 2.5 per cent, tariff, some goods from Europe, which could have been prevented by 
 common-sense decisions of the Treasury. 
 
 At the same time, fashions of this kind will not be of long durance and it would 
 be unjust to let other industries suffer on account of these few minor importations. 
 
 Let well enough alone. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 Edward Siegman. 
 
 Above is my honest and unselfish ojiinion, because I have no interest in what way 
 the tariff is made, and only my desire to prevent monopolies has induced me to write 
 this letter, and I hope you will give it duo consideration, because I have not the time 
 to appear personally before you. 
 
1258 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 STATEMENT OF fiON. VT. E. SIMONDS. 
 
 Hon. W. E. SiMONDS, a Representative from the State of Connecticut, nest ad- 
 dressed tlie committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Cliairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have a little matter which con- 
 cerns some constituents of mine. I will not read the paper, but I will state the sub- 
 stance of it. I understand the same matter was before a similar committee of the 
 last House, and I understand it was agreed to, and that the same action took place 
 before the Senate committee. These constituents of mine (J. R. Montgomery & Co.) 
 carry on business at Windsor Locks, Conn. They make a variety of threads which 
 are covered with gold and tinsel wire, a sample of which I hold in my hand. I be- 
 lieve one of the firm has invented a process which makes the production cheaper than 
 it has been heretofore. It requires raw materials, cotton, silk, and woolen filaments, 
 and then this tinsel has to be wound around it, so that when it is covered it makes 
 this handsome article [exhibiting]. Now, in the schedule set out here the tinsel wire 
 and the manufactured product have a uniform rate of 25 per cent., and the tinsel 
 wire, which is my constituents' raw material, is not made in this country, and nobody 
 can be induced to make it, as the demand is not large enough. Secondly, the process 
 by which it is made is secret. My constituents would like a proper distinction be- 
 tween the duty on the threads (their raw material) and the manufactured article. 
 The details of all this are set out very clearly and concisely In this paper addressed to 
 the committee, which I would like to have printed. 
 
 The Chairman (Mr. Burrows in the chair). Leave that with the stenographer. 
 
 Mr. Batne. Do they suggest a formula ? 
 
 Mr. SiMONDS. Yes; they suggest a formula for an amendment which is very simple. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Do you think it was adopted in the House bill of last Congress, and 
 also in the Senate? 
 
 Mr. SiMONDS. I do not understand it was adopted by the House bill, but I under- 
 stand it was submitted to the committee — I suppose gentlemen are present who know 
 whether I am stating it properly or not — and the schedule desired was agreed to, but 
 I think it was not incorporated in the bill. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. "You think that the yarn that is wound around this is woolen 
 yarn? 
 
 Mr. SiMONDS. He states, I think, that the central filament is of cotton, wool, silk, 
 or other fiber made of any ordinary textile. 
 
 ,. Mr, Breckinridge. And that is subject to a tax, and the tinsel is subjected to a 
 tax of 25 per cent.? 
 
 Mr. SiMONDS. Ho notes that they are differently taxed. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am only asking as to the facts. 
 
 Mr. SiMONDS. He does not say anything about the tax on the interior filament. It 
 Is the tax upon the wire. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. And thatstatementis the tinsel was taxed 25 per cent.? 
 
 Mr. SiMONDS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Then the tax on the completely finished article is 25 per cent.? 
 
 Mr. SiMONDS. It is just the same. 
 
 VIEWS OF J. R. MONTGOMERY & CO. 
 
 To the Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 Under the present law fixing the duties on importations under Schedule N. — Sun- 
 dries, the duty is fixed as follows : 
 
 "Bouillons, or cannetille, metal thread, fil6 or gespinst, and epaulets, galloons, 
 laces, knots, stars, tassels, and wings of gold, silver, or other metal, 25 per centum 
 ad valorem." 
 
 This appears also in report No. 2332, H. R., 9051, Fiftieth Congress, first session, 
 page 114, section 164. 
 
 In the above clause manufactured goods only are described. These goods are 
 twisted or woven fabrics that are made of a combination of filaments variously 
 assembled or brought together; for instance, the "metal thread" is made of a cen- 
 tral filament of co+ton, wool, silk, or other fiber, and a thin narrow ribbon, or a wire 
 of metal drawn out flat or round, or approximating such shape in outline in cross- 
 section. This tinsel wire of metal is wound about the central filament and forms 
 what is known as the metal thread. Such goods as are recited in the above section 
 of the tariff law and largely made in France or Germany, from which large quan- 
 tities are imported every year, and on which a 25 per cent, ad valorem duty is 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1259 
 
 levied. The trade describe tlie metallic filament or tinsel wire used in making such 
 goods as tinsel wire (English) ; lame (French) ; lahn (German). 
 
 Such metallic wire or ribbon (tinsel, lame, or lahn) has never been manufactured 
 in the United States, and persistent effoits to induce workers of metal to undertake 
 the buisness and make the goods have always failed. 
 
 The reason given by metal workers is that there is no demand for a suflicieut quan- 
 tity of such tinsel to warrant the outlay necessary for the establishment of a plant 
 and experiments necessary to the production of the goods ; and for the further reason 
 that such tinsel is made by special processes abroad, the secrets of which are zeal- 
 ously guarded by the foreign makers. 
 
 The "metal thread " is manufactured hei-e to a limited extent, and this new in- 
 dustry is one that needs a protective tariff in order that it may be permanently es- 
 tablished. Once established the business of making this metal thread will give 
 employment to hundreds of working people, .T,nd will result in the building up of a 
 new home industry. A serious difficulty that prevents the building up of such a 
 new industry is found in the fact that although the tinsel, lahn, or lame, is not 
 recited at all in any part of the law, the customs department have ruled that this 
 tinsel, which is a raw material, so far as the thread-makers are concerned, shall pay 
 the same duty (25 per centum ad valorem) as is paid on the manufactured goods. 
 The tinsel, as such, has no use in the United States, and can uot be used except after 
 having been further subjected to treatment in niaking it up into the classes of manu- 
 factured goods that are recited in the law. 
 
 The result of this ruling of the customs department is that the manufacturers of 
 metal threads, fil(5, or gespinst, has to pay on an article necessary for use in making 
 such goods, the same ad valorem duty that is paid by the importer on the finished 
 goods. 
 
 The tinsel is sold by weight, and the metal (tinsel, lahn, or lame) forms about 80 
 per cent, of the weight of the finished thread, which is also sold by weight. 
 
 Your petitioner (J. E. Montgomery & Co., of Windsor Locks, Coun., manufacturers 
 of yarns) respectfully represent that this industry is burdened by the rulings of the 
 customs department that compels the payment of a 25 per cent, ad valorem duty on 
 the tinsel, as it forces them to compete with the metallic threads made abroad by 
 much cheaper labor and imported under the same duty (25 per centum ad valorem) 
 as the maker of the thread here is compelled to pay for the tinsel — the metal part 
 only — that he imports for making up into the metal thread. 
 
 It is further urged that it is essential to the proper protection of this industry that 
 the duty on the articles recited in the above-quoted section of the law shall be sub- 
 jected to increase of duty of 50 per centum ad valorem, the object of this increase of 
 duty being to protect the manufacturer of such articles here from the competition of 
 foreign makers of such goods. 
 
 It is suggested that the desired result may be accomplished by erasing the words 
 " twenty-five " from the section of the tariff law above quoted and substituting the 
 word " fifty," and by adding at the end of the last line of said clause the following : 
 
 "The tinsel, lame, or lahn, when separate and as a distinct articleshall enter free of 
 duty." 
 
 Accompanying this paper are several samples on cards showing the tinsel, lame, or 
 lahn, in the shape of round and flat wire, and also samples of metal thread. The 
 latter are made here. The tinsel is a foreign product solely and can not be bought 
 from any home manufacturer as none is made in this country. 
 
 J. E. Montgomery & Co. 
 
 Mr. Breckinkidge. I have a statement here of some gentlemen who Want to ask 
 for a hearing on the 2l8t of January — stove founders and people of that sort. Mr. 
 Mnnsell represents a number of gentlemen who want to be heard on the 21st in re- 
 gard to the stove industry. They want to have a personal hearing before the com- 
 mittee on that day, and I move that we hear them on that day. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. The 21st is a good ways off. Why can not the gentlemen be heard 
 now who are here ? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Because they have to be gathered from all over the country. 
 
 Mr. Borrows. We had better wait and take up that question when the chairman 
 is present. 
 
1260 REVISION OF THE TAEIPF. 
 
 STEEL PENS. 
 
 PROM THE ESTBRBROOK COMPANY. 
 
 Camden, N. J., January 27, 1890. 
 ESTEEiMED Friend : In view of the preparation of a tariff bill this session, we ask 
 that the duty on steel and motallic pens be continued as it now is, viz, 12 cents per 
 gross specific. This is the rate as fixed by the Senate bill of last session. 
 
 We will not trouble thee with arguments at this time, as we have been through 
 that before, but can furnish convincing reasons if needful. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 ESTBRBKOOK StEEI. PbN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, 
 
 Alex. C. Wood, Treasurer. 
 Hon. William McKinley, .Tr., 
 
 Chairman TTai/s and Mpnns Cmmnittee. 
 
 VIEWS OF IVISON, BLAKEMAN & CO. 
 
 March 15, 1890. 
 
 Sir : We most respectfully ask the Committee on Ways and Means to consider the 
 item in the tariff laws in relation to metallic pens. 
 
 The laws now impose a specific rate of 12 cents per gross on all pens, whether made 
 of gold, silver, steel, brass, or any other metals. 
 
 Gold pons, cost to import per gross, average £25 ($125); silver, £10 (|50) ; nickel 
 silvered and extra quality of steeJ , 10.9. ($2.50) ; fine steel for general use from 1 to 38. 
 (25 to 75 cents) ; good quality of steel for schools, 5rl. to Is. (10 to 95 cents). 
 
 The finest and highest cost pens, but few are imported ; Iho importafiou of the me- 
 dium cost pens has increased during the past four years ; but few common or cheap 
 grades have been imported, as the duty is almost prohibitory. 
 
 So great a variety of pens, differing in fnrm, metals, and cost, we believe that, 
 in justice to the manufacturers, dealers, and consumers, the specific rate is unjust. 
 If an ad valorem rate is established, the percentage .should not be less than 35 or 45 
 per cent., as in many articles either wholly or part made of steel. 
 
 We respectfully ask your attention to this matter, and will be glad to give you any 
 information in our powci'. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 IvisoN, Blakbman & Co. 
 
 Hon. Wm. M. McKinley, Jr., 
 
 Chah-maii Committee on Ways an 
 
 BRASS BEDSTEADS. 
 VIEWS OP W. O. WHITCOMB. 
 
 NewYork, J«««(ij-j/4, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen: As directed by you, through Mr. .John M. Carson, the clerk of your 
 committee, I would state briefly the facts concerning the existing inequalities of the 
 tariff concerning "brass and iron bedsteads," and ask that the manifest discrimina- 
 tion be removed in the bill now being prepared by you, 
 
 I attach a leaf from the report of the Senate conimitteo on the tariff giving the 
 testimony of Messrs. H. L. .Judd & Co., of New York, and as they state the case ex- 
 actly there remains little, if anything, for me to add. 
 
 I would state that I am now an importer by necessity, owing to the discrimination 
 of the tariff. I would prefer to manufacture at home and am prepared to make large 
 investments and furnish employment to a large number of hands if the inequalities 
 are removed. 
 
 (1) The cased tube, or iron tube, cased in brass, of which the brass bedsteads are 
 made, is not maBufactiued in this country, and I am compelled to import it. The 
 present tariff exacts 45 )ier cent, duty, while the bedstead complete is admitted under 
 some inconsistent ruling as fnrniture at :]5 per cent., a, direct discrimination against 
 home production of 10 per cent. 
 
 (2) The same fncts apply to the iron tube used for the composite (or iron and brass 
 bedsteads), it is a sjiecial tube, not made in tlie United States, and is scheduled at2i 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1261 
 
 ceuts per ponud, au especially higli tariff, the complete bedstead of this class also 
 comes in under the same ruling as furniture at 35 per cent., with the resulting serious 
 discrimination. , 
 
 (3) I think that considering the very large difference in trages paid (a matter of 
 from 75 per cent, to 100 per cent.) that a duty of at least 50 per cent, should be put 
 upon the manufactured bedsteads to afford anything like adequate encouragement to 
 the industry iu the United States. The bedsteads now sold in the United States are, 
 practically speaking, all imported, owing to the tariff inequalities deterring their 
 home productiou, 
 
 I think that the present ruling should be changed so that the law material ortubes 
 should bo admitted at the lower rating' and the bedsteads come uuder a higher class- 
 ification. 
 
 Tours, very respectfully, 
 
 W. O. WlIITCOMB. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 VIEWS OF H, L. JUDD & CO. 
 
 We are manufacturers of brass bedsteads, also importers. We would prefer to man 
 facture all of the bedsteads we sell, but are forced to import owing to the inequalities 
 of the tariff. On manufactured bedsteads we pay an import duty of 35 per cent., 
 while the unfinished product (that is, the brass tubes of which we make the beds) is 
 subject to an import duty of 45 per cent. You will see that this is a direct bounty to 
 the English manufacturer of about 7| per cent., that being about the difference in 
 the duty. We think it ought to be reversed, and that the raw material should be 35 
 per cent., and the finishedprodnct 45 per cent. Under the existiug tariff it would ap- 
 pear that it was intended that brass bedsteads should bear a duty of 45 per cent., 
 classified as manufactures of brass ; but a ruling was made allowing them to be en- 
 tered as furniture at 35 per cent. This ruling makes it difficult for American manu- 
 facturers to compete, as in addition to this difference in duty English workmen are 
 paid from |3.60 to f 5.50 per week, whereas we pay for same labor $12 to $18 per week. 
 We think the duty on brass beds should be at least 50 per cent, to afford anything 
 like an adequate protection to the industry in the United States, which is undoubt- 
 edly a growing one. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 H. L. JUDD & Co. 
 
 Hon. Wm. McKinley, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 METAL POLISH. 
 
 Chicago, February 7, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : We respectfully call your attention to the present duty now being 
 charged on metal polishes imported into this country. The present duty is very low, 
 and our understanding is that no duty is charged on the tin boxes containing the 
 polish, only on the contents of the boxes. We think it ought to be increased to not 
 less than 40 per cent, on the boxes as well as contents of same, or a higher duty im- 
 posed if you think it advisable to .make' it so. We ask this as a protection to home 
 manufactured goods, and against a foreign article manufactured iu Germany, known 
 as " Putz Pomade, " a paste polish. The United States is being flooded with it, and 
 at such a low price we find ourselves unable to manufactiire similar goods at the 
 prices it is now being imported into this country. 
 
 Would add that we can not compete against cheap foreign labor and pay current 
 wages as paid in the United States. 
 Very truly. 
 
 The Matchless Metal Polish Company. 
 
 Hon. Wm. McKinley, 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee. 
 
1262 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 ARaENTlFEROUS ORES. 
 
 [See ante^ page 55.] 
 STATEMENT OP HON. H. TO^ATNSEND, OF COLORADO. 
 
 Hou. H. TowNSEND, a Eepreseulative from the Sate of Colorado, addressed the com- 
 mittee. He said: 
 
 I do not desire to detain the committee but a few moments, so far as I am con- 
 cerned. This question, however, in our section of the country is a most important 
 and vital question, especially since the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury, re- 
 cently made, in which he holds lead ore to be silver ore when it contains more value 
 in silver than in lead. That is a strange and most remarkable proposition to the 
 mining people of the West, and from the miner who works in the mine clear through 
 the whole list — the hauler, the sampler, the buyer, the seller, and everybody who 
 has anything to do with it to the smelter and the redaction works, it is an absolutely 
 unheard of idea. The Secretary, when he followed the original decision made in 
 1880 with reference to silver and iron ore and applied it to lead-silver ores, could not 
 say that he had not been advised, that it was a new question, and he knew nothing 
 about the subject. This book, which contains the testimony that was submitted to 
 the Secretary when this hearing was had, contains an overwhelming amount of evi- 
 dence ; it is couclusive ; it demonstrates beyond cavil or question that whenever there 
 is sufficient lead in the ore to make it a smelting ore, then it is known and becomes a 
 lead ore. This is the universal oiiinion throughout the West, of miners and everybody 
 else. When ore contains 5 per ceut. of lead it is knowj^ in the West as lead ore and 
 has to be smelted for the extraction of the more precious metals. The difference in 
 reducing iron and lead ore is, that the iron is not saved and the lead is, in the same 
 process that extracts the silver. 
 
 The ruling of the Department iu 1880, made in regard to iron ore carrying silver, 
 was perhaps not an improper one, but to apply the same principle to lead ore carry- 
 ing silver is manifestly unjust, for the reason that the conditions are wholly different, 
 as just indicated by the result of reduction, the lead being saved and the iron lost in 
 the same action. The first decision on the lead ores was made in 1883, after the tariif 
 act of 1883 was passed, and if the committee will bear with me for a moment — I do 
 not intend to take up any length of time, because the ground has been thoroughly 
 covered by those gentlemen who have preceded me — I would call the committee's 
 attention to the increase in the importations of lead ores that occurred after this 
 ruling; itis perfectly wonderful. In 1884 there' came in through ElPaso, Tex., 1,805 
 tons; in 1885, 8,403 tons; in 1886, 22,045 tons; m 1887, 44,773 tons, and in 1888 
 about 70,000 tons came in. Now, that ore comes in and immediately goes into the 
 market in competition with ore that is produced in Colorado and in the Rocky 
 Mountain region. It is produced by labor that only costs from 25 cents to $1 per day, 
 which is the highest price, as I am informed, paid for miners in Old Mexico. It brings 
 that poorly-paid labor into direct and immediate competition with the miners of our 
 country in the West, whose wages are from |2.50 to $4 per day. Everybody knows 
 this ; it is too plain for argument ; and if it is continued it will destroy the silver-lead 
 mining of this country, which, as Mr. Carter says, has proven of vast importance in 
 the West. It will close up the low-grade silver mines, which produces the bulk of 
 our silver and tlje most of our lead. The low-grade mines of Leadville, which have 
 produced from $10,000,000 to $15,000,000 per year, are almost wholly and entirely of 
 this character. 
 
 The gentleman from New Jersey talks about these Mexican ores being necessary 
 for fluxing purposes in the smelting of ores. Does he not know that all lead and 
 galena ores are thus used ? That the lead carbonate ores, galena ores, and other lea,d 
 ores of Colorado, and the whole mining regions of the West are thus used. Recently, 
 since this decision of the Secretary, various smelting men, mine owners, and men in- 
 terested in the production of lead have had a meeting at Salt Lake City, Utah. They 
 show by careful estimates that to-tlay there are fifty thousand miners employed in 
 the West in mining the precious metals, and it is the labor of these men that sup- 
 ports the agricultural, commercial, aud business interests of the entire Rocky Mount- 
 ain region. I will file with the committee the resolutions and address to the pres- 
 ident passed by the couvention at Salt Lake City November 20 and 21, and ask that 
 they be cousidered. You destroy the low-grade silver mines by entering into com- 
 petition with this low-priced labor, and you destroy that country. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1263 
 
 It is not only those people who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in 
 mines and in their development and their improvements and in various kinds of in- 
 vestments incident to mining, but all other industries and business in the mountain 
 regions are dependent upon this vast mining industry for their prosperity, and even 
 their existence. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Have you any statistics showing the amount of silver-lead ore prod- 
 uct which is imported from Mexico and the amount produced in the United States ? 
 I want to see how the proportion of imports compare. 
 
 Mr. TowNSKND. I think, perhaps, I have something here. 
 
 Mr. Carter. There were 157,000 tons of ore produced in the United States last 
 year. 
 
 Mr. ToWNSBND. Here is a statement made by Mr. Dennis Sheedy, president of the 
 Globe Smelting and Refining Company. In speaking of the admission of lead duty 
 free, he says the consumption was 164,416 tons. By reason of this importation there 
 were about 20,000 tons brought in in excess of the demand. His statement will be 
 found on page (i8 of argument before the Secretary of the Treasury, which I will file 
 with the committee and ask the secretary to mark as an exhibit. 1 do not know 
 that I care to go into anything further. The statement shows that about 90 per 
 cent, of the lead produced from argentiferous ores, mostly low-grade silver ores, con- 
 stitute the bulk of all mining. Take the mine in Leadville, mentioned by the gen- 
 tleman on the other side of this question; it has been an immense producer of ore. 
 It is one of the low-grade silver-lead mines that has been practically closed, because 
 they are not able to compete with Mexican ores in price and keep their men at work 
 at current wages. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you state that 90 per cent, of the lead consumed is of do- 
 mestic production, is derived from low-grade silver ores? 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. I could not say so much of itj^but about 90 per cent, is produced 
 from argentiferous ores, and the vast bulk of the ore, as Mr. Carter says, is low grade. 
 In high-grade silver ores you seldom find much lead. 
 
 The ruling of the Department which is talked about as being made in 1880 was 
 upon iron ore carrying silver. The decision in regard to lead ore carrying silver was 
 not made until 1883, and not until after the passage of the tariff act of 1883. When 
 the Judiciary Committee of the Senate gave their opinion in regard to the construc- 
 tion of the statute they assumed from the language of the case submitted that this 
 lead-silver ruling had been made some years prior to the passage of the tariff act of 
 1883. This assumption, as a matter of fact, was not true. The opinion rendered by 
 Mr. Edmunds and the members of the committee was upon the supposition that the 
 ruling of the Secretary in regard to the silver and iron was also in regard to silver- 
 lead ore, which latter decision was not made until 1883, and after the tariff act of 
 1883 had been passed, as I have before stated. I notice by the newspapers there is 
 to be another meeting of the gentlemen interested in the lead question on the 7th of 
 January. They are very^nnch disturbed and very earnest in their protests. They 
 feel that absolute ruination and destruction to their business will result unless this 
 ruling of the Secretary can be changed. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Because these importations cause a decline in the price of pig 
 lead? 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. Yes, sir. I think the price of pig-lead in New York now is about 
 $3.60 to .$3.65. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. That is for pig-lead? 
 
 Mr. TowNSBND. Yes, sir. The quotation in New York is $3.60 to $3.65, and I will 
 file with the committee a statement of the average New York lead quotations per 
 year since 1837, being the average quotations for fifty years ; also the importations in 
 • the form of pig-lead during that time and the importations in the form of ore since 
 1886, and will ask that it be made a part of my remarks, together with the letter of 
 the Globe Smelting and Refining Company to me. Lead in pig under the tariff act 
 pays 2 cents per pound, while lead in ore pays only l^ cents per pound. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. Mr. Kean called attention to the fact that a certain quantity of 
 lead was necessary for the fluxing of silver ores. 
 Mr. TOWNSEND. That is true. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. And he informed us that it was eminently proper that a cer- 
 tain portion of this should come in free to be used for fluxing purposes. What quan- 
 tity of lead in weight is required for fluxing a ton of silver ore in a smelter? 
 
 Mr. TowNSBND. 1 can not tell you. In making up their charges in the furnaces 
 the proportions are different according to the different combinations in the ore ; this 
 is my understanding. I do not claim any scientific knowledge upon the subject. I 
 know, however, that with aU dry ores they use lead in smelting. 
 Mr. McKenna. Do you need the imported lead ores from Mexico for that purpose ? 
 Mr. ToWNSBNn. No, sir ; we do not need anything of the kind. We have plenty 
 of our own. 
 
1264 
 
 EEYISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 I would ask that, ahoiikl any of tbe gentlemeu in Colorado wlio are interested in 
 tbis question and who may desire to submit any \¥ritten arguments or statistics to 
 the committee for their cousideratiou, they be permitted to do so. 
 
 Tbe Chairmaj>). The committee will be glad to have them do so. 
 
 The Globe Smelting and Refining Company, 
 
 Denver, Colo., January 6, 1890. 
 Deak Sir: Inclosed herewith you will please find tbe average New York lead 
 quotations per year since 1837, also tbe importations in the form of ore and in the 
 form of pig-lead. Owing to tbe increased consumption of lead in the United States, 
 which for the last four years has been in excess of the jiroduction from domestic 
 sources, tbe importation of lead ores has only within tbe past few years commenced 
 to tell on the price. In 1888 the lead produced from domestic ores was short of the 
 amount consumed by about 6,000 tons. This shortage was jjrovided for by the Mexi- 
 can lead, and which in addition left a surplus of abont 21,000 tons. Most of this lead 
 was stored in New York and has been a constant hindrance to tbe lead market rising 
 during tbf last year. We regret that we are unable to give you the importations for 
 1889. We hope you will succeed in your laudable undertaking, and are, 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 The Globe Smelting and Refining Company. 
 A. Chanutb. 
 
 Hon. HOSE.4. TOWNSBND, 
 
 House of Bepresentatives, WasMnyton, D. C. 
 
 'Statistics of average yearly price of common pig-lead at New York for the half century 
 
 1837-1889. 
 
 Year. 
 
 New Y6rk 
 
 Importa- 
 
 Year. 
 
 New York 
 
 Importa- 
 
 Year. 
 
 New York 
 
 Importa- 
 
 quotations. 
 
 tiona. 
 
 quotations. 
 
 tions. 
 
 quotations. 
 
 tions. 
 
 
 
 Tons. 
 
 
 
 Tons. 
 
 
 
 Tons. 
 
 1837 
 
 $5. 95 
 
 150 
 
 1863 
 
 $6.40 
 
 20, 613 
 
 1869 
 
 $6.45 
 
 35, 111 
 
 1838 
 
 5.30 
 
 75 
 
 1854 
 
 6.60 
 
 21,301 
 
 1870 
 
 6.2,5 
 
 28, 600 
 
 1839 
 
 5.80 
 
 235 
 
 18.55 
 
 6.80 
 
 25, 333 
 
 1871 
 
 6.10 
 
 28, 000 
 
 1840 
 
 4.90 
 
 230 
 
 1856 
 
 6.60 
 
 24,683 
 
 1872 
 
 6.33 
 
 26, 355 
 
 1841 
 
 4.50 
 
 25 
 
 1857 
 
 6.00 
 
 21,408 
 
 1873 
 
 6.30 
 
 22, 114 
 
 1842 
 
 3.80 
 
 None. 
 
 1858 
 
 4.95 
 
 18, 406 
 
 1874 
 
 6.00 
 
 17, 674 
 
 1843 
 
 3.60 
 
 Do. 
 
 1859 
 
 5, .50 
 
 16,300 
 
 1875 
 
 5.95 
 
 7,305 
 
 1844 
 
 3.90 
 
 Do. 
 
 J860 
 
 .5.65 
 
 21,425 
 
 1870 
 
 6.05 
 
 4,686 
 
 1845 
 
 4.05 
 
 Do. 
 
 1861 
 
 .5.25 
 
 15, 720 
 
 1877 
 
 5.45 
 
 *745 
 
 1846 
 
 4.75 
 
 Do. 
 
 1862 
 
 6.10 
 
 32, 900 
 
 1878 
 
 3.68 
 
 *7, 395 
 
 1847 
 
 4.37 
 
 Do 
 
 1863 
 
 6.25 
 
 12, 600 
 
 1879 
 
 4. ]8 
 
 •2,461 
 
 1848 
 
 4. 35 
 
 1,200 
 
 1864 
 
 7.10 
 
 27, 900 
 
 1880 
 
 5.05 
 
 3,228 
 
 1849 
 
 4.80 
 
 10, 435 
 
 1865 
 
 0.60 
 
 13, 900 
 
 1881 
 
 4.80 
 
 3,^2 
 
 1850 
 
 4.80 
 
 16,470 
 
 1866 
 
 6.90 
 
 27, 900 
 
 1882 
 
 4.90 
 
 2,508 
 
 1851 
 
 4.85 
 
 19, 405 
 
 1867 
 
 6.50 
 
 23,. 330 
 
 1883 
 
 4.32 
 
 ],085 
 
 1852 
 
 4.80 
 
 16, 760 
 
 1868 
 
 6.50 
 
 23, 225 
 
 1881 
 
 3.73 
 
 2,508 
 
 * Exported. 
 
 Year. 
 
 New York 
 quotations. 
 
 Lead importations. 
 
 In pig. 
 
 In ore. 
 
 1885 . 
 
 $3.95 
 4.63 
 4.45 
 4.41 
 3.80 
 
 Tons. 
 2,682 
 9,700 
 4,312 
 1,642 
 
 Tons. 
 
 1886 
 
 8,800 
 15,060 
 27, 018 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 
 
 
 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1265 
 
 ACTION OF THE CONVENTION. 
 
 At a convention held at Salt Lake City, Utah, November 20 and 21, 18d9, at which 
 were represented the States of California, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, and the Terri- 
 tories of Idaho, New Mexico, and Utah, Hon. George W. Cassidy, of Nevada, was 
 elected chairman, and W. G. Van Home, of Utah, secretary; and it was, among other 
 things, resolved as follows : 
 
 THE LEAD REPORT. 
 
 Whereas the tariff law of 1883 provides for a duty of 1^ cents per pound on lead 
 ore, while ores of silver are admitted free ; and 
 
 Whereas the Secretary of the Treasury has recently decided that lead ores carry- 
 ing silver of greater value than the lead therein contained shall be classed as ores of 
 silver and be admitted free of duty; and. 
 
 Whereas, this ruling is manifestly contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the 
 law, and must operate to the great prejudice of the silver-lead mining interests of 
 our country, especially, the great mining West: Therefore be it. 
 
 Resolved, That we call upon the executive department of the Government to cor- 
 rect this great wrong by judicial proceedings or otherwise, and upon Congress by 
 proper enactment to cause the duty to be collected on lead ore in some form, and , 
 render it certain that our industry may receive the protection intended by said law 
 of 1883 and promised us by the political party now in control of the administration 
 of our Government ; and 
 
 Resolved, That the following address be and hereby is approved, and that the same 
 be presented to the President and the House of Representatives and Senate of the 
 United States respectively. 
 
 We, citizens of the States of Montana, Nevada, California, Colorado, and Territo- 
 ries of Idaho, Utah, New Mexico, and representing the lead mining interests of those 
 Commonwealths, appeal to the President and Congress to give relief to the great lead 
 mining industry against the fatal competition of the peon-worked mines of Mexico. 
 
 Lead mining is the support and chief source of prosperity of the vast region of the 
 mountain West, and many large districts draw their life from it. It employs at liv- 
 ing wages about fifty thousand American miners, and directly and indirectly affords a 
 livelihood to a large part of the population of the United States living iu the inter- 
 mountain region. For fifteen J ears past it has furnished at an ever-reducing price 
 90 per cent, of the lead consumed by this country, and, coming into competition with 
 no other industry, has poured yearly iuto the coffers of the nation tens of millions of 
 dollars' worth of the precious metals which are the life-blood of all industries. 
 
 To protect this beneficent industry Congress enacted laws providing for a duty of 
 IJ cents per pound to be levied and collected on foreign lead ores imported into this 
 couutry. This duty is not collected, and our mines paying a daily average wage of |3 
 per man, are put in direct competition with Mexican and other foreign mines paying 
 only from 20 cents to $1 per day. As a result many American mines have closed 
 down, throwing tens of thousands of men out of employment, and others only work 
 on in hope of speedy relief Such relief was sought from the previous administra- 
 tion without success, but after t'le national election of 188,8 lead miners, relying 
 upon the platform of the successful party in that election, with renewed hope again 
 sotitiht relief, and expected that the protection given by law to an industry which 
 couia produce yearly |41, 595,000 worth of precious and useful metals would be justly 
 enforced. The appeal ignored by the last 'administration was noticed by the new 
 administration, and a hearing set for the 15th day of May, 1889, of which hearing 
 notice was given to all parties interested. 
 
 Those gaining their livelihood from lead mining appeared at great cost at that 
 hearing to give to the Treasury Department conclusive evidence that lead mining 
 was entitled to protection nnder the law, and that foreign lead ores were subject to 
 duty. The existing rule of the Deiiartment was that when the imported ore had a 
 greater value for its silver than for the lead contents, it was admitted free of duty as 
 a silver ore. 
 
 The provisions of law which relate, or which it is claimed may relate, to the admis- 
 sion of silver ores and cf lead ores, or both, are as follows : 
 
 (1) On the free list: Ores of gold and silver. (Stat, at Large, vol. 22.) 
 
 (2) Metals (Schedule E), lead ores and lead dross 1| cents per pound. (Stat, at 
 Large, p. 500, vol. 22.) 
 
 (3) Mineral substances in a crude state and metals uuwrought, not specifically 
 enumerated or provided for in this act, 20 per cent, ad valorem. (Stat, at Large, 
 vol. 22, p. 501.) 
 
 The following are the rulings and opinions claimed as coustruing tljis law and 
 affecting the olassifloation of ores admitted free, 
 
 485^ 80 
 
1266 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 SILVKR ORE — FREE ENTRY. 
 
 Treasury Department, January 14, 1880. 
 Sir: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 10th ultimo, in wbioh you 
 reqnest instrnctions in regard to the classification of certain ore imported by Messrs. 
 Groos &. Callsen, at Eagle Pass, in your district, from the Sierra Majada mines in 
 Mexico, and claimed to be entitled to free entry as silver ore. 
 
 The samples forwarded by yon have been submitted for assay to the superinten- 
 dent of the Milit at Philade'lphia, who reports that the ore is an iron ore (hematite), 
 containing .54 ounces of silver and a slight amount of copper to the ton of 2,000 
 pounds. 
 
 The value of the silver contained in the ore being largely in excess of the value of 
 the iron, the Department is of the opinion that the ore is entitled to entry free of 
 duty as "silver ore." 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 H. F. French, 
 Assistant Secretary. 
 Collector of Customs, Indiauola, Tex. 
 
 ORES, MIXED, SILVER AND LEAD — HOW CLASSIFIED. 
 
 Treasury Department, January 25, 1886. 
 Sir : In reply toyour letter of the 19th instant, relative to the dutiable character 
 of ores containing precious and base metals, you are informed that the rule governing 
 the classification of such ores, as established by Department's decision of January 14, 
 1880 (synopsis, 4391), and re-afflrmed by Department's letter of the 11th instant (un- 
 pnblished), is that when silver in any ore predominates in value it is considered to 
 be silver ore, and, as such, is exempt from duty under the special provision in the 
 free list for ores of gold and silver. Where, however, lead predominates in value, 
 the ore is considered as a lead ore, and is subjected to a duty at the rate of 1-J cents 
 per pound under the special provisions in the tariftact for "load ore and lead dross." 
 The question of classification, therefore, is one of fact, which can only be de- 
 termined upon an examination of the importation, for the purpose of ascertaining 
 whether it consists of silver ore or lead ore, as aforesaid. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 C. S. Fairchild, 
 Assistant Secretary. 
 E. A. Caswell, Esq., New York. 
 
 Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 
 
 Washington, D. C, March 29, 1883. 
 Sir : In reply to your letter of the 20th instant, you are informed that imported 
 natural silver, so called ores of which silver is the element of chief value, are exempt 
 from duty under the provision in the " free list " for silver ore. If, however, they 
 are found to contain lead as the element of chief value, they would be duitable at IJ 
 cents per pound as lead ore. 
 
 Base bullion formed of silver and lead is classified under the tariff acts in accordance 
 with the preponderance in weight of the constituent parts. If silver is found to pre- 
 ponderate the bullion would be exempt from duty as " silver bullion," but if lead 
 lireponderates, it would be dutiable as lead in pigs, bars, etc., at 2 cents per pound. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 H. F. French, 
 Acting Secretary. 
 O. F. Thornton, Esq., Tomistone, Ariz. 
 
 Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 
 
 Washington, D. C, August 5, 1885. 
 Sir: In reply to your letter of the 30th ultimo, which was forwarded to the De- 
 partment by Hon. H. L. Muldrow, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, I inclose here- 
 with a copy of a decision of the Department in regard to silver and lead ores imported 
 from Mexico, dated March 29, 18b:i. 
 
 It will be seen that the classification of such ores depends upon the question as to 
 which metal is the component of chief value — that is to say, if silver is chief value 
 the ore is free from duty .as silver ore, but if lead is chief value it is liable to duty at 
 the rate of l\ ceuts per pound under the provisions for lead ore. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 C. S. Fairchild, 
 Assistant Secretary. 
 A. Murdoch, Esq., 
 ' Columius, Miss. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1267 
 
 Letter from the Secretarii of the Treasury, transmitting, in response to Senate resolution of 
 May 14, 18dei, information relative to the importation of lead ores. 
 
 Trbasuky Department, Office of the Secretary, 
 
 Washington, D. C, May 21, 1889. 
 
 Sir : I am in receipt of tte following resolution of tiie United States Senate, dated 
 the 14th instant : 
 
 "Besolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, directed to inform 
 the Senate, without delay, if there is any regulation of his Department under which 
 lead ores which contain gold or silver are admitted free of duty ; if so, under what 
 law are lead ores put on the free list because they contain other valuable minerals 
 besides lead ; and also to inform the Senate what amount of lead ores have been im- 
 ported into the United States during the past ten months of the present fiscal year, 
 and what amount of silver ore has been imported into the United States during the 
 same period, and what percentage of lead, if any, was contained in such silver ore." 
 
 In reply to such resolution, I transmit herewith copies of decision rendered by this 
 Department under dates of .January 14, 1880, and January 25, 1886, respectively, 
 which are to the effect that ores containing precions and base metals, such as silver 
 and lead, silver and iron, etc., are to be classified under the tariif acts in accordance 
 with the preponderance in value of the metals contained therein — that is to say, if 
 silver predominates in value they shall be classified under the provision of the statute 
 for ores of silver ; but if, however, lead should predominate in value they shall be 
 classified as lead ores, the rule, it is understood, being based upon the generally ac- 
 cepted idea that the component metal of chief value of any particular ore rendered it 
 commercially the ore of that metal. 
 
 There is no provision of law, so far as I am aware, putting lead ores on the free list 
 because they contain other valuable mineral besides lead, unless, as heretofore stated, 
 it is found that the valuable mineral is component of chief value, when, if it is silver 
 or gold, the ore is entitled to free entry under the provision in the free list of the act 
 of March 3, 1883, for " ores of gold and silver." 
 
 I have also to state that, in accordance with a report dated the 17th instant, re- 
 ceived from the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, a copy of which is hereby inclosed, 
 the value of silver ore imported into the United States during the nine months end- 
 ing March 31 last, was $3,617,055, and that the amount of lead ores and dross im- 
 ported during the same period was 131,640 pounds, valued at |12,875. Such statist- 
 ical information for the monlli of April lastcan not be given, inasmuch is the reports 
 from collectors of customs for that month have not been fully received 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 Hugh S. Thompson, 
 
 Acting Secretary. 
 
 Hon. John J. Ingalls, 
 
 President pro tempore United States Senate. 
 
 Report of Committee on the Judiciary. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following report 
 (to accompany resolution for inquiry as to duty on lead ores, etc.) : 
 
 The Committee on the Judiciary, which was instructed by Senate resolution of the 
 11th June, 1888, " to examine and report to the Senate whether in their opinion under 
 the provisions of the act of March 3, 1883 (22 United States Statutes, page 500), lead 
 ore is exempt from duty if it contain gold or silver less in quantity but greater in 
 value than the value of the lead in the ore," respectfully reports — 
 
 That it has had the matter under consideration. 
 
 The precise form of the question stated in the resolution described the ore as " lead 
 ore." If such ore is lead ore in the legal and commercial sense, it would necessarily 
 follow that it is not exempt from duty, for the statute in terms provides that lead 
 ores shall pay a duty of li cents per pound. But from an examination of certain 
 papers laid before the committee bearing on the subject it would appear that the real 
 question of practical importance arises in regard to ores that are stated by the Treas- 
 ury Department to have been for a long time known as silver ore or gold ore, as the 
 case may be. 
 
 In the case of ores of this character, although they contain more lead in weight 
 than either gold or silver, but more gold or silver than lead in value, the question is 
 one of more difficulty, and the committee inclines to the opinion that they are not 
 subject to duty in respect of the lead they contain. In the same act of 1883, in the . 
 paragraph relating to copper, special language is used imposing a duty upon copper 
 found in any ore, and the same is true in respect to nickel. This change of phraseology 
 would seem to imply that Congress intended to make a distinction in respect of im- 
 posing customs duty upon the lead that might be contained in ores usually known in 
 
1268 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 commerce as golii aud silver ores, as compared witli the provisions made iu respect of 
 copper and nickel. 
 
 This view is fortified liy the fact stated in a letter of 26th June last, addressed to 
 the chairman of the conunittoe by the Assistant Secretary of the Treasnry, stating 
 that before 1SS3 these ores containing gold or silver, aud lead, where the gold or 
 silver preponderated in value, had been admitted under the free list as ores of gold 
 or silver, and were known in commerce as such, and not as lead ores. This course 
 of business and practice, it must bo assumed, was known to Congress Avhen it enacted 
 the act of ]8t<3, and taken in connection with the special provisions made in regard 
 to copper and nickel, would, the committee thinks, in a legal sense show that such 
 ores were not and are not dutiable as lead ores. 
 
 The committee is of opinion, therefore, that the class of ores herein mentioned are 
 not dutiable under existing law. 
 
 The committee returns herewith the letter of the Assistant Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury, and also a letter from the Director of the Mint, addressed to Mr. Maynard, the 
 Assistant Secretary, and dated 23d June, IHSH, on the subject. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 At the hearing it was claimed by the importers that the matter was res aAjudicata, 
 that the ruling of the Department and the opinion of the Judiciary Committee "were 
 conclusive on the Secretary; that the ores, even if lead ores, were also silver ores, 
 aud should be admitted free. 
 
 By the lead minors it was claimed, on the other hand, that the ruliiigs of the De- 
 partment were all made without hearing, that the opinion of the Judiciary Com- 
 mittee of the Senate was based on a misleading assumption of fact, and that the 
 only question was whether such ores were lead ores, within the meaning of the stat- 
 ute. That if they were lead ores it made no difl'erence if they might al.so be classed 
 as ores of silver, they should still pay duty under Statutes at Large, 1881-'83, section 
 2499, page 491. " If two or more rates of duty should be applicable to any imported 
 article, it .shall be classified under the highest of such rates." 
 
 It was further claimed that the intent of Congress was to make lead ores dutiable 
 and if the ores in question were not strictly lead ores they were certainly dutiable as 
 mineral substances in a crude state. In decision 9400, the Secretary says : 
 
 " In all cases of ambiguity, or of conllicting statiitory provisions, the familiar rule 
 of construction requires that the intent of Congress should, if possible, be discovered 
 and such a view adopted as will harmonize and not destroj' the manifest scheme of the 
 statute." 
 
 At the hearing an overwhelming array of proof was adduced by the lead miners 
 showing beyond doubt that the ores in question were aud always had been known as 
 lead ores, aud that what was and had been known as ores of silver, were such 
 ores as are milled, and not smelted by the "lead process." This proof consisted of 
 ninety-nine citations from the most eminent technical writers of this aud foreign 
 countries, of agreeing affldavits aud statcnuuts of seventy-two men of repute who had 
 for many years past been engaged iu mining, transporting, sampling, assaying, 
 smelting, and refining such ores. This proof was so impregnable that the importers 
 in despair of meeting it admitted the fact that 250,000 affidavits could be obtained to 
 the same effect. 
 
 The attention of the Department was called to the fact that importers under a rul- 
 ing adverse to them had statutory relief by protest, appeal, aud suit, while lead 
 miners had no remedy if ruling was adverse to thoiii. 
 
 The importers adduced only the affidavits of two men taken in the case at hearing, 
 one of those two himself at the head of the importers, and making an affidavit erro- 
 neous aud false in many particulars, as was shown to the Department, and the other 
 making an affidavit contradicted by his own printed works, as was fully shown. The 
 only other evidence relied on by the importers, was excerpted testimony given seven- 
 teen years before by three gentlemen in a case in court, where no such question as 
 the one at hearing was being tried. An exauiiuation of the full record of the case 
 showed that the testimony of the gentlemen aforesaid, taken as a whole, was in no 
 wise in point as supporting the claim of the importers in the case before the Depart- 
 ment, and that the case in which sucli testimony had been given was decided against 
 the parties producing that testimony. After live wc^ary mouths of deferred hope, the 
 honorable Secretary of the Treasury decided as follows : 
 
 Classification of ores containing hoth silver and lead. 
 
 Treasury Dki'Artmknt, Office of the Sbcuk.tary, 
 
 Washiiu/ton, D. C, Ootoher 18, 1889. 
 To collectors and other officers of the customs : 
 
 I havi* given due considnration to the nrgumeutB, both written aud oral, snbmitted 
 at aud subsequent to the hearing at this Department in May last, upon the question 
 oi the proper olassiflcation of ores containing hoth lead and silver associated with 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1269 
 
 other substances in varialilo quantities and generally Icuown as lead-silver ores, or 
 as argentiferous lead ores imported from Mexico. 
 
 Upon examination I tind that the decisious and practice of this Department have 
 been nniform for a number of years. It Ti\'as held by the Department, under decision 
 dated January 14, 1880 (Synopsis 4:i91), with regard to the classification of certain 
 ore imported at Eagle Pass from the Sierra Majada mines in Mexico, and which was 
 claimed to be entitled to free entry as silver ore, that " the value of the silver con- 
 tained in the ore being largely in excess of the value of the iron, the Department is 
 of the opinion that the ore is entitled to entry free of duty as silver ore." This de- 
 cision was reatSrmed in J.anuary, 188ti (Synopsis 7327), where it was hold that 
 " when silver in .any ore predominates in value it is considered to be silver ore, and 
 as such is exempt from duty under the special provision of the free list for ores of 
 gold and silver. Where, however, lead predominates in value, the ore is considered 
 as a lead ore, and is subject to a duty of 1 J cents per pound, under the special provis- 
 ion in the tariff act for lead ore and lead dross. The question of classification, 
 therefore, is one of fact, which can only be determined upon examination of the 
 importation for the purpose of ascertaining whether it consists of silver ore or of lead 
 ore, as aforesaid." 
 
 In a subsequent decision in May, 1886 (Synopsis 7543), reaffirming the principle 
 previously laid dov;n, it was stated that " ores composed of silver .and lead and iron, 
 or silver and lead, or silver and other base metals, of which silver is the component 
 material of chief value, would, under the ruling of January '25, 1886, be exempt from 
 duty under the provisions of the free list for ' ores of * * * silver.' It is imma- 
 terial in the entry and classification of such ores, whether the ores are imported for 
 use as fluxes in the fusion of other metals, or on account of the metals themselves." 
 
 The dutiable or nou-dntiable character of these ores was the subject of an investi- 
 gation by the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, who reported on the 5th of July, 
 1888, in eflect, that ores of the character mentioned, namely, ores containing more 
 lead in weight than either gold or silver, but more gold or silver than lead in value, 
 are not, in the opinion of the committee, subject to duty under existing law. 
 
 If the question presented were a new one, an<l had not been the subject of admin- 
 istrative construction fortified by the opinion of the Judiciary Connnittee of theSen- 
 ate, I would feel at liberty to give greater consideration to the weighty arguments 
 which have been adduced, tending to establish the dutiable character of all ores of 
 4;his description containing lead in appreciable or considerable quantity, the more so 
 if it had lieen satisfactorily demonstrated that these ores are not known nor entitled 
 to be known commercially as ores of silver. It not having been so demonstrated, 
 and it being the fact that since the original decision of 1880 on this subject. Congress 
 has re-enacted the pre-existing provisions of the tariff with regard to lead ores and 
 silver ores, respectively, I do not feel at liberty to set aside the existing classification. 
 It must be assumed that the rulings and jiractice of the Department were known to 
 Congress when it passed the tariff act of 1883. It must be held that the designation 
 of lead ore and silver ore, in the tariff, in the absence of legislative definition, was 
 that of existing decisions ; that Congress intended the classification should turn on 
 the question of value and not of quantity. It is therefore considered ttiat this De- 
 partment is without authority to change the Departmental and Congressional defini- 
 tion of these ores, and in faith of which large business interests have been established. 
 
 That Congress did not intend to impose duty upon the lead which might be found 
 in the different ores, but only upon such ores as were then recognized under the de- 
 cisions of the Department as load ores, is gathered from other parts of the tariff act, 
 for in paragraph 186 " copper " is made dutiable whenever found in ore, and in para- 
 graph 101 "nickel" is also made dutiable whenever found in ore or in other crude 
 form. In those cases it is clearly the metal contained in the ore which is made sub- 
 ject to duty, and had the same form of expression been used in reference to lead that 
 metal would have been dutiable at the rate prescribed whenever found in ore. Ac- 
 cording to well-settled rules of statutory construction this dift'erence in the form of 
 expression must be deemed to indicate a different legislative intent, and to limit the 
 authority of the Department to impose duty in such cases to the ore itself under ex- 
 isting rules of classification. I consider, therefore, that the present classification has 
 attained +he force of Congressional enactment, and that a change if desired must be 
 sought in Congressional intervention. If, however, ores of this description are im- 
 ported, which are distinctively known as lead ores in the legal and commercial sense, 
 they would, as such, be dutiable. 
 
 It is deemed in this connection to enjoin upon customs officers a strict enforcement 
 of the regulations of this Department intended to correct abuses which formerly ex- 
 isted in the methods of entry, sampling, and classification of the ores of the char- 
 ter mentioned. 
 
 William Windom, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
1270 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The iujuRtice of this decision is shown by a coiiiparison with the decision of the 
 same officer in DcciNion 9400. 
 
 The Secretary was not and could not be precluded by any ruling of his predecessor. 
 Solicitor of the Treiisury Hepburn, in the worsted case No. 9400, says: 
 
 " Prior to the action complained of in this appeal this class of merchandise had 
 been recognized by customs officers as subject to duty, under paragraph 363, as 
 'worsted' or as ' m.anufactures of \Yorsted.' A ruling long persisted in, it is con- 
 tended, ought not to be changed except for the gravest of reasons. Seemingly, it is 
 thought by many engaged in this contention that a wrong, if hoary -with age, gains 
 such a status that it is almost impious to attempt its dislodgemeut. 
 
 "It has been suggested that a reclassificatiou of manufactures, such as are in- 
 volved in this case, is an ' alteration of the law,' and that such an ' alteration ' would 
 bring calamity to all business, and therefore that such ■alteration' would be criminal 
 upon the part of the Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 " Surely no sane person "would contend that the Secretary or any other officer of 
 the Government can ' alter the law.' Every one recognizes that power to be invested 
 in the Congress alone, but it is made the duty of the Secretary of the Treasurj- to 
 supervise the execution of the customs Jaws. He is charged with the duty and re- 
 sponsibility of properly executing these laws, and of course executing them as he 
 understands them. , 
 
 " This responsibility is imposed upon him by his official oath and by the statutes. 
 He is not necessarily to execute these statutes as his predecessor understood them, or 
 some olher gentleman understands them, but as he understands them, and lapse of 
 time, which an error has been persisted in, is not a justification for him when he is 
 clearly satisfied that an erroneous construction has been given to the statutes by those 
 who have preceded him. If an erroneous interpretation has been given of the act of 
 March 2, 1867, or March 3, 1883, quiet will not come to the conscience of the present 
 administrator of the law by the suggestion that the wrong may be nearly a quarter 
 of a century old. When an erroneous interpretation is discovered, then is the oppor- 
 tune moment for its correction, and it is a gross perversion of language to say that he 
 "who follows the dictates of conscience and an enlightened judgment asserts what he 
 believes to be the will of the legislature is guilty of the rank crime of usurping the 
 functions of the legislature, and assuming to malie alterations in the law." 
 
 In that case as apijears by the honorable Secretary's decision, the theretofore ex- 
 isting ruling had been protested and argued against to the Department, just as in the 
 lead ore case. " The question in the form presented by this appeal comes here for the 
 first time, and is unembarrassed by any previous Department ruling upon it. After 
 careful research, I am unable to find any decision of the Department which can serve 
 as a precedent for the disposition of this case. It does, however, appear from the 
 files of the Department that at least three times during the past four years applica- 
 tion has been made in behalf of the domestic manufacturers of woolen cloths to the 
 Secretary of the Treasury for instructions to the collectors of customs at the several 
 ports of entry, to classify and assess duty upon importations of goods of this charac- 
 ter under paragraph 362, as woolen cloths or manufactures of wool, it being repre- 
 sented that they were erroneously classified under paragraph 363, and elaborate ar- 
 guments were presented in support of this proposition, but no decision upon the sub- 
 ject was ever announced by the Department." 
 
 If in the worsted case there was no decision of the Department neither was there 
 in the case of lead ore. 
 
 Nor had the custom of the Department in the case of lead ore received the sanction 
 of legislative enactment, as is claimed by the Secretary. 
 
 The first action of the Department in which lead ore is concerned took place twenty- 
 six days after the last tariff act became law. 
 
 The supposed fact of a construction of the law being made by the Department prior 
 to the passage of the tariff act of 1883, was the basis of thg opinion of the Judiciary 
 Committee of the Senate, and there having been no such construction, the opinion of 
 that committee made under mistake of fact on erroneous statement from the Depart- 
 ment and without other evidence becomes of no weight, notwithstanding the pre- 
 eminent legal standing of the members of the committee. 
 
 The attempt by a Treasury Department, unfriendly to protection, to mislead the 
 Judiciary Committee, by a statement that lead ores contaiuingsilver of greater value 
 than the lead, were known to the Department as ores of silver where the only in- 
 struction theretofore given was on an import of an iron hematite ore containing 54 
 ounces of silver and no lead, should not be allowed to succeed under an administra- 
 tion elected as the champion of protection for American industries. 
 
 In the case of that import the silver was the only value saved, the iron was lost in 
 reduction and did not come into competition as iron with the protected iron industry. 
 
 Nor is there auy weight in the claim of the honorable Secretary, that it was not 
 demonstrated that the ores in question ''are not known nor entitled to be known' 
 commercially as ores of silver." 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 1271 
 
 The proot was overwholmiug that tliose ores were commercially known as lead ores, 
 and not as " ores of silver." ' But even if it had only been shown that they were com- 
 mercially known as lead ores, they would under the " similtude clause," section 2499, 
 be dutiable even if they could also he classed as " ores of silver." 
 
 This clause is invoked by the honorable Secretary in decision 9400, "duty on 
 worsted cloths; " why did he not also apply it in the case of lead ores? 
 
 The honorable Solicitor of the Treasury, in case 9400 ahove referred to, mentions the 
 well-known "rule of construction that the parts of the statute shall be construed, if 
 possible, as that the whole of it may be given a reasonable operation." 
 
 This rule was invoked in behalf of lead ores, and it was plainly shown that the 
 construction contended for by the importers would practically nullify the statute iix- 
 ing a duty upon lead ores, while the construction urged in behalf of American ore 
 producers would enforce that statute and still allow ores of silver to come in free. 
 
 Nor is there more validity to the argument that because of the provisions of the 
 statute with regard to " contained metals," these ores should be admitted free. The 
 lead is not a contained metal; it is the chief mass and distinguishing characteristic 
 of the ore, noticeable at once by inspection and touch. The contained metal is the 
 silver which can only be ascertained by assay. Just as in the case of iron ores, they 
 remain iron ores though containing a greater value in copper, and in addition to the 
 duty as iron ore must pay a duty on the contained copper ; lead corresponds to the 
 iron, the silver to the contained copper. 
 
 The fuller argument of the points here briefly stated is contained in the briefs 
 heretofore submitted to the honorable Secretary of the Treasury, which are here- 
 with transmitted, and to which we call your attention and ask your careful consid- 
 eration. 
 
 We also call attention to the letter of Rossiter W. Raymond, contained in the En- 
 gineering and Mining Journal, Septemher 14, 1889, also herewith transmitted. 
 In the worsted decision, case 9400, the Secretary says: 
 
 " There is certainly room for very serious contention that the goods in question 
 should be classified under paragraph 362 as well as 363, and in such cases it would 
 seem to be the duty of the revenue officers to impose the higher rate. It is only in 
 this way that in doubtful or balanced cases a judicial construction can be had. The 
 Government can not apply to the courts for an interpretation of the law, but the im- 
 porter can, if he deems the rate of duty imposed excessive or unlawful." 
 
 It was strongly urged upon the Secretary to apply this rule, and force the importers 
 to protest, appeal, and suit, and thus get a judicial construction. Wo appeal to the 
 administration to now take this course, or to provide means for bringing the matter 
 before the courts for adjudication, and respectfully ask that you recommend to Con- 
 gress a resolution in each house construing the law. 
 
 C. W. Bennett, Utah, 
 W. G. Gai.ighee, Montana, 
 Jas. Randall, Idaho, 
 J. Grandblmeyer, Nevada, 
 F. W. Billing, Colorado, 
 A. Chanutk, Color.ado, 
 O. W. White, California, 
 
 Committee on Besolutions. 
 
 ORES FROM MEXICO. 
 
 Kansas Cit^, Kans., February 25, 1890. 
 
 At a regular meeting of the board of trade, held on the 17th instant, the following 
 resolutions were unanimously adopted : 
 
 Whereas some apprehensions exist as to the policy to he adopted in the reciprocity 
 treaty now being made between the United States and Mexico, relative to the im- 
 portation of ores from that country into the United States ; and 
 
 Whereas Wyandotte county, in the Argentine Smelting and Refining Works, pos- 
 sesses the equal of any similar institution in the world, turuiug out one-tifth of all the 
 silver and one-fifth of all the lead produced in the United States, and which is form- 
 ing the uuoleua at this point of the largest smelting center in the world; that this 
 institution is successful mainly because of the free importation from Mexico of certain 
 silvei-lead ores, and the imposition of an import duty on said ores would be distress- 
 ing if not disastrous to the largest manufacturing plant in Kansas, by crippling the 
 smelting industry at this point : Therefore, 
 
 lieaolved, That the Senators and Repiesentatives in Congress from the State of Kan- 
 sas are earnestly requested to use every effort in their power to secure free inter- 
 change of the ores of Mexico and the corn of Kansas. A prohibitory duty on ores 
 would seriously affect the manufacturing and agricultural interests of Kansas, and 
 
1272 EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 tlie removal of the present Mexican duty of one-half cent per pound, or 28 cents per 
 hushel, on Kansas coin would tend largely to relieve the present over-supply of corn. 
 Of the importation of silver ore into the United States for 1888, two-thirds of the 
 amount, that is about |4,000,000, came to the Argentine Company, a Kansas institu- 
 tion, thus consuming about one-fifth of the entire importation of Mexico into the 
 United States. We thinls: Kansas should make a strong fight for free ore, vehich is 
 building such a great interest among us. 
 
 Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to each Senator and Congressman 
 from this State. 
 
 J. D. Cruise, Preaident. 
 
 D. W. Troup, Secretary. 
 
 STATEMENT OP A. R. MEYER. 
 
 March 12, 1890. 
 
 A. E. Meter, of Kansas City, Mo., addressed the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. I appear before you in behalf of a 
 large manufacturing concern, the Corisolid.ited Kansas City Smelting and Eefining 
 Company, of which I am president, and I am further authorized to speak for a ma- 
 jority of the smelting and refining works in the United States which are engaged in 
 the smelting of lead-silver ores and the refining of lead and silver. We beg to ask 
 that your honorable committee do not accede to the demands of a minority of smel- 
 ters and miners in the west of the United States who seek the exclusion of Mexican 
 ores by asking that yon recommend to Congress the imposition of a duty which now 
 does not exist nor which has ever existed in the United States, and which duty, if so 
 imposed, will seriously cripple the mining and smelting industry of the United States 
 and destroy important enterprises now in existence. 
 
 You have been told that the Congress which passed the present law intended do 
 place a duty on all ore containing lead, irrespective of commercial classification, and 
 that the law was and is intended to protect ores containing lead and silver such as 
 are now rained in the west of the United States. 
 
 Under rulings first made in 1880 by a Eepublican Secretary of the Treasury, con- 
 firmed repeatedly by his successors, and also by a report of the Judiciary Committee 
 of the United States Senate, made iu .July, 1888, ores containing both lead and silver 
 have been classified as silver ores, and have been pronounced as not dutiable under 
 existing law, provided the value of the silver contents exceeds the value of the lead 
 contents. 
 
 On the faith of this law and the rulings thereunder important manufacturing en- 
 terprises have been built up and millions of dollars have been invested by American 
 citizens. 
 
 It has been represented to your honorable body — First, that the existing law has • 
 been wrongly construed; and that it was intended to tax all ores containing lead, or 
 all lead contained in ore. Second, that it is necessary to tax all ores containing lead 
 in order to protect and foster smelting and mining enterprises in the United States. 
 Third, that it is necessary to tax all ores containing lead in order to protect the Ameri- 
 can workman and to avoid his degradation to the level of the so-called peon labor of 
 Mexico. 
 
 I shall be able to completely defeat all these propositions, and shall be able to re- 
 fer you for all my assertions to the statistics of this Government. Silver ores are not 
 dutiable under existing law, and never have been. The first law imposing a duty on 
 lead ores was enacted in 1862. The law which placed the present duty on lead and 
 lead ore was first enacted in 1864, and has not been changed by legislation since. This 
 law laid a duty of 2 cents per pound on lead in pigs or bars, and 1-J- cents on lead ore, 
 not on lead iu ore. It is self-evident that Congress never intended to lay a greater 
 duty on the raw material than on the finished product, and hence it follows that 
 Congress mast have meant by "lead ore" an ore containing at least 75 per cent, of 
 lead ; for 75 per cent, of 2 cents, which is the present duty on pig lead, is equal to li 
 cents, the present duty per pound on lead ore, and under these conditions, therefore, 
 lead would pay exactly the same duty in pig as in ore. 
 
 While this is quite plain, there is, however, another unmistakable proof of the in- 
 tention of Congress. In 1864, when the law was first enacted, which is still in ex- 
 istence now, there was no ore produced in the United States containing lead and 
 silver, and the smelting of such ore was unknown in the United State*. It would 
 indeed be remark.ible if Congress, divining that some time such ores would be pro- 
 duced and smelted, had enacted a law in order to protect an industry yet to be 
 created. Ores contain ing lead and silver were first discovered in workable quantities 
 in Nevada, about the year 1867, and the smelting of such ores was first introduced 
 about 1869. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1273 
 
 Mr. McKenna. How much lead must these ores contain to be profitable to re- 
 duce? 
 
 Mr. Meyek. That would depend upon the locality. 
 
 Mr. McKekna. Well, generally how much? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. There is a vast diiference in the cost of smelting as between the West 
 and the East. In Missouri the cost of smelting is very low, I should say not to ex- 
 ceed |4 per ton of ore, perhaps, whereas the ores in the West from which lead is also 
 produced stand a very much larger smelting charge, amounting possibly on an average 
 to from $7 to $8 per ton of ore, and in addition to that, these western ores from which 
 lead is produced must be refined. That is to say, the silver and other metals con- 
 tained in it must be taken out of the lead, which makes an additional expense. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. That does not answer the question. What I want to know is, how 
 rich in lead must these ores be to be profitable to reduce ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. As I say, it is difficult to answer you. It depends upon how far you 
 are from the market. If it costs $U> to bring lead to the market, it would cost in 
 that case $1.^ more than where the market is near at hand. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Do you mean the question can not be answered ? 
 
 Mr. Meter. I might answer it in this way : In Colorado the price paid to-day for 
 lead in the ore is usually 2 cents less than the New York price. That would be |40 
 a ton, total charge of freight and treatment per ton of lead. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. You have given a mass of details instead of answering the ques- 
 tion ; if it can not be answered 
 
 Mr. Mbyek. It can only be answered in each individual case. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Then of course it is impossible to deduce any conclusion such as 
 you deduce, such as the imposition of .the tariff of 1864 by Congress meant lead ore 
 containing 75 per cent,, of lead. 
 
 Mr. Mbyek. Congress must have intended to tax the ores only which were mined 
 at the time when the present law was first enacted. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. That is an entirely different argument, that perhaps stands by 
 itself; but I mean the other proposition that Congress did manifestly intend to im- 
 pose a duty on all ore containing 75 per cent, of lead. 
 
 Mr. Mbyek. I should answer that it never could have been the intention of Con- 
 gress to lay a heavier duty on raw ore than on pig-lead. The duty on the finished 
 material is 2 cents a pound, and since the duty is 1-J^ cents on lead ore it must neces- 
 sarily follow that Congress meant by lead ore an ore containing 75 per cent, of lead ; 
 if not, the duty on raw material worild be greater than the duty on the finished 
 material, which does not seem to be logical. 
 
 In order to explain the second ijoint it will be necessary to briefly refer to the 
 sources from which the lead product in the United States is derived and to describe 
 the present methods of treatment of silver ores. 
 
 Abotit 20 per cent, of the lead product of the United States is derived from lead 
 ores proper; that is, from ores which are mined and smelted for the sole purpose of 
 producing lead, and from which lead can be produced at a profit. These ores are 
 produced principally in Missouri, and to protect these ores the law of 1864 was enacted 
 asstated. The mining of these ores is inexpensive, and the smelting is a simple and 
 inexpensive operation. The remaining 80 per cent, of the lead product of the United 
 States comes from ores which contain both silver and lead in varying quantities, 
 and this lead is designated in the markets of the country as "desilverized " lead. 
 
 The principal methods for treating ores containing the precious metals are, first, 
 amalgamation ; second, smelting. In both these methods a base metal is used to col- 
 lect the precious metals. In amalgamation quicksilver is so used. The ores are sim- 
 ply crushed and then brought into contact with quicksilver, which dissolves the 
 precious metals at ordinary temperature. The process is inexpensive, but requires 
 very pure ores, free from impurities such as arsenic, zinc, sulphur, and other base 
 metals. The smelting process is adapted to the treatment of all ores. The base 
 metal used is either copper or lead. In both cases the entire mass must be smelted, 
 and the process is expensive. Of the two smelting processes that employing lead to 
 collect the precious metals is most generally in use, and by this process the great 
 bulk of silver ores are treated. 
 
 In the early stages of smelting and mining silver ores in the United States only the 
 pure ores containing both lead and silver were treated by this process. The rapid 
 development of mines, and the fact that probably 75 per cent, of the silver ores pro- 
 duced in the United States are ;either refractory or contain no lead at all, has made 
 it necessary to economize the pure ores containing lead and silver, and containing 
 the former metal in considerable quantity ; so that these ores, now commonly known 
 as " flux" ores, are used as a means to the smelting of the general run of ores, or, as 
 we may call them, miscellaneous ores. The rapid increase in theproduct of miscel- 
 laneous ores resulted in the rapid enlargment of existing smelting works and the 
 building of new ones, and as the proportion of miscellaneons ores to flux ores be- 
 came more and more unfavorable the flux ores have been and are so much in demand 
 
1274 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 that they are no longer pnrcliased as an ore from which to make a profit in smelting, 
 but they are purchased as a thing necessary for the smelting of the general run of 
 silver ores. The prices now paid for such ores leave no margin. to the smelter, and in 
 the case of the purer flux ores, similar to those coming in from Mexico, the prices 
 paid result in a direct loss to the smelter of from |5 to .$6 per ton. Since -without 
 these ores the miscellaneous silver ores can not be smelted the latter have to stand 
 the bonus paid on the former, and as a consequence the cost of smelting miscellaneous 
 ores has increased. Moreover, notwithstanding the importation ot these ores from 
 Mexico, the bonus paid on the American pure flux ores is constantly increasing, and 
 the ability of American smelters to smelt American silver ores is short, decidedly, of 
 the supply of such silver ores, on account of the scarcety of flux ores. I think it is 
 therefore evident — 
 
 First. That the American miner of flux ores receives more than these ores are worth, 
 according to their metal contents, and that notwithstanding the importation of Mex- 
 ican ores bis profits are constantly increasing. 
 
 Second. That the bulk of the miners in the United States, that is, those -who donot 
 produce flux ores, suffer from the excessive prices paid for these flux ores. 
 
 Third. That the American smelters are seriously interfered with in the development 
 of their business. The smelters "will tell you that their profits are entirly dispropor- 
 tionate to the risks that they take, and that their operations often result in loss. 
 
 Fourth. It is certainly not true, as has been stated before your honorable commit- 
 tee, that if Mexican ores were kept out a sufficient supply of flux ores would be pro- 
 duced in the United States ; for if that were so, the bonus now paid for flux ores 
 would be a sufficient inducement for the increased production of the same, and the 
 opponents of Mexican ores forget that if by any means the supply in the United 
 States of flux ores could be made adequate to the demand, tlie bonus paid on flux ores 
 must speedily disappear ; so that, instead of advantage, the flux ore miners vrould reap 
 a loss. 
 
 I will read you now some statistics in support of the statements I have made. I 
 refer first to the scarcity of flux ores. I have compiled from the reports of the Di- 
 rector of the Mint and of the Geological Survey for the year 1887, and from lead statis- 
 tics published by E. A. Caswell, of New York, a statement which shows that twenty- 
 eight mines and two mining companies in the United States produced in that year 65 
 per cent, of the entire United States product of desilverized lead. This 65 per cent, 
 ■was distributed among the following mines; Eleven mines in Colorado, six miuesin 
 Utah, seven mines in Idaho, two mining companies in Montana, two mines in Nevada, 
 and two mines in New Mexico. 
 
 While this statement in itself shows not only the great scarcity of this class of ore, 
 but also that the mines producing the ore are controlled by a very few personsin the 
 United States, the statistics collected by Wells, Fargo & Co. for the year 1887 will fur- 
 ther show that the product of lead in the mining region of the United States west of 
 the Missouri River is very insignificant compared with the total of metals produced in 
 that region. According to the statistics of Wells, Fargo & Co., the total value of the 
 product of lead, silver and gold for 1887 was $92, 965, 024,of which only lOf per cent., 
 that is, $9,631,073, was due to lead. It is therefore plain that the lead cuts a com- 
 paratively insignificant figure as compared with the total metal product in the 
 mining regions of the West; and further, that that small amount of lead is con- 
 trolled by a few parties and ijroduced by an insignificant number of mines; whereas 
 twenty-eight mines and two mining companies have turned out 65 per cent, of the 
 total United States product of desilverized lead, the great volume of the silver and 
 gold has been the product of thousands of mines. The report of the Director of the 
 Mint for 1887 deals with fourteen hundred Colorado mines, and gives the total product 
 of the same of lead, silver, and gold as $27,335,912, of which $6,799,826 was lead. Out 
 of these fourteen hundred mines eleven mines produced 65.4 per cent, of all the lead 
 product of Colorado. 
 
 I will next give you some statistics showingthe coutinned advance during the past 
 ten years of prices paid for flux ores. ' 
 
 Fossett, in his History of Colorado, published in 1879, states that free-milling ores 
 were treated in custom mills by the amalgamation process, at a charge of from $2.25 
 to $3.25 per ton, whereas all ores which required smelting paid a charge of from $25 
 to$40per ton. 
 
 Mr. Emmons, United States geologist, in his report on LeadvUle for 1880, gives a 
 tabic showing the treatment charges made for ores, which are identical with the pres- 
 ent fluxores. The prices paid in 1880 were upon the proposition ofa smelting charge 
 of from $15 to $28 per ton, and the lead in the ore was paid for at an average rate of 
 25 ceuts for every per cent, of lead contained in the ore, this jirice, however, being 
 based upon a market price of lead in New York of $5.05 per 100 pounds, and the 
 price paid for lead in oro was adjusted to the variations from the basis so established 
 upon the New York quotation of lead. In 1889 the price for flux ores at Leadville 
 was increased, so that in.stead of a smelting charge of from $15 to $28 in 1880, asmelt- 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1275 
 
 ing charge of only $3.50 was now exacted, and instead oi paying on a Ijasis of l|5.05 
 per 100 pounds an average price of 25 cents for every per cent, ot lead in the ore, 
 the lead in the ore was now paid for at the rate of 40 cents for every per cent., and 
 based upon a quotation of only $3.75 per 100 pounds of lead in New York. 
 
 Not counting the immense advantage of the change of the basis for the payment of 
 lead in ore, the advantage accruing to the producer of flux ores was still tremendous. 
 In order to show a direct comparison it will be necessary to calculate the outcome on 
 an average ore. We will take an ore containing 25 per cent, of lead, because that is 
 the very grade of the ores coming from Mexico, and is a fair average of the Leadville 
 flux ores. The average price paid for a 25 per cent, lead ore in 1880 was at a smelt- 
 ing charge of from $18 to $30, and an average payment for lead of 25 cents for every 
 per cent. In ISeO the treatment was reduced to $3.50, making, therefore, an increase 
 to the miner of $15.50 per ton. The simple increase in the payment for lead of 25 to 
 40 cents has given the miner an additional advantage of $3.75, making, therefore, the 
 total increase in the period from 1880 to 1889 $19.25 per ton ; that is to say, the entire 
 advantages of the general development of this country brought about by the build- 
 ing of railroads, lower transportation charges, lower prices of fuel, cheaper money, 
 improved methods of smelting, etc., have all and entirely accrued to the advantage 
 of the miner. However, this is not all. I am informed by Mr. Anton Eilers that he 
 offered for a certain flux ore in Colorado last month, that is, February, 1890, a price 
 which provided for a treatment charge of $1.50 per ton ; that is to say, he offered to 
 smelt the ore for even |2 per ton less than was charged for smelting in the spring of 
 1889, and to which reference has just been made. However, Mr. Eilers was not fort- 
 unate enough to secure the contract, because smelting works located at Pueblo, 
 Colo., agreed to purchase this ore without making any charge for treatment what- 
 ever, and this price was for ore delivered on the cars at Leadville — 125 miles away 
 from their works. 
 
 If I say to you that the cost of transportation from Leadville to Pueblo is $4.25 per 
 ton, it must be very clear to yoir that this contract has been secured at a tremendous 
 loss. The contract is made for 150 tons per day, the total output of a group of mines, 
 and this contract, I am sure, will result in a direct loss to the smelter of $G per ton, 
 or $900 per day, or the enormous sum of $27,000 per month. This loss, of course, must 
 be borne by the miscellaneous ores, for the smelting of which this flux ore is intended. 
 You will ask, how can smelting-works deliberately make a contract representing so 
 large a loss ? I answer, that the possession of these flux ores is the key to smelt- 
 ing the miscellaneous ores, and since these ores can not be smelted without flux ores 
 they must stand the cost of these flux ores, whatever it may bo. 
 
 I believe the prices I have given you are abundant proof that the miners of silver- 
 lead ores have not sutiered from the importation of Mexican ore, but that the great 
 majority of silver-ore miners have suffered and do suffer because of an insufficient 
 supply of flux ores, even with the Mexican importations. However, I will give some 
 additional information on this point. 
 
 I will now read yon the following extract taken from the " Mining Industry," Den- 
 ver, Colo., April 19, 1889. This is the principal Western minimg paper : 
 
 "Mining in Colorado in proportion to the value of its product probably yields a 
 higher per cent, of jirofit than any business in the world except a few patent monopo- 
 lies. It is a notorious fact that agriculture on the whole pays only poor wages to 
 those engaged in it. Banking, manufacturing, and merchandising are in a pros- 
 perous condition when they pay 10 per cent, on the capital invested and only under 
 exceptional circurustances do they pay more than that. On the whole it is estimated 
 that they do not pay more than 6 per cent. In mining the world has proof that-over 
 12 per cent, of the total product is prolit. It knows it because over 12 per cent, of 
 the total product is paid out in the form of dividends by only a few listed properties. 
 Every oue knows that these listed properties are an insignificant proportion of the 
 productive and paying properties. For instance, there were seven hundred and fifty- 
 three productive mines in Colorado in 1887, while only twelve of the entire lot were 
 included in the listed dividend lot. Every one knows there are scores of the best 
 paying mines in the State not included in the list, and hundreds that pay well whose 
 aggregate profits would show that probably 36 per cent, of the total product is clear 
 profit. It is said that in Pitkin County over 60 per cent., and in Gilpin county over 
 50 per cent., of the total product is profit." 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I have stated that these ores are absolutely essential to the smelt- 
 ing of the general run of silver ores. I have shown here, and could bring consider- 
 able additional proof, that the prices paid for these Ihixing ores have constantly ad- 
 vanced in the United States ; that they have advanced in the very face of the impor- 
 tation of the Mexican ores of similar character. I have shown you a tremendous 
 advance in the price to-day. That the advance has gone to the miner is plainly shown ; 
 also that the smelter has the reverse proposition to fuce. The charges which the 
 smelter has been able to make for the treatment of orci have constantly declined, and 
 it is a well-known proposition among smelting men that smelting does not pay, and 
 
1276 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 that the returns are altogether iusignificaut. In addition to that, smelters are una- 
 ble to smelt all the general own which are offered to them because of an insufficient 
 supply of Hux-ores. I have a letter here, written by Mr. Anton Eilers, who isgen- 
 eral manager of a smelting company at Pueblo, Colo., and also general manager of the 
 Great Falls, Mont., Smelting Works, addressed to the Hon. William McKinley, chair- 
 man of the Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 I will read this letter in order to show you that the statements I have made are cor- 
 rect, that the smelters in the Uniled States are suffering from the want of fluxing 
 ores and from the high prices that it is necessary to pay for them. 
 
 The Colorado Smelting Company, 
 
 NeiD York, March 10, 1890. 
 
 Sir : I am informed that your committee intends in its recommendations as to the 
 tarilf to follow substantially the provisions of the Senate bill of last session. In this 
 bill the tariff on lead ores is fixed at 1^ cents per pound on the lead in the ore, which, 
 no doubt, is equivalent to complete exclusion of all foreign lead ores. In this con- 
 nection I beg to draw yonr attention to the following facts, which I give you from 
 the stand-point of a manufacturer, whose smelting-works are located at Pueblo, Colo., 
 and at Great Falls, Mont. 
 
 During the last year the supply of lead ores in the West has so constantly dimin- 
 ished that, although an amount equivalent to about 50 per cent, of former importa- 
 tions has entered the United States from Mexico, lead ores are now so scarce that 
 Western smelters are serigusly crippled in treating the amounts of silver and gold 
 ores which their capacity would otherwise enable them to smelt. Not only aie they 
 compelled to smelt with an insufficient percentage of lead in their charges, but many 
 of their turuaces have to be shut down entirely, since there is no lead ore at all to 
 mix with the silver ores that might be treated in them. 
 
 It is the almost unanimous opinion of Western smelters, as far as my acquaintance 
 with them enables me to judge, that Mr. Wiudom's ruling of July last had the effect 
 which was most desirable for both the mining and smelting interests of the United 
 States, i. e., it allowed just enough lead ores to come into the United States to sup- 
 ply the wants of the smelter, while it saved us from being flooded with too much. 
 That this has in no way injured the interests of the lead-ore miners of the United 
 States ia conclusively shown by the fact that, although the price of lead has not in- 
 creased, that of lead ore is to-day so high that the smelters are treating it at an actual 
 loss. 
 
 Under these circumstances I think that the total exclusion of foreign lead ores 
 could only have the effect of shutting down more smelting works, since the lead ore 
 to run them is certainly not available in the country. I would therefore respectfully 
 recommend that the law in regard to lead ores be left, at least for the present, as it 
 Is. I am. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 A. ElLKRS, 
 
 General Manager. 
 Hon. William McKinley, .Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 Mr. Eells,Ithink, hasalsoacopyof aletter fromMr. J. E. Schwartz, president of the 
 Pennsylvania Lead Company, of Pittsburgh, and also president of the Mingo Fur- 
 nance Company, of Salt Lake City, Utah. He says suUstantially the same thing as 
 Mr. Eilers. I will later on give alist of the smelting works of the United States, and 
 pick out those who are in the same line of thought with us. 
 
 I have read the statements made before this committee by Mr. Oscar Keene, Mr. 
 Thomas H. Carter, and others. These statements seem to me to rather create the im- 
 pression that the lead coming into the United States iu silver-lead ores from Mexico 
 is that much clear gain to the purchaser, and that the lead so purchased at a low price 
 enables the importer of tliese ores to undersell American lead. Nothing can be more er- 
 roneous. The ore from Mexico is not imported for the purpose of making lead, for 
 the reason that it is not profitable to make lead from this ore. The ore is purchased 
 for tie distinct purpose of assisting in the smelting of silver ores, and is paid for in 
 proportion to its usefulness in that direction, aside from its metal value. The lead 
 which is incidentally produced from the Mexican ore costs the American smelter just 
 as much as the lead in American ores, and the only reason why he goes to Mexico for 
 this ore is because he can not supply himself in the United States. Competition 
 among American smelting works is almost as severe for Mexican ores in Mexico as it 
 is for similar ores in the LInited States. There is, therefore, no direct profit at all to 
 the American smelters in these Mexican ores, neither in the lead or silver, nor in the 
 operation of smrlting, but these ores are used to smelt American silver ores. 
 
 It is also not true that the lead from Mexican ores takes the place of American lead 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1277 
 
 because six years out of niue, commeaciug with 1881, the total supply of lead in the 
 United States, derived from uative and Mexican ores together, has been short of the 
 consumption, and during those years in which no Mexican ores were imported it has 
 been frequently necessary to import pig lead from abroad. Since 1885, from which 
 year the Mexican importations date, the consumption of lead in the United States 
 has always been in excess of the supply derived from uative and Mexican ores com- 
 bined, excepting only in the year 1S88. The reason why the consumption in 1888 feU 
 off must be attributed to the reckless speculation of N. Corwith, who made an attempt 
 to corner the lead market and advanced the prices of lead to such a height as to con- 
 siderably affect the consumption of that metal. 
 
 In the year 1885 the total United States product of lead was 135,518 tons. It was 
 necessary to import 1,780 tons, and then there was a total supply of 137,000 tons 
 against the consumption of 145,000 tons, showing therefore au excess of consumption 
 over the total supply of 8,000 tons. In 1886 the total United States production was 
 127,000 tons, and importations from Mexico 8,000 tons, against a total consumption 
 of 141,000 tons, and in the year just passed, 1889, the total production, including 
 19,000 tons derived from Mexican ores, was 190,000 tons, whereas the consumption 
 was 200,000 tons ; so there was an excess in 1889 in consumption over the supply de- 
 rived from American and Mexican ores together of 10,000 tons. 
 
 Mr. McKbnna. What are you reading from? 
 
 Mr. Meyee. These are lead statistics which have been collected by a New York 
 lead broker, Mr. E. A. Caswell, and partly statistics collected by the Engineering and 
 Mining Journal of New York. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. How do they get the consumption of lead in the United States? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. They apply to all the producers of lead in the country, and receive 
 from them the report of the total amount of lead they produce at the different works. 
 They go then to the Bureau of Statistics, and get the importations of Mexican ores 
 and the contents of the Mexican ores. I can give you some figures on that. The 
 figures for the impoftation of Mexican ores are not absolutely complete, becMUse the 
 importations for December, 1889, have to be estimated. In 1888 the total importation 
 of ore from Mexico was 120,000 to 140,000 tons, which contained 28,606 tons of lead, 
 that is to say about 20 per cent. In 1889, estimating the mouth of December, the total 
 importation was only 86,404 tons of ore, containing 19,225 tons of lead. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. In other words, the producer and seller of lead finds out how much 
 they sold, and then you get the importations from the Bureau of Statistics, and ascer- 
 tain how much is imported. How does that tell you how much lead is consumed? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. The consumption comes from the consumers. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. How? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. They address letters, for instance, to every consumer. They go to all 
 the brokers, as lead is usually sold through brokers. These brokers of course keep 
 accounts of their transactions. These statistics, however, are also collected by the 
 United States Geological Survey, and while there is some difference between the 
 statistics arrived at in different ways it is not material. In regard to the statement 
 made that the importation of ores will degrade American labor to the level of Mexi- 
 can labor I have this to say : The price of an ore is not based upon the labor which 
 it takes to produce the ore, but the price is regulated by the demand for the ore. 
 The Mexican mine owner does no more than the American mine owner share his 
 profits with the workmen. In Leadville, which is acknowledged to be the most 
 fortunate mining camp on earth by everybody who is familiar with mining, the 
 wages paid to the miner have declined. They are lower to-day than in 1880. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. What wages do they get ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. The wages, I think, are $3 in the mines and $2.50 for surface work. I, 
 gentlemen, claim to know something about this matter, as I was one of the three 
 who gave Leadville a name. I laid out the town and lived seven years in Colo- 
 rado. The Consolidated Kansas City Smelting and Eefijiiug Company, of which I 
 am president, have smelting works at Leadville, Colo.; we have smelting works at 
 El Paso, Tex.; and we have smelting works at Argentine, Kaus. If we were bene- 
 fited in any way by the importation of Mexican ores to the disadvantage of the 
 smelters in Colorado we should realize it. We would share in the disadvantage 
 on account of our Colorado works. As a matter of fact, the scarcity of flux ore, 
 notwithstanding these Mexican importations, is so great that we are compelled to 
 run at very much less than our capacity, and that is the case with everybody else. 
 The ores from Mexico have been directly responsible for the Argentine, Kans. 
 and El Paso, Tex., works. This responsibility also largely extends to smelting 
 operations carried on at other points in the United States, St. Louis, New Mexico, 
 and Newark, N. J. These Mexican ores come in and supply a territory where 
 smelting works are located that can not be supplied from Colorado or from the west, 
 for the simple reason that these ores are not produced in sufficient quantities for 
 home oonsuuiption of western smelters, and the western smelters pay for them, as 
 I have shown you, |6 a ton more tlian they are actually worth. The large traas- 
 
1278 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 portatiou on top of that, to sliip ores from Colorado to Kansas City, would be impossi- 
 ble. The only opportunity we have for life at Argentine is through the supply of these 
 Mexicin fluxiug ores, which will thus enable us to go into the western markets and 
 compete with local smelters for the miscellaneous ores, of which there is an abun- 
 dance. Now, Mr. Eilers in his letter states very clearly how scarce the flux ores are 
 and that the smelters are not rininiug at full capacity, notwithstanding the impor- 
 tations which are taking place from Mexico. 
 
 Here is a list of the principal smelting works in the United States. These works 
 are engaged in the smelting of silver ores, using lead as a flux, and collecting the 
 precious metals in lead : 
 
 American Smelting Works, Leadville, Colo. 
 
 Argentine Smelting and Refining Works, Argentine, Kans. 
 
 Arkansas Valley Smelting Works, Leadville, Colo. 
 
 Aurora Smelting and Refining Works, Aurora, 111. 
 
 Chicago Smelting and Refining Works, Chicago, 111. 
 
 El Paso Smelting Works, El Paso, Tex. 
 
 Germania Smelting and Refining Works, Salt Lake City, Utah. 
 
 Globe Smelting Works, Denver, Colo. 
 
 Great Falls Smelting AVorks, Great Falls, Mont. 
 
 Harrison Smelting Works, Leadville, Colo. 
 
 Hanaur Smelting Works, Salt Lake City, Utah. 
 
 Helena and Livingston Smelting Works, Helena, Mont. 
 
 Mingo Smelting Works, Salt Lake City, Utah. 
 
 National Smelting and Refining Works, Turner, Kans. 
 
 Omaha Smelting and Refining Works, Omaha, Nebr. 
 
 Omaha Smelting Works, Denver, Colo. 
 
 Manville Smelting Works, Leadville, Colo. 
 
 Pennsylvania Smelting Works, Pittsburgh, Pa. 
 
 Philadelphia Smelting and Refining Works, Pueblo, Colo. 
 
 Pueblo Smelting and Refining Works, Pueblo, Colo. 
 
 Rio Grande Smelting Works, Socorro, N. Mex. 
 
 San Juan Smelting Works, Durango, Colo. 
 
 St. Louis Smelting and Refining Works, St. Louis, Mo, 
 
 Newark Smelting and Refining Works, Newark, N. J. 
 
 I have cited twenty-four works. Out of these tweuty-four works, seventeen either 
 controlled or managed through Mr. Filers and myself or which have given us permis- 
 sion to speak for them, ask that the jiresent law be left ; or rather this, that no new 
 law shall be passed which shall impose a tax that does not exist now. The works 
 which ask this are : 
 
 American Smelting Works, Leadville, Colo. 
 
 Argentine Smelting and Refining Works, Argentine, Kans. 
 
 Arkansas Valley Smelting Works, Leadville, Colo. 
 
 Aurora Smelting and Refining Works, Aurora, 111. 
 
 Chicago Smelting and Refining Works, Chicago, 111. 
 
 El Paso Smelting Works, El Paso, Tex. 
 
 Great Falls Smelting Works, Great Falls, Mont. 
 
 Harrison Smelting Works, Leadville, Colo. 
 
 Mingo Smelting Works, Salt Lake City, Utah. 
 
 Manville Smelting Works, Leadville, Colo. 
 
 National Smelting and Refining W^orks, Turner, Kans. 
 
 Newark Smelting and Refining Works, Newark, N. J. 
 
 Pennsylvania Lead Works, Smelting and Refining Works, Pittsburgh, Pa. 
 
 Philadelphia Smelting and Refining Works, Pueblo, Colo. 
 
 Rio Grande Smelting Works, Socorro, N. M. 
 
 San Juan Smelting Works, Durango, Colo. 
 
 St. Louis Smelting and Refining Works, St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 Of the others, some of them I know to be in opposition. Of this class is the Omaha 
 Company and the Globe Smelting Company, of Denver. The position of the remain- 
 ing works is unknown to me. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, in addition to what I have said, I may as well now call vour at- 
 tention to the fact that these Mexican ores, which came in in 18&8 to the extent of 
 140,000 tons, have supplied work to American labor, and have given large earnings 
 to American railroads. The amount of money expended for freights directly and in- 
 directly on account of the importation of these ores to railroads built by American 
 capital amounts certainly to $150,000 per month. The value of the lead which we 
 proiuce out of these ores incidentally is 50 per cent, due to the work done by Ameri- 
 can labor and to transportation charges by the American railroads. As I have said 
 to you before, it is nob the point that those of us who are importing Mexican ores are 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1279 
 
 endeavoring to liuy lead cheap and bring it into this country to sell it against Amer- 
 ican produced lead, bnt we are compelled to buy these ores for fluxing purposes and 
 the lead in these ores costs us as much as the lead in the United States. If we had a 
 BufBcient amount of that lead ore in the United States there would be absolutely no 
 object in going to Mexico for it. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. How mu cb do you pay for a ton of that ore that has $5 worth of silver 
 in it and 25 per cent, of lead ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. I should perhaps answer the question in this way : These Mexican 
 ores are now bought on a proposition that leaves no smelting charge delivered at . 
 Pueblo, Colo. These are ores which are sold to American smelters by mines in Mexico. 
 
 Mr. Eells. It might solve tlie question in one way for you to state that you pay 
 precisely for that ore what you pay for lead produced in mines at Leadville; you do 
 not pay any more or less ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Under recent contracts which have been made for Leadville ores, to 
 which I referred a while ago, the prices have been raised since 1889, last month by 
 $3.50 per ton. The ores are bought first by paying for the lead contained in it on the 
 basis of New York quotations, and by paying for the silver contained in it on the 
 basis of New York quotations, deducting the usual loss in smelting, and the total 
 working charge is then deducted at the point of delivery or shipment. Now the Pueblo 
 works which have been importing ore from Mexico have been buying those ores on 
 the proposition of no smelting charge delivered at Pueblo. Others may have been 
 more fortunate. But as a general proposition, as far as lead itself is concerned, it is 
 not a question of the American importer buying cheap lead and selling it in compe- 
 tition with American lead. He simply imports this ore because it enables bim to 
 smelt American ores. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. What do you psiy now for the lead in the Mexican ore ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. On the basis of 4 cents in New York. I think we pay about 40 cents 
 for every per cent, on the basis of delivery at El Paso. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Forty per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Forty cents for every per cent., equivalent to 2 cents a pound. This 
 is the same price that is paid at Leadville for the lead. They pay at Leadville for 
 the lead in the ore 2 cents a pound. However, lead is valued by instructions issued 
 by Mr. Windom on July the 17th, 1889, at 3 cents per pound delivered at the Rio 
 Grande River. • 
 
 Now, gentlemen, there is one thing more I want to say and then I shall have fin- 
 ished. I find in the report of a bearing before this committee a statement by Mr. 
 Frederick T. Dubois in which he says that the production of lead in Idaho in 1889 
 was 80,000 tons. The facts are that the production of lead in Idaho was not over 
 20,000 tons. The statistics which have been gathered, which are not quite complete, 
 show about that amount. It may be somewhat wrong but it is not 2,000 tons out of 
 the wav. The product of Montana and Idaho together was 28,000 tons, and Montana 
 produces 6,000 to 8,000 tons of lead. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. What do you think of our natural resources in respect to the produc- 
 tion of lead ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. I think the record of the last six or seven years shows that this coun- 
 try can not produce these ores in sulBcient quantities. We are and have been hold- 
 ing out great inducements for increased production of this flux ore in the bonus that 
 is paid for these ores. The following illustration will show what this bonus on flux 
 ore means. Suppose it was necessary, in order to smelt 2 tons of ore containing no 
 lead whatever, to use 1 ton of ore that contains 25 per cent, of lead. Suppose it was 
 necessary farther, in order that the smelters shall make a profit of |1 per ton, that he 
 should have |18 a ton for smelting a ton of ore for every ton of ore he puts into his 
 furnaces. Then you have this proposition. These 3 tons mixed together would re- 
 quire a smelting charge of $8 per ton, or $24 for all 3 tons. Now this 1 ton of 
 fluxing ore costs $S per ton more than it is worth or than can be gotten out of it, 
 consequently the remaining 2 tons have to stand the entire working charge, and 
 also to stand the bonus which is paid on that ore. That makes $30 ; consequently, 2 
 tons of miscellaneous ore pay |15 per ton for smelting, whereas the average cost per 
 ton is $8, and that is where the difficulty comes in. The American miner of ore other 
 than fluxing ore has to pay for this right along, and will continue to do so. The im- 
 portations coming from Mexico, as plainly shown, have had no effect in the direction 
 of reducing the bonus paid for this ore ; on the contrary, the price has increased. 
 
 Mr. Baytste. These Mexican ores have fluxing qualities ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. We produce these ores, but we do not produce them in sufQcient quan- 
 tities ; that is the difficulty. The great bulk of all the ores in the United States, 
 possibly 75 per cent., are ores that require fluxing ores to smelt them. For instance, 
 when it was assumed last fall that the Secretary of the Treasury would exclude Mex- 
 ican ores by changing the ruling, the charges for smelting dry ores went up at once, 
 for the simple reason that the smelters that bought these ores had not sufficient flux 
 ores and had to calculate on an advance in flux-ore prices. 
 
1280 EE VIS ION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. What proportion of the Imported Mexican ore has this quality? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. I can not make a positive statement but I think I can approximate it. 
 The importations from Mexico at this' time are said to he about 5,700 to 5,800 tons per 
 month ; of these, say 6,000 tons, 3,000 to 4,000 tons have fluxing qualities. 
 
 Mr. Carter. I would like to ask a few questions that might possibly elucidate the 
 difficulties with which we are confronted. You believe that the American miner 
 would really be benefited by the admission of Mexican fluxing ore free of duty ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. That is, I say the general average of miners. 
 
 Mr. Carter. That, then, would not hold good of those owning and attempting to 
 operate lead-producing mines in the United States? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. That is a question I could not answer ; it is an intricate question. It is 
 a question the answer to which to be perfectly frank with you, would depend upon 
 whether the Mexican ores have had any eft'ect in the direction of reducing the price 
 of lead. Now, as a matter of fact, if I may be allowed to refer to that, the statistics 
 show that that is not the case. I have here the prices paid for lead for the two or three 
 years preceding the Mexican importations, which prices were lower than those for 
 the two years succeeding the importations. I thought I had the statistics with me, 
 but I find that I have not. 
 
 Mr. Carter. There has been a pretty heavy decline since 18S0 in the price of lead? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. It has been fluctuating. 
 
 Mr. Carter. You, then, do not wish the committee to infer from what you have said 
 that it is your deliberate opinion that mines of the United States which produce lead 
 in conjunction with silver, and lead without the silver, would really be benefited by 
 the free importation of lead ores from Mexico, but that mining in general might be 
 benefited. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. The mines which produce ores containing little or no lead, and even 
 those containing lead perhaps in couhiderable quantity but which ores are refractory, 
 I say will be benefited. An ore containing 20 per cent, of lead or even 25 per cent, 
 of lead, but in the form of refractory ore, such as certain ores produced in Leadville 
 known as sulphide ores, .although containing as much lead as the Mexican ores, will 
 he directly benefited by the Mexican importations, for while they contain lead, which 
 is a useful product, they contain other deleterious substances which compel the ad- 
 ditional use of fluxing ores. All ores containing no lead will be benefited by the im- 
 portation of the Mexican ores. The question is, as I stated, an intricate one. I wish to 
 repeat what I stated before. Tbe American fluxing ores are enjoying protection in- 
 asmuch as they command a premium over value of $6 per ton, and if any encourage- 
 ment is needed it would seem that this premium is sutficient encouragement to produce 
 the ores; but that encouragement does not bring forth the ores, therefore it is quite 
 plain that these ores at least are not beingjhurt by importations from Mexico. On the 
 other hand, if it were true that by the exclusion of Mexican ores sufficient fluxing 
 ores could be produced in the United States it would only be possible, first, if the 
 American smelters were compelled to pay agreater bonus, stillmoretothedisadvantage 
 of other miners, or if the price of lead advanced on account of that exclusion. The 
 first means is undoubtedly undesirable. Granting that by the exclusion of these ores 
 the price of lead would advance, which I deny, then still the producer ot this class 
 of ores would sufi'er against his present position, because if more ores are produced, 
 sufficient to meet the demand, the bonus now paid must fall. 
 
 Mr. Carter. So that as a matter of fact the American mines which now produce 
 ores similar to those imported from Mexico would be really injured no doubt by the 
 free admission of Mexican. 
 
 Mr. MwiTiE. I will not say that. 
 
 Mr. Carter. To present the matter in a different shape. Assumingthat your Mex- 
 ican lead ores contain 50 per cent, of lead or 1,000 pounds per ton 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Which they do not. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Assuming that it is 40 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Say 20 ; as an actual fact they contain from 20 to 25 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Carter. At the present time that Mexican lead pays $30 per ton for admission 
 at the ports on tlje Mexican border. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. I do not know that I quite understand. The ores contain 25 per cent 
 of lead. 
 
 Mr. Carter. But if it is taxed at all it will pay $30 a ton. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. If classified as lead ore under existing laws it would be. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Now then, assuming that the American mines on this side of the border 
 produced ore exactly equal in kind and find a market under that protection, do you 
 assume to say that if the protection was entirely removed the markets for the Amer- 
 ican product would in no sense be affected? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Yes sir, I claim tliat. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Then protection does not protect in that case. 
 
 Mr, Mbyer, Piotectioo ia thia case, geutlemon, moims to cut down your smelters io 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1281 
 
 the United States. It means that these people who risked their money, who created 
 work for labor which the miner does not, to that extent will be seriously damaged. 
 It will not only reduce the smelting capacity and the work of the existing smelters, 
 but you will also lose by that " protection" what benefit the American laborers have 
 in the treatment of Mexican ores. These ores, if excluded from the United States, will 
 be smelted on the other side. You can not stop the Mexicans from producing the 
 ores. r B 
 
 Mr. Carter. This bullion will pay 2 cents a found import duty before it competes 
 with the American product. 
 Mr. Meter. Yes, sir ; if imported into the United States. 
 
 Mr. Carter. But if it does not come in here, the lead produced in this country will 
 probably bring a better price. 
 Mr. Meyer. No, sir ; it will not. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Its scarcity then will have a tendency to decrease the price. 
 Mr. Meyer. There is this much to be said on this proposition. The price of lead is 
 not regulated entirely by the supply ; the demand has something to do with it. We 
 have a record here of 1888. There was a time when the price of lead was advanced 
 and it resulted in the shutting off of those industries that used lead. I think any 
 reasonable man, be he smelter or be he a consumer of lead in the United States, will 
 tell you the price of lead can not be forced beyond 4 cents, and the importation of 
 Mexican ores will not change that one iota. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Do you pretend to say that the large consuming industries would 
 cease to consume lead and thus decrease the price if it is forced beyond 4 cents a 
 pound? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Yes. I will explain why. For instance, white lead, which is the prod- 
 uct of corroding pig lead, is used extensively in the manufacture of paint. That 
 paint goes to the farmers in the West and all over the country, and is used in paint- 
 ing ; and when the price of that article goes beyond a certain figure the consumption 
 is reduced and what is known as " mixed paint" takes its place. This is a paint that 
 usually has for its basis zinc, and it is a well understood fact that at certain prices 
 lead paints are crowded out. In the West where I live, in Kansas, we have a great 
 many new water-works constantly building, and when the price of lead is very high 
 you will find inferior iron pipe is used in place of lead pipe. 
 Mr. Carter. What are the wages of the miners who produce this lead ore ? 
 Mr. Meyer. The prices paid to these miners — I can speak intelligently only in re- 
 gard to mines which my company own — our superintendents and foremen are all 
 Americans, and other employes are Mexican. The Mexican miners usually are given 
 contracts, and the average price received per day is perhaps $1.50. 
 Mr. Carter. That is based on a contract arrangement. 
 
 Mr. Meter. We employ them that way entirely, and it is the Mexican custom 
 almost entirely. They receive there for driving a tunnel so much a foot. Gentle- 
 men, that price of $1.50 a day is higher than the price that is paid to American labor 
 in the State of Missouri for the production of lead ore. I came across a statement in 
 a paper not long ago — I haven't it with me, unfortunately — in which it was stated, 
 
 St. Jo 
 
 Mr. Carter. Will you kindly answer, if you can, the direct question what you pay 
 Mexican miners when you hire them by the day as they are employed in the Mex- 
 ican mines? 
 Mr. Meyer. We do not hire them that way. 
 Mr. Carter. All your labor is contract labor? 
 
 Mr. Meyek. Yes, sir. I came across a paper in which it was stated that the 
 miners of the St. Jo., Mo., mines were getting very tired of receiving only from 75 cents 
 to 11.25 per day, and that the St. Jo. Company had declared a dividend in 1889 of 41 
 per cent. That statement was corrected subsequently, 1 think publicly by the man- 
 agement, in this respect. That while it was true that 41 per cent, dividend was de- 
 clared, 20 per cent, or 30 per cent., I do not remember exactly which, was in the 
 shape of a scrip dividend, but as a matter of fact that scrip dividend represented 
 earnings of that company for the past few years and put into other operations. There 
 are mines in Kansas where now the wages are about the same as I have stated. I 
 live near there. They pay $1, possibly fl. 50. The other day some gentlemen from 
 Kansas City went down into Kansas to prosecute some suit. I understand the suit 
 was against a mining company, and it developed that enormous profits were made in 
 that enterprise. So when you come down to it, the price for good miners in Mexico 
 is as high as the price paid for miners in localities in the United States equally sit- 
 uated. The Mexican mines are located largely among the agricultural districts, in 
 .districts which can be compared with Missouii and Kansas. Of course in the Rocky 
 Mountain region, in Idaho and Montana, the miners receive higher wages. 
 
 The Chairman. Are these mines in Mexico from which lo^d ore is taken under the 
 control of American citizens ? 
 
 485 81 . 
 
1282 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 I 
 
 Mr. Meyer. A great many are. 
 
 The Chairman. I mean as representing the importations of ore. 
 
 Mr. Mkyek. Our company is interested in mines tliere, and tliere are other Ameri- 
 cans interested in mines. Our shipments of flux ore are largely from our own mines 
 in Mexico. 
 
 The Chairman. Do smelters generally have mines there, American smelters! . 
 
 Mr. Meyilr. That is a hard question, to answer. I could not answer it, but I know 
 we own some mines there, and 1 know a number of American companies who do ao'also, 
 but whether these Americans are also engaged in smelting or not I could not positively 
 sa.y. 
 
 The Chairman. How long have you been smelting the Mexican ore ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. I think we commenced in 1885. 
 
 The Chairman. What had you been doing previously ? • 
 
 Mr. Meyer. We had been smelting on a very small scale at Argentine, Kans. We 
 projected the Argentine Refining Works, at Argentine, for the retining of so-called 
 base bullion, but, incidental to refining, had to smelt on a small scale to work up prod- 
 ucts from our refinery. The ore-smeltiug works at Argentine, Kans., as they stand 
 now, are entirely dependent upon the Mexican fluxing ores. Our works at El Paso, 
 Tex., were built in 1887, and built entirely upon the proposition of bringing fluxing 
 ores from Mexico to smelt the dry ores of New Mexico and Arizona. 
 
 The Chairman. Is that the same company as the Kansas company ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. It is the same company. 
 
 Mr. Chairman". When was that built in Kansas? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. In 1881, and the one at El Paso in 1887. 
 
 The Chairman. Can you tell the committee how much capital is invested in this 
 co)intry in smelting Mexican ores ? I mean in the country at large. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Our company has invested in American smelting enterprises and in 
 mines in Mexico, due entirely to the condition now existing in the way of tariff leg- 
 islation, $1,500,000, and possibly over that. I mean to say that that investment was 
 due entirely to the free importation of Mexican ores. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How much does fuel cost at El Paso? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Unfortunately it is very high. It comes from Colorado, and it costs 
 $8.50 a ton for coke, and for coal about Ijiti, i. e., somewhere about that, from $5.50 
 to $6. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How much does it cost in Colorado ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. The coke would cost about $3 ; in fact, we pay at the ovens in Colorado 
 $2 per ton. Coal, I think, costs at Pueblo and Denver fiom $1 to f 1.50 per ton. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. How much fuel would it take to smelt a ton of ore? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. About 25 per cent, on the ore of coke and in addition to the coal. 
 
 The Chairman. If a duty was put upon these ores, what effect would it have upon 
 importation ; would it diminish it if you imported it at all? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. We could not import at all ; it would shut out the importations abso- 
 lutely. 
 
 Mr. TowNSBND. If I understood you, you said that the production of the lead in 
 the silver lead mines of the Eocky Mountains had increased somewhat since 1889. 
 Did you make that statement ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Fluxing ores have decreased, but lead is also produced from ores con- 
 taining lead in small quantities. A great many silver ores contain 3 or 4 per cent, 
 of lead. I think the total lead production of Colorado, however, was about the same 
 as last year. 
 
 Mr. Townsend. I understood you to say that when it was reported the Secretary 
 was going to change the ruling and enforce the law, the smelting men increased the 
 smelting charges on dry ores, and that the reason of that was that the smelting men 
 believed they would have to pay a higher price for fluxing ores. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Townsend. What does that mean ; that miners would get a hio-her price fop 
 the lead, that the smelters would have to pay a higher price tor the lead for smelt- 
 ing? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. No, it means that they would be willing to lose on these fluxing ores 
 any amount of money that was neces.sary, because the dry ores would have to stand 
 it. Ihe proposition is about the same as if you were buying coke or other material. 
 tAI"® i«a'l. fluking ores really take the position of a material necessary for smelting. 
 If the Mexican ores are shut out, the woiks at El Paso, Argentine, and elsewhere 
 who now get ores from Mexico would then be unable to get those ores. The works-. 
 .•it Denver have an abundant supply of miscellaneous ores, drawing them from differ- 
 ent sections on account of railroad facilities, etc., and thes* smelters at Pueblo. 
 and Denver having, so to speak, the cinch, as it is termed i,a the West, could af- 
 lor<l to pay good j)ricp.s for the fluxing ores because they wa,^)'d ma,k(^ i,t up on drv 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1283 
 
 Mr. Cartee. I see from a paper to-day the following : 
 
 THE LARGEST SALE OF ORB EVER MADE IN THE COEUR d'aLENE. 
 [Special dispatch to the Jonmal.J 
 
 Spokane Falls, March 5. 
 
 The largest Bale of ore ever made in the Ceeur d'Alene mining district was consum- 
 mated to-day. Fourteen thousand tons of ore are to be delivered this summer to the 
 Omaha smelter. The ore will come from the famons Poor-man mine, owned by Butte 
 City and Spokane parties. 
 
 Now, one mine furnishes 7, 000 to the Omaha Smelting Company. How far distant 
 is the Kansas City smelter 1 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Six or seven hundred miles. 
 
 Mr. Carter. You mean Omaha or Denver ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. I mean from Denver. The Omaha company, you know, have works 
 at Denver, at Salt Lake City, and Omaha. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Now, is it not true that you can go into the Cceur d'Alene country 
 and purchase all the fluxing ore your smelting works require ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. No, sir; that is not true. I buy ores there ; I use the best endeavors to 
 supply myself in the United States, and I am unable to do so ; and I will say that at 
 the time I made a contract with the mines of the Cceur d'Alene district our com- 
 pany paid the highest price paid up to that time for any such ore. We have a 
 contract with mines of the Cceur d'Alene region for 12,000 tons of ore during the year 
 1890. 
 
 Mr. Carter. You say you have a letter from Mr. Antou Eilers, who is superin- 
 tendent of the Colorado Smelting Company at Pueblo, Colo 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Yes, and he is also general manager of the Great Falls Smelting 
 Works. 
 
 Mr. Carter. What is the date of that letter ? 
 • Mr. Meyer. March 15, 1890. 
 
 Mr. Carter. I would like, with the permission of the committee, Mr. Chairman, t6 
 read a letter from the same gentleman dated May 4, 1889. This letter I read for 
 the purpose of having any comment you may desire to make at this time. 
 
 importation of lead. — letter of a. eilers. 
 
 The Colorado Smelting Company, 
 
 Pueblo, Colo., May 4, 1889. 
 Hon. Edward O. Wolcott, Denver, Colo.: 
 
 Dear Sir : Your favor of yesterday is at hand. 
 
 Mr. Kirchhofif's statistics in regard to the importation of lead in ores from Mexico 
 are reliable. They were published in the Engineering and Mining Jourual, No. 15, 
 Vol. XL VII, as follows : 
 
 "This ofSce is indebted to the Bureau of Statistics for the following iigures relat- 
 ing to the amounts of lead returned by collectors of customs as contained in silver- 
 lead ore imported from Mexico during the calendar year 1888 : 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Corpus Christi, Texas 5,629,780 
 
 Paso del Norte, Texas and New Mexico 41,647,291 
 
 Saluria, Texas 9,995,300 
 
 57, 272, 371 
 " In the calendar year 1887 the Mexican imports were estimated at 15, 000 tons ; so 
 that the greater part of the enormous increase in 1888 is due to the receipts of lead 
 in Mexican silver-lead ores imported duty free." 
 
 From the above you see that nearly 29,000 tons of Mexican lead came into the 
 United States in 1888. This, together with the production of the United States in 
 1888, overstocked the marketsbadlyanddepressed the priceof lead, so that very many 
 of the lead mines in the West, which carry ores low in silver (from 4 to 10 ounces per 
 ton), were forced to shut down. The consequence of this in retarding the settlement 
 of the mining States and Territories, in diminishing railroad earnings and trade gen- 
 erally, yon know better than I do. I mean to say that this is by no means simply a 
 question of a few mining companies being affected, as some of the Eastern papers 
 would have it, but really a question of the welfare of large communities. 
 
 You will meet the argument by certain railroads (probably the Mexican Central, 
 the Mexican National, the Santa F6, and certain roads of the Gould sy,stern) and by 
 the Kansas City Consolidated Smelting and Keflning Company, wlio aie prijicipally 
 
1284 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 interested, that the importation Into the United States of lead ores means increased 
 trade in merchandise with Mexico ; but I think you will find, in looking over the 
 statistics of Mexico's trade, that the bulk of their importations still comes from' 
 Germany and England, and will do so as long as our goods can not be made as 
 cheaply as those of the countries referred to. 
 
 I do not know where you can get these statistics in so short a time unless the Salt 
 Lake parties, who will also be present at the argument, have them. Possibly the 
 Financial Chronicle in New York might have them. But it seems to me that the 
 principal question in this matter is what the law meant which was passed in regard 
 to the importation of lead ores. 
 
 Any unprejudiced person. It seems to me, must assume from its language that it 
 meant " protection with a vengeance," for it puts a tax on not the lead in the ore, but 
 the ore itself. In connection with this the question will of course come up, What is a 
 lead ore? Now the metallurgist who runs a silver mill calls an ore containing only 
 5 per cent, of lead a lead ore, while the lead smelter begins to call a silver ore con- 
 taining 10 per cent, of lead with that amount, and pays for the lead in it. 
 
 Sometimes on special contracts the lead is even paid for from 5 per cent, upwards. 
 How the money value of the lead and silver in an ore can have anything to do with 
 the appellation of an ore no mining engineer or metallurgist will be able to tell you ; 
 it remained for the Secretary of the Treasury (I believe it was Mr. Sherman) to make 
 this unique definition. 
 
 I inclose E. A. Caswell's statistics for 1888, which are fairly reliable ; those of the 
 Engineering and Mining Journal you will find in one of its early numbers of this year. 
 No. 2; those of Mr. C. Kirchhoif, jr. (editor of the Iron Age, N. Y.), I have not at 
 hand, but by writing to him you can no doubt get them in time. His I consider the 
 most reliable. They will appear officially in the report on mining statistics issued 
 by the Geological Survey (Major Powell). 
 
 All of these statistics show that the large surplus of lead on hand at the end of 
 1888 is just about equal to the amount imported from Mexico. 
 
 That the average price of lead in 1883 was as high as it is shown is solely due to 
 the manipulations of one speculator (N. Corwith), who broke under the load with a 
 grand crash. Since his failure lead has been from |3.60 to $3.65, mostly, per 100 
 pounds, a price for which it can not be produced with profit under existing circum- 
 stances of high labor and materials. Hoping that under a Eepublican administra- 
 tion imports of lead ore would be stopped, the best situated miners and smelters have 
 so far continued production, but there are ominous signs all around that they too 
 must soon stop. The consequences of this, not alone to the large capital employed 
 but principally to the working people and to trade in the far West generally, it is 
 easy to foresee. 
 
 The West is full of strangers, now that only a portion of the mines and smelters 
 have shut down ; what will it be if the rest of them have to do the same ? Nevada 
 is a good example for a far Western State in which mining has virtually ceased. I 
 hope Colorado, Utah, Montana, and Idaho will not share the wame fate. 
 
 I shall probably be in New York about the 10th or 12th. If I can be of any service 
 to you there, please address me at No. 7 Nassau street. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 A. ElLEUS, 
 General Manager. 
 
 What have you to say on this line of thought of Mr. Filer's ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. In the first place I have to say that so far as the proposition contained 
 therein is concerned that the production of lead fell oft' in the United States, the facts 
 we have since gathered do no bear him out. The Engineering and Mining Journal, 
 to which I have written for information, reported to me that the product of lead in 
 the United States for 1889, including the Mexican importation in ore of 19,000 tons, 
 was 190,000 tons in 1889. That leaves for the United States 171,000 as against the 
 product of 157,000 tons for 1888. Evidently, therefore, the production of lead has 
 increased. As to the other proposition I have this to say. Mr. Eilers operates large 
 smelting works and I have read to you here the names of other large smelting com- 
 ]ianies. Here is Mr. Eells, of Cleveland, Ohio, who islargely interested in smelting, 
 ami we tell you — a majority of the smelting works of the United States, including those 
 of Mr. Filers — that it is impossible the present state of things should coutinue. I 
 will read to you a portion of a letter from a gentleman interested in smelting at Lead- 
 ville with whom our company jointly owned smelting works at that place. This is 
 addressed to myself: 
 
 "As you are aware the preseut way of buying ores is not on a commercial basis and 
 it is not a question of what a smelter can pay and have a small margin of profit, but 
 it is simply a question of how much the last purchaser paid, and how much more must 
 be paid t'> M-cuvn the ore. The Maid of I>iu, not satisfied with the present exorbi- 
 tant priccH iralizi:d, is holding back for still higher prices, talUiug of |2 treatment 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 1285 
 
 and 40 cents a unit for lead. This cnt-throatpolicy must be stopped or else all smelt- 
 ers will surely meet with financial ruin." 
 
 Do you wish to know the name of tliis gentleman ? It is Mr. Charles T. Limberg, 
 of Leadville. 
 
 Mr. Carter. He s a party interested in the importation of these ores. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. No, sir; heisnot. I bog your pardon, not in any sense is he interested. 
 Here is another letter, dated December the 2nd, 1889: ' 
 
 " One thing is certain, things can not go ou much longer as they have in the past, 
 and while our concern has not done well this year, I know of others who have done 
 worse. All plants seem to be anxious to run full and do a large business, and as long 
 as the output of fluxing ores is not sufBcient to give them all a fair percentage of 
 lead in their charge at reasonable prices, it is bound to result in general disaster. 
 You do not seem to share my anxiety about the Maid of Erin ore, but yon will find, 
 before long, I am correct." 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. You stated that smelters are in favor of having this ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. ToWNSEND. How about the silver lead miners west of Kooky Mountains ? Do 
 you know of any in favor of it ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. No, sir ; I do not. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. Did you see a statement of gentlemen interested in lead mining in 
 Salt Lake, in which they stated that the continuance of this importation would affect 
 50,000 miners in the West? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. That is perfectly absurd. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. You saw that statement ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir ; I saw that statement. The fact is, gentlemen, if yon are 
 going to shut down mines, the best way to accomplish that end would be to shut out 
 the Mexican ore. I presume you will shut down more sil ver mines by the exclusion of 
 Mexican silver ores than you will open by the exclusion of Mexican silver ores. Mr. 
 Eells, I would like to say, is owner of large works, and I should like to ask him 
 whether he confirms the statements I have made so far. 
 
 Mr. Carter.' I should like to ask another question before that. You have under- 
 taken to enumerate the smelters and have mentioned the Helena and Livingston. 
 I will ask you 
 
 Mr. Meyer. I did not mention them as being in favor, but I mentioned many others. 
 
 Mr. TowNSBND. Is it not a fact that the Henrietta and the Maid of Erin were 
 piling up ore on the dump, the same quality of ore as this : is not that true ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. No, sir; it is not. I will say to you in reply to that that I know indi- 
 rectly from the manager of the Henrietta that they have only one year's supply of 
 that class of ore in the mines]; when that is gone they are through with that class of 
 ore. This mine is the very one which made a contract for 150 tons a day to which I 
 referred, resulting in a loss of $900 a day to the smelter, and to the mines corres- 
 ponding benefit. 
 
 Mr. Carter. On that point just one moment ; you desire to have the committee 
 understand it is a loss for you to smelt lead ore, fluxing ores free of charge. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. I say 
 
 Mr. Carter. In treating ores free of charge. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. I say if the fluxing ores were treated by themselves at the prices we 
 are paying we would lose a heavy amount of money, but we do not lose that money 
 because we make the dry ores pay for it. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Is it not true that you buy and use lime rook and many other things 
 for fluxing ? 
 
 Mr. Mbybr. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carter. You buy iron ore to use as a flux, and you do not undertake to make 
 any profit on the iron, or to save it ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. That is true. 
 
 Mr. Carter. That lead ore is used precisely as lime rock and iron is used as a 
 medium through which to form a slag and it 
 
 Mr. Meyer. That is exactly the point, Mr. Carter, and you could not have made a 
 better argument for me. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Permit me to ask you if it is not true that your product might jtist as 
 well result by the use of lead from Joplin, Mo., as to go to Mexico and use the Mex- 
 can lead ore ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Why not? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. For the reasons I have stated. The only true lead ores, in a commercial 
 use of the word, and under a sensible construction, are the ores produced at Joplin, Mo. 
 These ores contain no silver. It is possible to produce a marketable lead direct from 
 these ores. If we were to take these ores and mix them with silver ores, we would 
 contaminate the lead with silver and be compelled to re-extract the silver at a very 
 considerable expense, which necessarily would add to the cost of the lead ; whereas 
 
1286 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 in usinn- ores wliich contain lead and silver the conditions already exist, of the silveS 
 and lead being together. The other we could use technically hut not commercially. 
 
 Mr. Carter? Is it not true that the products of your smelters devolved from im- 
 ported Mexican ore has so far depressed the price of lead in the Missouri market that 
 the Joplin mines are in a condition of inactivity and on the high-road to ruin. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. The mines in the Joplin district are on the high-road to wealth ; they 
 are makino' more money. We find our farmers in Kansas who are losing money con- 
 stantly brought face to face with the fact that these mine owners in the Joplin 
 mines are making enormous profits. They are confronted with that beautiful spec- 
 tacle. 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY. You sell the lead you extract from this fluxing imported Mexican ore 
 in competition with the Missouri lead at Kansas City? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. No, air; I did not say that. The desilverized lead is used almost en- 
 tirely, or at least to a large extent, in the manufacture of white lead, for which the 
 Missouri and Kansas leads are not useful. The Missouri and Kansas mines produce 
 the lead which is particularly useful for the construction of acid chambers and is 
 called chemical lead. 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY'. Do you mean to say the Missouri lead is not capable of making white 
 lead ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. If it is used, it is to an exceedingly small extent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Where does the White Lead Company of St. Louis get their white lead ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. From lead made by our works. 
 
 Mr. Gear. They were in business long before these desilverized leads were known. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. That is true, but as a matter of fact it is a question very easily 
 proven that desilverized lead is used for the manufacture of white lead. 
 
 Mr. Gear. They have been in business for forty-odd years. 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY. Is it not a fact that this Mexican ore is used as a flux and a profit 
 got out of the valuable product of lead, besides the product of silver, by reason of 
 saving that lead. Is not that true ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Your statement is partly true and partly not. It is a matter of abso- 
 lute indifference whether we make that lead. The product of lead with silver is 
 merely incidental. The business of smelting is to make a manufacturer's profit from 
 the process of smelting. We produce certain metals there, but so far as fluxing ores 
 are concerned there is no proiit in either the smelting or in the product of silver or 
 lead from same. 
 
 Mr. KiN'SEY. But they do get a valuable profit out of that by using it as a flux. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. They enable us to smelt other silver ores at a profit. 
 
 Mr. KiNSBY. The combined product of the smelters of this country is 19,000 to 
 20,000 tons of pig lead out of imported Mexican ores, and they sell this in compe- 
 tition with the American lead. 
 
 Mr. Mey'er. Not in the sense that it is cheap lead. That lead costs the American 
 importer just as much as lead in the West. 
 
 Mr. Kin'Sey. While you do not import this ore for the purpose of making pig lead, 
 in fact you do get pig lead from it and sell the lead in this country in competition 
 with our lead. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. That is a question of construction. 
 
 Mr. KiNSEY. And thereby reduce the cost of smelting by reason of this valuable 
 product that is incidental to this fluxing. 
 
 Mr. Mever. I will answer that question by saying that in the year 1889 the con- 
 sumption of lead in the United States was 10,000 tons in excess of the product of lead 
 derived from America and Mexico combined. How, then, could the Mexican ore im- 
 portations have hurt the ^jrice of lead in the United States? It was necessary to draw 
 fi'om other sources 10,000 tons to fully meet the demand. Now, in the years 1885, 
 1886, 1887, lte83, and 1889, during which these ores wore imported, there was only one 
 year, and that was the year lH.-'8, but what the consumption of lead in the United 
 States was in excess of the product derived from the home ores and the imported ores. 
 So how could the iin|)orted ore have hurt the lead market ? 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. If that 19,000 or 20,000 tons of ore were smelted beyond the Rio 
 Grande in old Mexico, would it not pay 2 cents a jjound to come in ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. If it came in; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. ToWNSEND. But mixed up with a little silver it comes in for nothing ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Assuuiiug that to he the case ; if smelting works were erected over 
 the line and the lead came into the United States, would not that lead be produced 
 by cheap labor ? If you undertake to bring about that state of afi'airs you are doing 
 the very thing you are claiming to avoid — instead of protecting American workmen 
 you will hurt them, because you provide for the smelting by the cheap labor of 
 Mexico, and Mexican works with cheap labor can afford to pay the duty of 2 cents. 
 I wish to say one thing right here: The smelting works at Argentine, Kans., are 
 paying the largest average wages of any manufacturing concern in the United 
 States west of the Rocky Mountains. We are paying average wages there of $2.25, 
 
EEVIStON OF THE TAEIEP, 1287 
 
 yrhen right around us the agricultural labor receives 75 cents a day. How can we do 
 it? We employ over 500 men. It yoa shut out these ores we simply can not give 
 employment to these men. There is another smeltiug plant in the State of Kansas, 
 getting ready to operate, and without these Mexican ores these works also will be 
 compelled to shut down. There are worlds at El Paso, Tes., in New Mexico, at St. 
 Louis, and works at Newark, N. J., in the same position. 
 
 ■Mr. Carter. If you were willing to pay reasonable prices to the miner 
 
 Mr. Meyer. We do pay reasonable prices. I am buying ores in Idabo to-day at 
 high prices and I am willing to do it. We do not draw our supply from Mexico en- 
 tirely. My company smelts about 200,000 tons per annum, and out of that we possi- 
 bly import 40,000 to 50,000 tons from Mexico. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Does Mr. Eilers state the truth when he says, "The consequence of 
 this in retarding the settlement of the mining States and Territories into diminishing 
 railroad earnings and trade generally you know better than I do " ? 
 
 Mr. Meter. I think he was sadly mistaken. 
 
 Mr. Carter. That is your opinion. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. And the opinion of a great many others. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Now, you stated you represented a large majority of the smelting 
 interests of the country wheu you appear and ask that Mexican lead ores be admitted 
 free of duty. Do you represent a single smelting interest north of the south line of 
 Kansas or west of the west line of Kansas if 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir ; I represent other smelting interests. I represent one works 
 at Pueblo, Colo.; I represent through Mr. Eelis the Chicago Kefining Company ; 1 
 also represent the Newark, N. J., Company ; one works in Montana 
 
 Mr. Carter. I deny your representing that. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Here is the letter of Mr. Eilers, dated March the 10th, 1890. 
 
 Mr. Carter. That is the same gentleman who wrote the letter that I have. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. That %ras a year ago, sir. Mr. Eilers says that daring the last year the 
 supply of lead ores in the West has so constantly diminished, etc. 
 
 Mr. Bartine. Did I understand you correctly to say that about 80 per cent, of the 
 lead production of the United States is produced from argentiferous lead ores 1 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bartine. Would not that circumstance, in a measure at least, account for the 
 fact that the most of the white lead is made from desilverized lead. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. No, sir; the desilverized lead having undergone very extensive met- 
 allurgical processes is purer. 
 
 Mr. Bartine. Would not the simple circumstance that four-fifths of the lead pro- 
 duced in the United States comes from that kind of ores on the average at least ac- 
 count for the fact that most of tbe white lead is made from that kind of lead ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. I think not, for this reason, that the white-lead factories rarely buy 
 Missouri brands. 
 
 Mr. Bartine. I ask the question in view of Governor Gear's suggestion that the 
 lead of Missouri was used for the manufacture of white lead before the advent of do- 
 ailverized lead. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. At that time it may have been used, but I remember distinctly before 
 the production of argentiferous lead in the United States amounted to very much 
 that a large amount of lead was imported from Germany. 
 
 Mr. Bartine. You do not say it can not be manufactured from this very lead, do 
 you? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. I will say this much, it is possible that it can be manufactured by re- 
 fining the Missouri lead. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Were they not importing that from eastern sources before the advent of 
 this argentiferous lead ? Were not Spanish leads imported for that nse ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. It is probably true. Granting that before the production of argen- 
 tiferous lead the Missouri White Lead Works produced white lead out of the Missouri 
 brands, it is quite possible that such product to-day would not be salable in compe- 
 tition with other brands made from the pure desilverized leads. 
 
 Mr. Gear. ThisMissouriCompany has been in operation for a long time. Theynsed 
 Galena leads and used them prior to the introduction of these other leads. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. That is probably true, but the production was not, perhaps, as large 
 as now. 
 
 Mr. Bartine. I understood you to rather deny that this lead which is imported 
 from Mexico comes in competition with the American lead. Let me ask you this 
 question : Does not every pound of lead that is sold iu this country enter into com- 
 lietition with every other pound of lead sold here ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. It does in a certain sense, but if the lead were not produced by Ameri- 
 can smelters that lead would have to be imported into the United States from abroad 
 in the form of pig. 
 
 Mr. Bartine. And a duty would be paid t 
 
 Mr. Meybr. That is true, but where are the miners helped ; if this lead is produced 
 
1288 REVISION OF THE TARIFF, 
 
 abroad where is the American miner lieneftted ? Tlie mere f;ict that we collect the 
 duty of 2 cents a pound does not help the miner or the smelter. 
 
 Mr. Bartinb. But it is a fact that every smelter upon the other side will be paying 
 a duty of 2 cents per pound on every pound of lead that is sent into this country. 
 
 Mr. Mbtbr. Yes, sir ; but it would be the product of cheap labor, and then you 
 would be bringing into competition the so-called Mexican peon labor. 
 
 The Chairman. 1 understand that your claim is that this country can not supply 
 itself. 
 
 Mr. Meter. No, sir ; it can not. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Do you make this statement seriously that the United States can not 
 produce lead enough to supply itself? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. We have the recorded facts; is it not sufficient evidence that for all 
 these years consumption has exceeded production ? 
 
 Mr. Baktine. Do you know according to the tariff of the United States duties are 
 imposed upon any other articles which the United States fails to produce does not 
 fully snpply t 
 
 Mr. Meybr. I believe so. 
 
 Mr. Bartinb. Why should exception be made against the lead producer on that 
 account ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. That is not the proposition. We say this is no time to lay any new 
 duties. These men coming from the West, men whom Mr. Carter represents, say here 
 is a duty in existence which must be enforced. They say that the construction of 
 the law by the Secretary of the Treasury is not just and is unwarranted. Then they 
 tell you that Congress when it imposed a duty of one cent and a half a pound on the 
 bulk of ore meant that should cover any kind of ore containing lead. This seems to 
 me to be an absolutely ridiculous proposition. Take ore containing 25 per cent, of 
 lead and that is 500 pounds to the ton. You smelt that ore on the other side of the 
 Eio Grande and you produce 500 pounds of lead and you pay the Government 2 cents 
 per pound duty, and that is $10. If that ore was imported here in the form of raw 
 material it would give employment to American labor ; not only that, but it is ore 
 which is absolutely necessary to smelt a vast amount of silver ore. They tell you that 
 Congress meant that this ore should be taxed $25 or $30. It is plain Congress by impos- 
 ing that duty of 2 cents a pound on pig, and one cent and a half on lead ore must have 
 intended to protect only such ores mined in the United States at the time. Certainly 
 Congress could not have intended to lay a duty on an article that did not then exist. 
 I am willing to grant to Congress everything but the powers of divination, but I am 
 not willing to grant them that. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. Suppose the duty were placed upon that lead ore, that would be 500 
 pounds in the case you supposed, and the duty would be $7.50, 
 
 Mr. Meyer. The duty would be $30— $7.50 on the ore, 
 
 Mr. Bayne, No ; on the lead in the ore, 
 
 Mr, Meyer. Yes ; $7.50. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. How would it be an injury to your industry? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Every dollar of duty you pay on that ore would be an injury. It 
 would keep out the ore. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. It would help to do it. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. The English people who have invested large amounts of money in 
 Mexico are to-day endeavoring to get concessions for the erection of smelting works. 
 If you place any duty on this ore you will shut it out. 
 
 Mr. Carter. I understand you to say as a matter of fact that under the present 
 ruling the law does not practically impose any duty upon that ore. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir; there is no law in existence covering the question. 
 
 Mr, Bartine. You say you do not come here asking any change in the law, for the 
 imposition of any new law. What difference does it make to the lead miner whether 
 you ask for a change of the law or such an interpretation as will give him no protec- 
 tion — what difference does it make ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. That I do not know; he is more competent to answer that than I am. 
 
 Mr. Bartinb. Yet you claim that this importation of Mexican ore is to the benefit 
 of the lead miner. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. No, sir; I did not make the statement that way. 
 
 Mr. Bartinb. How do you account for the fact that no miners look at it in that 
 way? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. I did not make that statement. I did not say it was to the advantage 
 of the lead miner. I said it was at worst a neutral proposition, and that the impor- 
 tation of these ores did not and had not adversely affected the lead ore miner. 
 
 Mr. Bartinb. How do you account for the fact tljat they do think it affects them? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. There are a great many explanations. For instance, there are certain 
 works in Denver who have made a good deal of a fight about this thing. They are 
 very anxious that the works at Argentine, Kans., should not live. They knew very 
 well that the Kansas proposition depended entirely upon the Mexican flux ores, and 
 
REVISION OV THK TARIFF. 1289 
 
 they naturally argued if tlieyshut these ores out the Kansas works could not come 
 in competition for the other silver ores. Those were the views of the Denver smelt- 
 ers. So far as the lead miner is concerned, his position is very plain. It is simply 
 this, that any man who has a commodity to sell has a selfish interest in r<idncin<; the 
 amount of that commodity offered in any market, so as to advance prices. I have 
 shown that in the year 1H87 twenty-eight mines aiid two mining companies produced 
 65 per cent, of all the desilverized lead produced in the United States. Is it right 
 treatment that you should protect twenty-eight mines as against thousands of other 
 mines in the country? 
 
 Mr. Carter. If all the other mines are willing that it should he done. 
 
 Mr. Mkyer. I will assure you that I can bring you a list of mines that will surprise 
 you. I will cite you the case of Colorado. Colorado produced in 1887 about 50 per cent, 
 of the total production of desilverized lead of the United States. If you take eleven 
 mines in Colorado out of a total number of fourteen hundred mines, you will find 
 those eleven mines produced 63.4 per cent, of the wliole lead production of the State 
 of Colorado. Now whom are you protecting if you keep these Mexican ores out? 
 
 Mr. Bartinb. Now I want to ask you a question on another point? The great 
 bulkof the lead is iiroduced in what is known as the inter-mountain region, is it not? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bartine. That is between the Rocky Mountains and Sierra Nevada? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Bartinb. Therefore they are the ones who must be injured, if there be any in- 
 jury by the Mexican competition. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Seventy-five per cent, of these mines are benefited and 25 per cent, 
 not benefited. 
 
 Mr. Bartinb. Now, you say about 3,000 or 3,500 tons out of some 6,000 tons of 
 Mexican ores imported are fluxing ores ; then the remainder come in under the same 
 ruling. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bartinb. They are not used for fluxing purposes. 
 
 Mr. Meyhr. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Baktine. Then your argument does not apply to the other. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. These other ores do not have lead, you remember. 
 
 Mr. Bartinb. You say that American ores possess fluxing qualities, but there is 
 not a sufittcient quantity. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. That the production is not suiBcient. 
 
 Mr. Bartinb. These Mexican ores which are used for fluxing purposes, being of the 
 same character as American ores which are fluxing ores, are in competition, are they 
 not? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. I think not ; the demand is greater than the supply. 
 
 Mr. Bartinb. That may all be, but so far as it goes they are in competition, they 
 are competitive. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bartinb. They are if they seek the same market. 
 
 Mr. Mbybr. No, sir ; there is the mistake. The people of Leadyille can not get 
 the Mexican ores. 
 
 Mr. Bartinb. But it is all sold in the United States ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bartinb. Then it competes with the general American market? 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Mr. Meyer's proposition is that so long as the supply is not 
 equal to the demand there is no competition. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. I think that is clear. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If the supply exceeded the demand, then competition would 
 set in. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bartinb. Would not the supply of foreign ore have an effect upon the price ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Well, I think you would very soon find a point where dry ore 
 
 Mr. Bartinb. That is not an answer to the question. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. I beg your pardon, you did not take into account the bonus paid for 
 these ores. 
 
 Mr. Bartinb. The point is this : You say because there is not a eufScieut supply 
 for the market, for the demand, that hence there can be no competition. Suppose 
 the demand exceeded the supply and we imported 50,000 tons, would not that affect 
 our prices? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. I claim not. 
 
 Mr. Carter. You believe, then, as a proposition that this Government should not 
 undertake to protect any article which we do not produce in sufficient quantity for 
 home consumption ? 
 
 The Chairman. I do not understand that Mr. Meyer has been discussing that 
 
1290 UiEVtSlON OF TflE TAEIPE*. 
 
 proposition, tte Says there is no competition in American lead becanse AiUerica doeS 
 not produce sufficient lead for home consumption. 
 
 Mr. Breckineidgb. I understand Mr. Meyer's proposition to be this : That the 
 Aniericiin production is now added to by the Mexican production; that we do not 
 produce enough, and can not produce enough, and therefore you might make the tarift 
 very high on the ore, and we would simply import tho lead in a pure state, as we are 
 now importing a large quantity. 
 
 The Ohaikman. That is the fact, Mr. Meyer states, that is in dispute. 
 
 Mr. Brbcki>'RIDGE. I am simply interpreting Mr. Meyer's statement. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You say the result of any duty would be to close the works depend- 
 ent on ores now brought in. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And it would cause the treatment of that ore to be made outside of 
 the United States instead of inside of the United States, and give the labor to other 
 people than citizens of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Jlr. TowNSESD. Is it not a fact that smelters sometimes use bar lead for smelting? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. I should say 
 
 Mr. TOWKSEND. Is it not a fact that they can use that? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. No; not economically. We occasionally, put lead into the ore smelt- 
 ing, but it is wasteful to do so, and rarely technically effective. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. As a matter of fact has it not been done frequently ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. No, sir ; but it may have been done occasionally. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. In other words, when they were lacking in lead ores they put in 
 bar lead ! 
 
 Mr. Meyer. No ; I should not say one case in five thousand. 
 
 Mr. Townsend. But it has been done sometimes ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Not sometimes, I should say it would be uearer right to say one time. 
 
 Mr. Gear. How would it do to make a smelter a sort of bonded warehouse and im- 
 port your ores ; and when you put the lead into consumption to pay the duty on the 
 lead? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. It could not be done. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Why? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. For this reason, that under existing conditions of transportation and 
 everything else, it is a toss up whether it pays best to smelt these ores in Mexico and 
 then pay the duty of 2 cents a pound to bring it into the United States, or to smelt 
 the ores in the United States. That proposition will be very plain to you when I say 
 that it costs to bring ore from the mines to the smelting works at Argentine, Kans., 
 $21 per ton ; 75 per cent, of this ore is rook and 25 per cent. lead. Ifthat ore is smelted 
 in Mexico, the product to be shipped will be only one-fourth of the weight of the 
 original ore and your freight charges will be only one-fourth, say |5 per ton, thus 
 there would he a saving of $15 per ton. Now, the duty on 500 pounds of lead at 2 
 cents is $10. If you deduct this duty from the saving in transportation, you have a net 
 gain oi $o by smelting this ore in Mexico. My figures when I first went into Mexico 
 to buy ores, showed that it was a very narrow question whether it paid best to smelt 
 in Mexico or to smelt in the United States. 
 
 I maintain, gentlemen, that you will accomplish the very opposite of what you in- 
 tend if you keeij these Mexican ores out. They will be smelted by cheap labor in 
 Mexico and American labor will lose the advantage of being employed in the smelt- 
 ing of these ores. Under any circumstances, you will bring cheap labor in competi- 
 tion with the American product. 
 
 I thank you, gentlemen, for your kind attention. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. DAN P. EELLS. 
 
 Mr. Dan P. Eells, of Cleveland, Ohio, next addressed the committee. He said_: 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of tbe committee, after the very patient hearing which 
 you have accorded Mr. Meyer I feel a delicacy in saying anything. I am interested 
 in smelting in Leadville, and in refining works and smelting also in Chicago. I 
 want to say in regard to the change of the condition of things which has resulted iu 
 the last year and accounts for the change of ihe view of Mr. Eilers which has 
 been made apparent by the correspondence which has been read. Formerly almost 
 all the ores produced at Leadville, carbonate ores, bore a large percentage of lead, and 
 so long as that furnished lead enough to supply all the Rocky Mountain smelters that 
 was all that was required, but as the mines have been sunk deeper the character of 
 the ore has changed until now not more than one or two mines in Leadville produce 
 any lead ore. The ores have become chloride and sulphide ores, very dry ores carry- 
 ing a high percentage of silver and a very much smaller percentage of lead, and in 
 
REVISION Of THE TAEIt'P. l29l 
 
 many cases the lead has almost entirely disappeared. There is one mine, the Henri- 
 etta mine, which produces more lead ore than any other mine, probably than all the 
 other mines of the Leadville district together. The company with which I am con- 
 nected had a contract last year for !>0 tons a day of that ore. They smelted it at $3 a 
 ton. The cost of smelting is certainly not less than |6 a ton to $7. Therefore we paid 
 for that ore a price of about half of what it costs to smelt. 
 
 When our contract expired, since the 1st of January, I was in Denver and I called 
 on the president of the mining company in reference to a renewal of the contract, and 
 he told us he could do better with his ore than to let us have it. We urged the 
 necessity we were under for our lead ore and he said: "Jam not to blame for the 
 situation, and you know as well asl that there is not lead enough in Colorado to begin 
 to supply the demand." When asked what was the best price we could get that ore 
 for he replied that he would sell the ore at 40 cents a unit for the lead and nothing for 
 treatment, and that any advance in the New York price of lead he was to get the 
 beneiit of that and not ourselves. We told him we could not make a contract on 
 those terms and that we would have to loose the ore. The only way possi ble to cover 
 the loss would be to add largely to the dry ore on the charges of the treatment of dry 
 ores, and in that way we could recoup ourselves. I happened to know that Mr. 
 Eiler's situation is precisely the same situation, buP I feel a delicacy in saying what 
 I know to be a fact. I had a conversation with him within a week and I know his 
 views have entirely changed in regard to it. I will also go further and say, in refer- 
 ence to the Helena and Livingston, I think if Mr. Carter will correspond with Gov- 
 ernor Hauser he will find his views have undergone a change. It is not possible for 
 the large interestS*now invested in smelting and refining to live with the lead ores 
 produced directly in this country. If these Mexican ores are shut out they will have 
 to close down their works. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLlN. Your conclusion is that the damage wrought by the imposition of 
 a duty will not be confined to those concerns that are engaged in smelting Mexican 
 ores, absolutely or as a flux with other ores, but that it is an attack upon the pros- 
 perity of all the works of this country. 
 
 Mr. Eblls. And to the mines. To every silver mine it is an absolute necessity. I 
 have been going over in my mind an answer to the question propounded by the chair- 
 man as to the amount of money invested in these smelting works, and while I have 
 figured on it I can only approximate i,t when I say I think there is from $10,000,000 to 
 112,000,000 invested either in smelting or refining works. I feel also sure that those 
 gentlemen who have perhaps appeared before this committee who are interested in 
 smelting works and who have labored nnder the impression and been of the firm 
 opinion a year ago that we would be able to go along and operate the smelterers with 
 the lead produced in this country, have changed their views decidedly. I might give 
 names if I felt disposed to do so or thought it would be proper. I know that many 
 of Mr. Carter's constituency have changed their views from what they were a year or 
 two ago, perhaps a year ago. I think if he wrote to Governor Hauser he would find 
 his views have undergone a change. I think the Omaha and Grant people have 
 changed theirs. I have been in a position to be pretty well informed in regard to the 
 opinion of men who are engaged in this business and have a very large amount of' 
 money invested. It is not a question of the imposition of a new duty. It is simply 
 a question whether the supply of an incidental production of ore shall be subject to 
 a, tax that has never yet been imposed upon it. If you put a tax upon lead you put 
 a tax upon zinc and all the inferior metals that are imported in the Mexican ore, 
 which is a considerable amount. It seems to me this is a question where the discre- 
 tion of Congress can be very well exercised in favor of this very large manufacturing 
 interest. 
 
 The question in reference to what eflfect would be allowing the present duty and 
 relying continually in future on the lead mines of the country is a very important 
 one, and I have no hesitation in saying if there was enough lead ore produced in this 
 country to justify and meet the want, if there were no interest at stake except the 
 interest of the lead-producing ore mines, I should say at once as a good Republican 
 this duty ought to be imposed ; but the fact is that with these importations the smel- 
 terers are going to have just as much as they can do to keep their works running and 
 take care of the silver dry ores. 
 
 The Chairman. You agree with Mr. Meyer we can not supply the lead ores suffi- 
 cient for smelting purposes? 
 
 Mr. Eells. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carter. You stated that upon the principle that lead ores should he taxed as 
 a bi-product of lead, zinc might also be subject to a duty as well as silver. I will ask 
 now as a matter of tact, do you attempt to save the zinc ore in smelting ? 
 
 Mr. Eells. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carter. Do you attempt to save the antimony. 
 
 Mr. Eells. No, sir ; although it is a valuable product. 
 
 Mr. Carter. But do you save it ? 
 
1292 REVISION oe the tariff. 
 
 Mr. Eells. 1 am not a practical metallurgist and smelter, and protably Mr. Meyer 
 could answer much better. 
 
 Mr. Carter But in regard to the zinc, as a matter of fact the zinc no more cornea 
 in competition with the production of American labor as turned out of your smelter 
 than any other article arising from the ore ? 
 
 Mr. Eells. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. Do you say that Omaha and Grant people have changed their 
 views? 
 
 Mr. Eells. I think they have, but I would not like to state that. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. I think not. Mr. Eddy was here a week ago, and from my in- 
 formation in regard to this I should think they had not changed thair views. 
 
 Mr. Eells. It is a mere inference on my part in reference to this firm. I had an 
 impression that Messrs. Grant and Barton were in favor of this now. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. Is it not the universal belief of the silvar lead miners of the 
 Rocky Mountain region that by the admission of fr«e lead it means the absolute de- 
 struction of that industry throughout the Kooky Mountains ; that if this continues 
 it is simply a question of which should go to the wall, a few smelting interests tliat 
 are interested in Mexican ores or the lead mines of the Rocky Mountain region. 
 
 Mr. Eells. I think neither will go to the wall, but you should include with the 
 smelting interest the dry ore interest. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. You are probably aware that the estimate made by the Lead Asso- 
 ciation, which met last November, placed the number engaged in silver-lead mining 
 at .50,000 who would be affected and were affected. 
 
 Mr. Eells. I am not in a condition to contradict that, but I very much doubt if there 
 are 50,000 affected. 
 
REVISION OF THK TARIFF. ' 1293 
 
 SUNDRIES. 
 
 ATHYLIC ALCOHOL. 
 
 [For additional alcohol see ante, page 381.] 
 STATEBIBNT OF EMIL KLIPPBR. 
 
 Washington, D. C, February 14, 1890. 
 
 Mr. Emil Kxippbr, of Zylonite, Mass., appeared before the committee and made the 
 following statement. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I want to speak of athylic alcohol, 
 or colodiau. Usually, about .50 per cent, alcohol is used to one hundred parts of 
 colodian in conjunction with chemicals to disolve it. In England, and everywhere 
 abroad, alcohol can be produced at about 30 to 40 cents a gallon, whereas here we 
 have to pay $1.75 up to $"2.15 a gallon. We ask that alcohol used in the arts should 
 be free from tax for this purpose. The objection is raised always that this can not be 
 done without giving rise to frauds. I have investigated this matter for several years, 
 and I can testify that no frauds are committed at all under the German law. The 
 German law wentlnto effect in 1878, and has worked perfectly ever since. Scarcely 
 auy frauds have been committed by manufacturers. In order to make it more strict, 
 a clause might be provided that to methylated alcohol might be added bone-oil in 
 such quantity that the alcohol would be thereby made entirely improper for use in 
 beverages. In the German act, the quantity of beue-oil used varies according to the 
 purpose for which the ultimate product is to be used. 
 
 Mr. Burrows (in the chair). What are you speaking of now? 
 
 Mr. Klipper. I am speaking of alcohol for use in the arts. I have here the German 
 law, and I will insert it in my remarks, as it would take some time to read it. 
 
 Mr. B URRO W8. Leave it with the reporter to be inserted. Do you desire to say any- 
 thing in addition? 
 
 Mr. Klipper. In this proposed bill, which I will insert, the German law has been 
 followed very closely, only the German law goes a little more into details. In England 
 they use only methylated spirits. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Can you now use methylated spirits in making celluloid? 
 
 Mr. Klipper. Yes, sir. I stated that they use bone-oil so as to make the alcohol 
 totally unfit for the purpose of a beverage. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the difference in value between methylated spirits and alcohol 
 in this country? 
 
 Mr. Klipper. We do not have any methylated spirits. Methylated spirits are 
 10 per cent, wood and 90 per cent, grain alcohol. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the difference in value? 
 
 Mr. Klipper. Wood is 90 cents and grain is between $1.95 and $2.15. There are 
 other reasons for wishing the tax removed. The reduced cost on the abolition of the 
 tax will so encourage industries that certain classes of products now limited, would 
 be revived, not only for home consumption, but for export abroad. This will be felt 
 by the agriculturists in the increased demand for grain. I believe it is fair to state 
 that the increased consumption of spirits for industrial purposes, if the tax wore re- 
 pealed, would so benefit us that the highest estimates would be greatly exceeded. A 
 few years ago I looked up the amount of alcohol used in the arts, and I found, that 
 Commissioner Miller estimated the whole amount used at only 7 per cent ; whereas 
 other parties, manufacturers in the arts, who have facilities to know the amount 
 used, put it as high as .50 per cent, for the artistical industries and for medicinal pur- 
 poses. It was stated that in 1860, while our industries were at a very low ebb, there 
 were 40,000,000 proof gallons used out of the total product of 90,000,000; whereas, 
 under the present increased production only 10 per cent, of the total product of alcohol 
 is used in the arts. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Do you mean alcohol of all kinds T 
 
 Mr. Klippek. Yes, sir ; on account of the high price, 
 
 Mr. Gear. What industry would it encourage ? 
 
 Mr. Klippeb, Medicinal indnetries, 
 
1294 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would people take more medicine ? 
 
 Mr. Klipper. Medicine would be made cheaper. As soon as you reduce the price of 
 any article, conaumption will be greater. It would be used to a greater extent in 
 
 varnishes. „ , , , . ;, • ■ , 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is it a fact that only a small amount of alcohol is used in varnishes 1 
 
 Mr. KUPPBR. Alcohol is not used, because we can not afford to use it now. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Can yon use wood alcohol ? 
 
 Mr. Klippee. No, sir ; it is too high priced. Europeans are able to make it at one- 
 third the price we can make it for. On account of the high tax, it is controlled by 
 the whisky trust, which is managed by one combination. The present tax enables 
 the combination of distillers to increase the price to the consumer. Since the whisky 
 combination two years ago, the price of alcohol has advanced from $1.98 to $2.16, 
 which means 50 per cent, advance in the cost of alcohol in a short time; and this can 
 only be done by reason of the high tax and the large amount of capital reqnired in 
 the business. 1 believe that is all I have to say on this point. 
 
 There is one other clause of the tariif bearing on the alcohol question: In the dis- 
 tilla;;ion of alcohol, there is a bi-product which is called fusil oil. It is a generic 
 term for the waste which passes through at the high boiling point. The first of this 
 alcohol is propylic : the next is butyric ; and the third is any lie. In the present bill, 
 the generic term of fusil oil is employed. This should be a little clearer ; that is, 
 each kind of alcohol should be specifically named, and not the generic term of fusil 
 oil. It would be better to name the component parts of fusil oil, which are anylic, 
 butyric, and propylic, in order to avoid trouble with the custom-house. If this is not 
 done, they will come in under "articles not otherwise provided for;" whereas they 
 ought to be placed on the same basis as anylic. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Fusil oil is very cheap, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. Klipper. It costs about 35 cents a gallon. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Wbat do you want done with fusil oil? 
 
 Mr. Klipper. Keep it where it is. 
 
 Mr. Gear. That is not 10 cents a gallon ? 
 
 Mr. Klipper. It is 10 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. Payne. You ask no change in the duty ? 
 
 Mr. Klippee. No ; unless it be to change the designation to the component parts. 
 
 Mr. Dlngley. It is now what is termed einylic alcohol, or fusil oil ? 
 
 Mr. Klipper. No ; that is wrong ; it is emylic alcohol. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. Is the present duty satisfactory ? 
 
 Mr. Klipper. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Borrows. Is there something else which you desire to say ? 
 
 Mr. Klipper. Yes, sir ; I have some matters in which I am interested. It is silio- 
 briok, or fire-brick. There is a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. What do you want done with them ? 
 
 Mr. Klipper. We want a specific duty of $10 a thousand. They are made with 
 the very cheapest labor abroad. They are sold in this market for $25 a thousand. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Silic-brick are sold at from $11 to $30 a thousand ? 
 
 Mr. Klipper. The regular fire-brick are now sold not under $24. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The West Virginia brick is the best in the world. 
 
 Mr. Klipper. That is not the brick of which I speak. Are those brick used for 
 iron furnaces ? 
 
 Mr. Gear. They are used for nothing else ; and they are the best in the world. I 
 mean this Virginia Savage brick. They will stand an extreme heat. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. You want a duty of $10 a thousand ? 
 
 Mr. Klipper. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Dingley. What do they weigh ! 
 
 Mr. Gear. They are well burned, and weigh 7^ pounds. I happen to know the 
 weight of them, because I had 2,000 of them hauled, and I paid at the rate of 15 cents 
 a brick for the hauling. I weighed every one of them, and I know the exact weight. 
 
 GERMAN LAW IN REGARD TO ALCOHOLS USED FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES. 
 
 Article 1. Alcohol which is to be used in the arts, vinegar-making included, or 
 for medical and scientific purposes, or for cleaning, polishing, heating, cooking, and 
 lighting, pays no tax. 
 
 Art. 2. All alcoholic products which may be used for drinking are not exempt 
 from taxes. 
 
 Art. 3. Exemption from taxes is only granted after the alcohol has been rendered 
 unfit for drinking. Should such treatment be found to be inexpedient for certain 
 manufacturing or medical purposes it may be supplanted by an appropriate system 
 of government supervision. 
 
 Art. 4. the raenstrunm to be used in such treatment is the one presPTitied in 
 ait(cU) 8, if tll'To ii not a spocia], pcvrajt t,p use firil^stjtiitos ((vvtjplg l-O). 
 
KE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 1295 
 
 Art. 5. Persons wanting to employ a different nienstrnum (and claiming exemption 
 from taxes) have to a^ply at the respective office by letter, stating location of store- 
 house and intended use. The office grants the permission after previous examina- 
 tion, reserving to itself, the right of withdrawal at any time. To persons who have 
 been previously convicted for offenses against the tax laws the request may be de- 
 nied. 
 
 Art. 6. Persons contemplating this treatment of alcohol have to report to the re- 
 spective office. They have to .supply the menstruum as well as the necessary appli- 
 ances and workmen. 
 
 Art. 7. Alcohol of less than 80 per cent., tincture or alcohol, which is perfumed or 
 contains any other substances, is excluded from the privileges of this article. No 
 less than 100 liters can be treated. 
 
 Art. 8. The menstruum for general use consists) of two parts of wood alcoho^ and 
 one part of pyridinebases. Three liters of this mixture are added to 100 liters of 
 pure alcohol. The substance named must stand the tests described in the appended 
 supplement. 
 
 Art. 9. Only such menstrua may be used as have been produced in designated fac- 
 tories under Government supervision, tested by a Government chemist, and kept in 
 vessels bearing the Government seals. Suitable vessels of glass, earthenware, and 
 metal only are allowed. In case the seal is broken, the chief office may allow the use 
 of the contents of the vessel, if the breaking ma.v be supposed to have happened acci- 
 dentally and the chemist's examination proves the menstruum to be of the right com- 
 position. The owner pays for the examination. Manufacturers who have been 
 privileged to manufacture the menstruum must admit the Government's officers and 
 chemists to the rooms where the compound is made and stored. The chief revenue 
 officers are entitled to an inspection of all the books relating to the manufacture and 
 shipping of the compound. A suitable room must be reserved, equipped with all the 
 apparatus and reagents needed for testing the menstruum and its components, also 
 liecessary assistance has to be furnished. 
 
 Art. 10. Manufacturers may be allowed to mix alcohol for their own use with one- 
 half liter of pyridinebases (of the prescribed quality) to 100 liters of pure alcohol, 
 under such limitations as are described in article 9. 
 
 In the manufacture of vinegar this percentage of pyridinebases may be substituted 
 hy a mixture of 100 per cent, of water and 100 per cent, of vinegar, containing 6 per 
 cent, of acetic acid (the hydrate) or of 100 per cent, of water and 50 per cent, of vin- 
 egar, containing 12 per cent, of acid. In calculating the amount of water to be 
 added any excess of vinegar previously added and the quantity of water contained in 
 the alcohol may be taken into consideration, if the manufacturer wishes so. For 
 water, beer, or yeast, water may be substituted. Until further notice the following 
 menstrua may be used : 
 
 In the manufacture of — 
 
 (a) All kinds of lacquers and varnishes (on the premises where the alcohol is 
 treated) : one-half per cent, of spirits of turpentine. 
 
 (b) Fulminate of mercury : one-half per cent, of spirits of turpentine or one-fourth 
 per cent, of bone oil. 
 
 (c) Aniline dyes : one-fourth per cent, of bone oil. 
 
 (d) Chemicals. 
 
 (1) Alkaloids: one-half per cent, of spirits of turpentine or one-fourth per cent, of 
 bone oil. 
 
 (2) Medicinal extracts, as f. i. jalap or scammony resin: one-half per cent, of spirits 
 of turpentine. 
 
 (3) Chloroform, iodoform, sulphuric ether, antipyrine from acetic ether, hydrate of 
 chloral : one-fourth per cent, of bone oil. 
 
 (4) Collodion, tannic acid, salicylic acid, and salicylates: 10 per cent, of sulphuric 
 ether. 
 
 (5) White lead and acetates (sugar of lead) : one-fonrth per cent, of bone oil. 
 The above described ways of treatment may take place solely for the reported pur- 
 pose and in the factory of the applicant. The sale of such alcohol is inadmissible. 
 
 Art. 11. The mixing takes place either at the Government domicile or on applica- 
 tion at the'place of business of the respective manufacturer, distiller, or wholesaler 
 in the presence of two revenue officers, one of whom should be one of high rank, as 
 a rule. The officers have to pay special attention that the alcohol be not previously 
 sophisticated and that the mixing be performed in a thorough manner. If there is 
 no revenue office in the place where the applicant is in business, he has to hear the 
 whole expenses of the officer's visit, provided they have no other functions to perform 
 in the place and are not on one of tlieir regular trips. The mixing is done in con- 
 formit.v with Ibe regulations on ascertaining the strength of alcohol and those quan- 
 tities of alcohol for which a rebate is claimed when exported. 
 
 Art. 12. All manufacturers, with exception of the vinegar-makers, who have been 
 granted permission to employ menstrua different from the ordinary, have to keep a 
 
1296 EEVISION OF THE TAUIFF. 
 
 book whicli accounts for all the alcohol coming iu and going out. This book must 
 be accessible to the revenue inspectors at any time. On request ot the ottce a state- 
 ment must be furnished. At least once annually an official inventory must be taken. 
 In the case of discrepancies up to 10 per cent, the taking of legal steps is left to the 
 
 discretion of the office. ,,-,-,-, , -j. t, i . j. 
 
 If the interests of the revenue department should demand it wholesalers, too, and 
 such manufacturers as use the ordinary menstruum, may be ordered to keep such a 
 
 Art 13 Alcohol mixed with a special menstruum can only be stored in the reported 
 rlace ' In all those cases where the keeping of a special book has been ordered (article 
 12) it'may be directed to store all the alcohol, treated with the ordinary menstruum, 
 iu one place, *he location of which has to be reported. 
 
 Aet 14. Manufacturers using mixed alcohol, who at the same time are engaged in 
 a business where pure alcohol is employed for which a return of the tax paid is not 
 asked ( f i manulacturers of liqueurs) are obliged to keep the branches entirely 
 separate The same applies to manufacturers who use iu one department alcohol 
 mixed with the ordinary menstruum and in another department alcohol treated with 
 a special one. Exceptions may be granted by the revenue department, provision to 
 be made for due supervision. i, • , ^ j. j.i , 
 
 Art 15 The officers of the revenue department have the right to enter the places 
 at any time, where mixed alcohol is used, stored, or sold, to inspect the supplies, and 
 to take samples. The interested parties are obliged to render the necessary assistance 
 and on request to show the supplies and state their quantity according to special in- 
 formation of the department. Anv desired information on the management of affairs 
 must be given to the officers, the chief officers ; besides, must be allowed access to the 
 books, bills, etc., on their request. ,,-,., ^, en 
 
 Art 16 (a) Vinegar-makers are allowed to have alcohol of less than 80 per cent. 
 Tralles treated, thelimit is 3,Sper cent. (6) In the building where vinegar is prepared, 
 or in the adjoining buildings, no still is allowed. In cases of necessity the de^ 
 partment may grant exceptions and establish due supervision, (c) If it is intended 
 to mix alcohol for the manufacture of vinegar with water and vinegar, the applica- 
 tion must be written on the blank of specified form. In this case there must be an 
 immovable vessel in the establishment, standardized by the Department and pro- 
 vided with a gauge for reading off the level. The testing of the vinegar to be added 
 to the alcohol is performed as described in the appended suplement. 
 
 Article 17 treats of the book-keeping of the Government's offices. 
 
 Article 18 of the penalties. .. , ^,, „■, ■ma-' 
 
 Article 19 treats of regulations for the period of transition up to October 31, lo8(, 
 when the above provisions become a law. 
 
 SULPHURIC ACID. 
 
 [See ante, page 354.] 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF THOMAS McDOUGAIi. 
 
 Cincinnati, February 14, 1890. 
 
 Sir : If all the sulphuric acid manufacturers who use pyrites' were to make acid from 
 sulphur ore, the entire quantity of ore used in the United States would not exceed 
 150,000 tons per annum. The entire amount of iron ore used in this country must bo 
 somewhere at least from 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 tons. As the pyritios ore iron cinder 
 is only 40 per cent, of its contents you can see that the 50,000 or 00,000 tons of cinder, 
 even if it could be used profitably as iron ore, could not affect substantially the iron 
 ore industry of this country. 
 
 We do not seek to release the duty from iron cinder that might be imported into 
 this country from England or elsewhere. We simply ask that the duty on sulphur 
 ore, 75 cents a ton, be removed. 
 
 When I appeared before the committee I endeavored to state to the committee 
 frankly and fairly the situation. 
 
 There is one concern in New York, Messrs. G. H. Nichols & Co., that uses exclu- 
 sively copper pyrities, and is the largest acid manufacturer in the East. Thatconcem 
 imports its ore from Capleton, Canada, and is the owner of the only deposit of that 
 class of ore on this continent, save and except the Eustis mine, which takes from the 
 same vein . Other parties in Canada are endeavoring to find a like deposit, but have 
 not succeeded to this dal;e with such certainty as to warrant them in saying-that itis 
 chore. 
 
 The Bergcnport Chemical Company of New York, claims to have an ore which it 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 1297 
 
 imports from Newfoundland, and views this matter substantially as the Nichols 
 concern does. 
 
 The Pennsylvania Sale Company, of Philadelphia, imports ore from the Eio Tinto 
 mines, Spain. That company pays the 75 cents duty per ton on the aulphurore be- 
 cause the Spanish ore has less than 3^ per cent, of copper. The Nichols cimceru 
 claims that its ore which it imports has over 3^ per cent, copper, and, therefore, does 
 not pay the 75 cents per ton duty, hut obtains the sulphur and iron contents of its 
 ore free. The Spanish ore and the ore used by the Nichols concern has substantially 
 the same percentage of sulphur and iron cinder. Yet under the law as it now stands, 
 the importer that has the most valuable percentage of copper obtains his iron cinder 
 and sulphur free ; whereas the importer who has the less valuable per cent, of copper 
 is additionally burdened with 75 cents per ton because of the iron cinder and sulphur 
 contents. 
 
 The deposits in Virginia of pure iron pyrites that may be resisting the application 
 of the parties represented by me are of such a quality and so limited in amount that 
 the parties that 1 represent who have been using to some extent that ore have been 
 compelled to look for other sources of supply to meet the present needs of their busi- 
 ness, to say nothing of the future. They have found an ore in Canada, and ii'respect- 
 ive of its copper contents, which are not yet of such a fixed character as to enable 
 them to say definitely, desire the removal of the 75 cents per ton on the sulphur and 
 iron contents. No reason at all can be assigned why the sulphur and iron contents 
 of the iron pyrites should be burdened 75 cents per ton, whereas the sulphur and iron 
 contents of the copper pyrites are admitted free. It is not possible, as far as we can 
 see, for the importation of the ore to interfere with any of the existing deposits in 
 this country. The quantity existing here is so very limited, and the rates of freight 
 are such as necessarily to limit the territory which they can supply, that it seems 
 unnecessary to argue that the entire United States, east, west, north and south, 
 should not be affected by the small deposits confined to a limited territory, and pro- 
 tected by freight from any competition from Canada. 
 
 I recognize that those who use copper pyrites, and are thus favored in having an 
 ore which has a larger percentage of copper than those who use what is classed as 
 sulphur ore, are in favor of maintaining the 75 cents per ton duty on sulphur ore, be- 
 cause it makes it that much more expensive for their competitors. 
 
 In other words, the Nichols concern, not paying 75 cents per ton for its ore, because 
 its ore claims to have 4 per cent, and over of copper, is interested in compelling the 
 Pennsylvania Salt Company to pay 75 cents per ton on its ore, because it is that much, 
 in favor of the Nichols concern in competition in the open market. No such discrim- 
 ination ought to be possible under any taritf law. 
 
 If there is to be a duty it should operate equally, and not favor one manufacturer 
 against the other ; and that, too, when the discrimination does not operate as a pro- 
 tection of any other industry in this country, but is exacted as a burden from a man- 
 ufacturing industry in this country. 
 
 It must seem clear to the committee that that state of affairs should not exist ; and 
 it ought to seem equally clear, as we view it, that the solution of it is to remove 75 
 cents per ton duty on sulphur ore containing 3i per celat. of copper or less, while 
 maintaining the duty on the copper contents. 
 
 I have endeavored to make this as plain as I could, and would be pleased to be fur- 
 nished with a copy of any argument or statistics that have beon furnished to the com- 
 mittee in opposition to the views we entertain. 
 
 Trusting to hear from you at an early day, with regards. 
 Yours truly, 
 
 Thomas McDougall. 
 
 Hon. William McKlnxey, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 BEVEIED GLASS. 
 STATEMENT OP J. R. DONNELLY, 
 
 Mr. J. R. Donnelly, of J. E. Donnelly & Co., 303 and 305 Park avenue, Brooklyn, 
 N. Y., appeared before the committee on February 13 and spoke as follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I sent a petition to yon through 
 our representative, Mr. Wallace ; but coming to Washington I thought I would ap- 
 pear before you and perhaps explain some points with which you might not be fa- 
 miliar. Now, I asked in that petition for a specific duty. An ad valorem duty has 
 been a great trouble to us right along. It places the goods, different grades, differ ■ 
 ent valuations, on a basis hard to get at, and has been a great stumbling-block, es- 
 pecially where cut and beveled glass comes in. 
 
 485 82 
 
1298 REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 The particular industry I represent is beveling on plate-^lass. After plate-glass 
 is made, it is beveled. Beveled glass is really cut glass and is the same price. Pre- 
 vious to'l883 beveled glass paid the same duty as cut glass, 45 per cent, ad valorem, and 
 in 1883 importers discovered that there was a loophole in the tariff. Schedule B, 
 paragraph 16, on page 13 reads: "Articles of glass, cut, engraved, painted, colored, 
 printed, stained, silvered, or gilded, not including plate-glass, silvered, or looking- 
 glass plates, 45 per centum ad valorem." , , . 
 
 You see that little word "not" they took advantage of, and claimed that it in- 
 cluded beveled glass. 
 
 Q. Suppose the provision read 16 inches by 24 inches square, 5 cents per square 
 foot ; above that and not exceeding 24 by 30 inches square, 8 cents per square foot ; 
 above that and not exceeding 24 by 60 inches square, 25 cents per square foot ; all 
 above that, 50 cents per square foot ; and then that plate-glass, silvered or unsilvered, 
 ground, enameled, beveled, edged, engraved, stained, colored, or otherwise ornamented 
 should take 10 per cent, in addition to the rates I have read ? 
 
 A. That is the very point; 10 per cent, is too low, we might as well have no duty ; 
 the 10 per cent, additional would be on the engraving, cutting, silvering, etc., and 
 that would not be enough. 
 
 Q. This specific duty is levied on plate-glass ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir ; and we ask in addition to that a duty on beveling ; but if you only 
 give us 10 per cent, that is too low ; it is really 10 per cent, ad valorem for the oper- 
 ation of beveling. The plate-glass — polished plate-glass in that state is raw material 
 only to us. We take it then aud bevel it. 
 
 Q. Now, take a square foot of plate-glass, how much would it cost to bevel that? 
 
 A. It is not beveled all over the surface, it is only 1 inch wide by 1|. 
 
 Q. How much would it cost to bevel 1 foot of square glass ? 
 
 A. It would cost, say, 1 inch wide, 24 cents. Now we pay $10 or $12 a week for 
 labor, and I should think that a specific duty of 45 or 50 per cent, would be fair. We 
 ask no more protection than other industries have. 
 
 Q. Now suppose a specific duty on cast polished plate-glass, silvered, etc., of 6 
 cents per square foot ? 
 
 A. That is raw material to us. 
 
 Q. How much ad valorem should be added to compensate for the beveling oper- 
 ation ? 
 
 A. Well, 45 or 50 per cent, of the beveling in addition to the duty paid as plate-glass 
 would be fair. 
 
 Q. How does beveling compare with enameling ? 
 
 A. I can not say, sir ; I am only talking about the interest with which I am con- 
 cerned ; but I think if you put a duty of 45 per cent, on enameled glass that you will 
 bring that trade back to the United States. It has gone now. Now think, they 
 bring this enameled glass in and pay duty as window glass, consequently the enamel- 
 ing comes in free ; and enameled glass therefore comes in cheaper than ordinary window- 
 glass. Thousands and thousands of feet are brought in here. I know a man in Brook- 
 lyn who has been in that business and gone out of it ; aud I am satisfied he could 
 start again as soon as a duty was put on. 
 
 Q. What I want to know is what are different operations through which glass is 
 put, common glass and plate-glass. One of the operations is crowning, another is 
 enameling, another beveling, another edging, another engraving, another staining, 
 etc. ; now which of these operations is the more expensive ? 
 
 A. I think edging. 
 
 Q. Which next ? 
 
 A. I think cutting — I beg pardon cutting would come first ; and they are import- 
 ing cut glass and paying only ordinary duty. 
 
 Q. What I want to know is what is the difference between the expense of beveling, 
 edging, engraving, staining, coloring, etc. Some of these operations are more expen- 
 sive than others. What would be the difference between the most expensive and the 
 least expensive ? 
 
 A. There would be quite a difference, according to the work put on it. In the 
 iirst place cutting would come ; that is, cutting in the ornamental designs ; next would 
 be edging; next in my judgment, would be coloring; then would come beveling; 
 after beveling would come roughing and engraving. 
 
 Q. Do you think the words in the text include cut glass? 
 
 A. I should put in the word "cut" also, I think. Now the fact is that a man 
 would get from $10 to |12 a week here, where he would only get .35 cents a day on the 
 other side ; and hence an increase of but 10 per cent, would not benefit us. It should 
 be 45 at least, in addition to plate-glass, and to cover all sizes. 
 
 Q. How much would that increase the price of glass? 
 
 A. It would increase it according to the work put on it. 
 
 Q. What would be the difference in looking-glass; how much would it add to the 
 cost per foot ? 
 
EE VISION OP THE TARIFF. 1299 
 
 A. If you put on cutting you could add $1.50, or 50 cents per foot. I really con- 
 tend that we would be Just as well oflf without as with merely a 10 per cent, addi- 
 tional duty. 
 
 Q. How would 25 per cent, do ? 
 
 A. I should have to be satisfied with what you say, but I think we ought to have 
 4& per cent, at least ; we should have the same protection as other glass. Our indus- 
 try is just as important and will grow. 
 
 I would like to say here something about German plate-glass. I believe a petition 
 or paper has been laid before you asking for an advance. German plate is window- 
 glass polished, polished the same as plate-glass. None is made in this country. 
 Common window-glass plated, ground and polished is called " crystal," and when it 
 is silvered it is called "'German plate." Now the largest importers in New York 
 city are Sessions, Baohe & Co. They have a large factory oa the other side, and 
 when I was here before a committee of the Forty-ninth Congress one of the firm said 
 to me, "Well, you want to shut out German plate, do you?" I replied, "That is 
 what I desire ; " and he answered, "Well, do you know what we would dot We 
 would come over here and build a factory right m New Jersey and make all the Ger- 
 man plate we wanted, and shut you out all the same." I said that is what we want. 
 Bring it here and pay the same wages that we do and we will be satislled. We are 
 willing to have you do that ; and if an extra duty would shut this glass out for the 
 time being, they would soon come here. 
 
 Q. You say German plate is common window-glass polished ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir ; and there is none produced here or polished in this country. 
 
 Q. Why ? 
 
 A. I don't know. I think our men are not acquainted with the trade. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether it could be produced here ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. Why not, when you can produce plate-glass? We can produce window- 
 glass as well as they can. There is crystal plate on the one hand and German plate 
 on the other; put a duty on the German plate and you will briug that industry to this 
 country. 
 
 Q. What is your objection to letting German plate come in free ? 
 
 A. Because if it comes in free it places beveled glass at a disadvantage. I go a 
 step further, and ask a duty on beveling in addition to the regular duty. The fact is 
 the industry of beveling is getting so great that we will soon shut out German plate. 
 
 Q. You say we don't produce it here ? 
 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. What is the present rate of duty ? 
 
 A. The same rate as on plate-glass, fluted and polished. 
 
 Q. What per cent. 1 
 . A. It pays a specific duty, the same duty as polished plate-glass, cylinder glass pol- 
 ished, 2-1 cents a square foot. 
 
 Q. Now, what per cent, of duty is that, ad valorem? 
 
 A. I don't know ; they have regular tariff for it. 
 
 Q. And sell it at a discount ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir ; sometimes at a discount of 20 or 30 per cent. oflf. 
 
 Q. What is the diflference between German glass and plate glass ? 
 
 A. German plate-glass is window-glass, thick window-glass, fluted first, then 
 ground and poUshed. Plate-glass is glass that is cast, half an inch thick and beveled ; 
 it is without any veins, ground down and polished. 
 
 Q. Are the sizes different ? 
 
 A. No, sir ; the sizes are the same, but in large windows you have plate and in small 
 you have crystal plate-glass. 
 
 Q. I mean German glass ; are they different sizes ? 
 
 A. In one place you can use plate-glass and in small houses you can use crystal plate- 
 glass. 
 
 Q. Where would you put German plate-glass ? 
 
 A. Use it in pictures and in windows. 
 
 Q. It does not compete t 
 
 A. Yes, sir ; it is a finer grade of window-glass ; it comes in competition with plate- 
 glass as mirrors. 
 
 Q. You say it is not produced here at all ; why not let it come in free ? 
 
 A. Well, because it would interfere with plate-glass. 
 
 Q. German silver glass is common glass, simply ground, polished, and silvered f 
 
 A. Yes, sir; that is German silver glass. 
 
 Q. It is not made here, because the duty is so low that it enables the Germans to im- 
 port it at a profit? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have we ever made it here, or tried to ? 
 
 A. No, sir ; it requires quite a plant to make it, and some capital, too, 
 
 Q. How much? 
 
 A. I don't know. 
 
1300 REVISION OF THE TAKIPP. 
 
 Q. As I understand it, German glass is that which is not clear or bright enough for 
 ordinary purposes until it is ground ? 
 
 A. No, sir; German glass is window-glass, cylinder glass; but it is good for window- 
 glass. You see plate-glass has really to be a better grade of window-glass, as the pol- 
 ishing and grinding show up all the imperfections, air-bubbles, stains, etc. 
 
 Q. We make lots of window-glass here, don't wo ?. 
 
 A. 0, yes, sir. There is 15 per cent, duty on that. 
 
 CHEMICAL GLASSWARE. 
 
 STATEMENT OF R. M. TATEM. 
 
 Washington, D. C, Friday, February 14, 1890. 
 
 Mr. E. M. Tatem, of Philadelphia, Pa., appeared and addressed the committee. He 
 said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear to speak on chemical glass- 
 ware. The company of Whitall, Tatem & Co., of Philadelphia and New York, make 
 chemical glassware. The industry is comparatively new. It grew out of the Centen- 
 nial exhibit of 1876. Before that time this ware was generally imjiorted. 
 
 Under the present ad valorem duty we are satisfied with our protection. But if 
 this duty is changed to specific, and is levied on the weight of the glass, it will greatly 
 injure the domestic manufacture; for it will practically put chemical glassware on 
 the free list. This is because one of its essential characteristics is its light weight, 
 which is required to make it stand high degrees of heat and quick changes of temper- 
 ature without breaking. As compared with the weight of a common bottle, see sam- 
 ple of a'bottle at 24 ounces weight and a beaker at 4 ounces weight; the bottle sells 
 for 5 cents, and the beaker for 25 cents. At 1 cent per pound the tariff on the bottle 
 is 3:^ per cent., and on the beaker is one-fourth of 1 per cent. And so of other shapes 
 even more than this. When the Tariff Commission of 1H83 recommended changing 
 glassware to a specific duty, we called the attention of Senator Hill, of Colorado, him- 
 self a practical chemist, to this effect of chemical glassware. He said such an effect 
 was not intended, and that it was a mistake to so rate it, and at his suggestion the 
 phrase " chemical glassware " was inserted among other lines that were retained on 
 the ad valorem list, and this was continued in the "Mills" bill. (See page 14, line 
 146.) 
 
 In the Senate bill used as a substitute for the "Mills" bill chemical glassware is 
 omitted from the ad valorem list. (See page 98, section 109.) 
 
 It does not seem to be the intention of the present tariff revision to make a sweep- 
 ing reduction in other lines of glassware, and we therefore hope this may not be the 
 case with chemical glassware. We believe the light weight of chemical glassware 
 has been overlooked in removing it from the ad valorem list, and we respectfully ask 
 that it be retained there as heretofore. 
 
 Mr. DlNGLEY. What did the Senate bill do with chemical glassware ? 
 
 Mr. Atwater. It was omitted from the Senate bill. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. What is the present duty ? 
 
 Mr. Atwater. It is 45 per cent, ad valorem, and entirely sufficient. 
 
 Mr. Gbar. Chemical glassware does not come under the head of vials ? 
 
 Mr. Atwater. No, sir ; it is properly chemical glassware. 
 
 Mr. DlNGLEY. You will be perfectly content to let it remain at 45 per cent, ad va- 
 lorem t 
 
 Mr. Atwater. Perfectly. 
 
 Mr. DlNGLEY. The committee proposes to grant as much aa that. 
 
 Mr. Atwater. I am very much obliged to you. 
 
 FRENCH WINDOW-GLASS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THEODORE "W. MORRIS. 
 
 Thursday, February 20, 1890. 
 
 Mr. Theodore W. Morris, of New York City, addressed the committee on Feb- 
 ruary 20. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we appreciate the courtesy of the 
 members of the committee in permitting us to be heard this morning in the interest 
 of the importers of French window-glass. The importers of Boston, New York, and 
 Philadelphia have requested a committee of three to avail themselves of your kind- 
 ness to make a very simple presentation of the facts. The importation of Frenph 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1301 
 
 window-glass in this country is an industry, we maintain, which deserves some con- 
 siderationi and the importers have always very patiently and very gladly consented 
 to whatever has been deemed the best policy on the part of the Government in refer- 
 ence to the duty on window-glass; but unfortunately there has been some misappre- 
 hension as to the extent of the duty levied upon imported glass and to the relations 
 that exist between the imported industry and the domestic industry, and we have 
 thought it desirable to brieiiy and clearly lay before this committee some facts that 
 are susceptible of proof from documents that are in possession of tbe Government. 
 The ad valorem equivalent in 1861 or rather the ad valorem rate was 15 per cent. 
 
 The Chairman (Mr. Burrows in the chair). What are you speaking of? 
 
 Mr. Morris. Of common window-glass. In 1861 the ad valorem duty was 15 per 
 cent, .ind to-day — I am taking the experience of the three past years from sworn 
 statements of seven or eight of priuoipal importers of this country, representing 
 probably 95 per cent, of the importation — it pays an average ad valorem duty of 100 
 to 130 per cent. That is the increase of 1861. We are informed without any positive 
 anthority that the American manufacturers have requested this committee to levy 
 an additional duty upon this article, as I understand it, to restore it to the rate of the 
 1883 tariff, I think. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. To restore it to what it was before the 1883 tariif. 
 
 Mr. Morris. To restore it to the rate at which it was before the existing taritf. 
 The existing rate on the four brackets, as it is technically known in the trade (it is 
 immaterial to state now the nature of the bracket), is If, IJ, 2f, and2f, and I think 
 the effect of the restoration would be to add one-eighth per pound on each bracket. 
 
 The Chairman. This is the existing law. 
 
 Mr. Morris. Yes, sir, and as I understand the proposition made by the American 
 manufacturers is to restore ittothe old tariif, adding one-eighth of a cent a pound to 
 each"of these brackets. The importation of foreign glass is practically in competi- 
 tion no longer with the American. That is generally conceded by the intelligent 
 majority of the American manufacturers. The importer certainly concedes the fact 
 that they furnish 75 per cent of the consumption of this country. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You mean the domestic manufacturers furnish that ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. Yes, sir. The importers concede that fact. We probably furnish 25 per 
 cent, of the consumption, and that is mainly of the higher grade of glass, with which 
 tbere is but little if any competitiou by the American industry. Now here is a sig- 
 nificant illustration in the fact that the current prices to-day go to confirm that state- 
 ment that there is practically little competition between the foreign and the domestic. 
 From my own experience in the contracting and purchase is that the American to-day 
 is from 32 to 35 per cent, below the foreign glass. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. You mean the foreign value, duty paid ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. Yes, sir; I mean the foreign glass is offered for sale here with duty 
 and freight and all the incidentals, profits, everything added to it ; that the selling 
 price to-day of the American is from 32 to 35 per cent, below the selling price of the 
 foreign glass. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Of a corresponding class ? 
 
 Ml-. Morris. Of a corresponding class, corresponding sizes, showing conclusively 
 there is a margin of 32 per cent in which the American glass is below the price of the 
 foreign ; that is true this very day. Now the foreign importers represent, as I say, but 
 a small interest, contributing to tbe revenues of the Government probably a milliou 
 and a half to two millions of dollars per annum, and probably employing four hun- 
 dred to five hundred laborers ; but it is not a foreign interest. We are not repre- 
 sentatives of foreign companies or foreign capital. We are all American citizens, 
 and some of us enjoyed the honor of service in the Army. We have our local repu- 
 tation fixed and our interests are entirely in harmony with the great interests of this 
 country. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I wish you to state before you go too far from it a little more 
 fully why it is that this imported glass does not compete with the American glass. 
 Is it because the glass is of a different kind from any that we manufacture ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. Yes, sir, I think I can answer that. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Please bring that out a little more fully. 
 
 Mr. Morris. The principal reason why the difference is so great is because of the 
 higher grades of the foreign glass. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I am not speaking of the difference, I am speaking of a par- 
 ticular point, that the kind of glass we import does not compete with any glass that 
 we make ; show how that is. 
 
 Mr. Morris. That is because of th at reason ; because of its quality being much bet- 
 ter. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It is a matter of taste. 
 
 Mr. Morris. Not altogether, but it is a matter of taste to some extent. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is that plate-glass? 
 
 Mr, Morris. No, sir ; common window-glass. For example, take a picture. If you 
 
1302 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 have a fine picture you want to frame, or flue engraving, you could not get the kind 
 of glass that would suit you altogether made here, and you would prtor to frame 
 that engraviug with a pane of imported glass. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Of French glass. 
 
 Mr. Morris. Yes, sir. By the way, the phraseology of the tariff act has always 
 beeua wouder to those in the trade by the use of the word " common." That has 
 gone through successive tariffs as common window-glass. Why it is called that we 
 have neverliad any idea, because it covers not only the smaller sizes and poorer qual- 
 ities, but the same" classification covers the best glass made in the world, that which 
 is very extensively used for the best purposes, and yet it all comes under that classi- 
 fication as common window-glass. 
 
 Mr. Geak. I suppose it grew out of the large use of small sizes. 
 
 Mr. Morris. I presume that is the explanation of it partly; I presume because the 
 majority of the sizes consumed were smaller. 
 
 The Chairman. Do they not manufacture the bettor kinds of glass in this coun- 
 try? 
 
 Mr. Morris. The percentage of what is called the first quality is very small. 
 
 The Chairman. But can they manufacture it in this country ? 
 
 Mr. MoiiKis. I presume so, but I should think that if they could they would have 
 done it, for it is a safe proposition to make if they could make the better quality they • 
 would get the larger net results from it, and that is a thing greatly to be desired. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You say that the imported glass sells from 32 to 35 per cent, higher 
 than the glass made here. 
 
 Mr. Morris. The imported price to-day over American glass is from 32 to 35 per 
 cent. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Does this relate to grades of glass you are talking about ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. This is on the common grades, third quality. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Which does not apply to the inquiries fust made. 
 
 Mr. Morris. No, sir, but I presume the relation will be about the same. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. Are you familiar with the foreign prices paid for the manufact- 
 ure of this glass ; I mean in regard to labor f 
 
 Mr. Morris. Not offlcially. I have a general idea that the higher grade of labor's 
 compensation is about the same because their international labor association has 
 charge of the matter, and the higher grades of skilled labor, I think, are paid very 
 much the same in the two countries now, except possibly in England. I do not know 
 in regard to England. 
 
 Mr. Flower. That is true in regard to the trades-union, where they protect them- 
 selves as against the manufacturer. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Can you find out for us the selling price of this better grade of 
 foreigu glass you have just been talking about and the selling price of the American 
 manufacture ; I mean of the same kind? 
 
 Mr. Morris. Yes, sir; I think I have the list here and can get it for you in a mo- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Is that single err double strength ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. Both the single and the double show about the same ; they are on the 
 same basis. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Will you furnish a list of the prices of both grades ? 
 
 Mr. MoRitis. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Is there any glass made here of precisely the same grade as the 
 grade you import ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. I have not seen any. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Therefore you can not make a comparison. 
 
 Mr. Morris. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Caelisle. It is the same size ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. Undoubtedly. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. But not the same quality of glass. 
 
 Mr. Morris. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. I wish you would please furnish the cost of all the sizes of the imported 
 glass and the cost of the American glass. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Governor Gear spoke of double-strength glass ; I understand 
 that does not mean glass of better quality ? 
 Mr. Morris. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. It was used in a connection that seemed to be the same we 
 were talking about. 
 Mr. Morris. It is simply a heavier glass. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. We are speaking not simply of the weight, but of the character 
 of the glass, its superior quality; but that may vary in weight, I presume, like any 
 other grade of glass, and if you can not give us the difference in the price between 
 these higher grades of glass and that which we import, at least give us the difference 
 between the prices of this foreign glass of that character and such American glass 
 used as a substitute, and which most nearly approximates it. 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 1303 
 
 Mr. Morris. You mean tlie price of the foreign glass as we pay for it on the other 
 side. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. No, sir ; the market price here, and say whether or not the 
 duty is sufflcient. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Let me suggest that he includes all these sizes : 8 by 10, 10 by 24, etc. 
 
 Mr. Morris. If I am not required to submit that at present I will take more paius 
 with it and submit it later. I would like to say the question of thickness has nothing 
 to do with the question of quality. 
 
 Mr. Gkar. Be sure your comparison is made like for like, and we want the price of 
 both single and double. 
 
 The Chairman. You will make that statement and send it to the committee. 
 
 Mr. Morris. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What is the current rate of discount on foreign glass ? 
 
 Mr. Morris. Seventy-five, per cent., 10 per cent., and 5 per cent. I will provide 
 that statement and send it here at a subsequent day. We trust that your honorable 
 committee will not find it necessary to the life of the American industry to add addi- 
 tional burdens to those already laid upon the importers of window glass. It would 
 seem to us that the existence of the American manufacturer need not demand the 
 extinction of the American importer. 
 
 STRAW GOODS. 
 STATEMENT OF "WM. T. BRIGHAM. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Bepresentatives : 
 
 Desiring to present my personal views regarding a change in the tariff upon the 
 article of straw-plaits or straw-braids, and learning the preference your body has 
 expressed for arguments submitted in writing, I take this method of presenting for 
 your consideration a statemeut of facts, which may possibly bring your conclusions 
 in substantial agreement wiih theseutiuieut, I think, of all of those whose business is 
 identified with this article of commerce — that the tariff duties now imposed upon 
 these goods should be entirely removed. 
 
 Protection implies, as the writer understands it, the discouragGment of foreign 
 competition, not the interference with home industry, and the enhancement of prices 
 to the American consumer, the simple and safe rule in its application being to re- 
 strict foreign importation by a reasonable duty on what we can or do produce, and 
 to exempt from duty that which wo can not produce ; and as straw-plaits (the raw 
 material for straw hats) are in the latter class, they are, therefore, I think, entitled 
 to come in free. 
 
 Straw-plaits, or as commonly termed, straw-braids, are made from the straw of 
 cereals braided or plaited into lengths, expressly for manufacture into hats and 
 bonnets, the straw being the exclusive product of the soil and climate of other 
 countries, and is not raised in the United States of a quality to suit the requirements 
 of trade. 
 
 The making or plaiting of the straw (the hand-work of the cheapest labor of for- 
 eign countries) is carried on by the poorest and least intelligent classes, and even if 
 we could raise desirable material for its manufacture, straw-plaiting would never 
 prove a iirofitable occupation to our people. 
 
 The countries from which straw-braids are imported are China, Japan, Italy, 
 Switzerland, England, and Belgium mainly. Straw-plaits are used in this country 
 only in the manufacture of hats and bonnets, but in Germany and France the arti- 
 cle is converted into a variety of baskets, which are largely exported to the United 
 States. These articles, by the reduction of duties upon straw-plaits, might b« made 
 in this country, and a new industry thus created. 
 
 The present rate of duty upon these straw-plaits is 20 per cent. The value of which 
 annually imported into this country being rather above than under $3,000,000, upon 
 which the duties now paid to the Government are fully $600,000. 
 
 The capital invested in the straw goods manufacturing business of the United 
 States is estimated at |4,000,000, and the annual output of manufactured goods |12,- 
 000,000 to 114,000,000. 
 
 Admitting straw-plaits free of duty, while not detrimental to any American indus- 
 try, would greatly assist, encourage, and stimulate a steady-growing and important 
 business of the country. It would help the manufacturers of straw goods to the 
 amount now annually paid for duties, viz, $600,000 or more, virtually adding that 
 amount to the working capital of an important industry. This sum of $000,000 go- 
 ing as an increase of capital would be quickly absorbed in investments, in additional 
 facilities for the manufacture of straw products, thus giving increased employment 
 to American labor, not only in the erection of buildings and machinery, but in the 
 
1304 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 permanent support of a thousand additional males and females to be employed in the 
 new factories. 
 
 This argument, or rather plain statement of facts, should not be ignored as made 
 in the interests of a class, for admitting straw-plaits free would favor the public, the 
 laborer, and mechanic by a reduction to them in the cost of a necessary article of 
 wearing apparel, and would not lay the slightest burden upon any class in the coun- 
 try. 
 
 In view of the possible advantages to result from the deliberations of the Americas' 
 Conference, now in session, this question of duties upon straw-plaits is one of great 
 importance. 
 
 Straw hats and bonnets are a necessary article for comfort in southern and tropi- 
 cal countries, and such countries afford a large trade in these goods, and with new facil- 
 ities offered for trade with the countries of South America this should be one of tie 
 industries to be fostered. With the countries which are likely to extend to the man- 
 ufacturers of the United States earnest and encouraging inducements to cultivate 
 closer business relations, nothing would tend to check the chances of any successful 
 trade with them in this line of needful products as a continuance of the present 
 duties upon straw-plaits; on the contrary, allow straw-plaits to come to us free of 
 duty, and with a corresponding fair reduction of the duties now placed upon hat 
 trimmings we need not fear competition with England or France, who now supply 
 all South American countries with hats and bonnets. 
 
 The United States rightfully claims to possess in the manufacture of straw goods 
 some advantages superior to those of any foreign country. More extensive facto- 
 ries, superior machinery, and expertness in manufacture will allow our manufact- 
 urers to overcome any reasonable tax imposed upon hat trimmings that may be 
 thought necessary to protect the industry of that class existing in this country, and 
 at the same time meet foreign competition upon a fair if not equal ground. 
 
 These brief arguments are submitted in the hope that they may afford some infor- 
 mation upon a subject which I have assumed you would be very glad to have the 
 expressed views of others. 
 
 While not intending to diverge from the subject of my petition, I can not help add- 
 ing a brief remaik about the duties upon a kindred article in which the hat manu- 
 facturer is deeply interested, and which has been the source of so much vexatious 
 trouble to the Government, as well as to the hat manufacturer. I refer to hat trim- 
 mings. 
 
 The law, as originally made, intended (and with a wise discretion) that hat-bands 
 for men's and boys' hats should pay 20 per cent, duty, while to protect an American 
 industry, ribbons should pay 50 per cent. duty. 
 
 I suppose all the arguments you desire to hear upon these articles have been 
 presented, and, I judge, you are conversant with all the points relating to the fine 
 distinction between hat-bands and hat ribbons. 
 
 Now, as the American silk industry is one eutitled to protection, and while there 
 are in the United States no makers of hat-bands, it will require some judicious con- 
 struction of language to make the necessary " distinction without a difference," in 
 order to dispense fairness and justice where they belong. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 Wm. T. Beigham, 
 Of Brigham, HopTcins 4' Co., 
 Straw, Felt, and Silk Hat Manufacturers, Baltimore, Md. 
 
 We, the undersigned straw-hat manufacturers of Baltimore, indorse the arguments 
 of Mr. William T. Brigham, and join in the petition to have straw plaits or braids 
 entered in the revised tariff' list as among the articles allowed liee of duty. 
 
 Wilson, Frank & Horner. 
 
 TowNSEND, Grace & Co. 
 
 Brigham, Hopkins & Co. 
 
 OuDESLUTS Bros. 
 
 M. S. Levy & Sons. 
 
 Thomas D. Stokes. 
 
 Sdmnbr, Thompson & Whitney. 
 
 Baltimore Straw-Hat Works. 
 
 Wolford & Shilberg. 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 1305 
 
 PIANO ACTIONS. 
 STATEMENT OF OTTO W^ESSELL. 
 
 Thursday, February 27, 1890. 
 
 Mr. Otto Wessell, of tbe firm of Wessell, Nickel & Gross, of 457 West Forty-fifth 
 Street, New York, addressed the conjmittee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I represent the firm of Wessell, 
 Nickel & Co., and also represent all the piano-action manufacturers of the United 
 States. 
 
 In 1861, -when the Morrill tariff became a law, the piano industry of America was 
 in its infancy. Comparatively few pianos were made here and the actions used in 
 those pianos were principally made hy piano manufacturers themselves. Since that 
 time the piano industry has developed to such an extent that more pianos and of a 
 better grade are manufactured in the United States than in any other country. It is 
 estimated_ that the annual production amounts to seventy-five thousand pianos. 
 Each piaijo contains an action worth about from .$21 to $25,' and the graud oue from 
 $36 to .f42. As a natural consequence of this rapid development a number of in- 
 dustries sprung up for the purpose of supplying the parts and materials for pianos, 
 amongst which the piano-action mannfacturing business is one of the most important, 
 which gives employment to over two thousand people, mostly mechanics earning 
 on an average of $2.50 per day wages. 
 
 For the fir.st above stated reason the piano actions were not especially enumerated 
 in the Morrill tariff, and the European manufacturers of piano actions, seeing the 
 immense opportunity of selling their goods here, have, during the last three to four 
 years, made great efforts with considerable success, to sell their actions in compe- 
 tition with those of American make, entering those actions as "parts of musical in- 
 struments" and paying a duty of only 25 per cent. 
 
 As a matter of fact wages in European action factories are not even one-half of 
 the wages paid here. One-half of the value of an action represents labor, the other 
 half material, which latter again consists of 50 per cent, for lumber and 50 per cent, 
 for metal goods, buckskin leather, and woolens (manufactures of wool), the metal 
 paying 45 per cent, duty and the woolens about 78 per cent. 
 
 For the reason that the tariff does not protect the American manufacturers of 
 "woolen goods sufficiently, the American cloth manufacturer can not sell as cheap as 
 the European, and the action makers are compelled to import the fine cloth which 
 they use in their actions from Europe, paying 78 per cent, duty on the same. 
 
 It is certainly a glaring injustice that the American action manufacturer should 
 pay (1) twice as much for labor as his foreign competitor; (2) forty-five per 
 cent, duty on the metal goods which he uses, such as brass, steel, and iron; (3) 
 seventy-eight per cent, on the woolen goods which he consumes, and then be ex- 
 pected to meet the competition of the foreign manufacturer, who pays only 25 per 
 cent, on the manufactured product. 
 
 The importations of piano actions has continually increased during the last three 
 years and is still increasing, and the undersigned pray Congress to insert in the new 
 tariff bill a clause to the effect ihat "i)iano actions should pay a duty of 50 percent. 
 ad valorem," and further that the clause "parts of musical instruments" should be 
 omitted in order to avoid any misunderstanding or complications in future. 
 
 Judge Blatchford rendered a decision stopping the importation of ivory as " parts of 
 musical instruments," but we fail to see that this would apply to piano actions, 
 which arein all respects a "part of a musical instrument." 
 
 This proper classification of piano actions in the tariff which is asked will have no 
 effect on the home market regarding the price of American made actions. The home 
 competition will take careof the regulation of the prices of piano actions. In view of 
 the fact that the eight hour labor day will surely be introduced at a not fiir distant 
 period, and considering the American manufacturer will be compelled to pay the same 
 wages for eight hours as he now paysfor ten, the European manufacturer will have 
 an additional advantage over the American manufacturer, and unless tbe American 
 manufacturer gets the proper protection from Congress, this great industry, which 
 promises much more for the future, will be seriously crippled, if not eventually extin- 
 guished. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to mention that, besides the advantage of lower duties on his 
 finished product, and the lower wages, the European manufacturer has also the im- 
 mense advantage of lowpr rates for his factories, and consequently lower expenses 
 for his insurance, a lower rate of interest-for the capital employed, besides the fact 
 that a factory in Europe can be run with one-half the capital that is required in 
 the United States. We would further mentionthat incur estimate of labor in Europe 
 we considered the wages for men, while as a matter of fact two-thirds of all the 
 
1306 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 hands employed in European piano action factories are girls, earning from |1 to $2 a 
 ■week, or seventy-two hours work. 
 
 I am engaged iu the manufacture of piano actions, and am senior member of the 
 firm of Wessell, Nickel & Gross, in New York City. I am here to represent the piano 
 action manufacturers of the United States by their authority, acting jointly with my 
 firm iu presenting our case and the facts to you for your favorable consideration in 
 the legislation to be enacted, I trust, for our protection and the continuation of our 
 husiness, to which we have given years of labor and the investment of large capital 
 to create one of the most important aud growing industries of our great country. Of 
 course we must look to our legislators and oiBcials for this protection, so that we may 
 have the encouragement for our business in the future, and the safegaai'd of law for 
 our investment of capital, which, in common with all the great manufacturing in- 
 dustries that go to malce np the backbune and strength of the United States, need 
 similar consideration against shrewd, cunning, and adroit opposition among tbose 
 manufacturers of other countries who so skillfully seek to compete with us, and add 
 immensely to our difBculties. I am a mechanic in the line of piano actions, having 
 worked from the bench since I was seventeen years old as an apprentice, all through 
 the various brancbes of our business. Hence I can truly say I believe with due pro- 
 priety that I regard myself as thoroughly practical, and besides cau view the ques- 
 ■ tion of protecting this our industry, which may be justly classed among the " infant 
 ones," from the two-fold standpoint of employ^ and employer, when the views of its 
 protection are to be taken into consideration, on broad-gauge principles of national 
 policy, as well as justice to labor and capital in their joint fields of development of 
 the resources and prosperity of the country. Our firm now employs steadily about 
 five hundred men, and has a capital engaged in our factory of about $5.50,000, and 
 there is invested in the business, all told, in the United States, above |2,000,000 by 
 parties engaged in it. 
 
 We have been devoted to the manufacture of piano actions for about sixteen years 
 past, and were the first to undertake, in the face of great discouragement, the man- 
 ufacture in the United States of upright and grand piano actions. We invented and 
 perfected machinery, and suocessfully achieved the manufacture of upright piano 
 actions in this country for the fijst time, which had not been accomplished before 
 generally. Up to that time the manufacture had been exclusively controlled and 
 carried on in Europe. The square action preceded this kind of action, and was in 
 general use almost exclusively. Tbis was one of the advances, mechanically and 
 scientifically made, as to upright pianos in this country in the way of progress in onr 
 line, and we had to invent all our own implements and arrange them after much 
 trial and expense so as to work smoothly. The upright piano then came into demand 
 among our people. The result of all our sixteen years of labor, experiments, aud the 
 investment ol capital, making it a success, is now entirely applied to our factory 
 business aud constitutes the sum aud substance of all our efforts. All this is now at 
 the mercy of the laws of the United States, excepting iu so far as natural shrinkage 
 andvariationsof trade may alfeot it. From our success other upright piano action man- 
 ufactories have sprung up in New York, Massacluisetts, NewJersey andConnecticut, 
 thus illustrating what may be accomplished in this country when our business inter- 
 ests are protected by the laws, and the continuance of that protection is assured, to 
 capital invested and to the enterprise which directs it into the channels of that great 
 power of development, the manufacturing industry. 
 
 I therefore respectfully request on the part of the manufacturers of upright piano 
 actions in the United States, that the following clause be adopted by your committee 
 in the bill now under consideration ; 
 
 "Piano actions and parts thereof, 50 per cent, ad valorem." 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Are piano movements imported into this country completely 
 manufactured ? 
 
 Mr. Wessell. Yes, sir ; ready to be put into the piano. It needs putting the stems 
 on the butt, and putting the hammers on, so as to adjust, finish, and regulate it. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. You do not ask any change iu the rates of the materials from 
 which you manufacture? 
 
 Mr. Wessbl. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. Did you say that the movements now pay a duty of 25 per 
 cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Wessell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Pollette. How much of the worts of the movements is hand labor ! 
 
 Mr. Wessell. You mean hand labor t 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Wessell. Of course, every machine requires a man to work at it with his hands. 
 I should say it is about one-hali'. 
 
 Mr. Mills. We export a great many pianos f 
 
 Mr. Wessell. No, sir ; a very few. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. .1307 
 
 Mr. Mills. One piano manufacturer in New York City told me he exported a large 
 amount ot'liis manufacture to England; that was Mr. Steinway. 
 
 Mr. Wessell. Very few are exported from here. It is mere talk of the trade, 
 usual in it, to boom the business of the piano manufacturer in regard to this export. 
 
 Mr. Mills. If you make the piano cost more it will stop the exportation ? 
 
 Mr. Wessbll. This will not make the pianos cost more. We have competition 
 enough now, and we are merely trying to keep out this foreign competition in the 
 action. 
 
 Mr. Mills. But you are asking for an increase of duty on the movements, that will 
 make the pianos cost more. 
 
 Mr. Wessell. It will not make them cost more than at present. If they would not 
 encroach any more on our business in some new regard, and we are protected as I 
 now request on behalf of the piano-action manufacturers, we could afford to let the 
 present price we get for a piano action remain the same, and in time we could afford 
 to manufacture and sell cheaper in accordance with the healthy effects of good trade 
 and increased business. By the protection afforded to us in the tariff as now asked 
 by mo for piano actions we would feel encouraged to contiuue our business as it is 
 now, and keep our plant intact, otherwise not. 
 
 Mr. La. Follettk. What does the movement of a piano cost ? 
 
 Mr. Wessell. About $21 to |'25 in an upright piano action ; and for grand $36 to 
 $42. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you know what that costs abroad ? 
 
 Mr. Wessell. They sell it here at from $17 to $19. 
 
 The Chairman. What does that action cost here ? 
 
 Mr. Wessell. That action costs here about $21 to $2.5 ; that is, when it is manufact- 
 ured here. 
 
 The Chairman. So the difference is $4 or $6 in its first cost. 
 
 Mr. Wessell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. That is, it is sold at that price here duty paid. 
 
 Mr. Wessell. Yes, sir ; about $18. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. Is it superior to the American movement ? 
 
 Mr. Wessell. It is a good action, but we can make just as good actions here and 
 better. If you allow me, I will explain to you how this business came to be developed. 
 In former years there were a few uprights made. They were almost all square, and 
 a few grand. Since 1864 the upright pianos have come into use and favor. 
 
 Mr. Mills. I see from this book here (Statistical Report) we exported last year five 
 hundred and eighty-nine pianos, worth $191,316. 
 
 Mr. Wessell. There were manufactured about seventy-five thousand pianos in the 
 United States. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Precisely. What was imported ? 
 
 Mr. Wessell. There were probably four or five times as many imported as were 
 exported ; there are a great many more imported now. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Do we import pianos? 
 
 Mr. Wessell. We import pianos, but I do not know the exact number yearly. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 
 
 Mr. Wessell. What I want to state is, that when'the upright pi.inos came into use 
 in this country formerly there were only squares, and at that time the action cost 
 from $6 to $10, and of course there was no market for the European goods here. They 
 were mostly made by the manufacturers themselves here. From 1874 the upright 
 piano came into use constantly more and more. The action cost at that time 130, and 
 of course the Europeans saw then that they could get a market here and they gradually 
 encroached upon us. We started our factory in 1874. I was formerly employed in 
 Steinway's piano factory as assistant to the foreman. We have got a pretty good 
 factory, but the European manufacturers are coming down upon us all the time, and 
 we have to lower our prices so that we can not really employ good labor generally, 
 and will have to stop altogether if it continues. I could state how much capital is 
 invested in manufacturing piano actions in this country. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. Give us that. 
 
 Mr. Wessell. It is about $2,000,000. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. How many hands are employed? 
 
 Mr. Wessell. About two thousand. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLBT. That is in piano actions exclusively ? 
 
 Mr. Wessell. Yes, sir, exclusively. 
 
1308 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF OTTO "WESSELL. 
 
 Tuesday, March 4, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen, I appeared before you at the Ways and Means Committee Thursday 
 last in regard to piauo actions, and have since brought an action on here to explain 
 how difficult it was to commence this new industry. In the United States, 1874, it 
 was said at that time the upright and grand actions could not be made in this coun- 
 try. My two partners and myself started manufacturing, and we said, " What foreign 
 labor can make American labor can make, and better." 
 
 This upright action is made in this country — the fruit of sixteen years' hard labor. 
 At that time we three mechanics stood alone to lay the foundation for a new indus- 
 try in this glorious country. At that time the French and German piano-action mau- 
 ul^acturers had the advantage of fifty years' experience in manufacturing upright 
 and grand piano actions. We Lad actually to teach lumber men how to saw wood on 
 the quarter to gain more silver grain — this is a technical expression in our trade 
 which I here explain. A number of holes are bored into each piece of a piano action, 
 bushed, and a pin driven into the hole ; the wood must be silver grain on the side or 
 it will split. 
 
 There was no hardware made in this market at that time for the upright and 
 grand actions. Machines had to be invented, for instance, cutting thread on this 
 back-catch wire; the shape to bending this bridle wire; for making a damper lifter 
 and spoon; for making brass bracket to hold regulating rail ; for stamping a brasa 
 damper wire and rounding it on each end ; for making all these kinds of springs. 
 
 After many years of struggles, hard work without any satisfactory results as to 
 profits, we finally succeeded in overcoming the prejudice with which every new 
 "home-made, article " is met, and from our humble beginning a large industry has 
 sprung up as stated to you before. 
 
 We therefore think that our request deserves your recognition fully, since every 
 particle of material which we use in our actions is properly protected by the tariff, 
 while the entire product — the ready-made action — is not. 
 
 Referring to my testimony already given before your committee as to actions for 
 pianos, and asking that the duty on them, especially so enumerated, may be increased 
 for the protection of the piano-action manufacturers of the Unite.d States, I respect- 
 fully beg leave, for the information and guidance of the committee, to make a brief 
 explanation farther as to what a piano-action movement is. To that end I have 
 brought on this full movement to be submitted to you here, showing all the parts 
 making up such action as you now see it before you. 
 
 Outside of the mere fact that we desire protection for this manufacture, it is not 
 pleasant to calculate the possibility that our interests shall not receive the protection 
 which certain necessary parts of it receive in the tariff if they can be identified with 
 our production, while the competitive article in the lump, as a movement, is left to 
 the sole protection of 25 per cent., and hence comes in as a menace and bar to our 
 future business. 
 
 Why should the parts which go to make up our actions in all its compound nature 
 be more liberally treated as to protection than the whole construction Ho per cent. ? 
 
 Now, gentlemen, here you have a full piano action, one of the best made and fit for 
 one of the best pianos. By this I can show you everything it is made of. 
 
 The largest amount of value used is the metal, as follows : It is composed of wood, 
 iron, steel, nickel, felt, morocco buckskin, leather, and German silver. 
 
 Tlie ch icf article of value is metal. The amount is about 55 jier cent, of the whole, 
 the balance is labor. Every article which I show you in detail is produced by our 
 own inventions and contrivances which we had to arrange after invention to suit 
 the work of our factory so as to have our actions produced economically, regularly, 
 and faultlessly, for you will see that our work is all of the most delicate character in 
 its construction, measurement, and arrangement, so that each small part will fit most 
 thoroughly in its place. 
 
 STATEMENT OP PIANO-PORTE MAKERS. 
 
 New York, March 15, 1890. 
 To the Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 An argument has been presented to your committee by certain piano-forte action 
 makers of New York to increase the duty on jjiano-forte actions (now classed among 
 non-enumerated articles) to 50 per centum ad valorem. 
 
 The undersigned, piano-forte makers of the United States, would protest against 
 such advancement of duty as being unjust, obstructive, and fatal to the piano mak- 
 ing industry of this country. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1309 
 
 Finished pianos and other musical instruments now enter under a duty of 25 per 
 centum ad valorem. 
 
 To exact a higher rate of duty on piano actions and other parts of musical instru- 
 ments would not be in keeping with the policy of the present Government, to protect 
 and foster American industry. 
 
 Piano actions and other parts which enter into the piano-forte or other musical 
 instruments should rather pay a less rate of duty than finished instruments, so as to 
 enable the manufacturers of piano-fortes and other musical instruments to produce 
 as cheaply as possible and meet foreign competition. 
 
 There appears to be no good reason for a higher rate of duty on piano-forte actions, 
 since the manufacturers of this article in this country have been highly successful, 
 having made large fortunes within a comparatively short time under the present pro- 
 tective duty. 
 
 There are but twelve action makers in the United States, employing in all from 
 one thousand five hundred to two thousand bauds ; whereas there are nearly two 
 hundred piano manufacturers who employ from ten thousand to fifteen thousand men. 
 
 To raise the duty on piano-forte actions would simply mean to create a monopoly 
 for a few action makers at the expense of hundreds of piano makers, and invite and 
 make possible the importation of finished pianos on an extended scale. 
 
 It has been the aim of Congress to encourage and protect American industry and 
 put the manufacturer who desires to imporc the various parts and put them together 
 in this country on an equality with the importer who, in the main, imports the oom- 
 jileted article. 
 
 This intention is shown in the tarifi' by the classification of other merchandise ; 
 such as clocks and parts of clocks (section 414) ; carriages and parts of carriages 
 (section 412) ; watches and parte of watches (section 494); chronometers and parts 
 of chronometers, and other goods the parts of which pay precisely the same duty as 
 the finished article; also, the classification of all kinds of kid gloves (section 436), 
 which pay the same duty whether wholly or partially manufactured. 
 
 We can not believe that it is the desire of the present Government to deviate from 
 this policy, and would therefore ask that if the duty on finished pianos and other 
 musical instruments shall remain as at present, 25 per centum ad valorem, then the 
 duty on piano-forte actions and other parts should be less, say 17 per centum ad valo- 
 rem, or positively not higher than the duty on the completed instruments. 
 
 We would further call the attention of your committee to the fact that by a recent 
 ruling of the Treasury Department all parts of musical instruments (piano actions 
 included) are now classed as non-enumerated articles on which discriminating duties 
 are assessed, based on the materials of which they are composed. 
 
 This ruling causes great inconvenience and hardship to the manufacturers of piano- 
 fortes and other musical instruments in the United States — 
 
 First, because under this ruling many pairts of piano-fortes and other musical 
 instruments now pay a higher rate of duty than the finished instruments ; 
 
 Second, because the great variety and varied construction of these parts make it 
 exceedingly difficult to determine the rate of duty they shall pay, and therefore the 
 entry of such goods is much more complicated than formerly; and 
 
 Third, because of the difficulty of properly classifying these goods will lead to many 
 errors, especially in less important ports of entry, and give the unscrupulous importer 
 an opportunity to underclassify, greatly to the disadvantage of the manufacturer for 
 whose use such parts are imported. 
 
 We would therefore urgently recommend that the duty on finished musical instru- 
 ments and all other parts thereof be made as nearly uniform as possible by estab- 
 lishing a classification for all parts at a uniform rate of duty which shall be less, and 
 certainly not higher, than the duty on finished instruments. 
 
 This would simplify the entering of these goods considerably, avoid mistakes and 
 frauds in their importation, and be equitable to all concerned. 
 
 This is respectfully submitted to your favorable consideration. 
 
 [Here follow numerous signatures.] 
 
1310 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 PEARL BUTTONS. 
 
 [For other testimony on Button, see ante page 704]. 
 STATEMENT OF HON. HERMAN LBHLBACH. 
 
 Hon. Hekman Lehlbach, member of Coagress, from New Jersey, addressed the 
 committee as follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I come before the committee on behalf of the pearl-button industry, 
 in which my constituents are largely interested, and I ask that the duty on pearl and 
 shell buttons, whether wholly or partly manufactured, shall be 4 cents per line, but- 
 ton measure, of one-fortieth of 1 inch per gross. 
 
 I will say, Mr. Chairman, to the committee that this industry has been almost 
 completely prostrated. About twenty years ago, I think, the industry was flourish- 
 ing in this country, but the competition at that time was almost altogether with 
 Eno-Iand. Since that time the manufacture of pearl buttons has been introduced into 
 Austria and Turkey, and the importations come from those places. Labor in Austria 
 is paid from |2 to $2.80 per week, and the evidence before the Senate Committee was 
 that not alone was free labor employed but that convicts were largely employed in 
 the manufacture of pearl buttons. Since the importations from Austria have com- 
 menced the industry has steadily declined, so that in my own district, where we had 
 formerly twenty factories engaged in the manufacture of pearl buttons, there are now 
 only two or three in existence, and they work only at the higher grades of goods. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Do you know to what extent convict labor is employed in 
 Austria ? 
 
 Mr. Lehlbach. No ; I understand that there are several thousand near Vienna. I 
 will refer the committee to a petition printed in the Congressional Record. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I knew it was quite extensive, but I did not know what the 
 numbers were. 
 
 Mr. Lehlbach. This industry has been endeavoring to obtain relief from Congress 
 for the last eight years. My predecessor introduced the bill, which I re-introduced 
 this session, asking for a specific duty of 4 cents per line ; but on account of their not 
 being any caritf legislation of course it was not considered. The Ways and Means 
 Committee refused to consider any single article. Last session when the tariif bill 
 came up in the House I introduced an amendment, which was voted down. The 
 Senate, however, amended the tariff bill so as to read: Pearl and shell buttons, 2 
 cents per line, button measure of one-fortieth of 1 inch per gross, and in addition 
 thereto 25 per cent, ad valarom. The 25 per cent, ad valorem is the present rate of 
 duty. After the Senate committee had adopted this amendment a committee pf 
 manufacturers and woi king-men came before the Senate committee and endeavored 
 to show to the subcommittee that this duty was not sufllcieut to protect them 
 against the underpaid labor of Austria. But the Senate, however, adhered to their 
 schedule. When the bill came back to the House, Senator McPherson and myself 
 went before the subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, and the bill re- 
 ported by Mr. McMillan, being House bill No. 12597, included a clause adopting the 
 Senate amendment. The House committee were satisfied that this industry should 
 have relief. 
 
 Now, what I desire to urge upon this committee is to give to this industry the 
 protection which they need of 4 cents per line, making the entire duty specific. Both 
 the Senate committee and the House committee last session of Congress agreed that 
 this was a case where relief ought to be granted ; but they did not make the duty high 
 enough. I will say that it is high enough to protect the higher grade of goods, but 
 not to protect the lower. Labor in Austria, as I have said, is paid from l|2 to |2.80 
 per week, and in Bohemia, where they are now engaged in the manufacture of pearl 
 . buttons, the pay is still less, being about one-half of what the contractor usually 
 pays for convicts when they are employed under the contract system in our'couutry. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, we have in our own State from one thousand to fifteen hundred 
 men engaged in this industry, and I have no doubt that if this protection is given, 
 merely overcoming the difference in the wages paid here and on the other side, that 
 this industry will have twenty thousand men engaged in it. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Are you familiar with the process of manufacture? 
 
 Mr. Lehlbach. It is all hand work. 
 
 Mr. Payne. How large a percentage of labor is required ? 
 
 Mr. Lehlbach. I think it is about 80 per cent. I will state to the committee that 
 I will file a statement with regard to this matter. The manufacturers were to ap- 
 pear before this committee, but I held a conference with the chairman. Major Mc- 
 Kinley, and I thought that as they had appeared before the Senate committee at a 
 considerable expense, and, being poor men, that I would not put them to the expense 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1311 
 
 of coming down here and arguing this case. I told them that I would present it he- 
 fore The committee for them. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The Philadelphia pearl-button manufacturers have heen here. 
 
 Mr. Lehlbach. The bone men have been here hut not the pearl manufacturers. 
 I do not know that there is anything more for me to say ; but I would refer the com- 
 mittee, if they wish to look further into this subject, to the evidence before the Sen- 
 ate committee which, I understand, will he printed in a few days. 
 
 Mr. Gjcae. I understood you to say that you would file a paper yourself? 
 
 Mr. Lehlbach. Sea, sir ; I will file a paper with regard to the matter. 
 
 CORKS. 
 
 (See ante page 808. 
 
 STATEMENT OF JOHN ROBINSON. 
 
 John Robinson, a resident of New York, addressed the committee as follows : 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I was before the committee yesterday in the inter- 
 est of the cork manufacturers, I left a written statement with the committee giving 
 our standing generally. I omitted to state, however, that before the Senate commit- 
 tee of last year the argument was advanced to show that a specific duty would bar 
 out the low grade of goods. I beg leave to say that these goods are not imported and 
 w ould not be imported if the duty was free. We have goods in the store at New York 
 of a low grade which we have had on hand for eleven years, and we could not sell 
 them now for the amount of duty that was paid upon them. Should that argument 
 come up when you are determining this question I would like to have you take into 
 consideration the fact which I havestated, that low-grade goods will be debarred, and 
 that they would not come in if there was no duty at all, because there is no demand 
 for them. 
 
 Our main reason for asking a change of duty from the ad valorem duty to the spe- 
 cific duty is the impossibility of getting competent appraisers to appraise the goods, 
 that is, a competent judge of the foreign value. During the past few years the two 
 gentlemen who were here with me yesterday and myself have devoted at least one- 
 third of our entire time to appraising goods coming into New York for the appraisers 
 of the seventh division. It is for this-reason we would like to have a change, as an 
 experience of thirty years has demonstrated the absolute fallacy of an ad valorem 
 duty for the reason that competent appraisers can not be had. They can hardly be 
 had in New York ; but it is absolutely impossible to get them in the West and other 
 places. The only party who knows the foreign value is the party who is interested 
 having them come in under value. 
 
 IVORY. 
 
 ]For other testimony on Ivory, see ante page 687-1 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF OTTO GERDAU. 
 
 January 11, 1890. 
 
 Otto Gerda0, a resident of New York City, occupation an importing merchant, 
 addressed the committee as follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I yesterday petitioned you for a reduction of the duty on ivory for 
 the manufacture of piano keys. It is now 30 per cent., and it is advocated in the 
 Senate bill that it should be increased to 40 per cent. I telegraphed to New York for 
 a set of pianokeys, and have it here. It shows you that it is simply cut out by a saw, 
 and there is no hand-work at all about it. Such a get of keys as this would cost 
 about $8.80. I do not think it is necessary for you to be expert in the business in 
 order to say that a duty of 10 per cent, would about cover the difl'erence in the cost 
 of the labor, and there is nothing else in regard to the matter to be considered. It 
 is cut by a steam saw, and nothing else is done to it. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. How many factories are there which manufacture these keys? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. Only one in Hamburg, but there are^others in Berlin. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. How many in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. There are three. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Do you know how many men they employ? 
 
1312 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. No, sir; I do not know. It is a very few because the steam saw does 
 away with the necessity for hand labor. 
 Mr. La F(iLlette. It requires somebody to operate the sawsT 
 Mr. Gerdau. Yes, sir. , ,, , . .^ ^ ^i 
 
 Mr. La Follettk. And some body to handle the ivory as it passes ti-om the saw T 
 Mr. Gerdau. Yes, sir. ,., j» 
 
 Mr La t'OLLBTTB. Then each set of ivory keys must be pohshed ? 
 Mr Gerdau. No, sir; it is not polished. That is for the piano-maker to attend to. 
 This is just its it leaves the saw, and it is very smooth. The ivory saws very tine. 
 Mr. La Follette. Does it require a great deal of skill to saw these pieces 1 
 Mr. Gerdau. No, sir ; anybody can do that. The saw is set at a certain gauge, 
 and the piano-makers bave got to plane them down to the exact width. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Do you know of any piano-maker who has petitioned to have 
 this duty reduced ? 
 
 Mr Gerdau. Yes, sir; I myself petitioned a few years ago. I got up a petition 
 whou I was in New York at the Windsor Hotel, and every piano-maker to whom 1 
 applied signed it. 
 Mr. Payne. Do you import this ivory under the present duty if 
 Mr. Gerdau. Y'es, sir. 
 Mr. Payke. To what extent ? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. To a very small extent. This business is principally m the hands of 
 the German manufaclurers. It is on the piano ivory that I have petitioned to have 
 tbe duty reduced to 10 per cent. Now, on ivory which is unmanufactured, I noticed 
 yesterday that Mr. Brown and Mr. Sheeney, both, in the Senate bill, claimed a duty 
 iif 40 per cent. ; but when it comes to the pinch they are quite satisfied to accept 15 
 per cent. 
 
 Now, I want to show you that in a material so expensive as ivory a duty of even 
 one-cio-bth per cent, imijosed on this raw material would be destructive. Yesterday 
 I sbo\ved you a small tooth, such, for instance, as this [exhibitiug an ivory tooth]. 
 This is a very small one, and would weigh probably about 2 pounds. We have them 
 Aveii'hing up' to 150 pounds. Now, one of these tusks of 100 pounds each, would cost 
 at the rate of from $2.50 to |3 per pound, so that there is a value of |300 to a tusk. 
 Wo sell the hollow part to the brush manufacturer ; he must use the hollow part. 
 To another man, the umbrella manufacturer, we sell the solid part, and he makes the 
 handle of an umbrella or a kuife handle out of it. To another man we sell the center 
 jiart, and they make out of the center part billiard balls, etc. Now, if the tooth were 
 cut across in this way [indicating] they would have to pay for a simple saw cut last- 
 ing one second, a duty of 60 per cent. Now, surely it can not be contended that this 
 saw cut costs any more in this country than on the other side. 
 Mr. Payne. W'hy can't you saw it here as well as you can on the other side ? 
 Mr. Gerdau. If you had all the factories in the whole world, you could. 
 Mr. Payne. It does not require a factory to do that ? 
 Mr. Gerdau. Y'es, sir ; it does ; you can not do it by hand at all. 
 Mr. Payne. A 6-iuch saw will cut it. 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. But I am an importer, you see There are only two importers of raw 
 ivory. We supply all the turners, the little turners, of America. The small turners 
 must of necessity buy the ivory of this one form. There are, in fact, not many en- 
 gaged in this business. We send out our own caravans to Africa, and it generally 
 requires a period of several months before we hear from them. 
 
 Now, I want to call your attention to these handles for pistols. The Secretary of 
 the Treasury decides that this is manufactured ivory. It is sawed both ways. When 
 this very innocent-looking phrase was introduced into the Senate bill, I have no 
 doubt that the members thereof thought that when the word "sawed" was employed 
 it referred to ivory such as this ; and they cert.ainly never intended that it should be 
 construed as "sawed" ivory where it was only sawed directly across like this [indi- 
 cating]. But, if such a phrase were to be introduced in the tarifl' bill, my Connecti- 
 cut friends would insist that there was in your mind this kind of sawed ivory, and I 
 am sure you do not want to put a duty upon material like this. 
 
 1 have one other thing to suggest. Yesterday knife-handles were alluded to. 
 This is something which I am going to show to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 because I contend that there ought to be a duty on these knife handles. Now these 
 are the knife-handles [exhibiting the handles] and they pay a duty now. That 
 is sawed ivory, in my opinion, as this [indicating] in sawed ivory. But if you 
 were to allow such a phrase to go into the tariff bill as is now contained in the 
 schedule, "Ivory not sawu, or otherwise manufactured," then I claim that the 
 Connecticut men would say that this ivory [indicating], being sawed, must pay 
 a duty of 40 per cent. I think you will say that a simple saw cut should cer- 
 tainly not be chargeable with that duty. For instance, take a log. Suppose you put 
 on the free list " logs not sawn." According to this language I may claim that if the 
 log is sawn crosswise, across the grain, it would have to pay a duty. That one word 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1313 
 
 "sawn" wiU make a great deal of raiscliief, bocause I am certain it never was in- 
 tended to put tliis kind of ivory in tlie schedule as dutiable ivory. Therefore I claim 
 that the tariff ought to remain as it heretofore has been, " vegetable i\ory, not manu- 
 factured," and then let the Secretary of the Treasury decide, as he always has done, 
 what is manufactured and what is unmanufactured ivory. 
 
 Mr. Payne. Is there anything further? 
 
 Mr. Gerdau. I would like to call your attention to one other article. The Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury decides that knife-handles such as these [indicating], cut out of 
 mother-of-pearl shell, are free of duty, and he decides that these knife-baiiilles [indi- 
 cating] made from a tusk are dutiable. I agree with him that these knit'e-haudles 
 are dutiable because they are sawed or manufactured. He, however, coptends that 
 these [indicating] are not dutiable, because iu the free list is mentioned, ' mother-of- 
 pearl free ,' and also shells free. Now, he claims that mother-of-pearl can not be had 
 except to cut into the shell. I have written him several letters in order to show him 
 the error of that, but I have not succeeded. I shall call upon him to-day to sliow him 
 that it is not necessary to cut into the shell in order to get mother-of-pearl. The 
 whole shell is mother-of-pearl, and you will certainly get mother-of-jiearl if you only 
 grind oif the back. I am going to show that to him to-day. I therefore craini that 
 in your free list you ought to say simply " mother-of-pearl, " iu order to avoid this 
 ■wrong interpretation with regard to unmanufactured mother-of-pearl. 
 
 LUMBER. 
 
 [For additional Liiiiilier, see ante page 778.] 
 
 STATEMENT OP JOHN A. EDGET. 
 
 Tuesday, February 18, 1890. 
 Mr. John A. Edget, of Saginaw, Mich., addressed the committee. He said : 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here at the instance of a great 
 number of manufacturers of lumber in the Saginaw Valley, in eastern and northern 
 Michigan especially. You are all aware there has been an export duty upon logs 
 levied by the Dominion of Canada amounting at the present time to 'about |2 
 per thousand feet, log measure. Indeed, the act of parliament under Avhich the ex- 
 port duty is levied delegates to the privy council of the Dominion the power to fix 
 and regulate this export duty from time to time, and from 1881 to 1885, as I under- 
 stand it, the duty stood fixed at $1 per thousand feet. The result was a great many 
 Saginaw men and those along the eastern shore of Lake Huron commeuced to make 
 large purchases on the Canadian side along the Georgian Bay for the purpose of tow- 
 ing logs across Lake Huron and manufacturing them at Saginaw and at other points. 
 As nearly as can be estimated now, the holding of Michigan men in standing timber 
 in Canada that will be tributary to Michigan points and would be manufactured 
 there is 9,000,000,000 or 3,000,000,000 feet. After the purchase had been made, with 
 the expectation of bringing the logs at those points I have specified, this privy 
 council put the export duty up to |2 per thousand. Subsequently they were placed 
 up to $3 for pine logs, so as to make it practically prohibitory, and that after these 
 men had commenced to cut the timber and were engaged in ^umbering operations. 
 For some cause they have changed the duty now to .fSi per thousand, and there it 
 stands fixed at the present time ; but, as I have said, it is in the power of this privy 
 council, without any consultation with any one, from time to time to regulate and 
 fix it as they choose. They can put upon it any duty, so as to make it prohibitory or 
 otherwise, that they see fit to place upon it. 
 
 Now, of course we have no export duty upon logs or upon raw material of that 
 description ever since I can recollect ; the figures of course will show. There have 
 been large firms and corporations in Quebec, Montreal, and Ontario and other points 
 who have removed timber from Michigan, northern Ohio, Wisconsin, and all the 
 border States. That is especially true of oak, walnut, spruce, pine, and all timber of 
 that sort that could be used for ship-building and exportation to Europe ; and right 
 there, in demonstration of the fact, there has been in the last ten years something like 
 $12,000,000 worth of timber exported on which there has been no duty or any charge. 
 They have gone in without restriction and cut it as they chose, the same as if they 
 were citizens here. Now, while the United States charges an import duty of $2 a 
 thousand for pine lumber from Canada, and the Canadians respond and charge %i a 
 thousand for export from the United States to Canada, we have no legishition of any 
 kind that protects upon the log or timber in the rough, while they upon their part, 
 as I have said, have established this duty of if)2 a thousand upon the exportation of 
 logs, and in addition they leave the arbitrary power in the hands of the council to 
 
 485 83 
 
1314 EEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 reo-ulate, to lower or raise it as they see fit, and they have been accustomed to use it 
 as'a bludgeon for the purpose of injuring, if not entirely destroying, this large pro- 
 ducing interest of Saginaw and Michigan markets, provided they can get it there. 
 Now, it is perfectly feasible to tow logs from the Georgian Bay, across Lake Huron, 
 to these lower districts in Saginaw. It has been done, and done there with a trifle 
 over a doUar a thousand, and done safely, and there has been no great loss in trans- 
 portation of logs on account of storms and otherwise. So it is just about as cheap to 
 biino- them that entire distance of 200 miles across the water as to fioat them down 
 the rivers and boom Ihem out upon the rivers on our own side and carry them to the 
 places of manufacture. 
 
 Now let mo say further. On the east shore of Michigan, and especially in the Sagi- 
 naw Valley, we have got (speaking of the valley alone) $10,000,000 to $15,000,000 
 invested simply in milling plants. We have got, in addition to that, the largest salt- 
 producing territory in the United States. These salt manufacturers are dependent, 
 as the committee are aware, upon the supply of fuel from those mills; so if the mills 
 are cut off from their supply of logs it will destroy the fuel supply of the salt manu- 
 facturers, and that will also cease. So that the two great industries, the saw-mill 
 industry and salt-producing industry, the plaping-mills and factories, and all that 
 class of business are entirely dependent upon the supply of timber. In round num- 
 bers now our output is 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 bushels of salt. We have 800,000,000 or 
 900,000,000 feet of lumber, the largest lumber manufacturing territory in the United 
 States or in the world, and it has been for a great number of years. But since 1883, 
 when the maximum cut was reached, there has been a constant diminution from a 
 1 000,000,000 feet cut in that year down to about an average of 800,000 feet now, and 
 we have now got to a point where we can see almost year by year when the limit 
 must be reached, when the entire out of timber will disappear ; that is, the home 
 supply in Michigan. Now, stating it in round numbers, for the coming year of 1890, 
 there will not bs timber for the Saginaw mills, cut tributary to the Saginaw waters, 
 to exceed two-thirds of the entire cutting capacity of the mills, and probably for the 
 next season (I think I speak within limits) there will not be over a half. Is not that 
 right. Colonel Bliss ? 
 
 Mr. Bliss. I think that is correct. 
 
 Mr. Edget. So that we are faced with the special necessity in our case here of 
 securing further tributary timber if we can to help out these other industries. We 
 have there, in round numbers, a population of 50,000 people and ten or fifteen thou- 
 sand workmen dependent upon the supply of logs in the iirst instance. 
 
 The Ohaiesian. Ripht there permit me to ask you, at the rate yon are now ex- 
 hausting the home supply, how long will it be, in your judgment, before the output 
 will be exhausted. 
 
 Mr. Edget. In the territory of which I have been speaking, from Saginaw as far 
 north as Mackinaw on the Lake Huron shore, I speak within limits when I say that 
 five or eight years will exhaust all the pine timber in that territory. 
 
 Mr. Flower. How much lumber in the log do you import from Canada now J 
 
 Mr. Edqet. At present the importation is very small because of this duty that has 
 been raised and lowered, and the action of the Government has been so uncertain re- 
 specting it that no man could go in there and cut his timber. There was a time 
 when, as Mr. Loveland here can stato, the lumber-export duty was only $1 a thous- 
 and, when they cut and skidded the logs, got them ready and exported them, when 
 immediately the duty was plumped up to $2 a thousand, and subsequently to |3 a 
 thousand. 
 
 Mr. Flower. If we put sawed lumber on the free list, would it remedy that ? 
 
 Mr. Edget. I am coming to that after awhile, and speak of the proposition we 
 have. I only want to detail facts and the special circumstances surrounding them. 
 
 The Chairman. When I interrupted you, you were saying the entire capacity of 
 the mills was not over two-thirds supplied now. 
 
 Mr. Edget. That is true now, and as I said, the supply is constantly diminishing. 
 Now, I will revert to the statement that I think at the present time the holdings in 
 the Canadian waters that are tributary to Saginaw, which we are unable to export 
 and manufacture, is from two to three thousand million feet of standing lumber. 
 
 Mr. Flower. A good deal of which is owned by Americans ? 
 
 Mr. Edget. It is held entirely by Americans. Parties resident in the State of Michi- 
 gan have Ijought with the expectation of being able to bring them over to be manu- 
 factured. Tliere are large mills besides these salt works and manufactories, costing 
 from ^l.W.OOO to .$250,000, enabling us to manufacture 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 feet per 
 year; and the expectation is to tow these logs to the United States for manufacture 
 as I have said, and I speak of this lumber when I say perhaps 15,000,000 feet more 
 could be obtained, making a total of over 4,000,0000,000 feet that could he made trib- 
 utary to the Saginaw waters, provided we could reach the logs. By doing this, we 
 can prolong this industry at Saginaw for almost an indefinite period by utilizing the 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1315 
 
 lumber bought there by establishing yards, by building up sash, door, and blind 
 factories, and diversiiied industries that are dependent upon log-cutting. 
 
 Now the proposition of these gentlemen who submit their memorial to the com- 
 mittee is (audit has been mootedfor aloug time) that there should be some retaliatory 
 measure taken on the part of the United States Government, which will compel the 
 Canadian Parliament to suspend the imposition of this export duty, and the proposi- 
 tion has been made, and is now submitted, that in any revision of the tariff that you 
 submit at the present time, there should be incorporated a provision that, to the 
 amount of any import duty that Congress may fix, there be added an amount of ex- 
 port duty upon the Canadian log with a view to compel, as I have said, the entire 
 repeal of that export duty. Now, on the face of it 
 
 Mr. Flower. When that duty shall be just as large as the export duty 
 
 Mr. Edget. No; that the amount of that duty shall be added to the amount of any 
 import duty charged upon their own lumber. 
 
 The Chairman. (To Mr, Mills.) That is substantially the same as your bill. 
 
 Mr. Mills. We aimed to reach the same thing, but in a little different manner. 
 
 Mr. Edget. I will come to that very thing presently, aud 1 will be just as brief as 
 I can. Now on the face of it, if that remains right there, it would probably raise un- 
 necessarily an import duty upon Canadian lumber. Now, we do not stand contend- 
 ing it shall have any such result as that. All we do contend in the face of the exper- 
 ience we have had is, and upon the statement made of important lumber coucerns of 
 Canada, and the action of tbe Dominion Government, it will lead to an immediate 
 repeal of the statute. Now, let me say that the Board of Trade of Quebec, of Mon- 
 treal, and of Toronto, and tbe Lumbermen's Association of Canada, have all united, 
 as early as 1889, in a petition to the Dominion Government to repeal this statute, be- 
 cause, at the time when the Mills bill was pending here, they understood there 
 would be some retaliatory measure taken by Congress that would result in the rais- 
 ing of the import duties upon Canadian lumber exported here, aud it was to their 
 interest to prevent any such action on the part of Congress by immediately repealing 
 that obnoxious duty, and I have here, and I will submit to the committee an address 
 made by Mr. John Charlton, a leading member of the oppositioa iu Parliament in the 
 Dominion, iu which he presents this petition of a delegation of the Lumbermen's 
 Association in Canada, in which they take this very i)osition. Now, it appears the 
 entire production or output of Canada identified for home market and European 
 demand is a little over one-half the production; nearly two-thirds is exported to the 
 United States. I notice by an examination of the figures something lilie $6,U00,000 
 worth was imported from Canada into the United States in 1889. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Sawn lumber 'I 
 
 Mr. Edget. Sawn lumber, exclusive of bass woods and other woods, not pine. 
 That represents, I judge, about 500,000,000 to 600,000,000 feet, or about one-thirtieth 
 of the entire production of the United States, so it cuts no very large figure when you 
 come to discuss the question in regard to producers and consumers; but it is all im- 
 portant to have, because, as I say, two-thirds of the entire production of Canada must 
 seek this market in the United States, and anything which will aifect the import 
 duties which are charged upon that lumber goes directly to affect the profits of the 
 Canadian producer ; so they ai'e extremely sensitive upon the question. Let me read 
 a brief extract from this statement of Mr. Charlton, in which he discusses this very 
 phase of that case. 
 
 There is the statement of it, and it ought to be perfectly independent of this state- 
 ment. There is already an anticipation of a measure of that sort being passed by 
 Congress by the power given to this privy council to absolutely susxiend and repeal 
 the statute, so as to meet this adverse legislatiou, and not subject the Canadian pro- 
 ducers to a loss or iuconvenience of such retaliatory measures as we would impose. 
 Now, that of course is one way of dealing with the question, and, it seems to us, rep- 
 resenting as we do the largest lumber-cutting interest in Michigan, it is only a proper 
 protection we are entitled to have; but it will certainly result in prolonging the in- 
 dustries we have there and increasing the amount of out])ueof the American market 
 by bringing this lumber from Canada to an extent, as I have said, of 5,000,000,000 
 feet, covering iu its manufacture a large term of years. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Do I uuderstaud tbat they import irom us four times as many logs as 
 come iu here ? 
 
 Mr. Edget. Yes; it is taken from New York, Maine, Vermont, and takes in very. 
 largely the Red River districts. 
 
 Mr. Mills. I want to ask one question here. In cutting the timber are they care- 
 ful to out nothing but the large timber in the pineries and sparing the young timber, 
 or do they just sweep it all out ? 
 
 Mr. Edget. The young timber can not be spared. Tbe better practice has been 
 found from experience to he to sweei> everything clean as they go, in order not to go 
 back and go over it again. 
 Mr. Mills, That is the way they do in my district. 
 
1316 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Edget. If they go through and simply cut out the large timber, the fires will 
 run through there and destroy all the small timber. i 
 
 Mr. McJliLLiN. Is it your experience after a hre has swept through you can pro- 
 duce a second crop of timber, or that the fires continue from year to year ? 
 
 Mr. Edget. These fires utterly annihilate the timber, and leave nothing. In every 
 case it is a very serious loss. Every time timber is cut, the tops and butts or end's 
 are left in the woods, which furnish a means of spreading the conflagrations. 
 
 The Chaikman. After a fire has run through a forest like that, most of the timber 
 would be worthless. 
 
 Mr. Edget. As I understand, the worms commence work the first of the season 
 and destroy the sap, and from that time on the timber will decay and rot and be a 
 loss. Let me say in addition to this that if any revision might be made of the tariff, 
 and this remedy or relief that we now ask for is not furnished, then there certainly 
 ought to be that full measure of relief that was guarantied by the original Senate 
 bill, that is, a provision in the event there was any reduction made in the existing 
 tariif in the Senate bill upon lumber, that the reduction should have no appli- 
 cation to any country which insisted upon keeping this export duty upon the logs. 
 That would accomplish the same purpose in a limited way. 
 
 The Chairman. That was the provision of the Senate bill. 
 
 Mr. Edget. That was the substance of the provision. 
 
 The C HAiRMAif . Would that be satisfactory ? 
 
 Mr. Edget. As I have said, the lumbermen of the Saginaw Valley have stood upon 
 the present tarift'. The representatives stand here pledged to continue that, and it 
 seems to mo they are reasonable men and recognize in the Senate amendment to the 
 House bill fixing the limit of the duty at |1.50, which by way of compromise it might 
 be needful to accept, but at the same time we are not here to advocate any reduction 
 of that sort. 
 
 The Chairman. What I allude to particularly is whether that provision of the 
 Senate bill sought to correct this difflculty. 
 
 Ml'. Edget. I think it would be adequate to correct this difiticulty in a large meas- 
 ure. 
 
 Mr. Mills. You said just now that in the course of six or seven years the pineries 
 would be exhausted. 
 
 Mr. Edgbt. I said that within five to eight years the timber in the Saginaw dis- 
 trict would be. 
 
 Mr. Mills. What are we going to do for lumber if they insist upon keeping the 
 duties on Canadian lumber? What are you gentlemen going to do for lumber to 
 saw? We are trying to get the export duty oft'. 
 
 Mr. Edget. There is nothing I can say that will enlighten a committee of this sort 
 upon a general tariff question. I am simply here to discuss the facts in the matter. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You said the representatives of this district were under pledges to 
 stand by the tariif. If j'ou were not under those pledges would you not vote in all 
 common sense to put lumber on the free list? 
 
 Mr. Edget. I do not mean to speak of it as strongly as I have said. I know the 
 Republican doctrine, and my friend Mr. Bliss was elected on that platform, and as 
 an honest man he is supposed to carry out that doctrine as near as he can ; commenc- 
 ing with the industries in the Saginaw Valley 
 
 Mr. Flower. Would he not be willing to put it on the free list for the benefit of 
 the manufacturer ? 
 
 Mr. Edget. I do not understand it so. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You want logs on the free list ; you would be willing to have a cus- 
 toms duty imposed upon logs. 
 
 Mr. Edget. I have stated to the committee the attitude these memorialists occupy, 
 and I ought not to go beyond that. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You want to retain logs on the free list, and to induce, if you can, 
 the Dominion of Canada to reduce their duty. 
 
 Mr. Edget. My proposition is that for years and years we have been exporting out 
 of this country four times as much as we get in the shape of timber. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. That we can not help. You know the ultimate result will be to 
 break up the trade between this country and the Dominion in lumber and in logs. 
 In other words if wo were to impose an additional duty upon Canadian lumber on 
 account of the fact that they impose this export duty upon lumber, might they not 
 then put a still higher duty upon logs and upon coal, and upon lumber which we 
 send there, because we send lumber there? 
 
 Mr. Edget. I rely entirely as I said upon thfe fact that the Canadian has got to 
 market t\vo-th i rds of his lumber in the United States, and upon these petitions by the 
 boards of trade and the entire lumbermen's associations of Canada, in which they 
 take the unqualified ground that this duty ought to be repealed. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If we increase ours, will they not increase theirs ? 
 
 Mr. Edget. That is by charging additional import duty upon lumber. 
 
EE VISION OF THE TAEIPP. 1317 
 
 Mr. CahiislI!. Lumber and other things. 
 
 Mr. Edget. That would be virtually immaterial to the lumber produced in the 
 United States. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. The lumber industry is an important one, but it is only one of many 
 that are carried on in this country, and if a policy of retaliation is to be entered upon 
 by one government, we can have no assurance it would not be continued by the other. 
 
 Mr. Edget. The policy was originated by them, and it was supposed to be to their 
 interest and was supposed to be for their protection ; but they have apparently seen 
 their mistake, and they would repeal it as soon as they saw the United States demon- 
 strated some ability to take care of their own citizens. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you think this $2 per thousand on logs coming to and from 
 Canada and the United States is necessary to protect you in the difference of labor 
 between that country and this country ? 
 
 Mr. Edget. I will say just this, and I speak now of my own personal judgment, 
 and I do not represent anybody in my statement. That is that when it appears that 
 twenty-nine times as much lumber is manufactured in the United States to supply 
 the United States market as is imported from any foreign country, that perhaps the 
 importation might not have any effect upon the market to increase or decrease the 
 prices. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The point I ask is do you believe that the difference in labor between 
 Canada and the United States is such as would require a duty of S2 a thousand to 
 protect our labor ? 
 
 Mr. Edget. Yes, sir ; I do emphatically believe that, from living upon the border 
 as I do, and the communication I have had with both sides. 
 
 Mr. Flower. They have planing mills, so far as mills are concerned, as far down 
 as Ottawa, but they have no large mills except in Ottawa. 
 
 Mr. Edget. Ottawa is a manufacturing district of Canada. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Yes, sir; but it is away back one hundred and odd miles from the 
 coast. Will not that make a difference in the labor between this country and Can- 
 ada? 
 
 Mr. Edget. That will not cut much of a figure, since they have commenced to 
 trade by rail in consideration of the rates upon the long and short haul. It cuts a 
 small figure. 
 
 Mr. Flower. So that if the Canadian mills had the same volume as ours would 
 that difference of freight make up the difference in wages, provided even we had free 
 lumber ? 
 
 Mr. Edget. Mr. Flower and Mr. Chairman, living as we do upon the border there, 
 and having been interested for years and years in the question, and coming in compe- 
 tition with the Canadian lumber, I think I have spent as much time in the examina- 
 tion of the prices and cost of production in the two markets and labor and material 
 as any one engaged in the lumber industry 
 
 Mr. Mills. How much does it cost to produce 1,000 feet of lumber here and 1,000 
 feet there ? What is the difference ? 
 
 Mr. Edget. Do you mean the cutting ? 
 
 Mr. Mills. No ; I mean the entire cost of production. You say you have gone 
 through the entire thing. 
 
 Mr. Edget. I am speaking of the cost in wages, and I should say in round figures 
 there would be a difference of at least 25 per cent, between the prices paid Canadian 
 labor and the prices paid American labor. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Do you pay the American labor by the piece ? 
 
 Mr. Edget. No, sir ; by the day. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Does the American workman do more work than the Canadian ? 
 
 Mr. Edget. Not that I am aware of. It requires just so many hours' work at a cer- 
 tain machine per day. The average day's work is eleven hours in the mills of Sagi- 
 naw — Colonel Bliss could tell you. 
 
 Mr. Bliss. It has been put down to ten hours now. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Is that a fair statement of the difference of the cost of American labor 
 and Canadian labor ? 
 
 Mr. Edget. I think it is. , 
 
 Mr. Flower. How much labor enters into the sawing of 1,000 feet of lumber ? 
 
 Mr. Edget. I must beg you to consult Colonel Bliss, who is manufacturing, or Mr. 
 Loveland, who is a manufacturer. They can give you the details. I would like a 
 statement of Mr. Loveland, who has been engaged in this export. 
 
 The Chairman. I understand you have a written statement. 
 
 Mr. Edgp;t. I would like to file with the committee the speech of Mr. Charlton, 
 and also a printed statement covering these remarks. 
 
 The Chairman. That permission will be granted. 
 
1318 REVISIOK OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 STATEMENT OF R. A. LOVELAND. 
 
 Mr. R. A. LovELAND, of Saginaw, Mich., addressed the committee. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and j;entlemen of the committee, I think Mr. Edget has covered the 
 ground so well that there is no use in my going over it. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Please just state the cost of the produc»ion of 1,000 feet of lumber in the 
 United States and the cost of the same in Canada. 
 
 Mr. LoVELAND. I should differ a little, perhaps, from the Judge. My experience 
 has been a little different from that. It costs a little more to lumber in Canada than 
 it does here. They are not as favorably situated as we are in the lumber peninsula 
 of Michigan, and it costs them a little more. Their expenses of freighting are a little 
 more than ours, and I have means to know. We have a miU in Canada and saw 
 there, and we also log in Michigan. 
 
 Mr. Mills. What do you pay your hands in Canada, and what do you pay them in 
 Micbigan ? 
 
 Mr. LoVELAXD. Judge Edget came pretty near it, but I hardly think there is 25 
 per cent, difference in the labor here. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Are they about equally efficient ; do the laborers doas much ? 
 
 Mr. LovELAND. No, sir. We have had a great many French who came over to 
 Michigan. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Do not the French and Canadians do as much work as the Americana ? 
 
 Mr. LovELAND. No, air ; their manner of doing business is different. Our firm 
 built camps and ran there as they did in Michigan, but they found they could not 
 put in logs as cheau as people there who had cheaper camps and furnished the men 
 with ranch less to eat and drink. The men there would go in and out of the camps 
 to get something to eat perhaps ten times a day. That was their -way of doing busi- 
 ness. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Do you pay for what they eat ? 
 
 Mr. LoYELAND. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Mills. He buys that himself. 
 
 Mr. LovELAJND. The owners pay it ; oh yes, sir. We have a different method; ■w;e 
 have meals at regular times, but in the other ease the men would run in and out of 
 the camp ; and they did not do anything like the work in Canada that the men in 
 Michigan did in the camps. 
 
 Mr. Mills. How much more would our fellows do over here than there ? One-third, 
 one-fourth, one-fifth, or one-sixth ? 
 
 Mr. LovELAND. We would feel the difference in putting in the logs in regard 
 to 
 
 Mr. Mills. Give us an estimate of how much more efficient our men are than the 
 Canadians. Is it a fifth, a sixth, or more 'I 
 
 Mr. LovELAXD. I should say one-fifth. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Do they ctit the'logs with machinery there as we use machinery here! 
 
 Mr. LoVELAND. It is done with the same kind of machinery we use here. 
 
 Mr. Flower. The mills are not near as large as ours except at Ottawa. 
 
 Mr. LovELAND. They have good mills in Michigan. 
 
 Mr. Flower. No ; I did not mean Michigan, I meant on the other side. 
 
 Mr. LOVELAND. I meant in Canada. They have large mills on the Georgian Bay. 
 Our firm stocks one mill, which is quite a large mill. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Do you think they have got as good mills? Do you call them as 
 good mills as ours ? 
 
 Mr. LovELASD. Yes, sir ; they have as good mills as we have, but perhaps not 
 quite so large. When you get down to Ottawa 
 
 Mr. Flower. There you are getting away from the coast where the freight will 
 help you. 
 
 Mr. LovELAXD. On the Georgian Bay there are a good many mills. 
 
 Mr. Mills. How many hands will it take to bring irora the forests 1,000 feet of lum- 
 ber and freight it to the mill ? I mean to take it from the stump. 
 
 Mr. LovELAND. It would vary from $3 to |4, according to the location. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Say yon had to go a mile for it. 
 
 Mr. LOVELAND. Almost all the timber is dr.awn to the rivers and floated down to the 
 mills. Very little timber is hauled right to the mills. 
 
 The Chairman. Let me a.sk you if there is any diflerence in the cost of stumpage 
 between Michigan and Canada? 
 
 Mr. LovELAND. That is a very difficult matter to tell. 
 
 The CiiAiRJiAN. The policy in Canada is to lease the lands. 
 
 Mr. LoVELAND. We go into Canada and we buy limits. The government puts tip 
 limits for sale and the highest l>idder takes the limits on government lands. Then 
 they are frequently rcpurchasod. A purchaser will purchase these lands and sell 
 them again. We have a limit in Canada which we bought at second hand. These 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1319 
 
 limits bring from |1 to $3 per thousand for atumpage. I know some Micliigan people 
 have paid more tlian $4 for atumpage. 
 
 Mr. Flower. What do you mean by atumpage ? 
 
 Mr. LoVELAND. I mean for the timber atanding ; and in addition to that we pay $1 
 a thousand feet royalty to the gOTernment. 
 
 The Chairman. You pay that for what lumber you take off, and that is in addition 
 to the license. 
 
 Mr. LovELAND. This is the lioenae, and this is in addition to tiic amount you pay. 
 They issue the license to cut. They do not state when or how you shall cut, but 
 when we do cut they have a government ranger who looks after it very sharply, and 
 then we have to pay a dollar for atumpage. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. In addition to this privilege they bid for it originally. 
 
 Mr. LovELAND. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You would think then this Government would not be ruined, needing 
 as she does the protection of her forests, that she ought to admit logs and sawn 
 lumber. 
 
 Mr. LOVELAND. While they charge |1 atumpage there, they have the right to put 
 it up to $5 if they choose. That is under the charge of the privy council. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Even after it ia purchased ? 
 
 Mr. LovELAND. Even after it is purchased. They give us licenae from year to year 
 and we pay f 3 per aquare mile rent for taxes and they issue that license, and we go 
 on and cut for that year, paying $1 a thousand feet atumpage. That has been the 
 established process in the Ontario government. They charge more than that in the 
 Quebec government, but they are liable at any time to change it, and therefore a 
 great many people are afraid of this. 
 
 Mr. Flower. There comes in another general argument of admitting sawn lumber 
 free of duty. 
 
 Mr. LOVELAND. That is the way stumpage has acted there ? 
 
 Mr. Flower. I am not talking about stumpage. I am talking about bringing 
 these logs over ; I am talking about bringing lumber over aa well aa logs. Certainly 
 it would be protection to our forests. 
 
 Mr. LOVELAND. I was an old Henry Clay Whig, and I believe in protection. 
 
 Mr. Flower. It ia protection to the forests. You have got on the wrong end of the 
 horn. You want to protect these water-waya up through that country. That makes 
 Wisconsin and Minnesota valuable. You know the cutting of the timber around the 
 headwaters of the Mississippi has made navigation so uncertain, that they want large 
 appropriationa to clean out bars of the Mississippi along down where the Black River 
 and streams below there empty into the Mississippi Riyer. 
 
 Mr. LOVELAND. Yes, air. 
 
 The Chairman. You say these limits are sold to the highest bidder ? 
 
 Mr. LOVELAND. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And you say they coat $3 ? 
 
 Mr. LOVELAND. No, sir; that $3 is a tax. We call them a tax here, and they call 
 them a ground rent there. 
 
 Mr. Edgbt. The average run will be more than $3. 
 
 The Chairman. I want to know what that $1 to $3 means ? 
 
 Mr. LOVELAND. They generally aell it by bertha. A berth is a township. For in- 
 stance, that township contains 50,000,000 feet of lumber. That would aell for from 
 150,000 to $200,000. The Government would get that for it, and that is what is 
 called stumpage. 
 
 The Chairman. Then you pay in addition to it f 1 a thousand feet when you take 
 it off. 
 
 Mr. LovKLAND. Yes, sir; but they are liable, as I stated, to increase from fl to $2, 
 $3, or $5. It has not been their policy to do so, although in the Quebec government 
 they have advanced it. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You stated awhile ago your logging coat you more in Canada than 
 in the United States. 
 
 Mr. LoVELAND. It would under the same circumstances. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You stated yon had mills in both, if I understood you correctly, 
 and your experience was that your logging was more expensive in Canada than in 
 the United States. 
 
 Mr. LOVBLAND. It is. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. What per cent, is it greater ; about whatf 
 
 Mr. LoVELAND. From 10 to 15 per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. After getting the logs to the mill, which is the most expensive, to 
 convert it into lumber in, Canada or the United States? 
 
 Mr. LoVELAND. They do it a little cheaper in Canada. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. How much cheaper ? 
 
 Mr. LOVELAND. Well, 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Then as the loggiug is from 10 to 15 per cent, more in Canada and 
 
1320 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 the conversion into lumber is about 10 to 15 per cent, more in the United States, the 
 combined cost of logging and converting into lumber in the two countries is about 
 the same. 
 
 Mr. LoVELAND. I should think so. One circumstance is that we are nearer the 
 market snd it costs less to market our stock. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I speak of producing it. It is about the same, but if anything, it 
 is a little more expensive in Canada. 
 
 Mr. LovELAND. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. DiNQLEY. "With the same location for logging, would the expense be the same 
 in this country ? 
 
 Mr. LOVELAND. I think it would not be as much. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. That depends upon the location. Some places are very hard to get 
 lumber from and others are easier. 
 
 Mr. LovELAND. Take the Georgian Bay country. It costs more to lumber there. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. Then you have to pay more for labor in this country both in logging 
 and at the saw-mill. 
 
 Mr. LovELAND. There is not so much difference in labor as people imBgine. 
 
 Mr. DiNGLBY. Therefore if it costs less at any particular point here for carrying on 
 logging operations, it is simply because they have got a better berth, is it not! 
 
 Mr. LovELAWD. That has a good deal to do with it. 
 
 STATEMENT OF P. B. LAIRD. 
 
 To Chairman McKinley and Memibers of the Ways and Means Committee ; 
 
 SiES: In behalf of the granite manufacturers, with their millions of capital in- 
 vested, and the thousands of men in this industry, we ask an increase of duty on 
 finished granite from 20 per cent, to at least 60 per cent., for the following reasons : 
 
 First. In behalf of the manufacturers, as they are paying 90 per cent, higher wages 
 than the foreign producer. The freight averages 75 per cent, higher from domestic 
 quarries to New York than from Liverpool. Granite is shipped as ballast in vessels, 
 and shipments have been made at times 300 per cent, less from Liverpool than it 
 could be brought from Eastern quarries. Prior to the tariff of 1861 we were practi- 
 cally importing all our granite monuments, with not two hundred men producing 
 them here. After searching the principal cemeteries in the State of New York, I find 
 only one granite monument made by Americans before 1861. No man wanted to in- 
 vest money in a plant to compete with the cheap labor of Europe. The tariff of 
 1861, though small, encouraged us to invest in plants with much better machinery 
 than tbey had in Europe. This advantage, witli the premium on gold, which was 
 practically so much addition to the duty, enabled us to build up one of the great 
 American industries, employing upwards of twenty thousand men. The English re- 
 duced the price more than the amount of the duty, but when we came in competi- 
 tion with them in selling a monument, tbey could not give it away to break us 
 down, as they were obliged to pay a tax of 20 per cent, for the privilege of sell- 
 ing it in our market. As the premium on gold decreased and they procured dupli- 
 cates of our machinery, with their low wages, they are again driving us to the wall. 
 Since 1883 we practically have received no dividend and have been obliged to reduce 
 the wages of our men 15 per cent. Foreign granite can be purchased in New York, 
 duty paid, 30 per cent, less than we can furnish it, if we work without profits. 
 
 Thin-e was not a granite monument factory in the State of Vermont before the tariff 
 of 1861. Their quarries were sheep pastures. To-day there are hundreds of factories. 
 One town, then almost unknown, has now over forty. This has become the second 
 industry of the State, with millions of capital invested, giving employment to 
 thousands of men. In a measure, this is true of New England and other States. 
 Monuments are selling 30 per cent, less than they wore in 1861 when the English 
 made their own prices. If this duty is a tax, give us more taxation. The duty of 
 1861 has practically become a tariff for revenue only, and as the people emphatically 
 expressed by their ballots of 1888 a wish to have a tariff for protection, we respect- 
 fully request a duty of at least 60 per cent, on finished granite. In verification of 
 the above statements, I respectfully submit to you these letters from many manu- 
 facturer.s, who know whereof they speak. 
 
 Secdnd. In behalf the of thousands of stone-cutters engaged in this industry, I re- 
 spectfully request this increase of duty. Thesmall taritt'of 1861 greatly increased their 
 wages. Foreign competition, with their cheap labor, is again reducing it. Half of 
 tlip present manufacturers have earned the money to commence business since 1861 with 
 the li;unnier and chisel. I did not know of a stone-cutter previous to that time, who 
 haile.irned a home with his hammer and chisel making monuments. To-day hun- 
 dreds liave bimies. It has taken their children from the factories .and mines and 
 placed them in schools and colleges. In fact, the stone-cutters in Massachusetts have 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1321 
 
 more money in savings bauks and more value in homes tban their brethren in all 
 Ihe rest of the world outside of the United States, and I do not think any person in 
 this country is any poorer on account of the blessings bestowed on them by the tariff 
 of 1861. In behalf of all laboring men, I aak this increase of duty, as the wages of 
 one class affects the prosperity of all. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 P. B. Laird. 
 
 MARBLE AND GRANITE. 
 
 [For other testimony on Marble, see ante page 496.1 
 FROM MARBLE DEALERS OF NE"W ENGLAND. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives : 
 
 The following is a supplement to the petition from the marble industry for a re-ad- 
 justment of the tariff on sawed marble slabs, dated Boston, January 22, 1890. 
 
 This supplenientary petition has the concurrence of marble mill-owners, whose 
 memorial, addressed to the Committee on Ways and Means, is dated from New York, 
 January 7, and postscript of 15th of same month. 
 
 The present tariff act, Schedule N, reads as follows : 
 
 " Marble of all kinds, rough or square, 65 cents per cubic foot. 
 
 "Veined marble, sawed, dressed, or otherwise, including marble slabs and marble 
 paving tiles, f 1.10 per cubic foot." 
 
 We recommend the tariff' act of Schedule N changed to read as follows : 
 
 Marble of all kinds, in block, rough or squared, 65 cents per cubic foot. 
 
 Marble, sawed, dressed, or otherwise, including marble slabs or paving tiles, not 
 exceeding 1 inch thickness, 12 cents per superficial foot. 
 
 Marble slabs over 1 inch thickness, and not exceeding 1^ inches thickness, 15 cents 
 per superficial foot. 
 
 Marble slabs over IJ inches in thickness, and not exceeding IJ inches in thickness, 
 18 cents per superficial foot. 
 
 Marble slabs over 1 J- inches in thickness, and not exceeding 2 inches in thickness, 
 24 cents per superficial foot. 
 
 Marble slabs over 2 inches in thickness, 12 cents per superficial foot in addition for 
 each inch or fractional part thereof, in excess of 2 inches in the thickness, but if ex- 
 ceeding 6 inches in thickness, such marble shall be subject to the duty imposed upon 
 marble in the block. 
 
 The re-adjustment, as requested, does not change the duty on block marble, but it 
 does secure an equitable adjustment of and correction of the evident error or over- 
 sight in the present tariff, which discriminates against home, and favors foreign in- 
 dustry. The practical effect will be to import marble n the block, instead of the 
 sawed slabs, as at present, and thus enable us to distribute the money for sawing our 
 marble among our own people instead of paying it to Italy. 
 
 The Retail and Wholesale Marble Dealers' Association 
 
 OP New England. 
 Stephen Maslen, President, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 VIEWS OF TENNESSEE QUARRYMEN. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives : 
 
 Your attention is especially called to the operation of the tariff act of 1883 upon 
 this industry. Under that act block marble pays 65 cents a cube ; marble sawed 
 pays fl. 10 a cube. 
 
 The above looks all right on its face, but practically it is decidedly wrong. Slabs 
 three-quarter inch thickness are now imported at a cost 5 cents less per superficial 
 foot than they can be produced here from imported block marble. 
 
 " The irregularity of the present tariff which discriminates largely in favor of 
 forein-n mill-owners has led to the building of large mills in Italy, whilst since 1883 
 but two Italian marble mills have been built in this country. Several have been 
 closed, or have ceased to be used as such, and the importation of sawed marble slabs 
 has largely increased and is constantly increasing." 
 
 Owing to the great waste in sawing marble, and the average per cent, allowed 
 for imperfections, 1.50 cubic feet in block marble will produce only 100 cubic feet of 
 sound slabs, three-quarter inch thiokuess. The waste is about 40 per cent., to which 
 the freight on this excess in weight must be added. 
 
1322 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 The cost of sawing marble in the United States is much greater than in Italy, and 
 under the existing tariff our mills can not compete with theirs. 
 
 "Wo have taken slabs three-quarter inch thickness, as that thickness oonstixules 
 the larger part of the importation." 
 
 "Having made evident, as we think, the irregularity of the tariff as it applies to 
 this industry, we venture to submit the following rates for the consideration of the 
 Committee on Ways and Means, should the present duty on block marble be c6n- 
 tinned." 
 
 Marble sawed, dressed, or otherwise, including marble slabs or paving-tiles, not ex- 
 ceeding 1 inch in thickness, 12 cents per superficial foot. 
 
 Marble slabs over 1 in inch thickness, and not exceeding IJ inches in thickness, 15 
 cents per superficial foot. 
 
 Marble slabs over IJ inches in thickness, and not exceeding 1| inches in thickness, 
 18 cents per superficial foot. 
 
 Marble slabs over 1^ inches in thickness, and not exceeding 2 inches in thickness, 
 24 cents per superficial foot. 
 
 In the foregoing petition we have quoted statements of facts, and several extracts 
 which express our views from a communication addressed to your committee, dated 
 New York, January 7, 1890, and signed by representative committees from New York, 
 Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, Cincinnati and Chicago. 
 
 We wish it distinctly understood that this petition is for an adjustment of the 
 present tariff, which now discriminates against this industry in the United States. 
 
 W. H. Evans & Son, 
 By J". jE. TVillard, Superinlendent. 
 Tennessee Producers' Marble Compant. 
 Great Southern Marble Company. 
 Stinette Marble Company. 
 J. Oellig Brown. 
 Concord Marble CoMPAjfT, 
 
 F. Barker, Sea'etary and Treasurer. 
 Republic Marble Company. 
 Bend Marble Company. 
 Great Bend Marble Company. 
 
 FROM THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF KNOXVILLE, TENN. 
 
 Knoxvillb, Tenn., Fehruary 18, 1890. 
 
 Whereas the operation of the tariff act of 1833 has largely driven the industry of 
 sawing marble from the United States and transferred the same to Italy : Therefore, 
 be it 
 
 Resolved, That the officers of this association be instructed to forward a copy of the 
 following petition to the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives; 
 also a copy to all Senators and Representatives from the State of Tennessee now in 
 Congress assembled. 
 
 CLAYS. 
 
 [For additional Clay, see ante page 493.] ■ 
 STATEMENT OF J. B. CLEMENTS. 
 
 St. Louis, Fehruary 18, 1890.' 
 Dear Sir: Acting upon the kind suggestion in your favor of the 29th ultimo, we 
 beg leave herewith to furnish you with some data showing that American fire-clay, 
 especially ours of Missouri, is superior for glass house and other purposes to German, 
 English, or any other imported fire-clay. To substantiate this, we refer you to the 
 analysis of Regis Ch,auvenet & Bro., who stand in the front ranks as analytical 
 chemists and assaycrs. (See Exhibit A.) 
 
 The working of our homo clay miues gives employment to thousands of industrious 
 citizens; we ourselves employ over one hundred and fifty men, and have during the 
 past twenty-five years mined and sold many hundred thousand tons of fire-clay, 
 which has been used mainly for glass-house pots. 
 
 We would, tlierefoie, urge upon your ooDjmittee the Justice of imposing an import 
 duty of at least |5 per ton upon all foreign fire-clays. Not only will this tend to pro- 
 tect our home industry, but will be an act of justice to those engaged in fire-clay 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 1323 
 
 enterprises, who have expended large sums of money in the constrnction of works 
 and erection of machinery iu many of the States of the Union, and notably here in 
 Missouri. Permit ns to urge this point, that nnless there be a protective duty on all 
 foreign fire-clays, these enterprising citizens who have already expended vast sums 
 of money in developing this industry will be eventually crippled and thousands of 
 industrious men finally thrown out of employment; on the other hand, by the re- 
 striction of a duty on all foreign fire-clays, home manufactures will increase and 
 many of the States in the Union be materially benefited. 
 
 We trust yon will give this communication, together with accompanying report of 
 the Messrs. Chauvenet Bros., your careful consideration, and that you will see your 
 way clear to granting our request. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 Christy Fike Clay Company, 
 By J. B. Clembnts, 
 
 Vice-President and General Manager. 
 
 Hon. W. McKiNLEY, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 Exhibit A. 
 
 St. Louis, January 29, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen : In answer to your question regarding the value of your clays for the 
 manufacture of glass pots, compared with certain English and German clays, we re- 
 ply as follows : 
 
 It is only necessary to carefully compare the analysis of your clays with the most 
 celebrated foreign clays, to see that they are equally good and peculiarly adapted by 
 their high silica and the absence of any dangerous per cent, of alkali, for the manu- 
 facture of glass pots, and answer the most exacting requirements for high-grade 
 clays. 
 
 Throughout the brief list of analysis of foreign clays, we have been able to find 
 very few that come up to your clays in quality, and a great number which fall far 
 below the grade of your selected clays. 
 
 We herewith give you. a few examples of celebrated foreign clays, comparing them 
 directly with samples of your clay, of which we have recently made analysis : 
 
 Mark. 
 
 V 
 
 2. 
 
 3. 
 
 Per cent 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 10.30 
 
 10.30 
 
 9.91 
 
 65.10 
 
 63.30 
 
 65.08 
 
 22.22 
 
 23.30 
 
 23.55 
 
 .14 
 
 .73 
 
 1.00 
 
 .18 
 
 
 .77 
 
 1.73 
 
 1.80 
 
 1.27 
 
 .18 
 
 1.50 
 
 Traces. 
 
 "Water 
 
 Silica 
 
 Alumina 
 
 Lime 
 
 Majznesia — 
 Oxide of iron 
 Alkalies 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 9.91 
 
 64.84 
 
 22.35 
 
 1.66 
 
 90 
 
 1.40 
 
 Traces. 
 
 No. 1. Best clay used by Messrs. Chance for glass pots. No. 2. Average Stour- 
 bridge clay. No. 3. Christy clay, analyzed by us December, 1889. No. 4. Christy 
 raw clay, analyzed by us January 26, 1890. 
 
 It is evident, then, that we need not look further or go to foreign sources to satisfy 
 the demand, when we have near at home clays of better quality. 
 
 The refractory nature of The Christy fire-clay is not without a cause, and is due 
 to the unusual purity of these clays and especially to their freedom from alkalies. 
 
 In speaking of the Missouri clays, in his report on the manufacture of glass, in the 
 Tenth Census Report, Mr. Jos. D. Weeks says : 
 
 " Our American clay is much i.)urer than the German and is more refractory, but 
 not as dense. It is much less costly, however, and must eventually supersede the 
 German clay." 
 
 Mr. Thos. Coffin, one of the oldest manufacturers of glass pots iu the country, says 
 in regard to these clays : 
 
 " It is found by experience that the Missouri clays .will stand more intense heat 
 than any other » » * and American clay is fast superseding German clay because 
 of the hotter running furnaces now being used." 
 
1324 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Th.at t"u6 Christy clays are superior in many respects to the German clay, the fol- 
 lowing analysis talien from the best authorities will make evident. 
 
 Mark. 
 
 1. 
 
 2. 
 
 3. 
 
 4. 
 
 
 Per cent 
 10.24 
 69.01 
 24.26 
 1.32 
 .72 
 4.04 
 1.20 
 
 Per cent. 
 10.61 
 47.33 
 35.06 
 .16 
 1.11 
 2.30 
 3.18 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 9.70 
 
 71.31 
 
 15.66 
 
 Percent. 
 10.73 
 
 
 63.10 
 
 
 23.70 
 
 
 .09 
 
 
 .28 
 
 1.19 
 
 .63 
 
 .06 
 
 
 2.20 
 
 
 .08 
 
 
 .04 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 No. 1, Hanover. No. 2, Gruustadt. No. 3, Coblentz. No. 4, Christy fire-clay. ^ 
 
 The German clays shown above are not refractory ; first, because they are too high 
 in potassa, and, second, because the relation of the silica and the alumina is not as 
 it should be to represent true silicates of alumina; in other words, true ftre-olay. 
 
 The most refractory clays are those in which the silica is in the neighborhood of 
 sixty-five and the alumina in the twenties, and which are at the same time free 
 from impurities. 
 
 An honest comparison of your clay with any foreign clay must prove it to stand the 
 highest and most exacting tests to which fire-clays can be subjected, and at the same 
 time show that it is one of the purest clays yet discovered. 
 Very truly, 
 
 Regis Chauvenbt & Bro. 
 
 The Christy Fiee-Clat Company. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OP JESSIE B. KIMES. 
 
 Dear Sir: We respectfally submit a statement of the importation of China-clay 
 into the ports of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, and used by China potteries, 
 covering a period of ten years ending 1889, showing the number of gross tons and 
 average valuation for each year. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Value 
 per ton. 
 
 Tears. 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Value 
 per ton. 
 
 1880 
 
 11,361 
 18, 059 
 22, 373 
 18,4E2 
 14,189 
 
 $108, 626 
 171, 685 
 216, 793 
 131,811 
 107, 764 
 
 $9.66 
 9.50 
 9.64 
 7.14 
 7.69 
 
 1885 
 
 15,184 
 10, 343 
 23, 171 
 17, 611 
 19, 249 
 
 $118, 557 
 119, 337 
 137, 923 
 97,358 
 109,398 
 
 $7.80 
 
 188! 
 
 1886 
 
 7.30 
 
 1882 
 
 1887 
 
 5.95 
 
 18S3 
 
 1888 
 
 5.51 
 
 1884 
 
 
 5.16 
 
 
 
 
 The average valuation of China-clay entered at the port of New York in 1889 was 
 $5.04 per gross ton. 
 
 We also submit statement of American China-clay mined exclusively for potters' 
 use, which we have obtained by correspondence with the respective clay miners of 
 Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, and which I believe is correct, for the period 
 often years ending 1889. 
 
 Tears. 
 
 IT et tons 
 mined. 
 
 Tears. 
 
 Net tons 
 mined. 
 
 1880 
 
 12, 928 
 
 13, 824 
 
 14, 680 
 18,040 
 17.006 
 
 
 16,250 
 16, 148 
 
 1881 
 
 
 1882 
 
 1887 
 
 15,90< 
 16, 000 
 
 1883 
 
 1888 
 
 1834 
 
 
 15, 680 
 
 
 
 During thi! above period the price of American wrought or washed China-clay has 
 receded from an average of |14 iicr ton in 1883, to an average of flOpertonin 1889. 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 1325 
 
 lu 1880 there were 11,361 tous of China-clay entered at the ahove ports at an 
 average valuation of $9.56 per gross ton ; in 1883 there were 18,452 tous entered at 
 a valuation of |7.14 per ton ; in 1889 there were 19,249 tons entered at a valua- 
 tion of $5.16 per ton. Thus showing a continued increase yearly of foreign clay and 
 a continued reduction of valuation. 
 
 We rhay here say that at an average value of $5.16 per gross ton for wrought China- 
 clay at the vessel's side at an English port, from whence comes all our foreign China- 
 clay — produced there hy labor of which is, at least, 80 per cent, of its value — at the 
 wage price of 2 shillings per day — now paid at English clay mines— it will be im- 
 possible for many of our American clay miners to continue. 
 
 If we admit that American clay deposits are as advantageously located for mining 
 as the English deposits are, it is not possible, in our estimation, to compete, when 
 we pay on an average of .|1.30 per day for the same labor as English miners pay 50 
 cents for, and with the present tariiif of $3 per ton on wrought clay. 
 
 The railroad freight from our most advantageously located mines averages $2.33 
 per ton, 2,000 pounds, to Trenton and East Liverpool, our principal pottery centers. 
 
 English clay is brought to our ports hy steamers seeking landing, aud is carried at 
 a nominal price, the mere cost of loading and unloading, to save expense of taking 
 ballast. We are assured by an importer of China-clay that he has paid 4.shillings 6 
 pence per gross ton as freight and charges for the clay laid on docks in Brooklyn, 
 N. Y. The railroad freight on this foreign clay from New York to Trenton is 60 
 cents per ton, and to East Liverpool is $2.70 per ton. 
 
 In 1880 there were produced at American China-clay mines for potters' use 12,928 
 net tons; in 1883 there were 18,040 tons, and in 1889 15,680 tons, and the price has 
 been reduced from 1883 to 1889 full $4 per net ton. 
 
 There is a capacity of output at our American clay mines already developed fully 
 equal to all demands, and there is an unestimated abundance of kaolin lying unde- 
 veloped in nearly every State in the Union. 
 
 With the tariff rate of $5 per ton on wrought or washed clay the American output 
 was increased from 12,928 tons in 1880, to 18,040 tone in 1883, and was keeping pace 
 with the increase of pottery interests. 
 
 Since 1883 the output of American mines has decreased, showing a reduction of 2,360 
 tons for 1889, while the potteries have increased in number. 
 
 In the foregoing statement we have not taken into account any China-clay pro- 
 duced in the Carolinas or Georgia, which is principally used by paper makers, but 
 have confined ourselves to the clay used by China potters. 
 
 The kaolin deposits of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and 
 Texas are known to be extensive ; but the development is retarded by the fact that 
 they can not deliver to the paper manufacturers in the Northern States their iiroduot 
 at a price less than that paid for the same quantities of English clays. 
 
 Our Southern products get as far north as Philadelphia, where they are sold at $12 
 per ton. The competition with the English clays being so close that added freight 
 to shipments at a greater distance rob the Americans of their own market. 
 
 The kaolin product of the Southern States is well adapted to all uses where im- 
 palpable clays are needed, as in paper-making, but it lacks that plasticity which 
 makes it valuable to the potter. Properly protected, however, its development will 
 be greatly encouraged, to the advantage of the labor of at least five of the prominent 
 Southern States. 
 
 The United States Clay Miners' Association, in view of the fact above submitted, 
 respectfully ask that the duties imposed upon foreign kaolins prior to 1883 be restored, 
 to wit : $3 per ton on crude or unwrought, and $5 per ton on wrought or washed 
 china clay. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Jesse B. Kimbs, 
 Secretary United States Clay Miners' Association, 
 
 Hon. William McKinlby, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Moans. 
 
1326 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF 'WILLIAM J. McCORMICK. 
 
 WiLLiAMSPORT, Pa., March 1,,1890. 
 
 Wheu the present tariff was placed on musical instruments, especially the brass in- 
 struments, the number of factories at that time was very small, lu fact none of any 
 size and certainly none that were prepared to make quantity, and the old tariff was 
 probably based upon the idea that wo could not supply the trade of the United States, 
 or even a small part of the same, and so the tariff was made very low (^percent.) to 
 enable the goods to come in at this low rate, and save thenmsic-loviug public a large 
 amount annually for their band instruments. Now all this is changed, and in spite 
 of an inadequate duty large factories have sprung up, employing a large number of 
 men, and numerous small shops are struggling against the adverse circumstance of 
 little or no protection trying to build up their trade and business. Some conception 
 of their disadvantages can be had from a glance at the wages paid this class of work- 
 men in the Old World and the prices ranging in the United States. There the average 
 pay of a skilled workman is $1 per day, while the pay-rolls of all the large makers in 
 this country will prove that $3.25 and §3.,'50 are the daily averages paid here. Again, 
 our raw material is bearing a larger proportionate duty than the manufactured goods, 
 and, strange to say, all other brass manufactured articles (usually necessities, too) are 
 protected with 45 per cent., while this line made of the same material, in which labor 
 forms 90 per cent., of the cost, is left with only 25 per cent., forming little or no pro- 
 tection to this now important industry. In fact, the only way it is possible to enter 
 our own home market at all is based entirely upon the superior class of inatruments 
 made by the American manufacturers, enabling them by doubling the price to sell a 
 small quantity of the goods annually sold in this country. Now, if we could have 
 even the duty that all brass manufactured articles bear, namely, 45 percent., we 
 could so largely increase our output that much lower prices would prevail and the 
 profits, by reason of quantity, be increased. Now that the factories of this country 
 are equipped to meet our home demand with a superior class of instruments, certainly 
 they should be given a chance to make the goods in sufficient quantities to enable 
 low prices with a high grade of instruments and protecting our industry to the rea- 
 souable extent of granting to them the same protection that all brass goods manufact- 
 ured have now and have had for many years past. The Senate has studied the mat- 
 ter in all of its bearings as outlined above and have given us in their bill the just 
 protection that we now appeal for from you. 
 
 We ask for only the same 45 per cent, that is granted to all in similar lines. 
 Eespectfully, 
 
 WM. J. MCCORMICK. 
 
 STATEMENT OF BRUA C. KEEPER. 
 
 The manufacture of brass band musical instruments is a comparatively young indus- 
 tryin the UnitedStates.andwheu the present tariff of 25 per cent, was placed on brass 
 baud instruments it was no doubt a just and fair charge, not for protection, however, 
 as there w^ere no industries of this charrcter to protect, but as a source of revenue. 
 Now, however, there are four large factories in this country, with thousands of dollars 
 invested, manufacturing a line of brass band instruments that can not be excelled by 
 any foreign country, and it is only by reason of the superior quality of our goods and 
 the patronage of the truly American people, desiring American manufactured articles, 
 that we are enabled to keep the wheels of our factories moving. 
 
 As the average daily wages paid in foreign countries to skilled workmen in this 
 line is $1 and in this country $3.50, and with but 10 per cent, of the cost of an instru- 
 ment representing material, the remainder labor, it will readily be seen that it is 
 almost impossible with the present duty to compete with foreign manufacturers, 
 whose goods are now sold in our markets at just one-half the price of our own manu- 
 facture, due, as we have just shown, to the very low wages paid to their skilled work- 
 men. As all other articles manufactured from brass are subject to a duty of 45 per 
 cent., we know of no reason why this young and growing industry should not re- 
 ceive an equal protection with other manufactories the fostering and guarding of 
 which by our Government in its tariff legislation has made the United States the 
 great nation it is to-day. 
 
 Our goods are not a necessity, as are the many other articles manufactured from 
 brass, and now subject to a duty of 45 per cent., but may be properly classed as a 
 luxury, and well able to bear a fair proportion of the taxes. 
 
 We would therefore most respectfully ask that as an act of justice to a deserving 
 industry we be jjlaoed at least upon a par with all other manufacturers making a 
 line of brass goods. 
 
 Brua C. Kbefer, 
 Pretident Henry Dktin Manufaoturing Company, Philadelphia. Pa, 
 
REVISION OF THE. TARIFF. 1327 
 
 UMBRELLA RIBS AND STRETCHERS. 
 
 VIEWS OF JAMES CONAWAY & CO. 
 
 Philadelphia, January 29, 1890. 
 To the lionorahle Co\nmiUee on Ways and Means, Washington : 
 
 The unflorsignecl, manufacturers of steel umbrella and parasol ribs and stretchers, 
 respectfnlly represent that the duty on those goods does not afford sufficient protec- 
 tion or encouragement for the manufacturers. 
 
 To defeat if possible the new industry, the tbreign makers commenced the allow- 
 ance of trade discount, and these have been increased frem time to timfe till the present 
 rate is 70 per cent, off and cash discount in addition. 
 
 Large amounts of capital were lost in the commencement of the manufacture, and 
 what exists will have the same end unless labor can be obtained at some reduction. 
 
 The goods being staple articles, the struggle against the low-price labor abroad has 
 been severe on the home manufacturers; but the time has now come when they hope 
 attention will be given to their request. 
 
 They respectfully desire that the duty on ribs and stretchers made of any material 
 for umbrellas and parasols be 60 per cent, and 15 cents additional for each hundred 
 ribs. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 James Conaway & Co. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ASHER T. MEYER. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 The undersigned, manufacturers of umbrella and parasol ribs and stretchers, re- 
 spectfully represent that the duties on these goods do not afford sufficient protection 
 or encouragement for the manufacture thereof. The present low duties enable for- 
 eign manufacturers to sell their goods in this market at prices that prevent domestic 
 manufacturers from obtaining a reasonable return for their investment. Large 
 amounts of money are invested in machinery in this industry and many thousand op- 
 erators are given employment thereby. We have struggled for years to compete with 
 the low-priced labor of England and Germany, and unless we can be protected by an 
 adequate duty, will be compelled to surrender the business to foreign manufacturers 
 who have for years past been continually reducing the prices, and will cause the 
 money invested hereto be a total loss, as the machinery is suitable only for this special 
 purpose. 
 
 The importation of these goods has steadily increased from 1879, when they 
 amounted to about |40, 000, to $187,000 during the last year. The article maunfact- 
 ured in this country is equal, if not superior, to any produced either in England or 
 Germany, but at a cost, owing to the enhanced price of our labor, that can not com- 
 pete with foreign manufacturers. The relative difference in wages, say in England, 
 where operators earn 8 shillings a week, the same class of workers in this country 
 earn from $7 to $9 a week, while experienced labor that is paid here at the rate of 
 from f4 to $5 a day can not, on the other side, receive more than $1.50 per day. The 
 same relative prices apply to the wages paid in Germany. We also beg to call your 
 attention to the fact that these goods come in under different headings in the present 
 tariff, some of them at 40 per cent., while others pay only 30 per cent., the latter 
 being similar to the former in every respect. The chief materials used in the pro- 
 duction of our goods pay a duty of from 45 to 90 per cent., while foreign goods simi- 
 lar to ours pay but 40 per cent. 
 
 Believing that Congress is willing to foster and protect home industries, we would 
 respectfully request that the duty on umbrella and parasol ribs and stretchers, frames, 
 etc., pay as follows : 
 
 On umbrella and parasol ribs and stretchers, 60 per cent, ad valorem, and in addi- 
 tion thereto, 15 cents per hundred ribs and stretchers. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 American Manufacturing Company, 
 By AsHEK T. Meyer, President. 
 
 Winter & Ball Manufacturing CoMPAiry. 
 
 New York, March 17, 1890. 
 
1328 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 CANES AND UMBRELLA STICKS. 
 STATEMENT OF F. R. KALDBNBERG. 
 
 New York, January 28, 1890. 
 
 Gentlbmbn ; As manufacturers of caneH and umbrella-sticks we desire to draw 
 your attention to tlie disadvantages under which we have to labor in comparison 
 with manufacturers in Europe with whom we are iu constant competition. 
 
 The present duty on these articles is between 25 and 35 per cent, ad valorem, but 
 we think it ought to be at least 75 per cent., as these goods are almost entirely pro- 
 duced by manual labor, the material forming but a small proportion of the value of 
 the finished article. 
 
 Here in this country, in order to keep good workmen, we must supply them with 
 work throughout the year, while in Europe during the winter months only large 
 quantities of canes and umbrella-sticks are made in Germany, Austria, and France, 
 all by people wholn summer are occupied on their farms, and the compensation for 
 the work done there is at least three-quarters less than we are obliged to pay here 
 for the same labor. 
 
 Then, again, one of the most expensive items in the manufacture of the above-men- 
 tioned goods is alcohol, largely contained in the varnish used in finishing these sticks. 
 Here we are obliged to pay four times as much for this article alone, in consequence 
 of our Government tax upon alcohol and spirits. 
 
 There are many people here who are well qualified and very willing to do the work 
 in this country, and there is much material also in the form of roots, sprigs, saplings, 
 etc., that can be used to great advantage. But workmen here can live but meagerly 
 on double the pay they would receive in Europe. Therefore the duty should be com- 
 mensurate in placing us on a level with the working-men in the foreign country. 
 
 You will therefore see the justice of oui' request, and we trust that your committee 
 will look upon it in the same light. 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 F. J. Kaldenberg Company, 
 F. R. Kaidenberg, 
 
 Vice-President. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C. 
 
 STATEMENT OP THOMAS W. BALL. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means : 
 
 As manufacturers of umbrella and parasol sticks and walking canes we ask your 
 attention to the severe and discouraging competition with the manufacturers of 
 France and Germany in the making of those goods. 
 
 The several exhibits are samples of the class of work imported into this country in 
 large quantities and sold at such prices that competition is impossible. 
 
 They are entirely the product of hand labor and in such diversity of taste and style 
 that machinery can not be applied to their manufacture, and are made of materials 
 most of which grow in this country. 
 
 With a duty, therefore, of only 30 per cent, our manufacturers are practically 
 driven from our own markets, because the price of labor here is two or three times 
 greater than is paid abroad for similar work. We have the workmen and the mate- 
 rials of all kinds, but the difficulty is, the workmen of equal ability in Europe work 
 for one-third of the price such labor costs here. 
 
 There is a large consumption and a growing taste for fine work on these goods. They 
 are a branch of art that should be cultivated and fostered among our people, but with 
 the present low~ duties not the smallest inducement is offered. The cost of materials 
 is the smallest item. 
 
 Your petitioners therefore earnestly request that the duties on umbrella and para- 
 sol sticks and walking canes of any material up to 50 cents per dozen in value be 50 
 per cent, ad valorem, and for all such goods valued at over 50 cents per dozen 75 per 
 cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Winter & Ball Manufacturing Company, 
 Per Thos. W. Ball, President. 
 
 Wm, Harvey & Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
BEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1329 
 
 CURLED HAIR. 
 STATEMENT OP GLOVER & 'WIIiLCOMB. 
 
 Boston, March 9, 1890. 
 
 Sirs : We notice on the new tariif that your committee have placed on the " free 
 list "curled hair for mattresses and beds, which has always paid a duty when im- 
 ported. 
 
 The following are the facts in the case : The article comes to us in the raw state 
 from South America, free of duty, and is the tails and manes of horses. 
 
 England, France, Germany, and other countries of Europe procure it from the 
 same place as the United States and at the same cost. We manufacture the curled 
 hair, and it is then sold for mattresses and beds, the foreign countries having the ad- 
 vantage over ue in cheap labor. The margin for profit is very small, and if curled 
 hair is allowed to come in free of duty it would destroy our business, or if we continue 
 in it should be obliged to cut down the wages of our employes. 
 
 The amount probably paid to employes in this country is perhaps $500,000, and we 
 and they would be the sufferers and the Government not benefited, as there is not 
 any of the article imported. 
 
 The revenue received the last year was |38.25. We therefore ask you to consider our 
 case, and we trust you will see the reasonableness of the same, and allow the article 
 still to remain on the list of dutiable goods as before. 
 Very truly. 
 
 Glover & Willcomb. 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means, 
 
 Souse of Mejiresentatives. 
 
 MARBLES. 
 
 Akkon, Ohio, January 17, 1890. 
 Dear Sir: We beg to inform you that we have lately embarked in the business of 
 manufacturing marbles, and are the first and only American manufacturers. We 
 find there is a large demand for these goods, and in looking over the present tariff 
 law we find that marbles are not specified. 
 
 The business is only in its infancy, and is naturally in the experimental stage. 
 We are employing from fifty to sixty hands, but expect soon to largely increase the 
 number, as 90 per cent, of the cost of marbles is for labor, there being no machinery 
 for making them. 
 
 Our product is said to be superior in quality to foreign goods, and if we can be pro- 
 tected by a duty of 50 per centum ad valorem, think we will be able to hold our own. 
 We naturally expect that prices will be greatly reduced as soon as our goods come 
 in competition with the imported article, and look to Congress for protection, and 
 therefore kindly request that you present this matter to the proper committee and 
 urge proper action. 
 
 Hoping for favorable results, we are yours very respectfully, 
 
 S. C. Dyke & Co, 
 Hon. Wm. McKinley, Esq., 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 LITHOGRAPHS. 
 
 New York, March 8, 1890. 
 
 Gentlemen: In answer to the statement of Mr. Ralph Trautmann, saying that 
 lithographs on heavy stock could be imported on thin paper and pasted on board 
 here, I beg to say that this gentleman knows perfectly well this is impracticable, as 
 goods of this character are not printed on thin paper and thence mounted, but are 
 printed on heavy stock. 
 
 I also desire to contradict the statement o-f the National Lithographers' Association, 
 saying there are probably $-200,600 of cigar labels imported. There are but two or three 
 parties importing them, of whom I am one and probably the largest. I feel justified 
 in saying the sum will reach nearer $50,000 than $75,000. 
 
 In view of the facts herein mentioned and the statements submitted by Messrs. 
 Charles and Maurice Kauffman, particularly those in relation to the insignificant 
 
 485 84 
 
1330 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 amount of imports as compared with the enormous amounts produced in the States, 
 even a slight increase in duty would be detrimental to our business, and certainly of no 
 benefit to home manufacturers. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, „ ,„ 
 
 Louis C. Wagner. 
 
 The Committee on Wats and Meaus, 
 
 WOOL. 
 
 [For additional "Wool see ante, page 153.] 
 STATEMENT OF JACOB FUNCK. 
 
 Fairfmld, Iowa, February 12, 1890. 
 
 Deak Sir : I see that you have invited all persons interested to come before yonr 
 committee and give their views on the tarifl' so far as it affects their specific inter- 
 ests. Will you therefore please bear with me while I give my views on the question 
 of revision of the wool tariff ? 
 
 I notice that quite a number of said-to-be wool-growers have been before your com- 
 mittee pretending to represent the wool-growers of the country, and that quite a 
 number of sheep-breeders' and wool-growers' conventions have resolved in favor of 
 a higher duty on wool, claiming that unless they had more protection they would be 
 compelled to quit the business. Now you will pardon me for inquiring how many of 
 these pretended wool-growers care for their own flocks. Were not the most of them 
 speculators in sheep and wool, or, if not, did they not do all their wool farming by 
 proxy ? Were they not men who expect to make their money by hiring some one else 
 to do the work and then make enough over and above all expenses to pay them a big ' 
 interest on their investment ? I fear they were. 
 
 And now, what I wish to say is this: About all this noise about protection on 
 wool comes from that class of men. The real flock-masters, I mean those who own 
 no more sheep than they can care for and see to themselves, are not the ones that 
 are calling for more protection (I speak of that numerous class of farmers who own 
 from 80 to 160 acres of land and are their own shepherds). I have, except the last 
 four years, handled sheep all my lifetime. I have gone through all the ups and 
 downs of the wool business ; but my sheep always knew my voice and recognized me 
 as their shepherd. I not only believe, but I know, sheep to be the most profitable 
 animal on the farm. Tlie greatest drawback to the business is first, this everlast- 
 ing tinkering with the tariff on wool. This alone has caused more losses to sheep 
 men than dogs or wolves. Wool growing would be a much safer business if wool 
 were on the free list. Possibly, if placed there, the price might drop a little ; but it 
 would soon rally, and we would have a more steady market. Nothing is so detri- 
 mental to the business man as these constant changes in the market. A low market 
 if steady is far preferable to a constantly fluctuating market, even if at times the 
 price is higher. I repeat, it is this eternal tinkering with the tariff on wool that 
 plays the deuce with the sheep men ; and for this reason, if no other, I favor placing 
 wool on the free list. This would also stimulate manufacturers, as it would give a 
 wider market for goods. 
 
 The second -great drawback (in Iowa) is wolves and dogs. If we can be protected 
 against these we can get along very well with wool on the free list. 
 
 But my principal reason for objecting to an increase of the tariff is that it is not 
 needed and only adds unnecessary cost to one of the necessaries of life. If possible, 
 we should see that the poor can get cheaper clothing rather than that the rich get 
 more dollars. 
 
 Another reason for objecting to the tariff on wool is that if there was less money in 
 wool we would pay more attention to mutton, and as a result raise a better class of 
 mutton sheep and incidentially a better grade of wool for our manufacturers. By the 
 way, do you hear any complaint from those who raise the mutton breeds? 
 
 That all this cry about sheep not paying, and this wanting more protection on wool, 
 comes from a set of speculators who know but little about the practical part of the 
 sheep business will be clearly proven by some facts I shall give from men who care 
 for and feed their own sheep. Because a man has plenty of land and money, and 
 owns from 15,000 to 20,000 sheep, and can hire a shepherd to look after them, is no 
 evidence that he knows anything about cheep. If he has a faithful, honest shepherd, 
 he may possibly make some money out of sheep. But the chances are that the hireling 
 will not see to the flock as the owner would, and as a result the owner begins to call 
 for more protection so as to make good the loss sustained because of the carelessness 
 
EEVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 1331 
 
 of his hired man. Then, again, some men are so greedy that if they make 100 per 
 cent, every six months they would want more protection. 
 
 Now, as evidence of this fact, that wool and mutton are the best paying products 
 of the farm, I will give the testimony of some men who feed and care for their own 
 flocks, who are farmers in fact as well as in name. Read the following statements of 
 facts as I gather them from citizens of our county. Speaking of our county as a wool 
 county, The Tribune republished these articles from the Homestead: 
 
 " Jefferson County is, we believe, the second in the State in the production of wool, 
 its southern neighbor being first. Last year MoGaw Brothers shipped 96,000 pounds, 
 paying out in Fairfield $22,000. John Quillen bought iu the same place about .50,000 
 pounds and 40,000 elsewhere. One farmer marketed $1,000 worth of wool at one 
 load. The wool is of the strongest, clearest fiber grown, and commands the highest 
 price for its various grades, mostly medium." 
 
 In the Homestead of August 24, 1888, Mr. Jacob Funk, of this city, a well known 
 agricultural writer, says: 
 
 "Just now there is much said about sheep raising in Iowa, and with a view to 
 throwing some light on the subject we have gathered the following facts from a re- 
 liable source. Mr. Clark Vannostrand, one of Jefferson County's best and most reli- 
 able farmers, gives us the following statement as his experieuce in the sheep busi- 
 ness the past year: 
 
 " ' Taking cost of stock April 1, 1887, he had on hand 196 medium wool sheep worth 
 $3.50 each, or $686 ; at the end of year, or April 1, 1888, he finds he has on hand 240 
 head, worth $3.50 per head, or $840, making an increase in value of stock on hand of 
 $154. During the year the following sales were made : Wool clip of 1887, $406 ; 40 
 head sold for mutton, $200 ; 4 muttons killed in family, $12 ; 12 old ewes, $7.25 ; 3 
 killed and 1 crippled by oars, $7 ; total sale during year, $632.25. This shows 
 the value of sales and increase during year to be $786.25. Deduct as cost of 
 keeping one year 196 head, at $1.50 per head, $294 ; 115 lambs (at half price) 75 
 cents each, $86.25 ; shearing, twine, etc., $25, making the total cost of keeping one 
 year $405.25. This leaves a net income for the year of $381. Thus it will be seen that 
 on an investment of $686 Mr. Vannostrand has a net income of $381, or a litile over 
 50 per cent. Mr. Vannostrand is an old sheep raiser and knows how to handle them. 
 He says he can take 300 sheep on his farm, and at a very moderate estimate can turn 
 ofi: in wool and mutton not less than $850. Mr. Vannostrand considers sheep the 
 most profitable stock on the farm ; says a sheep can be well kept at $1.50 per year ; 
 that he can pasture from seven to nine head per acre, and thinks fodder corn the best 
 as well as the cheapest winter feed for sheep. He has 10 acres of fodder corn growing 
 on his farm now that will winter 20 sheep per acre. Will not our farmers investigate 
 this matter and compare sheep raising with grain farming and see where the most 
 money is ? Ic will be noticed that in the above we have calculated the cost of keep- 
 ing for the entire flock for a whole year, whereas but few of those sold were fed a 
 year, while we have allowed half price for keeping lambs, which is very liberal, but 
 we prefer to have our showing a little below rather than above the real facts in the 
 case. But the reader must remember that the above is not guess-work, but the plain, 
 unvarnished facts ; and any one doubting these statements can, by calling on Mr. 
 Vannostrand, be convinced that the real facts are even better than the figures above 
 given.'" 
 
 Again, in the same paper of September 28, 1888, Mr. Punk writes about what he 
 calls "A little speculation in sheep:" 
 
 "Mr. John Hupp, one of Jefferson County's practical farmers and sheep raisers, 
 gives us the following as his experience with sheep the past two years. About Octo- 
 ber 1, 1886, he bought a very inferior lot of 270 sheep at $1.20 per head, or $324. We 
 saw his flock and can testify that it was about as hard a lot of sheep as we ever saw, 
 yet with good care Mr. Hupp's sales from this lot for the past two seasons were as 
 follows : 
 
 Wool clip of 1888 $411.00 
 
 Sheep killed by dogs 18.00 
 
 Eight head killed for mutton 16.00 
 
 One hundred and twelve sold for mutton 275.00 
 
 Clip of 1887 200,00 
 
 Fifty-one head sold for mutton 112 20 
 
 Total sales since October, 1886 1,032.20 
 
 "He has on hand 39 head worth at least $1.50 per head, making total sales and 
 value of remainder of flock on hand, $1,090.70. This is not a bad showing for Mr. 
 Hupp's little investment of $324, his excess of sales and stock ou hand over invest- 
 ment being $762.70. Mr. Hupp has been in the sheep business for over thirty years, 
 twenty-two of them in Jefferson County, and claims that notwithstanding his (at 
 times) heavy losses by dogs, wolves, etc., on the whole he has made good money out 
 
1332 REVISION OF THE TABIFF. 
 
 of sheep and thinks them the best-paying stock on the farm; thinks our Iowa broken 
 timber lauds the very best for sheep and says blue grass is the best for pasture. He 
 also says any kind of feed will do for sheep if placed before them in proper shape, and 
 thinks fodder corn the best as well as the cheapest feed for wintering sheep. He has 
 several times, when pinched for time, turned the sheep right into the held and let them 
 gather the corn right from the shock themselves, and says there is no danger in this 
 when sheep are on fall feed, but thinks it a little wasteful. 
 
 "Mr. Hupp, like all other wide-awake sheep breeders, feels sure wool and mutton will 
 command good prices (especially wool) for the future. He has faith enough in the 
 business to stock up as fast as he can. He usually has from three hundred to five 
 hundred on his farm. Sheep will surely pay in Iowa for years to come. Try a few." 
 
 In the agricultural deparlment of the Iowa State Eegister, of January 21, Mr. 
 Lewis Bonnett, of Chariton, Iowa, one of the prominent sheep men of our State, 
 says : 
 
 "Without hinderance or restraint jio business in which he can engage will be half 
 as remunerative to the Iowa farmer as sheep husbandry. The business is profitable 
 alike to the large and small farmer. Oue year ago County Treasurer H. G. Curtis 
 bouo-ht thirty head of ewes at a cost of $75, his wool clip sold for $50, his wether 
 lam'&s for $27, or a total sale in one year of $77 on an investment of $75. He has on 
 hand fifty sheep worth easily $200. The farmers are convinced there is more money 
 in sheep than in other stock,' yet three-fourths of them are unable to take advantage 
 of the boom in Iowa. Why ? Simply because of the ravages of wolves. These dep- 
 redators are found in every county, "township, and neighborhood in the State, and 
 everywhere are a danger and a menace to stockmen. * » * Given an efficient law 
 in regard to wolf bounties and Iowa will be leader among the wool-growing and mut- 
 ton-producing States of the Union." 
 
 G. W. Franklin, of Atlantic, Iowa, a prominent sheep breeder and writer of consid- 
 erable note, writes, on .January 27, 1890, and reports that Henry Bell, of Atlantic, Cass 
 County, Iowa, sold eight yearling grade Cotswold wethers, weighing 174 pounds 
 each, at $4 per hundred weight, equal $16.96 each, which brought, with the rest of 
 the car lot, $6.05 per hundred weight, in Chicago. They clipped 18 pounds of wool 
 each, which sold for 22 cents, equaling $3.96, all for eight wethers at eighteen months 
 old. 
 
 Some recent testimony is given by Captain M. W. Forrest, of Locust Grove town- 
 ship, Jefferson County, Iowa, one of Iowa's most prosperous farmers and stock breed- 
 ers. He read a paper on " Will Sheep Raising Pay" before a farmers' club in his 
 neighborhood which was published in the Fairfield Ledger of the 5th instant, from 
 which we make the following extract : 
 
 "Now, as to whether sheep raising will pay, we think it will. It has beat cattle 
 for ns in the last six years. Sis years ago last spring we bought $465 worth, and in 
 the latter part of the winter five years ago we bought $400 worth, making a total of 
 $865. In that time we have sold over $4,000 worth of wool and mutton, have about 
 $1,500 worth on hand, leaving a gain of about $5,000. We calculate that if we have 
 $1,000 worth in the fall, that in the year, in two installments; we will get our money 
 out, leaving us the next fall with as many sheep to start in again. • • » j know 
 a man who keeps about one hundred sheep, who says he has experimented by paying 
 $15 for a good steer calf and $15 for ewes, and when the steer matured and was ready 
 for market he had cash enough from sale of wool and mutton to buy the steer and his 
 $15 worth of sheep left as clear gain. It took no more feed or grass for the sheep than 
 for the steer. It used to look to me like a small business, a little like the chicken or 
 feather business, but if you will give sheep the attention women generally do in rais- 
 ing chickens and geese, you will make sheep pay. * * * In summing up, I would 
 say, I have been in the business five years last spring ; have paid out, all told, $1,200 
 for sheep and have sold $1 ,475 worth of mutton, and $3,000 -srorth of wool, having 
 now on hand .f l,b00 worth of sheep, a gain in five years and six months of $5,135." 
 
 That's pretty good evidence that Iowa can stand it without any more tariff on 
 wool. 
 
 Now, then, I will give some testimony from Ohio, the State that we hear so much 
 from, and where there is such a howl set up about more protection on wool. Iquote 
 from the Breeders' Gazette of January 22, report of convention of Ohio stockmen 
 held at Columbus, January 14, 1890. See what Ohio men who feed their own sheep 
 say : 
 
 "Hon. G. W. Glover, of Cadiz, Ohio, declared that his county (Harrison) produces 
 more wool to the square mile than any county in this or any other State in the Union, 
 and in reply to the question as to whether wool-growing is profitable he had to say 
 that no business in which the agriculturist had engaged the past few years has 
 proved very remunerative, but as his section is adapted to sheep husbandry it has 
 proven more profitable than any othr- industry in which he had engaged. Some of 
 them have been experimenting and changing to something else, but many stack to 
 sheep, and to-day they have come oi tmuch better than those who changed to other 
 things. [' That's so, that's so,' came in chorus from a number of voioes.J 
 
REVlSlOiT OP TfiE tARlPP. 1333 
 
 " Slieep taiBing had proved profitable in Harrison County, tbe speaker afflr.ned, 
 and those who had followed it were in good oiroumstanoes and had a surplus in bank. 
 The conditions were all favorable with them, and the result is that those who went 
 off into other branches of agriculture are now wanting to stock up again with sheep. 
 They handled principally fine sheep ; they were getting rid of the wrinkly sheep as 
 fast as they could, and they wanted no more of them. The Delaine or Dixon, is 
 what they are using — good smooth sheep that will weigh at three years old 110 to 
 115 pounds, and shear 7 to 8 pounds of good, clean wool. The Delaine sheep has 
 proved most profitable with them. The crossing of these ewes with the rams of the 
 mutton breeds has proved very profitable, not as sheep to keep, but to sell on the 
 market." 
 
 Such testimony as this from a practical Ohio sheep-breeder should have some 
 weight. But we have more of it. 
 
 Mr. L. N. Bonham, secretary of the Ohio State Board of Agriculture, also gives his 
 testimony, as follows: 
 
 "I have listened to this discussionof a simple question, 'Should more farmers raise 
 sheep ? ' and I concluded the poor and the tariii'you have with you always. I thought 
 this was a very simple question. I remember once saying in my office to Mr. Harpster, 
 who is a very enthusiastic advocate of a higher tariff on wool, 'Mr. Harpster, if half 
 the, eloquence that has been expended on this tariff question had been expended by 
 the wool-growers and sheep-men of Ohio in instructing the farmers as to the advan- 
 tages of sheep-raising and the character of the different breeds of aheep we would 
 have had an agricultural revolution in Ohio. ' I am going to talk on this question 
 just a minute. Our president of the state board [Mr. Pow] has thought it a very 
 silly question. I believe there are millions in it. The gentlemen have switched it 
 off into the tariff issue. I do not propose to let it go oft' into that issue. I want to 
 hold it right to the question. We have heard the tariff" discussed long enough. We 
 want to discuss the sheep now and his merits for the farmer. 
 
 " I claim that the farmers of Ohio should raise more sheep, because it pays. Why? 
 First, it is an animal that is doubly protected. The fleece is protected by the General 
 Government, and the carcass.is protected against dogs until it is more profitable to 
 h ave our sheep killed by the dogs than to sell them to the butcher. In our county 
 that is true. Double protection, then, is in its favor. Second, it is the animal with 
 the golden hoof. It is beneficial on rich land and on thin land. We have been told 
 what it will do in making thin fields rich, but on the rich soils of our valleys where 
 we raise corn I have found the sheep a most valuable adjunct. I have found that in 
 my corn-field (provided I had my corn free enough from cockle-burs and Spanish 
 needles, and no decent farmer will have them now) I can fatten sheep. As soon as 
 the corn is out of the roasting-ear you can turn the sheep in. Again, you can clean 
 lands of weeds that you can clean in no other way. They are the best scavengers 
 known in the world. And third, mutton is up, and mutton is bound to be up. First, 
 because mutton has a reputation of being the most healthy meat produced. Sheep- 
 men will tell you that is true, because no diseased sheep will get fat. If a mutton 
 is fat it is evidence it was a healthy animal. Not so with the hog, not so with the 
 beef. The public mind just now is prejudiced against these last two articles of food. 
 We hear so much against adulteration, and against hog cholera, trichina, that the 
 public stomach is being turned against almost all kinds of meat. We hear, too, that 
 our cow can perpetuate tuberculous diseases to us, and the tape- worm comes through 
 beef, and all this ad nauseam. Science has disgusted the public with beef some- 
 what. Maybe dressed beef has done something toward it, and the public mind has 
 turned from them toward mutton as the most wholesome meat. I say the time is 
 coming when the farmers of Ohio are going to raise more sheep, tariff' or no tariff; 
 that is, if they have the keenness of observation that I take them to have. 
 
 "We have heard that you can not afford to raise sheep, yet in spite of this asser- 
 tion that has been put before the public the farmers that hold to sheep are making 
 money. Judge Jones met Mr. Harpster in my office one day, and asked, 'How are 
 yon getting along, Harpster?' 'First rate.' 'Are you in debt ?' 'No.' 'Well, how 
 many sheep have you got?' I think he said about 12,000 or 15,000. Jones said, 
 ' What is wool worth now ? ' ' Thirty-two cents.' ' You can't raise wool at less than 
 39 cents, I have heard you say ; about 4| pounds to a fleece, ain't it? ' ' Yes.' ' Let 
 us see, about 30 cents a head you are losing on every sheep. You must be pretty well 
 heeled, Harpster, to stand it to lose 30 cents a head on 12,000 or 15,000 head and not 
 in debt.' Mr. Harpster's answer does not sound well in conversation nor look well in 
 print. The fact is he is not losing money on sheep. Let us look this square in the 
 face and go before the farmers and say every farmer ought to have a few sheep on his 
 farm to help him utilize and economize the little wastes of his farm, to better his land, 
 and help him to sound mutton and to have a little wool for market. It is possible 
 and it has been done, and I put this question before this convention for this very 
 purpose, that farmeru might learn that there is some good yet in sheep. I am toxtj 
 
1334 EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 that the brethren have so looked at this question and wrestled with the tariff so long 
 that they see no good in their own pet animal." 
 
 Mr. S. H. Todd, of Wakeman, Ohio, president of the American Shropshire Associa- 
 tion, is another witness on this question of whether sheep and wool-growing pay. 
 At this same meeting of Ohio stockmen he said : 
 
 "After listening to the discussion that we have had here to-day and looking over 
 this audience I felt as tliough I, perhaps, was not just in the right place. I see there 
 are so many men here that have been studying this tariff question, and have got so 
 wise that it seems to me a matter of presumption on my part to try to entertain you 
 on the subject which I have before me. Now I see we are moat all sheep men here 
 and I thought perhaps to get you in sympathy with me I ought to steal a little of the 
 hog time that I have to-day and tallc about sheep, for I am interested in breeding 
 sheep as much as any man here. I have bred the Merino sheep, those little wrinkly 
 fellows with more grease than wool, and cried ' tariff' until I got sick of it, and then 
 I went to looking for some other way out, and the way out I took was to introduce 
 something into this country that the people wanted, and I introduced the Shropshire. 
 I know when I say that that the Merino man will say ' How I love you !' But we took 
 this course : we unfolded those labyrinthian folds that had been put there just for 
 curiosity, and tried by that cross to put a sheep on the market that was worth three 
 times as much and that the market wanted, and thus we obviated some of the great 
 trouble that we were in and the great cry of ' protection.' Now I want to say to you, 
 my friends, that I am interested in this matter, because I have seen its workings in 
 our country. For the last four years we have wanted every single Merino ewe we 
 could find to breed to Shropshires. The market wants it to-day, and if you have got 
 any old worn-out Merino ewes that you do not want to use, we will put a Shropshire 
 ram on them and get some good out of them, and no mistake about it." 
 
 Chairman Ellis. "The more Shropshire the better." 
 
 " Mr, Todd. The more the better. Now I want to say this : For the last four years 
 it has been true' and I want to ask you when you have ever seen anything in the 
 market that was more remunerative. I had two hundred and thirty-two lambs last 
 year and sold them at the age of one year and they made me $8 a head. Now with 
 the tariff and everything else when have we ever done anything that was better t 
 The year before that I fed one hundred and sixty and they made me $8.25 a head. 
 When have you ever done anything better than that with sheep ? The year before 
 that we had not got to understand it so well, but they made us .$6.25. Now this year 
 they are going to make us |8 or |8.50. Now, then, we can raise a lamb at the age of 
 one year old, and still have the wool of the ewe — that will bring us $8 a head do not 
 let us feel that we are body-sick and whine and whimper and try to ask something to 
 be done for us when there is a big, wide door open for every man to get out if he 
 will." 
 
 Such is the testimony of the practical breeders of Ohio, and I could multiply these 
 witnesses by the hundred, but I think it unnecessary, as about all practical sheep 
 men are agreed on this question. It is mostly those who " farm the farmer " who are 
 complaining and calling for more tariff. You will notice that the prevailing opinion 
 at this meeting was that more men should keep sheep. The feeling was that too 
 large flocks were not profitable ; but the great drawback to wool growing is not 
 tariff, but dogs in Ohio, and dogs and wolves in Iowa. As the cry for more tariff 
 comes mostly from Ohio, please note carefully what Hon. 6. W. Glover, Mr. L. N. 
 Bonham, and Mr. S. H. Todd say on this subject. No one will dispute their testi- 
 mony. 
 
 Now, sir, in view of the above evidence and in the light of my own experience, I 
 wish to enter my protest against any increase of tax on wool, believing that such a 
 tax is unnecessary and unjust, and would only increase the cost of clothing for the 
 benefit of a few speculators in wool growing ; men who make their money " farming 
 the farmer." If the Government has any money to spare in this direction, let them 
 give it in the shape of a good bounty on wolves, and Iowa sheep men will receive more 
 benefit and rejoice more than they will over any increase of the tariff on wool that 
 they are likely to get. Remember that while a few of the 1,020,000 engaged in wool 
 growing might possibly be benefited a little by a higher tariff, there are about 
 58,980,000 calling for cheaper clothing, and as all law is made with a view of the great- 
 est good to the greatest number, we favor the cheaper clothing, believing that wool 
 growing is at present fairly remunerative. 
 
 But why is it that Congress, when it seems so anxious to help the wool-grower, 
 does not put a prohibitive duty on shoddy ? Why is shoddy admitted at a duty of 
 only 10 cents per pound to take the place of honest wool? when it is well-known 
 every pound of it takes the place of a pound of cleansed wool, and that it is nothing 
 but a cheat and a fraud from beginning to end, and the very worst kind of a fraud, 
 and one that reaches every poor man in the United States. Yet we hear no one saying 
 a word about this fraud. Now, sirs, I submit to you whether it would not be bet- 
 ter to prohibit the importation of this fraud, and then compel manufaotarera wJioiue 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1335 
 
 the home-made shoddy to brand their goods as shoddy, aud thus protect the poor 
 nian against this outrageous fraud, just ;is the law now protects the dairymen against 
 all imitations of butter. Such a measure would reach every poor man, woman and 
 child in the United States that -wears woolen clothing (and who does not), and would 
 be of more value as a protection than any increase of the wool tariff that is likely to 
 pass. Besides, it would protect the consumer as well as the producer, a thing that 
 no other tariff on our statutes does. Please investigate the matter, and you vrill 
 find there are millions in it, all made by fraiid, and that of the worst kind. This is 
 a kind of protection that will benefit all classes. Shall we have it ? 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Jacob Funck. 
 
 The Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 HAT SKIVERS. 
 
 STATEMENT OP ADOLPH WIMPPHEIMER. 
 
 March 6, 1890. 
 Mr. Adolph Wimpfheimee, of New York, addressed the committee. He said : 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, last January a committee of 
 American manufacturers of leather appeared before you, and also a committee of im- 
 porters. In presenting their cause of leather I do not think from the reports that I 
 have read that they were properly presented. They did not present before you the 
 question of hat skivers and hat leathers properly. This is an industry, gentlemen, 
 that, compared with the leather industry, is rather small in this country. The hat 
 leather manufacturers of the United States, of which there are only a few, have been 
 growing rich by the duty of 20 per cent, on hat skivers and a duty of 30 per cent, on 
 hat and cut leathers. Not being satisfied with driving us as close out of the market 
 as they possibly could, they went before the Senate committee and argued that un- 
 dervaluations in hat leathers were existing in the port of New York. The house at 
 that time struck at was my own firm. The Senate committee granted them an in- 
 crease of 10 per cent., that is, to the manufacturers of leather, which made the dut.y 
 on cut leather 30 per cent. After investigation in the port of New York a special 
 agent threw up the case and could not see any undervaluation whatsoever. Then 
 they drove us to clause 2910, where one article comes in in a bunch cut in the run. 
 It should pay the highest rate. They construed it should pay the highest value, and 
 that is to say if an article is only worth |10 and another one only $i it should pay a 
 duty offlO.' 
 
 The Solicitor of the Treasury decided against us and afterwards changed his opinion. 
 His opinion dismissed the special agent and sent the papers back to the collector, who 
 decided that they should pay a rate of 20 per cent, as the law called for. This com- 
 mittee that came on here to represent leathers was really no committee on hat leathers 
 at all. It was a committee of leather manufacturers, and the one who pretended to 
 represent hat leathers was not a manufacturer of hat leathers, but cut leathers. Now, 
 skivers for that purpose are different from skivers used for other leather purposes. In 
 
 1887, out of the |20,000 duty collected, my firm imported 5,483 dozen skivers, or 16,058 
 of gross leathers, and we paid for that year more than half the duty collected in the 
 port of New York on these articles. The American manufacturers made such good prog- 
 ress in the man u facture of their goods that we sought to import more cut leathers. We 
 partly succeeded. To show you what progress the American cut leathers made in 
 
 1888, we only put in port 3,547 dozen skivers, or 8,697 gross leathers, and to-day 
 
 The Chairman. Was that because the price had gone down for it ? 
 
 Mr. WiMPFHEiMER. No, sir; that was because the American leather manufacturer 
 hud made progress in his industry. We are importing, Mr. Chairman, nothing but 
 the better class of goods. 
 
 The Chairman. In regard to the progress that our people have made, has it les- 
 sened the prices? 
 
 Mr. WIMPFHEIMER. Yes ; it stopped the importation, they claim. I want you to 
 understand me correctly. They were manufacturing this article as good as they 
 could, although their work was rather slipshod. They failed to employ the same 
 leather. They could supply the same grade of leather. 
 
 The Chairman. That was, it would be equally profitable to buy this cheaper leather, 
 would it not? 
 
 Mr. WiMPFHBlMKR. Well, certainly ; but they need good leather also. Hence they ' 
 hurt the hat manufacturers on these goods. They do not want the duty raised on 
 these leathers, because they go in part to make up their hats. 
 
 Mr. Geae. Did you import more leather last year than the year previous ? 
 
 Mr. WiMPFHBiMBB, No, sir ; because the American manufacturers drove ub out. 
 
1336 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Gear. The American manufacturer drove you out? 
 Mr. WiMPFHEiMBB. Yes, sir ; tbe American manufacturer drove ns out. 
 Mr. Gear. In other words, drove you ont of the market ? 
 
 Mr. WiMPFHEiMER. They got a clause in to make us pay 30 per cent, on hat leath- 
 ers in 1889 ; that is, we had to pay that on such goods as we do not produce here. 
 
 Mr. Gear. What do you mean — that you only use such goods as you do not pro- 
 duce here ? 
 
 Mr. WiMPPHBlMER. In 1889 we imported 2,423 dozen against 5,000 dozen in 1887. 
 There are hat manufacturers in this country who will tell you or the members of this 
 committee that it is impossible for a man like Dunlap or Knox to make a hat without 
 using the imported leather, and hence all the American hat manufacturers can not 
 make one if you advance the duty on these leathers. If you do so you will put them to 
 such disadvantage that they can not sell their hats or anything of the kind. In this 
 
 industry of hat leathers and hat skivers 
 
 Mr. Batne. What is a hat skiver? 
 
 Mr. WiMPFHEiMER. I will show you this skiver imported as it is for a hat leather. 
 It can not be used for any other purpose but for a hat. Now, gentlemen, there you 
 have got a thing — a skiver — that pays 20 per cent. duty. Well, if the American 
 should go to work and make such machines as would produce them it would not be 
 necessary to import these hat skivers. 
 Mr. Bayne. That is, the leather? 
 
 Mr. WiMPFHEiMER. Yes, sir ; the leather in the raw material. In order to pro- 
 duce these skivers we have to employ American labor. We can not do without it. 
 Here is one of the skins, and here is the leather that is out out of these skivers. 
 Mr. Mills. What is the cost of the material used in one hat ? 
 Mr. WiMPFHEiMER. Well, we get for these goods about |9 per gross, or about 75 
 cents a dozen. 
 Mr. Gear. Six and a quarter cents apiece ? 
 
 Mr. WiMPFHEiMER. Yes, sir. Now, there is another reason why a protection of 10 
 per cent, is necessary. As American citizens we have a right to trade wherever we 
 choose, as you have said. I am satisfied when I protect the American industry every 
 time. If you will protect them so far as it goes in order to cover the difference be- 
 tween the cost of labor in this country and the other side, why, I am perfectly will- 
 ing 
 
 Mr. Mills. Does the material that goes into the hat constitute what is known as 
 hat material ? 
 
 Mr. WiMPFHEiMER. Yes, sir ; this material that goes into the hat pays 20 per cent, 
 duty, and it can not be used for any other purpose than hat material. That is what 
 it is used for. Now, the American manufacturer claims that he cannot get along 
 unless you raise the duty to 35 per cent, on this material. 
 Mr. McMlLLiN. Then the rate now is only 20 per cent. 
 
 Mr. WiMPFHEiMER. But the American hat manufacturers do not want it raised on 
 this article. Now, the domestic manufacturer will go to work and take these skivers, 
 which he imports free in the salt, and finish and cut them. And how does cut them ? 
 Where we in importing these skivers have to cut one at a time to get them right, he 
 will cut a large number at once. 
 Mr. DiNGLET. What do I understand you to say the duty on the hat skiver is ? 
 Mr. WiMPFHEiMER. Twenty per cent. 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. Then you pay about 20 per cent.? 
 
 Mr. WIMPFHEIMER. Yes ; but they want to raise it to 35 or more on the imported 
 article. 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. But the Senate advanced it simply to 30 per cent. 
 Mr. WiMPFHEiMER. The Senate bill did it under the clause for the manufacture of 
 
 leather. We protested against that, because those are hat trimmings 
 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. Then what is imported is the skiver and it is cut into the proper form 
 after it arrives ? 
 Mr. WiMPFHEiMER. Yes, sir ; after it arrives. 
 Mr. DiNGLEY. So that an English skiver is an article- 
 
 Mr. WiMPFHEiMER. And the cut leather, both. We also import skivers for fine hats. 
 On the skiver the domestic manufacturer gets 20 per cent, and on leather 30 per cent, 
 duty. Now, you may well ask me if the duty is 30 per cent, on the cut leather and 
 on the skiver only 20 per cent, why do you not import more skivers ? Why, each 
 manufacturer uses perh.ips a dozen different shapes and it would be impossible to 
 carry enough of each shape in stock, as the shapes change from month to month. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You can get them any shape he wants 1 
 
 Mr. WIMPFHEIMER. We could not if the duty on cut leathers shall be raised. We 
 could not import theru, because the shapes of the hats vary and blocks change and 
 a different pattern is required. Do you understand what I mean ? The fashions of 
 hats change, For instance, a hat made on a No. 8 crown could not be used for a No, 
 4, because it would not fit. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1337 
 
 Mr. BaynI;. But he could import the skiver for it. 
 
 Mr. WiMPFHElMER. Tes, sir ; and what we ask is that the duty on the skiver shall 
 Hot be advanced beyond the present rate, nor the duty on cut leather. 
 Mr. Flower. What is that section you mentioned awhile ago? 
 Mr. WlMPFHElMBR. Section 2910. 
 Mr. Flower. Do you import any hats? 
 
 Mr. WiMPFHEIMER. No, Sir. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You can not do it t 
 
 Mr. WiMPFHEIMER. We can not do it. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Costs too much ? 
 
 Mr. WiMPFHEIMER. Costs too muoh because you people will not allow raw mate- 
 rial to come in free. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Whom do you mean by " you people ?" 
 
 Mr. WiMPFHEIMER. I mean Congress as a rule. 
 
 Mr. Bayni;. The last Congress he is speaking of. 
 
 Mr. WiMPFHEIMER. Yes, sir, the last Congress. To show what further progress 
 American manufacturers have made, there is consumed annually 150,000 dozen skivers 
 for hat purposes. These all come in salt free of duty. Ten years ago three-quarters 
 of these goods used for hat leather were imported in the finished state and paid a 
 duty. To-day there are not 5 per cent, imported. Thus it will demonstrate to you 
 that the American manufacturer of hat leathers needs no protection, as he is fast 
 driving the importers out of the trade. . 
 
 In the industry of cutting leathers in this conntry there are not four hundred me- 
 chanics or people engaged, out of which there are not fifty workmen engaged in cut- 
 ting imported leathers. Hence what more protection is needed, except if you wish to 
 enrich the two domestic leather manufacturers and compel the hat manufacturer to pay 
 more for his material which he uses when the hat manufacturer has asked you for a 
 higher duty on manufactured hats, and not to advance the duty on any materials which 
 he uses ? This material of skivers and hat leathers he uses in the manufacture of his 
 hats. Thus by not advancing the duty on hat skivers and hat leathers you are pro- 
 tecting over 50,000 mechanics engaged in the manufacture of hats against foreign 
 competition. I have here, Mr. Chairman, a memorial of the importers and manu- 
 facturers of leather of the city of New York in favor of the retention of existing 
 rates of duty on importations of leather and manufactures of leather, which I desire 
 to have printed as part of my remarks. 
 
 The petition referred to is as follows : 
 
 MEMORIAL OF IMPORTERS AND MANUFACTURERS OF LEATHER AT THE CITY OF NEW 
 YORK IN FAVOR OF THE RETENTION OF EXISTING RATES OF DUTY ON IMPORTA- 
 TIONS OF LEATHER AND MANUFACTURES OF LEATHER, 
 
 The Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives : 
 
 Gentlemen : At the hearing you accorded us on the 14th of January, instant, you 
 were kind enough to give us more time for argument than we had at first supposed 
 would be necessary, and yet, lest we should unduly trespass upon your kindness, we 
 terminated our oral statement before we were able to cover all the points we desired 
 to present. 
 
 Our interests were so various in detail and we were yet so united in our desire that 
 the present rates of duty should be maintained upon importations of leather and 
 manufactures of leather, that we took the liberty of asking your committee the favor 
 of the privilege of submitting on a future occasion a statement in writing supple- 
 mentary to the views we presented at the hearing. 
 
 Your committee were kind enough to respond favorably to our request in this re- 
 gard, and we beg leave, therefore, briefly to submit to you the following points: 
 
 You will remember that at the outset of the discussion we pointed out the slight 
 difference of cost of production between what is known as the unfinished chamois 
 and the finished chamois. We explained to you that it was the purpose of certain 
 gentlemen engaged in the sale and use of unfinished chamois in the United States to 
 import the unfinished article at a duty of 10 per cent., and to have you advance 
 the duty on the finished product from 20 per cent, (that now prevailing) to 35 per cent. 
 
 We showed that the difference of cost between the unfinished chamois and the 
 finished chamois was only from 2i to 5 per cent., and we explained to you that the 
 process by which the unfinished article was converted into the finished condition was 
 a simple one, involving the passing of the skin over what is technically called a 
 knife but in fact is a roller, the effect of which is to convert the hard and imperfect 
 chamois into the soft and finished one with wliich we are all so familiar. 
 
 You took occasion to call out the circumstance that the difference of 10-percent, 
 duty between the unfinished and the finished article was several times as great as the 
 Additional cost of converting the unfinished chamois into the finished, 
 
 In order to bring to your minds very oloarly the nature of the nnfiniehed, article we 
 
1338 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 inclose herewith a sample marked A. You will see at once by an examination of it 
 that it is not such a chanrois as you would expect to purchase for use in your own 
 house. Its condition is altogether too gross and untinished to give you any satisfac- 
 tion as consumers or users for practical purposes of the chamois skin, and yet, as he- 
 fore suggested, the cost of converting this hard and unsatisfactory article into the 
 soft and finished chamois is in amount a mere trifle of its entire cost of production, 
 that is to say from 2i to 5 per cent. 
 
 We therefore respectfully insist that a difference of 10 per cent, between the unfin- 
 ished article and the finished is all that under any circumstance should be exacted by 
 the Government in connection with the tariff. 
 
 It should not be forgotten, as we suggested in the oral argument, that there are 
 various degrees in what we may call the unfinished zone of imported leather. 
 
 Sample B, for example, is a piece of sheep-skin in what is called the crust, and is in 
 a much more unfiuished condition than is sample A of an uniinished chamois. 
 
 Sample C is a finished goat-skin dutiable at 20 per cent, under the present statute, 
 while sample D is what is known as a skiver used for bookbinders' purposes or for 
 hatters' purposes. For the former purpose it is finished, but for the latter purpose it 
 is not finished ; and yet the article has been introduced at this port with a claim on 
 the part of the importer that it is not a finished skin, and therefore not subject to the 
 duty of 20 per cent. 
 
 These samples which we referto in connection with our allusion to chamois skins 
 are equally applicable, in their general relationship, to the entire subject which we 
 desire to present for your consideration. 
 
 As to chamois skins, if those who advocate a 10 per cent, duty on the unfinished 
 article and a duty of more than 20 per cent, on the finished product are dissatisfied 
 with our proposition, they may easily use the real unfinished goods which come in 
 Iree of duty, and of which there is a never failing supply always on hand in this 
 country. 
 
 The truth is, what our opponents claim to be unfinished chamois in the roughstate 
 can be put in a perfectly finished condition, as we have suggested, by the additional 
 expenditure of from 2i to 5 per cent, of their cost, and with very little manipulation, 
 and without the expenditure of one single cent for materials of any kind. 
 
 The main trouble if our opponents prevail will be this, that in the effort to enter 
 goods as unfinished the door will be thrown wide open to unlimited fraud, as it would 
 be next to impossible for a Government expert to correctly determine the real value 
 of the various leathers that might come in as unfinished, more or less. The shipper 
 of the goods and the receiver of them would be the only persons able to determine 
 such value. 
 
 The finely finished chamois, which is the subject of importation, is an article which 
 while sold in this country in limited quantity, as compared with the entire amount of 
 such skins consumed in the United States, is an article which the home market does 
 not supply, aud which is nevertheless a necessity to those who need the chamois in 
 its most highly finished condition. It will be a boon, therefore, to the American con- 
 sumer to permit him to continue in the enjoyment of this necessity, rather than to de- 
 prive him of it by a rate of duty so high in comparison with that on the unfinished 
 chamois as to become virtually prohibitive. 
 
 As to shoe leathers, foreign calf-skins, mostly imjiorted from France, were twenty- 
 three years ago, the standard, and a reproach to the American article of the same 
 nature. There were in the city of New York fifteen firms exclusively engaged in 
 importing such skins, while two brokers made a comfortable living by promoting 
 sales from one to the other. There were also in the city of Philadelphia four houses. 
 Furthermore, consignments for foreign calf-skins were frequently made to commission 
 houses, and by them through brokers were sold either to importers or dealers in the 
 largest cities of the East and the West. The duty upon finished calf-skins w.as then 
 35 per cent. There are at present in the city of New York but six houses engaged in 
 the importation of foreign calf -skins. This change has been brought about by the 
 brokers of American manufactures, which was possible notwithstanding a reduction 
 of 15 per cent, in the duty, for we pay at present, and have paid since 1883, but 20 
 per cent. 
 
 One of these firms produces in this country finished calf-skins and sells to-day a 
 skin weighing from 20 to 24 pounds yev dozen for 90 cents per pound less 4 per cent., 
 the usual doniCstic trade discount. This firm is also engaged in importing calf-skins 
 and a skin of the same weight of foreign origin is beiug sold by them for $1,150 less 2 
 per cent., the usual foreign trade discount. We have no knowledge that any foreign 
 skins are sold as cheaply in this country as we know some American skins are sold. 
 If you should advance the present duty of 20 per cent, to 50 per cent., you might 
 think it reasonable to suppose that this would enable us to get a higher price for our 
 domestic calf-skins and pay our workmen higher wages ; but this would not be the 
 case. American consumers would not pay us a farthing more than 90 cents, and this 
 being so, we would not be enabled to pay higher wages, 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1339 
 
 . These foreign calf-skins are mostly consumed in the mannfacturo of custom-made 
 boots and shoes. Wearers of fine shoes are prejudiced in their favor, and therefore 
 the importation of such skins will never stop altogether, but will probably retain 
 the same insignificant proportion as at present in comparison with the production of 
 American-made calf-skins, namely, from 1| to 2 per cent. This inconsiderable quan- 
 tity surely ought not to necessitate an advance of tariff rates. 
 
 In speaking of shoe leather we have thus far referred only to leather used for the 
 vamps of shoes in contradistinction with the leathers used for the tops of shoes. The 
 leather in this country is entirely of American manufacture, as we believe. Certain 
 it is that not one dozen of such leather is being imported against 10,000 dozens made in 
 the United States. A single firm in New York produces approximately one hundred 
 dozens per day of such leather, and there are very much larger concerns producing 
 much greater quantities. So utterly independent is the American producer of this 
 leather of any foreign competitionthat the taking off of the entire duty would not be to 
 reduce the manufacture here by a single dozen, nor would it reduce the price obtain- 
 able for domestic goods one single cent. We earnestly suggest to your committee 
 the importance of relying upon the larger manufacturers of leather in the United 
 States for recommendations in this regard, rather than upon comparatively insignifi- 
 cant persons, few in number, and not distinguished as of great moment in respect 
 either to the extent of their business or the success of their business ventures here- 
 tofore. 
 
 The following extracts are taken from the Shoe and Leather Reporter, which is a 
 paper regarded as the principal sheet for the leather trade, boot and shoe trade, find- 
 ing trade, hide trade, skin trade, wool, fur, and tanning materials trades : 
 
 Extracts of speeches made at the meeting of the Morocco Manufacturers' National Associa- 
 tion, which Mios held at the Grand Union Hotel in Saratoga on Thursday, July 14, 1887. 
 
 ^Extract of a speech madeby John G. Bator, of "WilmiDgton, Del., a prominent leather mannfacturer.] 
 
 Mr. Baker spoke as follows : "The business is now in the shape where it is im- 
 possible for it to be overdone for years to come. Run every morocco factory in the 
 United States to its full capacity on the new glazed kid and you can not more than 
 supply the demand. There is room for every dozen that can be made with such 
 facilities. I was called upon four years ago to appraise some imported kid in the 
 New York custom-house. I saw from the records that 240,000 dozen were brought in 
 here annually. All of us were then making pebbles and selling them at cost or less. 
 It was said to me, ' You can't make this leather, smart as you boast yourselves to be.' 
 I made up my mind then never to rest until I got at the secret. Here was an impor- 
 tation at, say, ^20 a dozen of $4,800,000 worth of leather (with duty and profits added) 
 and now we have that great trade in our grasp. Remember what I tell you, the 
 women of the United States will wear all of it you can make." 
 
 William Clark, of Philadelphia, said that two-thirds of the factories in the United 
 States were making the French article. Four years ago he was on the committee 
 spoken of. He was told by the importers he did not know what kind of skins were 
 tanned or what materials were used. The remark spurred him, as it did the rest of 
 the committee, "And now," he said, "We are making as good a kid as the French, 
 stronger and more reliable, and we can sell it." 
 
 In the same report of this meeting the manufacturers gave notes of the convention. 
 In one of these notes they say as follows: "The statements about the manufacture 
 of glazed kid were received with marked interest. There was talk of one firm hav- 
 ing realized within five years f 1,000,000 in its production." 
 
 At the semi-annual meeting of the Morocco Manufactui'ers' National Association, 
 which was held at Atlantic City, N. J., on July 12, 1888, John G. Baker, of Wilming- 
 ton, was chosen to speak to the sentiment, "The excellence of American morocco." 
 The Shoe and Leather Reporter says that the speaker did not know whether the mem- 
 bers should extol the virtues of the old style of morocco, bid it a godspeed, and let 
 it go. He did not know whether the new style of kid would ultimately survive or 
 fall. Four years ago he read a paper predicting the great change that has almost 
 revolutionized the Industry. "The production," he said, "can not be too good, and 
 our broad country and greatest of peoples will not allow others to take our market. 
 French kid importations have fallen off 60 per cent, in three years." 
 
 Frank W. Norcross, of the Shoe and Leather Reporter, in response to a speech en- 
 titled " The Press," said : "Statistics show that five years ago the import of kid and 
 morocco was from |3,000,000 to $4,000,000 a year. The amount has gradually de- 
 creased. The Treasury report just published is for eleven months up to Jane, 1888, 
 and compared to the same period of 1887 the import of 1888 was $1,917,579 in value 
 against |3,229,150 in 1887, showing a decrease of $311,571 in the past eleven months." 
 
1340 EE VISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 Then at thesemi-aumial meeting at the Hotel Bniiisvvick, New York, held in Jan- 
 uary, 1899, General J. Parke Postles, president of tlie association, spoke astbllo-ws: 
 
 In response to the toast "The Morocco Manufacturers' National Association, 
 active in youth and vigorous in manhood," General Postles said that "it was not an 
 entirely new experience for him to respond to this toast, as during the four years 
 that he had had the honor to be its president that duty had fallen to his lot, and that 
 he felt this evening as he had ever felt, much pride in being chosen as a representa- 
 tive of this great industry. The public generally did not appreciate the extent and 
 importance of this industry, nor is it certain that all of us do." To illustrate he re- 
 lated an incident. A friend of his was traveling through the South, representing 
 one of Wilmington's large manufacturing concerns, and met on the cars a representa- 
 tive of a New York house. The New Yorker professed ignorance of Wilmington and 
 its industries, and dilated on New York manufactures and mercantile transactions to 
 snch an extent as to arouse the local pride of my friend, who, as an offset to what 
 the New Yorker had said, commenced to dilate upon Wilmington and its industries, 
 and after speaking of the powder and paper manufacture and the iron-ship building 
 establishment located there, and which built the first iron steam-ship built in this 
 country, and which had built more iron steam-ships than any other works in the 
 country, he came down to the morocco industry. " Now," said he, " There is another 
 important industry in our town. Why," said he, " You know that to keep the mo- 
 rocco factories of Wilmington running requires the slaughter of 15,000 goats daily." 
 Now, to the Now Yorker, who had probably never seen more than 15 or 20 goats at any 
 one time, this seemed so gross a fiction that he could hardly believe anything that 
 had been said regarding our little city. 
 
 "But, my friends, this was not an overstatement of the facts. Wilmington con- 
 sumes considerably more than 15,000 goat-skins daily ; but, taking those figures as a 
 starting point, let ns see something of the extent of our business. Philadelphia con- 
 sumes, say, 45,000 daily; New York and Brooklyn and vicinity, 15,000; Lynn and 
 vicinity, 15,000, and Gloversville, Baltimore, and other districts, 10,000 ; and we have 
 at least 100,000 goat-skins consumed daily in the United States, and this is an under- 
 statement of the amount, which would amount to 30,000,000 goat-skins annually. 
 Now, as alow figure allow $12 per dozen as a value for these manufactured skins; we 
 have a product of $30,000,000 in value annually. Now, is not this an industry which 
 any man might feel proud to represent? Three years ago we met on an occasion of 
 this kind in this room, and many of you will remember the discussion which arose as 
 to the impending revolution in our industry, and what steps should be taken to recover 
 this market for our finer grades of kid, the French glazed kid having largely taken 
 our own market from us. Some of us resolved, then and there, that we would never 
 cease experimenting until we were able to produce an acceptable substitute for this 
 French glazed kid. We went home from that meeting and some of us went into our 
 beam-houses and tan-houses and went to work, and the result is that to-day many 
 concerns which are represented here to-night are making a glazed kid in many re- 
 spects superior to this French kid, and the importation of French kid, which previ- 
 ous to that time amounted to from 250,000 to 300,000 dozens annually, has fallen off 
 one-half. This certainly should be all the encouragement needed to stimulate us to 
 go on improving our product till we shall have entirely conquered this American 
 market for American manufacturers. This we can only do with the excellence of our 
 production, and not by attempting to build a wall by legislation to keep competing 
 manufacturers out." 
 
 In the statistical statement we had the pleasiire of presenting you in Washington 
 we showed the gradual decrease of revenue since the enactment of the tariff of 1883 
 from finished skins, and the great increase of revenue from unfinished skins, which 
 are used by domestic manufacturers in producing in this country the finished arti- 
 cle. The table wo presented shows unmistakably the needlessness of increasing the 
 rate of duty on finished skins, and you will remember we only ask that the present 
 rates may remain fixed. 
 
 The importation of dressed goat and kid skins has within the last few years been 
 less and less. To-day it is not one-quarter of what it was, and the proportion of 
 imported dressed goat-skina as compared with domestic dressed and finished goat- 
 skins is probably not more than one to twenty. 
 
 As to skivers and cut leathers, which are also subjects of great interest to us, let us 
 remind you that the dressed and finished skiver, which is a sheep-skin, pays duty at 20 
 per cent. Our opponents propose to advance the rate to 35 per cent. They desire to 
 bring in their skins in the salt free of duty, and create a monopoly in this country of 
 the sale of domestic finished skivers by putting npon the finished foreign article 
 what would be as near as possible to a prohibitive duty. 
 
 This plan would be unjust enough if domestic manufacturers were able to produce 
 a finished skiver such as is produced abroad. This, however, they can not do, and 
 have never been able to accomplish, so that the manufacturers of the finest hats and 
 caps for gentlemen which require hat-sweats or out leathers made from the most 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 1341 
 
 highly finished skiver will never consent to use the American production, but will 
 demand sweats or out leathers made from the foreign finished skin. This fact is no- 
 torious and is attested by the earnest remonstrance we tiled with you, at the time of 
 the hearing, from the leading manufacturers of mens' hats in the United States 
 against the increase of duty upon imported skivers and cut leathers. We beg that 
 you will not overlook this earnest remonstrance, for it comes from men deeply inter- 
 ested in the protection of domestic industries and most interested in the manufacture 
 of hats, which is a source of livelihood to them and the thousands of operatives they 
 employ. 
 
 Should you advance the duty on skivers the only persons who would suffer there- 
 from would be the consumers of hats. The Government would, of course, get the in- 
 creased duty, but this result would not be an advantage to it, and certainly is not a 
 necessity under present financial conditions. 
 
 As we have suggested in another connection, we apprehend you will find the ap- 
 plicants for increased duty on skivers few in number, unimportant in business cir- 
 cles, and suffering much more from competition among themselves than from any 
 lack of benefit which an increased duty could possibly aiford them. 
 
 Cut leathers our opponents propose to have advanced in duty to 50 per cent., but' 
 these articles of manufacture appeal to you very much as do the skivers already 
 considered, with this additional qualification : Not 2 per cent, of the cut leathers 
 or hat sweats consumed in the United States are imported, for the reason that nearly 
 all of the finest leathers cut in the United States are cut from the imported dressed 
 and finished skins. 
 
 The same competition, however, has occurred between the few domestic manu- 
 facturers of cut leathers who oppose us as has operated to cut down profits in skivers, 
 namely, domestic rivalry and not a deficient tariff. 
 
 In view of these considerations, and emphasizing again the inconsiderable quan- 
 tity imported of cut leathers for hats and the necessity among domestic home man- 
 ufacturers for the few foreign skivers that are imported, we urge upon you a 
 consideration of the injustice which would be done us by the retention of 10 per 
 cent, duty on unfinished skins and the advance of the present 20 per cent, on fin- 
 ished skins to a higher figure, and the increase of the present rate on manufactures 
 of leather to a rate out of all proportion with present necessities with the present 
 condition of trade, and with the slight additional cost of labor in producing the 
 finished as well as the manufactured article beyond the cost of the skin in its un- 
 finished condition. 
 
 Very respectfully yours, 
 
 New Yoek, January 27, 1890. 
 
 SHATTUCK & BiNGER. 
 
 T. L. Latkins. 
 
 Solomon & Philip. 
 
 A. H. Eathinger & Do. 
 
 GOLDSON & LEBKUECHBR. 
 LaSKER &, ZUNSTEIN. 
 
 A. Isaacs & Co. 
 
 Adolph Wimpfhbimer Company. 
 
 Martin Bates, Jr., & Co. 
 
 SCHORESLUNFRIRE & CO. 
 
 J. W. Kohl & Co. 
 Louis Weddigen & Co. 
 
 ENGRAVINGS ON WOOD. 
 STATEMENT OP ROBERT UNDERVT'OOD JOHNSON. 
 
 March 11, 1890. 
 
 Mr. Robert Underwood Johnson, associate editor of the Century magazine, ad- 
 dressed the committee. He said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear before you this morning 
 with the object of petitioning on behalf of the publishers of the Century Magazine 
 that the words " eiigravings on wood " may be inserted in the clause of the free list, 
 number A 819, which specifies that " works of art, painting, statuary, fountains, and 
 other works of art, the production of American artists living abroad," shall be ad- 
 mitted free of duty. This is not a request that works of art should be put upon the 
 free list, but merely a request that there should be a more specific determination of 
 what are works of art in the existing statute. 
 
 Mr. Caelislb. Has it been decided these are not works of art t 
 
1342 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. It has been decided recently by the Treasury Department, re-affirm- 
 ing an old decision, that these are not works of art under the statute, and my object 
 is to present considerations to show that the legislation of the country should recog- 
 nize what is already generally recognized by every other agency that goes to form 
 an opinion as to what constitutes a work of art. 
 
 The Chairman (referring to package just received). I imagine these proofs were 
 sent 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir; they are proofs of wood-engravmgs and were sent to you 
 for the purpose of exhibiting more clearly my argument. 
 
 The Chairman. Are these wood-engravings ? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I have not yet seen them, but they are all from engravings on wood, 
 I am sure. If you will permit me, I wish to exhibit by them the reason why the law 
 should not follow the former decision, the art of wood-engraving having reached 
 onspicuous excellence in this country since the former decision. 
 
 The Chairman. But it is now held that they are dutiable under the Treasury ruling! 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir; and as it will not take up much time I will read rapidly the 
 papers presented by us to the Treasury Department. They are as follows : 
 
 MEMORANDUM AS TO BLOCK ENGRAVED BY TIMOTHY COLE, AN AMERICAN ARTIST 
 
 RESIDING IN ITALY. 
 
 The block in question is an engraving made by Mr. Cole direct from the original 
 painting by Giovanni Bellini, in Italy. It was imported through Messrs. Baldwin 
 Bros. & Co., express agents, by the steamer Caledonia, December 9, 1889. It was 
 claimed by the Century Company that it should be admitted free of duty under the 
 clause of the free list (819 A) which specifies that " works of art, painting, statuary, 
 fountains, and other works of art, the production of American artists," may be 
 admitted free of duty, the fact of such production being verified by a certificate 
 of a consul or minister of the United States, indorsed upon the written declaration of 
 the artist. Mr. Cole had made such a declaration before the consul, and his certificate 
 accompanied the bill of lading of the block in question, but the customs officers de- 
 clined to admit the engraved block as a work of art, and assessed duty at 25 per cent., 
 referring us to decision No. 2468, which reads as follows : 
 
 DESIGNS AND ENGRAVINGS OF WOOD MADE BY AMERICAN CITIZENS RESIDING 
 
 ABROAD— DUTIABLE. 
 
 Treasury Department, Octoter 13, 1875. 
 
 Sir : Messrs. George Stoker & Co. have appealed from your decision assessing duty 
 at the several rates of 20 and 25 per cent, ad valorem on certain so-called " works of 
 art " imported by them per steamer Main June 3, 1874. 
 
 The appellants claim that the said articles are entitled to free entry under the pro- 
 vision of section 22 of the act of July 14, 1870 (the importation having been made 
 prior to the passage of the Revised Statutes), which reads as follows : " Paintings, 
 statuary, fountains, and other works of art, the production of American artists ; pro- 
 vided that the fact of such production be verified by the certificate of any consul or 
 minister of the United States indorsed upon the written declaration of the artist." 
 The same provision is re-enacted in the Revised Statutes, the clause containing it 
 being heaaed " works of art." 
 
 It appears from the special report of the appraiser that the articles in question are 
 engravings on wood, used in printing the Aldine newspaper, published in the city of 
 New York, and drawings or designs on wood sent to this country to be engraved and 
 then used in the same manner. 
 
 It thus appears that said articles are of two classes, namely, first, wood-cuts, fully 
 executed and ready for use, the designs for which were drawn upon the wood by 
 American citizens residing abroad ; and, secondly, drawings on wood made by Amer- 
 ican citizens, the engraving of which, on the wood, remains to be executed after ar- 
 rival in the United States. 
 
 In regard to the articles embraced in the first class, I would state that the Depart- 
 ment is of opinion that they are excluded from free entry under the law referred to 
 for the following reasons : The enumeration of paintings, statuary, and fountains in 
 the clause in the act mentioned indicates, to some extent, the character of the articles 
 which are entitled to free entry under the phrase " other works of art" immediately 
 following. Paintings, statuary, and fountains are all finished productions ready for 
 use as such, and not simply the means by which an almost unlimited number of 
 impressions constituting pictures could be produced, as is the case with this wood- 
 engravings in question. 
 
 The Department therefore concludes that the term "works of art" can not prop- 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 1343 
 
 erly be applied to the article in question. In further support of this view, it will be 
 observed that the tariff admits paintings and statuary, not otherwise provided for, 
 at the low rate of 10 per centum ad valorem, whereas engraved plates of wood or 
 other material are dutiable at the rate of 25 per centum ad valorem. If such plates 
 had been considered works of art, in the sense in which paintings and statuary are 
 so considered, it may be presumed that the same encouragement would have been 
 given to their importation. 
 
 Assuming this position to be correct, the Department can uot, however much in- 
 clined to encourage American artists residing abroad, recognize engravings on wood 
 as worlds of art within the purview of the statute. 
 
 As a necessary consequence, the articles forming the second class above mentioned, 
 which are in a less advanced state, will also be excluded from free entry. 
 
 The engravings on wood embraced in said importation are therefore properly 
 chargeable with duty under the provision for "plates eugraved * * * of wood 
 or other material, 25 per cent, ad valorem," and the designs on wood, not engraved, 
 at the rate of 20 per cent, ad valorem, as non-enumerated manufactured articles. 
 
 Your action in the premises is, therefore, hereby affirmed. 
 I am, very respectfully, 
 
 B. H. Bristow, Secretary. 
 
 Collector of Customs, New York. 
 
 The Century Company then prepared the following. appeal, which they had iij- 
 tended to revise and amplify and accompany by a personal presentation of the case 
 when it should come up at Washington, but unfortunately through a misunderstand- 
 ing it was forwarded without their knowledge, and this opportunity was lost. 
 
 IN THE CASE OF THE ENGRAVED BLOCK IMPORTED BY THE CENTURY COMPANY PER 
 
 STEAMER CALEDONIA. 
 
 The facts in this case are as follows : This block is the work of Mr. Timothy Cole, 
 who stands in the front rank of American wood-engravers. He is now residing in 
 Italy, where he has gone for the purpose of engraving directly from the originals the 
 masterpieces of the great Italian artists. This work he does with his graver upon 
 the block, directly in front of the originals, and we claim that the work should be ad- 
 mitted free of duty under the law governing "works of art, the production of Ameri- 
 can artists residing abroad." 
 
 Mr. Cole's training, tal6nts,'and wonderful skill in his art certainly entitle him to 
 rank as an artist, and his engravings seem to us in every sense works of art within the 
 meaning of the statute. Had it been foreseen at the time the law was framed that wood- 
 engravers were likely to go abroad for such study, or had the question been raised as 
 to their work being possibly ruled out under the law as it stands, we have no doubt 
 that its framers would have included this class of art- work by name. The intention 
 of the law, as we understand it, was to encourage art in its broadest sense, and to en- 
 able artists residing or studying abroad to have the benefit of the home market with- 
 out the payment of duty. We do not understand that the word " paintings" in the 
 statute has ever been construed to include only those which have been done by a 
 brush in either oil or water colors. As we understand, those executed in crayon or 
 charcoal, or drawings done by means of the pen or pencil, are admitted without ques- 
 tion under the law as it stands. Neither do we understand that any question has 
 been raised as to the material upon which such works are executed ; they may be 
 upon canvas or pasteboard or paper or upon wood, and, indeed, we had supposed that 
 an artist who preferred to etch his work would be at liberty to import his plate. Cer- 
 tainly, Mr. Cole's work is in a line with all these; he simply uses a graver instead of 
 a pencil or pen, and in many cases he gets results much more beautifal. His work 
 fosters the study of art and helps on the art movement which, as we understand, the 
 law was designed to promote. 
 
 Even if it be urged that decision No. 2468 Is against the admission of Mr. Cole's 
 work, we would call attention to the fact that since that time an immense advance 
 has been made in the art of wood-engraving. Men of really artistic temperament 
 have adopted this method of expression, and American wood-engraving has been 
 recognized of late as the best executed in the world. The present venture of Mr. 
 Cole is with a view to executing works which will be recognized as masterpieces 
 even in this advanced school of wood-engraving, and we respectfully submit that 
 his work, which certainly comes under the title of "work of art" in its generally 
 received sense, should be admitted free of duty, believing that this is entirely within 
 the spirit of the law and in accord with its known purpose of encouraging the art 
 of which Mr. Cole is so distinguished an exponent. All of which is respectfully sub- 
 mitted. 
 
1344 BE VISION OF THE TARIFF. ' 
 
 The Treasury Department sustained the assessment of duty in the following de- 
 cision ; 
 
 Tkeasdkt Dbpartmknt, February 20, 1890. 
 
 Sir: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 7th instant, submitting the 
 appeal of Messrs. Baldwin Bros. & Co. from your assessment of duty at the rate of 25 
 per cent, ad valorem on a certain eugraved wood block imported by them per Cale- 
 donia, December 9, 18b9. The appellants .state that the block is the work of Mr. 
 Timothy Cole, who stands in the front rank of American wood-engravers, and who is 
 now residing in Italy, where he went for the purpose of engraving from the originals 
 the masterpieces of the great Italian artists, and they claim that the block is entitled 
 to the provisioD in T. 1. 819, for "works of art," the production of American artists. 
 
 The Department having heretofore decided that engraved blocks are not embraced 
 in the terms "works of art" (S. 2468), the claim of the appellants is rejected and 
 your a.s8essnieut of duty is hereby affirmed. 
 Kespectfully, etc., 
 
 Geo. C. Tichbnoe, 
 
 Assistant Secretary, 
 
 COLLECTOK OF CUSTOMS, New Tork, N. Y. 
 
 We desire now again to appeal the case and to call the attention of the Depart- 
 ment to the proof of the engraving in question, sent herewith, which seems to us to 
 feho w more clearly than any argument the fact that Mr. Cole's engravings are entitled 
 to rank as works of art. 
 
 Mr. JoHNSRN (resuming). It will be seen that the present decision is based entirely 
 on precedent, and not, as we think, with sufflicently full consideration of the real ques- 
 tion involved, which is rather a matter of fact, whether wood-engravings are works 
 of art, not whether they were so regarded by the gentlemen who framed the original 
 law. I expected to ask a rehearing at the Treasury Department and went to see the 
 Secretary yesterday for that purpose, but he was apparently so engrossed with the 
 demands of that enterprising and active class of citizens who give the last touch of 
 charm to official life, that I was not able to get a hearing with him. However, any- 
 thing the Secretary of the Treasury should now decide might be overturned by one 
 of his successors; therefore, it is desired that the status of wood-engravings should 
 be specifically recognized in the present provision for the iree entranceof works of 
 art made by Americans abroad. 
 
 The Chaihman. You only want wood-engravings? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir; drawings in general are admitted at the present time. 
 
 Mr. Carijsle. When made with a pencil ready for the engraver ? 
 
 Mr. Johnson We do not import drawings on the block. Other drawings by 
 Americans are admitted, I believe. This block is an electrotype from the wood 
 block. This white appearance upon the face of the block is given by card-board 
 rubbed in to bring out for you the delicate lines that otherwise would not be clearly 
 visible. Before this block could be used we should have to wash it. The original 
 engraving is on wood and is bo valuable that we avoid sending it by mail for 
 the simple reason that it is likely to be knocked about and the corners and lines de- 
 stroyed. The block which I present to you for consideration is the electrotype which 
 is used in printing, in place of the original, which is liable to be injured. 
 
 The Chairman. It is transferred from the block to this. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir ; it is done by an electrotyping bath. An impression of the 
 block is taken on wax, which is hung in an electric bath and a copper deposit is made 
 on the wax. At first it is a flexible shell, then it is backed up as you see to the 
 height of a type, and is then ready for printing. If this one becomes injured another 
 can be made from the original wood block. 
 
 In support of our contention that wood-engraving is an art, and especially that 
 wood-engraving in America has become conspicuously an art since the deciuion made 
 by the Treasury Department, I wish to read a short article by Prof. Charles Eliot 
 Norton, of the chair of line arts of Harvard College, which was contributed to the 
 Nation on the 2'ith of March, 1889. 
 
 MR. cole's wood-cuts IN THE CENTURY. 
 
 To the Editor of the Nation : 
 
 Sir: The engravings by Mr. Cole wliich are appearing from month to month in the 
 Century as illustrations of the " Old Italian Masters" have hardly attracted the at- 
 tention they deserve. Nothing that has as yet been done by the' American engravers 
 on wood who, during the last lew years, have carried their art to the highest excel- 
 lence in reproducing the characteristic qualities of the work which they have had to 
 copy, has surpassed in exactness of delineation, in refinement and vigor of exeoutioni 
 
EE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 1345 
 
 and in sympathetic rendering of tlie subtlest features of the original, these remarkable 
 productions of Mr. Cole. The variety of the technical methods of which he shows 
 himself master has enabled him to reproduce with equal success work as widely dif- 
 ferent in motive and style as the mosaics of Eavenna and the panel paintings of the 
 Florentine artists of tha fourteenth century. 
 
 No engravings hitherto existing of the works of early Italian art give so much of 
 the essential spirit as well as of the manner of painting of these works as this series 
 of Mr. Cole's. It is, therefore, invaluable to the student or the lover of the art of a 
 period when the poetic genius of Italy was inspired with the first flush of conscious 
 power, and was endeavoring to express itsolf in forms of beauty which it was not 
 yet able completely to realize, but which, in their very simplicity and imperfection, 
 often possess a charm beyond that of the more complete performances of a later and 
 more sophisticated age. 
 
 Mr. Cole's skill is so masterly, and his artistic sympathies are so broad, that there 
 is no doubt that he will reproduce the work of the painters of the fifteenth and six- 
 teenth centuries not less admirably tbau he is doing that of their forerunners. 
 
 His notes upon the pictures which he copies are full of interest in connecfion with 
 his engravings, and Mr. Stillmaii's papers which accompany the illustrations are 
 excellent. 
 
 There is much more to be said of these engravings, but I have said enough, for the 
 present, at least, if my words induce those of your readers who have not hitherto 
 paid attention to them to recognize their extraordinary merit and exceptional interest. 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 Charles Eliot Norton. 
 
 Cambridge, March 24, 1889. 
 
 We are making such progress in this country in many different directions that it 
 would be surprising if all the members of the committee should have kept in touch 
 with the progress that has been made in the art of wood-engraving since the Phila- 
 delphia Exposition of 1870, which gave a decided impetus to the development of all 
 the graphic and beautiful arts in tliis country. This is shown by a comparison of 
 this volume of the Ceniury Magazine of the year previous to the Philadelphia Ex- 
 position with these recent examples of what we regard as the highest type of wood- 
 engraving that this country has yet produced. I wish to call your attention es- 
 pecially to the enormous gap between the crude blocks of the earlier times and the 
 superb finish and expression of the present work. And this progress, I may say, is 
 not merely confined to the work of one man; it is characteristic of the whole Amer- 
 ican craft. Nothing in any other department of art has given us so general or so 
 honorable a reputation abroad as the progress of American wood-engraviug. This 
 progress had its origin in the fact that the Century began about 187.5 a series of ex- 
 periments to enlarge the limits of the art, by the endeavor to reproduce ou wood, 
 more accurately than had been done before, the tone and the sentiment of the differ- 
 ent forms of graphic expression, such as a crayon or pencil sketch, an etching, a 
 water-color drawing, a painting in oils, and a daguerreotype. Some of these experi- 
 ments were failures, but many were successful, and they and the movement which 
 followed have advanced the art to its present excellence. Engravers were thus 
 brought into close contact with draughtsmen and painters and with printers of wood- 
 engravings, and the three classes have had an effect upon one another of great edu- 
 cational value. The engraver has aided the draughtsman to adapt bis work to re- 
 production on wood, and on the other hand has learned from the draughtsman how 
 to produce new effects. Meanwhile the printer has shown to both the draughtsman 
 and the engraver the limitations of block printing and has learned through them to 
 extend the limits of his own resources. 
 
 It is but a commonplace to say that American wood-engraving is the finest contem- 
 porary wood-engraving in the world; it is, moreover, the only department of art in 
 which America has an acknowledged pre-eminence on the other side of the Atlantic. 
 Among the beautiful products which we export to the countries of Europe there aio 
 two which are now particularly in demand: One the American wood engraving, 
 and the other the American young women; and it may s,afely be asserted that the 
 American engraving is not behind the American young woman in the national quali- 
 ties of spirit, variety, delica,cy, sensibility, cleverness, and charm. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You do not mean to say the American girl is a production of art? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I do, sir; and of the highest type. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Who would ever have thought that that joke would come from my 
 friend on the other side of the table I 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Now with regard to the question as to how far, historically, wood-en- 
 graving is recognized as a work of .art. In addition to this letter of Mr. Norton, to 
 which should be accorded the highest authority, wood-engravers are recognized as 
 artists by painters themselves, both in this country and abroad. In England wood- 
 engraTera are admitted to the degree of Eoyal Academician. The chief museums of 
 
 485 85 
 
1346 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 art in America and Europe include wood-engravijigs as a proper portion of their 
 exhibit, and no museum lualies discrimination against them on the score of art. 
 There has been a professorship of wood-engraving in our own National Academy of 
 Desi'i'n. The Munich International Exhibition of the Fine Arts and the Paris Salon 
 {the o-reatest annual fine-art exhibition in the world) have awarded medals for engrav- 
 ino- to American exhibitors; and, what is perhaps the greatest compliment that has ever 
 been paid to American wood-engraving, the first gold medal for wood-engraving was 
 bestowed by the fiue arts section of the Paris Exposition upon an American, Mr. 
 Elbridge Ki'ngsley ; and seven other special prizes were given to American engravers. 
 
 I have perhaps said enough to show that wood -en graving is not merely a slavish 
 tracing of a design which is set before the artist, but requires artistic temperament 
 and training; the different tones and shades of the original must be reproduced and 
 the methods employed are as various and individual as those of the painter. The 
 art is moreover a popular one and its achievements contribute in the most important 
 way not only to the preseut glory of American art, but also to the spread of art 
 among our own people, and consequently to that education which must precede our 
 pre-eminence in art when our day shall have arrived. To class wood-engravers as 
 artisans is to do them a gi-ave injustice, for the mechanical part of their work is to 
 the artistic as one to a hundred. 
 
 I shall be very glad to answer any (luestions the members of the committee desire 
 toast. With this exception I have nothing further to say. 
 
 Mr. Caklislb. You say drawings on wood by American artists are now admitted? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I will not say drawings on wood, for I doubt if any are imported; 
 other drawings are so admitted. 
 
 Mr. Caklisle. No stress seems to be laid upon the fact in the decision that they 
 are simply copies, because that argument would apply to paintings which are copies. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Assuredly. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. It is just simply upon the ground that it is not a finished work of 
 art, the block itself; that the engraving itself on the block is not a finished work of 
 art. That is to say it is not lu a finished form. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. But these blocks are exhibited by themselves in museums as works 
 of art. Certainly the art is in it when it leaves the hand of the engraver, all the art 
 thiTe is. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Because nothing is to be done except take the impression. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. That is all. I will say further, Mr. Chairman, that I believe there 
 will be no opposition whatever to the pro^iosition we make. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there anything further 1 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Nothing except that as this is not theoreticallj' a tariff question but 
 a question of the status of wood engravings it might be simpler to make the change 
 by a special bill. I thank you, gentlemen, for your kind attention. 
 
 The Chairman (referring to the engravingsj. Do you desire to leave these here? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I should like to leave them for the members of thecommittee to see. 
 I should like to direct attention to the extraordinary delicacy of these engravings, 
 and while there are not many artist engravers of America who are doing work 
 abroad, probaljly not three ; at the same time under the present interi)retation of the 
 law they are subject to onerous discrimination. Their own country oflicially refuses 
 to recognise the honor which they confer upon it and which is officially recognised 
 in fereign countries. 
 
 The Chairman. And this system is just beginning ; it is only comparatively re- 
 cently that our artists have gone abroad lor the purpose of making these engravings. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir ; Mr. Cole is the only person I know of who has deliberately 
 undertaken an important ]iroject of this kind. This is our project and we sent him 
 abroad for the purpose of obtaining a reproduction for popular use of the best art of 
 all times. 
 
 WATER-COLORS. 
 
 The Ways and Means Committee of the Fifty-first Congress of the United States : 
 
 Your petitioner, the Nicholson Comp.any, of Rochester, N. Y., a corporation organ- 
 ized under the laws of the State of New York for the manufacture of water-colors, 
 respectfully represents : 
 
 That, after many years of experiment and practical tests, it has succeeded in pro- 
 ducing a water-color which is pronounced by professional and amaleur artists to be 
 equal to the best imported water-colors. Its catalogue, exhibiting the number and 
 kinds of water-colors manufactured by it, is herewith submitted. 
 
 In placing its i)roduct upon the Auiericau market, the Nicholson Company finds, in 
 offering its lowest possible discount to jobbers, that the English manufacturers of 
 water-colors, Winsor & Newton, whose wares have had until now a practical mo- 
 nopoly of the American market, are able to and do offer a much greater discount. The 
 
REVISION OP THE TAEIFF. 1347 
 
 • 
 ■water-colors mamifactnred by both Wiusor & Newton and by the Nicholson Com- 
 pany are put up in the same manner, namely, iii small porcelain pans or cups, 
 wrapped in tin-foil, sealed and labeled. 
 
 Upon examining our tarift" laws, th^ reason why the English manufacturers are 
 thus able to offer jobbers such discounts as to practically exclude all competition be- 
 comes at once apparent. The raw materials which enter into the composition of 
 manufactured water-colors are usually imported, and upon them there is a duty of 
 about 25 per cent. The manufactured article is put up in a small porcelain cup w.hich 
 costs in America more than double what it does in England, as your petioner is cred- 
 ibly informed. The cuj) is then wrapped in tin foil, an article which is also much 
 more costly in America than in England. These packages thus inclosed are then put 
 into boxes sometimes of paper, more often of japanned metal. Incredible as it may 
 appear, the water-colors thus inclosed in porcelain, tin foil, and sometimes in ja- 
 panned boxes, are admitted on payment of a duty of 25 per cent. only. So far as 
 the japanned box is concerned, your petitioner is informed that the administrative 
 bill already passed and now in the Senate provides for a duty upon the japanned 
 packages in which water-colors are imported into this country. This is good so far 
 as it goes. 
 
 Your committee will understand without any further argument that no American 
 manufacturer can possibly compete with the Winsor & Newton water-colors under 
 these circumstances. The tariff upon the raw material and upon the manufactured 
 article being precisely the same is equivalent to there being no duty whatever upon 
 the foreign water-colors. When the greater price of labor, the greater cost of porce- 
 lain and tin-foil is considered, -the American producer is at a x)ositive disadvantage 
 and must be beaten in the unequal light. It is submitted that so long as the duty 
 ni)on raw materials remaius, consideration being taken of the difference in the cost 
 of labor, porcelaiu, and tin-foil, a duty of 75 per cent, upon all manufactured water- 
 colors would not be more than is required to protect American manufacturers. In 
 case it should be deemed best to abolish the duty on raw materials, a duty of 50 per 
 cent, upon the manufactured article would probably answer the same purpose. 
 
 Your petitioner desires nothing more than fair play. Unless the present discrimina- 
 tion in favor of the English and against the American manufacturer is put an end to 
 by 5'our action, the Nicholson Company and all other in like situation must abandon 
 the attempt to manufacture American water-colors for the use of Americans. The 
 industry is in its infancy, although the fruit of years of patient investigation and 
 labor and of a very considerable expenditure of money. Your petitioner submits 
 this matter to your committee with confidence that its action will be for the best 
 interests of the American people. 
 
 Nicholson Company, 
 By Charles P. Nicholson, 
 
 President. 
 John J. Van Zandt, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
1348 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 SILK CULTURE. 
 
 [See ante, page 595.] 
 STATEMENT OF F. W. CHENEY. 
 
 We regret, gentlemen, that we did not fully appreciate the importance of the dis- 
 cussion of putting a duty of $1 a pound on raw silk at the time of hearing before the 
 Committee of Ways and Means, on the 6th of January. We had not known before 
 that a project of this kind was likely to be presented to you by reliable parties or 
 would be seriously considered by you. On reading over the report of this hearing 
 we are struck by the many errors and omissions which occurred in transcribing the 
 stenographer's notes, which would lead any one, who was not present at the time, 
 to erroneous conclusions. For instance, I am made to say that the Serrell machine 
 had been in successful operation several years in Europe. This I did not, and could 
 not have said. 
 
 Great stress was laid by Mr. Walker on the performance of an automatic silk- 
 reeling machine, known as the Serrell system, which has been experimented with in 
 Europe for eight or ten years, and which Mr. Walker testifies to as follows, on page 
 604 of the report : 
 
 " We have a machine working at the Agricultural Department which is working 
 as automatically as a printing-press. I put in the material at one end and it reels 
 off silk at the other end ; no attention being necessary except when the thread breaks 
 and to keep the basin clean." 
 
 Also, on page 606, he testifies further : 
 
 " That it has been introduced in a dozen or fifteen mills aggregating 700 basins, 
 and they are negotiating for increasing the plant." 
 
 These statements are misleading to the extent that they are wholly untrue as ap- 
 plied to the Serrell system as a complete system, for that has never been made to 
 work in a successful way. It has not yet, after years of experimenting and with 
 the aid of ample capital and the interest of many of the most important men in the 
 silk trade of France, been adopted in France or Italy or been run except in an experi- 
 mental way ; and, so far as practical and financial results go, it is as yet a dead fail- 
 ure, and no one knows this to be the cold fact any better than Mr. Walker himself, 
 who nevertheless has testified, as stated, to the contrary. 
 
 He will probably say that he was only referring to the preparatory machine for 
 wetting out cocoons and gathering the ends preparatory to reeling, but this is a com- 
 paratively small and unimportant part of the Serrell system of automatic silk reel- 
 ing, and should not be confounded with it. 
 
 The preparatory machine is as simple as a churn and works with very much the 
 same motion, and is entirely without the electric automatic appliances which make 
 up the novel features of the Serrell system. The last-named part of the machinery, 
 which contains really all there is novel in the Serrell system, is never to be seen run- 
 ning at the Agricultural Department. It wUl not go and no attempt is made to make 
 it go, so far as we can see. 
 
 All that has been claimed for this system of reeling is unproven and, to state it 
 squarely, untrue. It has not been demonstrated that any reduction in the cost of 
 preparing raw silk can be made by it. It must be laid wholly aside and counts for 
 nothing in the question under discussion. It is unfortunate that an. important De- 
 partment of our Government should allow its indorsement to be given to a scheme 
 which has already absorbed a great deal of money abroad, and has the suspicion of 
 speculation attached to it. 
 
 Congress has appropriated, according to Mr. Walker's testimony, page 604, $20,000 
 a year for the last four or five years, and this sum, he says, has been expended in 
 various experiments for salaries, eggs, and experimental machinery. All there is to 
 show for this expenditure in the way of machinery is a very imperfect plant, which 
 illustrates nothing, except the way not to do the work it was made for. 
 
 We do not object to the liberal expenditure of money for experimental purposes in 
 developing any; branch of the silk industry, but we do protest against any official 
 indorsement of schemes which can only show a record of failure. The Government 
 should at least keep clear of promoting and booming speculations in machines, which 
 won't go when put to the test of actual service. Let enterprises of this kind be left 
 wholly to the individual elforts of the boomers. 
 
 We do not think a duty of |1 a pound on raw silk would result in the production of 
 any considerable quantity in the next ten years. Two dollars a pound might accom- 
 plish more, and if it did the product would have to be sent to Europe for a market, 
 for in the meantime the silk manufacture would have languished and died here 
 One dollar a pound is estimated by Mr. Walker to be the equivalent of 20 per cent. 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 1349 
 
 ad valorem, but, as he says that the average of last year's importation of raw silk was 
 $3.48 per pound, it is evident that the duty is more nearly 30 per cent., a tax it would 
 be utterly impossible for our manufacturers to overcome, as that is the duty on all 
 kinds of silk threads and yarns, and the duty on fabrics under the proposed schedule 
 is about the same, 30 per cent., on the better class of goods, and will not average 
 more than 40 per cent, on the whole range. 
 
 Even at 50 per cent., as the rate stands now, the margin of profit to the manufact- 
 urer would disappear and the market would be given over to foreigners. If you 
 wish to form an alliance with the importers to cripple the silk industry in America 
 you could not do it in any more effectual way than to put a duty of $1 a pound on 
 the raw material. A smaller duty would only be an evil of lesser magnitude to the 
 manufacturers, and would not be an edeqnate protection to the silk-growers. Silk 
 culture for profit is not possible in America so long as the disparity in wages exists 
 between us and the great silk producing countries of the world. One dollar a day 
 here is not more than the equivalent of 10 cents in China, India, and Japan, or 2o 
 cents in France and Italy. 
 
 It has been asked if the same differences do not exist in the wages of skilled labor 
 employed in manufacturing. We think not to the same extent, but even if it were 
 true, we ask whether it is right or wise to destroy an established industry, the 
 growth of half a century, in order to create one which can only be carried on at a 
 loss, probably for the next half century. When the possibility, or even probability 
 of raising our own raw silk can be demonstrated, no set of men will hail it more 
 gladly than our silk manufacturers, who will do all they can to make the silk indus- 
 try native American in all its branches. They are not, however, ready j ust at present 
 to throw away what they have in order to try experiments which have already been 
 attempted over and over again ever since the early days of the Virginia colony. The 
 literature of these attempts is ample, and it is hardly worth while to go over it now 
 in a hurried way. 
 
 I feel that I know something about this subject myself, as it has been my study and 
 occupation for over forty years in this country, and in ludia, China, Japan, and Italy. 
 Members of my own family have faithfully tried silk culture in Connecticut, New 
 Jersey, Ohio, and Georgia, and over a sufficiently wide range of territory, and for a 
 long enough time to exhaust their stock of faith in it ; and we are not willing to accept 
 the statements, uncorroborated by facts, of theorists and amateurs, that the conditions 
 are so changed, that the problem is now all worked out, and that all you have got 
 to do is to tax the silk manufacturers $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 a year to make this a 
 great silk- producing country. After the tax has been paid for a few years, there will 
 not be money enough left among us to pay our funeral expenses, and no one will be 
 ' richer except our foreign competitors. We will have the experience, and they will 
 have the money. 
 
 We beg of you, gentlemen, to consider carefully the bearing of this proposed duty 
 on our raw material before you recommend it. The losses incurred on account of it 
 will not fall on the silk manufacturers alone, but will be distributed so that all will 
 have a share of them. A duty sufficient to do any good to silk growers will have to 
 be prohibitory, and it will take ten years at least to try the experiment to the satis- 
 faction of the silk growers. We do not wish to be understood as being in any way 
 antagonistic to giving encouragement to all who are honestly desirous of still further 
 experimenting in silk culture, and we most earnestly recommend increased expendi- 
 tures on the part of the Government to promote, in all reasonable ways, efforts which 
 may in the end prove more successful than we now anticipate. 
 
 A bounty of several dollars a pound would only cost a few thousand dollars a year, 
 instead of the $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 which would be exacted from the manufactur- 
 ers, who, after filFty years or more of labor, have succeeded in establishing a flourish- 
 ing industry, and one which should keep pace with the increase of wealth and culture 
 of this country, and be ranked among the fine arts of manual labor. 
 
 STATEMENT OF PHILIP WALKER. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, on the 6th of January I had the honor of appearing 
 before this committee in support of a proposition to place a duty of ^1 a pOtind on 
 reeled silk. At that time there also appeared Messrs. Frank W. Cheney and B. Richard- 
 son, who, in the interests of the Silk Association of America, opposed the imposition 
 ofsuchaduty. These gentlemen have also appeared here to-day. I have here a 
 series of books published under the auspices of that association. The first, published 
 in 1H76, is entitled '-The Silk Industry in America;" the second, published in 1880, 
 "The Silk Goods of America," and the third, published in 1886, "American Silk 
 Manufacture." Following the historical portion of each of these works are annual 
 reports of The Silk Association of America, each of which shows that its president at 
 the time was Mr. Frank W. Clieney , and that one of its directors, and later one of its 
 
1350 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 vice-presidenta, wasMr. B. Richardson, both of whom, as I hare stated, have appeared 
 before you. The statemeu ts made iu the books at that time had, therefore, the sauctiou 
 of these 'a*iitlemen who to-day oppose the imposition of a duty on raw-sillc and an- 
 nounce that it wouhl be ruinous to their interests. If it had not their personal 
 sanction in had that of the association of wliich they were then and are now officers, 
 and which they Jiow represent before your honorable committee. Without desiring 
 to take up too much of the time oftho committee I should like to read extracts from 
 these books and make some remarks upon them. 
 
 I do not wish to be tedious but I think that some facts which I can deduce will 
 prove of interest to the committee. 
 
 It has Ijeen said that silk culture can not pay liere ; that it has been tried over and 
 over at;aiu and failed ; that it was protected from ISlC) to 1846 and still was a failure ; 
 and thence it is asserted, as it was by Mr. Cheney before the t.ariff commission in 1882, 
 that the idea of silk culture in the United States is a fallacy. 
 
 Everybody knows that the efforts at silk culture prior to 1840 degenerated into the 
 Multicaulis craze. 
 
 " The young trees or cuttings which were sold in 1834 or 18?.ri for |3 or $5 a hun- 
 dred, came soon to be worth |22, |50, $100, 5p200, and even 9}oOO a hundred. (1876, p. 
 39). 
 
 " The times were rife with speculation. The great panic and djsasier of 1837 had 
 thrown to the surface many restless, unscrupulous spirits, who were willing to embark 
 in any enterprise, however daring or doubtful its clia.racter, which seemed topromise 
 thi^ slightest opportftnity of regaining the fortunes they had lost. Numbers of these 
 plunged into tlie Multicaulis speculation and made it more disastrous in its results 
 than it otherwise would have been ; but there is this ground of consolation in regard 
 to them, that not one of them escaped the ruin they helped to bring upon others." 
 (1876, p. 40). 
 
 Many men bitten in this craze are alive to-day and some in silk manufactures. Some 
 of them you know. 
 
 " In January, 1838, Ward, Rush, Frank, and 'Ralph Cheney started at South Man- 
 chester the Mount Ncbo silk mills. They had been for four or five years previous 
 raising silk-worms and producing some silk, like their neighbors. The mills were 
 closed for a time, when Ward, Rush, and Frank removed temporarily to Burlington, 
 N. J. They established there mulberry orchards, cocooneries, etc., and conducted 
 and published from .July, 1838, to .July, 1840, the magazine known as the ' Silk-Grow- 
 ers' Manual.' Other members of the family estaldisbed mulberry plantations near 
 Augusta, Ga., in Florida, and at Mount Healthy, Ohio. In 1841 they returned to South 
 Manchester, heavy losers by the failure of the Morns Multicaulis. They re-opened 
 the Mount Nebo silk mill, and with new machinery, commenced the iiiannfacture of 
 sewing-silk and twist." (187o, p. 60). 
 
 Thus are opinions formed, thus are opponents to silk culture raised up. In such 
 times was the tariff imposed, when as we read in the book for 1886 (p. 32) " Silk cult- 
 ure snifered an immense loss, both of capital and prestige, by the multicaulis spec- 
 ulation." Is itto be supposed that anything could succeed under such circumstances ? 
 A letter recently received bears on this : 
 
 Phillip Walker, Esq : 
 
 Dear Sir: I find an old interest revived in noticing your appeal as reported in 
 this morning's Tribune, and that of Mr. Cheney, before the Ways and Means Com- 
 mittee, in the interest of silk as a national industry. This question was all gone 
 over industriously fifty years ago. (Please sei- Patent Ollice Reports for 1844, 184.'), 
 and 1846.) Then, had the nation encouraged and fostered, as you urge now, the pro- 
 duction of silk would hare been as certainly a staple as is cotton, or wool, or tobacco, 
 and there is no sufiicient reason why this ijiay not be accomplished. 
 
 I devoted a vacation from professional pursuits during the years above referred 
 to and spent considerable time in Washington in the, interest of New York silk im- 
 porters in the adjustment of silk tariff. My correspondence was largo and opportu- 
 nities extraordinary for knowing ju.st what might be done in our country to estab- 
 lish this industry. Now, again, with the man'iilacturc of silk established, the pro- 
 duction of cocoons and raw silk beeom(^s a matter of renewed and increased impor- 
 tance. I am now at liberty and would bo glad to render service could 1 see just where 
 such service would be effective. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 A. C. Van Epps. 
 
 And notwithstanding all this what were the feelings of the Silk Association of 
 Atneriea latei-, forty years after the multicaulis eiioch "l Let us see by their own pub- 
 lished statements. 
 
 " There is, hapjiily no immediate danger of any serious effort to reduce the iluties 
 on manufactured silks. It is fortunate that silk goods are a luxury, a luxury which 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1351 
 
 will better bear a portion of the burden of taxation when a country finds a large 
 revenue a necessity, than the necessaries of life; so that while our Government has 
 so much inti^rest to pay on its bonds, the duty on sill<s, which furnishes a considera- 
 ble part of the revenue, is not lil;ely to be diniiuislied seriously. But it is needful to 
 prepare steadily and skillfully for the changes in the tariff that may be expected, 
 wlien the reduction of the national debt shall diminish the amount of revenue re- 
 quired. 
 
 "Every improvement in machinery, or in prooessess of manufacture, which will 
 facilitate the production of better goods, or of the same qualities at less cost (for we 
 believe it is jtretty generally admitted that our goods are now, in many departments 
 of manufacture, superior to those irai>orted), should be encouraged and adopted. All 
 methods of reeliii"!,- or throwing silk, which accomplish by automatic machinery what 
 has hitherto been accomplished by hand labor, should be studied, and if found 
 proniisiug in good results, should at once be tested in actual operation." (1876, p. 130) 
 
 And later : 
 
 "There is no immediate prospect of a great or speedy revival of silk culture; but 
 in each State where the climate and circumstances are favorable to the rearing of 
 silk-worms, a filature, conducted by skilled reelers and moved by steam or water power, 
 which should buy all good cocoons offered, might he started to advantage. These 
 filatures would gradually serve to renew the interest in silk culture, and provide for 
 its eventual increase. They would not prove directly profitable, but they might 
 supply the lack of silk in bad years and would help our manufacturers in maintaining 
 their position in spite of all assaults." (1876, p. 131 .) 
 
 Mark the inconsistencies! It is recommended in the book mentioned that all meth- 
 ods of reeling silk which accomplished by automatic machinery what has hitherto 
 been accomplished by hand labor, should be studied, and if found promising in good 
 results should at once be tested in actual operation. And again, it is urged that in 
 each State where the climate and circumstances are favorable to the rearing of silk- 
 worms, filatures should be started which would serve to increase the interest in silk 
 culture, and by furnishing silk in years of short crops help our manufacturers in main- 
 taining their position in spite of all assaults from abroad. It might be well for the 
 members of the Silk Association of America to enlighten this committee as to what in 
 their opinion would be the object of experimenting witli silk-reeliog machinery, and 
 endeavoring to establish silic culture, if the moment any serious measures are talked 
 of it is opposed by these very persons who advocated it fourteen years ago. The silk- 
 raisers of this country only ask some of that protection which in a vastly greater de- 
 gree has been given to the opponents of this measure. 
 
 This was from the 1876 booli. It was an ex parte statement, as there was no visi- 
 ble opponent in the field. The 1880 one (silk culture was looking up a little) is more 
 guarded, but still there are hopes for the poor little industry that I represent before 
 you to-day. 
 
 " The raw material of which silk goods are made is not produced in this country. 
 This has been the case since 1840, with the exception of a few scattered experiments 
 of little profit and no commercial importance. There had been some business done 
 in silk culture for many years before the date named, but it was swept out of existence 
 by the ruin which followed great speculations in mulberry pl,ant.ations and a wide- 
 spread blight of the trees. In a large portion of the United States healthy silk-worms 
 can be bred and reared by anybody who has time, patience, and mulberry trees at com- 
 mand. The sole difficulty is to dispose of the cocoons at a profit. The manufacturer 
 of silk goods wants reeled silk, not cocoons. Reeling is the most important process 
 in preparing the raw silk, the value of that article depending largely upon the way 
 in which the reeling is performed. It is best conducted at a filature where cheap but 
 skilled labor can be applied. There is no filature at present in this country. 
 
 "Whether, under certain favoring circumstances, it would not be practicable to pro- 
 duce silk profitable in the United States is an open question. A great deal has been 
 said and written upon the subject. The most reasonable conclusions that have been 
 reached are to the following effect : It is not at all advisable to undertake silk cult- 
 ure anywhere on a large scale. The industry is not likely to be profitable, even 
 though conducted in a small way, if the culturist must first be at a considerable out- 
 lay for land and mulberry trees, or has to hire labor specially for the undertaking. If 
 the women of a farming household could, in addition to their usual labors, rear sitlk- 
 worms ; and if a sufficient number of families in a neighborhood were engaged in the 
 business to produce cocoons enough to keep a filature busy, then capital could be 
 easily found to build a filature and train its operatives. In .any case it is not to he 
 expected that the business would be highly remunerative, though it might, if skill- 
 fully conducted, add a little to the income of many households in the Middle, West- 
 ern, and Southern States after the first difficulties were overcome." (1880, pp. 10 and 
 11.) 
 
 It is said silk culture is not practicable here, that silk-worms can only be raised 
 where thunder-storms never occur. This statement comes, it is said, from a person 
 
1352 EEVISION OP THE TARIFF. 
 
 who is on my staff at the Agricultural Department. I do not believe he said it in 
 that way because it is so ridiculously untrue. The sudden lowering of the baromet- 
 ric pressure attending thunder-storms sometimes affects silk-worms unfavorably, but 
 it is by no means necessariJy fatal. Governor Gear will bear me out in saying that 
 the plains west of the Mississippi are noted for the severity of their thunder-storms 
 and still the fact exists that they produce the best cocoons in the United States and 
 in the greatest quantity. 
 
 I shall ask you to hear a member of my staff as to the quality of our cocoons. He 
 has a wide experience in Italy and can speak as an expert, and in this connection I 
 will submit copies of letters from Belding Bros. &, Co., as to the quality of silk pro- 
 duced therefrom by inexpert reelers : 
 
 New York, Fehrnary 12, 1887. 
 Philip Walker, Esq., 
 
 Deparliuent of Agriculture, WasMngton, D. C. : 
 In reply to yours of 10th instant, would say that the silk loolcs very nice and is 
 worth $5 per pound to us, and we will take it at that price. We have shown it to 
 some of our foreign friends and they pronounce it as being very good silk, and will 
 write you on the subject. Please let us know if the price is satisfactory. If so, we 
 will remit at once. 
 Yours, etc., 
 
 Belding Bros. & Co., 
 Per Emery. 
 
 EoCKViLLE, Conn., February 4, 1888. 
 Mr. Philip Walker, 
 
 Washington, D. C. : 
 Dear Sir : We send you by to-day's express a small package of silk representing 
 the diii'erent processes in its manufacture. This silk was manufactured from the raw 
 stock purchased from your Department, an<l we are much pleased with the working 
 and quality of the silk. It runs very even and is free from rough places and pro- 
 duces a thread of good strength. 
 Very truly, 
 
 Belding Bros. & Co., 
 Per H. L. Allen, Superintendent. 
 
 About this automatic machinery with which it was made. I think my remarks on 
 January 6 were clear on this subject, but they were befogged by subsequent remarks 
 of Mr. Cheney which the adjournment of the committee prevented my replying to. 
 
 There are two classes of automatic machinery — one prepares the cocoons for reel- 
 ing, tlie other reels them. The first machines are a success and in definite form, and 
 in use in the Department filature and in mills aggregating seven hundred basins in 
 Europe. The second, the reels, are still in an experimental state. They are not in com- 
 mercial operation. They are not needed to make silk reeling paying, with a duty 
 ttiongh, of course, they would add to the profit. With the automatic preparatory 
 machinery and a dollar a pound duty, and without the automatic reels, we can estab- 
 lish silk reeling and thence silk culture. The reeling must come first to produce an 
 outlet for the product of the culture. We have the preparatory machinery, we want 
 the duty. I told the committee in January that I had two automatic reels running. 
 So I had, and can start them up again to-day, but there are faults in their running 
 which 1 am at work on and hope to correct. This is why Mr. Payne saw them idle. 
 But this is outside the question. They will be an advantage, and an immeuse one, 
 but not a necessity to profitable silk reeling. 
 
 The manufacture of silk is one-sided here. We do not start at the beginning, but 
 iu the middle. All our raw silk comes from abroad. The author of the book glories 
 in the fact that silk manufacturing has become a success in the United States not- 
 withstanding the fact that our manufacturers "labor under the disadvantage of hav- 
 ing to procure their raw material from other countries." And yet they strenuously 
 oppose any serious measures to establish in this country the industry which will pro- 
 duce the raw material which they need and now buy abroad. The manufacturers 
 have been protected by various rates of duty since 1843, and in that time the United 
 States has collected more than 8475,000,000 of revenue from duties on manufactured 
 silk goods. These manufacturers have become wealthy through the influence of a 
 protective tariff. In becoming wealthy and in organizing they have become power- 
 lul. Though I can not claim to reiiresent tliem, I speak for a class of people who are 
 poor and powerless. The fact that they are interested in this culture is sufficient prooi 
 that they are poor and that they need the paternal protection of this Government. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1353 
 
 They are not prepared to be represented before this committee by influential persons, 
 as are the manufacturers, and it is for this reason perhaps that I feel it to be my duty 
 to present their claims more vigorously than I otherwise should. 
 
 No, gentlemen, the idea of silk culture is not a fallacy even in the United States. 
 The only fallacy which 1 can perceive which has been pushed into this question is 
 that of supposing that the committee would listen for a moment to the unsubstan- 
 tiated opinions of gentlemen who are the natural enemies of silk culturists, and who 
 make no pretense of being experts either in silk raising or silk reeling. 
 
 Signal Office, War Dbpartment, 
 
 Washington City, March 6, 1890. 
 Sir : Replying to your communication of the 5th instant inquiring as to the fre- 
 quency and severity of thunder-storms in China and Japan, I beg leave to inform 
 you that such phenomena are of frequent occurrence in the countries mentioned. 
 
 The record for June, 1883, the only month examined, shows upwards of twenty 
 thunder-storms to have occurred at one station in China ; they do not appear, how- 
 ever, to have been of unusual severity. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 A. W. Gheelt, 
 
 Chief Signal Officer. 
 Mr Philip Walker, 
 
 Chief of Silk Section, Agricultural Department, Washington City. 
 
 PROTECTION FOR FARMERS. 
 STATEMENT OP HON. M. H. McCORD. 
 
 Hon. M. H. McCORD, of Wisconsin, appeared before the committee and said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I represent in part one of the best 
 agricultural States in the Union, a State possessed of a climate and soil unsurpassed 
 by any, yet notwithstanding our genial climate and fertile soil our farmers are not 
 as prosperous as they should be ; they believe, and I fully share in that belief, that 
 the products of their farms are not receiving the protection from competition with 
 foreign importation they are entitled to. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. In what respect and on what articles do you think they ought 
 to have greater protection ? 
 
 Mr. McCoRD. On all ; on everything they produce ; and if the committee will 
 allow me I will briefly state how and why I think they should have greater protec- 
 tion from competition" with foreign producers. The farmers suffer from competition 
 by reason of importations from Canada and elsewhere. It is true that there has been 
 some effort made to protect the farmers by imposing a duty on some of the articles 
 they produce that are largely imported, but the duty is wholly insufficient to afford 
 the relief they are entitled to. The statistics show that there are imported annually 
 into this country of farm products about ISO, 000,000. About $3,000,000 of this is for 
 veo-etables alone. A million dollars worth of hay is annually imported and about 
 le.'oOO 000 dozens of eggs, valued at over $2,000,000. I give these figures from memory, 
 not havino- had time to look up the statistics, but they are substantially correct, 
 and I ask why is it necessary to import these products from Holland, from Scotland, 
 from Nova Scotia, from Canada, from Denmark, Norway and Sweden ? I call your 
 attention to these facts in the hope of showing that something should be done to di- 
 vert these large sums into the pockets of the American farmers and from the pockets 
 of foreign producers. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What do you suggest in the way of increased duties on farm 
 
 products ? 
 
 Mr. McCORD. The farm products of the West and those m which the farmers are 
 principally interested are barley, oats, barley-malt, beans, corn, buckwheat, butter, 
 cheese cabbage, eggs, hay, hops, poultry, flaxseed, and potatoes. To answer your 
 question specifially I would say that the present duty on barley is now 10 cents per 
 bushel and it should be raised to 30; barley-malt, now 20, should be raised to 40 ; 
 beans now 10 per cent, ad valorem should be 40 cents per bushel; buckwheat, now 10 
 per bushel, should be 20 ; butter, now 4 cents per pound, should be 6 ; cheese, 4 cents per 
 pound should be 6 ; cabbage, now 10 per cent, ad valorem, should be Scents per head ; 
 emrs now free, should be 5 cents per dozen; hay, now$2perton,shouldbe|4; hops,now 
 8"ce'nts per pound, should be 12 cents per pound ; poultry, now 10 per cent, ad 
 valorem should be 3 cents per pound live weight; and 5 cents per pound dead 
 weight •' flaxseed, now 20 cents per bushel, should be 30 cents ; potatoes, now 15 cents 
 per bushel, should be 25. There is now a duty of 20 per cent, on live stock imported 
 
1354 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 except for breeding purposes; this should be at least double. The present duty ou 
 pork and beef is 1 cent per pound, that should be double ; ou hams, bacon, and lard, 
 the duty is 2 cents per pound, aud it should be 4. I believe the figures I h.'ive 
 given will be but fair to the agricultural interests and no more than fair; and I 
 hope the committee will seriously consider them, aud not incorporate in the bill 
 a less increase than I have indicated. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. You introduced a bill, which was referred to this commit- 
 tee increasing the duty on potatoes from Ij to 20 cents per bushel. You now recom- 
 mend au increase to 2.5 cents. 
 
 Mr. McCoRD. Since I introduced that bill I have received many letters from po- 
 tato-raisers indifferent parts of the country, saying that the duty ought to be 25 
 cents per bushel. At that time I did not know that over 8,000,000 bushels of pota- 
 toes were imported into this country in 1888, many of them being brought in vessels 
 from the islands of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and from Europe as ballast, and when 
 brought that way they are brought witb only nominal freight charges upon them. 
 The value of these potatoes thus imported i'or the year 1888 was over $3,000,000, 
 which sum ought to have gone into the pockets of the American farmers. The 
 American people should be clothed with Aiuerican goods, manufactured in America, 
 and supplied in all respects with American products, and I most decidedly believe 
 that the American people should buy the iiroducts of the American soil, produced by 
 American farmers. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word about the tariff on lumber, as I repre- 
 sent one of the largest lumber manufacturing districts in the United States, but I 
 feel that I have already trespassed too long upon your valuable time. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Give us your opinion briefly as to whether the present duty on 
 lumber ought to be reduced or left as it is ? 
 
 Mr. McCoRD. My opinion is that it ought to remain as it is. If the dpty on lumber 
 was taken off, Ido not thinkitwouldreduce the price of the lowergradesof lumber, to 
 any appreciable extent, and on tbe upper grades not at all. The manufacturers of 
 lumber are not making au unreasonable profit on their manufactured product, when 
 the amount of money invested and the amount of labor employed is taken into ac- 
 count. The pine laud-holder would not reduce the price of stumpage no matter how 
 low the price of lumber might go. The only effect a reduction in the tariff ou 
 lumber would have in my opinion would be to appreciate the value of pine stumpage 
 in the Dominion of Canada. 
 
 In Canada the pine-timbered lands are held by the Government, and the lauds are 
 not sold ; they are held by the Government and not taxed. They sell the right to cut 
 the timber, and this duty of $2 per thousand merely serves to equalize the price of 
 stumpage between this country and Canada. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, one more suggestion upon the subject of agriculture which I think 
 is proper for this committee to consider, and I am done. The value of the agricult- 
 ural products for 1880 was $2,213,000,000, while the value of manufactured products 
 was $5,370,000,000 ; the capital employed by the farming interests was $10,197,000,000, 
 and the capital employed in manufacturing was only $2,790,000,000, or a little over 
 one-fourth as much as that employed in agriculture. The value of the manufacturecl 
 product is more than twice the value of the agricultural products. This shows con- 
 clusively there is something radically wrong, aud I believe the discrimination unjustly 
 between the manufacturing and tbe agricultural interests in the tariff legislation has 
 something to do with it. 
 
 In conclusion allow me to say that I believe tbe great mass of the laboring people, 
 and this of course includes the farmers, will be best subserved by taking the duty en- 
 tirely off of sugar or as nearly so as the needs of the Government for rfevenue will 
 permit. 
 
 DEXTRINE. 
 STATEMENT OF HORATIO N. GLOVER. 
 
 Boston, February 2'), 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir: In view of your proposed bill for the revision of the tariff, I wish to 
 call your attention to an injustice in the existing laws, which, I think, upon exami- 
 nation, you will agree should be remedied. I refer to the duties upon dextrine, or 
 burnt starch, and upon British gums. 
 
 I am, or rather was, a manufacturer of dextrine, and had built up a very fair trade 
 in the article. This lasted until the last revision of tbe tariff when the dirty on dex- 
 trine was placed at 1 cent per pound, and the duty on starch, of which dextrine is 
 made, was put at 2 cents per pound ; i. e., the duty on tho raw material was made just 
 doulile that ou tho manufactured article. This is au actual discrimination against 
 <he homo mauufacturor, which was evidently au ovt'rsight on the part of theframers 
 
EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1355 
 
 of the bill, and puts him in an even worse position than if there was actual free trade 
 in the articles, for theu, at least, he would have a fair chance of competition without 
 any handicap. 
 
 Almost all dextrine, and all of the better quality, is made from potato starch, 
 which can be produced in Germany cheaper than it can be here ; this fact, added to 
 the actual discrimination against the domestic manufacturer of dextrine, inevitably 
 drove the latter out of the market, and now 1 think I may truthfully say, all the 
 dextrine used in this country is manufactured by foreigners, principally by Germans, 
 and this not on account of any fault of the domestic manufacturer, for the home 
 product is better than the foreign, but simply because the Government handicaps 
 him by an unjust tariff and practically gives the foreigner a bounty of 1 cent per 
 pound. 
 
 Within the last few years improvements in machinery have in a great many 
 branches of liusiness enabled the substitution of dextrine for the more expensive 
 glue, aud there is at present an immense and constantly increasing amount of dex- 
 trine used in this country every year which is entirely supplied by foreign producers, 
 and of which the domestic manufacturer might supply his fair share if he could only 
 have fair play from the Government. 
 
 The logical remedy for this state of affairs would be of course to let the duty on 
 starch remain as it is, and to raise the duty on dextrine, or burnt starch, and British 
 gums, which are all of a similar nature, to 3 cents per pound ; but if this seems a tri- 
 ile violent the duties might be trausposed, that on starch might be placed at 1 cent 
 per pound, and that on dextrine, or burnt starch, and on British gums, at 2 cents 
 per pound, lu the latter event the manufacturers of potato starch, who alone of 
 starch manufacturers, I believe, have foreign competition to fear, would be compen- 
 sated for the smaller protection which they would have, by the increased demand for 
 their starch by the domestic manufacturer of dextrine, and I think that it is fairly 
 certain that a tariif of 1 cent per pound would give them adequate protection. 
 
 Something in any case should be done, aud if it were no more than to raise the duty 
 on dextrine and British gnras to 2 cents per pound, the domestic manufacturer would 
 tlien at least have a fair field with his foreign competitor. 
 
 Any inquiries which you may desire to make I shall be glad at any time to answer 
 to the best of my ability. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 Horatio N. Glovbr. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlet, Jr., 
 
 Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 RICE. 
 
 [See ante, page 926.] 
 STATEMENT FKOM GEORGIA PLANTERS. 
 
 Savannah, Ga., March 22, 1890. 
 
 Gbntlf.mkn: The members of the Eice Association of Georgia, a body composed 
 of planters, millers, .and merchants dealiug in rice, having recently learned that 
 your coioniittee proposed making serious reductions in the duties now imposed by the 
 tariff on rice, have requested me to represent to you that should these reductions be 
 carried into effect the production of rice in this country would rapidly diminish, and 
 would soon be discontinued. 
 
 By the conditions incident to the cultivation of rice the cost of producing it is 
 regulated almost exclusively by the price of manual labor. 
 
 This is true of the domestic as well as the foreign grown rice, but the price paid 
 the laborers in the rice fields of southern Asia is seldom more than 5 per cent., and 
 in no instance is it as much as 10 per cent., of the amount received by the laborers in 
 the rice fields of this country. 
 
 This can be readily and fully demonstrated by comparing the prices of Asiatic 
 labor as stated in the official reports of our consuls with the ample data now in the 
 hands of your committee in regard to the prices paid for field labor here. 
 
 If for the protection of American labor the Chinese are rigidly excluded from this 
 country, should not the products of China and southern Asia be so regulated as to 
 afford some protection to the laborers in the rice fields of America? 
 
 All parties appear to concur in the opinion that the duties levied on such imported 
 articles as compote in our market with similar articles produced in this country 
 should be proportioned to the relative cost of the labor employed in producing the 
 foreign and domestic articles. 
 
1356 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Should this standard be recognized in determining the duty to he imposed on for- 
 eiwn rice, it is apparent that the present rate, 2J cents per pound on cleaned rice, 
 
 is'iiot disproportionately high. 
 
 During the winter of 18a7-'88 about 4,000,000 pounds of foreign nee, claiming to he 
 "uncleaned," were brought into this port and sent to our mills to be cleaned. It had 
 a dirty " uncleaned " look, and the collector allowed it to pass as such. As soon, 
 however, as it came to be milled the fraud was detected. The whole of it had been 
 subjected to some of the processes of cleaning, and a portion of it to all of them, 
 with the subsequent and additional process of being adulterated with rice meal. 
 
 When these facts were represented to the Committee of Ways and Means, then 
 eno-ao-ed in revising the tarift', " uncleaned rice " was defined as rice with the outer 
 hutk^otf, but with the inner cuticle remaining on the grain. 
 
 The importers, learning that their scheme had been detected and to some extent 
 defeated, Mr. Talmage, of New York, an importer and dealer in rice, asked to be 
 allowed to address the " Rice Association," in order to prove that this definition was 
 altogether incorrect and unnecessary. He was accorded a long and courteous hear- 
 ing|°in the course of which he endeavored to convince us that "The all important 
 question in the tariff as it bears upon rice is that relating to the import of granulated 
 rice. The Mills bill confirms the Treasury ruling and places the governing screen 
 at No. 10 brass-wire sieve, instead of No. 14, as prescribed by Secretary Folger. 
 Herein then is the menace to the crop. The duty on cleaned rice is nullified one- 
 half and offers a premium on fraud." 
 
 He then assured us that any definition of uncleaned rice was unnecessary, inas- 
 much as to quote his words: "It can be demonstrated beyond truthful contradiction 
 that even cleaned rice can not be adulterated abroad with meal, be passed through 
 our customs at the rate of duty on uncleaned, and be prepared for market at any 
 less cost than the cleaned plus the higher rate of duty." 
 
 When this statement was made the gentlemen ought to have known and prob- 
 ably did know, that the cost to the owners of the rice then being milled did not 
 exceed 24 cents per 100 pounds for cleaning and placing it in a marketable condition, 
 the charge for barrels (15 cents per 100 pouuds,) included. 
 
 A letter purporting to have been addressed to your committee by Dan Talmage's 
 Sons, of New York, has been recently published. In this, after alluding to the duties 
 on "Paddy," "uncleaned," and "cleaned" rice, they state: "These differential 
 duties are now about relatively correct, yet if any change is made we suggest that 
 there be a slight widening between the difference of cleaned and uncleaned. The 
 reason of our request is to assure that whatever imports of foreign rice are required 
 they may be brought in an uucleaned condition, and the preparation for market per- 
 formed within our own borders, thus advantaging the millers and laborers of the 
 United States. Tbey then earnestly protest against the insertion of any term de- 
 scriptive of uncleaned rice, as that suggested in the Mills bill." 
 
 We fully concur in the opinion expressed above in regard to the class of rice that 
 will be imported should tlie proposed changes in the tariff be made, as we do also 
 with the motive assigned for their suggestion. 
 
 To promote this object, and for other substantial reasons, we beg leave to suggest 
 another change in the tariff. Under any definition of uncleaned rice it would 
 always be a perplexing question to decide whereto draw the line between "cleaned" 
 and "uncleaned," thereby offering, as Mr. Talmage expresses it, "a premium on 
 fraud. " 
 
 We therefore earnestly request that the terra " uncleaned rice " be eliminated from 
 the tarift', and that all imported rice be designated as "paddy" or "rough "rice, 
 cleaned rice, and granulated rice. 
 
 If this is done the mills in Savannah will enter into an obligation, if required, to 
 convert the paddy into cleaned rice at a cost not to exceed three-quarters of a cent 
 per pound. This shall include the cost for elevating, distributing, griuding, pound- 
 ing, etc., and also the charge for the barrels or sacks required to place rice ia a 
 marketable condition. " The millers and laborers of the United States " will then 
 derive the benefit of the entire cost of milling instead of the small fraction of it they 
 now receive, and the importers will pay less for converting the paddy in to cleaned 
 rice than they assert it now costs them to clean the so-called " uncleaned rice." 
 
 Moreover, as rice with the outer husk on is less liable to be eaten by wevil or to 
 become musty, the product of the foreign paddy milled here will be superior in 
 quality to the product of imported "uncleaned rice." It will thus appear that all 
 parties in interest — the American importer, miller, laborer, as well as the American 
 cousumer and producer of rice — will be benefited should you comply with our request. 
 Messrs. Bullett & Co., in behalf of the brewing interest, ask that the 20 per cent, 
 ad valorem duty on granulated rice and rice flour be abolished and assign several 
 reasons for this request. 
 
 If the present test of granulated rice (a No. 14 brass-wire sieve) is enforced, we 
 would not be seriously injured by a reduction of the duty to 5 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIPP. 1357 
 
 This, though a nominal charge, might be sufficient to defray the expense of inspect- 
 ing and recording the imports of granulated rice and rice flour. 
 With high respect, your obedient servant, 
 
 HousTouN Clinch, 
 
 The Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 President Bice Association of Georgia. 
 
 CANADIAN BARLEY. 
 
 COPY OF ARGUMENT PRESENTED BEFORE OSWEGO BOARD OF TRADE IN OPPOSITION 
 TO THE INCREASE OP DUTf UPON CANADIAN BARLEY, MARCH 13, 1890. 
 
 Mr. President and gentlemen, the barley crop of this country amounts to about 
 66,000,000 bushels (this year's estimate), and imports from Canada amount to about 
 10,000,000 bushels. 
 
 The beer brewed in 1888 and 1889 was 25,098,765 barrels. The barley used for malt- 
 ing purposes was about 40,000,000 bushels. Of this 40,000,000 bushels we will esti- 
 mate that 10,000,000 are imported from Canada, 8,000,000 are raised in New York 
 State, and the remaining '22,000,000 bushels used are supplied by the West and 
 California. There remains a surplus above the brewers' wants, which is used for 
 feeding purposes, of X5.000,000 bushels. 
 
 It is proposed to raise the duty on Canadian barley from the present rate of 10 
 cents to 20 cents, under the supposition that by excluding the 10,000,000 bushels at 
 present imported from Canada the American farmer will be benefited. 
 
 We maintain that such a proposition would be of little benefit to the American 
 farmers generally, and would be an actual injury to the farmers of New York State, 
 while it would at the same time inflict irreparable loss and damage to the vested 
 interests and business of other equally worthy American citizens. 
 
 First. As regard the supposed benefit to the farmers. As 30,000,000 bushels of 
 barley are raised and imported above the wants of the brewers, this entire quantity, 
 with the exception of a small portion exported, is used for feeding purposes. The 
 value of this large feeding surplus determines the value of the barley used for malt- 
 ing in accordance with a fixed law in the mercantile world. Now, how can the price 
 of the total crop be raised by simply excluding the 10,000,000 bushels imported from 
 Canada? There would still be left a surplus for feeding purposes of 26,000,000 
 bushels. The truth is that the price of Canadian barley and of New York State bar- 
 ley in the markets of the country is determined by the price of Western malt in those 
 markets. A brewer will say, " I can buy Western barley and malt at such a price ; 
 for Canadian or New York State barley malt, if of a better quality, I can afi'ord to 
 pay a few cents more." 
 
 The increased duty proposed would tend to drive the malting business from the 
 State of New York and the East generally to the West, where barley can be bought 
 cheaper. This certainly would be of disadvantage to the New York State farmers, be- 
 cause if the malting interests languish and die out in the East who will be their custom- 
 ers for barley ? It may be well to say that the Eastern maltsters consume all the Cana- 
 dian and New York State barley ; but if their supply of Canada barley is cut oflf they 
 must look to the West for barley, and if they have to do that they will go to the 
 West to make their malt, for the reason that it can be done cheaper near the base of 
 supplies. 
 
 Second. As regards the damage that would be done to the maltsters, grain dealers, 
 common carriers, and commerce of Lake Ontario, these men have under the offer 
 held out to them by the United States Government to import barley at a reasonable 
 rate of duty established their business and built their elevators, malt-houses, and 
 grain store-houses at points favorably situated for the malting and handling of Cana- 
 dian as well as State barley. They are not favorably situated for handling or malt- 
 ing Western barley, audit would be ruin to many of them if the duty were so in- 
 creased as to render it a prohibitory measure, which would be the result, and would 
 very materially injure the commerce of Lake Ontario. 
 
 The value of this 10,000,000 bushels Canadian barley is nominally 55 cents per 
 bushel, or |5,500,000 ; 40 per cent, of which, or about $2,200,000, is paid by the shipper 
 for duty and carrying expenses to put the barley on the American market. Of this 
 amount $1,000,000 goes directly into the United States Treasury, and a large propor- 
 tion of the balance is paid to American vessel owners, canal-boats, railway com- 
 panies insurance companies, and the thousands of laborers who are engaged in 
 transporting grain from the producer to the consumer. 
 
 In short, we can see no good that can result to any one by the increase of this duty, 
 but on the contrary, we can see that irreparable loss wiU result to the interests and 
 holdings of many American citizens. 
 
1358 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Finally, we think that instead of increasing the duty it ought to be greatly re- 
 duced, because under the present rate, with current prices, the Canadian farmer.oau 
 hardly cultivate barley at a profit, and we fear he may give up its cultivation alto- 
 gether, which would amount to the same thing as excluding our barley from our 
 
 TTl il T K 6 1" S 
 
 Upon motion the above argument was ordered printed, and copy thereof sent to 
 Hon. S. E. Payne, Congressman Twenty-seventh Congressional district, State of New 
 York. 
 
 D. M. Ikwin, 
 
 President. 
 J. B. Latheop, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 ACTION OF NEW YORK PRODUCE EXCHANGE. 
 
 New Yoek, March 25, 1890. 
 
 At a meeting of the members of the New York Produce Exchange, interested in the 
 barley trade, including maltsters, brewers, and dealers, held this day, the following 
 resolutions were adopted : 
 
 Whereas a bill is now before the Congress of the United States proposing to increase 
 the duty on Canadian barley from 10 to 30 cents per bushel; and 
 
 Whereas the passage of such bill would work material damage to a large and im- 
 portant branch of trade in the city of New Y'ork and vicinity, in which trade a vast 
 amount of capital is invested and a large number of men employed : 
 
 Eesolved, That the passage of the clause of the tariff bill increasing the duty on 
 barley will work serious injury to the commercial interests of a large and important 
 branch of trade in this exchange, and to the detriment of immense investments that 
 have been made in the building of a valuable and important commercial interest. 
 
 Resolved, That we most earnestly protest against a system of legislation such as 
 here proposed that will cause disaster and ruin, not only to those who are now de- 
 pendent upon a business that has grown to such vast proportions, but will depreciate 
 the value of such large vested interests, and virtually wipe out so important a port 
 of entry in the United States as the port of Oswego. 
 
 Edwakd Schwbyee, 
 
 Chairman. 
 
 ACTION OF MALTSTERS. 
 
 The Maltsters' Association of the city of New York and vicinity most respectfully 
 protest against the passage of the proposed increase of duty on barley, for the fol- 
 lowing reasons : 
 
 First. That relying upon the basis established by the Government of a duty of 
 10 cents per bushel being a maximum amount, we have made large and heavy invest- 
 ments for the purpose of carrying on our business, which investments will be 
 seriously affected by the passage of such a prohibitory duty. That we would be 
 utterly unable to continue the malting business, the base of our supplies being cut 
 off. 
 
 Secondly. That such an advance in duty will not work to the advantage of the 
 American grower of barley, and that for the manufacture of a good quality of beer, 
 Canada barley is a positive essenual. 
 
 Edward Schweyer, 
 
 President. 
 
 FREE ART. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MISS KATE FIELD. 
 
 March 26, 1890. 
 
 Miss Kate Field appeared before the committee on behalf of American artists and 
 said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I desire to address you briefly on the duty of 30 
 per cent, now charged on works of art brought from abroad. I can not do better than 
 to read a letter from Mr. Kenyon Cox, secretary of the National Free Art League. 
 This letter is as follows : 
 
 We hold ourselves in readiness to appear before the Ways and Means Committee 
 officially if we shall hear that we can have a hearing. Meanwhile your personal 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 1359 
 
 work with tlie members of that committoe is of great value to us and is appreciated. 
 Our president, Mr. Beckwith, telegraphed you the other day that we should be 
 willing to accept a reduction of the tariff on works of art in lieu of its abolition. 
 This, perhaps, admits of some qualification and enlargement. We believe, as firmly 
 as ever, that art is not a tit object of taxation, and are, on principle, as much as ever 
 for free art. We have not asked, and shall, not ask, as an organization, for anything 
 else.' But we are, though artists, not devoid of common sense, and recognize that a 
 reduction of the tariff is better than nothing. If the Ways and Means Committee 
 should see fit, in their discretion, to propose the reduction of the tariff on works of 
 art from 30 per cent, to 10 per cent, we should be duly thankful, and should " accept " 
 it as an instalhnent of what we think is our due, reserving to ourselves the right to 
 agitate the total repeal of the obnoxious tax at auother-time. 
 
 As your article in Washington shows, you are already acquainted with the general 
 arguments in our favor, why we think that protection does not protect us, etc. I 
 might suggest, however, certain additional facts and considerations. We have cer- 
 tain lists of figures that are not without interest. First, there is this list of imijorta- 
 tions of works of art, showing that the 30 per cent, tax does keep out such works. 
 
 Statistics of importations of paintings and statuary. 
 
 Duty. 
 
 Value. 
 
 1882 
 
 188a {lust year of 10 per cent, duty) 
 1884 (first year of 30 per cent, duty) 
 
 1888 ' 
 
 1889 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 
 10 
 
 $2, 574, 816 
 
 10 
 
 3, 088, 673 
 
 30 
 
 637, 763 
 
 30 
 
 1,440,753 
 
 30 
 
 1, 193, 072 
 
 The importations for 1883, when the impending increase of duty was known, were 
 probably unduly stimulated by that fact, but importations have never since reached 
 so great a figure as in 1882 before the increase of duty had been thought of. As the 
 law has, so far, succeeded in its purpose, what has been its effect on American art ? 
 The general belief among artists is that it has been the reverse of good — that artists' 
 sales have steadily diminished. We hope to obtain more proof of this than we have at 
 present, hut we have already the figures showing the sales of the Water Color Society 
 for some years. They are as follows : 
 
 Sales at the American Water Color Society. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 
 $32, 000 
 33, 000 
 18, 000 
 16, 000 
 20, 000 
 
 1886 
 
 $28, 000 
 21, 500 
 
 
 1887 
 
 J883 . 
 
 1888 
 
 23, 000 
 
 
 1889 
 
 20, 000 
 
 
 1890 
 
 19, 000 
 
 
 
 The Water Color Society always sells when any one can, and while these figures 
 may not prove that the tariff has caused artistic depression, they certainly tend to 
 prove that it has not brought about an era of prosperity to American artists. 
 
 We believe that the value of a work of art resides in the reputation of the artist 
 and that it is hopeless to try to raise the value of my pictures by taxing Jones's; 
 that the only result of taxing pictures and keeping them out is to reduce public in- 
 terest in all art — the taste for art being an "Appetite that grows by what it feeds 
 on " — and to place American artists in a position of more or less acknowledged in- 
 feriority to those of other countries against whom they are made to seem to desire 
 protection. Do not these figures seem to show that we are right ? How the artists 
 themselves feel about it you know. Our league has now between twelve and thirteen 
 hundred members and is constantly growing. The only thing that prevents its in- 
 definite extension is lack of means to meet the expenses of enrollment. 
 
 But, really, I suppose that few make the protection argument now in good faith. 
 What we have really to meet is the false idea that art is a luxury, purchased only 
 by the rich, and of no general utility and therefore a proper object of taxation. 
 "Why," say advocates of a tax on art, " let in the rich man's pictures free of duty 
 while we tax the poor man's, etc." Well, in the first place, the artists are, as a 
 
1360 KEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 class, poor men, and perhaps they deserve some consideration. But there is a hetter 
 argument than that, and one that has not been sniificiently dwelt on. Art is not a 
 " luxury ." It is not ' ' consumed " by any one hut stays in the country as part of its 
 permanent wealth, and it is an educator of priceless value. We will lay aside if 
 you please all considerations of higher civilization, general culture, the innocent 
 and elevating enjoyment of millions — all that might seem sentimental — and come 
 down to the lard test of dollars and cents. What is it worth to a country in money 
 to he highly cultivated in art ? And again we will dismiss the sales of works of art 
 properly so called. We will not ask what the worth to France, for instance, of its 
 exportations of pictures and statuary may be, but only what benefit its manufact- 
 ures receive from the general artistic cultivation of its people. Why do French 
 stuffs, French porcelains, French clocks, and carpets, and a hundred other things 
 find markets all over the world? Why do American ladies buy their dresses in 
 Paris ? Because the French are an artistic people in whom taste has been cultivated 
 to the highest degree, and because taste is worth money. If we wish to have good 
 designers for pottery or wall-paper or oil cloth or dress patterns or anything else in 
 which there is an element of taste we must have schools of art and good ones, and to 
 have such schools we must have highly trained and prosperous artists. Can you not 
 try to mtike the gentlemen in Washington see that it pays to cultivate the fine arts? 
 
 There is another point that I should like to impress upon some of these gentlemen 
 in private, if I knew them personally, though it is hardly one that we could dwell 
 on before the committee as a whole. I believe it would be exceedingly good politics 
 for the Republicans to remove the duty on works of art just now. The gentlemen 
 of the Ways and Means Committee know by experience how hard it is to take oft' 
 any duty without raising a proteat from the protected. Here is a duty that the 
 "protected " beg them to take off, and by the abolition of which they could gain the 
 reputation for far-sighted statesmanship and liberality, while they would meet with 
 no real opposition. Why don't they do it ? I can't yet make up my mind to despair 
 of the passage of a clause placing " Paintings in oU or water color, drawings, statu- 
 ary, and sculpture in relief, being the professional productions of a painter or sculp- 
 tor," on the free list. If they will not do this and will reduce the duty to 10 per 
 cent, we shall, as I said, be glad to take what we can get, but I think they will have 
 missed their effect. 
 
 This letter is hastily written, but you are at liberty to make such use of it as yoa 
 may think best for the advancement of our cause. 
 I remain, yours, very sincerely, 
 
 Kenyon Cox, 
 
 Having read the foregoing letter, Miss Field said: 
 
 Gentlemen, I want to have great respect for Congress. It is not a comfortable 
 sensation to feel that our legislators are not the peers of Solon. Why are men in Con- 
 gress if they don't know more than those who elected them to ofSce. If they do know 
 more, every folly committed by them proves greater idiocy in their constituents and 
 gives the whole country a very black eye. William Walter Phelps, before sailing for 
 Europe as Minister to Germany, declared in print that if the Republican party did 
 not reform the tariff it would be ignominiously beaten in 1892. Governor Meriam, of 
 Minnesota, tells the Farmers' Alliance that taxation should be reduced. Senator 
 Allison, fresh from Iowa and a triumph that will keep him in Washington at least 
 seven years longer, is ready for " reasonable protection." Then why not begin re- 
 form where no interested person wants protection ? To force medicine down the throats 
 of well people who never asked for it and are nauseated by swallowing it, is as sensi- 
 ble as to tax art. 
 
 I belong to the National Free Art League, and I protest. Being a woman and 
 having no vote, this is all I can do. In common with every artist and every art-lover 
 in the country, I ask for the passage of the free art bill now in the hands of the 
 House Committee on Ways and Means, of which Major McKinley is chairman. lu the 
 name of justice, art, and beauty, we ask for the removal of " duty on paintings, oil 
 and water colors, drawings, statuary, and sculpture in relief, being the productions 
 of a sculptor or painter." We hope it will be incorporated in the general tariff bill; 
 but if not, our only recourse is to make it a separate measure and do our best to have 
 it properly presented to House and Senate. 
 
 What are the facts? Before 1861 there was no tax on foreign art in this country. 
 In 18U1 a tax of 10 per cent., the lowest of all, was instituted as a war measure. This 
 comparatively mild burden was borno for twenty-three years. Then artists asked 
 for its abolition, and Congress replied by increasing the tax to 30 per cent., making 
 the burden aOO per cent, greater in peace and prosperity than during the period of 
 bloodshed and financial depression! 
 
 The history of the passage of this 30 per cent, measure is slgnitiQattt reading. 
 
 It was not advocated by the press. 
 
 It was not demanded by the people. 
 
REVISIOK OF THE TARIFF. 13G1 
 
 It was uot recommeutlod by the Taiifif Commission. 
 
 No bill was introduced or considered. 
 
 No legislator proposed or advocated it. 
 
 Congressional requirements were not complied with. 
 
 Senate and House disagreed on details of a bill on general tariff. 
 
 The committee of conference inserted two or three lines which were passed un- 
 noticed, March 3, 1883. 
 
 Does not 8uch;a trick savor of dishonesty ? 
 
 Taxation is justified by two reasons, revenue and protection. This increase, there- 
 fore, was an outrage; for revenue was not needed, and artists wanted no protection. 
 
 The law was disastrous in its results. Duties fell from $307,000 in 1883 to $191,000 
 in 1884, a decline of 40 per cent., while general trade only fell 7 per cent., and jewels 
 advanced. 
 
 The sales of American artists decreased, the demands for American art lessened. 
 The export of paiutiugs amounted to $387,000 in 1883, and fell to |176,000 in 1884. 
 Foreign nations remonstrated, as well they might; for in Italy, France, Geraiany 
 and Eussia, art is free ; while in all other countries, except Servia and those speak- 
 ing Spanish, it is taxed only 8 per cent. 
 
 Keeping out foreign art decreases popular interest in art, deprives home artists of 
 inspiration, and renders their work less valuable and less profitable. To claim, as 
 does Mr. Mills, of Texas, who is too clever not to know better, that this tax falls 
 solely on the rich, is to ignore artists who are, as a class, poor. It is to forget the 
 people who are dependent upon public sales, exhibitions, and museums for their 
 knowledge of the beautiful, whereby they become better educated and consequently 
 make better citizens. Not only this, but Mr. Mills forgets all artisans who are pre- 
 vented from attaining a high standard of work in many industries. 
 
 Not the least objectionable features of this outrageous tariff is the resentment it 
 inspires in foreign artists, and the difficult position in which our own art students 
 abroad are thereby placed. Our young men and women go to Paris and are received 
 with open arms, never paying a sou for their education so far as public galleries and 
 instruction are concerned. Their works are well hung and generously treated. 
 They make reputation which brings them fortune more or less great. At last year's 
 Exposition, American artists received one hundred and four medals and recompenses, 
 the largest number ever given to a foreign country. We repay this magnanimity by 
 virtually slamming our doors in the face of Europe. We say even to Verestchagin 
 and Millet when sent here for exhibition — an exhibition of incalculable benefit to 
 the artists and public — " Remain in bond longer than a year, and you must pay into 
 our custom-house 30 per cent, of your value." So these wonderful educators must 
 be galloped through the country, in order to get back to New York in time to take 
 a steamer before the twelve months are up! 
 
 Is it strange that France and Italy, having no fear of our art, should retaliate on 
 our pork ? 'Tis a very poor rule that does not work both ways, and if this Republic 
 wants to retain a shred of self-respect and receive consideration for its own com- 
 merce. Congress will look quickly to the abolition of the most senseless of all our 
 stupid taxes. 
 
 " We don't want a tariff on foreign art," sing American artists in chorus. " Wool- 
 growers may want a tariff, but we object. It is our ruin." "As long as wool is 
 taxed, replies Mr. Mills, "you shall be. Yoa are a luxury, wool is a necessity. You 
 represent the rich, wool represents the poor." So, pulling wool over the eyes of his 
 free-trading colleagues, Mr. Mills poses as the friend of labor! Was there ever more 
 arrant nonsense? If farmers are fools enough to be hoodwinked by such demagogy, 
 they deserve the distress into which so many of them have fallen. Give the United 
 States free art, and the sons and daughters of the soil will learn that the famUy 
 chromo is but the dawn of beauty. 
 
 I commend these thoughts to your consideration and thank you, gentlemen, for 
 your courtesy and kind attention. 
 
 KID GLOVES. 
 
 MEMORANDUM IN BEHALF OF IMPORTERS. 
 
 (1) The present tariff is 50 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 (2) The proposed committee bill makes it a compound duty — divided into three 
 classes — under |5, from $5 to $8, and over $8; &ud. makes each class pay partly by 
 the dozen and partly ad valorem. 
 
 (3) The importers, manufacturers, dealers, and glove importing interests generally, 
 ask for a specific duty, as determined by the simple rules of kind and measurement — 
 but all equivalent to the present 50 per cent. rate. 
 
 (4) Both domestic manufacturers and the importers, after conference, agree that 
 the present law of 50 per cent, should be accepted by them all as a compromise. 
 
 485—86 
 
1362 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 REASONS FOR NOT ADOPTING THE COMPOUND SCALE. 
 
 (1) It raiso8 duty beyond the point of protection on an average 25 per cent,, making 
 duties on lowest grade $2.07 per dozen instead of f 1.43 as under present ad valorem. 
 
 (2) Raises duty from 50 to 72 per cent, on cheap grades worn by the poor. Pre- 
 serves present rates on high price gloves worn by the rich. Moreover these grades 
 do not compete with domestic manufacture for they are made of skins of animals not 
 raised in this country. 
 
 (3) Breeds undervaluations and deceptions, establishes several additional stand- 
 ards, and fixes quality lines which dishonest importers can easily evade. Is perni- 
 cious and confusiug'and multiplies opportunities for decejjtion and fraud. 
 
 (i) No good reason i.s furuished for the change. 
 
 (5) On the other hand the specific duty method we propose is simple, unchange- 
 able, accurate, for the duty is conclusively determinetl by the kind of glove and its 
 length. The eye of the appraiser and a 14-inch rule determines the duty instantly. 
 Each pair of gloves by and of itself determines its own dutiable rate. 
 
 (6) Undervaluation and fraud are eflectually prevented, for all question of value 
 is removed and all incentive to false valuation is destroyed. 
 
 (7) The importers, commission houses, and wholesale dealers generally, unite in 
 favor of this specific tarift' and oppose the compound tariff. Ample protection is 
 given the domestic manufacturers by the "extras" provided for in the bill and in 
 which they are specially concerned. 
 
 Custom of6cers generally are also in favor of it, and declare it to be more equitable 
 and fair and as preventive of fraud. 
 
 (8) The duties under the speciiic method yield the Government an equal amount 
 of revenue. 
 
 We do not ask for a reduction. We do ask for a safer and more just method of 
 determining the duty and for the removal of the mischiefs and evils of the ad valorem 
 system. 
 
 (9) We respectfully urge the rejection of the compound duty and the adoption of 
 the specific duty. 
 
 We call attention to the fact that the domestic manufacturers recognize at least 
 the propriety of continuing the jjresent 50 percent, ad valorem duty. (See their 
 agreement herewith.) 
 Special protection is given the domestic manufacturers by the bill we propose. 
 
 W. N. Ckomtvell, 
 W. W. Dudley, 
 
 Counsel. 
 March 26, 1890. 
 
 The Committee of Ways and Means : 
 
 We represent almost the entire glove importing interest of the United States, and 
 also the largest dealers in such gloves, comijrising manufacturers, importers, and 
 dealers. 
 
 We have not been yet heard by your committee in the protection of these great in- 
 terests, although we pay tribute of over $2,500,000 per annum in duties on our impor- 
 tations at the port of New York, and our established business and business connections 
 are so vitally alfected by a change in the law. 
 
 The present duty is 50 per cent, ad valorem. The proposed duty, as per Senate bill, 
 is a compound duty, specific and ad valorem, as follows: 
 
 "Gloves of all descriptions, composed wholly or in part of kid or leather, and 
 whether wholly or partly manufactured, valued at not more than |5 per dozen pairs, 
 $1.50 per dozen pairs and 20 per cent, ad valorem; valued at more than .|5, and not 
 more than $8 per dozen pairs, $2 per dozen pairs and 25 per cent, ad valorem ; valued 
 at more than $8 per dozen pairs, 50 per cent, ad valorem." 
 
 Our reasou for not heretofore appearing before you is our reliance upon the agree- 
 ment of the domestic nianufaeturerB, hereto attached. 
 
 We respectfully object to the said proposed law for the following reasons, briefly 
 stated : 
 
 That the compound rates proposed raises the duty from 50 to 72 per cent, on the 
 cheapest grades (Schmaschen) worn by the poor, while it preserves the present 50 per 
 cent, rate upon the high-priced gloves worn by the rich. The poor will be compelled 
 to pay more. The rich alone remain unaffected. 
 
 We support this by a comparative statement hereto attached, and which was taken 
 off at the time the Senate bill was jjaseed. 
 
 The grades thus increased are not only those in which the poor alone are injuriously 
 affected, but they are of kinds that do not compete with any domestic manufactured. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1363 
 
 There is no domestic manufacture of these grades to protect, for they are made of the 
 skin of animals not raised iu this country. 
 
 The compound system breeds undervaluation and deception. It establishes several 
 additional standards, and fixes quality lines which dishonest importers can easily 
 evade. The dividing lines are drawn at popular prices, and, as a. consequence, there 
 is created the strongest temptation to undervaluations. For instance : If a dishonest 
 merchant enter at $5 a glove costing |6, it is very difficult to detect the ftaud, and 
 the glove might easily pass at the $5 rate. The duty by the proposed bill would be 
 but $2.50, while the honest importer might enter a glove at the actual cost, say |5, 
 and be taxed thereon by the appraiser at $5.25. The duty would be $3.31. 
 
 Thus, the dishonest importer would pay a duty of |2.50 on a f 6 glove, and the honest 
 importer would pay a duty of f3.31 on a $5 glove. 
 
 The strong temptation to value goods just a trifle under the next highest grades is 
 self-evident. 
 
 Furthermore, no appraiser, however conscientious, can fix the cost or exact value 
 within a few cents per dozen pair, and such dividing lines are bound, therefore, to 
 cause infinite mischief. 
 
 This compound system is pernicious and confusing, and multiplies the opportuni- 
 ties for deception and trouble. 
 
 The compound law offers no advantage over the present 50 per cent, ad valorem 
 duty, and no sound reason for the change is furnished. 
 
 We therefore respectfully oppose the proposed law. 
 
 As to a change iu the existing law, we present the following as a more wise, just, 
 and workable law, which will yield an equal amount of duty by a more equitable 
 method, and one preventive of undervaluations : 
 
 "Gloves of all descriptions, composed wholly or in part of kid or leather, and 
 whether wholly or partly manufactured, at the rates fixed in connection with the 
 following specified kinds thereof, 14 inches in extreme length being in each case 
 hereby fi:xed as the standard, and one dozen pair as the basis, viz : Scbamaschen, of said 
 length or under, |1.50, and over said length, |2.50 ; lamb, of said length and under, $2, 
 and over said length, $3 ; kid, of said length or under, $2.50, and over said length, $4 ; 
 suedes, of said length or under, $1.50, and over said length, $4, and all other leather 
 of said length or under, |2.50, and over said length, $4. All men's gloves $1 per 
 dozen extra ; all lined or fur-trimmed gloves 50 cents per dozen extra ; all embroidery, 
 except one seam or cord, 50 cents per dozen extra." 
 
 We regard it as desirable for the Government and for all concerned that a simpler 
 method of ascertaining the duty should be created by establishing a simple rule of 
 length, inflexible and unchangeable and applied to each kind of kid or leather glove. 
 The appraiser, of course, knows instantly the kind of leather or kid presented to him 
 (for he must possess that knowledge under any system) and has merely to ascertain 
 the length by a 14-inch rule, kept at his hand, in order to instantly figure out the 
 duty to be paid — conclusively, satisfactorily, and without room fordoubt. Noquestion 
 of undervaluations or of foreign cost enters into the problem. All that mischief is 
 swept away. Each pair of gloves determines for itself and by itself the duty it 
 bears — simple, direct, and invariable. Undervaluations aremade practically impos- 
 sible, fraud readily detected ; all importers are placed on equal basis respecting the 
 same kind of gloves. It is needless to add that these various kinds of gloves are per- 
 fectly understood in the trade and by the appraisers. 
 
 The amplest protection is given to the domestic manufacturers by the "extras" 
 added in the bill and which relate to the gloves they are particularly concerned in. 
 
 The importers, commission-houses, and wholesale dealers in the glove trade, includ- 
 ing many of the largest houses in the dry goods trade, unite in favoriug this specific 
 tariff, and are opposed to the proposed compound law. Their written protests and 
 petitions, obtained within the past three days only, are respectfully submitted here- 
 with, and bear the signatures of many of the strongest and most influential merchants 
 in America. These we can supplement without number, if opportunity be afforded 
 us. 
 
 The customs ofBcers generally are in favor of this specific method, and declare it 
 to be more equitable and fair than the compound law, and as preventive of under- 
 valuations. 
 
 I'he duties under our proposed measure are based upon the actual imports for the 
 month in which the Senate bill was passed, and is carefully calculated so as to give 
 to the Government the same amount of duty as at present. 
 
 We are not seeking to reduce the tariff much, as we would be gratified if that were 
 done. 
 
 We do not ask for a reduction. We do, however, respectfully ask for a safer and 
 more just method of determining the duty, and for the removal of the mischiefs and 
 evils of the ad valorem system. 
 
 The compound duty but multiplies those evils. The specific duty extinguishes 
 them, and inaugurates a simple and straightforward method of collection. 
 
1364 
 
 REVISION OF THE TAKIPF. 
 
 We therefore respectfully urge the adoption of the specific method above proposed 
 by us, and, in all events, the rejection of the proposed compound duty. 
 
 William F. Foster, 
 Louis V. Holzmaistbr, 
 
 Committee. 
 Sullivan & Cromwell, 
 * of New York. 
 
 W. W. Dudley, 
 
 Counsel. 
 March 26, 1890. 
 
 New York, March 22, 1890. 
 To the Senate and Souse of Rex>reaentative8 in Congress assembled : 
 
 We, the undersigned manufacturers and importeis of leather gloves, hereby request 
 the adoption of the following tariff, believing it the most practical and easy of col- 
 lection. 
 
 Leather. 
 
 Length. 
 
 Duty. 
 
 Schmaseen . . - 
 Sohmassen . - . 
 
 Lam b 
 
 Lamb 
 
 Kid 
 
 Kid 
 
 Suedea 
 
 Suedes 
 
 Other leither 
 Other leather 
 
 14 inches or less 
 
 Longer 
 
 14 inches or less 
 
 Longer 
 
 14 inches or less 
 
 Longer 
 
 14 inches or less 
 
 Longer , 
 
 14 inches or less 
 Longer 
 
 $1.50 
 2.50 
 2.00 
 3.00 
 2.50 
 4.00 
 1.60 
 4.00 
 2.50 
 4.00 
 
 Measure from top of wrist to end of longest finger. 
 
 All partly made gloves same rate as finished. All men's gloves $1 per dozen extra. All lined or 
 fur-trimmed gloves $1 per dozen extra. All paque or prick seam sewed gloves 60 cents per dozen ex- 
 tra. All embroidery except one strand or cord 50 cents per dozen extra. 
 
 We also beg respectfully to protest aga inst the proposed tarifif on leather gloves 
 believing it will have a tendency to iucr ease rather than curtail undervaluations 
 and create much confusion by compound duties. 
 
 We have advocated and preferstriotly specific ones. In case these cannot be estab- 
 ished, we pray you to continue the existing rates. 
 
 Foster, Paul & Co. 
 
 Henry M. Peyser & Co. 
 
 L. V. Holzmaister. 
 
 Megroz, Portikr, Meghoz & Co. 
 
 schbfeu, schram & vogel,. 
 
 Hugo Rothschild. 
 
 Abegg, Dabnikur & Co. 
 
 P. Floqubt, per C. W. Fite. 
 
 Hardt, Van Bermsen & Co. 
 
 Oelbermann, Dominick & Co. 
 
 John Wills. 
 
 Wortheihamer & Co. 
 
 Spiblmann & Co. 
 
 Robert L. Hogubt & Co. 
 
 Mills & Gibbs. 
 
 SWEEZER, PeMBROOK & CO. 
 
 Dunham, Bulkeley & Co. 
 Tbpf, Wellbr & Co. 
 
 H. B. Claflin & Co. 
 
 Butler, Clapp & Co. 
 
 E. S. Jaffrey & Co. 
 
 Lord & Taylor. 
 
 Hilton, Hughes & Denning. 
 
 Marshall Field & Co. 
 
 ISELAN, NbESON & CO. 
 C. AUFPMORDT & Co. 
 
 PiERSON & Arthur. 
 Charles G. Lanlon & Co. 
 Edv^ard Schumacher & Co. 
 Passavant & Co. 
 Simon Seeligmann. 
 eogelricht bernhardt. 
 Pings & Pinner. 
 Harris Bros. 
 
 BOSSUTFERE & FiLS. 
 
 S. Maass & Co. 
 
 Leather glooes imported daring January, 1889. 
 
 QnaUty. 
 
 Dozens. 
 
 Price. 
 
 Average. 
 
 Present 
 duty. 
 
 Proposed 
 duty. 
 
 Percent. 
 
 Schmaschen 
 
 20, 681 
 5,603 
 
 11, 740 
 3,648 
 3,008 
 
 $75, 286 
 23, 890 
 70, 657 
 15,244 
 14, 130 
 
 $2.86 
 4.08 
 fi.OO 
 418 
 4.70 
 
 $1.43 
 2.04 
 3.00 
 2.09 
 2.36 
 
 $2.07 
 2.37 
 3.50 
 2.33 
 2.44 
 
 .72 
 .58 
 .58 
 .66 
 .62 
 
 
 Kid 
 
 
 Men's lamb 
 
 
REVISION OP THE.TAEIPF. 
 
 1365 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO NEW BILI,. 
 
 (1) Cheap gloves worn by poor people, and of which none are made in this country, 
 are advanced 22 per cent., making duty 72 iustead of 50 per cent. 
 
 (2) Dividing lines are drawn at popular pricts, |5, say 25 francs or 20 marks, and 
 ofifer great temptations to undervaluation errors. 
 
 (3) The compound duty necessitates six different rates (three specific and three 
 ad valorem) for one invoice, instead of one uniform rate as now. 
 
 Tariff comparison. 
 
 Qnality. 
 
 Length. 
 
 Present 
 average 
 value. 
 
 Schedule of Senate hiU. 
 
 Cash 
 
 duty by 
 
 Senate 
 
 bill. 
 
 Present 
 ad valo- 
 rem 50 
 per cent. 
 
 Importers, 
 
 manu- 
 facturers, 
 and job- 
 bers' pro- 
 posed law. 
 
 Schtnasclien 
 
 Schmaschen 
 
 14-inch 
 
 Longer 
 
 14-inch 
 
 Longer 
 
 14-inch 
 
 Longer 
 
 14-inch 
 
 Longer 
 
 14-inch 
 
 Longer 
 
 $3.00 
 5.00 
 4.00 
 6.00 
 5.00 
 8.00 
 
 a. 00 
 
 8.00 
 6.00 
 8.00 
 
 $1. 60 and 20 per cent. . 
 ..do 
 
 $2.10 
 2.50 
 2.30 
 3.50 
 2.50 
 4.00 
 2.10 
 4.00 
 2.60 
 4.00 
 
 $1.50 
 2.60 
 2.00 
 3.00 
 2.50 
 4.00 
 1.50 
 4.00 
 2.60 
 4.00 
 
 Per dozen. 
 
 $1.60 
 
 2.50 
 
 Lamb 
 
 do 
 
 2.00 
 
 
 $2.00 and 25 per cent. . 
 1.50 and 20 per cent.- 
 2.00 and 25 per cent.. 
 1.50 and 20 per cent.- 
 2.00 and 25 per cent.. 
 1.50 and 20 per cent. . 
 2.00 and 25 per oent.. 
 
 
 Kid 
 
 2 50 
 
 Kid 
 
 4.00 
 
 
 1.50 
 
 Saede 
 
 4 00 
 
 Other leather 
 
 Other leather 
 
 2.50 
 4.00 
 
 N. B. — Schmaschen glove worn by poor people and none made in this country, 
 advanced 20 per cent, by Senate hill schedule. 
 
 Lines are drawn at popular prices, making evasion easy and detection difficult or 
 impossible, and encouraging instead of suppressing undervaluation. 
 
 GLOVE SCHEDULE AS PROPOSED BY IMPORTERS, DEALERS, ETC. 
 
 449. Gloves of all descriptions, composed wholly or in part of kid or leather, and 
 whether wholly or partly manufactured, at the rates fixed in connection with the 
 following specified kinds thereof, 14 inches in extreme length being in each case 
 hereby fixed as the standard, and one dozen pair as the basis, viz : Schmaschen, of 
 said length or under, |1.50, and over said length, $2.50; lamb, of said length or 
 under, .$3, and over said length, %'i ; kid, of said length or under, $2.50, and over said 
 length, %i ; Suedes, of said length or under, $1.50, and over said length, .$4. All other 
 leather of said length or under |2.50, and over said length, $4. 
 
 In addition to the above rates all men's gloves |l per dozen additional ; all lined or 
 fur-trimmed gloves $1 per dozen additional ; all pique or prick seam sewed gloves 50 
 cents per dozen additional ; all embroidered except one strand or cord 50 cents per 
 dozen additional. 
 
 Johnstown, N. Y., January 18, 1889. 
 Messrs. Foster, Paul & Co., 
 
 Nmv TorTc: 
 
 Gentlemen: We, the undersigned members of executive committee of I'ulton 
 County Manufacturers' Association, would say that it was agreed upon by our asso- 
 ciation that we endeavor by all honorable means to induce Congress to leave the 
 glove tariflas it is, viz, 50 per cent, ad valorem, but that if pressure was brought too 
 strong for a compound duty, that we would accept one as follows : On all gloves coat- 
 ing $5 and under $1.50 specific and 20 per cent, ad valorem; on those costing from $5 
 to $10, $3 specific and 20 per cent, ad valorem ; all over $10, 50 per cent, ad valorem, 
 and pique or prick seam made gloves 50 cents per dozen extra. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, we realize that your house and the houses you named as aotiug 
 with you are honest importers, and only wish the law changed if by bo doing under- 
 valuations can be more nearly stopped. We have spent many hours discussing the 
 matter and have come to the conclusion that above propositions are the wisest, all 
 others proposed having features not at all practicable. 
 
1366 REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 
 
 Tonr proposition as to extras was largely advocated and if you indorse it we think 
 it will be a great help in permanently establishing fine glove mannfacture in America. 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 D. W. Campbell. P. P. Aegkrsingek. 
 
 John S. Ikbland. Daniel Hays. 
 
 Wm. McDougall. James Radford. 
 J. Lehman. J. P. Miller. 
 
 R. J. Evans. 
 
 John C. Allen, 
 
 President of Association. 
 
 M. S. NOKTHRUP, 
 
 Secretary Executii^e Committee, 
 
 ALBUMENIZED PAPER. 
 
 New York, March 20, 1890. 
 
 Sir : As importers of photographic albumenized papers we desire to lay before 
 you the following facts : 
 
 Albumenized paper began to be used for photographic purposes about thirty years 
 ago. Its application being limited, it was made in part by the consumer himself, in 
 part by several small and unimportant factories both here and in Europe. 
 
 The duty on the imported paper was 35 per cent, ad valorem. It was decreased in 
 1883 to iiS per cent, and remained 25 per cent, till recently, when it was changed to 
 15 per cent, by decision of the Supreme Court. 
 
 The home production reached its maximum between 1880 and 1885, the whole output 
 being made mainly by three factories. There were manufactured in 1880 aboat 4,000 
 reams of albumen paper which sold on an average at $40 per ream. There were im- 
 ported in 1880 6,000 reams, which sold at |38 per ream. The American albumen 
 paper then was better and brought a higher price than the imported. 
 
 In 1885 there were albumenized here about 3,000 reams ; there were imported 12,000 
 prices being about the same for home manufactured and Imported paper. 
 
 Daring 1886 and 1887, however, the home production fell off to 1,000 reams or less 
 per annum, selling at $31 per ream, while the importations increased to 18,000 reams, 
 with a market price of $33 per ream. 
 
 It will be seen that the decline in price and in quantity of the paper albumenized here 
 go hand in hand. 
 
 It is a fact known to the entire photographic trade that the foreign manufacturers 
 have continually improved the quality of their albumen paper, while the manufact- 
 urers at home did not do so, and. It is due to this fact alone and not to any change 
 in the duty, that the foreign product commands a higher price and has actually driven 
 the American product out of the market. 
 
 None of the three large factories and, in fact, none of the early factories in the 
 United States are now in operation. In this whole country there is only a single factory 
 of any note ; this sprung up about a year ago and could not, at that time, even find in 
 this conntry the necessary skilled and experienced laborers. 
 
 In point of cost the American manufacturer is perfectly able to compete with foreign 
 goods. They sell their paper universally at $27 and in some cases at $25 per ream, 
 while the imported albumen paper brings $31 and $32. 
 
 If the American paper were first-class paper it could compete with the imported, 
 and selling at the same price could bring the manufacturers an additional profit of 
 $5 per ream. 
 
 The profit of the European factories is not nearly as high as this. We annex a 
 yearly statement for 1889, made by one of the most prosperous factories to the Gov- 
 ernment, which shows a net profit of 201,914 marks on sales amounting to 1,778,105 
 marks, or a net percentage of profit of 11 J per cent. 
 
 If, then, the amount of importations were dependent on the tariff, an increase of 10 
 per cent, in the duty would altogether prohibit the importation of albumenized paper. 
 
 An endeavor to prevent the importation of foreign albumenized paper by a still 
 higher duty would be injurious for the following reasons: 
 
 (1) It is a duty that would be paid by the consumer. It would compel nine thou- 
 sand photographers either to use a poor quality of paper, or, as the supply of this 
 would be entirely inadequate, it would force them to pay exorbitant prices for im- 
 ported paper. 
 
 (2) It would be impossible to manufacture albumen paper in America equal to the 
 European paper. The manufacture of this paper requires a knowledge which is in 
 the possession of a few men, and which only a study of many years can give, not a 
 high price or a high tariff suddenly granted. The men at the head of the American 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 16b i 
 
 factory claim to liave been iu close connection witlithe best Enropeau factories ; but 
 even tliey can not succeed, and tbeir goods do not command even a moderate price. 
 (:i) It ig to nobody's interest, save tbat of a very few men, to increase the duty. 
 There is hardly any one in this country who asks for it. There is no one here who 
 can manufacture tine albumen paper. There are no laborers here who are skilled to 
 work iu such a factory. If all the albumen paper used iu the world were made here 
 it would .employ tive hundred persons, generally women and girls. These could not 
 be found here, but would have to come from abroad. 
 
 (4) The advantage (often claimed by manufacturers) of an increased demand for 
 eggs is problematical. Already uow large quantities of eggs are imported from 
 Europe in order to supply our present demand. 
 
 (5) To discriminate in favor of plain paper used for photographers' purposes would 
 greatly complicate the collecting of duties on plain paper in geuera.l, and would be 
 an iudncement to import all fine grades of paper under this beading. It is not pos- 
 sible to distinguish one from the other. Albumenized paper, on the other hand, can 
 be most readily recognized. 
 
 (C) Finally, the history of the industry in this country has shown that tariff regu- 
 lations were not able to keep it on its feet. It declined when tariff was high. It de- 
 clined not for want of profit in the business in general, but because it could not sell 
 at the price which better goods commanded, and which it would also have com- 
 manded had its qualities been better. 
 
 Because, then, free plain paper for photographers' use would complicate the tariff 
 on paper ; because an increased duty on albumen paper will increase its price to the 
 consumer; because it will be opposed to the interest, the wish of the entire trade; 
 because it could only benefit foreign laborers ; and finally, because experience has 
 decided against it, we ask of you that the present tariff' on albumenized and plain 
 paper may not be disturbed. 
 
 We remain, dear sir, yours, truly, 
 
 G. Genner. 
 
 The Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 MOLASSES. 
 STATEMENT OF "W. H. EMERSON. 
 
 Boston, March 19, 1890. 
 
 Hon. W. McKiNLEY, Jr. 
 
 Chairman Ways and Means Committee : 
 
 Dear Sir : I was surprised to find, in reading the tariff bill as reported, that it is 
 proposed to levy a duty of 25 per cent, on molasses. 
 
 I am engaged in the manufacture of domestic molasses sugar, made almost entirely 
 from Cuba molasses. Beside myself there are six boilers in Philadelphia, four or five 
 in New York, and one in Portland. Our business is entirely separate from that of 
 sugar refiners, and has no connection with the so-called "trust," or with those out- 
 side making refined sugars. We import molasses, boil it in our houses, and make a 
 sugar averaging 82° polariscope test, which we sell to the regular sugar refiners. 
 
 Molasses pays a duty, under present duty, of 4 cents per gallon. As before stated, 
 ■we manufacture a sugar testing 82°, dark in color, and it can not be used for domestic 
 purposes until refined by a sugar refiner. A foreign sugar of this grade testing 82° 
 pays a duty of |1.68 per 100 pounds. In our manufacturing we expect to average 
 about 5 pounds of sugar per gallon, so that from 100 gallons of molasses, paying |4 
 duty, we obtain 500 pounds of sugar. The present free-on-hoard value of a foreign- 
 made molasses sugar is about 2 cents per pound ($2 per 100 pounds). The duty as 
 proposed in new tariff bill is 35 per cent., or 77 cents per 100 pounds, against $1.68 
 as now levied, the difference, 91 cents per hundred, being more than the entire al- 
 lowance of 88 cents per hundred, which the Government has heretofore considered 
 as a proper proportional allowance between foreign manufactured and domestic 
 sugar. 
 
 Five hundred pounds 82° sugar, imported, pays |1.68 |8. 40 
 
 One hundred gallons molasses, yielding 500 pounds, at 4 cents 4.00 
 
 Making a difference of $4.40 on 500 pounds, or 88 cents per hundred in favor of do- 
 mestic sugar, which is to cover the extra expense of labor in this country, the 
 laro-e proportion of residuum upon which freijrht has to be paid, and other similar 
 expenses. We claim if the duty on sugar is to be reduced 50 per cent., or approxi- 
 mately that amount, molasses should be admitted free of duty, and there are many 
 reasons therefor. The present value of molasses in Cuba ranges from 15 to 16 oentls 
 
1368 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 per gallon, free on board, so that the duty now proposed (25 per cent.) would he 3| 
 to 4 cents per gallon, or practically the same as now. In other words, you reduce the 
 suo-ar with which we now compete .55 per cent., and do not reduce on molasses any. 
 Under present tariff domestic sugars pay 47t% per cent, as much as foreign ; if 50 per 
 cent, is deducted from foreign it exceeds entire amount levied on domestic. The re- 
 duction as proposed would lead to one result only — the stoppage of our business, the 
 loss of our refineries (as they would be practically worthless), the throwing out of 
 employment of many different classes of labor, besides vessels, etc., which are referred 
 to later. Among the various reasons why this industry should not be driven out are 
 the following facts : 
 
 First. All cooperage used in Cuba is grown and manufactured in the United States. 
 Its manufacture gives employment to a large number of persons in the country, be- 
 sides furnishing freight for railroads and vessels. Should duties be changed as pro- 
 posed, it would prevent the importation of molasses here, as it would be mostly dis- 
 tilled into rum in Cnba, and thus stop all demand for cooperage. 
 
 Second. It is a fact almost without exception that molasses is brought here in 
 American vessels, it being seldom, if ever, a cargo comes in a foreign vessel. The 
 imports vary from 23,470,181 gallons, imported at all ports from all countries last year, 
 to 37,392,399 gallons in 1887, making inward cargoes for some four or five hundred 
 vessels, and in return vessels take outward cargoe.s, many of lumber and coal, the 
 latter article being in demand in Cuba, and a vessel with coal is exempt from foreign 
 port charges. All this freight business would be ruined, and at a low estimate the 
 vessels engaged in the molasses business earned over $500,000 freight the past year. 
 This business comes at a very opportune season, when other freights are dull. One 
 reason American vessels are preferred is the long experience of those in the business, 
 and another because many vessels have been built expressly for this purpose. . 
 
 Third. Our business emploj's raany differetit classes of labor in addition to those 
 employed making cooperage and on vessels. Our cargoes take a large amount of 
 wharfage room, and give employment on landing to many on docks, such as steve- 
 dore crews, coopers, etc., besides the larger number employed, both skilled and un- 
 skilled, in the refineries themselves, averaging in each house some forty or n\ore men. 
 Again, the manufacture of sugar machinery is an important industry, its cost being 
 large on account of labor. 
 
 Fourth. Boiling molasses does not come into competition with any product of this 
 country, either as molasses or in the grade of sugars manufactured. At first this may 
 seem open to question, but the proof is ample. With a single small exception (in one 
 year, when New Orleans molasses was in large supply late in the season, and the 
 market for yellow sugars exceptionally high, and some 5,000 or (J.OOO barrels were 
 boiled) all the molasses used for boiling is imported. The value of Louisiana mo- 
 lasses is from 50 to 100 per cent, above boiling molasses. In 1889 aver.ige value of 
 boiling was 26.11 cents against 41 cents for prime to choice New Orleans. This was 
 an exceptional year, as boiling molasses sold during the summer 8 or 10 cents higher 
 than for many years. lu 1888 average for boiling was 20.84 against 42.18; in 1887, 
 20.06 against 45.21, and from its high value Louisiana molasses can not be manufact- 
 ured in competition with refined sugars. 
 
 The total amount of molasses, sorghum sirup, and glucose used in this country the 
 past year is estimated as follows: 
 
 Gallons. 
 
 Foreign molasses 23,470,181 
 
 Louisiana molasses '. 18,544,462 
 
 Sorghum molasses 25,000,000 
 
 Glucose 50,000,000 
 
 Making a total 117,014,643 
 
 G.illons. 
 
 Or foreign 23,470,181 
 
 Domestic 93,544,462 
 
 117,014,643 
 
 Of this foreign 23,470,181 
 
 There was boiled 21,000,000 
 
 Exported Canada, etc 802,988 
 
 21,802,988 
 
 Leaving the small amount only 1,677,193 
 
 as used for grocery purposes, or less than li per cent., and upon which the duty 
 amounted to |66,687.72. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 13t>9 
 
 Another item is the fact 4,937,998 gallons of black strap or residuum was exported, 
 thus furnishing freight for vessels and giving in this country employment iu its 
 manufacture. I do not hesitate to assert that Louisiana and foreign molasses do not 
 come into competition with each other. I have this personal testimony from every 
 house iu the molasses business in Boston to-day. Individually I received at New York 
 oyer one-sixth of all the New Orleans received there the past season, and in connec- 
 tion with Messrs. Howell, Son & Co., who received nearly one-tliird (they being the 
 largest receivers North, and myself second), we received about one-half of all coming to 
 New York, and Messrs. Howell, who are also interested in the boiling industry in New 
 York, will agree iu this statement. If any comparison is needed to-day, Fancy New 
 Orleans molasses has been sold recently at 47 cents, and the very highest for Fancy 
 Ponce Porto Eico, the best imported, 36. The use of New Orleans molasses is entirely 
 for family purposes, while foreign is used mostly for boiling. No grocery grades are 
 imported outside of New York and New England. 
 
 Another feature showing the injustice the duty as proposed would work on the 
 boiling industry, unless granted free molasses, is the fact that with proposed tariff 
 on sugar this country will become the dumping ground of the world for all low-grade 
 sugars. There are large quantities of very low-grade sugar iu China, known as Jag- 
 gery sugars, etc., costing from 1 to 2 cents per pound, and the proposed duty would 
 allow these to come in at a duty from 3.5 to 60 cents per hundred. These sugars test 
 from 70° to 78°, and while considered undesirable in many respects by reiiners would 
 drive molasses sugars out uuless we can have molasses without duty. 
 
 Again, iu the proper management of our business, we are obliged to buy our molasses 
 in Cuba, arranging for it to arrive here at such times and in such quantities as will 
 keep our factories running constantly. For our protection we are also obliged to 
 sell our product for delivery as made, covering periods of one or two months. Under 
 change now proposed, if we bought molasses at a favorable time in our judgment and 
 sold the sugars against it, should the market advance from 20 to 24 cents — i. e., 4 cents 
 per gallon — it would change an anticipated profit to a loss, and should it advance, as 
 during past year, 12 cents per gallon, the loss would be $3 to $5 per hogshead. The 
 closeness of competition compels us to do our business on a very small percentage of 
 profit, the more so as we can only employ our houses from March to September or 
 October. If we bought molasses and the price declined shipper would invoice it at 
 price sold at. On other hand, if price advauced the invoice would have to be made 
 at market value at time of shipment. 
 
 It certainly seems that a business employing so many of our own people should not 
 be sacrificed, especially when no industry is injured in the smallest degree, but on 
 the contrary it is a benefit to labor, to commerce, and the general business interests 
 of the country. 
 
 It is fair to estimate the amount expended last year for labor and supplies, not in- 
 cluding the raw material, at $630,000, freight inward cargoes, f500,OUO, leaving out 
 entirely the value of cooperage, and the large amount of capital required to properly 
 carry on the business. The amount of duty in comparison with loss of labor, 
 freight, and ruin to personal property, is insignificant. In the bill prepared in last 
 year's Senate, with a reduction of .50 per cent, on sugar, molasses was made free. 
 
 Trusting this explanation or statement may be of service, 
 I remain, respectfully yours, 
 
 W. H. Emerbon, 
 Proprietor Oxnard Molasses liefinery. 
 
 We indorse the within statement as correct. 
 
 W. J. McCahan Sl Co., Philadelphia. 
 
 Pennsylvania Sugar Eefining Company, Philadelphia. 
 
 Geo. E. Bartol, for Grocers' Sugar Refinery. 
 
 Geo. E. Bartol, for Enterprise Sugar Refinery. 
 
 Hbyi, Bros., Philadelphia Sugar House. 
 
 B. H. Howell, Son &, Co., lor Atlantic Sugar House, Brooklyn. 
 
 B. H. Howell, Son & Co., for Rush Street Sugar House, Brooklyn. 
 
 Albert Bunker, for Brooklyn Sugar House, Brooklyn. 
 
 Nath'l Tookbr, for Yonkers Sugar House, Brooklyn. 
 
 Geo. S. Hunt, for Eagle Sugar House, Portland. 
 
1370 REVISION OF THE TAEIPP. 
 
 REVIEW or THE PRESEISTT TARIFF. 
 
 STATEMENT OP J. S. MOORE. 
 
 Mr. J. S. Moore, of New York, appeared before the committee and read the follow- 
 ing paper : 
 The Chairman and Members of the Ways and Means Committee : 
 
 Esteeming highly the privilege granted me of appearing before yon, I Bhall en- 
 deavor to be as brief as possible in my remarks on the proposed changes in the great 
 economic question which now engages the attention of yonr honorable committee. 
 
 It is on the outset bnt jnst and fair to inform the committee in what direction and 
 to what nltiniiite purpose my remarks will tend. 
 
 First, I will endeavor to show that the present tariff is a contradiction to protection 
 as long as raw materials that enter into manufactured goods are taxed ; and. 
 
 Second, that the tariff as it now exists is inadequate to realize the purpose of keep- 
 ing foreign importations out of the country, while it imposes onerous and heavy tax- 
 ation on the consumers. 
 
 Let mo therefore at once go into statistical facts on the most vexed and at the 
 same time most important industry of wool and woolens. 
 
 No one will seriously dispute the fact that during the last few years we consumed 
 or used in this country at least $300,000,000 worth of woolen fabrics. Fairly divided 
 the home or American product of woolen goods was about $220,000,000. 
 
 Importations of woolen fabrics and goods in 1S88 cost abroad |47, 158, 000 
 
 Duties paid thereon 32,213,000 
 
 Total 79,371,000 
 
 I have heard very able arguments made in this very room that Americans ought 
 not and would not import this vast amount of woolen goods if an adequate tariff 
 were enacted. Assuming that such arguments are made by men who truly and hon- 
 estly believe what they say, the first duty of the political economist is to examine the 
 existing duty and determine where the inadequacy exists. I therefore have presented 
 to you from actual official importations for the fiscal year 1888 (the latest we have) 
 the amounts of woolen goods imported and the duties or tax paid thereon to the 
 Treasury. Of the $47,158,000 of woolen goods imported in 1888 one class of goods 
 known as woolen dress goods for women's and children's wear amounted to $18,742,000, 
 or some 40 per cent, of the whole value of the importation of woolen goods. The duty 
 paid on these $18,742,000 worth of goods was $13,742,000, or as near as possible 73.29 
 per cent. 
 
 Now, it certainly goes without saying that if the exaction of 73.29 per cent, in av- 
 erage on these goods allowed the importation of $18,742,000 that the protection of 
 73.29 per cent, is entirely inadequate ; and our home woolen manufacturers of dress 
 goods are entirely unable under the present tariff on woolen goods to compete with 
 the foreign product. And if the true policy of a tariff is to enable home manufactur- 
 ers to make us entirely independent of the foreign product, then there is but one 
 alternative, and that is to make duties so high that they will prevent the importation. 
 
 But right here comes the pertinent question, how high should such duties he? I 
 have shown that the aggregate dntv was in average 73.29 per cent. But of these 
 $18,742,000 dress goods some $7,886,000 paid a duty of $6,603,000, or 83i per cent. 
 Hence it follows that even 83J per cent, protection cannot keep these goods out. 
 
 Now, then, the 83| percent, of duty was paid on an article of woolen dress goods 
 that cost abroad just 17| cents a square yard. Therefore the duty was over 14| cents 
 per square yard ; and 10 square yards, which is enough for a dress costing abroad 
 $1.74, had to pay a tax of $1,45. Now,this proves a hardship all around. First, it is 
 a hardship to the Treasury to accumulate by this tax a jjart of an Immense surplus. 
 Second, it taxes the brains of all our statesmen how to get rid of the surplus. Third, 
 the tax is perfectly useless to the home woolen dress-goods manufacturers, because it 
 does not prefect them. 
 
 And, lastly, with your kind permission, I will call your attention to the hardship it 
 is to the consumer who has to pay $1.45 tax on 10 yards of dress goods. Of course, 
 this latter hardship is not very well understood by a class of dpnsumers known as 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1371 
 
 farmers, aad it is, perhaps, uugracions for the political economist to point out, for 
 instance, to the farmer of wheat in California that whereas he got jnst |1.45 for a 
 cental of wheat both in London and San Francisco, yet if this same farmer wanted 
 to get 10 square yards of this woolen dress goods in London and pay for it in wheat 
 it would require about 122 pounds of wheat, and it will take as nearly as possible 219 
 pounds of wheat to buy the same goods and quantity in New York or San Francisco. 
 Of course, I leave for convenience' sake the charges and profits out. In other words, 
 it takes for taxes alone 97 pounds more of wheat to pay on 10 square yards of dress 
 goods that costs abroad 17| cents per square yard. To the political economist this 
 discrepancy seems a monstrous hardship. To the farmer, however, I must confess 
 owing to his happy oblivion of the facts, it is perfectly natural, and he is, I hope, 
 contented and happy. Therefore, we will leave him out of the controversy, as, indeed, 
 all consumers. A tariff during the last thirty years has chiefly centered in interest 
 between the manufacturers. Treasury, and even importers. 
 
 But the question I wish to try to solve is rather interesting to our home manu- 
 facturers. I am as a political economist also interested in not only keeping our home 
 trade and preventing large importations of manufactured goods, but I wish, further- 
 more, to see manufacturers have the means of accomplishing that result. Of course, 
 as I have already hinted, 73 or 83 per cent, is utterly inadequate to prevent the im- 
 portation of $18,000,000 worth of dress goods. Therefore, if our tariff duties have 
 chiefly for their aim solid and unmitigated protection, the present duty ought to be 
 at least doubled. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, this is not sarcasm. I mean it in full and sober earnest. It may 
 prove a double remedy. First, it may give us our entire home market and wipe out, 
 as in this case alone, $13,750,000 of revenue. Unfortunately there will hardly be a 
 majority that will consent to so heroic a measure. But the present duty tax, or even 
 an additional 10 per cent, protection, will not remedy the evil ol not only importing 
 $47,000,000 of woolen fabrics, but still increasing that amount year by year. 
 
 It seems, therefore, pertinent to inquire into this strange mystery why 73 per cent, 
 fails to keep foreign woolen manufacturers out ? Of course, the manufacturers, one 
 and all, will tell you that the difference of wages between here and Europe is the 
 sole and only cause. That in fact protection means high wages, and the competition 
 with Europe becomes on that account without the highest protection hopeless. 
 
 The wage-earner, or the working man of this country, is protection's refuge. When 
 poor Madam Roland was about to be guillotined and saw the statue of Liberty be- 
 fore her, she exclaimed: " Oh, Liberty, how many crimes are committed in thy name?" 
 I am always tempted to say when I hear the manufacturers' devotion and anxiety 
 for the wage-earners, " Oh, working-men and wage-earners, how many untruths are 
 told in your name V 
 
 Now, then, let me show you the actual wages paid in 1880, a year of prosperity and 
 boom to the tot.al hands in the woolen mills in the United Stales. In that year we 
 produced $194,216,000 worth of woolen and worsted fabrics. The wages paid for 
 labor, or to all the wage-earners to produce the above amount of goods, was $31,519,000. 
 Now, if you deduct the wages from the value of the iinished product, we get the 
 amount of $162,697,000. The wages, therefore, are less than 19-J per cent. In other 
 words, if the condition of our woolen manufacturers were the same as those of the 
 foreigners as regards material, machinery, etc., exclusive of wages, it would follow 
 that if we put a protective duty of 20 per cent, on foreign woolen goods, and the for- 
 eigners would pay no wages at all, then our woolen manufacturers would be perfectly 
 equal with them. I hope I make myself perfectly plain, and demonstrate by the 
 above figures that, everything else being equal, a protection of 20 per cent, will pay 
 for all the labor of the hands employed by the woolen and worsted mills of the country. 
 This being a denjoustrable fact, we must certainly come to the conclusion that it is 
 not the higher wages here that prevent our woolen and worsted industry to compete 
 with the foreigner provided we have only 20 per cent, protection. The causes must 
 therefore be sought in other directions. 
 
 First, there may be prejudice in favor of the foreign fabric; in that case protecti6n 
 becomes futile. And the compulsion through heavy taxes to use an article of wear 
 that a free citizen does not like or want is certainly an infringement of the most 
 sacred riglit, and the sooner such an oppression is abolished the better. 
 
 Second, it may be that our manufacturers can not, for reasons that we don't know, 
 produce the article required. In that case a reduction of duty and relieving the 
 burdens of the people would not injure the manufacturer and would greatly benefit 
 consumers. 
 
 But the above two suppositions, are, in my opinion, hypothetical. There is little 
 or no prejudice in favor of foreign woolen fabrics of the cheaper goods, as the con- 
 sumer rarely knows the difference. And, secondly, the American manufacturer can 
 produce anything as good and tasty as the foreigner. The reason, therefore, must be 
 in tho fact that our woolen manufacturers are not on an equality with the foreigners. 
 Our manufacturers labor under the disadvantage of paying a heavy tax on raw 
 
1372 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 material, a heavy tax on the dye-stuffa they may use, a heavy tax on the oil, on the ma- 
 chinery, and chemicals that are required for producing fabrics. The plea of the 
 higher wages here is indeed exploded by the facts I have shown, that 20 per cent, pro- 
 tection wiU not only pay the difference in the price of labor, but will pay the total 
 cost of labor for woolen fabrics. 
 
 Thus then, it would seem, at least to the economist, thatthe true relief that can be 
 given to the home manufacturer is : 
 
 First, to put him, as far as legislation goes, on a perfect equality with his fjpreign 
 competitor by giving him untaxed raw material, untaxed machinery, and untaxed 
 innredients that are used to manufaature his fabrics or wares. 
 
 Second, as it is certainly as impolitic as it is impossible to put him on an equality 
 with the foreigner as far as wages are concerned, then by all means put such a pro- 
 tection on our home wages that will always more than compensate tlje home manu- 
 facturer, and we shall indeed be astonished how far a protection of 20 per cent, or 30 
 per cent, really goes. The raw materials that ought to be as free as air, and without 
 which our manufacturing industries can not flourish to that degree that a country of 
 65,000,000 of free and intelligent people is entitled to, are : free raw wool ; free ores 
 of all kinds ; free fibres and grasses ; free seeds ; free timber ; free coal, and sundry 
 other smaller articles of a crude nature. 
 
 I fully understand the difliculty that such a proposition encounters; and it only 
 demonstrates the fact that any tariff that has for its object any other motive than the 
 raising of revenue that is needed, becomes sectional, creates jealousies, and leads 
 sooner or later to the destruction of its own reared up edifice, and to other great mis- 
 fortunes. 
 
 Is it not a hardship for New England, for instance, to be taxed on coal and ore that 
 is found almost at her very ports, in Nova Scotia ? Is it not more than a hardship 
 for the woolen manufacturer to be deprived of the full "scope" of the raw wool 
 markets of the world by putting a heavy tax on that raw material ? 
 
 Just let me briefly show vou what freedom in trade means. 
 
 In 1888 we imported 23,000,000 pounds of clothing wool. Of this amount 11,345,000 
 pounds came from England, and only 6,000,000 pounds direct from Australia. Of the 
 5,6o9,000 pounds of combing "wools 4,957,000 pounds, or nearly 90 per cent., came 
 from England, and she even sent us 25,892,000 pounds of coarse carpet wool. Now, 
 little or none of this wool was raised in England. But England, having her com- 
 merce free, she has become the -warehouse of the world. If we had free wool New 
 York, Bostou, or Philadelphia would indeed soon become the great emporiums for 
 raw wool. Our woolen manufacturers would vastly gain, besides getting cheaper 
 raw material by not being restricted ; they would have the chance of selection at 
 their own doois. In other words, restriction is a tax, perhaps more so than the duty 
 imposed, and as long as these restrictions exist no actual ijermanent industrial pros- 
 perity is possible. 
 
 It would be useless to point out numerous other instances of a similar kind. They 
 all tend to the same result. Therefore, I am fully convinced that our home market 
 can only be secured either by putting our manufacturers on the same footing as to 
 raw materials, machinery, and other ingredients they need with their foreign com- 
 petitors, and secure to them by aduty, which should be perfectly ample and adequ^ite, 
 compensation for the higher wages paid here ; or, retain the policy of protection in 
 the highest and true sense, by advancing the duties on manufactures to a point that 
 will prevent importations, and compel consumers to use the home products only. 
 
 And I again repeat, that a reduction of 10 per cent, on present rates will not benefit 
 consumers much, and may injure manufacturers, whilst raising the duties 10 or even 
 15 per cent, will not prevent importations and augmentation of revenue. 
 
 The Chairman. What class of goods was that which paid 83i per cent. ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. Eighty-three and three-fourths per cent, was paid on articles of woolen 
 dress goods that cost abroad just 17f cents per yard; consequently, it is a class of 
 goods that our Fifth Avenue ladies do not wear. The rich people do not wear them. 
 It is a class of goods simply for the wives of farmers and working men. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge, Those goods are not a yard wide 1 
 
 Mr. Moore. A square yard of these goods abroad costs 17f cents. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Is it the running yard ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. It takes more than 10 running yards to make a dress. These manu- . 
 facturers who want a special sort of legislation, or special taxes, invariably bring us 
 evidence of that class of labor which is 200 or 300 per cent, higher here than in Eu- 
 rope, and which in the aggreuate of production and consumption of this country is 
 of no great consequence. But it is used as a good plea upon which to base an argu- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Flower. Are you in favor of the manufacturer being protected to the amount 
 of the difference in wages between this country and Europe 1 There is one class of 
 men I have received letters from that you do not speak of. I received a letter the 
 other day from a farmer in the northern part of the State of New York, who told me 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1373 
 
 that the 150 miles of coast line along Lake Ontario was a splendid place to raise beans 
 and peas for seed ; that the tariff duty was 10 per cent, ad valorem; that the farmers 
 of Canada had sold to the seed men in New York, and that our farmers could not com- 
 pete witdthem, and could not sell their beans and peas for seed in this market. 
 Now, you propose to reduce the revenue on woolen goods and take off this $7,000,000 
 or I^.OO'ljOOO in revenue. In your judgment, would it not bo fair to raise the tariff 
 on growing seeds in Jefferson and Oswego Counties to a point where the farmers there 
 can sell that product, as is done with the southern planters who raise rice and sugar? 
 
 Mr. MooEB. I consider that rice ought not to be taxed, and beans and peas, not- 
 withstanding the outcry and squeal of the New York farmers, I say ought to be free 
 also. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Would you apply the same rule to sugar ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. If the Government did not need the revenue, I should make sugar 
 free. 
 
 Mr. Gear. You said rice was a food, and is not sugar a food also ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. Yes, sir ; and I say that if we did not need the revenue I would be in 
 favor of free sugar. 
 
 Mr. Gear. Then you ought to be in favor of free sugar. 
 
 Mr. Mooeb. Well, I am. 
 
 Mr. Batne. Did I understand you to say that the importations in 1888 of dress 
 goods were about $47,000,000 ? 
 
 Mr. MooEB. The importations of the whole of wooleu fabrics were $47,000,000, ex- 
 cept raw wool. The importation of dress goods was $18,000,000, nearly 40 per cent, 
 of the whole. 
 
 , Mr. Bayne. I think you are mistaken about 1888, because it was $13,000,000 in 
 1888. Did you reduce this down to 17 cents per square yard duty ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. I said this, that of this $18,000,000 worth of dress goods, $8,000,000 of 
 it were imported that cost 17f of a cent per square yard abroad, and on which we 
 paid this sum of $0,600,000, or 83J per cent., or 14^ cents per square yard. The goods 
 cost 17J cents per square yard, and the tariff was 14^ cents.per square yard. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You have taken your statistics from the treasury reports, I presume? 
 
 Mr. Moorb. Oh, of course. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. You think that the farmer did not know, it seemed to you, what duty 
 he was paying, and therefore was uncomplaining. 
 
 Mr. MooBB. That seems to be the case. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You said also that you were in favor of free wool in order that Phila- 
 delphia, New York, and Boston should become great emporiums for the reception of 
 foreign goods and foreign raw material. That would necessarily imply that there 
 should be a vast importation of foreign wools in order to till up those warehouses. 
 
 Mr. Moore. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Would not that vast importation of these foreign wools reduce the 
 production in this country to the extent to which it was imported ? 
 
 Mr. MooEE. It may be something of a hardship to the wool-growers of tbiscoun- 
 try. At the same time I wish to call attention to the fact that you can qualify that 
 statement. There was a gentleman here before you who seemed to be a wool-raiser. 
 He said that he had 86,000 acres of land and 18,000 sheep. Probably to such a man it 
 might be an injury — I say probably. But I am going to qualify that, because I am 
 going to explain myself. When you come to the farmer in Ohio or in New York, 
 where they have five or ten or twenty sheep, their hardship must be quaUiied to a 
 great extent. That is the point. You can not produce afine quality of woolen goods 
 in this country without mixing the wool. This clothing or cloth that you wear can 
 not be produced here with American wool alone. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. There is a difference of opinion about that. 
 
 Mr. MoORB. I was told so by Mr. Slater, one of the greatest woolen manufacturers 
 in this country. They have always told me so. They have to mix it even in 
 England. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Bayne's coat could be made of domestic wool, but your's could 
 not? 
 
 Mr. MoORB. That is because I am a free trader. 
 
 Mr. Flowee. What would be the effect if this manufactured woolen goods was 
 made here ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. I think foreign wool would become cheaper, and the American wool 
 would appreciate in price. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I had a letter from a wool grower who says that he needs protection 
 against men like this gentleman in Texas, who has 86,000 acres of land and 18,000 
 sheep. 
 
 Mr. Moore. I have stated that there are 6.5,000,000 of people in this country. 
 Within ten years there may be 100,000,000 of people in this country. This country 
 would not be able to produce sufficient wool to supply them. It is only a question 
 
1374 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 of time when wool will become scarce all over the world. I have been in Australia, 
 and I have seen the farms upon which they raise wool in Australia — that was many 
 years ago, of course. The conditions now are different. We have here a few States 
 which are growing enormously. The State of Washington ten years ago was almost 
 a wilderness. Now, I am glad to say that I have a smelter and a bank myself at 
 Colville. At Spokane Falls property is as high as it is in New York. This country is 
 not a sheep-raising country. 
 
 The Chairman. All this splendid prosperity has gone on under protection f 
 
 Mr. Moore. I agree to that. I would say in spite of protection. 
 
 The Chairman. You have said that free trade in wool would diminish the price of 
 foreign wool and increase the price of the domestic in this country. 
 
 Mr. MOORB. That is my opinion. 
 
 The Chairman. Will you explain if the foreign price is to reduce the finished pro- 
 duct, how that is going to help the price of the domestic ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. I call attention to this fact, that of the 1320,000,000 worth of woolen 
 and worsted goods we row consume annually we piobably produce now |300,000,000 
 worth ; and only $150,000 worth are exported. That seems a most remarkable state 
 of affairs. 
 
 The Chairman. Perhaps the domestic product would not increase in price unless 
 the foreign product was exhausted. 
 
 Mr. Moore. My opinion is, you should place our manufacturers on the same footing 
 as they are abroad for the same trade, giving them ample protection as to the differ- 
 ence of wages, which I admit and always have admitted is higher here and ought to 
 be protected. 
 
 The Chairman. How is that going to benefit the manufacturer, if it increases the 
 price of domestic wool ? 
 
 Mr. MooRB. I maintain that we make $300,000,000 worth of manufactured woolen 
 goods. We are getting a fair price here and the surplus goes abroad. It is the sur- 
 plus that injures the manufacturer in this country, for he has an unsalable surplus. 
 
 The Chairman. How do you mean to maintain him against the foreign market ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. I mean if you put him on the same plane and give him the same free 
 raw material and free ingredients. 
 
 The Chairman. You have already said that you believed free wool would iucrease 
 the price of the domestic clip. How is that going to help him to getont. If yoo are 
 going to pay the same rate of wages now existing, how is that going to help him 
 against the foreigner ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. He can sell his surplus. You do not mean to say that the English and 
 the Germans make money on what they send over here ? 
 
 Tbe Chairman. We supposed that they made money on that. They are willing to 
 sacrifice something to get into this market. 
 
 Mr. Moore. Why should they not ? 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Is it your idea to sell the surplus abroad and not make anything 
 on it? 
 
 Mr. Moore. I mean that they should have a foreign market for their goods jnst as 
 cheap as possible and be able to go in competition with the rest of the world, just like 
 they do on sewing machines. 
 
 Mr. Baynb. How about the wages paid to our workingmen? Can you pay the 
 same wages and compete in the markets of the world ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. I think in some instances we can. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. In what instances 1 
 
 Mr. Moore. In cotton and in woolen goods if we got a chance. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Why not advocate a reduction of duty on cotton instead of woolen 
 goods ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. Woolen goods is a case that covers the whole system. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Mr. Carlisle has said to you that he had a letter from some gentleman, 
 in which that gentleman said that what he had dreaded more than auythiiig else was 
 the competition of some men who are engaged largely in the production of wool, like 
 that Texas man, w.'th 80,000 acres of land and 18,000 sheep. He preferred to have 
 free wool. If the warehouses were completed in New York and Boston and filled 
 with free wool, would not those warehouse-men import their wools, and would they 
 not become a much more lively competitor than the man in Texas who had 80,000 
 acres of land and 18,000 sheep. 
 
 Mr. Moore. You can. not make an omelette without breakingeggs, and you can not 
 favor this $300,000,000 industry (which is really the main industry of the manufact- 
 urers) without making some sacrifices. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You have said we pay more wages in this country, and you are in favor 
 of protecting the laborer ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. I said that. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. You think the low duty should be so arranged on all those products in 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1375 
 
 this country as to compensate for the difference between the wages paid in this coun- 
 try and those paid abroad 1 
 
 Mr. MooRB. Most decidedly. 
 
 Mr. Bayne. Then you stand where I do. 
 
 Mr. La Follettb. You favor a duty that shall measure the difference between the 
 labor in manufactures in this country and the labor in foreign competing countries ? 
 
 Mr. MoORB. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. Are you in favor of a like duty on a manufactured product of 
 other industries which produce that which is raw material for manufacturers f 
 
 Mr. Moore. Well, cheap or free raw material is the mainstay of the manufactur- 
 ing industry. It would require under even a protection policy a lower tax than it 
 does on manufactured goods. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. That depends on the equity of labor required. Take, for instance, 
 wool. That is the manufactured product of the farmer. 
 
 Mr. MooRB. That is just where I was going to make the distinction. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. It is labor which the farmer is obliged to put into that industry. 
 He comes m direct competition with cheaper labor in competing countries. 
 
 Mr. Moore. If it is the same class of wool, he does. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. Should not that labor upon the farmer's product be protected? 
 
 Mr. Moore. With the exception of the man with his 80,000 acres of land and his 
 18,000 sheepi I maintain that on 90 per cent, of the wool the farmers do not incur 
 any extra expense. Sheep pay for themselves. 
 
 Mr. La Follbtte. They do not shear themselves. 
 
 Mr. Moore. No ; but they fertilize the land and make food. The manufacturer 
 pays wages. That makes a great difference in large factories. Ore is wanted in 
 mixing the same as wool. If you want the condition of this country improved you 
 must give a free choice of markets ? I know something about smelting. There is ore 
 lying within three miles of my place in Washington Territory. I can not use it simply 
 because I want two or three different kinds of ore that are mixed with it. 
 
 The Chairman. You want free ore to mix with it ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. I could not use it if it were free, because I am in the interior. Let 
 me again repeat that our present tariff does not protect. 
 
 The Chairman. Does not it check importation ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. I thought that I had shown you that it does not. You ought to put 
 on a higher duty to check importation. I should say if protection is a settled policy 
 of this country, as the tendency seems to have been for a great many years, you have 
 got to raise the duties on almost everything, especially on woolen goods, and if 200 
 per cent, is not sufficient you ought to make it 300 per cent. I believe it is not con- 
 stitutional to prohibit entirely. 
 
 The Chairman. You want to experiment ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. I am a reformer. I have one great anxiety. I was afraid you were 
 going to recant. Two hundred years ago, when an unfortunate was to be burned at 
 the stake, up to the last moment he had a chance to save his life. The boys and 
 people who wanted to see the show were always afraid of this recantation, and they 
 would cry out to the victim, " Stick to your religion." They wanted to see the show. 
 I was afraid that siuce the last election 
 
 The Chairman. You were afraid that your fellows would recant. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. MoORB. I was alluding to the Ohio election. [Laughter.] Now, Mr. McKin- 
 ley, I really thought after that gentle reminder you were going to give us some sort 
 of a bill in the line of lower duties and thereby take the wind out of our sails, but I 
 feel relieved of all anxiety. 
 
 The Chairman. You say that you want to help the farmers who are being injured 
 without complaint? 
 
 Mr. Moore. They are being injured without knowing it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. In case the domestic wool is enhanced by free trade in wool, 
 that would depend chiefly upon the fact that our manufacturers would not be dis- 
 criminated against? 
 
 Mr. Moore. They do not use our wool abroad. If they wanted to use it they would 
 be compelled to pay the same price that we do. The time will come when our manu- 
 factures of woolens will be so large that the home product of our domestic wools will 
 not be sufficient. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If there was free trade in wool, whether higher or lower, it 
 would not discriminate. 
 
 Mr. MoORB. That would regulate itself in the most perfect manner. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. The wool-growers in this country, I believe, can be divided 
 into classes — farmers and ranchmen. 
 
 Mr. MooRE. So it seems. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Yon live in the East and do business in the West. You have 
 a general knowledge of both sections. 
 
 Mr. MoORB. I know something about the West. 
 
1376 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. Iq the older States the flocks are generally small — 10, 20, 30, 
 40, or 50 sheep to the farm. 
 
 Mr. Moore. Ibelieve, according to statistics, that that is so. It would follow that a 
 farmer in Ohio who has twenty-five sheep raises say 150 pounds of wool. The pres- 
 ent tax would enhance his wool 10 cents a pound, or it would increase his income 
 $18. This same farmer who raises 150 pounds of wool very likely has a family con- 
 sisting of wife and six sons and daughters, and he would lose more than treble what 
 ho makes on his sheep in buying woolen clothing alone. That is unfortunately what 
 the farmer can not see. 
 
 Mr. La Follktte. You are giving the farmer more children than he has sheep. 
 
 Mr. Moore. I am estimating according to statistics. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. What is the average consumption of woolen goods in this 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. It is about 1$5 per head. I simply have made these estimates lor the 
 benefit of the farmer, not that he will read them. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. You have made them for him unsolicited? 
 
 Mr. Moore. Oh, I always do these things unsolicited. 
 
 Mr. Flower. You were speaking of how these agricultural lands have gone down. 
 By redocing the tax, would it benefit them f 
 
 Mr. Moore. Ithinkso; if you reduce the tax it would. What the farmer gets for 
 his product does not compensate him, because he sells in the lowest market and buys 
 in the highest, paying 47 per cent, duties. I am told that in New York we send a 
 good deal of dairy products to England. He does not get more money for it in New 
 York than in London. If he could get a higher price here, he would sell it here. It 
 is the same with wheat in California. We send abroad forty million bushels of wheat 
 from California. If a tariff would benefit California, would not they keep their wheat 
 at home and get more for it? 
 
 The Chairman. This surplus goes out. 
 
 Mr. Moore. Exactly. Does the home trade get him any more for his wheat pro- 
 duct? 
 
 The Chairman. It increases his capacity to buy. There is no question of that. 
 
 Mr. Moore. Really I must insist on actual facts, which are that the California 
 wheat-raisers have to pay 07 pounds more wheat to pay for 10 square yards of woolen 
 dress goods in San Francisco than in London, yet they get only the same price for 
 wheat in San Francisco as in London, hence the home market and the tarifl' prove 
 that the wheat-raiser is not only not benefited but a heavy loser. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. What is your business? 
 
 Mr. Moore. I am engaged in smelting and banking in Colville, Wash. I live in 
 New York. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Is that your only business ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. That is my present business. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. What has been your business heretofore ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. Stockbroking. I am a member of the Stock Exchange now. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. You represent no importing industry and never have done so ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. No, indeed ; I never have. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Among your clients are there no importers ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. Well, no ; I have got no clients that I care much for. I am attending,' 
 in my old age, to my own business. I am not and never was an agent of the British ; 
 I am, however, an honorary member of the Cobden Club. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Ob, are you ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. Yes. I was made an honorary member of that club the same year and 
 the same mouth and the same day that our late friend President Garfield was made 
 an honorary member of it. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. And Mr. Carlisle ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. Mr. Carlisle is an old member, I suppose. 
 
 Mr. Burrows. And you are a member in good standing of that club f 
 
 Mr. Moore. I hope so. 
 
 The Chairman. There is no British gold in your pocket f 
 
 Mr. Moore. No ; they are awlul mean ; they do not send me any gold. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. You have been asked concerning the importation of wool free of 
 duty. 
 
 Mr. Moore. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLLN. Would the importation of wool free of duty enable our manufact- 
 urers to make the woolen goods worn in this country, instead of importing those 
 goods after they are worked up by foreign labor? 
 
 Mr. Moore. That is just exactly what can be done, all the time, if you put the 
 woolen manufacturers of this country on the same footing as foreigners. I think if 
 we had free wool we would make our own woolen goods and not import any. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. And you think that that is the only way to do it? 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1377 
 
 Mr. Moore. That is my opinion. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. Outside of that absolute exclusion that you spoke of? 
 
 Mr. Moore. Absolute exclusion would be a heroic measure, and would certainly 
 bring it about much quicker. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. If we manufactured |50,000,000 worth more of woolen goods, 
 would that increase the home market ? 
 
 Mr. Moore. It would seem as if it ought to improve the home market. I feel very 
 much obliged and gratified, Mr. Chairman, at the way in which you have treated me, 
 and for the kind attention which you and the members of the committee have 
 paid me. 
 
 Mr. Chairman. We were very glad to have had you come before us. 
 
 • 485 87 
 
1378 BE VISION OF TUE TARIFF. 
 
 WAREHOUSING. 
 
 STATEMENT OP JOHN W^. KEOGH. 
 
 February 13, 1890. 
 
 Mr. John W. Keogh appeared before the committee and said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we are here, a committee of throe consisting of ex- 
 State Senator John Gilmore Boyd of New York, George Blair, and myself, represent- 
 ing the American Industrial and Anti-Monopoly Leagne of New York, in relation to 
 the proposed amendment of the tariff laws, which reads as follows: 
 
 "Be it enacted, that upon the withdrawal for home consumption of all Sugar, 
 hemp, jute fiber, and wool actually deposited in tha United States bonded ware- 
 houses of Class III, there shall be an allowance made to the importer of the duty 
 paid thereon equal to 1 per cent, of the duty for each month, or part thereof, during 
 which merchandise' shall have remained in bonded warehouses, provided the mer- 
 chandise shall have been imported directly from the country where it is grown and 
 jjroduced." 
 
 I have here in support of that proposition indorsements from the Associated Trades 
 of New York, Ocean Association of Longshoremen of New York, New York State 
 Engineers' Society, New York Truckmen's Association, containing over 9,000 mem- 
 bers; Executive Council Building Trades of New York, containing over 17,000 mem- 
 bers ; Executive Committee of Union Labor Party; and 1 have a petition here, signed 
 by over 2,500 citizens of the city of New York, working along the river front and 
 along shore and who are interested in this matter. This petition reads as follows : 
 
 "To the Honorable the Senate and House of Bepresentatives of the United States : 
 
 "The undersigned workingmen employed in handling merchandise imported into the 
 United States do most respectfully represent that by reason of existing tariff laws 
 their interests have been most seriously impaired, their wages and hours of work 
 decreased and their numbers emjdoyed gradually lessened, that a large amount of 
 merchandise is now stored in foreign countries, the labor upon which is done abroad, 
 and the goods so shipped are only as required for consumption ; and that our distress 
 is certain in the future unless immediate and efficient aid is given. We therefore most 
 earnestly ask. that the wages earned in the handling and storing of such merchandise 
 be transferred to American laborers, and to that end urge the adoption of the following 
 amendment to the tariff laws as a measure which will afford the much-needed relief 
 to our suffering interests, viz : 
 
 "Be it enacted, that upon the withdrawal for home consumption of all sugar, hemp, 
 jute fiber, and wool actually deposited in the United States bonded warehouses of 
 Class III, there shall be an allowance made to the importer of the duty paid thereon 
 equal to 1 per cent, of the duty for each month, or part thereof, during which such 
 merchandise s'j all have remained in bonded warehouses, provided the merchandise 
 shall have been imported directly from the country where it is grown or produced." 
 
 Mr. Blair, who was to present the labor side of tho question, is not here as yet; 
 but 1 had a telegram stating that he left New York last evening ; meanwhile Senator 
 Boyd will present our statement from a business point of view. With your permis- 
 sion, I now beg leave to introduce to you Senator Boyd, of New York. 
 
 Mr. John Gilmoeb Boyd spoke as follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, Mr. Keogh has prepared certain 
 data, which 1 presume you are already familiar with, as the bill has been before your 
 committee for some time, giving reasons why this bill should be passed. He has had 
 them printed on slips, which will be distributed among the members of the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 The bill proposes that upon the withdrawal for home consumption of all sugar, 
 h(!mp, jute fiber, and wool actually deposited in United States bonded warehouses 
 of Class 111, there shall be an allowance made to the importer of the duty paid thereon 
 equal to 1 per cent, of the duty for each month, or part thereof, during which such 
 mi-Tchanilise shall have reiuaiued in bonded warehouses, provided the merchandise 
 shall have been imported directly from the country where itis grown or produced. 
 
 Now, 1 do not know thatl ought to occupy your time in reading all of these reasons 
 over, as slips containing them will be distributed among the members of the com-" 
 naiiti.'B at this hearing. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1379 
 
 Slip reads as follows : 
 
 "Should foreign warehouses be supported at the expense of American labor f 
 This proposed amendment to the tariff laws, giving a rebate of duty upon importa- 
 tions for the time during which they are stored in this country, is a measure com- 
 prehensive in principle and beuelicial in its results. It stimulates commerce by 
 encouraging the holding of foreign products in our own warehouses and enabling 
 us to regulate their price. It makes our own country the depository from which to 
 draw supplies ; thus creating the market of the world. It revives the warehouse 
 industry and the important interests dependent upon it. It distributes among our 
 workiugmen the money now paid for labor upon merchandise stored abroad. It 
 protects our interests at the expense of foreign interests alone. 
 
 "A glance will show the discouraging situation under the existing laws and the 
 urgent need of a radical remedy. 
 
 "In 1879, 418,000 bags of Calcutta linseed were imported into the United States 
 direct from India and none from Europe. In 1H89, 449,869 bags were imported 
 direct from India, and 558,869 bags from Europe. In 1879, 168,865 bales of manilla 
 hemp were imported direct from the East ladies, aud none from Europe. In 1887, 
 204,748 bales were imported direct from the East Indies, and 49,537 bales from 
 Europe. In 1888, 236,379 bales were imported direct from the East Indies, and 
 98,375 bales from Europe. In 1889, 280,261 bales were imported direct from the East 
 Indies, and 115,950 bales from Europe. 
 
 "This comparison shows clearly the steady increase of imports via England, 
 where the goods have remained in store awaiting a market, instead of coming to 
 this country and awaiting a market here. 
 
 " The result is inevitable that England will supply us with East India products at 
 a price regulated by the quantity she has in store, as we need them ; and England 
 will absorb all the advantages accruing from her warehousing these products to 
 the time they are needed for consumption. These advantages are reaped by En- 
 glish warehousemen, longshoremen, laborers, weighers, coopers, banks, and insurance 
 companies, for storing goods means to benefit all these interests. It is time to check 
 this loss of benefits to this country, and to turn the flow of advantages towards us by 
 legislation such as is proposed. 
 
 " So with West India sugar. In 1879, 511,628 tons were imported into the port of 
 New York, of which 331,144 tons were warehoused here. In 1889, 359,154 tons were 
 imported, of which 170,662 tons were warehoused here. On January 30, 1889, there 
 were stored in the warehouses of Europe and Cuba, 1,038,080 tons of sugar; and in 
 the three ports of the United States, viz. New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, in 
 stock, only 2,397 tons. This is an alarming situation, as it places our consumers 
 absolutely at the mercy of foreign markets, from which our supply must be drawn. 
 Store this product in the United States and this danger is avoided. The large de- 
 crease in the proportion of sugar so warehoused was a loss to this country, but a 
 gain to Cuba where it was stored. No good reason can be offered why our country 
 should not reap this gain. 
 
 " Consumers, by storing in Cuba, save duty on shrinkage ; to counteract this, 
 duties should be collected only upon the quantity of merchandize delivered from 
 store ; and an inducement should be offered for storing here sufficient to overcome the 
 advantages now gained by storing in other countries. 
 
 "The proposed amendment does not propose to deal with the rate of tariff; that 
 question is left without comment. But, the tariff being fixed, the amendment dis- 
 tributes a portion of the duty which otherwise would become revenue to our Govern- 
 ment, among the interests accompanying and dependent upon warehousing goods. 
 
 " It says to the importer, store your merchandise and you will get a rebate of 
 duty ; biit yon will also incur the expense of storing. You are benefited because you 
 can control the market, and you are not subjected to any additional expense through 
 this amendment. 
 
 "The importer who warehouses his goods gains no advantage of him who imports 
 direct for consumption, because the rebate in duty is overbalanced by the expense of 
 storing. 
 
 "The consumer is not affected because of the same reason ; the direct importer pays 
 a certain duty, and the importer who stores pays the same duty, except that a portion 
 of that duty is the expense of storing, for the rebate is regulated according to the 
 time the goods remain in store. Our Goveruraeut can sustain no injury from tho 
 proposed amendment. The loss to its revenues will be of little importance compared 
 to the benefits conferred. 
 
 "The average time importations remain in the store in this country is about two 
 months. The duties upon the articles referred to in the proposed amendment were, 
 in 1889, 163,000,000, so that if they were all warehoused for two months (as a matter 
 of fact 50 per cent, will be delivered for immediate consumption) tko rebate would 
 
1380 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 amount to only |1, 260,000 and of this sum over 70 per cent, would bo contributed to 
 the labor attendant on storing. 
 
 This amendment is no inducement for the importer to allow his goods to remain 
 in store, because while getting the rebate in he is incurring an equal or greater ex- 
 pense of storage. 
 
 " It is therefore apparent tliat the amendment encourages our commerce, revives 
 an important industry, and aids our labor interest, and it therefore is entitled to the 
 support of all having" the welfare of our country at heart." 
 
 Ex-Senator Boyd then went on to say : The bill refers to those goods usually de- 
 posited in warehouses of Class III, which means the kind of warehouses where goods 
 uncalled for and seized goods should go. I will read from General Regulations, under 
 Customs and NaTigation Laws of the United States, published in 1884, in regard to the 
 character of warehouses belonging to Cl;iss III. 
 
 "Act 620. Warehouses of Class III shall consist of an entire building used solely 
 for the storage of bonded merchandise and of uncalled for and seized goods ordered 
 thereto by the collector. (Eevised Statutes 2900, section 3608.) And the rates of 
 storage and compensation for Labor in the handling of bonded goods will be as agreed 
 on between the owner or importer of the goods and the proprietor of the warehouse, 
 who will receive all amounts due for storage .and labor, the collector looking to the 
 safe custody of the goods. The proprietor of such a warehouse is liable as in other 
 cases for the fcfe-keeping of unclaimed and seized goods, the charges on which for 
 labor, storage, and other expenses are not to exceed the regular rates. 
 
 "The collector or chief customs officer of the port will determine the correctness 
 of such charges, and such goods shall not be withdrawn without payment of the 
 proper charges. 
 
 "Every warehouse of this class must be placed in charge of an officer of the cus- 
 toms under the regulations of the custom-house. An additional officer or officers 
 may be assigned for duty at any one warehouse when the collector deems same neces- 
 sary. 
 
 " The proprietor of every such warehouse will be required to pay monthly to the 
 collector a sum equal to the salary of the officer or officers assigned to such ware- 
 house and to provide at all times a suitable office for his or their accommodation." 
 
 Now, I am told that citizens have invested large sums of money in erecting and 
 providing warehouses where such goods can be stored, and that many of these are 
 empty because the quantity of goods imported is not sufficient to fill them. The 
 storage in Europe and other countries is so very much cheaper than here that our 
 importers find it more profitable to store their goods abroad than to pay full duties 
 and keep their goods locked up here, paying increased rates of storage, for any con- 
 siderable length of time. Heretofore in Europe and other countries laboring men, 
 insurers, coopers, truckmen, and warehouse people, benefited at the expense of onr 
 people, but if American importers receive proper encouragement, they will extend 
 the sphere of their operations, they will go to the countries where the class of goods 
 referred to in the bill, are produced and they will bring them and store them here 
 thereby giving employment to various classes of our industrial population, patronize 
 our own warehousemen, and keep a vast amount of money that is now earned by 
 foreigners, among ourselves. We all know that our country is rapidly increasing in 
 population and our 60.000,000 of inhabitants will soou be increased to 100,000,000; 
 and the question is whether our supply of foreign products shall increase in an equal 
 proportion. If not, it will be detrimental to American interests, unless we devise 
 some means for keeping a larger supply of foreign goods on store here. 
 
 Suppose, for instance, that a pestilence among the sheep breaks out abroad, or that 
 there be a failure of the crops of sugar, hemp, etc., and we had not a sufficient supply 
 of wool and the other materials on hand to last us for a year or two, or to supply the 
 wants of our people, we would then feel the gravity of our mistake in not providing 
 for a large supply of these goods to be kept on hand and to have our own warehouses 
 well filled, in order that we should have a sufflcient supply to last us until these evils 
 should pass away. 
 
 Again, if these goods are stored hero in large quantities instead of in foreign ware- 
 houses, merchants and speculators will be induced to push them upon onr market 
 and it will encourage competition among our merchants and manufacturers. Prices 
 will thus be reduced, consumers will get their goods cheaper, and the mass of our 
 people will be benefited in every way. It may be said that Government will have to 
 pay for all this by the necessary reduction of the revenue. Of course it would deduct 
 something from the revenue of the country, but our Government can well afford that 
 deduction. 
 
 Government exists for the benefit of the entire people. In our country we believe 
 and te:»ch that men are not inferior animals and their destiny is not to spend their 
 lives in mere drudgery and enforced ignorance, being content with the scanty pit- 
 tance which the downtrodden 'masses offoreigu countries are compelled to accept and 
 
 feel tl4i*akf«l for. An inspired -n^riter Uas 8ai4 tli^t the Cresitor bas m^de wan but 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFP. 1381 
 
 little lower than the angels, and this truth, this principle, has been recognized by the 
 people of this country since the Pilgrim Fathers proclaimed it at Plymouth Rock by 
 their heroic actions and their liberal policy. It is the policy of their descendants 
 that every effort should be made to elevate the condition and promote the happiness 
 and prosperity of all mankind, and especially among our own people. The legisla- 
 ture of the United States was organized to carry out this policy, and the passage of 
 this bill will be an act in pursuance thereof. 
 
 Our laboring men and mechanics withtlieir families have not means enough per- 
 haps to indulge in the luxury of Axminster, Moquet, or Persian carpets, but if they 
 can get a snlHcient supply of good jute carpets and matting to cover their floors at a 
 price which will be withiu their means it will materially add to their comfort and 
 happiness, and will thus be a great means in elevating their tastes and promoting 
 their moral and material elevation. The passage of this bill will greatly tend to 
 cheapen the prices of those goods and immensely increase the supply imported into 
 and manufactured in this country. 
 
 Sugar is an article of absolute necessity in every family. The health of our peo- 
 ple require that they should be supplied with such a quantity as nature demands. 
 The passage of this bill will lead to the importation of larger supplies of the raw 
 material, and this will tend to make sugar cheaper and place all Uiat is required 
 within tlie reach of every citizen. The people and our Government will take good 
 care that neither trusts nor monopolies will snatch from the people all the benefits 
 which will result from the enactment of this bill. 
 
 There are various other reasons which may be adduced to show why this bill ought 
 to become a law; but I think that you gentlemen of the committee are sufficiently 
 acquainted with all the details involved in the proposition now before you; and as 
 your time is valuable, and as it would be presumption in me to attempt to instriict 
 you in regard to the merits of a measure, the importance of which is admitted by every 
 citizen, I shall not attempt to detain you any longer, but leave the matter entirely in 
 your hands. 
 
 We, that is Mr. Keogh, Mr. Blair, and myself, represent large numbers of the mer- 
 cantile community and of the mechanics and laboring people in the city and county 
 of New York, and they are all in favor of this amendment to the existing law. 
 
 As to the present condition of the tariff, we make no refereuce to that whatsoever; 
 that remains with yon and doubtless will be duly considered by you at the proper 
 time. We are here in the interest of no faction, party, or syndicate. We are here 
 as citizens to do our duty in expressing to you the desires of our fellow-citizens. I 
 claim and all our people claim that the Government ought to encourage the importa- 
 tion of these goods in the manuer provided for in this bill. The legislature should 
 pass this bill so that our importers would not be compelled to leave their goods in 
 foreign warehouses until they are immediately needed for home consumption, as-they 
 are now compelled to do under present regulations. Under the laws that exist in 
 this country to-day, the people of foreign countries are enriched and their enterprise 
 encouraged at the expense of our own citizens; and the business enterprises of our 
 own people are greatly impeded under the operations of our present laws, which are 
 sought to be amended by tho passage of this bill. 
 
 It m.iy be said that labor is cheaper abroad, but if it is, we know that the con- 
 dition and character of the laboring people of foreign countries is of a lower order 
 than that of American citizens. Our laboring people must have compensation for 
 their services at a rate which will enable them to keep pace with and live up to the 
 requirements of our higher civilization ; and it should be the policy of our Govern- 
 ment to adopt every means which will tend to give them constant employment at 
 such rate of wages as will enable them to live, support and educate their families in 
 accordance with our American ideas and style of living. Thus the Government will 
 be doing its duty in elevating the condition of all classes of our citizens and increas- 
 ing the intelligence, happiness, and prosperity of the whole people. Let this bill be- 
 come a law and its beneficial influences will be far-reaching indeed. It is impossible 
 for us at present to foresee the benefits which will accrue to the whole community from 
 the enactment of this truly reform measure. 
 
 Mr. Bayne suggested that tbe bill ought to be carried to the Senate committee, 
 whereupon a discussion ensued to the eti'ect that it was not necessary ; and Mr. Boyd 
 continued : 
 
 Mr. Boyd stated that this was a measure of justice to all parties concerned and he 
 hoped that the committee and other members of Congress would take the same view. 
 He thanked the committee for their courtesy. 
 
 Mr. Flower.' I want to say that Mr. Boyd is a representative man from New York, 
 an ex-senator from the first district. And now Mr. George Blair would like to say 
 some words to you. 
 
1382 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 STATEMENT OF GEORGE BLAIR. 
 
 Mr. George Blair addresBel the committee, and said : 
 
 Mr. Cliairman and gentlemen of ttie committee, I have been permitted to come be- 
 fore your committee on the ground that it is understood by the working people in 
 NewYork that this measure is calculated to benefit them. It is thought that if a re- 
 bate of 1 per cent, is given to the importers ; or, in other words, that if encouragement 
 is ifiven to the people of this country to order their goods sent direct from the places 
 where the goods are raised to the port of New York or any other port of this country, 
 it would stimulate trade and indirectly the industry of this country. It is argued, 
 and I believe with considerable force, that a large portion of the raw material con- 
 sumed in this country and coming from abroad, is stored in India and in other coun- 
 tries, and held there'because of the cheapness of storage rates and, I presume, the 
 cheapness of labor. 
 
 Therefore, without making a very long argument, and I presume all that you want 
 are the facts in a nut-shell, I will say that as we look at it, the Congress of the 
 United States should always, in making laws, look first to the interests of the com- 
 mon people. I believe that is the spirit that prompted the fathers of our Govern- 
 ment to give us the legislative branch of the Government, and if we can show that 
 this rebate of 1 per ceut. is a benefit to the people, then it is your duty to look favor- 
 ably on this bill. 
 
 It is estimated that in the past year $(53,000,000 was paid by the importers of raw 
 material ; if 1 per cent, is paid back to the importer it will throw |l,2fa"0,000 into the 
 hands of the people of this country and also give employment to a large number of 
 the working class. Of course we can only tell after the measure has been adopted 
 whether our assumptiou is correct, that instead of stinuilating British industry, it 
 would encourage our importers to order their goods direct from India and from other 
 points where the raw material is produced, ana bring them direct to the port of New 
 York or other ports of this country ; and that instead of |l,2(i0,000, there would be 
 several millions added, in the shape of extra plant, etc. 
 
 First, the raw material would come here, and, encouraged by this rebate of 1 per 
 cent., the warehouse people would have an opportunity to expend their money in the 
 employment of labor. Truckmen and longshoremen would have employment. These 
 men number some tweuty thousand, and although at times thoy work day and night, 
 they frequently have hardly enough to do. If tljis measure is passed it would make 
 business more steady; it would tempt importers, knowing of the rebate, to order their 
 goods forward, and so labor would be more steadily employed. Not alone that, but 
 there would be more employment. 
 
 It strikes me that it is of the utmost importance that this measure has considera- 
 tion, and, in my judgment, the interests of the working people and the business men 
 of this country demand such consideration. Now, it was claimed by the dominant 
 party in the last campaign that the last campaign was fonght in the interest of protec- 
 tion to American industry and labor;- and if that be so, then this measure, if passed, 
 will be at least one step in the right direction. 
 
 I have given the matter of labor and its interests serious consideration from boy- 
 hood, and I claim that I am somewhat familiar with this subject. In fact, before 
 President Cleveland was elected I, as president of the Workingmen's Assembly of 
 the State of New York, requested an investigation into the condition of labor in 
 Europe; and upon my recommendation Congress ordered that this investigation be 
 made ; and you will find, if you look up the records, three volumes upon the subject 
 of American labor and the condition of labor abroad. 
 
 Hence, I believe that I know a thing or two about this subject, and while we are not 
 now discussing the condition of American labor, any movement or any measure that 
 aims to benefit the labor of this country, whether it be in the reduction of the tariff 
 or whether it be in admitting raw material that we use in manufacturing, should re- 
 ceive attention ; and it strikes me that it is of the utmost importance that Congress 
 should consider first measures that are calculated to benefit the interests of the 
 people. 
 
 I have yet to learn that any serious opposition has been raised by either party ; in 
 fact, I know of no opposition to these principles. Democrats and Republicans alike 
 that I have spoken to recognize that it is a proper measure for legislation. We do 
 not injure American interests by the reduction of this 1 per cent, per month. You 
 are more familiar than I am with the amount of raw material from abroad that is 
 used in tiiis country ; but I know that it does not in the least jeopardize home inter- 
 ests to make this reduction of I per cent. The same amount of goods will be brought 
 from nbroad. It simply aims to eficour.'igo our own labor. By carrying out these 
 prinoi[iles, bringing goods from the country whore raw material is grown direct to 
 our own, we benefit our o^n people. ' 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 1383 
 
 This bill aims to strike at British intorests ; it aims to take from the warehouses of 
 London, England, France, and Germany, goods that they stored and have been con- 
 signed to American houses. It aims to take these goods and send them direct from 
 the country where they are raised, to our own. It does not in the least affect our 
 home interests, it rather stimulates home industry. It aims at taking away employ- 
 ment from British laborers in the warehouses of Loudon and giving it instead to 
 American workmen. It gives people in this country, who have capital invested in 
 warehouses, labor to sell, and in a general way gives to American capital and Ameri- 
 can labor what is now to n. great extent carried on by British capital and British 
 labor. 
 
 This is the whole case in a nut-shell, and I will not detaiu your committee any 
 longer except to say that from what I have gleaned since I have been in this room, 
 the importance of this measure does not seem to impress some of the members of this 
 committee as it should ; and I trust that it will be most seriously considered, and I 
 hope that it will be favorably reported upon at an early date to the House. 
 
 Mr. Blair was here asked by a member of the committee as to the average length 
 of time that sugar is stored in warehouses abroad. He replied that he did not know; 
 but supposed that the matter would be examined by those familiar with the details 
 of the business. In answer to another question he replied that importers pay duty 
 when goods arc delivered, and if they should use them for two or three months they 
 were paying a percentage for what they do not use. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF JOHN W. KEOGH. 
 
 Mr. KJEOGH again addressed the committee as follows : 
 
 Gentlemen : Mr. Blair represents the working people of the lower part of New 
 York City, who are now a very large number and who do not earn more than |8 or 
 $10 a week the year round ; and they have to live in very cramped quarters. 
 
 Mr. Keogh was here asked by a member of the committee as to how long sugar 
 was stored in the warehouses. He replied : "As I understand it, sometimes as long 
 as a year, though sometimes ouly six months. The idea is as I understand it from a 
 gentleman familiar with that line of business, that sugar evaporates and that there- 
 fore it is not taken out of bond until required to he used." 
 
 A member of the committee here said that the tariff was not collected until the 
 goods were taken out of bond. Mr. Keogh replied that this statement might apply 
 to goods or material placed in bonded warehouses, but if he was not misinformed, it 
 did not apply to the articles mentioned in this amendment ; as he was informed by 
 importers of these articles that the tariff was collected the moment the goods were 
 docked at our sea-ports, and that these goods were not placed for storage in United 
 States bonded warehouses, as the question of the gentleman suggests. 
 
 What they wanted was to bring the raw material from which these goods were 
 produced and store it here in warehouses; and they asked the Government to make a 
 rebate of 1 percent, forthe time the material lay in the bonded warehouses. He said: 
 I am not perhaps sufficiently familiar with the subject to discuss it in detail, but I fall 
 in with the workman's side of the question, and what I know is, that there are proba- 
 bly five or six thousand unemployed men who worked alongshore in New York, at 
 the present time ; I also know that there are large storage warehouses almost empty 
 of goods, and that the design of this bill is to give work to the poor man, and give 
 him more steady employment than he has now. 
 
 I am not a free-trader, but I know it would be to the interests of these men to have 
 this bill passed. I am a protectionist and I believe that the gentlemen who spoke 
 before me are also protectionists and also are of my way of thinking. We believe 
 that the reduction or rebate of 1 per cent, a month will induce the importers to store 
 their goods here. This would not in any way interfere with the tariff ; it would simjjly 
 stimulate our industries in New York. 
 
 I live in the district lying from Canal street to South ferry in New York City for 
 the last twenty-five years, and have done business in it, and have worked at my 
 trade, and I know pretty well the present feeling of the people who live there ; they 
 number about forty or fifty thousand and work at loading ships, trucking, etc., and if 
 the members of this committee would go along with me there they would appreciate 
 the situation as I do. I also want to say in this connection that we have always be- 
 lieved in New York that if the tariff could be revised it would improve the conditior 
 of the workingman as well as the manufacturer. It would help the capitalist and it 
 would help the laborer by enabling the former to give employment to the latter. 
 
 Now, I don't feel that I can say anything further in relation to this matter. We 
 don't come here either as Republicans or Democrats. We simply come here for the 
 benefit of our people. M r. Boyd has represented the first senatoriiil district of ^ew 
 York, and was elected b y the workingmen. He understands the needs of the people 
 
1384 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 from Houston street to the southern end of Staten Island. Mr. Blair is one of the 
 leaders and initiators of the labor movement in this conutry. 
 
 We have here, {reutlemon, a petition that is signed uy about 2,500 people. These 
 sio-natures are all yennine ; they are not taken from the directory, and we can pro- 
 duce affidavits as to their authenticity from the men who collected them. These 
 sio-natures are obtained from Republican and Democratic laboring men, and from 
 others who are unaffiliated with either party. The petition if stretched out to its full 
 len<'-th would measure over lk!.'j feet. The names upon it are not alone genuine, but 
 we "were careful to have the nigners of theui understand exactly the meaning of the 
 petition to which their signatures were affixed. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, we are here to ask simple justice, not only to the wage-earner, 
 but also to the men who, by their enterjuise aiul business activity, have helped so 
 much to build up the prosperity of our nation. Wo are confident that our appeal to 
 you will not be in vain, and I can assure you that you have our thanks and that 
 of the people we represent for the courteous and i)olite treatment accorded us by you 
 to-day. 
 
 Mr. Boyd stated to the chairman of the committee that thefriends of thisbill would 
 present to the committee, through its chairman, in the course of afew days, important 
 statistics and other information in regard to the storage capacity of the warehouses 
 in America, the amouut of goods usually kept stored in Europe aud other countries, 
 and the length of time during which those goods were so stored. 
 
 New York, February 22, 1890. 
 Dear Sir: Permit me to offer through you, to the chairman and members of the 
 Ways and Means Conmiittee, the following information as to statistics asked for by 
 them at the hearing granted the committee from our organization on the jjroposed 
 amendment to the taritf laws in relation to the bonded warehouses, February 13, 
 which our eomuiittee agreed to furnish. 
 
 (1) Duties are levied on imported raw material mentioned in the bill when it is 
 landed on the wharf, but are paid just prior to the delivery from the warehouse. 
 
 (2) From the best estimate that can be gathered, the jiassage of the bill would in- 
 crease the volume of the amount of raw material stored iu this country about ouo- 
 third. 
 
 (3) The average rate of earning of the longshoremen here is |12 per week and 
 abroad about |6 per week. 
 
 (4) Under the new law there would be an increase in the number of men employed 
 in the handling of the material of at least 50 per cent. 
 
 (5) The principal item effected under the amendment would be sugar. The largest 
 amount of sugar produced here is in Louisiana, and is consumed almost entirely in 
 that section. The stock of imjiorted sugar iu this country to-day is 300,000 tons, 
 against 1,378,911 tons stored in foreign countries at latest dates. 
 
 (()) It is estimated that under the operations of this amendment there would be a 
 relative gain in the warehouses aud laboring interests of over |1, 000,000 per year. 
 There are storage facilities in the four great ])orts of New Yoik, Boston, Philadelphia, 
 and Baltimore to handle all the merchandise now in store in foreign warehouses in- 
 tended for consumption in this country. 
 
 I hope this will be in time to be embodied in the official report of the hearing before 
 your committee, and kindly request that you mail me some copies of the report when 
 printed. 
 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 John W. Keogh, 
 Chairman Committee. 
 Maj. John M. Caeson, 
 
 Clerk Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 STATEMENT OF J. P. ROBINSON. 
 
 The proposed amendment to the tariff laws giving a rebate of duty upon importa- 
 tions for the time during which they are stored in this country is a measure compre- 
 hensive in principle aud beneticial in its results. It stimulates commerce by encour- 
 agiug the holding of foreign products in our own warehouses aud enabling us to 
 regulate their price. It makes our own countrj' the depository from which to draw 
 8U)iplies, thus creating the market of the world. It revives the warehouse industry 
 .and the important interests dependent upon it. It distributes among our own work- 
 iugmen the money now paid for labor upon merchandise stored abroad. It i)rotect8 
 our interests at the expense of foreign interests alone. 
 
 A glance will show the diseonraging situation under the existing laws, and the 
 urgent need of a radical remedy. 
 
REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 1385 
 
 In 1879, 418,000liag8of Calcutta linseed were imported into tile United States direct 
 from India, and nouo from Europe. In 18o9, 449,869 hugs were imported direct from 
 India, and 558,869 bags from Europe. In 1879, 168,865 bales of manilla hemp were 
 imported direct from the East Indies, and none from Europe. In 1887, 204,748 bales 
 were imported direct from the East Indies, and 49,537 bales from Europe. In 1888, 
 '-':!6,:!79 bales were imported direct from the East Indies, and 98,375 bales from Europe, 
 lu 1889, 280,261 bales were imported direct from the East Indies, and 115,950 bales 
 from Europe. 
 
 This comparison shows clearly the steady increase of imports via England, where 
 1he goods have remained in store awaiting a market, instead of coming to this coun- 
 try and waiting a market here. 
 
 The result is inevitable that England will supply us with East India products at a 
 price regulated by the quantity she has in store, as we need them ; and England will 
 aljsorb all the advantages accruing from her warehousing these products to the time 
 they are needed for consumption. These advantages are reaped by English ware- 
 housemen, longshoremen, laborers, weighers, coopers, banks and insurance companies; 
 for storing goods means to benefit all these interests. It is time to cheek this loss of 
 benefits to- this country, and to turn the flow of advantages towards us, by legisl.a- 
 tion such as is proposed. 
 
 So with West India sugar. In 1879, 511,628 tons were imported into the port of 
 New York, of which 331,144 tons were warehoused here. In 1889, 659,154 tons were 
 imported, of which 170,6(12 tons were warehoused here. On January 30, 1889, there 
 were stored in the warehouses of Europe and Cuba, 1,038,080 tons of sugar; and in 
 the three ports of the United States, viz. New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, in 
 stock, only 2,397 tons. This is an alarming situation, as it places our consumers ab- 
 solutely at the mercy of foreign markets, from which our supply must be drawn. 
 Store this product in the United States, and this danger is avoided. The large de- 
 crease in the proportion of sugar so warehoused was a loss to this country, but a 
 gain to Cuba where it was stored. No good reason can be ofi'ered why our country 
 should not reap this gain. 
 
 Consumers, by storing in Cuba, save duty on shrinkage ; to counteract this, duties 
 should be collected only upon the quantity of merchandise delivered from store ; and 
 an inducement should be offered for storing here sufficient to overcome the advantages 
 now gained by storing in other countries. 
 
 The proposed amendment does not pretend to deal with the rate of tariff; that ques- 
 tion is left without comment. But, the tariff being fixed, the amendment distributes 
 a portion of the duty, which otherwise would become revenue to our Government, 
 among the interests accompanying and dependent upon warehousing the goods. 
 
 It says to the importers, store your merchandise and you will get a rebate of duty, 
 but you will also incur the expense of storing. You are benefited because you can 
 control the market, and you are not subjected to any additional expense through 
 this amendment. 
 
 The importer who warehouses his goods gains no advantage of him who imports 
 direct for consumption, because the rebate in duty is overbalanced by the expense of 
 storing. 
 
 The consumer is not affected, because of the same reason; the direct importer pays 
 a certain duty, and the importer who stores pays the same duty, except that a por- 
 tion of that duty is the expense of storing, for the rebate is regulated according to 
 the time the goods remain in store. 
 
 Our Government can sustain no injury from the proposed amendment. The loss to 
 its revenues will be of little importance compared to the benefits conferred. 
 
 The average time importations remain in store in this country is about two months. 
 The (ftities upon the articles referred to in the proposed ameudment were, in 1889, 
 !ji6:i,000,000, so that if they were all warehoused for two months (as a matter of fact 
 .50 per cent, will be delivered for immediate consumption), the rebate would amount 
 to only 1^1,260,000 ; and of this sum over 70 per cent, wonld be contributed to the labor 
 attendant upon storing. 
 
 1'be amendment is no inducement for the importer to allow his goods to remain in 
 store, because while getting the rebate he is incurring an equal or greater etpense 
 for storage. 
 
 It is therefore apparent that the amendment encourages our commerce, revives an 
 important industry, and aids our labor interests, and it therefore is entitled to the 
 support of all having the welfare of our country at heart. 
 
1386 EEVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 STATEMENT OF "WILLIAM SMITH. 
 
 Mr. WiixiAM Smith, of 31 Old Slip, New York City, appeared before the commit- 
 tee on February 27, and said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we have the honor to appear be- 
 fore yon as a committee of coopers, representing Coopers' Union No. , of New York 
 
 and "Brooklyn, having members in their ranks. 
 
 Our mission is to place before yoar honorable body the causes which, we think, 
 have injured our business, and at the same time to tell you what measures, in our 
 opinion, will cause relief and bo the means of giving more employment rot only to 
 our branch of industry, but also to thousands of others who depend upon wharf and 
 warehouse labor in the cities of New York and Brooklyn. 
 
 It is our hope that we may succeed mi impressing upon your minds the relief we 
 aslc for, which, after many debates among ourselves, seems to be the only way of im- 
 proving our condition and giving satisfaction to the many thousands of laboring men 
 placed in the same condition as we are. 
 
 In order to give you a clear idea of how our business has suffered by the new 
 methods employed in transacting business — especiallv in the sugar and molasses 
 ti-ade, which was our main dependence in former years — when all sugars came in 
 hog.sheads or boxes, these hogsheads and boxes were manufactured in the United 
 States. They were bundled up and called shocks, accompanied with the required 
 number of heads and hoops, furnishing outward cargoes to our vessels. This industry 
 employed thousands of coopers, besides furnishing labor to our farmers during winter 
 month's in most of our Eastern, Northern, and Middle States; its value was about 
 nine millions annually. 
 
 It was the custom in former years for the sugar producers of Cuba and Porto Rico 
 to send their sugar, wlfen ready for market, principally to Philadelphia, New York, 
 and Boston, consigned to diifereut merchants at these ports, who acted as their 
 agents and advanced money on the goods. When the sugar was landed it was 
 weighed and sampled by Government officers, and allowed to remain a certain time 
 on the wharf, usually about ten days ; if not sold during that time, it was ordered 
 into bonded warehouses. This caused work for coopers, warehousemen, and many 
 others ; times were brisk, people were contented, and able to make a decent living. 
 
 But all this has changed. Our warehouses remain empty during the greater part 
 of the year, and the sugar comes cost and freight for immediate discharge to the re- 
 tinery. Tue change, in our opinion, was caused by the independent attitude of the 
 Cubans and other sugar-producing islands, who, when they discovered that agents 
 and buyers representing tbe sugar refineries of the United States were constantly 
 among them and buying from tliem on the spot, soon saw the advantage opened to 
 them, aud commenced building warehouses in Havana, Matanzas, Cardenas, Cien- 
 fuegos, and iu all the principal ports of the island, holding the sugar there and wait- 
 ing for the accommodating agent, who now, iu most all cases, pays storage and 
 freight, and delivers the sugar in New York as and when wanted. 
 
 This is what has driven so many merchants out of the business, causing a great 
 loss to us, besides weighers, warehousemen, and many others. 
 
 We therefore ask of your honorable body to make a liberal concession to the im- 
 porters, that they may be the means of making the bonded warehouses of the United 
 States the depots for all sugar and molasses coming from foreign countries, and revive 
 business, attracting trade from Cuba, South America, Mexico, and East Indies, and 
 the breaking up of a system which is helping foreigners at our expense. We ask you 
 to make a concession to the importer of sugars of 1 per cent, of the duty for each 
 nionth, during which such merchandise shall have remained in bonded warehouse. 
 
 ACTION OF ASSOCIATED LIGHTERMEN. 
 
 No. 108 Wall Street, New York. 
 
 February 4, 1890. 
 Sin: At a meeting of the Associated Lightermen of the port of New York, held on 
 February 3, last, the following resolution was unanimously adopted, viz: 
 
 I!e»oU-(d, That the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled be 
 respectfully requested to enact : That upon the withdrawal for home consumption 
 of all sugar, hemp, jute-tilier, and wool actually deposited in the United States 
 bonded warehouses ot class 3, there shall be an allowance made to the importer of 
 thedaty paid thereon equal to 1 per cent, of the duty for each month, or part thereof 
 during which such merchandise shall have romained'in bonded warehouse : Provided, 
 The merchandise shall have been imported directly from the country where it is grown 
 or produced. 
 
 T have the honor to be, sir, your obedient serv.ant, 
 
 Thos. Mathews, 
 Hon. William McKinley, Jr., Secretary. 
 
 Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1387 
 
 ACTION OF JOURNEYMEN COOPERS. 
 
 The following action was taken by the journeymen coopers, whose membership 
 numbers three thousand : 
 
 New York, February 19, 1890. 
 
 At a meeting of the Journeymen Coopers' Association the following resolution waa 
 unanimously passed: 
 
 Whereas under the existing tariff laws the employment of labor upon importations 
 warehoused in this country has steadily decreased and is insufficient to maintain those 
 engaged in the service ; and 
 
 Whereas the outlook is wholly discouraging and bids fair to drive large bodies of 
 workiugmcn into other fields of tabor, on decreased wages, and where success is doubt- 
 ful, if not impossible; and 
 
 Whereas the Journeymen Coopers' Association recognizes the danger of the situation 
 and the great loss and damage thereby sustained by the labor interests, and is keenly 
 sensible of the great need for immediate relief from' the present depressed condition of 
 afi'airs; now, tborelbre, we confidently recommend this ijroposed amendment to the 
 tariff' laws relating to the warehousing of imported merchandise, viz : 
 
 '•Be it enacted, That upon the withdrawal for home consumption of all sugar, 
 hemp, jute fiber, and wool actually deposited in United States bonded warehouses of 
 class 3, there shall bo an allowance made to the importer of the duty paid thereon 
 equal to 1 per cent, of the duty for each month, or part thereof, during which such 
 merchandise shall have remained in bonded warehons(i, provided the merchandise 
 shall have been imported directly from the country where it is grown or produced," as 
 a measure which will afford tbe much needed relief by {riving emploj'mer|t to thou- 
 sands of willing workingmen, now forced to remain in idleness for a greater portion 
 of the time. 
 
 Itesolred, That we earnestly urge upon Congress the adoption of the above proposed 
 amendment as tbe best means of accomplishing the most good to such labor interests, 
 and of relieving those interests from the great distress under which they have so 
 long been suffering; and 
 
 Be it fiirfhei- resolved, That a committee of four be appointed to present this resolu- 
 tion to the Committee ou Ways and Means of the United States Congress, now in 
 session, and that a copy of this resolution be sent to the members of Congress of 
 this State. 
 
 E. J. Debgan, 
 
 President. 
 
 P. J. Gunning, 
 
 Seo'etary. 
 
 ADMINISTRATIVE PKOVISIONS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF J. R. LESSON. 
 
 Mr. J. R. Leeson, of Boston, addressed the committee. He said: 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I appear before you as chairman of the legislative 
 committee of the Home Market Club. Other members of the committee present are 
 Hon. Alden Speare, president of the Boston Chamber of Commerce ; Mr. F. W. Breed, 
 president of tbe Beacon Society, Boston, and Mr. Jerome Jones, chairman of ihe ex- 
 ecutive committee of the Massachusetts Tariff Reform League. The Home Market 
 Club is an organization formed and maintained to advocate the cause of protection 
 and to disseminate information showing the benefits arising from the protective policy. 
 Upon the (juestion of rates the club has nothing to say, the adjustment of the sched- 
 ules bein"' left to those trade organizations and individuals having accurate knowl- 
 edge of the particular requirements. But, when schedules are arranged and the duties 
 assessed, collection of the revenues and the administration of the law supervenes. 
 At that juncture, Mr. Chairman, the club approached tbe details and methods of pro- 
 cedure with tbe conviction that whatever the rate or regulation may be, the duties 
 shall be uniformly collected and the regulations impartially applied ; that while the 
 iust dues of the" Government should be exacted in all places and .at all times equally, 
 the law should be administered in a broad and liberal spirit; that summary proceed- 
 ings should be avoided, and that the tremendous weight of the Federal power should 
 be so wisely and temper.ately exercised that no harshness shiill be felt by any honor- 
 able citizen of the United States who may engage in the business of importing for- 
 eign merchandise. In this work all parties can unite on tbe common ground of jmstice, 
 eauity and moderation. The Home Market Club welcomes iind has availed itself of 
 
1388 EEVISION OF THE TAUIPP. 
 
 tbe aid of Democrats and of those who are opposed to the policy of protection. Iij 
 order to economize time we have made a short synopsis of our suggestions upon cus- 
 toms administration, and with your permission I will now read the same. 
 Mr. Leeson proceeded to read as follows : 
 
 A MEMORANDUM OF POINTS OP DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOUSE BILL H. E. 4 AND A. 
 BILL PREPARED BV THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE HOME. MARKET CLUB, 
 "TO REGULATE THE IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN MERCHANDISE, AND TO SECURE 
 UNIFOUMITY IN THE CLASSIFICATION AND VALUATION THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER 
 PURPOSES," WITH REASONS BRIEFLY INDICATED IN FAVOR OF THE LAST-NAMED 
 MEASURE. 
 
 J. Duties upon coverings. 
 
 We believe that the provisions suggested in the Home Market Club bill, which im- 
 pose a duty upon every Icind of covering, with the exception of those outer coverings 
 which may be used solely to iirotect merchandise from injury during trausportatiou 
 and from necessary handling therein, accord with commercial usage and with the 
 desire of conservative business men of every class. We hold that it is in accordance 
 with equity to collect duty upon merchandise only, and not upon extraneous appen- 
 dages which have no integral relationship to the merchandise itself. Moreover, it is 
 the opinion of customs experts of good judgment in various branches of the service, 
 that in the administration o£ the tariff there would be no difficulty in carrying out 
 the provisions of the Home Market Club bill; also that there is a fundamental dis- 
 tinction between coverings which merely protect the goods thereby inclosed and 
 those coverings which are an essential part of the merchandise, and therefore neces- 
 sary for placing the same in merchantable condition, fit for sale. 
 
 2. The right of trial hy jury. 
 
 We are opposed to any legislation which would restrict those rights of an importer 
 or raerchaut which, as a citizen simply, would remain intact. Anything in tie na- 
 ture of class legislation is not in unison with American institutions, and the right to 
 a trial by jury is one which, it enjoyed by any citizen, should be given to all. We 
 are the more strenuously opposed to such restriction in this case, because we believe 
 it is unnecessary for the attainment of the purpose in view — an equitable, a uniform, 
 and just collection of customs duties, and the prevention of fraudulent undervaluation. 
 We fail to perceive where the denial of this cherished right, as proposed in H. E. 4, 
 will have any effect in the detection or prevention of fraudulent practices. It should 
 be borne in mind that the stringent prcTvisions in other sections of both these bills 
 will render such practices hard of successful accomplishment. Such provisions make 
 it both safe and advisable to relax the severity of the law at points whereat the prob- 
 ability ot fraud is extremely remote. 
 
 Congress has always jealously guarded the right ot a jury trial. In 1845 the Su- 
 preme Court, in Carey vs. Curtis, held that the second section of the act of 18.39 took 
 away the right of a jury trial. Congress, being in session when the decision of the 
 court was rendered, passed on February 26, 1845, an act declaring that nothing in 
 section 2 of the act of 18:i9 should be construed to take away the " right to trial by 
 jury touching the same, according to due course of law." 
 
 3. Damage allowance. 
 
 The proposal to abolish damage allowance we regard as being opposed to a spirit 
 of fairness, and also as uncalled for. We believe that the provisions of the Home 
 Market Club bill, impartially carried out, supply ample protection against such 
 frauds as have existed in this branch of the service. No one will deny that damage 
 does occur to imported merchandise brought over seas. Much of the loss thus ad- 
 mitted to exist is of such nature that it can not be insured against; it is clear of 
 demonstration, its extent readily ascertained. Shall we, because under a lax ad- 
 miuistratiou of the law frauds have been perpetrated, deny to the honest importer 
 the right to have duty assessed upon merchandise as actually imported by him? 
 Shall we, because pome merchandise which was sound has been assessed as damaged 
 by incompetent or unfaithful ofiScials, in effect declare that no damage is ever sus- 
 tained during transit ; that all merchandise imported into the United States is in a 
 sound and salable condition ? We submit that such extreme measures are unneces- 
 sary, and that substantial justice can be given to the importer and secured to the 
 Government without resort to violence and injustice ,as proposed by H. R. 4 through 
 the total abolition of damage allowance, witli certain exceptions. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. I understand that your club opposes the idea of imposing taxes on 
 
REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1389 
 
 coverings (wtere they are bona fide) of imported goods. You think tliat the tax 
 ought to be imposed on the goods only ? 
 
 Mr. Leeson. We do not think that any tariff is necessarily a tax. We think that 
 the duty should be coUecteil on the merchandise itself. 
 
 Mr. McMiLLiN. A tariff is a tax so far as the Government is concerned. The Gov- 
 ernment gets its revenue in that way. You think that the duties ought to be levied 
 on the commodity, and not on the bona tide covering that encases it ? 
 
 Mr. Leeson. That has been our view, sir. 
 
 Mr. Leeson continued to read as follows : 
 
 4. Time during which imported merchandise may remain in handed warehouse without pay- 
 ment of additional duly. 
 
 The provision in the Home Market Club bill, extending the time from one to three 
 years, is in accord with the usage of the chief commercial countries, and is designed 
 not alone as a needed extension of the privileges of merchants ; it also has in view 
 the encouragement ofthe export trade of this country. It is matter of history that 
 the unlimited time during which merchandise may remain in bond in England has 
 largely helped the development of English commerce with other countries. The 
 accumulation of goods in the bonded warehouses of London has doubtless had no in- 
 considerable share in building up that foreign commerce of Great Britain which is 
 the pride of her statesmen and the support of her merchants. We can see no good 
 reason why New York and other large ports of entry in the United States should not 
 have^ similar advantage. We are assured that no obstacle exists to such extension 
 of time in administering the law. At this juncture, when special efforts are being 
 directed toward that extension of onr export trade which men of all parties favor, 
 we would strongly urge the desirability of making the change suggested, as an 
 effectual method of furthering the end in view. 
 
 5. Privilege of importer's presence with counsel during reappraisement hearings. 
 
 It is so reasonable to permit the presence of a merchant and his counsel during a 
 hearing on re-appraisment that we are at a loss to conceive any valid objection to such 
 a fair proposition. If the Government can 'not sustain its case in open daylight and 
 after careful scrutiny, no fair-minded man, whether merchant or official, should de- 
 sire it to be sustained. Harsh or summary proceedings are out of harmony with our 
 laws, and should certainly be avoided where no compensating advantage exists, as in 
 this instance. 
 
 6. Time allowed importers for making application for re-appraisement. 
 
 Twenty-four hours is surely too short a time, and it does not seem to us that any 
 interest of the Government will suffer if ten days, as proposed in the Home Market 
 Club bill, be allowed. 
 
 Oth^r points of difference to he noted. 
 
 The Home Market Club bill (section 20) extends the provision upon custom-house 
 bonds, enabling one member or partner to sign all such bonds for his tirni. This pro- 
 vision would be a great convenience to importers and would not endanger the rights 
 of the Government. 
 
 Home Market Club bill (section 31) is of similar character, and deals with the number 
 of packages to be examined in each importation ; the effect of this section being to 
 facilitate the transaction of business without imperiling the rights of the Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 The provision for repayment of excess of duties (section 21, Home Market Club 
 hill) we consider preferable to the provision in H. R. 4, section 23. This view will, 
 we believe, be sustained by any well-informed official whose duties make him practi- 
 cally acquainted with the working of the law. 
 
 Ill suggesting these several modifications of the proposed law, the legislative com- 
 mittee of the Home Market Club has endeavored, at every point, to consult the con- 
 venience of merchants in their dealings with the Government, and at the same time 
 to guard the just rights and privileges of the Government and its officers. We feel 
 that such concessions as we suggest are in the interest of fair-dealing and efficient 
 administration, and will subserve that good feeling and harmonious relationship 
 which should subsist in all business transactions, whether between man and man or 
 between the citizen and the Government's officials. 
 
 Xbe Q^M^mm, I ^^A^xs^mO^ tbS't your olub would lilce tp bave emlif><i'ed in the 
 
1390 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 administrative bill, so-called, the right of trial by jury and damage allowances, and 
 an extension of the time during which imported merchandise may remain in bonded 
 warehopses. These are the three things that you are specially concerned about? 
 
 Mr. Leeson. I think that the other provisions are possi;)ly of equal importance in 
 the details of the working of the law. I think that all of these recommendations 
 should be adopted. 
 
 VIEWS OF THE MERCHANTS AND MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIA- 
 TION OF BALTIMORE. 
 
 Baltimore, February 12, 1890. 
 
 The committee on customs, valuations, and rating have examined the bill known as 
 the McKinley bill, H. R. 4970, the title of which is, "An act to simplify the laws in re- 
 lation to the collection of revenues." 
 
 They beg leave to make the following report: 
 
 This bill, which is for the appointment of nine general appraisers who will consti- 
 tute au appeal board from the local appraisers and the abolishment of merchant ap- 
 praisers, we regard as a measure calculated to promote the interests of the whole 
 country, and in substance to protect the honest importer and consignee. 
 
 All fair-minded importers aud consignees should welcome a well-regulated law cal- 
 culated to place them all upon the same equal footing. 
 
 The measure, however, though framed with high and patriotic motives, is jn some 
 respects defective, and to this end your committee would respectfully offer the follow- 
 ing modifications : 
 
 Seotiou 7, line 33, should read: The burden of proof, etc., to prove fraud should be 
 upon the Government and not upon the consignee. 
 
 Section 15, line 11, which reads, "Review of the questions of law involved in such 
 decisions," etc., etc., 
 
 Should read, "A review of the questions of law and facts involved in such de- 
 cisions." 
 
 Same section, lines 13 and 14, reads, " Said circuit court a concised statement of 
 errors of law complained of," should read, '' The said circuit court, a concised state- 
 ment of errors of law and facts complained of." 
 
 Same section, lines 19 aud 20, reads, "Aud the facts so found and certiiied shall 
 be final and conclusive upon the court," should read, "And the facts so found and 
 certified shall not be conclusive until the court has heard evidence submitted by the 
 consignee or importer and by the Government." 
 
 Section 23, so amended as to allow the consignee or importer to have a reasonable 
 claim for abatement of duties on all goods when the damages exceed 10 per cent, of 
 the value of the goods. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Robinson W. Gator, 
 a. g. hutzler. 
 Thomas J. Boykin. 
 R. M. Sutton. 
 W. Stanley Easter. 
 
 John R. Bland, Secretary, 
 
 DRAWBACK. 
 VIEWS OF PAUL BABCOCK, JR. 
 
 New York, January 18, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : Referring to the proposed limitation of drawbacks or rebate of duties to 
 such manufactured articles as have required an expenditure of at least 25 per cent, 
 of the value of the imported material on them in the form of labor or cost of 
 manufacture, permit me to call your attention to the danger of any such limitation, 
 as iiocessarily the more mouey the American manufacturer is compelled to spend on 
 the imported material in his manufactured article the less chance he has of successful 
 competition with his competitor in Europe. 
 
 To illustrate allow me to show how any such limitation of the right of drawback 
 would affect the industry in which I am engaged: Our business is very largely the 
 manufacture and packing for export of refined petroleum in tin cans and wooden 
 boxes. In this business we now have the active and close competion of Russian 
 manufacturers, and they have the advantage of very cheap raw materials, low-priced 
 labor, and very low ocean freights to the great markets of India and China. Last 
 
REVISION OF THE TAEIFF. 1'391 
 
 year they marketed over five millions of packages in competition with us, and they 
 are making great efforts to increase their trade. 
 
 If a provision is inserted in any tariff law which limits the right of drawback to 
 such manufactured articles as have required an expenditure of 25 or 20 or 15 or even 
 10 per cent, of the value of the imported material of which they are composed— in 
 the form of labor or cost of manufacture — then such industries as ours must cease in 
 this country, tbr the reason that the duties paid on the imported material composing 
 the packages in which we export our American product are more than the eutire 
 profit on such exported product whenever we come into competition with foreign 
 manufacturers. Nearly 21,000,000 of cases of refined petroleum and its products were 
 exported from the United States in 1889. This industry gave profitable employment 
 to 3,000 laborers and skilled workmen in this country, representing probably over 
 12,000 of our people. 
 
 The value of the imported materials in the tin cans and wooden boxes in which 
 this vast quantity of American product is being exported at the present time is about 
 34 cents for each case containing two cans, which together carry 10 gallons of oil out 
 of our country. 
 
 Approximately, at present market values, say $7,130 per bos of 10 by 20 tin-plate, 
 and say fS per box of 14 by 19^ tin-plate, and say |14 per 100 feet for Canadian 
 pine lumber. The value or cost of the tin-plate on two 5-gallon cans is about 25 
 cents, and the value or cost of the wood in the box is about 9 cents. Total, say, 34 cents 
 not to mention the value of the foreign lead and foreign pig-tin which compose the 
 solder with which the cans are made. 
 
 As a matter of fact the American manufacturer must convert these iinported ma- 
 terials into a package for the carrying of his American oil abroad at a cost of but lit- 
 tle over 3^ to 3f cents per package for labor or he can not compete with his rival in 
 Eussia, while such a provision as limited the right of drawback to such manufact- 
 ured articles as had required au expenditure of 25 per cent, of the value of the im- 
 ported material of which they are composed would shut us out from all drawback 
 unless we expended 8^ cents on each package in the cost of manufacture, and if we 
 expended any such sum on the cost of manufacture we could no longer compete with 
 Russian and other foreign packers of oil. Even a 10 per ceut. limitation would at 
 times threaten our drawback, and a constantly changing valuation of imxmrted ma- 
 terials would cause constant doubt and danger to the American manufacturer. He 
 could never be sure of his drawback and the Government would often be in doubt 
 as to whether he was entitled to it or not. 
 
 The present retention by the Government of 10 per cent, of the duties paid on im- 
 ported materials in articles of American manufacture exported is a hardship from 
 which American manufacturers should be relieved, and every candid and honest free- 
 trader should find in the drawback system fairly and honorably administered the 
 unanswerable reply to his argument that protective duties hamper the American 
 manufacturer by keeping him out of foreign markets. 
 
 I sincerely trust the present retention of 10 per cent, of duties paid on imported 
 materials on articles of American manufacture exported may be discontinued, and 
 that no limitiaton as to cost of manufacture may be applied to any article of Ameri- 
 can manufacture in its right to drawback of duties when exported, especially if it 
 is a package which is used to carry American products to foreign markets. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 Paul Babcock, Jr., 
 
 President. 
 
 Hon. William McKinlby, Jr., 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 VIEWS OP E. GREENFIELD'S SON & CO. 
 
 New York, February 13, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : As you have on two or three occasions during your public speeches ou 
 the tarifif quoted the existing drawback laws in proof of the assertion that a protect- 
 ive tariff does not increase the cost of articles designed for foreign markets, we 
 take the liberty of calling your attention to a feature of those laws which operates 
 unjustly against the manufacturer who is compelled to use bothforeign anddomestic 
 raw material in the composition of goods intended for export. 
 
 As you are aware, all laws relating to this subject are comprised in sections 3019, 
 3020 and 3026 of the Revised Statutes, and the acts of February 8 and March 3, 1875. 
 Section 3019 provides for a drawback on all articles manufactured wholly from im- 
 ported materials which have paid duty. 
 
 Section 3020 originally provided for a drawback ou agricultural implements when 
 the value of the imported materials used exceeds one-half of the value of all the 
 material used, but by the act of March 10, 1880, it was so revised as to also allow 
 a drawback on tin cans exported filled with the products of this country, provided 
 
1392 
 
 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 
 
 the imi)orted material used is equal to 70 per centiim of the value of all the materials 
 
 used. 
 
 Section 3026 allows a drawback on the foreign saltpeter entering into the manu- 
 facture of gunpowder. 
 
 Section 10 of the act of February 8, 187.5, provides for a drawback on the dutiable 
 niateriul catering into the manufacture of cartridges. Section 3 of the act of March 3, 
 1875, provides for the retention of only 1 per centum of the drawback allowed on refined 
 sU"'ar. Consequently an examination of these laws discloses the fact that with the 
 exception of tin cans filled with the products of the United States, agricultural im- 
 plements, gunpowder, and cartridges, all other articles manufactured in part from 
 dutiable raw materials are not entitled, under existing law, to a drawback on expor- 
 tation, and that manufacturers who have not been provided for in special statutes 
 are compelled to discriminate against domestic raw material in order that their 
 goods may be sufficiently cheapened by means of this drawback allowance to enable 
 them to compete successfully in foreign markets. 
 
 In a great many instances, however, it is absolutely impossible to entirely use 
 foreii'n raw materials, because the domestic and foreign raw materials must be united 
 to attain the required standard of merit. Hence such goods which contain a propor- 
 tion of dutiable raw materials in their composition, not being entitled to drawback 
 on exportation, virtually pay an export tax, and are thus precluded from supplying 
 the foreign demand on anything like equal terms with the goods of other manu- 
 facturing nations who have free raw materials. 
 
 In this connection we take the liberty of explaining the difliculties under which 
 we individually labor. 
 
 We are engaged In the business of manufacturing confectionery, for which tlie 
 principal Ingredient used is refined sugar. By selling at a very low margin, and col- 
 lecting the drawback on a few kinds of confectionery which it was possible to 
 manufacture wholly from foreign materials, we have managed to establish a very 
 fair export trade. We, however, manufacture many grades of confectionery in 
 which we use large quantities of the best grades of refined sugar in connection 
 with a small percentage of domestic material. The presence of the domestic ma- 
 terial is essential to make the articles salable. As the articles are not thus 
 wholly manufactured from imported materials, the drawback cannot be recovered, 
 and hence they can not be exported. 
 
 The disadvantage which we are placed at will be readily perceived when we state 
 that the drawback now allowed on the grade of refined sugar referred to amounts to 
 .02-i'lr celts per pound. If the law were so changed as to permit us to collect the draw- 
 back we could compete successfully with England, both in her own markets and the 
 foreign markets which she now exclusively controls. 
 
 We have been informed that it has been alleged by Treasury officials that such 
 an amendment to the law would be productive of fraud. There surely would not be 
 any grounds on which to urge such an objection if the law were so modified as to 
 only allow the drawback when the part or parts of articles claimed on can be dis- 
 tinctly separated, either by chemical analysis or other effective means, and that it is 
 possible to perform such an analysis with all articles manufactured chiefly from sugar 
 can be practically demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Government. 
 
 In proof of the above assertion we would cite the case of tlesiccated cocoa-nut, upon 
 which a drawback is now allowed, and which has in consequence been largely ox- 
 ported to England in the past. The quantity and grade of sugar used is accurately 
 determined by the Government chemist from samples taken by the customs inspector 
 prior to the lading of the goods on the export vessel. As the cocoa-nuts are admitted 
 free they of coarse are not taken into consideration, although, if necessary, it would 
 be an easy matter to determine the quantity used. Wo would also cite the case of 
 cocoa-nut perfections, upon which drawback has recently been allowed us on the ex- 
 portation of same to Great Britian. The principal ingredients used were sugar, glu- 
 cose, and cocoa-nuts. The law compelled us to use foreign glucose when, in fact, the 
 domestic article is superior in quality and cheaper in price. Ifthe law were so 
 amended as to permit us to make entries for confectionery generally, the Treasury 
 regulations now governing the allowance of drawback on the above-mentioned 
 articles could be applied in exactly the same manner and with equal safety to the 
 revenue. 
 
 If the suggestions contained in this letter meet with your approval, we would 
 respectfully request that you use your influence to have incorporated in the proposed 
 tariff bill an amendment to the present law that would servo to remove the feature 
 we have pointed out, as we feel confident that it would be of incalculable benefit to 
 manufacturers and exporters of every description of goods which contain dutiable 
 materials. 
 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 E. GKBENF;?ii,p'9 Son & Co, 
 
 Hon. William McKinlet, Jr., . - 
 
 Chairman Cammttpe on Waijt aH Mem), 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Aluuiiiiiiui : 
 
 Weeks, JosephD., viewaof 150 
 
 coiupoflition and use 150 
 
 duty, rates suggested on 150 
 
 should be made dutiable 150 
 
 Ailniinistrativc Provisions : 
 Statement of — 
 
 Lf.esoD, J. K 1387 
 
 Homo Market Club 1388 
 
 Baltimore merchants and manufact- 
 urers 1890 
 
 Anvils: 
 
 Fisher, Charles, statement of 88 
 
 Method of manufacture -. 88 
 
 Books (see Paper). 
 Brass Bcdsteadat: 
 
 Duty on, should be changed 1260 
 
 Duties on, not consistent 1261 
 
 ISi'ick nuKl Tile: 
 Statement of — 
 
 Alrich, JohnC 476 
 
 Enc.iustic tile manufacturers 477 
 
 iNe w t' m, H. B. , and others 474 
 
 San ford, A..B 475 
 
 Difference between 477 
 
 Capital invested in 474 
 
 Clav and sand beds, location and value 
 
 of 474 
 
 Fire and gas retorts, howmadeinEurope 474 
 
 Growth of the industry in the "West..- 475 
 
 Imported a,s ballast 474 
 
 Millions of, stored for want of market. 474 
 Plain tile, reasons for increase of duty 
 
 on 476 
 
 Eates of duty suggested 475 
 
 Tiles, classification of recommended . . . 478 
 
 encaustic 477 
 
 should be fully classified 477 
 
 "Women employed aib in Europe 474 
 
 Buttons; 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Hoffman, George 714 
 
 Importers of 715 
 
 Knight, Horatio G 704 
 
 Liebmann, E 708 
 
 Manufacturers of 705 
 
 Moritz, Leopold 712 
 
 Newell, Nelson C 707 
 
 Bone, manufacture and cost of 712 
 
 Customs ofliccrf, experiences with 710 
 
 Dnty, ratbs of, proposed 705 
 
 Foreign competition.injurious effects of. 704 
 
 Imported, benefit of to working classes . 71 6 
 
 Metal, present duty on, sufficient 715 
 
 Pearl, duties suggested on 1 310 
 
 from England, flooding American 
 
 market 714 
 
 prostration of industry 1310 
 
 wages in Europe and Ameiica. . . 1310 
 
 Progress of the industry 704 
 
 Protestagainst increase of duty onpearl- 715 
 
 Undervaluation in 710 
 
 Vegetable-ivory and pearl 707 
 
 "Wages in Austria and America com- 
 pared 707 
 
 Bohemia 708 
 
 "WorkJngman.appealof a, forprotection. 713 
 
 485 88 
 
 Page. 
 Cement and Ijiine: 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Aocovman, Ernest K 484 
 
 Coles, Abrabiim 488 
 
 Leslie, Robert "W 479 
 
 Manufacturers of Knox County, 
 
 Me 4D1 
 
 Canada, American lime discriminated 
 
 ajiiainst 491 
 
 Capital and labor employed in 479 
 
 Cement, manufacture and classification 
 
 of 481 
 
 Comparative labor figures 483 
 
 German female labor 484 
 
 Importations of 482 
 
 Knox Couuly, Mo., deposits of lime- 
 stone in 491 
 
 Lime in Maine and New Brunswick, 
 
 comparative prices of 402 
 
 Loss to American labor by foreign im- 
 portation of 485 
 
 PackajiO clause, I'epeal of urged 479 
 
 Packages deciMion, effect of 479 
 
 Portland cement, costof mauul'acturi). . 4K4 
 
 Prices of, lowest and highest 486 
 
 Eate of duly suggested on cement 47!) 
 
 Statistics uf 4S) 
 
 "Wages, rate of paid in Europe 484 
 
 Chemicals, Paints, Oils, and Varni»>if;H: 
 Statement by — 
 
 Abraham, Lewis 331 
 
 Albany Aniline Company 393 
 
 Allen, "N.P 377 
 
 Armstrong, Mr., Pennsylvania Salt 
 
 Company 336 
 
 Borax producers and manufacturers 305 
 
 Bower, Henry 330 
 
 Churchman & Co 337 
 
 Close, CD 368 
 
 Cogswell, W.B 341 
 
 Dafant & Sons. Charles 380 
 
 Dingee, H. N 404 
 
 Dundo Chemical "Works 369 
 
 Eisner &, Mondelaou Co 309 
 
 Erkenbach Chemical "Works 359 
 
 Faris, William G 345 
 
 France, J. K 382 
 
 Harrison Bros. & Co 352 
 
 Hayes, James A. & Co 367 
 
 Heller, Hirach & Co 370 
 
 Johnson, H. M 400 
 
 Kinsey. W. M 403-406 
 
 Klippel 1293 
 
 Kohnstaium & Co 408 
 
 Koohler, Frederick 395 
 
 Lenig&Co 358 
 
 Manning, "W. S . . , 381 
 
 Manufacturers Club of Philadel- 
 phia 377 
 
 Marx <fc KawoUe 368 
 
 Mather, J. W 3f)l 
 
 McDougal, Thomas 354,1206 
 
 MedicalSociety, Erie, N. Y 340 
 
 Merz, Hcniy 391 
 
 Myers, Daniel 373 
 
 Nichols & Co., G. H 354 
 
 Noyes Bros. & Cutler 389 
 
 1393 
 
1394 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Page. 
 CJfacniicals, Paints, Oils, etc.— Cont'd. 
 
 StateDient of— 
 
 O'Kourke, Jolm M 402 
 
 Philadelphia Brugi^lsts 339 
 
 Pickhardt, "William 39o 
 
 Powf ra & Woislitman 350 
 
 Uaywolle, I'redenck 389 
 
 P.osers & Pya tt and others 390 
 
 EoHeciana. "\V. S 363 
 
 Kosiniiartiu, H. B 337 
 
 KuHing:artiii. M. G ■ - 350 
 
 Kostnburjr. Theo 377 
 
 KuHk, J. M., Secretary 409 
 
 Stewart, Henry 399 
 
 Stewart, Heury C 400 
 
 Taylor, Edward li. 368 
 
 Tr:icy. Charles 344 
 
 AVanyh, Eugene 353 
 
 AYohb & Co., James A 386 
 
 "Weddeilmrn, A. J" 37] 
 
 White, Tb03 376 
 
 Wbyland. Thnrber &, Co 385 
 
 AVilson, William M 401 
 
 Windom, AVilliam, Secretary 412 
 
 Acids, imported from Canada. 353 
 
 Adultcranta, manufacture nnrl use of.. 332 
 Alcohol and spirits, tax should be re- 
 moved from 389 
 
 argument against tax on 385 
 
 athylic 1293 
 
 distribution of in the arts 386 
 
 employment of in manufacture 
 
 of varnish 389 
 
 excessive tax on 351 
 
 for use in the arts 338 
 
 free, in pharmacy, objectioDsto 381 
 piotest'a;;ainst any discrim- 
 inating duty on 381 
 
 shouM bo free to all 388 
 
 tax on a burden 384 
 
 Alizarine assistant, duty suggested on. 348 
 ent ei ed a s castor-oil 346 
 Alkaline products, relative costof man- 
 ufacture 337 
 
 Aniline djes 391 
 
 materials of in making ... 393 
 
 TJeauxite, importation of dangerous 401 
 
 Beeswax ". .S80 
 
 Bisulphide of carbon , 368 
 
 Black Siilta 331 
 
 Borax and boracic acid, uses of 365 
 
 and its products 361 
 
 admitted at New York free of 
 
 duty 366 
 
 common, composition of 364 
 
 consumption of - 361 
 
 cost of manufacture and market- 
 ing 362 
 
 expoTtations from San Francisco 365 
 
 production in the United States 361 
 
 jiroduction of on Pacific coast .. 363 
 regulations suggested for its 
 
 importation 366 
 
 Eary tes. dutif^a on suggested 403 
 
 German, how obtained and 
 
 transported 404 
 
 imporlatiou of 403 
 
 importation of for several years 407 
 
 Virginia, better than German 404 
 where found in the United 
 
 States 403 
 
 ( 'andle-pitch - . 377 
 
 Carbonate of potash, duty on should re- 
 main 330 
 
 Castor-oil, annual production of in 
 
 United States 348 
 
 present duty not excessive . . 345 
 
 price of abroad 348 
 
 protective duty necessary. . 346 
 
 relative cost of manufacture 345 
 Chemicals, capital employed and wages 
 
 paid 330 
 
 used by calico printers 402 
 
 Coal-tar dyes, ruw" mati/nals used in. .. 397 
 
 products of. 391 
 
 Copper pyrites of Spain 356 
 
 Cyanide of putassium, consumption and 
 
 use of 359 
 
 Page. 
 C^'licniicalst, £*a.iiseH, Oiili<«, etc. — Cont'd. 
 Cyanide of potassium, relative cost of 
 
 manufacture 360 
 
 Duties recommended on harytts 406 
 
 Duty suggested on various chemicals.. 338 
 
 sulphur 374 
 
 acids 353 
 
 Earth paiuts, proposed rates of duty on 399 
 
 Flaxseed oi), cost of production .-..*... 367 
 
 Eusil oil, how created and use of. 194 
 
 German law in regard to alcohol 1294 
 
 Glycerine, rate of duty suggested 368 
 
 Kaolin, production of" 401 
 
 uses of 401 
 
 Lakes, value of imported 408 
 
 Methylated spirits, composition of. . . 389, 1293 
 Mineral salt, should be admitted at low 
 
 rate of duty 369 
 
 Oxide of iron 400 
 
 Olive-oil should pay specific duty 367 
 
 Paints, fine colors.' .' 408 
 
 Philadelphia Drug Exchange, rates of 
 
 duty suggested by .' 340 
 
 Phosphoius 377 
 
 hi-story of in United States. 378 
 
 principal uses of 379 
 
 Potash, carbonate of, large quantities 
 
 imported 330 
 
 sulphate of, its uses in agri- 
 culture ■ 370 
 
 Potashes, manufacture of an American 
 
 industry 330 
 
 Potassium, cyanide of, duty on too low. 359 
 
 Pyrites, location of mines - 356 
 
 Canada, exclusive control of. . . 356 
 
 of iron should be free 356 
 
 Quinia, sulphate of, should be dutiable. 350 
 
 Quinine, condition of the industry 351 
 
 importation of 350 
 
 reduction in price of 350 
 
 should pay duty 338 
 
 sulphate of, should be taken 
 
 from free list 339 
 
 Salt cake 337 
 
 protest against dutv on 337 
 
 Saltpetre ." 331 
 
 Shellac, bleached 390 
 
 Soda, ash and sulphate of 337 
 
 Soda ash, duty on in Senate bill satis- 
 factory 341 
 
 materials usedin manufacture 342 
 
 prices of 341 
 
 Solvay, patents Ibr 342 
 
 wagespaidand manufacturers 
 
 of - 342 
 
 where manufactured in the 
 
 United States 341 
 
 Soda, nitrate of 344 
 
 sulphate of 336 
 
 Sulphur, deposits of in United States. . 373 
 
 imports of 373 
 
 of Sicily, American substitute 
 
 for .'.. 373 
 
 rates of duty suggested 376 
 
 refined, arlraitted as crude 376 
 
 supply of in Sicily . , , 355 
 
 wages paid in Sicily 374 
 
 Sulphuric acid 363, 1296 
 
 cost of manufacture 355 
 
 duty on necessary 352 
 
 gross increase in manu- 
 facture of 354 
 
 necessary to agricultur- 
 ists 355 
 
 production of in Canada. 358 
 
 rate of duty suggested- . 353 
 
 should pay duty 359 
 
 should remain on free list 354 
 
 Use of, in arts 12113 
 
 varnishes 1204 
 
 Varnishes, Fiench 390 
 
 Cisfai's anal Cigai'CttCN 1011 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Bamett, Waltei- E 1011 
 
 Hey man, Edward 101 4 
 
 Plopkins. George H 1016 
 
 Krohn, Moses 1016 
 
 Mayrara, E 1013 
 
INDEX. 
 
 1395 
 
 « - Pago, 
 
 Cigars and Cigare ties— Continued. 
 Statement of— 
 
 Smith, Charles 1016 
 
 Wise, Morda S 1016 
 
 Cigar business, efi'eot of abolishing tax 
 
 on 075 
 
 dealers violate the law ". 1012 
 
 leaf, how sorted 961 
 
 manipulation nccossaxy to do- 
 
 tfrmiue quality of 973 
 
 makers desire retention of tax ,. 1013 
 
 makers desirethorej.cal of fax on. 96r> 
 
 makers' union, membership of ... 1015 
 Cigaj-3, domestic increase in production 
 
 of 959 
 
 foreign, duties on exhibited 959 
 
 foreign boxes used for domestic. 1012 
 imported, inspection stamp on 
 
 should be abolished 1011 
 
 "Imported," largely mado iu 
 
 New York 1012 
 
 Mexican, cheap grades of 1013 
 
 product of in the United States. 970 
 removal of duty would help Ger- 
 man factories 986 
 
 should be sold on their merits .. 1012 
 
 tax on', should bo removed 9:32 
 
 Cigarettes, adulterants used in manu- 
 facture of 1017 
 
 consumption of 1017 
 
 consumption of, injurious.. 1016 
 
 examples of evil eilects of. . 1017 
 
 Dayton and Cincinnati makers, views of 101 U 
 €lay: 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Kimes, Jesse B 493,1324 
 
 Clements, J. B 1322 
 
 Superiority of American fire 1322 
 
 China, location of deposits 493 
 
 output of 493 
 
 D uty, rates of. suggested 495 
 
 rate of, should be increased 493 
 
 Importation and value of 1324 
 
 Prices of, and cost of niiuing 493 
 
 Principal centers of in this coun try 494 
 
 Portion of imported .* 494 
 
 Eates of wages, comparative 493 
 
 Coal: 
 
 Statement of— 
 
 Boiling, W.H..... 133 
 
 Brock, S.G 142 
 
 Patkin, John 147 
 
 Frostbnrg, Md., action of citizens . 143 
 
 Grow, Galuaha A 115 
 
 Hitchen, Owen 144 
 
 Imboden, General J. D 127 
 
 Mayer, Charles F 120 
 
 McComas, L. E 139 
 
 Sloan, James M 146 
 
 Agriculture in Virginia, tax on 138 
 
 Baltimore, price of in, fur six years 140 
 
 Bituminons, duty on 115 
 
 exported to Canada, for 1888 117 
 
 imp rts, for year 1888 118 
 
 wages ])aU\ miners 116 
 
 Canada, export of bituminous, to 115 
 
 reciprt'city w ith — 115 
 
 Coke, best quality found in West Vir- 
 ginia 129 
 
 Combination in 124 
 
 Consolidation Coal Company of Mary- 
 land, views of _. 120 
 
 Cost of, on cars in West Virginia 124 
 
 mining, in United States and 
 
 Canada 116 
 
 Cuba and Central America, shipment to 129 
 
 Discriminating duties on 115 
 
 Gas and steam, deposits of 120 
 
 Gas, in West Virginia 122 
 
 Gas mines, location of 122 
 
 Great Britain, wages of miners in 144 
 
 Havana, exports of, to 125 
 
 Imports of, for fourteen years 1 23 
 
 Labor, conditions of, in Virginia 133 
 
 Middlesborough, Ky., English syndi- 
 cate, located at 139 
 
 Negro labor iu Southern mines 130 
 
 Ohio River, quantity of coal floated on. 139 
 
 Page, 
 C oal — Continued . 
 
 Pocahontas coke, quality of 128 
 
 Kemoval of duty, effect of 146 
 
 Keciprocity treaty, imports and exports 
 
 of coal under 119 
 
 Scotch miners, wages and methods of 
 
 living 140 
 
 So wanee vein 138 
 
 Statistics of imports and exports of 142 
 
 Steam, prices of _■ 121 
 
 Tennessee, quality of '. 128 
 
 Virginia, farming not profitable in 135 
 
 miners of. satisfied and content 147 
 
 southwest, development in... 128 
 
 supply of coal in 127 
 
 Wages of miners in Nova Scotia and 
 
 Pennsylvania 118 
 
 Coflcc, £M»«ciice of- 21 
 
 Chicory, bad effects of the importation of 916 
 
 rates of duty suggested on . . - 916 
 
 Foreign, largely adulterated 916 
 
 Copper 1163 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Arminius Copper Company 1167 
 
 Phelps, George M 1164 
 
 National Electric Light Association 1165 
 
 Thompson, Robert M 1163 
 
 Abolition of duty on, demanded 1164 
 
 Brimstone, imports of 1167 
 
 Consumption of, iu United States 1171 
 
 Grade ore should be admitted free 1169 
 
 Deposits of, where located 1163 
 
 Drawback on 1172 
 
 Duties proposed on 117 1 
 
 Exportof 1163 
 
 Foreign ores, prices of, in New York.. 1168 
 
 Missouri Piver, mines west of 1170 
 
 Montana and Aiizona, mines in 1163 
 
 New Jersey, labor and capital em- 
 ployed in 1164 
 
 New York, number of persons em- 
 ployed in 1169 
 
 Oxford Company, labor and capital em- 
 ployed by 1103 
 
 Proportion of, exported 1172 
 
 Spanisli, net value of 11G8 
 
 Spanish ores, analysis of 11G8 
 
 United States ores, how treated 1) 73 
 
 Virginia, location of mines in 1167 
 
 Corks 808 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Aver, Ira, jr. , special agent 809 
 
 Cromwell, O.H 814 
 
 Uausa, A., &Co 812 
 
 Manufacturers of 811 
 
 Robinson, John 808, 1311 
 
 Stoplani, A., & Co 813 
 
 American manufacturers of, amply pro- 
 tected 813 
 
 Classification aod duty, submitted by 
 
 special agent Ira Ayer 810 
 
 Countries where principally produced - 809 
 
 Duties, present and proposed, compared 813 
 
 Duty does not affect low grade 1311 
 
 rates of, recommended 808 
 
 Imported hand-made, superiority of . . . 812 
 
 Importers, views of 812 
 
 Machine and handmade, difference iu . 814 
 
 Manufacturers of, argument by 811 
 
 Methods of preparation explained 808 
 
 Quantities and value of imported 813 
 
 Specific duty, argument against 812 
 
 on, recommended....^... 808 
 
 Undervaluations in 808 
 
 Cotton €rOocl8 835 
 
 Statement of— ■ 
 
 Adler, Max 839 
 
 Edwards, W. H., consul general 841 
 
 Kursheedt, Alexander E 835 
 
 Lasch, H 840 
 
 Litchman, Charles H., special agent 840 
 
 Littlefleld.E.G 837 
 
 Merrick, Timothy 838 
 
 Card clothing.re commendation of Treas- 
 ury Depat tment 840 
 
 Corsets, capital and labor employed in 
 
 manufacture of 839 
 
 present duties on, iuconsistent 838 
 
1396 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Page. 
 Cotton Ooods — CoDtinued. 
 
 Corsets, ratea of dutj' eaggested on 839 
 
 Curtame, luanufaclQre of, in Pennayl- 
 
 vania S35 
 
 Embroideries, increased duty would 
 
 stirantato raanufacturo 830 
 
 Horn strips and ties 839 
 
 Lace tnckings, inequalities of duties on 836 
 duties recommended on 836 
 Is^eck-wear, increase of duty recom- 
 mended 840 
 
 labor employed in 840 
 
 Silk and cotton fabrics 837 
 
 Textiles from liusvsia, bounty on exports 
 
 of 841 
 
 Thread, duty su frgested on 838 
 
 Warped yams, duty sufzgested on 838 
 
 Yarns, doubled and twisted 837 
 
 for lace curtains 835 
 
 Ciii'Icd Slair: 
 
 Should pay duty 1329 
 
 Cutlery, Pocket autl Table: 
 Statement of — 
 
 Eartlett,A.C 1224 
 
 Bradley, Thomas "W 74, 1223 
 
 Boker, F. A ■ 1233 
 
 Bustin. W. P 1226 
 
 Filmore. E. E. &. Co 1248 
 
 Hardware Association, AVholesale. . 79 
 
 Hawkins, C.H 1243 
 
 Lauders, Charles S 77 
 
 Kockwell.W.t' 65,1226 
 
 Kudd, W. B 1226 
 
 Sescon, A 83,1227,1235 
 
 Sears, E. B 83, 1232, ] 246 
 
 American and foreign compared 1228 
 
 Analj'sis of duties ou, present and nro- 
 
 posed ." 1229 
 
 Butcher knives, American and foreign 
 
 compared 1233 
 
 analysis of duty on 1235 
 
 foreign preferred to do- 
 mestic 1233 
 
 protest against in creas- 
 ed duty on 1234 
 
 Cattaraugus Company, exhibit of 83 
 
 Duty, rate proposed ou cutlery 74 
 
 Edge tools, export of 75 
 
 England, prices paid in 66 
 
 "Foreign and American cutlery, prices of 66 
 and domestic prices on articles 
 
 compared 1230 
 
 competition, effect of 67 
 
 Germany, competition of 74 
 
 rates of wages in 1243 
 
 Knives and lorks, American as good as 
 
 foreign 1232 
 
 New York Kuife Company, atatementof 74 
 
 Pocket knives, class iti cation of 1236 
 
 rates of duty on 1238 
 
 relative cost of 80 
 
 Protest against increase of duty on 1249 
 
 Kelativu prices of American and foreign 
 
 cutlery 71 
 
 Keply to Hardware Association 1223 
 
 Sheftield cutlers, action of 1227 
 
 ShefKeld prices 1231 
 
 Table, late of duty suggested 77 
 
 statement of manufacturers 78 
 
 Tableware, injportations of 1235 
 
 Trademarks, imitations of 1245 
 
 "Wages in Germany and New York 74 
 
 paid in England 67 
 
 Deg^as : 
 
 statement of— 
 
 Breed, Francis "W" 320 
 
 Church, D. T 422 
 
 Leeson, J.R 420 
 
 Leonard, G-corge H 416 
 
 Loiraine Manufacturing Company, 424 
 
 Oil Trade Assnciatiou, of Boston... 416 
 
 SpL'aku, Alden 421 
 
 Walker, J. H 418 
 
 "Ware, Thomas M .124 
 
 "Wtibster, Andrew G- 414 
 
 Wisconsin leather dealers 419 
 
 Analysis of 425 
 
 Cost of, compared with menhaden 416 
 
 Page. 
 Degras— Continued. 
 
 Impoi'tation of, injures American prod- 
 ucts 423 
 
 Increase of duty would lessen export of 
 
 leather 419 
 
 Menliaden Fish Association, views of. . 422 
 
 oil against Degras 414 
 
 Protest of Boston Chamber of Com- 
 merce 421 
 
 Boston Merchants' Aasocia- 
 
 tiou 420 
 
 New England Shoe and 
 
 Leather Association 420 
 
 Western leather dealers 419 
 
 Quantity of, made in United States 417 
 
 Keasons for increase of duty 424 
 
 Tanners and curriers against increase 
 
 of duty .-- 414 
 
 Treasury Department, ruling of 418 
 
 Hse and advantage of 415 
 
 Drawback : 
 Views of — 
 
 Babcock, Paul, jr 1390 
 
 Greenfield's Son.E. & Co 1391 
 
 Dntclli ITIetal: 
 
 Importation of 149 
 
 £artlieuivare : 
 Statement of — 
 
 Brewer, .1. H 471 
 
 Moses, John 465 
 
 Act of 1883, effect of, in 470 
 
 Belgian pottery 473 
 
 Cheap and trashy, competition of 472 
 
 German, driving out American.. 472 
 
 China, cheap German 465 
 
 Crockery, American, percentage of used 470 
 
 business, money invested in. 468 
 
 DL^corated ware, increase in 471 
 
 Decoration of, number of men employed 
 
 in 407 
 
 Dinner sets, prices of 466 
 
 Duty, increase of, reasons for 465 
 
 on should be specific 471 
 
 rates of, desired on 466 
 
 Foreign manufacturers, practices of 467 
 
 German competition, new source of 465 
 
 Goblets and turn blers, comparative 
 
 prices of 473 
 
 Labor, difference in price of 465 
 
 Mills Bill, effect of its passage 470 
 
 Packages, effect of deduction on 466 
 
 Playthings for children 466 
 
 Protection ^"iU develop manufacture 
 
 of 469 
 
 Wages, reduction of, in 1885 472 
 
 Farm Products: 
 
 Statement of^ , 
 
 Acerman, Lyman 908 
 
 Allen, Isaac 905 
 
 Bollinger, J. W 888 
 
 Bowen, S. C 842 
 
 Biigham, J. H 877 
 
 Brown, Gerard C 862 
 
 Dows, S.L 925 
 
 Dye, Franklin 870 
 
 Fiory, M 920 
 
 Gull'up.W.C 907 
 
 La Follette, Robert M 925 
 
 Laudreth, Burnett 873 
 
 Lansing, Hon. F 860 
 
 Lowe, E. D 912 
 
 McCord, M. H., statement of 1353 
 
 Morrison, Cornelius 898 
 
 New York farmers 850, 905 
 
 Oakdale Manufacturing Company. . 909 
 
 Page, George H 923 
 
 Parsons, S.B 909 
 
 PioUet, Victor E 854 
 
 Kichardson, A. E 921 
 
 , Kogers, William J 924 
 
 Scanlon, John F 889 
 
 Smith, S. W 846 
 
 Spnare, Alden 903 
 
 Taleott, Erisbie & Co 914 
 
 Torason, P. C, & Co., and others . .. 915 
 
 Van Syckle, William N 916 
 
 Wedderburn, Alex. J 890, 910 
 
 Woodside, John W , 908 
 
INDEX. 
 
 1397 
 
 Page. 
 Fnriii Products — Continued. 
 
 Agricultural districts, desolation in 863 
 
 Agriculture and manufactures com- 
 pared 910 
 
 Agricultural population, large increase 
 
 in 871 
 
 products, duty recom- 
 mended on 887 
 
 Animals, imported, should pay duty 879 
 
 Apiieal for farmers 891 
 
 -Barley, CaDailiaji, duty on, should not 
 
 be increased 1357 
 
 duty on, should be increased .. 860 
 
 imports of, from Canada 1357 
 
 action of New York maltsters. . 1358 
 can be profitably raised in 
 
 America 877 
 
 protest against increased duty 
 
 on , 1358 
 
 Beans, capacity of America for produc- 
 tion of 847 
 
 consumption of, in America 842 
 
 duty on, should not bo raised 905 
 
 effect of importation of 848 
 
 increased duty recommended on. 842 
 
 importation of 844 
 
 methods of harvesting 848 
 
 progress of the crop in New York 842 
 
 relative cost of 843 
 
 statistics of 843 
 
 Beef and mutton, exportation of 867 
 
 Cauliflower, salted, from Europe 850 
 
 Congresp, what it is expected to do .... 854 
 
 Dairy products 856 
 
 Eggy, number annually imported 851 
 
 Farm lands, comparative tables of value 
 
 of 910 
 
 erroneous figures corrected 925 
 
 indebtedness in Western States. 864 
 products, reasons for increased 
 
 duties on 906 
 
 Farmers need protection 1353 
 
 New York, rates of duty de- 
 manded by 850 
 
 Farming lands and products steadily 
 
 declining in value 896 
 
 products, not profitable to 
 
 farmers 862 
 
 Free list, should be enlarged for benefit 
 
 of farmers 890 
 
 Ilay, competition of Canadians 860 
 
 Imports, values and duties 871 
 
 Oleomargarine, features of export laws. 909 
 
 hardship of export laws. 909 
 
 Ostrich farming in Califurnia 1094 
 
 Patrons of Husbandry, recommendation 
 
 of Natioual (xrange 877 
 
 Pease and beans, importation of, from 
 
 Canada 875 
 
 beans, and barley, duty on, should 
 
 be in cr rased 908 
 
 Pennsylvania, depteciation in value of 
 
 farms in 866 
 
 farms, depreciation in 
 
 value of 862 
 
 Pickles and sauces, duty on, should be 
 
 increased 851 
 
 Potash salts, use of, by farmers 892 
 
 Potatoes, competition of foreign with 
 
 domestic 908 
 
 imported, average price of .. 851 
 
 low prices of imported 851 
 
 Produrtion, ineq^ualities in cost of 870 
 
 Protection necessary to the faruior . 853 
 
 Protective taxes, bad effect of, on farm- 
 ers S89 
 
 Seeds, duties suggested on 874 
 
 garden . labor and expense in rais- 
 
 ing 860 
 
 garden vegetable, should be enu- 
 merated 876 
 
 Seed-growers' appeal for protection of. 873 
 
 Sulphuric acid as a fei'tilizer 891 
 
 Teasels should pay duty 907 
 
 Tui nip seed, eifect of Treasury de- 
 
 cinion on 874 
 
 Traijspcu'tation rates on the lakes 897 
 
 Page. 
 Farm I* rod nets— Continued. 
 
 Trees and shrubs, capital and labor em- 
 
 nloyed in 909 
 
 reasons for duty on 909 
 
 Turnips, quantity imported from Can- 
 ada 853 
 
 "Wheat and corn, value of exijort 872 
 
 Wool tariff, effect of, on the farmer 887 
 
 Fire-ariU!^: 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Boker, Hermann & Co 1 254 
 
 Forehand & Wardsworth 1219 
 
 Gales, Joseph I'-'^'O 
 
 Manufacturers of ]2.')5 
 
 Breech-loading, average value of 1251 
 
 Duties, protest against increase 1-5+ 
 
 Duties on, present and proposed 1^53 
 
 Duty, reasons for increase of 12."i.i 
 
 Forged shot-gun barrels, not made here ll-MO 
 
 Kelative cost and quality of 125L 
 
 Sbot-guns. persons employed in manu- 
 facture of .'. 1250 
 
 Value of manufacture of 1250 
 
 Flax, Jute, and IIpiup; 
 Statement of — 
 
 America Cocoa Matting Company. . 592 
 
 Babbott, F.L 538 
 
 Bemis, J. M 554 
 
 Bentley, Abraham 5-13 
 
 Blabon. G. W 570 
 
 Bunte, Charles E 58 L 
 
 Campbell, Peter 5fi!) 
 
 Cattledge, John 573 
 
 Combs, Leslie 524 
 
 Cumen, D. J 594 
 
 Cunningham, W'illiam B 579 
 
 Hubbard, Charles W 580 
 
 Jacob Cordage Company 5:t7 
 
 Kentucky River Mills 507 
 
 Kisch, David 580 
 
 Landriff, Burnett 5P8 
 
 Leeson, J. R., & Co 583 
 
 Lyall, William 558 
 
 Lyon, Hall & Co 578 
 
 Lyon, J. Crawford 573 
 
 National Grange, Patrojis of Hus- 
 bandry 558 
 
 New York flax and hemp growi^rs.. 5ii8 
 
 Pierce, Charles "K 5154 
 
 Powers, D., ii:. Siuis 576 
 
 Putnum, H. C 581 
 
 Slo.aup, John 575 
 
 Smith, T. A Ibee 585 
 
 Stephen, John, and Soutar, George. 582 
 
 Stratford, George 594 
 
 Turner, A. K.,.ir 508,585 
 
 Vermillion Linen Mills, Minnesota. 581 
 
 Van DeCarr.C.B 584 
 
 Whitman, Edmund A 503 
 
 African fiber, a new article 584 
 
 how gathered and pre- 
 
 larod 594 
 
 Bagging, average price for 1889 553 
 
 corner on, in 1888, 549 
 
 highest price in 1888 550 
 
 mills, where located in the 
 
 United Slates 545 
 
 ratesof duty suggested on. ... 556 
 
 trust, foruiation of 548 
 
 results of 551 
 
 Burlap, average cost and rate of duty. . 539 
 
 lowest necessary rate on 555 
 
 Burlaps, consumption of 570 
 
 countries unported from 579 
 
 quantity imported 579 
 
 Capacity of American woiks 571 
 
 Cocoa matting 593 
 
 duties on 592 
 
 Corn husks, use of, tor bedding 593 
 
 Dressed lime, discrepancy in duty 
 
 on .'. 582 
 
 Dundee controls the American market- 542 
 
 combination of manufacturers. 570 
 
 Duties on, corporation rates 576 
 
 Duty on raw materials 569 
 
 suggested on tow 594 
 
 Eureka Fire-Hose Company 530 
 
1398 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Page. 
 FlaXf Jntc, and Hemp—Continued. 
 Fibers and textiles, per cent, of duty 
 
 collected 516 
 
 Flax, cost of dressing a ton 528 
 
 cultivation of 584 
 
 culture in the United States 517 
 
 development of, In America 574 
 
 dressers in United States unem- 
 ployed 528 
 
 dreswed and undressed, difference 
 
 in duty 507 
 
 duty ou, should be removed 503 
 
 production uf, in United States .. 503 
 
 value of domestic crop 504 
 
 and hemp, duties su^f^ested on... 581 
 and bemp growers, STcw York, 
 
 protest from 5G8 
 
 and linen thread, shonld pa\- spe- 
 cific duty ... ■ 583 
 
 straw, supply of, in Indiana and 
 
 Ohio 534 
 
 straw, use of, in bagging 53(J 
 
 Free jute necessary against Dundee 
 
 competition 540 
 
 raw materials needed 570 
 
 Great Britain, exports of linen by 519 
 
 Hackling, cost of 582 
 
 Hemp, a factor in keeping down prices 
 
 of twine 536 
 
 duty on, direct benefit to farmer 5.54 
 
 profit In growing an acre of 527 
 
 production of, in Western States 525 
 
 twines, cheaper than jute 558 
 
 protest against reductiou of duty 
 
 on 581 
 
 Imports, values and duties 509 
 
 Invoices, deductions from 585 
 
 Jute, annual consumption oi,in United 
 
 States 538 
 
 industry, statistics of 565 
 
 bagging, a product of American 
 
 mills 544 
 
 annual production of, in 
 
 America 544 
 
 cost f, delivered at South- 
 em ports 545 
 
 prices of, from 18G6 tol889 546 
 trust, views of grangers 
 
 on 558 
 
 machinery, rewards off- 
 ered for iuvention of-. 585 
 
 Labor, relative rates of 571 
 
 Linen suiting 569 
 
 hose, injustice of the tariff on 530 
 
 yarns, undervaluation of 531 
 
 Linoleum, prices ab road 572 
 
 and oil-cloth, difference be- 
 tween 573 
 
 Linseed oil, duties on 572 
 
 Manilla, sisal, and juto, duties on, should 
 
 be retaiued 533 
 
 Mats, effects of penitentiary labor on.. 593 
 
 importation of 592 
 
 imported, do not compete with 
 
 American. 592 
 
 present duty on, sufficient 593 
 
 Matting, protection on, asked against 
 
 coolie labor 594 
 
 Millers, resolutions of, on bagging 563 
 
 Numb rof persons empluy.jd in 574 
 
 Oakum audtow, prepared bypaupers in 
 
 Europe. 594 
 
 Oil cloth and linoleum 569 
 
 duty proposed on 576 
 
 Patrons of husbandry, action of various 
 
 granges 56O 
 
 Kamie, cultivation of 5B9 
 
 Kates in Senate bill criticised 578 
 
 of duty recommend<'d 520 
 
 Renf wal of duty, protest against 586, 589 
 
 KulHing, injustice of tn riff on 580 
 
 Knssia t.»\v, siiould biOrue 594 
 
 Scutcliing explain(.-d '."' 534 
 
 Thr(^ad,tlax and lin^T^n .'..', 583 
 
 "VVagL-s paid fur thix-npinning in Europe" 
 
 iLiHl Ani(M'i<;a 52] 
 
 in Dundee, Ciilc.utla, and 
 
 ^^merica 533 
 
 Page. 
 
 Frnits 815 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Eshleman, Dr. J. S ' 1091 
 
 Evans, G-eorge H 819 
 
 Fairbanks, H. R 823 
 
 Florida Fruit Exchange 823 
 
 Fruit-Growers 1085 
 
 Orange-Growers Union 823 
 
 Goodrich, F. S 821, 1085 
 
 Hartridge J. E 1073 
 
 Hogan, Roger J 1092 
 
 Leib, S. F 824 
 
 Mabrv, M. H 1078 
 
 McKibben, J. C 820 
 
 New York Exchange 816 
 
 range-gro wers 1085 
 
 Pohl, Paul, jr 823 
 
 Snow, H. K 1091 
 
 Yandever, Hon.W 1090 
 
 "Welsh, John H 1084 
 
 Wills, Henry P 815 
 
 California, average yield of, per acre ..- 1090 
 extent and value of the in- 
 dustry 1091 
 
 production of 1090 
 
 Classification of green and dried 816 
 
 Damage allowances 818 
 
 Duty on packages, bad effects of 817 
 
 recommended by 
 New York Ex- 
 change 819 
 
 Florida and California, relative yield.. 1079 
 
 auction prices in 108I 
 
 capacity of lOgQ 
 
 compared with foreign 1075 
 
 growth of the crop in 1087 
 
 persons employed in cultivation 
 
 of 1073 
 
 prices of 1079 
 
 proceedings of growers of 1085 
 
 valueand extentof thetndustry 1073 
 
 value of land in 1083 
 
 Foreign, time of arrival 1092 
 
 Fjuits that sliould be admitted free 818 
 
 Importers, risk of ^ 817 
 
 Importation of. " IO88 
 
 large increase in 816 
 
 Importations, value of and duty on 815 
 
 Incongruities of present law explained. 817 
 
 Increased duty, necessity for 1074 
 
 Lemons and limes, importation of 822 
 
 Mediterranean, prices of 1076 
 
 Oranges, California, production of 821 
 
 cost of tiansportation 819 
 
 douH^stic and foreign, relative 
 
 cost of marketing 820 
 
 Florida, persons engaged m 
 
 cultivating 821 
 
 Florida, value of crop 821 
 
 Louisiana, production of 821 
 
 Orange crop, its relation to other indus- 
 tries 821 
 
 railways 821 
 
 Orange-growers, memorial from 823 
 
 Oranges, cost of, in Spain 815 
 
 andlomons, importation of 822 
 
 Packing and transportation of 815 
 
 Pu'ductiou of, per acre 1077 
 
 Prunes, California, extent of crop in 818 
 
 and French, relative 
 
 pricesof. 813 
 
 rate of duty on recommended.. 824 
 
 views of California producers. . 824 
 
 Tariff, incongruities in 815 
 
 on, wouhl increase production of. 1092 
 Curraiies aiKl RaiNins: 
 Statement of— 
 
 Snowden, A. Louden, minister 1095 
 
 Duty on, should be removed 1096 
 
 Raisins from Greece 1095 
 
 Mediterranean, used by the 
 
 poorer classes 817 
 
 importation of, from Spain 816 
 
 Turkey, receipts of currunts Jrora 1097 
 
 Turkish currants should be free 1097 
 
 rVulw, OlivcM, etc.: 
 Statement of — 
 
 EI wood, Cooper 1092 
 
INDEX. 
 
 1399 
 
 Page, 
 Nuts, Olires, etc.— Continued. 
 
 Duties on, present and proposed 1093 
 
 proposed on foreign fruit 109'! 
 
 should not be reduced 1092 
 
 Olive oil industry in California 1093 
 
 Fnr Hats: 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Carr, James L 696 
 
 Dunlap, K,.,& Co 703 
 
 Foley, WiHiatn C99 
 
 Manafacturers of hatters' furs 699 
 
 Manufacturers of hats 697 
 
 Phillips, John 699 
 
 Belgium, low prices in 696 
 
 Convict labor, competition of 700 
 
 Duty, argument for increased rate of .. 697 
 
 rates of, proposed 697 
 
 result of, illustrated 698 
 
 English, hats not so good as American. 700 
 
 Furs, qualities of, explained 696 
 
 Hat industry, number of men employed 
 
 In 696 
 
 Labor, cost of, in a bat 698 
 
 Trimmings, duty on. 696 
 
 Wages in Europe and America compared. 697 
 Crlass and Crlassvrare: 
 Statement of — 
 
 Adams, S. M 462 
 
 American Flint Glass Workers' 
 
 Union 452 
 
 Arrington, L 453 
 
 Blair, George W 456 
 
 Bodine, F. L , 426 
 
 Campbell, James 459 
 
 Chambers, J. A 459 
 
 Cavode, John A 458 
 
 Coulter & Son 463 
 
 Donnelly, J. R 1297 
 
 Gillender, James 442 
 
 Hammett, A. M 461 
 
 Bang, Gilbert S 456 
 
 Macbeth, George A 430 
 
 Mackenzie Storage Company 456 
 
 Morris, Tlieodore W 1300 
 
 National Furniture Manufacturers' 
 
 Association .,. 458 
 
 Kipley, D. C 454 
 
 Rockman, Robert 456 
 
 Smith, William Elliott 449 
 
 Smith, W.J 450 
 
 Tatum.R. M 1300 
 
 Underwood Company, The 462 
 
 Average price of imported glass 426 
 
 Beveled glass, difference between plate 
 
 and 1299 
 
 how made 1297 
 
 duty suggested 1298 
 
 Bottles, green and flint 449 
 
 prices of, in Germany 450 
 
 Chemical glassware, duties on, present 
 
 and proposed 1300 
 
 Chimneys, an object lesson in 442 
 
 export of 438 
 
 for students' lamps, price 
 
 of 442 
 
 relative prices of 432 
 
 quality exported 443 
 
 retail prices of 451 
 
 Clay, German, for making pots 431 
 
 Comparative rates of 446 
 
 Crystal Glass Plate Company of St. 
 
 Louis, views of 456 
 
 Cylinder window glass, dmty should be 
 
 increased 426 
 
 imports of 426 
 
 Duty proposed for flint and lime glass. . 447 
 
 on glassware 429 
 
 suggested on glassware 444 
 
 Flint Glass Workers Union, views of.. 452 
 Free material would distance foreign 
 
 competiton 434 
 
 French window glass, duties on, present 
 
 and proposed 1300 
 
 German looking-glass 458 
 
 protest against in- 
 crease of duty. 458 
 
 German glass-workers, eiliriency of 442 
 
 Glass-bloweis' Association, views of... 452 
 
 catters, wagea of 461 
 
 Page. 
 OlnNfl anil Crlns«"'nvc — Continued. 
 
 Glaaa-stainers, loemorials from 463 
 
 Glasgow, lilass works at 440 
 
 Hours of labor 450 
 
 Imports, statistics of 428 
 
 Labor unions, benefits of 436 
 
 Lamps, globes and chimneys 430 
 
 use of, in United States 434 
 
 quality and fashion, influence of 431 
 
 Material, percentage of, in chimneys . . 442 
 
 Memorial windows of stained glass 462 
 
 Mineral water bottles, discrimination 
 
 against 462 
 
 Oxide, Aoieiican, price of 433 
 
 Percentage of labor in production of. .. 435 
 
 Pig lead, price of 433 
 
 Protective tariff necessary for glass- 
 blowers 453 
 
 Rate of protection asked 443 
 
 Raw materials, ii'ply to Mr. Macbeth. . 457 
 Relative value of labor in Germany 
 
 and United States 435 
 
 Rough plate-glass, ground 455 
 
 proper rate 
 
 of duty on . 456 
 
 Soda ash, profits on .* 431 
 
 use of, in making glass 430 
 
 Stained glass, deoisiou of Attorney- 
 
 GenoraT 463 
 
 Tank system of manufacturing 426 
 
 Tumblers, cost of 454 
 
 sbouhl pay specific duty . . . 454 
 Wages and living in JBelgium and Eng- 
 land 441 
 
 in England, Scotland, and 
 
 America 460 
 
 in making chimneys 434 
 
 of blowers, gatherers, and flat- 
 
 teners 460 
 
 of glass- workers 427 
 
 White glass shades and cut "rlass ware . . . 454 
 Window-glass constantly dccroasing in 
 
 price ..' 42fl 
 
 cost of materials in Eu- 
 , rope and America .... 461 
 relaiive cost of, in Eu- 
 rope and America 459 
 
 selling prices of 459 
 
 Crold Ijoaf and Broitaze: 
 
 Bryce, Charles, viuws of 149 
 
 Oran'ite (see Marble). 
 
 Hops 1026 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Adams, George E 1028 
 
 Biitterworth, Benjamin 1040 
 
 Clark, James E 1054 
 
 CogKshal],H.J 10G3 
 
 Fox, Hugh F 1042 
 
 Haskell, Edward 1057 
 
 Hei-mauu, Binger 1071 
 
 Hinman, E. S 1028 
 
 Kinsey, W. L 1041 
 
 Lefens, Thies J 1029 
 
 Scharmann, H. D 1035 
 
 New Jersey brewers and malstors.. 1072 
 
 United States Brewers' Association 1023 
 
 Acreage cultivated 1058 
 
 American, better than foreign li)30 
 
 preference for in England... 1064 
 
 superiority of 103G 
 
 beer, export of 1038 
 
 Argument against increase of duty on.. 1040 
 
 Average price-^^ of 1051 
 
 Bavarian and English, importation of.. 1043 
 
 Beer, ingredients used in 1037 
 
 Brewers, highly protecteil lOtil 
 
 protestagaiust increase of duty 
 
 on .'. 1026 
 
 Brewery syndicates 1037 
 
 Compyrative prices of 1031 
 
 Duty, increase of unnecessary 1029 
 
 on, and price of beer ." 10'14 
 
 statistics of 10G5 
 
 Exports and im]iint.s of 1026 
 
 Flavoring beei', i oasous for 1034 
 
 Fluctuatums, in piices 1032 
 
 Foroign, price ol 1056 
 
 used for flavoring American 
 
 beer 1028 
 
1400 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Page. 
 Hops— Con tiDXied. 
 
 i^oreifiners employed in {H'owing 1061 
 
 German, cost ot transporting 1043 
 
 Growers, competition between Atlantic 
 
 andPucific 1030 
 
 expenses of 1028 
 
 of, and brewers, in accord 1027 
 
 of, opposed to liigli tariff 1053 
 
 Growth of, decaying in Kevr York ]043 
 
 on the Pacific coast 1043 
 
 Imports and exports, value of 1032 
 
 export of, in bales 1059 
 
 Importation of, necessary 1028 
 
 Increased duty, effect of on American 
 
 brewers 1045 
 
 of, on export trade 1042 
 
 Labor in Enrope and United States com- 
 pared 1070 
 
 Methods of dealers in 1054 
 
 New Jersey, protest from brewers in.- 1072 
 
 New Tork brewers, action of 1062 
 
 dealers, petition of 1U64 
 
 cost of cultivation in 1070 
 
 cost of plant in 1069 
 
 f rowers, memorial of 1007 
 
 tate, statistics of 1048 
 
 Ohio brewers, protest agaiust increase 
 
 of daty 1027 
 
 Oregon, the crop in 1071 
 
 Pacific coast, competition with New 
 York and foreign 
 
 gro wers 1045 
 
 growth of per acre 1046 
 
 Pacific slope, adapted to growtli of 1040 
 
 Percentage of foreign, nsed in beer 1044 
 
 Persons dependent upon the induatrv-- 1059 
 
 Picking, cost of ". . . 1066 
 
 Production and consumption in various 
 
 countries 1068 
 
 and consumption of 1055 
 
 of, per acre 1039 
 
 Prohibition and license 1035 
 
 Relative cost of producing 1064 
 
 quality of foreign and domi.'siic. 1032 
 
 Speculation in 1049 
 
 Wisconsin, crop in 1057 
 
 If eiiip (see Flax). 
 Iron and 8tecli 
 Statement of— 
 
 Butler, Joseph G 40 
 
 Metcalf, William 101 
 
 Morris, AVilliamH 42 
 
 Wharton, Joseph 45 
 
 Acid process, the 43 
 
 Basic process, loyalty for 43 
 
 Bessemer Steel Association, statement 
 
 of presiilent 45 
 
 Billets, ship, and tank plates 42 
 
 Charcoaliron 1150 
 
 Cut nails 42 
 
 Iron and steel, prices and duties 1148 
 
 pyrites, production of, in Massa- 
 chusetts 1149 
 
 Mahoning and Wyoming Valleys, prod- 
 uct ot ' 40 
 
 New England, pricesforpig-iron cheaper 
 
 th an ever before 41 
 
 Pig iron, advantages of tariff on 42 
 
 Steel, crucible, effects of tariff on 101 
 
 plates, impoi tation of 42 
 
 should jjay specific duty .. 43 
 
 rails, Bessemer, prices of 1148 
 
 Wire rods, sliould pay apeciflc duty 1151 
 
 Iron^ Enameled: 
 Statement ot— 
 
 Otterson, John P 147 
 
 Cost of 147 
 
 Uses of 148 
 
 No duty on 147 
 
 Sliould pay specific duty 147 
 
 iTorj- and JTIaniifnctu'rci^ of. 687 
 
 Statement of— 
 
 Arnold, Cheney & Co 692 
 
 Cheney, G. A., and others 693 
 
 Cheney, Geo. L G90 
 
 Gerdeau, Otto 087, l-'iU 
 
 Combination in, existence denied 690 
 
 Tuirties composing it.. . 688 
 
 Countries of production ^ 687 
 
 Page. 
 jTory and ITIannfactnrcs of— Cont'd. 
 
 Decision of Treasury on 1312 
 
 Duty, reduction, effect of 690 
 
 rates of proposed 692 
 
 on raw would be disastrous 1312 
 
 Keys, combination in 687 
 
 Piano and organ keys, duty on should be 
 
 reduced 687 
 
 Piano keys, coat of 694 
 
 Kaw should be admitted free 693 
 
 Tariff laws, dangerous phrase in 687 
 
 Use of, in piano keys 1311 
 
 .Tnlc (see Flax). 
 Kill Cloves: 
 
 Duties, present and proposed 1361 
 
 Ijcad Ores : 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Bartim, H. F 60 
 
 Carter, Thos. H 55 
 
 Dubois, Fred. T 61 
 
 Eells, Dan P 1290 
 
 Holden, L. B 51 
 
 Kansas City Board of Trade 1271 
 
 Keen, Oscar 47 
 
 Mever, A.li 1272 
 
 Townaend, H 1262 
 
 American, inauflicientcy of the supply 
 
 of .■ . . 1291 
 
 Argentiferous lead ores 55 
 
 Balbach & Sons, number of men em- 
 ployed 48 
 
 Capital invested in smelting 1291 
 
 Crenr d'Alene mining district, sales of 
 
 ore in 1283 
 
 Colorado, mining in , 1275 
 
 Duty, pioposed rate on lead ore 59 
 
 Fluxing ores, decrease of 1282 
 
 Free lead, eifect of, on American in- 
 dustries 52 
 
 Idaho, sentiment of people in 61 
 
 Importation of from Mexico 53 
 
 Judiciary Committee, Senate, action of. 1267 
 
 Lead, consumption of in United States. 1286 
 
 Product of United States 1273 
 
 Leadville ores, composition of 1290 
 
 Mexican, decision of Treasury on 1262 
 
 Do not compete with Ameri- 
 can 1289 
 
 Duty on would be injurions.. 1288 
 
 Effects of their exclusion 128L 
 
 importation of 1262 
 
 not necessary for fluxing 3262 
 
 reasons against exclusion of .. 1272 
 
 supply work to American labor 1278 
 
 why i mpoited 1276 
 
 Mexico, quantity of ore imported from. 48 
 
 Miners ot ilontaiia, wages of 52 
 
 Missouri, petition of lead producers 
 
 in 62 
 
 produces the only true lead 
 
 ore 1285 
 
 wages paid in 1281 
 
 Montana, development of raininij inter- 
 ests 57 
 
 wages paid miners 52 
 
 Nevada, sentiment of people in 60 
 
 Ndwark smelting works, views of 47 
 
 Pig-lead, average price of, from 1837 to 
 
 1839 1264 
 
 Product of lead in United States 64,1277 
 
 Prices of 1263 
 
 Kuling of Treasurv Department, effect 
 
 of : 57 
 
 Salt Lake City, action of convention at. 1265 
 
 Senate bill, defective in regard to 57 
 
 Silver-lead ores, decision of Treasury 
 
 Deyjartment 47 
 
 Smelting, cost of 59 
 
 difference in cost of 1273 
 
 works, list of ill United States. 1278 
 
 Statistics of production 1263, 1274 
 
 Tiausportation, cost of r.!75 
 
 Treasury classifications and decisions. 1266 
 Uinted States can not produce sutli- 
 
 cient .- 1279 
 
 Utah Ore Piodncers' Association, prop- 
 
 ositiun of 59 
 
 Wages paid atLeadville 1277 
 
INDEX. 
 
 1401 
 
 t^eather and Iflaniifactiires of t 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Baird, Charles 671 
 
 Barrett, Etlwin S 672 
 
 Blumenthal, F. & Co 684 
 
 DruediDg Brothers 683 
 
 Ketcbum 674 
 
 Morocco, manufacturers of Philadel- 
 phia 681 
 
 Myers. Leonard 673 
 
 Kose, G. L 669,682 
 
 Settle, Edward 683 
 
 Van G elder, Henry 666 
 
 Wakeman, W. T 679 
 
 Wimpf heimer, A dolph 1335 
 
 Calf-skins, American equal to French.. 676 
 progress in manufacture of. 
 
 Cliamois skius 674 
 
 degrees of value 676 
 
 protest against increased 
 
 duty on 683 
 
 Domestic manufacturers of, have suf- 
 ficient protection 676 
 
 English factories, methods in 683 
 
 Factory systems in England 670 
 
 Fancy leather goods 6137 
 
 Goat skins, a raw product 672 
 
 German competition in 672 
 
 tanned, imports of 672 
 
 Goat and kid skins, statistics of 684 
 
 Hides, duties on, suggested 679 
 
 rates proposed by Cattle Grow- 
 ers' Associat ion 680 
 
 Imports of, into New York 668 
 
 Importers of, want present duty re- 
 tained 674 
 
 Leather, importers and manufacturers, 
 
 petition of . 1337 
 
 Morocco and kid manufacturers, argu- 
 ment of 681 
 
 New classifications of, needed 666 
 
 Philadelphia mauufacturera, demands 
 
 of 673 
 
 Rates of duty proposed on 668 
 
 Sheep-skins, 'finished, duty on, inade- 
 quate 666 
 
 unfinished, all come from 
 
 England free 666 
 
 Shoe-leather, statistics of imports 679 
 
 Skins, India tanned 671 
 
 Skivers, duty on, should not be in- 
 creased 1 335 
 
 definition and uses of 1336 
 
 and cut leather, protest against 
 
 increased duty on 681 
 
 cut leather for 1336 
 
 definition and uses of 674 
 
 Tanners, labor and wages of, in England 66G 
 
 Texas, petition for duty on raw hides.. 686 
 
 Undervaluations in glove leather 670 
 
 Wages in India 671 
 
 liiqiiors (see Wines). 
 Iiuniber : 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Combs, H.W 779 
 
 Constantine, Thomas S., and others. 785 
 
 Edget, John A 1313 
 
 Loveland, K. A 1318 
 
 Mannfacturersof northernMichigan 782 
 
 McCorniiok, H. C, Hon 778 
 
 Michigan lumbermen 788 
 
 White.H.C 780 
 
 Williams.A.B 782 
 
 Ameriran lumbermen more efQcient 
 
 than Canadian 1318 
 
 Canada, charges of, for stumpage 1319 
 
 cost of logging in 1319 
 
 exports from 1313 
 
 policy of, in leasing lands 1318 
 
 Canadian, duty on, should be repealed.. 1316 
 export duty, remedy sug- 
 gested for , 786 
 
 owned by Americans 1314 
 
 Hard wood, duty on, wanted 780 
 
 Hard woods, capital employed inl 780 
 
 duty destroyed by a Treas- 
 
 ury decision 779 
 
 effeet of Treasury decision 
 
 on 780 
 
 Page. 
 Ijiintber — Continued. 
 
 Hardwoods, foreign, sawed 779 
 
 rates of duty proposed on . 785 
 
 Forest fires, eSect of 1316 
 
 Logs, Canadian 782 
 
 Lumbermen, memorials from 787 
 
 ^ iiges of, in Pennsylvania 
 
 iiiid Canada 778 
 
 Mahogany, duty on, should be in- 
 creased 785 
 
 Michigan, value of milling plant in 1314 
 
 Pennsylvania, lumber interests of 778 
 
 Work hoses and writing desks 786 
 
 macaroni: 
 
 Capital and labor employed in 899 
 
 Cost of manufacturing 900 
 
 Export bounty on, paid by Italy 901 
 
 Growth of the industry in America 900 
 
 Injurious effects of uuikiug it free. 899 
 
 List of manufacturers in united States. 902 
 
 Uate of duty suggested on 901 
 
 Scanlon, John Fi, statement of 899 
 
 irianiirial Sails 409 
 
 Liable to duty 410 
 
 ITIarbles: 
 
 Should pay specific duty 1329 
 
 ITIarble and Oranste: 
 Statement of— 
 
 Clarkson, David 496 
 
 Clements, Charles 499 
 
 Jones Bros 499 
 
 Laird, P. B 1320 
 
 Mitchell, Wm.H 498 
 
 More, Chas. H., & Co r.00 
 
 Morse, E. A 497 
 
 Sheiwood, G. P., on behalf of im- 
 porters 501 
 
 Willison.E.C 500 
 
 American granite interests, extent of .. 500 
 
 Barre and Scotch gr;mite compared 499 
 
 granite, how quarried and sold .. 499 
 
 Exposition of duty on 496 
 
 Finished, increased duty on, necessary. 1320 
 
 Freestone, duties jiaid on 501 
 
 rough, should pay no duty.. 501 
 
 Low tariff on, invites importation of- .. 498 
 New England marble dealers, petition 
 
 of 1321 
 
 Protest aeainat increase of duty 500 
 
 Qnincy, Mass., granite business of 497 
 
 Kates of duty submitted on 497 
 
 Ked granite 499 
 
 Scotch granite in Philadcliilna. - - 498 
 
 rough, higher than 
 
 American 50O 
 
 stone, necessities for 501 
 
 Tennessee quarryuien, petition of 1321 
 
 Tariff, irregularity of, on 496 
 
 Meat Extract: 
 Statement of — 
 
 Cibies Company 913 
 
 Talcatt, Fnshie & Co 914 
 
 Duty on, should bo reduci^d 914 
 
 should not be increased 913 
 
 ITEetal Polish : 
 
 Duty on, should be increased 12G1 
 
 ITBctali^ (see Ores). 
 
 Mica 1174 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Andrews, Charles L 1180 
 
 Clark, Frank H 1183 
 
 Clough, AV.F 1186 
 
 Ewart. H. G 1177 
 
 Gere, James M 1174, 1178 
 
 Moore, O.C 1183 
 
 Eandall. George H 1182 
 
 Kichaidson, H. T 1184 
 
 Webster, F. W 1185 
 
 American and foreign compared 1181 
 
 Demand for eleetricfil purposes 1184 
 
 Difficulty of fixing a price on 1178 
 
 Domestic unsuited for electrical pur- 
 poses 1183 
 
 Importation of, increasing annually 1184 
 
 India, comjH^tition with .' 1174 
 
 imports fiom, a raono[)oly 1177 
 
 Methods ol' preparing - 1182 
 
 New Hampshire, condition of industry 
 
 iu 1183 
 
1402 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Page, 
 Mica— Continued. 
 
 New Hampshire, extent of mica lauds in 1180 
 
 product of 1178 
 
 rate of wages paid ... 1180 
 
 North Carolina, prices of, in 1180 
 
 production of, in 1174 
 
 Prices of 1175 
 
 Protests against duty on 151 
 
 Quality of American mines 1176 
 
 Kates of duty proposed ■ 1179 
 
 Specific duty on, recommended 1177 
 
 Statistics of 1174 
 
 Stove manufacturers, want mica kept 
 
 free 1184 
 
 United States, production of - 1178 
 
 Uses of 1175 
 
 Wages paid in North Carolina 1177 
 
 mineral Waters: 
 Statement of — 
 
 Inches, James W 801 
 
 Jones, A. M 806 
 
 American industry, extent of 804 
 
 Artificial, nine- tenths of 802 
 
 Bottles and other materials used in 
 
 preparation of 801 
 
 Can not be carbonated naturally 806 
 
 Du ty on , ho w levied 803 
 
 rates of, recommended 801 
 
 Foi'eign dealers in, impose upon Ameri- 
 can people 803 
 
 Materials for 1 gross quart bottles, 
 
 cost of 805 
 
 Natural Mineral "Waters Association, 
 
 request of 801 
 
 Necessity for a protective duty on 806 
 
 Packages for bottles, and cost of 802 
 
 Kelaiive qualities of American and 
 
 foreign 804 
 
 Specific duty on, recommended 806 
 
 Treasury Department, action of... 803 
 
 Milk, ConilciBsed: 
 Statement of — 
 
 Anglo-Swiss Company 923 
 
 DowH,S.L 925 
 
 New York Company 924 
 
 American excluded from foreign coun- 
 tries 923 
 
 Capital and labor employed in 923 
 
 Duty suggested on *. 924 
 
 Duties on, in foreign countries 923 
 
 Increased deuiand for, in foreign coun- 
 tries 924 
 
 Manufacture of, in Iowa 925 
 
 lUilli, Sii^sar oti 
 Statement of — 
 
 AmeriiKuMilk Sugar Company 921 
 
 Flory, M 920 
 
 Van Syekle, William M 916 
 
 Consumption of 916 
 
 Cost of production of, in America 917 
 
 Growth of. 921 
 
 Labor and capital employed in 919 
 
 Principal uses of 920 
 
 Prices of 923 
 
 Quantities of, imported 918 
 
 Should be on dutiable list 916 
 
 ITIolnwHCs 1361 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Emerson , "W. H 1367 
 
 Capital ajHl labor employed in boiling,. 1369 
 
 Consumption of, in CTnited States 1368 
 
 Conversion of sugar from 1367 
 
 Imported in American vessels 1368 
 
 Philadelphia, boiling business 1367 
 
 IVliiHflcal IiiwtrHiuents: 
 Statement ot — 
 
 Keefer, Prua C 1326 
 
 McCorniick, William J 1326 
 
 Rnasons for duty on 1320 
 
 I^»«*"l: 1153 
 
 Statement of— 
 
 Ritchie, S.J 1153,1160 
 
 Wharton, Joseph 1158 
 
 Canadian companies, extent of plants.. 1153 
 
 Canada, ex)iun. <lnty of ] ir>7 
 
 e\|iMir, of American iulerestsin 1157 
 
 ]>osH(Hsi^s nearly stli of 1154 
 
 quantity of, eoieUcd in 1154 
 
 Page. 
 IVickel— Continnea- 
 
 Oanadian iron ore .......*... 1159 
 
 Conversion of, in Europe 1154 
 
 Duty on, should remain 1159 
 
 Effect of, upon steel 1158 
 
 France, consumption of, in 1161 
 
 La Nickel Company, operations of 1161 
 
 Matte received from Canada 1158 
 
 Mines of, reported to exist Z158 
 
 New Caledonia, mines in 1158 
 
 Proportion of copper in American 1153 
 
 Kefining of, in United States 1159 
 
 Results obtained from 1153 
 
 Shipment of, to England and Germany. 1154 
 
 Used for manufacture of guns 1156 
 
 Needles : 
 
 Hand sewing, duties on, should be re- 
 duced 1255 
 
 Oils (see Chemicals). 
 
 Optical Olasscs and lustruiuents . 825 
 Statement of — 
 
 Kane, Charles 838 
 
 Loud, P. H 834 
 
 Riglander, J. W 830 
 
 Spencer, John S 828 
 
 Wells, George W 825 
 
 Brazilian pebbles, classification of, 
 
 should be changed 826 
 
 Duty on, increased, would effect poor 
 
 people 830 
 
 Duty on, should be reduced 831 
 
 rates recommended 832 
 
 specific and ad valorem recom- 
 mended 829 
 
 Eye-glasses, duty on, a protection to 
 
 eyesight 827 
 
 product of prison labor, . . 827 
 Eyesight injured by using cheap Ger- 
 man 826 
 
 Glasses, low-priced, danger of using... 826 
 Lenses, manufacture of, in America, a 
 
 ne w industry 826 
 
 Ma^ic lanterns, present duty on, too high 833 
 
 Optical companies, American, wealth of 831 
 Pittsburgh steel, used in making frames 
 
 for 829 
 
 Red earth, not produced in America. . - 825 
 
 should be free 825 
 
 Spectacles, Erench, cheap grades ruin- 
 ous to eyesight 831 
 
 Germans imitate American, 827 
 labor and capital employed 
 
 in 828 
 
 prices of 828 
 
 and eye-glasses 825 
 
 Undervaluation of 829 
 
 Orang;ci9 (See Emits). 
 
 Ores and Metals 1, 1144 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Bent, L. S 39 
 
 Dominiok, F.J 37 
 
 Ely, George H 1 
 
 Galpin. Samuel A 1151 
 
 McCoy & Linn 1151 
 
 Moore, V. K 33 
 
 Stackhouse, Powell 35, 1144 
 
 Tobey, HoraceP.. 11 
 
 Witherbee, P. S 27 
 
 Bessemer, abundance of, 5 
 
 ores in foreign countries 9 
 
 Bilboa, Spain, mines of 3 
 
 Bessemer pig-iron, production of 1147 
 
 Cambria Iron Company, statement of 
 vice-presi- 
 dent of 35 
 
 wages paid by 35 
 
 Canadian coal, use of, 13 
 
 Charcoal pig-iron, prod uction of 1146 
 
 Chateaugay crude, coat of 37 
 
 Classification of 13 
 
 Coal mines of Novia Scotia 21 
 
 Coke, cost of 21 
 
 pig-iron, production of 1146 
 
 quantity to rrduce a ton of ore.. 23 
 
 Concentration, syntiin of 27 
 
 Cost of transporting from Europe 23 
 
 Crude materials, discrimination against 19 
 
INDEX. 
 
 1403 
 
 _ Page. 
 
 Ores aud flfetaU— Continued. 
 
 Duty on, effect of 8 
 
 Eastern aasociation, territory covered by 27 
 
 Foundry iron, average price of 11 
 
 Free ore and coal, petition for, from New 
 
 England 24 
 
 benetits that would follow 39 
 
 Freight ch arpea on the lakes 4 
 
 Hematite abundant in Tennessee 131 
 
 Increase iu production of 5 
 
 Labor and transportation, cost of 6 
 
 Lake Superior districts 1 
 
 ores, cost of mining 1144 
 
 region, cost of mining in 7 
 
 Magnetic process, the 27 
 
 Menominee district, the 33 
 
 and Marquette ranges, fixed 
 
 prices at 34 
 
 Minnesota range, the 2 
 
 !New England establishments, petition 
 
 from 20 
 
 mills, shrinkage of 12 
 
 workers, petition of, for 
 
 free ore and coal 24 
 
 Pennsylvania, discrimination of, against 
 
 Maryland 16 
 
 Pig-iron, production of, in United 
 
 States 1145 
 
 Prices of, 1883 to 1889 6 
 
 Production of, in 1886 to 1889 3 
 
 Profits in 28 
 
 Kelativo cost of labor 31 
 
 Repeal of duties in, effect of 14 
 
 Scotch, pig-iron, value of 11 
 
 Smith, Weed M., protest of, against re- 
 duction of duty 3C 
 
 Spanish ores, consumption of, by Eng- 
 land .- 9 
 
 Supply of, in Eastern territory 28 
 
 Tennessee and Virginia, capacity of 
 
 iron mines 132 
 
 large body of ore in 130 
 
 Value of mines 7 
 
 Vessels, steel, on the lakes 4 
 
 Virginia, iron in 127 
 
 and Tennessee Railroad, con- 
 struction in 128 
 
 "Wages at Cranbury mines 131 
 
 Western association 1 
 
 Paints (see Chemicals). 
 Paper (See Pulp). 
 Piano Actions: 
 Statement of^ — 
 
 Weasel, Otto 1305 
 
 Explained 1305 
 
 Proti'Sts against increased dnty on 1308 
 
 Reason for specific duties on 1305 
 
 Pipes 1017 
 
 Statement of— 
 
 American clay pipe manufacturers. 1023 
 
 Demuth and Company 1017 
 
 Strauss, William 1019 
 
 Brierwood, cases for, admitted free 1020 
 
 duty on, evaded 1019 
 
 relative cost ol 1019 
 
 specific duty recommended 
 
 on 1020 
 
 Clay, common, should be protected 1018 
 
 necessity for protecting 1023 
 
 price of abroad 1018 
 
 should have as high rate of duty 
 
 as pottery 1025 
 
 Dutyrecommendedbymanufacturers of 1021 
 
 How duty on majj be simplified 1017 
 
 Present ^uty on, insufficient 1018 
 
 Smokers' articles, rates of duty sug- 
 gested on 1918 
 
 Treasury decisions, damaging of effects 1022 
 Pnlp, Paper, and Books : 
 Statement of— 
 
 Abel,R 733 
 
 American manufacturers 729 
 
 Antbonv, E. andH. & Co 731 
 
 Birmingham, E.F 726 
 
 Bliss, George 752 
 
 Capo, Edward 735 
 
 Curtis, Charles B 754 
 
 Donaldson, Robert « 739 
 
 Page. 
 Pulp, Paper, and Books— Continued. 
 
 Statement of— 
 
 Embree.E.L 723 
 
 Ettlinger, Louis 73G 
 
 Focbteler, Caspai*. 744 
 
 Hatch, Edward 739 
 
 Holman, A. J. & Co 754 
 
 Kaufman, Charles 742, 750 
 
 Kanfman, Maurice 741 
 
 Lithographers' Association, views 
 
 of 745 
 
 Marsh, John F 734 
 
 Martin, William Erwin 735 
 
 McCabe.JohoH 719 
 
 Minncf Ota Educational Association 756 
 National Lithographers' Associa- 
 tion 745 
 
 Osborne, William H 729 
 
 Rogers, Edward C 717 
 
 Sander & Neulandt 733 
 
 Thompson, George W 727 
 
 Troutman, Ralph 744 
 
 Wagner, Lewis G 1329 
 
 Wiedenmann , H. C 756 
 
 Albums, admitted under decision of the 
 
 Treasury 754 
 
 cost of making in Berlin 754 
 
 not properly classified 753 
 
 and scrap books, duties on, sug- 
 gested 752 
 
 Books, for educational institutions, 
 
 should be free 756 
 
 should be admitted free 755 
 
 Card-boards, duties suggested on 734 
 
 Classificationandratesof dutyon paper 717 
 
 Copying papers, duty proposed on 728 
 
 Decalcomania, duty on should not be in- 
 creased 745 
 
 uses of 744 
 
 Envelopes, consumption of 734 
 
 cost of manufacture 735 
 
 duty on should be main- 
 tained 735 
 
 numberof persons employed 
 
 in making 730 
 
 Lithographs, certain figures corrected . 1320 
 
 Lithographic articles, importations of . 758 
 business, progress of in 
 the United 
 
 Stares 751 
 
 extent of in the 
 
 United States 738 
 
 Lithographs, cost of in Europe 742 
 
 diiferenoe between spe- 
 cific and ad valorem 
 
 duties 750 
 
 frauds in the importations 
 
 of 740 
 
 rates of wages paid in 
 
 Europe 739 
 
 should pay specific duty. . 736 
 
 statement of an importer. 741 
 Newspapers, daily consumption of paper 
 
 by 721 
 
 Paper, albumen, should pay 75 per cent. 
 
 ad valorem 733 
 
 photographic albumenized 730 
 
 surface-coated 734 
 
 white and colored, imports of. . . 727 
 albumenized, cost of in Germany 
 
 and America 731 
 
 duty on should be 
 
 reduced 1366 
 
 should he admitted 
 
 free 731 
 
 statistics of 1366 
 
 Papers, copying and cigarettes 728 
 
 etc., American facto- 
 ries lying idle. 729 
 rates of duty on 
 
 suggested 728 
 
 Prints, lithographic and photolitho- 
 
 fCraphic 736 
 
 Printing, duty on too low 717 
 
 Pulp, American and foreign, prices of. . 725 
 
 notequal to the demand 719 
 consumption of, in the United 
 
 States 721 
 
1404 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Page- 
 Pulp, Paper, aud Books— Continued. 
 
 Palp factories in America, list of 720 
 
 importation and prices of 725 
 
 rate of duty on prohibitory 719 
 
 Rattans aiid ICeeds t 
 Statement of— 
 
 Colgan, William J 760 
 
 Geudron Iron Wheel Company 760 
 
 Geraau.Otto 767,776 
 
 Lang, Charles II..jr 767 
 
 "Winona Willow Works 775 
 
 Wittie.H 776 
 
 Cane business controlled by a trust 761 
 
 Chair cane, competition with Germany 
 
 and China 767 
 
 duty on should be abolished 775 
 
 Duty, protest agjiinst increase of 775 
 
 Kattan trust, advantage of - - - - 769 
 
 companies composing it.. 773 
 number of people em- 
 ployed by 770 
 
 prices charged by 7G7 
 
 Heeda, mats, and mattings from 767 
 
 uses to which put 768 
 
 Keeds and chair canea, crude material... 776 
 exclusive growth 
 
 of India 7G0 
 
 duty on should 
 
 be abolished . - "60 
 
 uses of 760 
 
 Reed and rattan, difference between... 768 
 Wakeliekl Kattan Company, market 
 
 controlled by 7G4 
 
 Kice 926 
 
 Statenjent of — 
 
 Bissel, J.B 939 
 
 BuUock&Co 940 
 
 Dupre, Emine 939 
 
 Ernst, F.J 937 
 
 Ernst & Co 941 
 
 Flower, Charles 942 
 
 Havana Board of Trade 937 
 
 Mulkey, Charles J., special agent.. 942 
 
 Screven, John 926 
 
 Talmage's Sons 940 
 
 Young, John E 927 
 
 American producer of, conditions sur- 
 rounding 930 
 
 Brewers' rice, classiflcation of 942 
 
 Broken rice, countries from which im- 
 ported 898 
 
 uses of, and duties on 898 
 
 Canadian, duty on. 942 
 
 Cleaned and uncleaned, difference in... 940 
 
 Definitions, importance of 941 
 
 of various qualities and 
 
 formaof 938 
 
 Duty on, doesnotprevent importation of. 929 
 
 not excessive 926 
 
 Georgia, appeal of Rice Association of.. 1355 
 Graniilatir-d and rice flour, duties on 
 
 should be repealed 940 
 
 variations in 938 
 
 Hawaiian Islands, importations from. .. 935 
 
 Industry, history of, in United States .. 926 
 
 Labor, cost of, in rice districts 931 
 
 Lands ab;indoned 939 
 
 Louisiana, crop of 939 
 
 Lowest and highest prices of 936 
 
 Plantations, burdens of 932 
 
 effects of the war on 930 
 
 Planters, apprehensions of 939 
 
 Present duties necessary to protect 937 
 
 Prices of, in New York."; 928 
 
 ProdnctioD, consumption, and export of 927 
 
 Qaautities of, impoited 927 
 
 Rates of duty suggested on 938 
 
 Rico fields, description of 934 
 
 Wagi'S, of Americaand Asia compared. 932 
 
 Kaxors : 1218 
 
 Statement of— 
 
 Torrey, J. R 13 18 
 
 Turner, Joseph , 1221 
 
 Amorican and foreign stoel compared.. 1219 
 
 Blades, duties recommended on 1218 
 
 Duty, inoreasod, would not advanci^ 
 
 price of ]220 
 
 English, prices of IJji* 
 
 t*age. 
 R azore— Continued. 
 
 Germany and England, competition with 1218 
 
 Labor employed in manufacture of 1218 
 
 Lower lirnde of, competition in ,. 1219 
 
 Rates of d uty, present and proposed 1240 
 
 Wagespaid'in Sheffield 1221 
 
 Review af Present Tariff: 
 
 Statement of Moore, J. S 1370 
 
 Salt I 943 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Kerr, Samuel T 943 
 
 Moulton, E. D. & Co 947 
 
 Piffard, H. G 944 
 
 Analysis of ■ 949 
 
 Average prices of English 949 
 
 Consumption of, in United States 947 
 
 Cost of manufacture at home and 
 
 abroad 948 
 
 English, vary in quality 948 
 
 Grades of, deiined 947 
 
 New York deposits, extent of 949 
 
 Price of common, at Livei-pool 947 
 
 in western New York 947 
 
 Where obtained 947 
 
 Silk and its ITlaiitifacturc: 
 Statement of^ 
 
 Armstrong, A, H 610 
 
 Candee, Edward D 610 
 
 Cheney, F.W 595,1348 
 
 Griggs, John W 608 
 
 Karalieedt, Alexander E 597 
 
 Neumann, Joseph 612 
 
 Richardson, Briton 595, 608 
 
 Sloss, Henry W 600 
 
 Strange, William 609 
 
 Walker, Philip 601, 1 349 
 
 Agricultural department, results of ex- 
 periments by 601 
 
 America, can be successfully raised in. 596 
 
 American better t han foreign — 596 
 
 Braid Manufacturers Association, rec- 
 ommendations of 600 
 
 Classifications of, explained 598 
 
 Cocoons, how prepared 597 
 
 Cords, braids, galloons, etc 610 
 
 Duty, rates of proposed 599 
 
 Early efforts toprouioto the industry of. 612 
 
 Eye-glass cords and silk guards 610 
 
 Germany and England, competition 
 
 with ". 599 
 
 Importation of 607 
 
 Kansas, cultivation of silk in 639 
 
 value of cocoon raised , . 640 
 
 Production of, from 18S4 to 1889, in 
 
 America C07 
 
 Proportion of, manufactured in this 
 
 coiintry 596 
 
 Rates in'Sonate bill, groat defects in. . - 697 
 
 Raw material for, where obtained 596 
 
 Ribbons and hat trimmings 608 
 
 Scarfs and neckties 611 
 
 extent of the indus- 
 try 611 
 
 number worn 611 
 
 rates of duties pro- 
 posed 611 
 
 Silk culture, Mr. Walker answered 1348 
 
 Specific rates on, impracticable 595 
 
 Starch and 1>extrinc. 
 
 Statement of Glover, Horatio N 1354 
 
 Dextrine, duty on. should be increased. 1354 
 
 duties autigested on 904 
 
 and starch, inequalities of 
 
 duties on 904 
 
 Starch, quantity of potatoes consumed 
 
 in manufacture of 904 
 
 proportions of corn and potato 
 
 manufactured 904 
 
 potato, and dextrine 903 
 
 Steel (See Iron). 
 Steel I*<'n8. 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Esterbrook Company, The 1260 
 
 Ivison, Blakeman &'Co 1260 
 
 duties suggested on 1200 
 
 impoi'l:ition of 1260 
 
 Slra^v CJoodf4. 
 
 Statement of Biigham, William T 1303 
 
INDEX. 
 
 1405 
 
 Straw Ooods— Goutinned. 
 
 Duty, present and proposed 1303 
 
 Uses to which put 1303 
 
 Structural Shapes Ill 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Slade, T. J Ill 
 
 Combinations of mills 113 
 
 Duties suggested on 111,115 
 
 Methods of manufacture 113 
 
 Names of mills in combination 114 
 
 Structural iron, price of 112 
 
 Slabs and fiillets: 
 Statement of — 
 
 Campbell, A. "W 108 
 
 Cut nails, product of Wheeling 109 
 
 Tor nails 108 
 
 Slabs, billets, and blooms, difl'ecence in. 110 
 
 Soft steel, should pay same duty as bard 108 
 
 Wheeling, cut nails made at 109 
 
 Sugar, Caue: 
 Statement of— 
 
 Curtice Brothers Co 653 
 
 Disston, Hamilton 639 
 
 Dymond, John 6:24 
 
 Frazier, William W 664 
 
 Knight, E. C 655 
 
 Oxnard, Henry F 645 
 
 Peters, S. K 639 
 
 Keed, Henry H 661 
 
 Stubbs, William C 628 
 
 Sugar planters of Louisiana 624 
 
 Thayer, John M., governor of Ne- 
 braska 655 
 
 Warmouth, W.C 633 
 
 Wiley, Harvey W 650 
 
 Agricultural Department, investigation 
 
 by 652 
 
 Average profit of cane per acre 630 
 
 Bounty not desirable 635 
 
 objections to 641 
 
 Experimental stations, good results of. 629 
 lYee sugar from Sandwich Islands no 
 
 effect on prices 626 
 
 Domestic cane, proportion of. supplied 
 
 refiners 636 
 
 Duty on, reasons for maintaining 634 
 
 Extent of cane sugar belt 630 
 
 Elorida, capacity of, to cultivate 639 
 
 Louisiana, acreage of, in cane 632 
 
 annual crop of, since 1864 . . 633 
 average size of sugar plan- 
 tations 631 
 
 can not compete with Cali- 
 fornia 626 
 
 capital invested in 625 
 
 development of, in 624 
 
 farm hands, average wages 
 
 of.in 637 
 
 importance of crop in 625 
 
 increase of acreage in 627 
 
 persons engaged in manu- 
 facture of,in 631 
 
 soil and temperature of 631 
 
 Politics and 634 
 
 Profits in handling sugar 654 
 
 Progress made in methods of manufact- 
 uring 628 
 
 Keasone for a reduction of duty on . . . , . 653 
 
 Scientific investigations, results from . . 624 
 
 Sugar Beet 1098 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Hawes, John B., commercial agent.- 1107 
 
 Spreckels, Glaus. 1098 
 
 Peters, S.R 639 
 
 Wamer, William D 1104 
 
 Wiley, Harvey W 650 
 
 America can produce its own sugar 1098 
 
 American farmer, hints to 1124 
 
 Austria Hungary, export of and duty 
 
 on sugar 1131 
 
 Austria- Hungary, statistics of industry 
 
 in 1133 
 
 Beets instead of wheat , 639 
 
 Beneficial to agriculture 646 
 
 Beyond the domain of experiment 651 
 
 Bonemia, cultivation of , by 1107 
 
 juftnufacture of sugar by 1135 
 
 Page. 
 Sugar Beet— Continued. 
 Bohemian methods of planting and culti- 
 vating 1111 
 
 method of harvesting and rais- 
 ing seed J '22 
 
 California, capacity to grow 1099 
 
 Climate reqmrea to grow 1100 
 
 Cost of production per ton 1100 
 
 Cultivation of, protit in 1098 
 
 Germany, bounty paid on exports of 1105 
 
 imports and exports of 1106 
 
 production of 1105 
 
 revenues from and bouutien 
 
 paid by 1105 
 
 Importance ot the industry 1098 
 
 Ivausas, bounty not popular in 642 
 
 price of corn in - 642 
 
 princi]>al products and value of 643 
 
 production of 640 
 
 sugar mills in 04') 
 
 wages paid for farm labor 645 
 
 LouiHiana, beets can not be grown in 
 
 southern 030 
 
 Nebraska, beet sugar industry in 645 
 
 beets, percentage of sugar ob 
 
 tained i'rom 036 
 
 protest from governor of 655 
 
 Price of, at factory 1101 
 
 per ton '. .. 1009 
 
 Process of making sugar from 1098 
 
 Product of, per aero 1099 
 
 Saccharine strength of 1101 
 
 Sorghum, possibility of its development 650 
 
 States in which beets may be grown... 646 
 Sugar, Cane, KcdinccI ; 
 
 Combinations can not control 063 
 
 Comparative rates of duty explained. . . 604 
 
 Consumption of, per capita 656 
 
 Cost of producing 657 
 
 Custom-house and commercial tests of . 660 
 
 Drawback on 650 
 
 Free sugar could bo made satisfactory 
 
 to refiners 658 
 
 High prices of, reasons for 661 
 
 Measure of protection needed 057 
 
 Methods of refining 655 
 
 People want good sugar 658 
 
 Price of 650 
 
 Itaw and refined, difference between.. . 605 
 
 average cost of . 656 
 
 liefineried, capital invested in 657 
 
 Should be placed on a mercantile basis . 658 
 
 Should have protection 659 
 
 Statistics of, by E. C. Knight, of Phila- 
 delphia 655 
 
 on value, cost and duty on. . 665 
 
 Trust, no injury came fiom it 662 
 
 output of 602 
 
 Wages paid for refining 659 
 
 Surgical InstruBueuts: 
 Statement of^ 
 
 Clark, Charles H 1223 
 
 Duties recommended on 1223 
 
 Tin Ores and Tin Plates 1187 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Bunliug, T. L . 1204 
 
 Cronemeycr, William 92 
 
 Fries & Co., George 1203 
 
 Eurman.John H 1199 
 
 Lacey, JohnE 100 
 
 McFadden, William H lOl 
 
 Moody, Hon. G. C 1196 
 
 Potter, O. W 1198 
 
 Stump, Hon. H 1200 
 
 Untermyer, Samuel 1187 
 
 Wilker, Henry C 1198 
 
 American Association, figures criticised 1211 
 
 consumption of annually 1194 
 
 Baltimore Canned Goods Exchange 1212 
 
 Baltimore Canned Goods Exchange, 
 
 protest of 1212 
 
 Black HiUa, mines in 96 
 
 richness of product of 1191 
 
 ore in, unlimited 1198 
 
 wages paid miners in 1197 
 
 Black Hill mines, nature and extent of. 11S9 
 
 -„ CMoago dealers in canned lobsters 1214 
 
1406 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Page. 
 Tia Ores aud Tin Plates— Cont'd. 
 
 Dakota ores, aaaay of 1194 
 
 tin ore in lOO 
 
 Daty ou, rates au^^gested 93 
 
 reconiinended on 1192 
 
 Failure of the domestic industry, cause 
 
 of 93 
 
 Harney Peake region, mines in 1196 
 
 Importers, action of 93 
 
 Lobster dealers, protests from.. 1214 
 
 Maryland canners, protest of 1201 
 
 statistics of canning indnstry 1200 
 
 Meloy, J. M. dc Son 1208 
 
 New York Canned Goods' Packers, pro- 
 test of 1204 
 
 Nortli Carolina, location of mines 1199 
 
 ore in 1199 
 
 Ohio manufacturers, protest of 1207 
 
 Plate, cost of per bos 1203 
 
 outlook in England 1195 
 
 imported, quantities and value.- 1188 
 
 method of manufacture - 1210 
 
 Philadelphia dealers in canned lobsters, 
 
 protest of 1214 
 
 Prices of, in New York 95 
 
 lower at New York than at 
 
 Liverpool 95 
 
 plate, 1884 to 1889 1208 
 
 Process for the manufacture of 94 
 
 Produced by Chinese and Malay labor . 1187 
 
 Production of the world 1187 
 
 South Dakota growth of industi-y in .. 1187 
 
 Uses of 97 
 
 Virginia packers, protest of 1206, 1213 
 
 "Wales, manufacture of, in 1216 
 
 wages and habits of laborers. . . 1217 
 Tiuscl Tbrcail i 
 Statement of — 
 
 Montgomery, J. B. & Co , 1258 
 
 Siegman, A. M 1257 
 
 Simonds, W. B 1258 
 
 Duties suggested on 600, 1257 
 
 Methods of manufacture 1258 
 
 Tieasury, ruling of, ou 1259 
 
 Uses of 1257 
 
 Tobacco 952 
 
 Statement of — 
 
 Barnett, Walter E 957 
 
 Baron, Bernhardt 952 
 
 Bijur, I 995 
 
 Caswell, Lucien B 1025 
 
 Diffenderfer, F. P, . 989,992 
 
 Ertheiler, James 965 
 
 Eenner, F. W 1030 
 
 Hubbard, S. G 998 
 
 Kittilsen, Levi 963 
 
 Morse, W.C 1002 
 
 New York tobacoo growers 958 
 
 Neudriker, L. H 963 
 
 Nudecker, — 994 
 
 Pomrov, N. S 963 
 
 Schroeder, F. A 936 
 
 Scotten, Daniel & Co. and others .. 964 
 
 Stewart, Kobert 1010 
 
 Trader, George N 994 
 
 Van Dozer, J.S 953,984 
 
 Wyckoff, Jonaphan 1007 
 
 American, average price of 954 
 
 growers, demand of, tor pro- 
 tection 958 
 
 Baltimore Tobacco Board, demands of.. 1010 
 
 Cberaung Valley growers, demands of.. 1002 
 
 Cost of raising, in Massachusetts 1002 
 
 Coolie labor in the tropics 989 
 
 Conection ot erroneous figures 984 
 
 Custom-houso, bow to avoid trouble with 9GI 
 Discriminating law can not be adminis- 
 tered 972 
 
 Domestic crop, cost of 960 
 
 difficulties of disposing of 1005 
 
 producers bankrupt 1003 
 
 Duties, ad valorem and specific consid- 
 ered 974 
 
 on, how evaded 1003 
 
 Exports of, to Germany 968 
 
 Farm statistics 969 
 
 Farmers buidened by taxation 1004 
 
 Page. 
 Tobacco — Continued. 
 
 Growth of, compared with other farm 
 
 products 978 
 
 Hiscock bill recommended , 960 
 
 Holland syndicates, operations of 958 
 
 Home market for, importance of 955 
 
 Inspection of, difficulties surrounding . 972 
 
 Internal tax on, creates monopolies 994 
 
 Labor in Asia and America cornpared.. 1007 
 
 Land, depreciation in value of 1010 
 
 Leaf, American, quality of, has not 
 
 changed 991 
 
 Conne ticut, in high favor . . 961 
 
 domestic, sufficient for all home do- 
 mauds - 1006 
 
 foreign, evil effect of its introduc- 
 tion 1008 
 
 injury of, to domestic 
 
 growers 995 
 
 Havana, proportion of wrajipors in 
 
 a bale of 958 
 
 how quality of is determined 976 
 
 how rated in quality 1006 
 
 tobacco, climatic intluences on 974 
 
 total imports of from 1881 to 1888 . 971 
 
 Michigan manufacturers, demands of.. 964 
 
 New England growers, demands of. . . . 998 
 
 New York leaf trade, demands of 965 
 
 tobacco growers, resolutions 
 
 adopted by 962 
 
 Present law, defects of 973 
 
 Pennsylvania, extent of crop in 990 
 
 growers, demands of 989 
 
 Production of, and value of, per acre . . . 956 
 
 Quantity of, to 1,000 cigars , . . - 932 
 
 Keasou for advance in price of 967 
 
 Eemoval of tax. advantage of, to farmer 953 
 Schroeder, F. A , facts and figures of, 
 
 criticised ■ 984 
 
 Smoking and chewing, tax on, should be 
 
 abolished 952 
 
 Stemming, price of labor employed in. . 974 
 Sumatra, cripplingthe industiy of seven 
 
 States - .-- - 996 
 
 evil effects of importation of. 959 
 how brought into popular 
 
 favor -- 1004 
 
 importation of, does not affect 
 
 domestic 969 
 
 importation of, not beneficial 
 
 to consumer 959 
 
 increased demand for 971 
 
 injury to the smoker of 963 
 
 leaf I he standard 967 
 
 prices of, for eight years 972 
 
 prices of, at Amsterdam 999 
 
 prohibition the only protec- 
 tion against 966 
 
 results of its invasion 990 
 
 smokers do not like it 955 
 
 wages paid in 956 
 
 why preferred by manufact- 
 urers 1009 
 
 TJniform duty on demanded 965 
 
 "W here grown in United States 967 
 
 "Wrappers, growers of, should be pro- 
 tected 954 
 
 "Wisconsin growers, demands of 963 
 
 "Wrapper, Cuban, value of 958 
 
 Havana, desirability of 957 
 
 "Wrappers, Havana, minimum price of. 062 
 
 rate of duty suggested on . . 956 
 
 specific duty wanted on 956 
 
 Trade ^vith Canada: 
 Statement of — 
 
 Butterworth, Hon. Benjamin 1135 
 
 Bill to extend trade and commerce 1135 
 
 Benefits that would result to farmers.. U39 
 
 Canada, comparedwitb Soutli America. 1136 
 importance of closer relations 
 
 with 1136 
 
 value of trade with the TTnited 
 
 States 1137 
 
 Commerce, increased facilities will pro- 
 mote - 1140 
 
 Protection, dangers that threaten , 1143 
 
 Reciprocity with Canada urged 1142 
 
INDEX. 
 
 1407 
 
 Pago. 
 UmbrellaB, l^arts of; 
 
 Statement of— 
 
 Ball, Thomas W 1328 
 
 Conway, James & Co 1327 
 
 Harvey, ■William & Co 1328 
 
 Kaldenberpr, i\ R, 1328 
 
 Meyer, Asher T 1327 
 
 "Winter & Ball 1328 
 
 Canes and sticks, duties, present and 
 
 proposed 1328 
 
 France and Germany, competition with 1328 
 Eibs and stretchers, duty should be in- 
 
 crpased 1327 
 
 importation of 1327 
 
 Umbrella ranos and sticks 1327 
 
 Wages in Europe and America 1327 
 
 Varnishes (see Chemicals). 
 IrVarehousinsr : 
 Statement of— 
 
 Associated Lightermen of New 
 
 York 1386 
 
 Blair, George 1382 
 
 Eeogh, John W 1378, J 383 
 
 Journeymen coopers of New York 1387 
 
 Eobinsbn, J. P 1384 
 
 Smith, William 1386 
 
 Wiues and liiqiiorei; 790 
 Statement of — 
 
 Batjer, H. A. & Co., and others 800 
 
 Fanning, William J 800 
 
 Keller, W.B 799 
 
 Stagg, George T 790 
 
 Wholesale Dealers Association 795 
 
 Wine and Spirit Society 794 
 
 Bonded period, extension of 793 
 
 Bottling establishments in United 
 
 States 799 
 
 Distillers' bond 791 
 
 amount of should be re- 
 duced 793 
 
 Distilled spirits, tax: on, should be re- 
 duced 790 
 
 Fruit juices, specific duty on, recom- 
 mended 800 
 
 Kentucky distilleries, product of 791 
 
 wages paid by. . 790 
 number and value of regis- 
 tered distilleries in 790 
 
 production of distilled 
 
 spirits in 790 
 
 Patent prune wine should be specific- 
 ally enumerated - 800 
 
 Hates of duty recommended 794 
 
 Saccharine beverages, duty on, recom- 
 mended 799 
 
 Special taxes should be repealed 790 
 
 Weisse beer, should be free 799 
 
 Tax f;n spirits, ratio to cost of 796 
 
 'Wire Rods 103 
 
 Statement of— 
 
 New Haven Wire Company 107 
 
 Oliver, George T 103 
 
 Barbed wire fences 103 
 
 fencing, demands for 105 
 
 wire fence, royalty on 106 
 
 Wire fencing, cont per acre 105 
 
 nails, importation of 105 
 
 price of 105 
 
 rod consumers want reduction in 
 
 duty 107 
 
 industry, the ] 04 
 
 what constitutes it 106 
 
 rods, duty suggested on 107 
 
 Wood (see Lumber). 
 
 \rooi I 
 
 statement of — 
 
 Bennett. Frank P 164 
 
 Bi88ell,E.N 185 
 
 Carter, Thos. H 188 
 
 Chapman, Albert 212 
 
 Cull,Andrew 283 
 
 Delano, Columbus 248 
 
 Funck, Jacob 1330 
 
 Gibbs,J.F 183 
 
 Heidelberg, Isaac N 281 
 
 Lawrence, William 215 
 
 Kich,JohnT 282 
 
 Shepard, A.E 194 
 
 Page. 
 Wool — Continued. 
 Statement of — 
 
 Thornton, Wm.H. B 258 
 
 Wallace, G.H 153,210 
 
 Wiconsin wool-growers 2t^4 
 
 American, decrease in production of . . - 257 
 
 Australia, sheep-raising in 185 
 
 Australian clip, diagiam showing in- 
 crease ill - 257 
 
 Blankets, carpet wools used iu manufact- 
 ure of 22U 
 
 Bullock, George, exposition of ring 
 
 waste 278 
 
 Carpet, clothing made from 156 
 
 manufacturers have adequate 
 
 protection 222 
 
 quotations on 207 
 
 under vahiation of 274 
 
 used in manufacture of clothiug 2'.il 
 Carpets, manufacture of in the United 
 
 States 219 
 
 quantity of useil in manufact- 
 uring 155 
 
 Cleveland's, President, message, sug- 
 gestions for wool-growers 272 
 
 Clip of, in the United States 215 
 
 Colorado, cost of raising aheep in 183 
 
 Consumptiou of, in theUuited Stales .. 154 
 
 Cost of wools userl in French svHtem . . 280 
 
 Cultivation of. in Iowa 1330 
 
 Duty on improved quality of sheep 226 
 
 Duties on cari)et wools asked for 239 
 
 petition for removal or reduc- 
 tion. ..- 175 
 
 specific and ad valorem 174 
 
 Fleece, value of 156 
 
 France, protection for wool-growers 
 
 in 283 
 
 Farmer's congress, resohitious adopted 
 
 by 246 
 
 Foreign invoices of. how made out 239 
 
 tiikiug the place of domestic .. 153 
 
 Freight on, from Coldrado 1H3 
 
 Growers, riites of duty desired J 53 
 
 Importaiion of, explained 210 
 
 Machinery, proportion of, in the Quited 
 
 States ' 182 
 
 Manufacturers of, favor free wool 165 
 
 Merino wools, manufacture of 226 
 
 Michigan merino sheep . 282 
 
 Montana efft^ct of reduction of, duty in 189 
 
 cost of shearing in 189 
 
 sheep-raising in 188 
 
 wages of herders in 188 
 
 National growers, meeting of, at Wash- 
 ington, D. C 247 
 
 wool growers, duty recom- 
 mended. ' 2G4 
 
 Necessity for home market 172 
 
 Ohio wool, diagram showing prices of. . 256 
 Growers' Association, reso- 
 
 tions of 244 
 
 growers, demands of 238 
 
 Pliiladelpliia Wool Merchants' AssocJa- 
 
 tion, protest of 277 
 
 Production of, in the world 154 
 
 Quantity of required for carpets 22o 
 
 Ratio between duties on wool and 
 
 woolen goods 164 
 
 Raw, definition of , 155 
 
 Ring and othei' wastes, frauds in 276 
 
 waste, alleged fraud in importa- 
 tion of 264 
 
 used in production of 
 
 woolen goods 278 
 
 Rocky Mountain country, sheep-raising 
 
 in .■ 188 
 
 Russian merino, effect of duty on 167 
 
 Schmidt's tables, exposure of 258 
 
 Scoured and combing, relative prices of 164 
 value of, compared with wool 
 
 in grease 236 
 
 Sheep and Iambs, value of 157 
 
 average price of 189 
 
 expense of, in Colorado. 183 
 
 for mutton, raising of, not profit- 
 able 154 
 
1408 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Page, 
 
 IVool — Continued. 
 
 Shoep in the United States, diagram 
 
 ehowing increase of 257 
 
 increase of. in the West lf>8 
 
 husbant^lry, a pioneer industry. . 172 
 
 number of, in the United States. 354 
 
 Texas, carpet wools in 195 
 
 cost of producing, in 196 
 
 number of sheep in 195 
 
 product of 195 
 
 wool- g row ers, letters from 199 
 
 wool growing in 194 
 
 TJiird claaa, effect of importation on. do- 
 mestic 15G 
 
 importation of 155 
 
 "Value of, comparative tables showing. . 209 
 
 Vermont, fleece, weight of 1 87 
 
 aheep-raiaiug iji 186 
 
 Wool-Growers, Association, 
 
 statement from 212 
 
 AVoolcn Ooods, JTlainufactui-cs of: 
 Statement of: 
 
 Anderson, Lewis 3] 8 
 
 Bk'ukie, Robert 315 
 
 C ull, Andrew 283 
 
 Dobson, James 285 
 
 Folwell, W. H 310 
 
 Hamburger, G. A 326 
 
 Hartley, F 312 
 
 Heidelberg, Isaac N 281 
 
 Kurebeedt, Alexander E 308 
 
 Philadelphia busmess men 313 
 
 Plummer, John F 311 
 
 lieddawny & Co., John F 323 
 
 Sraich, T. C 305 
 
 Steeled Co., Edward T 325 
 
 Whitman, William '2HG 
 
 All-wool dress-goodi^, (luty on 203 
 
 AmoTican and English looms, relative 
 
 capacity of 323 
 
 Bagdad and Persian 285 
 
 Braid Mannfacturera' Association, r;itp.s 
 
 of duly asked by - 308 
 
 Camel hair belting, composition and use 
 
 of .- .... 323 
 
 improperly classi- 
 fied for duty 324 
 
 Capacity of American and foreign looms 
 
 compared 291 
 
 Carpet industry, wool consumed in 285 
 
 wools, free, would alFect other 
 
 wools 294 
 
 ( 'lassification of, by experts 294 
 
 Clothing, ready-made, for men, duties on 28L 
 
 Compensatory duties 302 
 
 Dri-ss-goiids. manufacture of 290 
 
 Duty on foreign costs of woolen, per- 
 
 ci'btago of 325 
 
 Endless belts 293 
 
 Free vpooI and politics 312 
 
 effect of, OD home market 296 
 
 Foreign trade in woolen goods not prac- 
 ticable 296 
 
 High tariff on wool, disastrous effects 
 
 of 326 
 
 Low tariff and high tariff, effects of, con- 
 trasted 329 
 
 'Woolen Gooda, ITIauufafturcs of^Cout'd. 
 
 Maine, annual consumption of wool in - 318 
 Woolen Manufacturers' Club, 
 
 views of 318 
 
 Manufacturers' Club of Philadelphia. 
 
 action of 29<J 
 
 Men's clothing, American, good as Euro- 
 pean 311 
 
 National Association of Wool Manu- 
 facturers, memorial from 286 
 
 New England manufacturers not favor- 
 able to free wool 320 
 
 Ohio, failure of woolen mills in 327 
 
 quantity of wool shorn in 328 
 
 Philadelphia manufacturers, petition of, 
 
 for free materials 314 
 
 Kates of duty suggested on camel-hair 
 
 belting 324 
 
 suggested on yarns, piece- 
 goods, and clothing 288 
 
 Raw material for manufacturers 284 
 
 Wages, comparative, for weavers in 
 
 Europe and America 291 
 
 difference in Europe and 
 
 America 292 
 
 paid in Scotland 322 
 
 Wools and wastes, average percentage 
 
 of cost 261 
 
 Woolen and worsted mills in Rhode 
 
 Island 165 
 
 Wool dress-goods 291 
 
 AVoolen goods, sales of, abroad 295 
 
 manufactures, importation of . . 171 
 Worsted yarns, French system of manu- 
 facturing 278 
 
 tariff on, too low 295 
 
 Tarn, (juantity of wool to make a pound 300 
 W^orksof Alt: 
 Statement of - 
 
 Aucai.gne, Eugene F 623 
 
 Bockwith. J. Carroll 616 
 
 Coffin, William A 617 
 
 Cox, Kenyon 616 
 
 Donaldson, Tliom^as 619 
 
 Field, Miss Kate 1358 
 
 Johnson, Robert Underwood 1341 
 
 American artists abroad, works of, ad- 
 mitted free 617 
 
 Art should be admitted free 13.58 
 
 and statuary, duties collected on . . . 623 
 Bronzes, duty on, should not be re- 
 moved 623 
 
 Duty on, history of 620 
 
 Duty on, efforts to remove, failure of. . . 616 
 
 How it was increased 616 
 
 Reasons for removal of 618 
 
 Engravings on wood should be free 1341 
 
 Foreign art dutiable only when aluxury 619 
 
 tariff on from 1790 to 1890. . 619 
 
 Luxury, are paintings, a 618 
 
 National A_cademy of design, action of. 617 
 Free Art League, desire removal 
 
 of duty on 616 
 
 Owners of pictures, liberality of 618 
 
 Tariff' does not keep out foreign 622 
 
 Water colors, should pay 75 per cent. . . 1347