We hope when this question comes up for consideration you will bear this particular point in mind. All of the oils mentioned in this letter are being used very largely in various manufacturing lines in the United States, and why they should be subject to a duty is entirely beyond the writer's understanding of the principles of the Democratic Party. Yours, very truly, THE HYGIENIC PRODUCTS Co., By C. H. SCHLABACH, Secretary. DUTY ON VARIOUS SOAP MATERIALS. NEW YORK, December 26, 1912. DEAR SIRS: Knowing that you are one of the leading soap manufacturers and large consumers of various vegetable oils and fats as soap stuff, we beg to call your special attention that the Underwood bill, on which hearing is going to be given on January 6 at Washington, D. C., by Ways and Means Committee presiding, provides an import duty running from one-fourth of a cent to one-half of a cent per pound on such raw materials as soya-bean oil, coconut oil, palm oil, palm-kernel oil, etc. Such assessment of duty on raw materials is undoubtedly unreasonable, as it will place the consumers in a very disadvantageous position in buying these materials in the future. We recommend strongly to write or wire to the Representative of your district to oppose such assessment of duty and to leave them "free" as they are now, and by so doing it will protect your interest in buying of these materials, and further to insure the welfare of soap industries in this country. On page 18 of the Oil, Paint, and Drug Reporter, issued on December 23, 1912, the details are given about proposed change of duty on these commodities. Yours, very truly, MITSUI & Co. (LTD.). [Innis, Speiden & Co., importers, commission merchants, chemicals, dyestuffs, aniline colors, essential Messrs. Jos. BIECHELE SOAP CO., Canton, Ohio. oils, etc.] NEW YORK, December 30, 1912. GENTLEMEN: We would call your attention to that part of the chemical schedule in the Underwood bill as passed by the House of Representatives last spring, which provides for the duty of one-half cent on carbonate of potash, and six-tenths cent on caustic potash. These articles have been on the free list in this country on the Republican tariff bills and Democratic tariff bills alike, for nearly 30 years, and there seems to be no valid reason for putting a duty on them other than the desire of the proprietors of a small factory at Niagara Falls who recently began to manufacture caustic potash on a moderate scale, and one of their consumers who is trying to recover moderate quantities of the carbonate. The factory in question is the property almost entirely of a wealthy German owner of one of the large Strassfurt, Germany, potash deposits, and a prominent member now of the German Potash Trust. It would seem inequitable that the hundreds, and even thousands indirectly, of consumers of these materials should be taxed for the chief benefit of the principal owner of this Niagara Falls plant, and inasmuch as we notice that the hearing on the chemical schedule in the committee of House of Representatives will be held on January 6-8, 1913, we suggest that in the mutual interest of all concerned that it would be as well to make some representation or protest against any renewal of the proposition to tax these two articles. If the matter appeals to you, as it no doubt does, we suggest that you write your Congressman or Senator and exert such influence as you can to have this matter decided on its merits and not from the one-sided hearing from the agents of the beneficiary of the tax above mentioned. Yours, truly, INNIS, SPEIDEN & Co. DUTY ON VARIOUS SOAP MATERIALS. NEW YORK, December 27, 1912. DEAR SIRS: With reference to our circular letter of the 26th instant regarding the above subject, we believe that you are quite familiar with coconut oil, palm oil, palm kernel oil, etc., as they have been imported into this country for many years. However, when it comes to soya bean oil, this material being quite a new article, we are afraid that you may not be well posted, and in this connection we herewith beg to attach a little information on this oil, which we hope will be of some value to you. We are, dear sirs, Yours, very truly, MITSUI & Co. (LTD.). SOYA-BEAN OIL. Soya-bean oil is crushed from soya bean, which is a product of north Manchuria, China. This oil was used by soap manufacturers in extensive quantities about three years ago, when cottonseed oil, tallow, grease, and other soap materials were very high. We heard that experimental plantations were made in this country with soya bean in the past, but the result was not successful. There even might be a small quantity of soya bean raised in this country, but such quantity is used for cattle feeding, fertilizer, etc., and is not enough for crushing use to obtain oil; therefore the only way to obtain soya-bean oil is to import from foreign countries. The production of soya bean in north Manchuria averages around 1,000,000 tons, of 2,240 pounds, per year. About 40 per cent of this quantity is now exported to Japan, where it is used for soy making, or feeding purpose, as well as for crushing use to make soya-bean oil. About 20 per cent is consumed by China itself; about another 20 per cent is crushed in northern China, thereby obtaining oil and cake; about 5 per cent will be kept by farmers for sowing use for next season. The balance of about 15 per cent is for export to European crushers. In Europe soya bean is used for crushing purpose to obtain soya-bean oil and soya oil cake. Soya bean has only been introduced to European crushers since 1909. Therefore it is still quite a new product to them. There is no industry in this country for crushing soya bean; therefore the soya-bean oil used by soap manufacturers has to be imported, as above stated, from foreign countries. Below are the statistics of imports into this country: P. S. Under present tariff there is a duty of 45 cents per bushel on soya bean, which is a prohibitive rate. If there is a small number of farmers who are raising soya beans in this country, they are well protected under the above prohibitive duty on soya beans. WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, United States House of Representatives. WASHINGTON, D. C., January 11, 1913. GENTLEMEN: As a practicing mining engineer, in charge of mining operations of lead and zinc properties both in the Cœur d'Alene districts (Idaho) and Mexico, I respectfully request the free entry of zinc ores into the United States for the following reasons: 1. The price of zinc (spelter) has for many years past been practically identical in St. Louis and London; the exact figures are for a period of 10 and 20 years, respectively, including 1911: Pittsburgh is the center of consumption. Freight from the seaboard there and from St. Louis is practically the same, and foreign spelter has to pay carriage and transfer charges from London. It is manifest the price is practically identical, and the abolition of duty would not affect the price save to equalize the market and prevent the extravagant variation in price possible by manipulation and combination of the big smelting companies. A steady market is unquestionably better for manufacturing consumers and in the long run for the mine owners. 2. The duty imposed three years ago has not been a success as a revenue producer. Most of the apparent revenue from duties is actually returned as a drawback. The imported ore coming mostly from Mexico, though equaling in amount that before duty was imposed, is a decreased and decreasing part of the Mexican production. Instead of coming to the United States to be smelted, benefiting American labor and building up new smelting enterprises, the ore is sent abroad save only where location near our border and cheap transportation make American smelting possible. The production of zinc ore in the United States does not suffice for our own needs. In 1912 we imported 10,700 tons of a value of $1,202,000, and yet the price advanced to the highest point known for many years. The free admission of zinc ore can not hurt our industry, which can not supply the demand, or one whose product is priced The imports of ore were the same practically in 1911 and 1912. These figures show that we do not need a protective duty. 3. Wages are the same in the lead and zinc mines of western Canada, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, and Utah, hence the zinc mine owners can not ask protection on that score. Against the oft repeated cry of cheap Mexican labor, I desire to enter an emphatic denial. Labor is not cheap in Mexico, measured by results. At Cananea, where I am personally familiar with conditions, American labor (or European) is higher than within our borders. Native or Mexican labor, paid just exactly half as much as American, is really more costly, since two Mexicans do not do the work of one good, active American. Cross cutting, drifting, and other contract work actually costs more than we are paying in the Coeur d'Alene, and dynamite candles and other supplies are higher. These figures effectively disprove the cheap-labor bugaboo. 4. The present tariff not only has developed the foreign smelting industry at the expense of our own, and has crippled the development of mines in Mexico by American capital, American brains and American labor, but it has worked rank injustice in exacting duty on metal contained in ore sent to American smelters for treatment, when the zinc is not only lost in smelting, but the smelter exacts a penalty as an increased price for smelting such ores. For example, 18,425 tons of lead ore imported in 1912 carried 13 per cent zinc, or 2,431 tons of spelter on which duty was paid, though the zinc was all lost in smelting and the smelter charged a heavy penalty for its presence. This is unjust to the producer and to the smelter, as it tends to drive the ore abroad for treatment instead of coming to American smelters. 5. The present tariff fosters trust control. At present there are about 20 important smelting companies nominally independent. Engineers familiar with the industry have admitted privately that the bulk of the business is as closely controlled in this country as it is by the so-called German syndicate abroad. The biggest zinc mines in this country are owned by the great smelting interests, who, seeing their control threatened, have induced the mining element to plead their cause. 6. Free zinc ore will benefit the miner by bringing new smelters into his district, with reduced treatment charges resulting from competition, and steadier prices resulting from a removal of duty will mean confidence in the future stability in prices and increased development of promising districts in the United States. Very respectfully submitted. WALTER HARVEY WEED, Consulting Engineer Pacific Smelting Co., Calumet Sonora Mining & NEW YORK CITY, December 31, 1912. Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The bronze powder manufacturers of the United States have given the subject of tariff revision thorough consideration, and earnestly protest against a reduction in the rates of duty on bronze powders. About one-half of the bronze powders sold in this country are imported, proving that the present rates of duty are none too high, and if any reduction is made this industry can not be conducted on a profitable basis. If the duty should be determined by an ad valorem instead of a specific rate, further injury would result, owing to the ease with which undervaluations could be accomplished, as was the case during the operation of the Wilson-Gorman tariff law. We do not think a long argument is needed to convince your committee that this industry must have rates of duty at least as high as in the Payne law, and we have decided to place our main reliance on the cost figures which we submit with this statement, compared with the landing value of foreign bronze powders, showing as they do that even under present rates of duty we can make but a small profit and can not secure what we consider a fair share of the American trade. At the time the cost figures we submit were made the market price of copper was 134 cents per pound, while at the present time the same copper costs 184 cents per pound. This increase in the price of copper, coupled with the increase in wages during the past year, makes competition with foreign bronze powders extremely difficult. Material for factory repairs.. Water and light... Oil and waste.. Material used in manufacture: Lard, analine, stearin, acids, oils, petroleum, Total cost of making 100 pounds of bronze powder... Average foreign value per 100 pounds since passage of Payne law. $0.92537 .31597 . 18657 1. 14925 .38552 .35075 . 21642 . 19030 .30783 .67508 1. 86300 1. 00000 .86000 2. 05000 .65800 2.62700 37.80147 28.37 40.37 The above cost figures have been carefully prepared by the signers of this statement, who are bronze powder manufacturers in the United States. SCHEDULE C-MANUFACTURES OF METAL. NEW YORK, January 4, 1913. Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In connection with the proposed revision of the tariff, we respectfully direct your attention to the item of bottle caps as used in connection with the bottling of preserves, drugs, wines, mineral waters, etc. These goods have been subject under various tariffs of recent years to duties as follows: Underwood bill, passed at last session and vetoed by President Taft. Dingley tariff.. Wilson tariff.. Present rate of duty: Uncolored caps.. Colored or decorated caps.. Per cent. 30 45 35 145 55 The manufacturing of these goods in the United States is practically altogether in the hands of two concerns, both of large means, one of whom was, until the dissolution of the American Tobacco Co, became effective, a subsidiary of the last-mentioned concern. Manufacturing of bottle caps in this country is practicable only when carried on in connection with the manufacture of tin and lead foils, which are made on a large scale by the two concerns referred to. One of these, the Conley Foil Co., formerly a subsidiary of the Tobacco Trust, is a corporation of whose business there is more or less public knowledge, and the dividends paid by them are an indication of the extraordinary profits which the manufacturers of bottle caps in this country obtain from their business. We have every reason to believe that these manufacturers regulate their selling prices by the cost of the imported goods plus duty and expenses rather than on the basis of the cost of production, and for a large part of the business competition of imported goods is made impossible. We are in position to state that these manufacturers are securing as large a volume of business as they can possibly take care of, as orders placed with them are subjected to extraordinary delay, and in consequence such rate of duty as is paid on bottle caps at the present time would seem to be an unnecessary tax upon the consumer. 1 Ad valorem plus cent per pound specific duty. |