Imagini ale paginilor


Oil used for edible purposes. Imports during 1912, 6,878,237 pounds. Peanuts are grown in some of the Southern States, but are almost entirely exported to France or used here for roasting or eating. These are of a superior quality to the African nuts, and are in consequence used for edible purposes and command a premium and are not crushed. The African peanuts, on the other hand, are used entirely for crushing purposes and do not therefore compete with the American peanuts. The American nut is grown in quantities insufficient even to supply the demand for a roasting peanut. We will suggest that the words "for crushing purposes only" be inserted in the new schedule as applying to peanuts.

Candle nut, present duty, free (suggested duty, free); candle-nut oil, present duty n. s. p. f. (suggested duty, 2 cents per pound): Not grown in the United States. Used for burning and soap purposes.


Free list.-Shea nuts, soya beans, mowra seeds, niger seeds, sesame seeds, palm kernels, groundnuts or peanuts for crushing purposes only, candle nuts.

Duty 2 cents per pound.-Shea-nut oil, soya-bean oil, mowra oil, niger oil, sesame oil, palm-kernel oil, peanut or ground-nut oil, candle-nut oil.

In conclusion, may we express the hope that our requests will be granted and the chemical schedule changed according to our suggestions. Should this be done, we are sure that great benefit will result to both the American manufacturer and the American consumer.

Very respectfully, yours,




Chairman Ways and Means Committee,

ST. LOUIS, MO., January 13, 1913.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

SIR: It has been called to our attention that under the proposed new tariff law that peanut oil, such as is now imported into this country, will be subjected to a heavy duty.

We believe that if you and the other Members of Congress fully understood the conditions under which this oil is bought and used, you would understand that this duty would help no one, and would eventually be a tax upon the cost of living.

The oil that is now brought into this country is pressed from peanuts raised in Africa. These peanuts are not anything like our commercial peanuts, and there is no nut grown in this country that will produce the same oil that is now being imported.

Neither is there any oil in this country that can be substituted for this peanut oil for the use in butter substitutes. In fact, the blending of this oil with cottonseed oil allows us to use more of the cottonseed oil than would be used should peanut oй be barred from use.

As probably 98 per cent of the peanut oil now introduced into this country is used in the manufacture of oleomargarine, which is a substitute for butter and is used by the people of moderate means, it can be seen that to tax this article would be to tax the food cost to these people because the manufacturer would be compelled to raise his prices in keeping with the cost of raw material.

This product is now heavily taxed and is in no way able to carry any additional


All the above is very respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Very truly,


D. A. BLANTON, President.


Oleo stearin.


Orange and lemon peel, not preserved, candied, or dried.


Orchil, or orchil liquid.



Ores of gold, silver, or nickel, and nickel matte; sweepings of gold and silver.


Paper stock, crude, of every description, including all grasses, fibers, rags (other than wool), waste, including jute waste, shavings, clippings, old paper, rope ends, waste rope, and waste bagging, and all other waste not specially provided for in this section, including old gunny cloth and old gunny bags, used chiefly for paper making.



[blocks in formation]

GENTLEMEN: Directly representing the Associated Dealers in Paper Mill Supplies of New York, and indirectly representing the interest of a large number of paper manufacturers of the United States, we present for your favorable consideration the revision of a section of the existing tariff act, which, owing to its faulty wording has been a source of much unsatisfactory litigation and expense to the Government as well as manufacturer and importer.

We make no appeal for special privileges to be derived by raising or lowering duties, but respectfully and strongly urge that the new section or sections not only be made clear and unequivocal, but that in the wording of same due regard be paid to the character of the commodities affected, with a view to avoid demanding gradings and distinctions, which the character of the merchandise itself-a waste material-makes impossible or at least most uncertain.

We desire to call the attention of your honorable body to the ambiguity of section No. 644 of the tariff act of 1909.

This section reads as follows:

"Paper stock, crude, of every description, including all grasses, fibers, rags (other than wool), waste, including jute waste, shavings, clippings, old paper, rope ends, waste rope, and waste bagging, and all other wastes not specially provided for in this section, including old gunny cloth and old gunny bags, used chiefly for paper making.' One of the judges of the United States Board of Appraisers has stated that, with the exception of "rotten fruit," the section referring to paper stock has caused more trouble and unsatisfactory litigation than any other section in the act.

It will be noted that the last clause of this section, descriptive of the commodities in question, reads “used chiefly for paper making.'

[ocr errors]

Paper stock is a raw material and consists of so many grades of papers, rags, fibers, wastes, etc., that it includes among its various grades some articles which are used for

other purposes than paper manufacture, and when such is the case there is very apt to be litigation between the Government and the importer in order to determine its "chief" use, as specified in the section.

If it can be proven that the material in question is used "chiefly for paper making" the article is passed free, otherwise it is usually assessed as dutiable at 10 per cent as "waste not specially provided for."

In the acts prior to the present tariff act, the last clause of the section read: "Suitable only to be converted into paper." Inasmuch as many articles commonly used in the manufacture of paper can, to a limited degree and under special conditions be used for other purposes than paper making, the litigation was continuous and unsatisfactory.

It was hoped that the new phraseology "used chiefly for paper making" would obviate most of the trouble, but experience has shown that it has failed to do so, and it frequently happens that an imaginative appraiser thinks of some use to which the commodity might be applied other than paper making and assesses the material at 10 per cent as "waste not specially provided for," causing trouble and expense to both the Government and the importer in their endeavor to substantiate or disprove the contention of the appraiser.

The principal articles which have caused the trouble have been various grades of flax, jute, and hemp waste and old gunny bagging and old gunny cloth.


There are certain grades of waste composed of flax, jute, and hemp which, while suitable for paper making, may also be used for spinning or for other purposes.

There is always trouble when this character of material is imported, and the evidence bearing on its "chief use" is frequently unconvincing and unsatisfactory to all concerned.

Whether the material is used for paper stock, spinning, or for other purposes, it is invariably a raw material and must be remanufactured in this country in order to be made fit for the ultimate purposes for which it is imported.

Under these conditions we contend that the material should be free and that the section of the tariff act coverering these articles should be so worded that there may be no doubt to either the Government or importer whether merchandise in question is to be allowed free entry.

Practically the same arguments apply on old gunny cloth and old gunny bagging. This material has been the subject of continuous litigation between the Government and importer for a great many years, and in spite of numerous Treasury decisions on the subject, no relief has been found.

It has been decided that old gunny bagging composed wholly of small pieces— called scrap gunny-be allowed free entry as rags, but that bales containing all large pieces, or large and small pieces mixed, shall be dutiable at 10 per.cent as “waste not specially provided for.'

While it occasionally occurs that some selected large pieces are packed separately and imported into this country, a large amount of the material, being essentially a waste product, is packed without regard to the size of the pieces contained therein, just as cotton rags or other waste fabrics are packed, and the result is that practically every shipment is passed upon, according to the particular bale delivered to the public stores for examination.

The Government has gone so far as to have photographs made of various sheets of gunny, to serve as a guide in determining what is and is not dutiable. If the sheet is a certain size and has only a certain number of rents or holes in it, it is dutiable at 10 per cent. The same size pieces with a few more or larger rents or holes is free, while a smaller piece with fewer rents or holes is dutiable.

This system, while evidently inaugurated in good faith, is absolutely unsatisfactory, and the importer never knows whether he has to pay duty on a shipment or not until after arrival and examination of the goods by the customs authorities.

A single invoice part of which has been short shipped will occasionally arrive on two steamers, one shipment being assessed at 10 per cent, and the other shipment passed free, and yet the merchandise was supposed to consist of but one grade.

Under the tariff section as it now reads there is absolutely no way of determining what action the Government will take relative to any importation of old waste gunny bagging. The Government is powerless to remedy this condition unless the wording of the paragraph relating to the commodity is changed.

We contend that old waste gunny bagging, whether in large pieces or small pieces, should be free, and our contention is based

First. Upon the fact that old gunny bagging is not only a waste material, but is also a raw material for our American manufacturers, whether for paper making, spinning, or other purposes. Gunny bagging is made principally from jute, and both jute and jute butts are free under section No. 578 of the present tariff act, and there is no logical reason why a waste material composed of these fibers should be dutiable.

Second. That old gunny bagging originally comes from bales of American cotton, which have been exported and the bagging returned to this country as waste. The bagging, therefore, has either been manufactured in this country, or if made abroad, has paid duty as new bagging when it was originally imported for covering bales of American cotton.

We therefore urge that in place of the present section No. 644 above quoted, there be three sections to cover the commodities involved, and we respectfully suggest the following:

First. Paper stock, crude, of every description, including all grasses, fibers, rags (other than wool), waste, including jute waste, flax waste, hemp waste, shavings, clippings, old paper, rope ends, waste rope, and waste bagging and all other waste not specially provided for in this section, suitable for paper making, free.

Second. Jute waste, hemp waste, flax waste of whatever grade, free.

Third. Old gunny bagging, or old gunny cloth, whether in large or small pieces, free. In the past, although the Government has collected various amounts in duties on the commodities covered by the above sections 2 and 3, we doubt whether there has been any real net revenue to the Government, as we believe the cost of litigation has more than offset the duties collected.


We believe that if any raw material is entitled to free entry, all the above-mentioned commodities should unquestionably be on a free list. If, however, the need of revenue makes it imperative that duty be charged on old gunny bagging or jute, hemp, or flax waste, then we urgently ask that the duty be made specific and not ad valorem.

If specific, no question can arise as to the amount of duty involved; whereas, if ad valorem, fluctuations in price involve penalties, litigation, and unnecessary expense and annoyance to both the Government and the importer in determining the proper duty to be assessed.

We would further ask that, whether you decide that old gunny bagging be free or dutiable, the same ruling be made to apply on all old gunny bagging, whether same be composed of large pieces, small pieces, or a mixture of both, as it is impossible to attempt to specify gradings of this material without opening the way to continuous and expensive litigation.

We believe that the judges of the United States Board of Appraisers will corroboratə our statement that section number 644 of the tariff act of 1909 is ambiguous and unsatisfactory and the cause of an unusual amount of litigation, and that it should be replaced by a section or sections that will state clearly and without ambiguity what articles are and are not dutiable.

Respectfully submitted.





Members of association.-Atterbury Bros. (Inc.); Ira L. Bebee & Co.; Box Board & Lining Co.; Darmstadt, Scott & Courtney; Michael Flynn; P. Garvan (Inc.); E. Cross & Co.; Daniel M. Hicks; John H. Lynon & Co.; Geo. W. Millar & Co.; Michael McGuire; J. B. Price; Perkins, Goodwin Co.; Adolph Salomon; Salomon Bros. & Co.; M. Shea Paper Stock Co.; Wilkinsons Bros. & Co.; J. Andersen & Co.; Edwin Butterworth & Co.; Chase & Norton; Castle, Gottheil & Overton; Gatti McQuade Co.; Richard Godfrey; Wm. Hughes & Co. (Inc.); George Carrizzo & Co.; Main Paper Stock Co.; Marks Maier; Maurice O'Meara & Co; M. Pascarella; Thos. Smith & Son; Felix Salomon & Co.; L. B. Shoenfeld & Co.; Troiano & Defina; Parsons Trading Co. PARAGRAPH 645.



Parchment and vellum.


Pearl, mother of, and shells, not sawed, cut, polished, or otherwise manufactured, or advanced in value from the natural state.


Personal effects, not merchandise, of citizens of the United States dying in foreign countries.


Pewter and britannia metal, old, and fit only to be remanufactured.



Philosophical and scientific apparatus, utensils, instruments, and preparations, including bottles and boxes containing the same, specially imported in good faith for the use and by order of any society or institution incorporated or established solely for religious, philosophical, educational, scientific, or literary purposes, or for the encouragement of the fine arts, or for the use and by order of any college, academy, school, or seminary of learning in the United States, or any State or public library, and not for sale, subject to such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe.

For surgical instruments, see also Schedule C., p. 2138.



The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.

Mr. CORBIN. We wish to protest against the duty-free entry of surgical instruments, apparatus, etc., by hospitals, for the following


First. There are employed in our factory more than 200 American instrument makers, the majority of whom receive from $18 to $28.50 a week.

Second. We are one of over 200 surgical instrument makers, these various makers employing at actual manufacturing from four men upward.

Third. We wish further to protest against the brief of George F. Clover, superintendent of St. Luke's Hospital, New York, because of its unfairness, who claims that high-grade surgical instruments can not be manufactured in this country. This is a misrepresentation of the facts, because it is a well-known fact that instruments of the very best quality are made in the United States and used by our most skilled surgeons.

Mr. HAMMOND. Exported from the United States?

Mr. CORBIN. No; they are manufactured in the United States.

Fourth. The Department of Commerce and Labor some months ago refused to issue certificates of accuracy on foreign-manufactured fever thermometers, because the variations were too great for actual use.

Now, I may add that we are particularly at a disadvantage in the manufacture of surgical instruments in this country, because the doctor is an ethical gentleman and does not believe in patenting his ideas. A man in St. Louis comes to us, or to a firm such as I represent, and asks us about getting out a cystoscope, an instrument scientific enough to tap a man's kidneys without cutting him open. Such instruments have been designed and have been worked out by American surgical instrument manufacturers. Our doctor is also unpractical, because we can not charge him for patron work, so we make this instrument at practically a loss. We create a market for it, and after we have created a market and it becomes universally used, and written about in the medical journals, the German importer takes our instrument which we have no patent on-the doctor will not patent-takes it over to Germany, and in about 90 days we have the instrument on the American market at about 25 per cent less than we can make it and make a profit. The firm I represented

« ÎnapoiContinuă »