Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER HEILBRONER, REPRESENTING ASSOCIATED FUR MANUFACTURERS, NEW YORK CITY.

The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.

Mr. HEILBRONER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I appear in reference to paragraph 439, the fur schedule. I represent the Associated Fur Manufacturers of New York City, an incorporated organization of 100 manufacturers, which has been in existence for a number of years.

I wish to say that the present rate of duty as existing under the Payne Act of 1909 is entirely satisfactory to our manufacturers, with the exception that we would like to have eliminated, as has been previously stated before this committee, the three words in the second line, "but not repaired," to make plain the intent of the law. The CHAIRMAN. I think we understand about that, about what you want, but we will have to look into it before we can reach a decision.

Mr. HEILBRONER. I would like to present for your consideration three exhibits showing the exact relations. This Exhibit A [indicating] represents what we call an absolutely perfect skin, perfect in so far as there are no defects and have been no defects in that skin.

This Exhibit B [indicating] represents a similar skin that had a defect which has been repaired, as you will see.

Those [indicating] are musk-hair skins that have been dyed in imitation of seal.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the law as first interpreted by the customs authorities, this skin [indicating] went into the 35 per cent class? Mr. HEILBRONER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And that skin [indicating] was 20 per cent?
Mr. HEILBRONER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the present interpretation of the Board of General Appraisers they put this back [indicating] in the same class with the others?

Mr. HEILBRONER. Yes, sir. Those defects are caused either by a knife cut at the time the trapper removes the skin, or possibly in the process of dressing. A careless slip of the dresser may cause the cut, and in order to undo some of that damage that he causes he repairs or sews up that cut before it gets to the final process of drying. It adds but little if anything to the value of the skin; it simply makes it a more merchantable piece.

Mr. FORDNEY. If these three words are eliminated will it not again bring back the possibility of getting goods that should go into this 35 per cent class back into the 20 per cent class, as it did under the Dingley law?

Mr. HEILBRONER. Absolutely not. You have provided for that by stating, "When not further advanced than dressing or dyeing." When any further work is done to the skin than dressing and dyeing it puts it into the 35 per cent class.

Mr. FORDNEY. That phraseology has also been added which was not in the Dingley law?

Mr. HEILBRONER. Yes, sir; the 35 per cent clause applies to articles composed of more than one skin that has been either temporarily or permanently sewn together in the shape of strips or plates or mats. For instance, this Exhibit C is what we call a strip. It

is composed of 10 skins that have been sewn together. That is what is considered as dutiable at 35 per cent.

Mr. FORDNEY. Under the old law this came in at 20 per cent?
Mr. HEILBRONER. Under the Dingley law; yes, sir.

Mr. FORDNEY. To avoid that very thing those three words were added to the Payne tariff law.

Mr. HEILBRONER. By adding those three words you have put that skin in the same class at 35 per cent.

Mr. FORDNEY. And by the ruling of the Board of Appraisers that has been brought back into the 20 per cent class now?

Mr. HEILBRONER. Yes, sir.

Mr. FORDNEY. The only thing you are afraid cf is that you may be put back into the 35 per cent class again?

Mr. HEILBRONER. Yes. They may tamper with the ruling again. It was an expensive process for the manufacturers and importers of the country to hold up the industry for practically eight months until we could get a ruling on it, because until we knew the cost of our raw material we were not in a position to quote prices.

Mr. FORDNEY. I agree with you that it ought to be done if it is 'possible to do it, so as not to permit these other goods to come in at that lower rate.

Mr. HEILBRONER. We believe it perfectly proper that an article of this kind, composed of more than one skin, should pay a higher rate of duty than an article of the kind which is still a skin, even though it has been repaired. We would like to have the phraseology of the intended law changed, so that there will be no question about it.

The CHAIRMAN. You contend that if we strike out from the paragraph these three words that this larger piece of 10 skins, sewed together, will pay 35 per cent?

Mr. HEILBRONER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It will pay it even if we knock out those three words?

Mr. HEILBRONER. Yes, sir; without the addition of any language whatever.

Mr. FORDNEY. Under the added language in the Payne law which is not in the Dingley and which is not included in those three words. Mr. HILL. If those two skins, which are matched in color and fur and everything of the kind, are basted together, it would come in at 20 per cent.

Mr. HEILBRONER. No, sir.

Mr. HILL. Why? It does not make a strip of anything; simply two skins matched up.

Mr. HEILBRONER. But they are further advanced than dressing and dying.

Mr. HILL. That is just exactly what I think.

Mr. HEILBRONER. Consequently it would come in at 35 per cent under the present law.

Mr. HILL. Just specify single skins.

Mr. HEILBRONER. It would be entirely satisfactory to the industry of the country if the committee will make it plain, either way, as they see fit. But we protest against the paying of an additional duty of 15 per cent when an article has simply been sewed up to preserve it from further damage, and is not further advanced than dressing and dyeing.

Mr. HILL. You would not object to having it in a single skin.

Mr. HEILBRONER. Absolutely not.

for your further information.

I would like to file this brief

The CHAIRMAN. File it with the clerk.

The brief of Mr. Heilbroner, referred to, is as follows:

The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

Washington, D. C.

NEW YORK CITY, January 28, 1913.

GENTLEMEN: The bearer, Mr. Alex. Heilbroner, has been duly appointed by the Associated Fur Manufacturers (Inc.), to represent the members of this association at the hearings upon the tariff now being held by your committee.

Respectfully,

[SEAL.]

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: The Associated Fur Manufacturers, an incorporated body of the State of New York, begs to present through its representative, Mr. Alexander Heilbroner, the following petition for your consideration:

Schedule N, paragraph 439, should be revised in the following manner. The three words, "but not repaired," which appear in the second line should be omitted for the following reasons:

Nearly every animal is killed by some instrument which makes one or more holes in the skin; the process of dressing and dyeing also causes some defects; these holes and defects are repaired; the cost of repairing is next to nothing and is included in the cost of dressing and dyeing. It is done to prevent further damage and to give the skin a merchantable appearance, but adds nothing to its value.

While it was evidently the original intention of the makers of the act of 1909 that furs dressed on the skin, but not advanced further than dyeing, should be dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem, the three words "but not repaired" have given an ambiguous meaning to the intent of the makers, which required a decision of the Board of the United States General Appraisers to define its classification.

This decision of the Board of General Appraisers was obtained after a lengthy period of uncertainty in the trade and involved very large expenses to the manufacturers throughout the country, and when obtained was of the unanimous opinion that the three words so inserted were not intended to advance the duties on furs and skins that had not been advanced further than dressing or dyeing.

In order that your petitioners and the manufacturers throughout the country may not again be placed in a position requiring a decision of the board of appraisers to state the intent of the makers of the law, it is most respectfully requested that the three words be omitted, thereby leaving an incontestable construction to the paragraph as it exists.

Respectfully submitted.

THE ASSOCIATED FUR MANUFACTURERS.

The CHAIRMAN. The following gentlemen, M. A. Snider, E. A. Sterling, Hermann Von Schranck, and Earl Stimson, I understand, have filed briefs and do not care to appear.

The next witness is C. H. Putnam.

STATEMENT OF C. H. PUTNAM, ESQ., REPRESENTING NEWELLPUTNAM MANUFACTURING CO., SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.

Mr. PUTNAM. I represent the Newell-Putnam Manufacturing Co., and speak in reference to cloth-covered buttons, Schedule N, paragraphs 426 and 427, which is unprovided for in paragraph 427 at 50 per cent ad valorem.

Prior to the Payne tariff bill the duty on these materials was 10 per cent ad valorem, in paragraph 426. It has been at this same rate from March 3, 1863. In the tariff act of March 2, August 5, and December 24, 1861, they were admitted free. In the act of March 3, 1857, they paid 4 per cent, and in the act of July 30, 1846, 5 per cent. In the existing tariff, the Payne bill, the rate of duty is 10 per cent ad valorem, in paragraph 426, but a clause was added "not exceeding 3 inches in any one dimension."

This has been a great detriment to the manufacturers of covered buttons in this country, as it has barred them from getting many materials which it would be unprofitable to import in such small

sizes.

I will explain that. The sizes used are coat, vest, and overcoat. The 3-inch in any one dimension is an overcoat size, 36 line. The other sizes which are very much used go into paragraph 383, page 49, of the present act. That is 50 cents a pound and 60 per cent ad valorem, which is prohibitive.

Mr. HAMMOND. Those are very large buttons?

Mr. PUTNAM. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. By putting in that language it made those buttons prohibitive?

Mr. PUTNAM. It made them prohibitive.

Mr. HULL. When did you say that language was put into the Payne law?

Mr. PUTNAM. In 1909.

Mr. FORDNEY. Does that affect the material you use, do I understand you to say?

Mr. PUTNAM. Yes, sir. If that should be eliminated-the "not exceeding 3 inches in any one dimension," as stated in paragraph 426, it would be very beneficial to the manufacturers of this country, as it would enable them to use a great many more materials, and therefore add to the revenue of the Government.

Mr. HILL. What material does it prevent you from using now? Mr. PUTNAM. All classes of cloth material-soft material, silks, velvets.

Mr. HILL. Since that time has the size of the buttons grown?
Mr. PUTNAM. Very much so.

Mr. HILL. Then it was not prohibitive at the time it was put in?
Mr. PUTNAM. Not at all. The style has changed.

Mr. HILL. It is because of change of fashions?

Mr. PUTNAM. Yes; it is because of change of fashions.

Mr. HILL. As a matter of fact was it not true that under the other clause, as the Dingley law was at the time, there was a good deal of fraud, was there not, and a good many pieces of cloth brought in presumably as button forms for the purpose of making buttons that were not used for that purpose, but for other purposes?

Mr. PUTNAM. Not many.

Mr. HILL. There were some, were there not?

Mr. PUTNAM. There were some few; yes.

Mr. HILL. And it became necessary in view of the fact it was only a 10 per cent duty

Mr. PUTNAM. Yes; it went into trimmings.

Mr. HILL (continuing). To clearly and specifically define that it should not be used for anything else.

Mr. PUTNAM. Yes.

Mr. HILL. Then there was justification for making that change? Mr. PUTNAM. That was the highest price that was paid for that material since, as I have stated, 1863.

Mr. HILL. It was only a 10 per cent duty?

Mr. PUTNAM. Yes.

Mr. HILL. And it was simply because it was almost in the shape of a waist, and it was made so small it could not be used for any other purpose than buttons, and for that reason the 75 or 80 per cent duty was cut down to accommodate the convenience of the button makers? Mr. PUTNAM. Yes.

Mr. HILL. Your statement is that fashion has dictated a very much larger button?

Mr. PUTNAM. Yes.

Mr. HILL. And you want that restriction in the matter of dimension taken off so you can use any size prepared which is used for buttons? Mr. PUTNAM. Yes, sir. We ask to have eliminated that expression "three inches in any one dimension."

Mr. HILL. Of course the reason is this, that it would have to be very carefully drawn to prevent the same trouble there was before. Mr. HULL. What would you substitute?

Mr. PUTNAM. I think if they were cut to the sizes for what the buttons are used

Mr. FORDNEY. What size is necessary now?

Mr. PUTNAM. It goes up to 70 and 80 lines-there are several sizes. Now it is just a little bit of a button, about the size of a quarter. The limit in size now is three inches in any one dimension.

Mr. FORDNEY. How many inches would you suggest now?

Mr. PUTNAM. Eight inches.

Mr. FORDNEY. Could it be used for anything else except button material then?

Mr. PUTNAM. Absolutely none.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not mean to say it would require eight inches. There is no button big enough to require eight inches of cloth to cover one button.

Mr. PUTNAM. Oh, yes, there is, Mr. Chairman. Take the ladies' big fur coats.

Mr. HILL. Would not they make caps out of a piece of that size? Mr. PUTNAM. Not very well.

Mr. HILL. Cut them diagonally and match them up?

Mr. PUTNAM. No, it is pretty hard.

Mr. HILL. They did do it.

Mr. PUTNAM. I do not see how they could, because they are made on a Jacquard loom. A Jacquard loom is fancy effects; the edges fray. They have just got to be made in form for button purposes exclusively.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »