quite coincide with their statement on page 780 (McCulloch brief), where they admit that the industry of Geneva, Chaux-de-Fonds, and Locle, which was once very prosperous, has suffered severely in late years from the competition of machine-made watches of the United States.

They further state that the payment of a great deal of duty is avoided by the importation of parts of watches being brought in "knocked down" at the 40 per cent ad valorem rate for materials. In another part they claim that 50 to 65 per cent of the materials used in their watches is imported by them. If that is the case, which we do not doubt, it proves that the greater part of the material imported is used by American factories and that not many watches are brought in in a “knocked down" condition, also that this material is not brought in on a very extensive scale to avoid payment of duties on movements.

In their brief they state that the American manufacturer pays large duties on this material. They consider a duty of 40 per cent on material very excessive and arranged to have the duty on jewels reduced in the last bill to 10 per cent, because they make no jewels. On the other hand, they do not think it excessive to ask a duty on foreign watches, which contain these 10 per cent ad valorem jewels, of 100 to 143 per cent ad valorem, through the proposed McCulloch specific duty brief, basing nearly all their arguments for increased rates on the number of jewels.

Under the title "Capital investment and overhead expenses" the difference in the cost of material, labor, working conditions, and working hours is not as great as they would like it to appear. We admit the plant investment and the working capital is far greater in the American factory than in the foreign, but for this a couple of American manufactures have only themselves to blame, because these two leading factories have followed out in the past a policy of, one might say, unwarranted building expansion, creating a producing capacity far beyond the demand for their watches.

The paragraph "Swiss watch industry prospers, American watch industry depressed," is partially true, but has to be analyzed. The Swiss industry has had its depression in the years 1908-1910, while the American industry has had its depression confined principally to two of the large factories. On the other hand, several other large factories have been declaring 20 per cent to 30 per cent dividends every year, with, as we are informed, a good melon to slice of 100 per cent just prior to the sale of one of these companies about two years ago. The depressed condition of two of the companies is not due to the competition from Swiss watches, but to their capacity being larger than the demand ever warranted. We understand that they were very prosperous the past year-further proof, the old tariff good enough.

Because of efficient management and the manufacturing of goods wanted by the people, one company has been exceedingly prosperous from its inception, covering the past 12 years.

There are several others. In fact, all the medium-sized concerns have had all they could do and have been very prosperous, paying good dividends. The same can be said for the large factories of cheap watches, such as the Ingersoll, with which watch the Swiss can not compete.

As stated in the beginning, we regret that we feel compelled to mention these facts, but think, and in fact know, that the interests of the American public would be best served through a 20 per cent ad valorem duty and that the Government will derive thereby a good revenue and protect the American industries such as are properly managed and not overcapitalized.

This ad valorem duty will fully equalize the difference in the cost of production of watch movements in the United States and in foreign countries. Respectfully submitted.

GRUEN WATCH MANUFACTURING CO., By FRED G. GRUEN, President.

BRIEF OF ITALIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REGARDING

SCHEDULE D.

The Italian Chamber of Commerce in New York respectfully submits to this honorable committee the following recommendations and arguments for the revision of the duties on the articles hereafter stated, hoping that the recommendations made will receive favorable consideration.

Briar root or wood.—This article, which was on the free list prior to 1909, was made dutiable under paragraph 202 of the present tariff at 15 per cent ad valorem.

Briar wood is a raw material, necessary in the manufacture of smokers' articles (pipes), in fact, to quote an important manufacturer of New York, "the only wood in existence which is practical for a useful pipe, and nothing has been found in this country which could be applied as a substitute."

This material, which is not, as erroneously stated by some interested competitor, the laurel or spoonwood (Kalmia latifolia) of the United States, is not produced in this country, and is wholly imported either from France, French North Africa, or Italy. It is the root of the "Erica arborea" of Southern Europe, found on lands too poor and unsuitable for cultivation, covered with shrubs and all kinds of coarse growth. The rooting out and sawing into crude blocks of this wood, in which shape it is sold to those who collect it for shipment, is what would be called in this country, a poor man's business, as it is very tedious and hard work, affording, however, the means of livelihood to a deserving class of poor but industrious people, who prefer this kind of work to falling upon the charity of the community.

Those who go out among the briary thickets to make a living by their labor deserve more sympathy than is extended to them by taxing of the product of their labor with a 15 per cent duty as the present tariff does, which, by the inevitable reaction of the duty in the price paid to the gatherers of this article, make their lot harder. The poet may sing:

"Oh beautiful those wastes of heath

Stretching for miles to lure the bee,"

but the "human bee" who is lured there by the imperious stimulus of an empty stomach and a numerous family to provide for, is apt to take a less poetical view of his lot, when, after a day of hard work and torn hands and clothes, he finds the measure of his already scant reward reduced of a further tithe, as a consequence of the duty placed on this merchandise.

His appeal, substantiated by humanitarian reasons, for the return of this article to the free list, will, this chamber hopes, receive the consideration of this honorable committee, all the more as the exemption from duty of this article will not injure any American production, which does not exist, nor the revenue, which did not derive from it, in the fiscal year 1911, more than $46,646.

Boxes containing oranges and lemons.-Paragraph 211 of the present tariff subjects to a duty of 30 per cent the wood of boxes containing lemons, oranges, and other citrus fruit, if the wood of which said boxes are made is of foreign growth and manufacture, and to a duty of 15 per cent the wood of such boxes, when the growth and manufacture of the United States, exported as orange and lemon box shooks, upon satisfactory proof of its identity to the Secretary of the Treasury.

The present duty on lemons of 13 cents per pound, equal to about 68 per cent ad valorem, upon an article which is a necessity, and which most countries admit free of duty, is already exorbitant. The United States subjects lemons to a duty that, by reason of the insufficient domestic production, deprives the consumer in the West and Middle West of the benefit of competition, decreases importation and therefore revenue, and maintains a privileged protection, securing large dividends to a limited number of producers of a small section of southern California at the expense of the consumers of the whole country, who are thus compelled to pay a high price for a commodity which is indispensable. As if this were not sufficient, an additional duty on the container, which is necessary to convey the merchandise to market, and has absolutely no commercial value, is a burden so unfair that it is difficult to understand how it ever came to be enacted, save as one of the many evidences of the artful way in which fiscal legislation for privileged classes, irrespective of reasonable protection to domestic industry, was placed upon the statutes.

Lemons, as well as any other commodity, have to be conveyed to market in some sort of container. In this case the container is a wooden box that, when empty, has absolutely no commercial value and no other use even as firewood. No one would ever think of charging duty on burlap bags used, for instance, in shipping potatoes or similar merchandise. Yet comparison is in this case identical, and even to the advantage of lemon boxes, because the burlap bag, provided, as it seldom happens, it were in good condition, could be utilized for further use, which is not the case with the lemon box that is practically destroyed by the opening and repeated handling. A duty on the containers when the contents are already dutiable at a high rate is also to be excepted as an unjust discrimination against the commodity, the more so in comparison with other dutiable merchandise, which is not charged for containers even when the container might represent a value. The dilemma appears inevitable, out of consistency, either to charge duty on containers of all kinds of merchandise or exempt them in all cases. It is evident that the containers of merchandise already subject to duty should be exempted from duty, when such containers are indispensable to the conservation and to the presentation of the merchandise in a marketable condition, provided that the containers are not by themselves an article possessing an unusually high or well-established value, in which case only a duty on containers might be justified if necessary for revenue purposes.

It is the opinion of this chamber, for the above-stated considerations, that the duty on the wood of the boxes containing lemons should be abolished whether the wood of which the boxes are made is the product or not of the United States. But the recommendation for exemption of duty is all the more apparent in the case of boxes made from shooks, the growth and manufacture of the United States, when returned to this country filled with fruit, because to maintain as at present a duty of 15 per cent on such wood is placing a tax on and discriminating against the use of a United States product.

In fact, notwithstanding the differential treatment between boxes manufactured from American wood and boxes manufactured from foreign wood the importations of the former in fiscal year 1911 only amounted to a value of $35,408, against $275,138 for the latter. This proves that the difference of 15 per cent in the duty between American and foreign shooks is not sufficient to encourage the shipper to use American shooks, this requiring the keeping of two classes of wood for an insignificant compensation.

This chamber, therefore, respectfully recommends that the present duty of 15 per cent on American shooks for the manufacture of boxes imported filled with lemons be repealed, and that if for reasons of revenue it is not possible to abolish the duty on lemon and orange containers made of foreign wood the rate at least be reduced from 30 to 15 per cent.

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON SPICES SUBMITTED BY W. J. GIBSON.

Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD,

JANUARY 29, 1913.

Chairman Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I wish to add the following to the brief submitted to your committee by the undersigned "on spices, unground," on January 7, 1913, and printed in your hearings No. 2, on pages 279-281, in reply to some statements made to your committee by those advocating that spices be left as they are in the present act and as they have been ever since the tariff act of 1883, i. e., the ground spices" dutiable at 3 cents a pound and "the whole or unground spices" free.

66

Of course the spice grinders and the manufacturers of oils, perfumeries, and fancy soaps in which spices are used want this condition to remain. Why do they want a duty of 3 cents a pound on the ground spices and no duty on the whole or unground? They want to collect a duty of 3 cents a pound and put it in their pockets instead of any revenue going to the Government from spices.

It is surprising to see how tenaciously "the interests" contend for keeping the tariff on spices as it is. They say that the spices-cassia, cinnamon, cloves, nutmegs, allspice, or pimento-are not luxuries. How absurd such a statement. They have always been known as luxuries in trade and commerce. Our tariff acts have always treated them as luxuries and have often grouped them with tobacco and wines. For instance, in the tariff act of August 10, 1790, section 1, * "Pepper, per pound, six cents; pimento, per pound, four cents; manufactured tobacco, per pound, six cents; snuff, per pound, ten cents;" and also in the Democratic low-tariff act of 1846 spices were put in the same schedule, B, and at the same rate of duty as segars, snuff, and all other manufactures of tobacco; wines, burgundy, champagne, claret, madeira, port, sherry, and all other wines and imitations of wines."

*

The Standard Dictionary defines luxuries as follows: "That which gratifies a nice or fastidious appetitie; specifically, any article that ministers to comfort or pleasure and yet is not necessary to life." Do not spices come within this category? If we are to have a duty for revenue it ought to first and foremost be put on luxuries and not on the necessities of life, and to be put on luxuries in the form in which they are imported. For revenue purposes you might as well put a duty on "jack-o'-lanterns" as on ground spices and leave unground or whole spices on the free list.

Some of the witnesses had great fear if a duty was put on unground spices it would have the effect of adulterated ground spices coming in from abroad. This is another unreasonable fear. If unground spices are made dutiable, a commensurate or corresponding duty will be put on ground spices, of course. Ground spices never have been imported and it is not likely they ever will. The

quotation from Dr. Doolittle on page 2428 substantially shows that the adulteration in spices and the grinding of worm-eaten, moldy, immature spices have been done by these domestic converters of spices; for, as he says, They are brought into this country in the whole state."

66

They want protection, particularly on the ground spices, for two reasons, says their spokesman (p. 2437):

"First, because 50 to 60 per cent of the selling price is labor. Now, it is the question of labor that makes the price of spices higher than the material itself."

If this statement is true, these people ought to look into the cost of their manufacture. It is a saying among manufacturers that if the labor cost is more than 15 or 18 per cent of the cost of the material it is too much and there is something wrong that needs looking into.

The second point, for wanting a duty on ground spices, is still more illjudged than the other; for, said the same spokesman, "We also make the point, Mr. Chairman, that the use of spices is more important to the poorer classes than it is to the better to do. In other words, they have to do with poorer food, perhaps, and the poorer food is made palatable by spices." This is a poor argument that the poor should use spices to make spoiled or partly decayed food palatable, so they can eat it. The poor need palatable food, and if they have that, their natural appetite is the best spice, and all they want.

The duty on whole spices will not perceptibly, if at all, increase the cost of living. They have not gone up in price with other things, except on one or two articles, and that has been occasioned by an unusually short crop in the particular countries in which they are grown, and this is always the case. They are not used by the great masses of the people, and their use can be dispensed with by those who can afford them without injury to their health, but the masses of the people must have food, clothing, and shelter.

About 10 per cent of the cloves, cinnamon, and allspice, or pimento, are used in the whole or unground state in the barrooms and saloons of this country.

Some 50 per cent of the cloves is used for making oil of cloves, and the oil of cloves has been coming in free, and so has the oil of cassia, cinnamon, and mace, and many oils that are luxuries and that are used for making purely luxurious articles.

Probably not more than 40 per cent of these spices, except pepper, is ground. The last Republican House understood that whole or unground spices was a good subject to produce revenue, for they put a duty of 30 per cent on all these spices. The former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who was instrumental in having these whole spices put on the dutiable list in the House tariff bill in 1909, said (p. 277 of these hearings): "I want to say to you (the writer) that we put this duty on because we were looking around for revAnd we struck spices, and put them on. The bill went to the Senate with that provision in. Afterwards we incorporated a corporation tax which has brought in a revenue of $27,000,000 per annum or more, and we found we did not need this duty on spices."

enue.

* * *

If your committee desires, you can raise a revenue of $5,000,000 to $6,000,000 per annum from these spices, and it will go directly into the Treasury for the support of the Government, and its payment will not be felt, and it will not increase the cost of living to the masses of the people.

These spices can not be grown here; they can not even be hothoused; they are luxuries, and all luxuries should be taxed, the same as tobacco and wines, the same as they were in the days of our fathers.

Respectfully submitted.

W. J. GIBSON.

BRIEF OF TROEGER & BUCKING, NEW YORK, N. Y., RE DECALCOMANIAS.

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

We respectfully submit this brief for your consideration regarding a material reduction of the tariff on decalcomanias.

The tendency of certain testimony before the committee has been to closely connect decalcomanias with other lithographed material. Whether this was intentional or otherwise, we consider it important to preface our remarks with the statement that decalcomanias and ordinary lithographs are entirely different articles. This refers particularly to their ultimate use.

Decalcomanias are used to a very large extent on such household necessities as sewing machines, chinaware, and furniture.

Paragraph 412 of Schedule M on the tariff law now in force subjects decalcomanias to four different rates and classifies them as follows: Decalcomanias in ceramic colors, weighing not over 100 pounds per 1,000 sheets, on the basis of 20 by 30 inches in dimensions. Weighing over 100 pounds per 1,000 sheets, on the basis of 20 by 30 inches. If backed with metal leaf. All other decalcomanias, excepting toy decalcomanias.

Decalcomanias for pottery, called ceramic decalcomanías, were dutiable under paragraph 400 of the Dingley Act at 20 cents a pound. Under the Payne tariff law we pay 70 cents per pound plus 15 per cent ad valorem if the decalcomanias are on thin or duplex paper. If on heavy paper, the rate is 22 cents per pound plus 15 per cent ad valorem.

As four-fifths of the product of our American potteries must be decorated to make it salable (see brief of Mr. W. E. Wells, p. 657, hearings on earths, earthenware, and glassware), it is plain that the potters must have a large range of artistic decalcomania patterns to select from. This is not possible under the present prohibitive rate.

Since the Payne tariff bill went into effect we have discontinued importing ceramic decalcomanias on account of the high duty.

Cold decalcomanias are those used on sewing machines, farm implements, glass, furniture, etc. The Dingley rate of 20 cents per pound also applied to cold decalcomanias.

More than half of the small quantity imported since 1909 was assessed at 40 cents per pound.

On the_metal-backed decalcomanias, the customs officials collected 65 cents per pound. In connection with this paragraph there has been considerable confusion and misunderstanding, and the United States Court of Customs Appeals recently decided that the rate should be 40 cents per pound.

Even on this basis, the metal-backed decalcomanias, being heavier, bring about 20 per cent more duty than the other cold decalcomanias.

During the year ended June 30, 1912, the total cold decalcomania imports amounted to only $65,573, and the average for the two preceding years was still lower.

The domestic manufacturers practically have a monopoly in this line. We, of course, are at a great disadvantage in not being able to state the amount of their combined output. The writer of this brief makes regular trips from coast to coast and is, therefore, in a position to roughly estimate the value of the cold decalcomanias sold in this country. It is safe to assert that the importation does not exceed 6 per cent of the home consumption.

We therefore add our plea for a reduction. We do not ask that decalcomanias be placed on the free list. We do not even ask for a downward revision of the Dingley bill. But, as the domestic interests thrived under the Dingley law and could do so to-day with the same protection, we ask that the old rate of 20 cents per pound be restored.

To substitute this competitive for the present prohibitive rate, and at the same time preclude the possibility of any misinterpretation, we would suggest that the paragraph read simply:

All decalcomanias, except toy decalcomanias, 20 cents per pound.
Respectfully submitted.

TROEGER & BUCKING, By EMMET O'BRIEN, 171 Sixth Avenue, New York.

YARN COUNT AS A BASIS FOR THE COTTON-CLOTH TARIFF.

[From Textile World Record, March, 1913.]

In the general clamor over the revision of all the textile schedules, the cotton trade has failed to take account of a radical change which the Underwood bills of 1911 and 1912 proposed to make in the method of classifying cotton cloths for tariff purposes. Under the new method cotton cloths are classified according to the size of the yarn in the fabric. The Payne law provides specific and ad valorem rates varying according to classifications that are based on the number of threads per square inch, the number of square yards per pound, and the value per square yard. The Underwood bill, on the other hand, provides for ad valorem rates which vary according to classifications based on the size of the yarn in the respective fabrics. Paragraph 3 of the Underwood cotton bill of 1911, which illustrates the new system, is as follows: