Mr. UNDERWOOD,

PARAGRAPH 695-TIN ORE

TIN ORE.

Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C.

NEW YORK, December 30, 1912.

DEAR SIR: Referring to our letter of December 12, as regards the paragraph 695, tin ore, black oxide of tin, tin in bars, blocks, pigs, grain, or granulated, be changed so as to read "tin ore, black oxide of tin, tin in bars, blocks, pigs, grain, powder, and granulated," which is on the free list. We point out to you that this tin powder is no alloy nor a mixture, like tin bronze, and this pure tin powder can not be obtained in the United States, and it is imperative to have this article for manufacturing wrapping papers for food material, as only for this powder 99 per cent pure tin can be guaranteed. If you will kindly make this amendment when this paragraph is taken up, we shall feel very much obliged to you.

Thanking you in advance for giving this your prompt attention, we remain,

Yours, truly,

PARAGRAPH 696.

Tobacco stems.

PARAGRAPH 697.

Tonquin, tonqua, or tonka beans.

PARAGRAPH 698.

Turmeric.

PARAGRAPH 699.

Turpentine, Venice.

PARAGRAPH 700.

Turpentine, spirits of.

PARAGRAPH 701.

Turtles.

PARAGRAPH 702.

Types, old, and fit only to be remanufactured.

PARAGRAPH 703.

Uranium, oxide and salts of.

PARAGRAPH 704.

Vaccine virus.

PARAGRAPH 705.

Valonia.

PARAGRAPH 706.

Verdigris, or subacetate of copper.

PARAGRAPH 707.

Wax, vegetable or mineral.

PARAGRAPH 708.

Wafers, unleavened, or not edible.

PARAGRAPH 709.

KUPFER BROS. Co.

Wearing apparel, articles of personal adornment, toilet articles, and similar personal effects of persons arriving in the United States; but this exemption shall only include such articles as actually accompany and are in the use of, and as are necessary and appropriate for the wear and use of such persons, for the immediate purposes of the journey and present comfort and convenience, and shall not be held to apply to merchandise or articles intended for other persons or for sale: Provided, That in case of residents of the United States returning from abroad, all wearing apparel and other personal effects taken by them out of the United States to foreign countries shall be admitted free of duty, without regard to their value, upon their identity being established, under appropriate rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, but no more than one hundred dollars in value of articles purchased abroad by such residents of the United States shall be admitted free of duty upon their return.

See also William J. Gibson, page 6203.

PARAGRAPH 709-PERSONAL EFFECTS, ETC.

PERSONAL EFFECTS, ETC.

BRIEF OF IMPORTERS, PARAGRAPH 709, FREE LIST.

The WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE HOUSE OF RepresentativES,

Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: We particularly desire to call your attention to an existing injustice which demands correction.

Under the present tariff act all articles imported from any foreign country into the United States are called upon to pay duty, fixed under the various sections and paragraphs of the act, excepting such articles as are particularly designated in the free list. Paragraph 709 of the free list permits residents of the United States returning from abroad to bring in free of duty all wearing apparel and other personal effects taken out by them, without regard to value; and a decision of the Treasury Department of August 10, 1910, held that any such articles of wearing apparel or other personal effects so taken abroad, even if of foreign origin and repaired while abroad, should only be held liable for duty to the amount and value of the repairs.

In the case of all other articles of foreign origin, however, even though it be proven that they have paid full duty upon originally entering the country, if sent abroad for repairs, duty is charged upon their return upon the full original cost of the article.

In other words, an American citizen owning a Swiss watch valued at $500 might take the same abroad, have $20 worth of repairs done upon it, and on his return he would be called upon to pay duty only on $20, while had he sent the watch abroad and the same repairs were made upon it, on its return he would be charged duty upon $500.

The same is true as to fine mechanism made abroad. The best microscopes, polariscopes, and other mechanisms costing from $50 to $1,000, having been imported and duty paid thereon, if any accident necessitates their being sent abroad for repairs, they become liable to duty upon the full value on their return.

This is not only a great burden to the importer, or to the owner of the mechanism, but it is most inequitable and unjust, as well as exceedingly costly to the final purchaser. Fine precision instruments, most of which are made abroad, are expensive and so delicate as to be easily put out of repair, in which case they must be sent back to the workshops where they originated, as many of them are not as yet understood by the mechanics of this country and some are manufactured by secret processes. To attempt to repair in this country would be to ruin an expensive instrument; and yet even though the instrument has been in use 10 years, if sent abroad for the slightest repair, it is subject to duty upon its full original value on its return.

In many cases we have been forced to pay duty of $50 and upwards upon mechanisms which we had had to send abroad for repairs that cost from 50 cents to $2 only.

No question of foreign labor is involved, no question of competing with home production; merely the single question of a gross injustice which under the present law and regulations is enforced against us and our customers.

We therefore pray that the following be added to paragraph 709:

"Any article of foreign manufacture which has paid duty upon its original entry and is sent abroad for repairs, shall be entitled to reentry free, if the cost of the repairs be less than 10 per centum of the original entered value of the article; and if the cost of the repairs be more than 10 per centum of the original entered value, then it shall pay duty upon the full cost of the repairs at 60 per cent, under such rules and regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe." All of which is respectfully submitted.

FRANCIS E. HAMILTON,

Counsel, 32 Broadway, New York.

EIMER & AMEND, Importers Chemical Apparatus, New York.

PERSONAL EFFECTS OF PERSONS TRAVELING ABROAD.

NEW YORK, February 5, 1913.

Hon. OSCAR UNDERWOOD,

Chairman Ways and Means Committee,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: I have been watching the papers during all of your hearings on the proposed new tariff bill and have seen no mention of any help to be extended to American tourists returning from Europe.

PARAGRAPH 709-PERSONAL EFFECTS, ETC.

I and a great many others are of the opinion that the $100 exemption is a bit unfair and we feel that we should be entitled to at least $250 and possibly $300 exemption. If you would desire that I have a petition drawn up and signed by a great many people with whom I have talked this over, I will gladly do so, if you think it will be of any avail, but if you think that you would consider this matter without a petition I would feel greatly obliged to you to take it up. If you have ever traveled in Europe and have crossed the borders of Germany, France, Austria, etc., all of which countries have a tariff, you will have noticed with what courtesy and leniency all tourists, of whatever nationality, are treated. Why should we Americans returning to our own country be looked upon as perjurers, sneak thieves, and smugglers and be treated by the customs inspectors on the dock as if we were the above named. There is no question in my mind that if the Government was more liberal in its exemption agreement and in the handling of tourists it would pay in the end.

I trust that this communication will reach your eye and not go by the route of the paper basket.

Respectfully, yours,

JOSEPH LOEWI.

NEW YORK, February 10, 1913.

DEAR SIR: I have your favor of February 7, in answer to mine about the baggage exemption.

I notice by the leaflet you sent that you have eased up a trifle on the conditions, but seeing that the Democratic Party stands for a reduction in tariff, I think it only fair that the matter of raising the exemption from $100 to a larger sum should be taken up.

It seems to be a well-known fact in New York, or at least that is the popular idea on the subject, that the department stores have been moving heaven and earth to have the exemption tax kept at $100.

Won't you, therefore, while you are considering reductions in almost every branch of the tariff schedules, consic er this matter of raising the $100 exemption to somewhere in the neighborhood of $250 or $300? It would prove a very popular move and the amount certainly would not take away very much of Uncle Sam's revenue.

Trusting you will give the matter your consideration and thanking you for the courtesy of your reply to-day,

I am, yours, respectfully,

J. LOEWI.

NEW YORK, February 13, 1913.

DEAR SIR: I desire to enter my protest against the adoption of House bill 25883 of the Sixty-second Congress, introduced by Mr. Levy, of New York, or any measure incorporating the provisions of such bill, which provides for an increase from $100 to $300 in the exemption from the payment of duty on personal effects purchased abroad by returning tourists and brought in by them as baggage. My reasons therefor are based upon my experience as United States appraiser of the district of New York and my observation extending over a period of 22 years. Some reasons are the following:

First. The measure would deprive the Government of the greater portion of the revenue now derived from passengers' baggage. At the port of New York alone there have been collected from such sources during the past four fiscal years the following

Returns for the year June 30, 1910, illustrate the efficiency of the administration of Collector Loeb in enforcing the baggage laws of 1897 and 1909, which were identical.

PARAGRAPH 709-PERSONAL EFFECTS, ETC.

The greater portion of this sum was collected on personal effects of less than $300 value per passenger. Should the amount admitted free of duty be increased from $100 to $300, the revenues derived from the duty on personal effects would be almost entirely wiped out.

Second. The Levy bill provides for an additional exemption of $250 in value for the personal effects of American residents who have been "sojourning abroad for a period of nine months or more." This would cause a still further reduction of the revenues and would constitute a discrimination between passengers who are able to remain abroad only two or three months and those who are able to remain abroad for longer periods. This provision does not apply to those who have resided abroad for so long as to be treated as "foreign residents," but applies to those who travel about from place to place. The former are amply provided for under the existing law and the latter are amply able to bear their share of the assessed duties.

Third. The measure places the very wealthy upon a par with the poorest travelers. It is virtually a discrimination against the poor in favor of the rich. It is a greater, in fact a most outrageous discrimination against those who remain at home because they are not able to travel abroad. It is "class legislation" in its most offensive form. Fourth. From an administrative point of view, it opens the door to frauds more extensive than any that have ever been practiced by tourists. It has always been difficult to appraise the personal effects of passengers for a number of reasons.

A. There are few facilities on any dock in the country for the examination and appraisal of passengers' baggage.

B. Passengers are not required to produce certified invoices of their purchases and, consequently, there is difficulty in fixing values. Generally the inspectors and examiners take the verbal representations of the passengers as to the prices paid.

C. There are not now enough examiners on the docks to properly appraise baggage. If the measure in question should pass, the force must be quadrupled, if the examination is to be effective.

D. In general it may be said that with the utmost diligence and integrity on the part of the customs officers, the hurry and confusion on the docks preclude the possibility of correct appraisement.

Fifth. The measure in question is a discrimination against honest importers who have paid their duties upon imported merchandise.

Sixth. It is discrimination against the retail merchant who has purchased goods upon which duty has been paid.

Seventh. It opens the way for dishonest merchants and their confederates to make large importations, and, through fraudulent misrepresentations, evade the payment of duty.

I say nothing of the domestic producers, who are also interested in the matter, but base my objections to the measure in question solely upon the fact that it is unjust to regular importers, retail dealers, and will deprive the Government. It is class legislation.

I may add that my experience of five years as United States appraiser, district of New York, leads me to believe that it would be more just to all concerned, and that the laws would be more honestly enforced, if the exemption of any portion of the personal effects of residents returning from abroad should be entirely abolished.

Very truly, yours,

W. F. WAKEMAN,

Former United States Appraiser, District of New York.

PHILADELPHIA, January 16, 1913.

Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD,

Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee,

United States Congress, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SIR: My official position on the staff of Wills Eye Hospital has brought me in contact with certain problems of the tariff question which I think ought to be considered in the preparation of a new tariff bill.

Some of the information I wish to convey has been obtained through discussion with various members of the Medical Club of Philadelphia, of which I happen to be president at this time.

I do not know whether this is the proper method of submitting such testimony, or whether I should appear before the committee. It is not possible at present for me to do this, but I might be able to arrange to do so at a later date, providing the matter is still in consideration at that time.

PARAGRAPH 709-PERSONAL EFFECTS, ETC.

With appreciation of any courtesy you may extend in this matter, and hoping that you may give the "Suggested modifications," which I inclose, the consideration which they deserve, I beg to remain,

Very truly, yours,

S. LEWIS ZIEGLER, Executive Medical Officer Wills Hospital.

SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES TARIFF REGULATIONS.

[Inclosure.]

1. The present allowance of $100 per capita for travelers is too small, as anyone making a summer tour in Europe will surely spend more than this amount in necessary purchases, not all of which are required for the journey. At least $200 should be allowed to each individual.

2. This allowance should be made to cover all purchases and not those alone which are for the purpose of the journey. In other words, the "bale of hay" decision should be revived.

3. As the head of a family is required to pay for all the members of his family there should be no discrimination made as to the purchases made by each individual. In other words, if there are five members of the family the sum total for the five members should be allowed as a lump sum rather than as so much for each individual.

4. Physicians should have the privilege of bringing in free of duty for their own use all instruments, apparatus, and medical books under the classification of "Tools of trade."

5. If, however, a duty is assessed on instruments and apparatus 25 per cent would yield a sufficient protective revenue, as 45 per cent is unnecessarily high.

6. When instruments are imported and a whole or a part of the invoice is not according to specifications, or if when the package is opened it is found that the instruments are dull or broken and this is testified to under oath, it should be possible to claim a refund of duty, or else an equivalent invoice sent by the manufacturer in exchange should be admitted free of duty.

7. Instruments sent or carried abroad by the physician should be registered and and readmitted free on presentation of certificate and the proper checking of list. 8. If instruments are sent or carried abroad for repairs the same procedure in registration should be observed and duty charged only on the repairs.

9. Models or samples forwarded by mail to physicians should be admitted free. 10. Hospitals should have the same privilege as institutions of learning of having their books, instruments, and apparatus admitted free of duty.

JACOB FRIEDENBERG, NEW YORK, N. Y., IN RE IMMIGRANTS'

EFFECTS.

In view of the contemplated change of tariff, it might be well to call attention to the hardships and cruelties caused by the law and regulations regarding the effects and baggage of immigrants in general, and the Italian immigrants especially. There is scarcely any of them who does not recall his troubles when entering this country. Much of the difficulty in making regulations has arisen because due consideration has not been given to the different conditions surrounding immigrants, tourists (American and foreign), professional men, and commercial travelers.

Take paragraph 250, relating to household effects and articles used by him in his home. The law requires that these articles must be used at least one year abroad by the person coming to this country or by his immediate family.

Now, when leaving one's native country, forced to separate from parents and the nearest and dearest relatives, one is apt to be in rather difficult circumstances, and many of the valuable or useful articles of household furniture can not be brought because they have not been used one year.

The immigrant comes to this country to establish a home. Should he not be allowed to establish it as well as his means may afford? Would it be a great sacrifice on the part of the United States to cut the limitation "at least one year" and allow all used furniture and household articles of the immigrant to be imported free of duty?

Take paragraph No. 709, relating to personal effects of persons arriving in the United States. The law limits such articles to wearing apparel, toilet articles of personal adornment, when coming with the immigrant or so closely before or after him that they may be construed as actually accompanying him. Of course the immigrant arrives